Good to know UBER Cap is gone

[Canoerebel]

My B-24s and B-17s - even with experience in the high 40s and 50s - fare pretty well when the target an enemy base.  They are able to drive home their attacks without taking unacceptable losses from CAP and their defensive guns damage a fair number of enemy fighters (I assume they destroy some of those damaged, though I haven't paid attention that closely).

[Cuttlefish]

It is uncommon but not all that rare for Allied 4E bombers to shoot down one of my fighters in my two PBEMs. And they damage a lot of them, not all of which then land safely or successfully.

[JWE]

Uummmm ... poptarts.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

mjk428- he was implying what Castor said was crazy, not calling the guy crazy.

So if I was to tell you to take a deep breath and run your post through an intelligence filter before pressing "OK", you wouldn't think I just called you stupid? OK. Either way, it's still a personal attack. I didn't see any personal attacks by Castor Troy so I don't think it was justified. Criticizing a product is not a personal attack.

If I say "The Jonas Bros stink", I'm not attacking them, I'm just saying I don't like their music. Although I certainly understand why they wouldn't like my opinion of their product. However, Castor Troy didn't even go that far. It's more like: "I bought the new Jonas Bros album and I couldn't stop playing it. However, the chorus on track 4 really gets on my nerves so I may stop listening."

edit:

For any devs feeling unloved. Be glad you didn't work on Rogue Warrior. Loser of this bet has to play it to completion.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701866/TheFeed.html

Actually mjk, my remark was neither a personal attack on Castor nor an implication that his post (or anything he said) was crazy.

I meant, "do a little research on the assets involved, run the contributing factors of the engagement (weather, LDRs, Altitude, Firepower, advantages etc...)through your head a couple times, and see if the issue you have is really as crazy as it first seems." THEN post...

If this sanity check, or filter as I called it, turns up a negative then you've solved your own problem and the only reason to post is to vent. If however you turn up an affirmative then post what you believe to be a legitimate issue with supporting references from your previous research.

Castor didn't personally attack anyone, I agree, but when people jump to conclusions about some combat result and then post threads like "Allied fighters suck" or facetious Posts like "Good to know UBER Cap is gone", the sincerity of the post is questionable and the good of the game, the community, and any future customers who do lurk on these threads is negatively affected. For what? Someone's slanted view of what reality should be? Over one engagement? An engagement that no one has any precedent to judge by? If people thought these things out a little bit before throwing hand grenades such as this post, you'd likely find more reasoned, patient and eager to help responses from those who can actually look into an issue.

In this case, while the result is clearly lopsided, how many learned players here would cite the model for the failings of the Martin 139? How many would cite Castor for poor judgment in his employment of them, and further poor judgement in how he decided to vet this result publicly?

I'll let the public decide. I already made my decision.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Frank

Castor, I see 45 Zeros in your reports. Can you verify they were all the same or is it possible, that MiniKB could have managed these numbers by permanently replacing them??

http://books.google.de/books?id=IzJUlCp ... q=&f=false

As for destroying lots of enemy aircraft with little losses on one day in little missions, just follow the link above.
Unprepared Soviet pilots and planes were lost in masses to German fighters in the beginning days of barbarossa.

Don´t forget the extremely heavy losses of the Brits when attacking the panzerships on monday, 18th december 1939. And that were quite stable Wellingtons getting the stick, loosing more than 60% of their number. 44 attacking bombers, 34 shot down (offical German numbers)Brits say 15 lost of 22.
This is quite in the range of the losses your forces suffered.
So, it isn´t that unrealistic loosing heavily when using unescorted bombers.

In this example, how many German fighters were involved? Only 25% of the number of attacking bombers?

It´s not a question to me of the total number of losses, it´s the question about how many ac involved on each side and how many bombers then were shot down.

As far as I collected data, there were 3 squadrons of Me110 taking part in the battle. Can´t tell you how many of those planes actually fired at the bombers. Might have been between 36 and 80 fighters.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

...

The A6m2 by comparison was just entering service a year or so before the out break of WWII in the pacific and was by all accounts the F-22 Raptor of '39-'41 (without the supercruise).

Now please, neither the spitfire nor the Fw190 were worse than the Zero [;)]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: TheElf

...

The A6m2 by comparison was just entering service a year or so before the out break of WWII in the pacific and was by all accounts the F-22 Raptor of '39-'41 (without the supercruise).

Now please, neither the spitfire nor the Fw190 were worse than the Zero [;)]

My Raptor statement was by no means meant to imply that from '39-'41 the other major combatants didn't already have their own "Raptor" design. Except perhaps France, Russia, and the US....

The Spit, and FW are fine examples of Raptors of their day.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: TheElf


Actually mjk, my remark was neither a personal attack on Castor nor an implication that his post (or anything he said) was crazy.

I meant, "do a little research on the assets involved, run the contributing factors of the engagement (weather, LDRs, Altitude, Firepower, advantages etc...)through your head a couple times, and see if the issue you have is really as crazy as it first seems." THEN post...

If this sanity check, or filter as I called it, turns up a negative then you've solved your own problem and the only reason to post is to vent. If however you turn up an affirmative then post what you believe to be a legitimate issue with supporting references from your previous research.

Castor didn't personally attack anyone, I agree, but when people jump to conclusions about some combat result and then post threads like "Allied fighters suck" or facetious Posts like "Good to know UBER Cap is gone", the sincerity of the post is questionable and the good of the game, the community, and any future customers who do lurk on these threads is negatively affected. For what? Someone's slanted view of what reality should be? Over one engagement? An engagement that no one has any precedent to judge by? If people thought these things out a little bit before throwing hand grenades such as this post, you'd likely find more reasoned, patient and eager to help responses from those who can actually look into an issue.

In this case, while the result is clearly lopsided, how many learned players here would cite the model for the failings of the Martin 139? How many would cite Castor for poor judgment in his employment of them, and further poor judgement in how he decided to vet this result publicly?

I'll let the public decide. I already made my decision.

I understand the importance of correcting the record. Which you did admirably. Then you took an unnecessary shot at the originator of the thread.

It's really not up to anyone here, except of course the admin, to determine the worthiness of a given thread. Some will be better than others. Some will be downright unpleasant to read but still be within the written rules. I'm sure Erik & David will keep the forum and their products protected from undue harm.

[TheElf]

I understand the importance of correcting the record. Which you did admirably. Then you took an unnecessary shot at the originator of the thread.

I'm sorry, not sure what you mean?

[Ikazuchi0585]

I've had a Blenheim score a kill... sadly he didnt survive to much longer after that.[:@]

[Fishbed]

From what I am counting in the report, a lot of those 50 planes were written off or got lost on the way home, they didn't get destroyed in direct combat - they dropped their load but back home they were too damaged to be flown again, and they count as a A2A loss, right?

[EUBanana]

A couple of turns ago in my own game ~15 Hurricanes, ~15 Mohawk IVs and 20 P40s met 20 Oscars and 20 Zeroes and 75% of the Allied a/c were shot down (30 for 1 Jap), despite the Allies doing the sweeping and the Japanese doing the CAPping which theoretically gives the Allied a/c an advantage.

One issue which I am aware of is that the Allied a/c came in three waves due to being at a range of altitudes - clearly that doesn't work, just stick everything at max altitude - but even so. 75% of the Allied airforce - we're talking a full month of production here - gone in a day. Fighters vs fighters. Whether they came in bits and bobs or not, thats simply not possible IMHO.

As a slight aside I think the bonus given for 'bouncing' is ridiculous, it's far, far too effective. Altitude is the factor in the air to air model, seemingly second only to experience. Operational ceiling becomes the red letter stat.

[Alfred]

Anyone here know of an instance when the Dutch consolidated their obsolete Martin bombers and launched 89 against a single target?  Well that just screams ahistorical to me.  When one player engages in ahistorical actions then I see absolutely nothing wrong with an ahistorical outcome resulting.

So the OP had a loss of 50 bombers, which he thought was too much but he thought a loss of 30 bombers would have been acceptable.  Really, on what basis was that conclusion reached?  Surely not on the basis that AE is a simulation, because it is not.  Nor on the basis of precedent because...well not too many come to mind.

Then we have other players' experiences to guide us on whether ubercap exists in AE.  Beside the examples quoted in this thread, look at Canoerebel's AAR (and separate thread) where he bemoans that 160 Wildcats had limited success against Japanese bombers in the Kuriles.  To offset that example, there is Q-Balls recent experience in the Celebes.

The Elf has it in one.  If I employ poor tactics and get spanked, the fault lies with me, not the game.

Alfred

[Ikazuchi0585]

so it's impossible to loose 75% of your raid under any circumstances?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: dbfw190

so it's impossible to loose 75% of your raid under any circumstances?

how do you come to this conclusion?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Frank

Castor, I see 45 Zeros in your reports. Can you verify they were all the same or is it possible, that MiniKB could have managed these numbers by permanently replacing them??

http://books.google.de/books?id=IzJUlCp ... q=&f=false

As for destroying lots of enemy aircraft with little losses on one day in little missions, just follow the link above.
Unprepared Soviet pilots and planes were lost in masses to German fighters in the beginning days of barbarossa.

Don´t forget the extremely heavy losses of the Brits when attacking the panzerships on monday, 18th december 1939. And that were quite stable Wellingtons getting the stick, loosing more than 60% of their number. 44 attacking bombers, 34 shot down (offical German numbers)Brits say 15 lost of 22.
This is quite in the range of the losses your forces suffered.
So, it isn´t that unrealistic loosing heavily when using unescorted bombers.

In this example, how many German fighters were involved? Only 25% of the number of attacking bombers?

It´s not a question to me of the total number of losses, it´s the question about how many ac involved on each side and how many bombers then were shot down.

As far as I collected data, there were 3 squadrons of Me110 taking part in the battle. Can´t tell you how many of those planes actually fired at the bombers. Might have been between 36 and 80 fighters.

12 Wellingtons went down with a further 6 crash landing during the return phase. 5 x Bf-109's were lost in return from bomber return fire.

Total Wellington force was 22 planes though the Germans thought that as many as 54 bombers attacked. Battle was notable in that it was the first instance where cannon armed Bf-110's engaged British bombers in large numbers. While the lightly armed 109D and E's had to get close to attack, the 110's were able to utilize high speed runs and long range firing with cannon to pump their querry full of ammo. This was the largest air battle yet fought between the RAF and Luftwaffe over a area that exceeded 60-70 kilometers.

Units involved:

10(N)/JG-26
II/JG/77
3/ZG-26
6/JG-77
5/JG-77
2/ZG-26
3/JGr-101

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I understand the importance of correcting the record. Which you did admirably. Then you took an unnecessary shot at the originator of the thread.

I'm sorry, not sure what you mean?

You gave a good and detailed explanation of why the results Castor Troy was so unhappy about were within the bounds of a realistic result. I completely understand why you don't want the claim "Uber CAP is back" to stand, especially if that's not the case.

Then you put this totally unnecessary cherry on top:

Next time take a deep breath and run this sort of thing through a sanity filter before posting like this...

[1275psi]

Deleted -wrong link!

[1275psi]

30 betties -unescorted -vs a pack of fighters

No survivors
A comaparable situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MONSFUS5iwI


I think the game got it just right -unescorted obsolete crud vs elite pilots/planes -equals disaster.

[tazaaron]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I understand the importance of correcting the record. Which you did admirably. Then you took an unnecessary shot at the originator of the thread.

I'm sorry, not sure what you mean?

You gave a good and detailed explanation of why the results Castor Troy was so unhappy about were within the bounds of a realistic result. I completely understand why you don't want the claim "Uber CAP is back" to stand, especially if that's not the case.

Then you put this totally unnecessary cherry on top:

Next time take a deep breath and run this sort of thing through a sanity filter before posting like this...

I might be a new poster to this forum but not someone who hasn't kept up with everything over the YEARS but why even start a argument, Castor can defend himself yet he hasn't thats what he wants someone like you to step forward, hes watching you carry the spark. Ive seen his past posts and its good theres someone who points out some downfalls in the game but i agree with Elf, and this doesn't just apply to this game people scream murder on any game thread when things go against them a small % of the time. You can have 199 perfect caps but the one time its off they scream THE GAME IS BROKE DONT BUY IT. This is outright insane or none of us would be here, if you got proof post it and im not talking one engagement with crap bombers that cant even run from the battle with no escort im talking proof. Ive had some crazy results about once a MONTH, u dont see me yelling into the forum that its broke he shot down 21 bombers,go upstairs and tell your mom if thats the problem. If it happened every turn it might be a different thing and id point it out. It must be a good game or Castor wouldnt have 7050 posts on this forum. If your looking for the perfect game with no flaws every now and them, well im sorry to tell you but you might as well go out and step in front of a truck because its not going to happen.

You either love me or hate me, im not going to beat around the bush its just a waste of time. Ive been around the block a few times so show it or stay home.

Aaron