Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta)

[n01487477]

Okay, the intent of this post is anecdotal evidence for MichaelM. I'm not disputing that I could have done some things differently, such as had sweeps go in first from Etorofu (they were LCAP CV's) etc. And I certainly don't think that having groups arrive without escort is such a bad dynamic as this is 40's combat. [edit] Forgot to say that the weather was a little scottish![edit2] Also, forgot to mention that Shimushiri-jima airfield has been closed for a long time, and I believe doesn't have supplies. SO, none of the flights were from there.

This just doesn't feel right though. Even though there were many incoming strikes, the allied fighters just kept on giving... My KB pilots were the original crew.

...

File available in the next post.

[JeffroK]

Really bad weather!!

Have the modifiers for weather, leadership, range etc got too much control, instead of a 5% chance are they making it a 50% chance?

[witpqs]

Thoughts:

Where those the same Allied fighters in each combat?

How much time (probably just an internal game-engine variable) was there between combats? (i.e. was there enough time for some fighters to cycle/rearm?)

Might be best to attach a save game just in case Michael does want to look at it.

[Cpt Sherwood]

Can I ask what month this took place?

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Thoughts:
Where those the same Allied fighters in each combat?

Seem to be, although there was a morning phase, but most were in the afternoon.

How much time (probably just an internal game-engine variable) was there between combats? (i.e. was there enough time for some fighters to cycle/rearm?)

It was very close for most of them.

Might be best to attach a save game just in case Michael does want to look at it.

Yes, I intend on doing that when I locate the email.

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Can I ask what month this took place?

August, 42

[JocMeister]

This is exactly the kind of things I have seen in the BETA. At least you got escorts for two of the fragments. Last time I tried the BETA I had a 100 plane P40 escort attach itself to a 3 plane fragment while 200 bombers went in unescorted in 15 fragments. Extreme example perhaps but it highlights one of the problem.

I really hope this is looked at because allied bomber pools can not support the increased bomber losses caused by the air coordination bug fix in the earlier versions of the BETA. It also makes the escort mission more or less superfluous forcing use of LRCAP instead. That in turn leads to even more problems...

This is a personal pet peeve I have so I´ll leave it at that and not hijack. But I think we are just scraping the surface on the many problems this bug fix has led to.

[LoBaron]

The beta - by eliminating the coordination bug Mike mentioned - for sure introduces the art of air warfare
at a whole new level.

TBH I am not sure yet if it improves gameplay from a historical perspective, or if it makes it worse.
Currently I´d say it very much depends on the situation. A2A has always been a case of extremes when
everal dices roll against you.

There is definitely one effect that gets enhanced by another in the beta:

With the new coordination, the stone, paper, scissors A2A system comes with a boost.

Close escorts do not perform well against CAP (as was historical), but the game engine does not allow you an
alternative to close escorts (e.g. high cover) as far as naval strikes are concerned. For LBA you can use sweeps
and abstract that into high cover, naval you can´t, or not at any reliable level.

Now the weakness of close escort is increased by the new strike fragmentation.

Is it more realistic? I don´t know. It is definitely different. We have only a few CV battles to compare to, and
those could lead to varying conclusions if you only take the overall result, but not the tactical developement during
the battle - which is abstracted ingame and was extremely complex in reality, into account.

Damian, from what it looks your opponent used CV LRCAP/leaky CAP, patrolling in an alt advantage position?
If yes, that was an extremely risky move, but since it worked this had a devastating effect.

Were CAP layers higher than 14-15k involved? (layers up to 20-22k?)

Do you know the exact number of enemy flightdecks? If this all was LRCAP it sure looks like an incredibly high
number of fighters defending against the individual waves.

Do you have an estimate about how long the Allied fighter pilots already were accumulating fatigue (how long
they were operating in a high threat zone requiring high CAP percentates)? Looks like a fresh and rested result
to me, but thats just a guess.



How about using Damian´s thread, if he agrees, to post CV battle results under the new beta, so to give Michael a
chance to dig into this?
We would neeed to suppress the habit to only post extreme results and dismiss the others as 'ah, it worked for a change',
as it always distorts the overall impression.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Okay, the intent of this post is anecdotal evidence for MichaelM. I'm not disputing that I could have done some things differently, such as had sweeps go in first from Etorofu (they were LCAP CV's) etc. And I certainly don't think that having groups arrive without escort is such a bad dynamic as this is 40's combat. [edit] Forgot to say that the weather was a little scottish![edit2] Also, forgot to mention that Shimushiri-jima airfield has been closed for a long time, and I believe doesn't have supplies. SO, none of the flights were from there.

This just doesn't feel right though. Even though there were many incoming strikes, the allied fighters just kept on giving... My KB pilots were the original crew.

...

File available in the next post.

Was there suppose to be a save somewhere???

[n01487477]

Yep, sorry was busy today .. thank Michael for having a look-see.

I'll comment more to LoBaron when I get home from work

[castor troy]

Wow, been a real long time that I've last seen so many incoming aircraft shot down but a Cap like this. I'm happy if my Hellcat Cap takes down one enemy aircraft for every 3 Hellcats being set to Cap but seeing roughly two enemy aircraft shot down for every of your Wildcats on Cap is impressing, especially with such a crappy pre warning time.

Seems like the answer for me is once again "just die rolls"... can't comment on beta patches though, still using the latest official

[obvert]

So no strikes got through at all? Never had such a poor result.

[Lokasenna]

What version are you using?

I'm using the previous beta in my Guadalcanal PBEM, and I've definitely noticed some slightly weird behavior with 30 Zeroes escorting a handful of bombers while the main body of the bombers goes unescorted. Thankfully I haven't paid through the nose for it, but if this is because of a code change rather than just bad dice rolls for coordination I think I'll have to be a lot more careful...

[seille]

This looks very bad Damian. But the reports are cut, or ? What did your planes hit ?
The bigger raids beeing unescorted are a serious problem mostly for the jap player. Imho that change in coordination is no good thing, it is too much.
I would like to be able to set a rule "If you don´t meet your escorts at rendevous point then turn back !" instead of fly into a massacre.

[Cpt Sherwood]

Maybe use a unit commander with low aggressiveness?

[koniu]

What Air skill have those CV TF commanders?
TF commander is working as Air HQ. With low air skill coordination can be problem.

In my test games i made few weeks ago under beta i have notice huge coordination problem for LBA planes, especially when distance to target is big, but not for CV vs CV strikes (at lest not big problem in my test). Unlucky i have no reports saved.

For sure I notice problem with huge escort number flying with few bombers and major bomber group arriving unescorted. I see once 70 Zeros escorting 9 Betties and seconds later 30+ Betties attacking without escort. How it end. Many Zeros from first wave lost for nothing as 9 Betties score no hit and slaughter of all of unescorted bombers. [:(] 80 planes lost.
In summary. Coordination bomber/bomber is not big problem for me as it look realistic. Bombers should arrive in few bigger or smaller waves. Problem is with fighter/bomber coordination and how engine is choosing what wave will be escorted and whey second bomber wave will be not.

I hope Michaelm will find solution for that problem. It definitely need to be balanced.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: koniu

I hope Michaelm will find solution for that problem. It definitely need to be balanced.

Yeah, but how? It's not a trivial problem. That second strike didn't arrive in "seconds." Well, it might have, or it could have been hours later. If the escort doesn't link with the biggest group of bombers, should it go home? Or should it link with the best group of bombers it can find? WWII didn't have AWACS. Didn't have a lot of radar-controlled ground ATC. Moslty it had eyeballs, and over land it often had mountains to deal with, and low clouds. Carrier air SHOULD link up much more easily than LBA flying from different bases.

I don't have the answer, but at some point players on both sides need to let Michael put this to rest and play on. We can't excpect 21st C. levels of coordination.

[Alfred]

Yawn time again. I've said a few words on Cribtop's AAR where this thread has been referenced.

Damian puts up an anecdotal example. He freely admits that it was not optimum praxis. He did not provide all the relevant facts; not surprising because it was only intended as an anecdote, not as a definitive statement. Others, because it reinforces their prejudices, immediately jump in expecting a "solution". They don't even bother to do their arithmetic because the headline is too good to miss an opportunity to put the boot in.

Time after time, the most vociferous voices raised against the game code are raised by players with zero or limited or inappropriate military experience. It is very rare to find serving men, particularly if they are reasonably high up the military chain, being vociferous critics of the code. I find that an extremely revealing state of affairs.

Once upon a time, when men fought using stones and sticks, battles lasted less than a day. Up to the industrialisation of war, that was largely still the situation. With industrialisation, battles are measured not in terms of hours, but in days and weeks, with interlocking battles in a co-ordinated campaign. The winning side can still have a bad day at the office, particularly when we are dealing with a game which significantly abstracts battles.

Alfred

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Yawn time again. I've said a few words on Cribtop's AAR where this thread has been referenced.

Damian puts up an anecdotal example. He freely admits that it was not optimum praxis. He did not provide all the relevant facts; not surprising because it was only intended as an anecdote, not as a definitive statement. Others, because it reinforces their prejudices, immediately jump in expecting a "solution". They don't even bother to do their arithmetic because the headline is too good to miss an opportunity to put the boot in.

Time after time, the most vociferous voices raised against the game code are raised by players with zero or limited or inappropriate military experience. It is very rare to find serving men, particularly if they are reasonably high up the military chain, being vociferous critics of the code. I find that an extremely revealing state of affairs.

Once upon a time, when men fought using stones and sticks, battles lasted less than a day. Up to the industrialisation of war, that was largely still the situation. With industrialisation, battles are measured not in terms of hours, but in days and weeks, with interlocking battles in a co-ordinated campaign. The winning side can still have a bad day at the office, particularly when we are dealing with a game which significantly abstracts battles.

Alfred

I'm not sure how this helps the players who are trying to use this thread to give more info to Michael to improve the game for all of us, either.

It's important to use examples more often that rhetoric to see what's happening here with new betas. I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term anecdotal in this case as Damian puts a lot of info up here, also posting a save to be looked at. Seems like he is interested in letting Michael have a look at what is happening. That is all. We can speculate, but Michael is going to probably find a few things that work as intended and possibly other things that don't.

I don't see anyone railing that the game is broken, the code is screwed, but a lot saying 'things have definitely changed, and how do we now react to these changes in game; what do they mean, how will they affect different situations, etc.'

Have you tried the new betas? I would really advocate that you do if you haven't, as it is a big tactical and logistic adjustment, not a simple bug fix where the implications are easy to pinpoint and understand.

[Alfred]

I adapt to whatever is before me. I don't demand that something be changed to my perceived view of what is correct.

Alfred

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: obvert
I'm not sure how this helps the players who are trying to use this thread to give more info to Michael to improve the game for all of us, either.

It's important to use examples more often that rhetoric to see what's happening here with new betas. I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term anecdotal in this case as Damian puts a lot of info up here, also posting a save to be looked at. Seems like he is interested in letting Michael have a look at what is happening. That is all. We can speculate, but Michael is going to probably find a few things that work as intended and possibly other things that don't.

I don't see anyone railing that the game is broken, the code is screwed, but a lot saying 'things have definitely changed, and how do we now react to these changes in game; what do they mean, how will they affect different situations, etc.'

Have you tried the new betas? I would really advocate that you do if you haven't, as it is a big tactical and logistic adjustment, not a simple bug fix where the implications are easy to pinpoint and understand.

+1

I wouldn´t bother though. Alfred has decided that the people that actually play this game should not be allowed to discuss it here on the forum. Anything that deviates from his own personal opinion of how the game is or should be is of course wrong. He just words it so full of contempt for anyone else that people do not dare to question him. Everyone should by now know that Alfred is always right and his opinions are of course absolute truths...or? [8|]

Strip away the superior attitude, fancy language and contempt for everyone else and all that is left is just an opinion. Just like everyone else has.