WitP II Air To Air model Discussion

[skrewball]

I think it would be best if the Aircraft formations were placed on a behind the scenes "checkerboard".

That way, squadrons could only engage squadrons that are close to them. Instead of just rolling the die for each and every plane vs every plane on the opposing side.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.

Why? What would the difference be?

Problem faced by RAAF Spitfires over Darwin was getting up to the heights the Jap Bombers flew at. Therefore many combats occured after the bombs had been dropped.

If you have the various times of intercept, you could destroy/abort/disrupt the bombing raid. But need enough advance warning to be in position. Attacking over the target would need the AAA to either not fire or open yourself to friendly fire. Hitting them after they leave for home will see the Target hit, but any losses they suffer will lessen future raids.

It could be that your Mustangs scramble in time to hit the incoming raid, Spitfires hit them over the target and Airacobras pick at the stragglers as they leave for home.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...

Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.

But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.

Yes, you can turn off the animations, I only watch them in WPO.

But the space taken up could be used to add extra slots or provide space for better Ground, A-A & Naval combat engines.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.

How about all fighters are 1 VP (regardless of twin engine or not), and all bombers are VP = # of engines?

What do you think about transports, recon, patrol, etc. types?

Auxiliary aircraft may present a problem. Should an Emily score as high as a B-17 when shot down?

[JeffroK]

Yes, the effort to build the Emily would see their loss as a major concern.

It would see the Jap use their Search planes with more care as well.

[1EyedJacks]

I would like some way to insure that fighters escort my DBs and TBs.

I think that there should be some random option for a surprise attack - something that lets you know you or your opponent were caught with your pants down[:D]

I would like to see the ability to have pilots that complete their tour of duty be used as trainers to increase the replacement pilots.

I would like to see pilots jump when their ride is dead.[:D]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I would like some way to insure that fighters escort my DBs and TBs.

To rigid. See Midway. Players shouldn't have that much control. Its a question of who or what the player represents in the game. Is the player Marshall or is the player Nimitz or is the player Fletcher or is the player Spruance or is the player McCluskey. I would venture that the players represent Spruance/Fletcher and above.

[treespider]

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.

Agreed. Perhaps break down the turn into internal phases that the player doesn't see but receives reports about. Time of interception is crucial to the succes of a strike.

My idea here could make things very complicated, Phasing could be tied to all sorts of activity outside of A2A - Naval Intercepts and Spotting come to mind.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...

Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.

But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.

Yes there is an option to turn them off and I have chosen to do so...no offense TElf. The designers have indicated and stated on several different occassions that the combat animation for A2A and Naval combat are not accurate representations of what is occurring in the model.

[treespider]

Are you trying to put me put of work or what? I actually think the Combat Replay could be made to provide more information. More messages with explanations to the player as to why things are happening.

Why did the Strike Abort? --> "Weather in the Target area..."

or

"Unable Rendezvous with Escort fighters" and the Formation Leader's Aggression attribute is not high enough to continue without Escort etc.

But I think it SHOULD all be available in an after action report should player A not want to watch the animation.

I could agrre to the above. As i stated earlier I have the impression that the current animation is not an accurate representation of what is taking place within the model. If the A2A model were revised and the animation accurately reflected what was taking place I could see including it.

[Sonny]

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.

Way too much detail. Way too much programming/testing needed to make it work for what little it adds to the game. Though it might make a difference if the hexes were 5 or 10 miles I still don't see the need for this much complication.

[mogami]

Hi, I really like the pilot experiance over the unit experiance. If you track pilot experiance you always have a few good pilots while if you use unit experiance the entire group is either good or it is bad. The old Pac War used unit experiance and i never liked that aspect of the game compared to WITP. But I think we need the abilty to pull pilots out of groups. And we need them to be able to gain rank.

I think you will find however that if the game allows 300 fighters to be present in a combat the new system will be just as bloody as the old and since late in the war the Allied player is going to have TF with 300 fighters or more your going to always have "Uber" CAP

While the air model in WITP is very bloody, one cause that no amount of progaming can change is it is bloody because players always mass their air assets. No one operates with single 16 aircraft bomb groups attacking a target. (with or without escorts) It's always 200 bombers collected for the mission.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I think you will find however that if the game allows 300 fighters to be present in a combat the new system will be just as bloody as the old and since late in the wat the Allied player is going to have TF with 300 fighters or more your going to always have "Uber" CAP

Then maybe we should work towards a system that makes it more difficult for players to get such numbers into the air, eh?

[mogami]

Hi, Since such numbers were in fact used during the war we have to decide what limits were overcome to make this possible. Japan hit Rangoon and several airfields with 200+ bomber raids early in war. The Allies of course used large raids over Japan and the CV TF had massive strikes. The only differance in history compared to WITP is the opposing side did not have 100+ fighters to oppose these strikes with.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I think you will find however that if the game allows 300 fighters to be present in a combat the new system will be just as bloody as the old and since late in the wat the Allied player is going to have TF with 300 fighters or more your going to always have "Uber" CAP

Then maybe we should work towards a system that makes it more difficult for players to get such numbers into the air, eh?

I think the answer here is that the model needs to break down the larger combats. One of the false impressions the current model gives is that when an A2A engagement occurs, it is all happening at one time and all together. In fact it could be that since it is an "AM PHASE" it is actually a representation of lots of little combats that happened from sunrise to noon. Unfortunately the limitations of the replay animation just mass everything that flew that morning in one Replay and players think "WTF, why is A2A so bloody".

I'd like to see Combat broken down into smaller engagements. Altitude selection could be the determining factor. A delta of 2000 feet or more between units could tell the model "hey I want these groups to apporach the target at a different time and altitude, and perhaps a different target."

Random events such as weather, airborne aborts based on unit morale( a relfection of the mechanical health of a unit) and failed coordination rolls could also come into play.

CAP needs to be fleshed out as well. With ammo limits and a realistic limitations system CAP could be designed so that a player could command 100% CAP with 300 fighters, but in reality if that was done they could only be airborne for a part of the AM phase rather than the whole phase. This would mean gaps at certain crucial points in th ephase, such as when the enemy strike appears on Radar.

There needs to be a rock, scissors, paper design to it so that even setting 300 Fighters to 100% CAP has its limitations. So if the timing works out it works really well and if not it doesn't.

Whatever happens though the A2A combat resolution needs to provide more information as to WHY something happened as that is the root of a lot of A2A frustration.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since such numbers were in fact used during the war we have to decide what limits were overcome to make this possible. Japan hit Rangoon and several airfields with 200+ bomber raids early in war. The Allies of course used large raids over Japan and the CV TF had massive strikes. The only differance in history compared to WITP is the opposing side did not have 100+ fighters to oppose these strikes with.

Perhaps coordination needs to be tied to an Air HQ and aurfield size. In other words larger Airfields and Air HQs are modifiers for the success of large raid coordination. This would give small size 2 or 3 fields over stacked with LBA a tough time putting together that 100-200 LBA raid.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I really like the pilot experiance over the unit experiance. If you track pilot experiance you always have a few good pilots while if you use unit experiance the entire group is either good or it is bad. The old Pac War used unit experiance and i never liked that aspect of the game compared to WITP. But I think we need the abilty to pull pilots out of groups. And we need them to be able to gain rank.

Just because someone is a good pilot does not necessarily equate to their ability to command a unit. Likewise someone capable of commanding a battalion may not be capable of commanding a corps....

Or a capable destroyer captain may not be a capable TF commander.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since such numbers were in fact used during the war we have to decide what limits were overcome to make this possible. Japan hit Rangoon and several airfields with 200+ bomber raids early in war. The Allies of course used large raids over Japan and the CV TF had massive strikes. The only differance in history compared to WITP is the opposing side did not have 100+ fighters to oppose these strikes with.

Perhaps coordination needs to be tied to an Air HQ and aurfield size. In other words larger Airfields and Air HQs are modifiers for the success of large raid coordination. This would give small size 2 or 3 fields over stacked with LBA a tough time putting together that 100-200 LBA raid.

Excellent idea.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.

Yes, which is fine. The problem is that there is information presented in the various combat animations that is absent in the combat reports. All information that a player has access to from turn resolution should be present in the various reports. That way, 1) you're not stuck watching to get the data, 2) you can refer to it instead of sitting with a notebook and the pause key.

Frankly, the same problem exists with the spotting/search phase - some data that just runs by on the screen is not in the reports (like sub 'hit' reports). I know - wrong thread. [:)]

[fairplay]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

While the air model in WITP is very bloody, one cause that no amount of progaming can change is it is bloody because players always mass their air assets. No one operates with single 16 aircraft bomb groups attacking a target. (with or without escorts) It's always 200 bombers collected for the mission.

What do you think is an adequate kill rate? [:(]How do you want to measure that?[:(]No critique, I am juts curious.[8|]