BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game.

EUBanana · Post by **EUBanana** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:26 am

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying... [:(]

Ahh, bummer.

Djordje · Post by **Djordje** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:18 am

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Puhis
So I think your opponent don't have that much Tojos. It's minor a bug.

You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.

No no... All those strikes I quoted are Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133.
As you see, A6M2-N Rufe x 4 appears 6 times.
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31 appears 3 times, and Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10 appears 2 times. Some of those other Tojo groups might partly be "ghost" planes too. Like I said, it's a minor bug, a known display glitch. They are escorting only once, but they appear several times.

Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying... [:(]

If you set one squadron to LRCAP some hex, and then rest of the squadrons fly in the same hex to do their other missions you get results like that - the squadron set to LRCAP shows all the time, even though it is usually not participating in the battle at all.

Puhis · Post by **Puhis** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:51 am

ORIGINAL: Djordje

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

You're seeing some twice because of morning and afternoon attacks, and a lot of them are the 40 Tojo CAP over Choiseul Bay, which you see again and again as the Allies attack it, again and again.

But even given that, look at the Japanese strikes on Vella Lavella. Possibly some Tojos are managing to escort the same raid twice in one phase, not sure.

No no... All those strikes I quoted are Morning Air attack on TF, near Vella Lavella at 110,133.
As you see, A6M2-N Rufe x 4 appears 6 times.
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 31 appears 3 times, and Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 10 appears 2 times. Some of those other Tojo groups might partly be "ghost" planes too. Like I said, it's a minor bug, a known display glitch. They are escorting only once, but they appear several times.

Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying... [:(]

If you set one squadron to LRCAP some hex, and then rest of the squadrons fly in the same hex to do their other missions you get results like that - the squadron set to LRCAP shows all the time, even though it is usually not participating in the battle at all.

Yeah, LRPAC shows all the time. But that's not the case in EUBanana's example. If you look at that Vella Lavella AM strikes, you noticed that none of those planes appear every time. Rufe x 4 is missing at least twice, Tojo x 31 appears now and then, one strike of 2 Judys don't have fighter escorts at all etc. Plane numbers just don't match. So I think there was a display bug.

Of course it's possible that I'm wrong and there was about 180 Tojos (at least 5 Sentais) escorting AM stikes, but I seriously doubt it. [;)]

USSAmerica · Post by **USSAmerica** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:27 am

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying... [:(]

Ahh, bummer.

Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.

EUBanana · Post by **EUBanana** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:28 am

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Of course it's possible that I'm wrong and there was about 180 Tojos (at least 5 Sentais) escorting AM stikes, but I seriously doubt it. [;)]

Well, one thing is an undoubted fact - on that day ~60 Japanese aircraft were shot down or toasted on runways, and 24 of them were Tojos. A very high percentage of Tojos in that mix of assets, especially when you consider that was during a day that flying zippos were being used.

Maybe not 180 Tojos - but one way or another, the Tojo is right now the main component of the Japanese air force!

Puhis · Post by **Puhis** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:31 pm

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Because of this bug, player can't really tell how many fighters are flying... [:(]

Ahh, bummer.

Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.

Well, when I noticed it first time, my opponent told me it's known display glitch...

EUBanana · Post by **EUBanana** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:25 pm

Vella Lavella is right next to Jap held Choiseul Bay, so those Rufes/Tojos may well be Choiseul Bay CAP bleeding over to the Vella Lavella hex.

PresterJohn001 · Post by **PresterJohn001** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:37 pm

The Tojo is the main component of the IJA airforce because its the best most versatile fighter. Other models are available and have their uses

Anyway what is good about discussion, is that perspective on events vary due to fow, incomplete information and observer bias. Discussion should illuminate what is percieved against what actually happened. The estimate on Tojo's in the air in the above example is grossly out, perhaps as much as x4 although i hate to disabuse my honoured opponent of the strength of the Japanese Airforce. Likewise i see hordes of 4e bombers apparently flying with impunity thorugh whatever i throw at them.

I also think there is a difference, maybe hard to draw at times, between force utilisation and combat modelling. Two examples of this would be with 4E bombers, concentrating all your bombers for large (ahistoric) raids is simply force utilisation, versus overly effective turrets (combat model innacuracy). Another example may be Japanese ASW. Utilising more assets as ASW than historical is force utilisation, if the ASW damage model is over effective then thats a combat model problem. The difficulty is partially in working out is high effectiveness due to force utilisation and other player tactics or becuase theres an issue with the combat modelling.

Yet another consideration is game balance whereby innacuracies are allowed because they balance the game. I don't know if this is a consideration in the game design but it clearly concerns players that if an aspect of the combat model is made more accurate then it will throw game balance out of kilter. As this is a game then its a legitimate concern.

To be clear my personal view is that allied 4e bombers need a very slight tweak. Nemo's suggestion to me seems of great merit. Other views may vary and thats great because i like a good discussion and i may just be plain wrong. Whatever, i can't say enough what a great game this is with great support and great community. Even my opponents are great [;)]

Brady · Post by **Brady** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:58 pm

I did a lot of testing with regard to Large US bombers some time ago, and the only variable that I am aware of that will have a readly apricable efect on them with regard to fighters is their durabality rating.
 
B-17s were/are rated as bing apricably more durable than a B-24 in game adjusting the B-17's durabality down resulted in what I felt was much more realistic end efect, unfortunatly those tests are lost to time, they went with the purge of data on the development forum.
 
 

castor troy · Post by **castor troy** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:32 pm

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Ahh, bummer.

Puhis, has this one been reported yet? This is the first I've heard of it.

Well, when I noticed it first time, my opponent told me it's known display glitch...

it´s not a display glitch, it´s a damn bug... here´s another example of my PBEM, look at the Lightnings... these are always the same squadrons, three of them being set to ESCORT "Cagayan"... and everytime they were not only showing up in the display, but were actually shooting down enemy aircraft (when there were some to shoot down) and were shot at...

Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 27,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 4
N1K1-J George x 7
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 25
Ki-84a Frank x 1

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 49
F4U-1A Corsair x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 5 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 1 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet
16 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet
16 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet

CAP engaged:
254 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 38500
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 43 minutes
341 Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(7 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 41010
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
73rd Sentai with Ki-84a Frank (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000
Raid is overhead
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 19 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 23000 and 30000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 28,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
N1K1-J George x 1
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 6

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 45
F4U-1A Corsair x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 25000 feet
10 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
11 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
12 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
341 Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 41010 , scrambling fighters to 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 2000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 4

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 86
P-38J Lightning x 44

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 4 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed on ground
H6K5 Mavis: 4 destroyed on ground

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 22
Airbase supply hits 21
Runway hits 172

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
11 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 2

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 41
P-38J Lightning x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed on ground
H6K5 Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 81

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
16 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
14 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

CAP engaged:
260th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 30000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 43

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
LB-206, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5003, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ACM Kaisho Maru, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
LB-5009, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-203, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-201, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5005, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-208, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5015, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5002, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5014, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-1035, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5007, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-207, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5006, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-204, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5012, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5011, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5008, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-202, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5001, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5013, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-205, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5010, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
LB-5004, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Port hits 4
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 28

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
ACM Kaisho Maru, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Tarakan , at 67,91

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 46
P-38J Lightning x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-III Dinah: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 44

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Tarakan , at 67,91

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 16

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 13

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 22
P-38J Lightning x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 26

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 14
P-38J Lightning x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
H6K5 Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 30

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 11
P-38J Lightning x 43

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 34

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 7

No Allied losses

Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Cagayan , at 79,89

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 43
PB4Y-1P Liberator x 1

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
15 x P-38J Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet

all this coordination and strike thingy is flawed, nothing but flawed. [8|]

mjk428 · Post by **mjk428** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:46 pm

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 ) ), 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.

Well, I'm removing myself from the discussion. It has become useless because people couldn't maintain focus and, instead of starting their own threads to discuss how aviation support etc played into the grand strategic game decided to polute the thread.

I'm not posting this to be pissy but just to make people think about this and ask themselves what was so difficult about respecting the intention of the thread and just starting a 2nd parallel discussion about aviation support etc etc. The NEW THREAD button is there for a reason guys.

This sort of discussion creep renders focused discussion impossible and is one reason a lot of high calibre people will no longer discuss issues in the War Room and elsewhere.

I've seen JFBs lobby for all sorts of changes to weaken the Allies, frequently successfully, but this is the first time I've seen it attempted while simultaneously trying to dictate the terms of debate.

If you were making a mod, then you'd have the right to dictate terms, but you called for a change in the code. At that point concern for what effect that single change might have in other areas is completely valid.

Good luck with the mod. Hopefully you can achieve your desired effect without changing things for the rest of us.

EUBanana · Post by **EUBanana** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:26 pm

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Anyway what is good about discussion, is that perspective on events vary due to fow, incomplete information and observer bias. Discussion should illuminate what is percieved against what actually happened. The estimate on Tojo's in the air in the above example is grossly out, perhaps as much as x4 although i hate to disabuse my honoured opponent of the strength of the Japanese Airforce. Likewise i see hordes of 4e bombers apparently flying with impunity thorugh whatever i throw at them.

This is all very true, and really is the root of why I chimed in.

Heavy bombers get shot down a lot when considered relative to their replacement rate, and if you've actually played with them as Allies and seen the uptime of them, and how long it takes to fix a damaged one, and so on, you will get a rather different picture of how invincible they are. Certainly in 1942 the Allied heavy bomber force was tending to shrink over time in our game, not get bigger. That tells me that heavy bombers in fact were being fended off all along, from an attritional standpoint. And these raids people like Puhis are on about I find very hard to believe could be sustained given the uptime of heavy bombers, when facing opposition, is probably about 50%.

Maybe if the Japs dont put up a fight, thus not attritioning them and keeping them on the runway being fixed, you could see these numbers.

There is a very strong tendency to always focus on what is being done to your own beloved pixeltruppen while not focusing enough on what you've done to your opponent. What you have done to your opponent is shrouded in the murk of the fog of war, while what is being done to you is painfully (literally) obvious.

Captain Cruft · Post by **Captain Cruft** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:34 am

There is a very strong tendency to always focus on what is being done to your own beloved pixeltruppen while not focusing enough on what you've done to your opponent. What you have done to your opponent is shrouded in the murk of the fog of war, while what is being done to you is painfully (literally) obvious.

Wise words indeed

P.S. "beloved pixeltruppen" - love it!

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 2:41 pm

mjk428,

Sadly your post is crippled by the fact that the facts you state are pretty much all wrong or misrepresented:

1. JFB: No, I alternate as Allies or Japanese. I'm a fan boy for skillful strategic play and mindgames, not for either side. I DO like technical characteristics to be modelled accurately but then am happy to use them in a "what if" sort of way. Dealing with the bomber defensive armament is simply an extension of that.

2. As to your first quote.... I was asked how I would improve the current operational loss model which causes excessive operational losses to transport planes and patrol planes which have low durability and engage in many, long flights relative to other planes. That combination of factors resulting in massive ops losses as the ops model looks at durability, flight range and frequency ( as well as a few other things ) to determine ops losses. Stating that the model I outlined would require a code change is a simple statement of fact. It wasn't lobbying for a code change. If you asked me how it might be possible to better model something and I answered you it wouldn't be analogous to lobbying for the change. I trust that the very basic difference between lobbying and answering a question is now apparent to you.

3. That quote was NOT, at all, related to the other quote you've taken out of context. I absented myself from the discussion because the failure of people to observe basic courtesy and start new threads to discuss side-issues meant that this thread lost focus on the original issue - improving the interaction between bombers ( of both sides ) and fighters ( of both sides ). It had nothing to do with the quote you have above which was my response to a direct question.

So, I don't know whether you merely misread things or whether you were being maliciously disingenuous but I trust this clarifies it. Sorry if the tone is a bit harsh but I HATE when people who misquote others and make it seem they're saying things they aren't.

EUBanana,
Discussing the rate at which bombers get shot down and the rate at which they get replaced is valid in a discussion of game balance. However, if you are focussing on getting the technical model right then that isn't an issue. If you got 1 a month or 100 a day shouldn't impact on the model if you are going for accurate combat modelling.

I know game design often features compromises between playability and accuracy but the initial ( long, long-lost ) goal of this thread was to improve the accuracy of the model. Once the model was accurate other means could be found to introduce the necessary game balance. I amn't someone who agrees that intentionally introducing errors in modelling into the combat model is a good idea. I prefer to get the combat model right and then introduce whatever balance is necessary through VPs or whatever. You are of course free to differ but I do think that you should, at least, admit that talking about changing or not fixing the combat model is a play balance issue and not an issue to do with saying the current in-game combat model is accurate.

mjk428 · Post by **mjk428** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:07 pm

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

mjk428,

Sadly your post is crippled by the fact that the facts you state are pretty much all wrong or misrepresented:

1. JFB: No, I alternate as Allies or Japanese. I'm a fan boy for skillful strategic play and mindgames, not for either side. I DO like technical characteristics to be modelled accurately but then am happy to use them in a "what if" sort of way. Dealing with the bomber defensive armament is simply an extension of that.

2. As to your first quote.... I was asked how I would improve the current operational loss model which causes excessive operational losses to transport planes and patrol planes which have low durability and engage in many, long flights relative to other planes. That combination of factors resulting in massive ops losses as the ops model looks at durability, flight range and frequency ( as well as a few other things ) to determine ops losses. Stating that the model I outlined would require a code change is a simple statement of fact. It wasn't lobbying for a code change. If you asked me how it might be possible to better model something and I answered you it wouldn't be analogous to lobbying for the change. I trust that the very basic difference between lobbying and answering a question is now apparent to you.

3. That quote was NOT, at all, related to the other quote you've taken out of context. I absented myself from the discussion because the failure of people to observe basic courtesy and start new threads to discuss side-issues meant that this thread lost focus on the original issue - improving the interaction between bombers ( of both sides ) and fighters ( of both sides ). It had nothing to do with the quote you have above which was my response to a direct question.

So, I don't know whether you merely misread things or whether you were being maliciously disingenuous but I trust this clarifies it. Sorry if the tone is a bit harsh but I HATE when people who misquote others and make it seem they're saying things they aren't.

You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.

BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:51 pm

I would not worry about it mjk428. There was a Sophist philosophy a long time ago that thought it can explain life by using the right words but then people learned to use words to trip up an opposition and the philosophy beacme just a argument technique. second rate philosophers use it a lot when the main argument is bested by better men with more common sense but cannot articulate thought as well.

LoBaron · Post by **LoBaron** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:00 pm

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.

BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum. [:'(]

mjk428 · Post by **mjk428** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:24 pm

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.

BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

1) nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

2) It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

3) So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

4) And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum. [:'(]

1) OK. Cool.

2) Nemo threw a fit and (supposedly) left the thread because he was unable to satisfactorily dictate the terms of discussion.

3) No the wrong designation was not why I posted. Although it was the reason I initially clicked on the thread. I was curious to see how B-52s figured into the game.

4) I agree with you. It was Nemo that was being anal about sticking to the topic to the point that further discussion became unbearable for him.

LoBaron · Post by **LoBaron** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:38 pm

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You clearly want a change and your focus is on the B-17. If you can be satisfied without a code change than the editor is there for you to use as you see fit.

BTW, if you want folks to stick to the topic then this thread should have ended when you were informed that there were no BUFFS used in the "Struggle Against Japan".

1) nemo opened a discussion because he was suspecting that the results he was witnessing were due to a design issue on heavy bombers.
"RE: BUFFs - Understanding their use and modelling in-game." quite clearly is an invitation to a discussion.

2) It does not really matter if I have the same opinion as him (in this case not, because I changed my point of view while reading some interesting counterarguments raised), but it was
not a onesided discussion and the intention behind it was clearly not a whateverFBism.

3) So if your only concern is the wrong designation of a 4 engine prop driven heavy bomber I wonder why you posted at all.
The interesting stuff to get an overview was on the first couple of pages anyway, the rest is just individual comments that may or may not be somehow related to the overall theme.

4) And BTW, if you prefer to stick to the topic you have to start a discussion with yourself on an exclusive basis, everything else is quite impossible on a forum. [:'(]

1) OK. Cool.

2) Nemo threw a fit and (supposedly) left the thread because he was unable to satisfactorily dictate the terms of discussion.

3) No the wrong designation was not why I posted. Although it was the reason I initially clicked on the thread. I was curious to see how B-52s figured into the game.

4) I agree with you. It was Nemo that was being anal about sticking to the topic to the point that further discussion became unbearable for him.

And I agree with you that people tend to remain stuck with their opinion for too long because they measure the weight of different arguments on a subjective basis.
But I guess that applies to the majority, including myself - as seldom as possible hopefully.

No offense, and I can confirm that I havent seen any buffs in-game lately. [;)]

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:07 pm

B-17 was used as an example because it was an effective example of the changes spanning the period when Japanese fighter armament changed dramatically.

The same changes apply to Bettys, B-29s, Helens, Ki-264 variants etc. Simply because the the best in-game example of application of the changes was Allied It is JFBism?

How irrational. Anyways, it is clear that facts aren't going to have an impact here. cya