Agreed, and both meets expectations and is historically accurate to my knowledge.ORIGINAL: Nemo121
....
PaxMondo,
Well, the ineffectiveness is very prominent in the early war but becomes less so as time goes by. This occurs as you make the move from multiple MGs to multiple cannons.
....
BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Pax
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
It sounds like what Nemo did for tactics was what the Japanese should have done.The fact that they didn't, should render the tactic "gamey".
4 B-17's made a basic box. But three B-17's in tight formation, would provide concentrated mutual covering fire, that was the whole idea of a box. Start with 4 in a box , add another 4 , etc,etc,etc till you have 1000 and you have the European model. The Germans flew at them with large groups of armored ,heavily armed fighters that were vectored by ground controllers and RADAR. The Japanese used fragile,unarmored and under armed fighters that were not RADAR guided.
The main reason that B-17's were not used much in the Pacific after late 1942 was simply that the B-24 had a much greater range and payload. Range was king in the Pacific.
Frankly , I'd love to try Nemo's tactics myself. [&o]
4 B-17's made a basic box. But three B-17's in tight formation, would provide concentrated mutual covering fire, that was the whole idea of a box. Start with 4 in a box , add another 4 , etc,etc,etc till you have 1000 and you have the European model. The Germans flew at them with large groups of armored ,heavily armed fighters that were vectored by ground controllers and RADAR. The Japanese used fragile,unarmored and under armed fighters that were not RADAR guided.
The main reason that B-17's were not used much in the Pacific after late 1942 was simply that the B-24 had a much greater range and payload. Range was king in the Pacific.
Frankly , I'd love to try Nemo's tactics myself. [&o]
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Still the Germans could not break the boxes everytime, as opposed to the Schweinfurt/Regensburg raids (=the worst losses for USAAF bombers). They were even soemtimes so desperate that they brought in precious night fighters (ME110/410/JU88), with their heavy arms they posed a big danger to the biggies.However this lasted only so lang as LR escorts were appearing which could effectivly drive away and/or shoot those heavy fighters down.
Standard German practice was normally: Let the MEs deal with the escorts, bring the FWs to the bombers.
However as most of you know daylight raids without escorts were a dangerous thing, problem is I don´t know enough of the pacific air war to judge the emulation in the game regarding the problem. However I am feeling that the losses of Jap fighters vs.biggies maybe a bit to high. But even when the B17s are not shot down right away some of them will still be losses (not only op losses, but eg. I had 2 B17s shot down on their way home which does not apear in the combat report). These were B17d however. You ´ll find those losses in your statistics at least, or better when reviewing the sqdr after combat - not all losses can be found in the CRs (just a reminder).
BTW: I found this pretty good site about JG27:
http://www.jg27.de/chronik43.html
If you can read a bit German, it gives a pretty good picture about the fights vs. Bombers of this well known JG. It concludes taht in 43:
"Die Reichsverteidigung hatte einen großen Abwehrsieg errungen. Nicht weniger als 121 Bomber, mit ca. 1 300 Mann fliegenden Personal, kostete der 8. US Luftflotte das Schweinfurt - Unternehmen.
Von den 291 gestarteten B- 17 kehrten nur 35 ohne Beschädigungen zurück. Derartige Ausfälle waren selbst für die Amerikaner nicht Tragbar. Schweinfurt war der letzte Beweis, daß die US Bomber ohne Geleitschutz der Luftwaffe nicht gewachsen waren. Erst ein Vierteljahr später wird die 8. Luftflotte wieder größere Operationen über dem Reichsgebiet durchführen. Dann allerdings mit Jagdschutz!
Die Verluste der dt. Verbände beliefen sich auf 40 Totalverluste sowie auf 23 beschädigte Maschinen. Zwanzig Piloten waren gefallen, fünfzehn wurden Verwundet"
Standard German practice was normally: Let the MEs deal with the escorts, bring the FWs to the bombers.
However as most of you know daylight raids without escorts were a dangerous thing, problem is I don´t know enough of the pacific air war to judge the emulation in the game regarding the problem. However I am feeling that the losses of Jap fighters vs.biggies maybe a bit to high. But even when the B17s are not shot down right away some of them will still be losses (not only op losses, but eg. I had 2 B17s shot down on their way home which does not apear in the combat report). These were B17d however. You ´ll find those losses in your statistics at least, or better when reviewing the sqdr after combat - not all losses can be found in the CRs (just a reminder).
BTW: I found this pretty good site about JG27:
http://www.jg27.de/chronik43.html
If you can read a bit German, it gives a pretty good picture about the fights vs. Bombers of this well known JG. It concludes taht in 43:
"Die Reichsverteidigung hatte einen großen Abwehrsieg errungen. Nicht weniger als 121 Bomber, mit ca. 1 300 Mann fliegenden Personal, kostete der 8. US Luftflotte das Schweinfurt - Unternehmen.
Von den 291 gestarteten B- 17 kehrten nur 35 ohne Beschädigungen zurück. Derartige Ausfälle waren selbst für die Amerikaner nicht Tragbar. Schweinfurt war der letzte Beweis, daß die US Bomber ohne Geleitschutz der Luftwaffe nicht gewachsen waren. Erst ein Vierteljahr später wird die 8. Luftflotte wieder größere Operationen über dem Reichsgebiet durchführen. Dann allerdings mit Jagdschutz!
Die Verluste der dt. Verbände beliefen sich auf 40 Totalverluste sowie auf 23 beschädigte Maschinen. Zwanzig Piloten waren gefallen, fünfzehn wurden Verwundet"
-
bradfordkay
- Posts: 8686
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ChezDaJez wrote:
"Brad has lost only 15 B-17s to air combat for the entire war despite near daily raids on my bases and shipping for the past few weeks. Ops losses account for 46 B-17s most likely due to lower their experience and higher fatigue from long range missions."
Chez' numbers are a little off... I have only lost 12 B17E's to A2A (though you can be sure that most of the 38 Ops losses were due to combat damage), but I've also lost 29 B17Ds to A2A combat (plus 10 more in Operational losses).
Yeah, I've bombed Noumea 4 days in a row from Suva but the bombers had been sitting for almost two weeks before that, so it hasn't been a daily occurrence throughout the war. It goes in phases - a few days straight of bombing and then a few days of rest to repair and recuperate.
Oh, BTW Chez, could you send that turn to me? I've had a bad day here and could use a turn to settle my nerves...
"Brad has lost only 15 B-17s to air combat for the entire war despite near daily raids on my bases and shipping for the past few weeks. Ops losses account for 46 B-17s most likely due to lower their experience and higher fatigue from long range missions."
Chez' numbers are a little off... I have only lost 12 B17E's to A2A (though you can be sure that most of the 38 Ops losses were due to combat damage), but I've also lost 29 B17Ds to A2A combat (plus 10 more in Operational losses).
Yeah, I've bombed Noumea 4 days in a row from Suva but the bombers had been sitting for almost two weeks before that, so it hasn't been a daily occurrence throughout the war. It goes in phases - a few days straight of bombing and then a few days of rest to repair and recuperate.
Oh, BTW Chez, could you send that turn to me? I've had a bad day here and could use a turn to settle my nerves...
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Chez, I could use a turn too, so send me one when you send one to Brad.
Brad, I think I know at least one contributing reason to your bad day. [:(] Hope you'll have a great New Year's Day that will make up for your New Year's Eve.
Brad, I think I know at least one contributing reason to your bad day. [:(] Hope you'll have a great New Year's Day that will make up for your New Year's Eve.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Nemo I think you are right wiht you analysis.
The issue we are experiencing is caused by two facts IMO: The good defensive armament of the B17 and the tendency of players to
use them in an air superiority role.
If its possible to adress the first issue then the second will fall.
What we have to be careful though is not to overcompensate and lower the accuracy to a much lower value. I think a slight correction should be enough, because
this correction works in two directions: Lower acc means less damaged/destroyed fighters AND increased damage to the heavies because the fighters would be
able to close in despite the defensive fire.
Edit: Another issue which has to be treated very carefully, but has an impact on the above situation, is the low op loss rate of damaged AC. There a solution
could be very difficult though, as to not up the patrol op loss rate to an unbearable level.
The issue we are experiencing is caused by two facts IMO: The good defensive armament of the B17 and the tendency of players to
use them in an air superiority role.
If its possible to adress the first issue then the second will fall.
What we have to be careful though is not to overcompensate and lower the accuracy to a much lower value. I think a slight correction should be enough, because
this correction works in two directions: Lower acc means less damaged/destroyed fighters AND increased damage to the heavies because the fighters would be
able to close in despite the defensive fire.
Edit: Another issue which has to be treated very carefully, but has an impact on the above situation, is the low op loss rate of damaged AC. There a solution
could be very difficult though, as to not up the patrol op loss rate to an unbearable level.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
Well, as I see it the model could be improved upon.
If I were asked to come up with an improvement to the ops loss model ( which I haven't been and never will be. Not too popular with many of the developers [:D] ) there would be two options:
1. An option which began from scratch and really modelled the thing well or
2. A model which used existing factors combined in a new way to improve the veracity of the current model.
Since option 1 would have to wait for AE 2 I'll focus on the second option.
The problem with AE right now is that Grigsby ( although an excellent game designer ) used a single variable to impact in multiple different calculations many of which have no relation to eachother. It is a tidy solution which gave him the level of detail he wished for. Unfortunately we now seek greater discrimination than the level of detail he initially designed the game for.
E.g. Accuracy for a gun is used in both the anti-shipping and anti-air role if that gun is a DP gun. Unfortunately it has different meanings in those two different roles and the scales are somewhat different such that assigning a perfect accuracy for one role breaks the model in the alternate role.
E.g. Durability in airplanes reflects their ability to survive damage caused by enemy fire.... but it also factors in to operational losses. Now, obviously, these two things aren't necessarily directly related. There may be some tangential correlation but not a really close one. How is this? Simple, it is simple to imagine a VERY durable plane which is incredibly tough to bring down due to enemy fire which has some fatal flaw which would cause its ops losses to be huge. A good real-war example would be the He-177. It would have had pretty high durability ( perhaps in the mid-50s ) BUT its level of operational losses would have been huge because of its engine arrangement.
At present we cannot model a plane like the He-177 or other high-durability planes with temperamental engines properly in terms of ops losses. If the plane is high durability then for the same number of flights of the same distance it will have fewer losses than a plane with the same characteristics except the durability is halved ( even if that plane had engines which never failed ).
So, how can you fix this?
Well, except for transports you can't fix this by just doubling the durability ( you can do that for transports as their combat is extrapolated and they rarely get massive amounts of interceptions... the transport model is mostly broken in terms of high levels of ops losses, not in terms of low levels of combat losses ) so looking around at a factor which appears to model the likelihood of the plane to break down and require repair ( not directly but somewhat abstractly ) we come to the service rating.
So, my solution would be to combine the service rating with durability. This would allow you to model low durability planes with high service ratings as having extreme operational losses whilst also allowing you to show clear differences between high durability 4-engined bombers which had high reliability ( Lancasters, later models of the B29 ) and high durability 4-engine bombers with poor reliability ( early models of the B29 where engines often spontaneously caught fire mid-flight ). By decoupling ops losses from strictly correlating just to durability you'd improve the model. The best, simple, quickest to implement method for doing this would be to link ops losses to durability combined with service rating.
It is simple, gives face validity, can be easily explained and justified to the community ( important because of the Castor Troys out there who will claim anything they do is broken in some way ( albeit only in his copy of the game [:D] ) ), is reliable and allows a deeper level of modelling which allows a greater ( and more realistic ) differentiation between different plane types ( e.g. early model B29s which were much more likely to become ops losses than late-model B29s ).
It would require a code change but since the values are already calculated for service ratings it would be quicker to implement than having to calculate and represent new "temperamentability" ratings for all the various planes and then having to implement that. That could be a goal for AE 2.
If I were asked to come up with an improvement to the ops loss model ( which I haven't been and never will be. Not too popular with many of the developers [:D] ) there would be two options:
1. An option which began from scratch and really modelled the thing well or
2. A model which used existing factors combined in a new way to improve the veracity of the current model.
Since option 1 would have to wait for AE 2 I'll focus on the second option.
The problem with AE right now is that Grigsby ( although an excellent game designer ) used a single variable to impact in multiple different calculations many of which have no relation to eachother. It is a tidy solution which gave him the level of detail he wished for. Unfortunately we now seek greater discrimination than the level of detail he initially designed the game for.
E.g. Accuracy for a gun is used in both the anti-shipping and anti-air role if that gun is a DP gun. Unfortunately it has different meanings in those two different roles and the scales are somewhat different such that assigning a perfect accuracy for one role breaks the model in the alternate role.
E.g. Durability in airplanes reflects their ability to survive damage caused by enemy fire.... but it also factors in to operational losses. Now, obviously, these two things aren't necessarily directly related. There may be some tangential correlation but not a really close one. How is this? Simple, it is simple to imagine a VERY durable plane which is incredibly tough to bring down due to enemy fire which has some fatal flaw which would cause its ops losses to be huge. A good real-war example would be the He-177. It would have had pretty high durability ( perhaps in the mid-50s ) BUT its level of operational losses would have been huge because of its engine arrangement.
At present we cannot model a plane like the He-177 or other high-durability planes with temperamental engines properly in terms of ops losses. If the plane is high durability then for the same number of flights of the same distance it will have fewer losses than a plane with the same characteristics except the durability is halved ( even if that plane had engines which never failed ).
So, how can you fix this?
Well, except for transports you can't fix this by just doubling the durability ( you can do that for transports as their combat is extrapolated and they rarely get massive amounts of interceptions... the transport model is mostly broken in terms of high levels of ops losses, not in terms of low levels of combat losses ) so looking around at a factor which appears to model the likelihood of the plane to break down and require repair ( not directly but somewhat abstractly ) we come to the service rating.
So, my solution would be to combine the service rating with durability. This would allow you to model low durability planes with high service ratings as having extreme operational losses whilst also allowing you to show clear differences between high durability 4-engined bombers which had high reliability ( Lancasters, later models of the B29 ) and high durability 4-engine bombers with poor reliability ( early models of the B29 where engines often spontaneously caught fire mid-flight ). By decoupling ops losses from strictly correlating just to durability you'd improve the model. The best, simple, quickest to implement method for doing this would be to link ops losses to durability combined with service rating.
It is simple, gives face validity, can be easily explained and justified to the community ( important because of the Castor Troys out there who will claim anything they do is broken in some way ( albeit only in his copy of the game [:D] ) ), is reliable and allows a deeper level of modelling which allows a greater ( and more realistic ) differentiation between different plane types ( e.g. early model B29s which were much more likely to become ops losses than late-model B29s ).
It would require a code change but since the values are already calculated for service ratings it would be quicker to implement than having to calculate and represent new "temperamentability" ratings for all the various planes and then having to implement that. That could be a goal for AE 2.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Osterhaut
all you ever do castor troy is complain about everything if it doesnt go your way. And maybe you have found something in the past but I have never seen you even aknowledge that the designers did something from that and never ever heard you say thank you. If I was a designer I would green button you and ignore you if I didn't tell you to ondergang first.
MO
it is people like you that made me leave the forum in the first place. I am sorry that people like you are still here. I will leave for another six months and hope that you get dicouraged and go away in the meantime.
good bye! Go read a book about what 75 P-38 did to 20 George/Zekes when they were escorting bombers against bases on New Guinea for example. It will take you more than six months probably.
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Castor,
Again with the hyperbole and lack of hard facts....
You are complaining about fighters sweeping and getting dived on in a thread about four-engined bomber modelling in-game. It isn't germaine and even if it were your comments are disingenuous.
Glad your comments are always so truly ingenuous. If you are able to read, I´ve said you´re better off using NO escorts and send the bombers alone as this is getting you better results in the long run if talking about losses and the example with the Lightnings is just one I had recently. This partially supports your claim (unfortunately I have to agree with you) that bombers are by far too good in driving off enemy fighters. Have you actually read what I´ve written about the B-24 vs. 300 Zeke Cap? Probably not? If you read it and think it is ok as it is, then I feel for you.
1. In your example the P-38s did NOT escort the bombers. They swept. So talking about them as bomber escorts is disingenuous as that bit of code wouldn't have impacted their use.
they were set to escort and btw, your comment first and now this one about escort or sweep is really funny because they really really are spot on, mhm
2. The P-38s went in at 44,000 feet. This was well ABOVE the ceiling of the Zeroes and Georges so the P-38s MUST have had the first dive. The game simply isn't factored any other way.
not true, they did NOT get the dive for a single second, please look more closeley to what is happening in the game and you will also see that the ceiling sweep is NOT always getting the dive (I´m probably one of the biggest complainers about strato sweeps anyway but even I see they are not always getting the dive)
It looks like, yet again, your losses are probably due to poorer pilots, leaders or tactics than anything to do with the game code. I'd be willing to be the P-38s were at extreme range and very fatigued. That always leads to massive losses.
sorry mate, these squadrons are flown by the BEST pilots on the map! I only put the best pilots into the most precious aircraft. please don´t make assumptions.
Seriously, will you ever get to using facts and analysis instead of hyperbole? If you spent just 1/4 of the time thinking things through as you do on exclaiming the game is against you and ueber-broken I think you'd be able to figure this stuff out for yourself.
it´s not the game, it´s the airroutines mostly, but this has lead to enough problem during betatesting anyway, why would it wonder me anymore. The game in total is as great and in most cases far better than WITP. Still doesn´t help the airroutine being off in many, many isntances. Good to see you NEVER complain about anything in the game, guess the last five complain threads came from your side? Absolutely glad that this thread is about the accurate modelling of 4E´s defensive fire. Oh, or have I misunderstood you? IMO the 4Es are by far too effective against enemy fighters. OOPs, but that´s not your oppinion I guess. I´m also quite happy that me not spending any time on thinking about what is happening in the game has lead ME to be 100% sure about at least halve a dozen things in the game being BUGGED (not even flawed by design) that I didn´t care about these issues in my PBEM halve a year before they were even known or accepted as bugs on the forum and later being squashed (or now being fixed). The dates of my posts in my AAR on these bugged things are a perfect prove and can nicely be compared with the (later) dates of these things being "officially identified" on the tech forum. Heck, I must be really bad in looking at what is happening in the game, or perhaps too stupid to realize? Search archs, attack bombers, land based radar, weather bug outside of base hexes, strato sweeps (exploit, no bug) etc, etc, etc. I use hyperboles and you use a lot of blah blah, while obviously being behind me in noticing what really happens in the game it seems, because then you wouldn´t say the Lightnings on 44000 MUST have the dive. Talking about physics perhaps, talking about the game... Well, they didn´t... [8|]
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
So, my solution would be to combine the service rating with durability. This would allow you to model low durability planes with high service ratings as having extreme operational losses whilst also allowing you to show clear differences between high durability 4-engined bombers which had high reliability ( Lancasters, later models of the B29 ) and high durability 4-engine bombers with poor reliability ( early models of the B29 where engines often spontaneously caught fire mid-flight ). By decoupling ops losses from strictly correlating just to durability you'd improve the model. The best, simple, quickest to implement method for doing this would be to link ops losses to durability combined with service rating.
It is simple, gives face validity, can be easily explained and justified to the community ( important because of the Castor Troys out there who will claim anything they do is broken in some way ( albeit only in his copy of the game [:D] ) ), is reliable and allows a deeper level of modelling which allows a greater ( and more realistic ) differentiation between different plane types ( e.g. early model B29s which were much more likely to become ops losses than late-model B29s ).
It would require a code change but since the values are already calculated for service ratings it would be quicker to implement than having to calculate and represent new "temperamentability" ratings for all the various planes and then having to implement that. That could be a goal for AE 2.
I like that idea very much but you are you sure that durability is connected to op losses in any way?
Up to now the only connection I see is the capability of the plane to absorb damage before being destroyed.
Op losses are increased by AC damage and pilot fatigure plus influenced by other factors not directly related to the AC and its pilot.
I don´t know whether the ammount of damage factors into the chances for an op loss. It could as well be that it is just the fact that the plane is damaged (0/1) which adds a modifier to
an op loss dice roll.
-
castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Nemo I think you are right wiht you analysis.
The issue we are experiencing is caused by two facts IMO: The good defensive armament of the B17 and the tendency of players to
use them in an air superiority role.
If its possible to adress the first issue then the second will fall.
What we have to be careful though is not to overcompensate and lower the accuracy to a much lower value. I think a slight correction should be enough, because
this correction works in two directions: Lower acc means less damaged/destroyed fighters AND increased damage to the heavies because the fighters would be
able to close in despite the defensive fire.
Edit: Another issue which has to be treated very carefully, but has an impact on the above situation, is the low op loss rate of damaged AC. There a solution
could be very difficult though, as to not up the patrol op loss rate to an unbearable level.
it´s not only the limited number of B-17, wait until late 43 to mid 44 with hundreds of B-24. They are "easier" to down but their defensive fire is just as good as the B-17´s.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
CT, thank you, that was the single piece of information to make my life complete.
Now could we please stay on topic? Which is, in case you wonder, not how bad what is at which date but how to find simple and effective solutions to increase
the balance in certain aspects of heavy bomber A2A.
Now could we please stay on topic? Which is, in case you wonder, not how bad what is at which date but how to find simple and effective solutions to increase
the balance in certain aspects of heavy bomber A2A.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
From what I've seen in my game I feel the HB's are modelled close to reality. The Japanese may have 300-500 or so planes in the air but realistically only a fraction of those would be able to get shots off at the passing bombers. Ops losses of damaged airframes need to be factored in to A2A losses.
I guess we could feign the idea that Japanese planes had working radios and a solid communcation system on which to be vectored in on the attackers but that would not seem to be playing anything close to realistic if what I've read in the past is true.
I guess we could feign the idea that Japanese planes had working radios and a solid communcation system on which to be vectored in on the attackers but that would not seem to be playing anything close to realistic if what I've read in the past is true.
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
LoBaron,
Aye other factors also play a role but the issue is moving the model from where it is and without further data on the algorithm determining ops losses I can't say anything about those other factors except to say their inclusion has face validity.
As to Castor Troy staying on topic and not twisting others' words etc... Good luck. I've come to think of him as almost the perfect embodiment of a counter-intelligence operation. He is such a blowhard uninterested with true study of the game model and just obsessed with bleating about it being broken that he discredits anyone who tries to have a serious discussion about improving the game model. Obviously he isn't a disinformation ploy or anything but I often think of him that way. It helps to understand him - although it doesn't make tolerating him any easier.
Aye other factors also play a role but the issue is moving the model from where it is and without further data on the algorithm determining ops losses I can't say anything about those other factors except to say their inclusion has face validity.
As to Castor Troy staying on topic and not twisting others' words etc... Good luck. I've come to think of him as almost the perfect embodiment of a counter-intelligence operation. He is such a blowhard uninterested with true study of the game model and just obsessed with bleating about it being broken that he discredits anyone who tries to have a serious discussion about improving the game model. Obviously he isn't a disinformation ploy or anything but I often think of him that way. It helps to understand him - although it doesn't make tolerating him any easier.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
SuluSea, I too think that the heavies are modelled close to real.
The only slight deviation I see is their ability to kill Japanese fighters.
The only slight deviation I see is their ability to kill Japanese fighters.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
The issue with this aspect is, as always, the far reaching consequeces of even a minor change. Makes WitPAE one real ba***** to tweak.
I think SuluSea is spot on when he introduces a further aspect: op losses are not always, but sometimes, related to A2A, so its very difficult to get a clear picture
of the interactions. You simply cannot assume to what an op loss is originally related to (e.g. AC previeousely damaged in an engagement crashing on landing because of the damage).
I still would opt for the gun accuracy option to test.
I think SuluSea is spot on when he introduces a further aspect: op losses are not always, but sometimes, related to A2A, so its very difficult to get a clear picture
of the interactions. You simply cannot assume to what an op loss is originally related to (e.g. AC previeousely damaged in an engagement crashing on landing because of the damage).
I still would opt for the gun accuracy option to test.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
I would never want to see these changes put into the game, mod your heart out but leave the game along.
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Nemo I think you are right wiht you analysis.
The issue we are experiencing is caused by two facts IMO: The good defensive armament of the B17 and the tendency of players to
use them in an air superiority role.
If its possible to adress the first issue then the second will fall.
What we have to be careful though is not to overcompensate and lower the accuracy to a much lower value. I think a slight correction should be enough, because
this correction works in two directions: Lower acc means less damaged/destroyed fighters AND increased damage to the heavies because the fighters would be
able to close in despite the defensive fire.
Edit: Another issue which has to be treated very carefully, but has an impact on the above situation, is the low op loss rate of damaged AC. There a solution
could be very difficult though, as to not up the patrol op loss rate to an unbearable level.
Another factor in this is the AA losses. With the recent patch it would APPEAR (I do not have hard data) that AA is more effective. In my games, we have made significant adjustments to bombing altitude to compensate. Higher altitude => lower bombing accuracy => higher loss rates per raid/efficiency.
So, I think we wait to see what michaelm says about the flak first. If that is WAD with the patch, then maybe more testing before we make rec's.
Pax
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
The problem with these reports are they from the pilots involved... for instance, there was a report (which is still in circulation) where an SBD pilot shot down something like 5 attacking IJN planes (Vals, Kates, etc.) The pilot got a medal and promoted to fighters.ORIGINAL: Puhis
ORIGINAL: bigred
http://www.mishalov.com/zeamer-obit.html
Before we tinker w/ the b17 in game we should read this.
Well, if we read Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai", I'm pretty sure there was incident where Zeros spotted 5 B-17 trying to bomb Buna landing. Saburo shot down one B-17, other Zeros shot down 3 more. The last Fortress jettisoned bombs and fled. Never seen that in this game...
Problem is, after the war, it was shown none of this happened. Stuff like this happened over and over again with pilots reporting multiple kills, and yet none them verified when enemy records were examined.
Sakai's book, while interesting, suffered from not having verification on a number of the incidents he claimed.
-
Wirraway_Ace
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Austin / Brisbane
RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
One other thing which I think plays into this issue is that the Japanese fighters often have mixed armament - several MGs, a couple of cannon. Rarely are they "all or nothing" fighters of the British or American ilk ( ALL MGs or ALL cannon ). The more I played the more I became convinced that airplane combat was conducted with per line checking of accuracy - IOW if you hit with the MGs you didn't necessarily hit with the cannon that your Zeroes were carrying. Statistically if you attacked a bomber stream with Zeroes your hits will likely to break down to be 2/3rd MGs and 1/3rd cannon.
This has the effect of making it look like people are getting lots of good hits with cannon-armed fighters which leads people to expect the bombers should be downed whereas, in fact, probably 2/3rds of those hits are just shooting tiny ventilation holes in the fuselage and doing nothing to make the bomber less airworthy.
To test this out in a plane where it really hampers the plane's effectiveness I went to the Jack model which has 2 x 20mm cannon of slightly different types in two separate armament slots. One has accuracy 1 point greater than the other. I modded it so that that plane had 4 x 20mm cannon ( of the lower accuracy ) in a single armament slot.
Suddenly the plane went from being decent to being a real downer of bombers. I ran this test a few times and found that this applied routinely. Accordingly when it made sense to do so I've modded fighters such that instead of having cannon on two lines they have it on one line and that some of the later-war planes with mixed armament - a couple of 30mm, a couple of 20mm get nothing but 20mm cannon. Even when the actual firepower of a plane goes down on the plane details screen its actual combat effectiveness increases as, instead of having, perhaps 30% of that firepower hitting 70% of the time ( such that a George actually has no more firepower than an Oscar III most of the time ( 2 x 12.7mm MGs ) ) you have 100% of the slightly lesser firepower hitting 100% of the time.
To compensate I've bumped up the number of B-29s arriving as replacements. I'll post the scenario tonight.
My sense from reading Shore and Sakai/Caiden is this is modelled well. The cannons and guns had two different triggers and two different trajectories/convergence. The pilots would use the very accurate MGs in their first passes to try and knock out the tail gunner or other turret gunners and then switch to cannons.
On your point about the Jack, I have no knowledge. If the two cannons have significantly different trajectories/convergence due to velocity and mounting position, and/or if they were separate triggers, I can see keeping them as separate line items for combat. This is my assumption why the developers kept them separate. If not, it may have been a database oversight.