WitP II Air To Air model Discussion

[spence]

Sort of basic and applicable to everything in the game: ONE SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT BE KNOTS AND NAUTICAL MILES, MPH AND STATUTE MILES, KPH AND KMS.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: spence

Sort of basic and applicable to everything in the game: ONE SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT BE KNOTS AND NAUTICAL MILES, MPH AND STATUTE MILES, KPH AND KMS.

Without saying! Although I guess they forgot with the current version.

[fairplay]

[X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]
That wasn't the answer I was looking for! Let's try it again.
If someone states:" air combat is too bloody" this may be based just on his own opinion. But it could also be based on facts. I am curious how people come to the conclusion that "air combat is too bloody"? [8|] Is it an opinion or do they have a proof? [8|]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: fairplay

[X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]
That wasn't the answer I was looking for! Let's try it again.
If someone states:" air combat is too bloody" this may be based just on his own opinion. But it could also be based on facts. I am curious how people come to the conclusion that "air combat is too bloody"? [8|] Is it an opinion or do they have a proof? [8|]

[1EyedJacks]

In the upgrade path for Army DBs for Japan, the Ki-51 Sonia and the Ki-30 Ann can upgrade to a Sonia, Ann, or Mary.

The KI-32 Mary can upgrade to a Sonia, Ann, Mary, or Lily, which is a level bomber.

Is there a historical reason why the Sonia and Ann DBs can't upgrade to the Lily?

Is there a reason why the Mary cannot upgrade directly to a Sally or Helen?

I'm guessing that this is for game play and is not historical but, rookie that I am, I could be wrong[:'(].

I'm thinking I'd like to see the upgrade paths modified - maybe free up the options for upgrading squadrons but force the pilots to take an experience hit of 10 to 15 perecent?

[Sonny]

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.

In general Aircraft need to be less available. Even under the best circumstances availability shouldn;t really ever exceed 60-75%. That is a figure I just pulled out of my @$$ but it would be more accurate than the near 100% availability that is possible under the current system.

[TheElf]

Forum is slow tonight...

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.

In general Aircraft need to be less available. Even under the best circumstances availability shouldn;t really ever exceed 60-75%. That is a figure I just pulled out of my @$$ but it would be more accurate than the near 100% availability that is possible under the current system.

Yes, many of the same factors that now apply would still apply as to how many actually get in the air.

There would need to be some formula for dividing up the total aircraft into strikes based on the strike size limitation (which I am sure would cause much debate here). These "packets" would then be engaged by "packets" of CAP with similar constraints.

[The Gnome]

hi

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

hi

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.

I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.

This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.

[The Gnome]

ORIGINAL: Sonny

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

hi

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.

I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.

This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.

Exactly, I always hated to see my bomber squadrons attacking a major combat TF and destroy themselves on fighters and flak, when I really just wanted them to hit convoys.

I like the idea of having this plus the aggressiveness of the commander affect it, it kind of makes it very real to me then. You tell a guy not to press too hard, but that has to be interpretted by another human being. Could lead to some fun results - if there's enough feedback.

"Lt. So and So decides to press the attack"!

[The Gnome]

Oh one more thing: multiple intercept points. If an attacking formation has to fly by 3 bases with air cover, shouldn't they be allowed to intercept? I'm not sure if this would be a function of LR-CAP versus vanilla CAP. It would then be a benefit to the defender to spread his forces out a little more, and also force the attacker into smaller more numerous raids as an attack on a single base will be less productive.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

ORIGINAL: Sonny

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

hi

As per my post in the Land Combat discussion, I'd like an intensity rating, or whatever you care to call it for all units. It would be a whole number from 1 to 10 (11?) that would let me tell the unit how much emphasis to put on accomplishing its mission.

A "1" setting would mean minimize losses at all costs, break off at the slightest resistance, and a "10" meaning fight to the last man to get the job done. A "5" would obviously be someplace in the middle.

This could help prevent those bomber squadrons from impaling themselves on fighter screens, when I'd prefer them to preserve their strength. The outcome would also be influenced by the commander's aggression, the unit's morale, and its fatigue level.

I think commander aggression should handle this but you are right. you need to tell the commander.

This and someone else's idea about prioritizing targets may also help to prevent the 36 B-17s flying great distances to bomb the 4 PCs doing ASW work 600 miles away just because you set the B-17s to naval attack.

Exactly, I always hated to see my bomber squadrons attacking a major combat TF and destroy themselves on fighters and flak, when I really just wanted them to hit convoys.

I like the idea of having this plus the aggressiveness of the commander affect it, it kind of makes it very real to me then. You tell a guy not to press too hard, but that has to be interpretted by another human being. Could lead to some fun results - if there's enough feedback.

"Lt. So and So decides to press the attack"!

This is great input. I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave. The options were "Direct Fighter", "Bounce Fighter", "Direct Bomber", &"Bounce Bomber". The game was centered around fighters though, and I nevere played the allies, so I don;t know what settings they had available, but nevertheless the principle could be applied to WitP II.

What about telling your B-17Es, B-24Ds, and any 4E LBA in a doctrine page:

Ground/airfield Attack
1) Abort if Escort fails rendevous
2) Continue to target if the AM recon indicated light CAP.
3) Ground abort for Weather in Target area

For Naval attack
4) Select by class of ship what NOT to launch for. Like the current ship screen in WitP, you just deselect what you don't want to look at, be it DD, CA, AUX, BB etc. except for the doctrine page you are deselecting the kind of TF you don't want to attack. Another option would be to code the AI so it dispenses a units A/C appropriate the contact report sent by the Naval Search asset. Or the player selects the Max size of the formationa particular LBA unit launches. Set it to 3, and while set to Naval Attack, for every contact the AI laucnhes on it only send a flight of three(or 6 or 9).

Unfortunately in the real world there were lots of cases where large strikes were launched based on faulty intel or Recon reports. The difference being that in WitP Those large strikes launch with complete knowledge of more appropriate targets(such as that CV TF or SFC TF).

This series of unfortunate events should not be coded out of the AI's decision process, but I agree it could be done better.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.

This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.

In general Aircraft need to be less available. Even under the best circumstances availability shouldn;t really ever exceed 60-75%. That is a figure I just pulled out of my @$$ but it would be more accurate than the near 100% availability that is possible under the current system.

Absolutely agree ... as a for instance ... I just saw a military channel show on the 8th AF ... it was stated that at one point 49% of the heavy bomber were down for repair. Now this is a number out of context but it is indicative of the point. Even the US 8AF in England with presumably adequate supply, support no malarial zones, etc. Could still see a standing total of damaged aircraft of 49% out of a total of maybe 550 ( if the date of the 49% was late 1943 ... or may much more if after mid-1944 by which time the bomber strength had doubled ). And then obviously, under worse conditions the percentage could be higher. Perhaps, this range of average percents should be by nation, to reflect the sophistication of support equipment, the training of support personnel and even the motivational baseline. But definitely something to add to the list of considerations.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Oh one more thing: multiple intercept points. If an attacking formation has to fly by 3 bases with air cover, shouldn't they be allowed to intercept? I'm not sure if this would be a function of LR-CAP versus vanilla CAP. It would then be a benefit to the defender to spread his forces out a little more, and also force the attacker into smaller more numerous raids as an attack on a single base will be less productive.

Another good idea. Perhaps determined by the strength of the CAP at these intermediate enemy bases, Radar, Aggressiveness, Proximity to the path of the attackers. This goes along with the previously mentioned idea of the possibility of Pre-target, Target Area, and Off-Target Interception by the resident CAP. Certainly any Raid that ventures deep into enemy territory should be in peril form Enemy formations NOT only from their Target hex.

Perhaps a routine that assesses the above factors and then assigns a "Random encounter" in the form of CAP from nearby Bases?

Another factor could be that the defending player can set other Airfields to intercept Raids heading for another primary target, such as Rabaul, or PM? The routine could then draw from the CAP at these outlying fields and be on the look out for any raids passing by.

[Nikademus]

I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave

yes, however the problem with BoB's setup is that the player just has to pick the best tactic and stay with it. There doesn't appear to be any pro or con. I'm currently playing a BTR campaign and the fighters always use bounce tactics. Any choice feature must have pros and cons. Sort of like AA and altitude. You can choose to attack low but there's a potential cost. (or there should be)

However as WitP demonstrates, having "choice" alone doesn't automatically work. Players choose to bomb low and always do because there's no real con.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I like the idea of the intensity setting. I have always been a big fan of the Bombing the Reich (another Grigsby game) Doctrine setting. EVERY A/C type could be given genereal guidlines as to how they were to behave

yes, however the problem with BoB's setup is that the player just has to pick the best tactic and stay with it. There doesn't appear to be any pro or con. I'm currently playing a BTR campaign and the fighters always use bounce tactics. Any choice feature must have pros and cons. Sort of like AA and altitude. You can choose to attack low but there's a potential cost. (or there should be)

However as WitP demonstrates, having "choice" alone doesn't automatically work. Players choose to bomb low and always do because there's no real con.

One of the assumptions I operate under while brainstorming these things is that they all have their pro's and Con's, in so far as the inner workings of the game. If they don't they should. EVERYTHING has it's pro's and Con's.

In the next iteration I would hope that bombing low would have the same cons that it did in real life.

[Nikademus]

One thing i've learned over time when it comes to features....never assume. [;)]

I'm still trying to figure out what morale does in BTR.....not much from what i've seen

[mdiehl]

Eliminate air group leader ratings entirely.

Can anyone name a single American USAAF, USN, USMC, or Japanese air strike in WW2 that was not flown because the group leader lost their nerve or escort failed to materialize? How often did this happen anyhow?