Air_combat and co-ordination again (beta)

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Although Alfred has a unique communciation style there is always much to appricate in his content. I am not so sure Alfred has cornered the market on this I have been lamblasted by Damain and LoBaron for merely questioning the context for suggesting changes in the air modules, and questioning how it will affect the game. That sword goes both ways ... [;)]

The big thing I interpet from Alfred's musings is be very careful of what you ask for in a vain atempt to get the game to represent someones particular version of reality because you might get it ... .and the game might become quite unplayable .The laws of unintended consequences .. Alfred has been around since the WitP days and has that background of how the game has progressed and how these uninteded consequinces have caused great consternation .. so I beleive he is saying it might be better to adapt then make the situation worse .. at least that is what I perceive ..

I suspect Alfred is close to where Nemo was before he bugged out .. two very great minds for understanding this game but the forum is doing a good job of chasing them off ..

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: 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

I respect your knowledge and experience greatly, but I simply ask you to consider how newer players who don't have the experience that you do will react to things that have altered in betas that may one day become official patches. There is so much great stuff here, we all value incredibly what michaelm has been doing for so long. Many of us are still learning the basics of the game, and then must try as well to keep up with new additions and changes. My understanding of this tech forum is to give feedback and have discussion about any bugs and about the changes in betas and how they are working based on examples.

I haven't seen anyone 'demand' anything? To me this looks like a good discussion of different experiences based on a piece of evidence offered by a respected veteran player.

I love seeing you pop back in after an absence. Your willingness and ability to help players understand the intricacies of the game is phenomenal. I would hope you get a sense that this is appreciated, because it definitely has been for as long as I've been around. I wish we could see a a game of yours AARed and current to go over more of this stuff within the example of a strategic situation.

I personally think this bug removal and resulting lack of perfect coordination could be a good thing, especially in the endgame, but I'm not sure because I'm not playing a game using it, and I don't see the effects every day. However, advocating for less discussion about the subtleties of it and reducing the amount of players who are willing to put their opinions and examples forward can't possibly help michaelm see what is going on in their games and through their perception.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Although Alfred has a unique communciation style there is always much to appricate in his content. I am not so sure Alfred has cornered the market on this I have been lamblasted by Damain and LoBaron for merely questioning the context for suggesting changes in the air modules, and questioning how it will affect the game. That sword goes both ways ... [;)]

"Unique communication" is one way of putting it. I call it ill mannered and rude.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

... .and the game might become quite unplayable .The laws of unintended consequences .

That is exactly my point and have been from the first day the "air coordination bug" was found and removed. It was a major change implemented over night. I think the change will upset a lot of things in a game that has been tweaked and balanced over many years. But I was quickly declared the village idiot for raising doubt about the change. And now some more players are seeing things that might not be working very well in regards to the change we shouldn´t be able to discuss it? Because Alfred popped in and wrote some condescending nonsense?

If we are not allowed to discuss and give feedback on the changes implemented in the BETA then whats the point of them? Are we only allowed to discuss things that are working well? But ignore the things that are/might not be?

Or perhaps only a few select peoples opinions should matter? And we other shouldn´t be allowed to voice our concerns?

Sorry Crackaces if its sounds like I´m coming at you. Its not directed at you but more of a general frustration of how this forum works and the attitudes some display here.

[Lecivius]

Michael has the save. Why don't we all sit back, and await an opinion from the guy who we all respect once he has the time to look it over [8D]

[GreyJoy]

I've being playing with the modifications of the new patch since it came out and, for what it's worth my opinion, been very happy with it.
At the present state of things the air battles are much less predictable and so are the air to naval results.
Withthe older patch i probably would have sunk the whole Brad's CVs fleet during our CV clash and, recently, probably the whole lot of his invasion force at Saumlaki. That didn't happen because my air attacks weren't that coordinated as we used to be used to.
But is that a bad thing? Don't think so.
Wrh this new beta Rader would have never sunk 30 allied CVs in a single day.... [8|]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
Although Alfred has a unique communciation style there is always much to appricate in his content. I am not so sure Alfred has cornered the market on this I have been lamblasted by Damain and LoBaron for merely questioning the context for suggesting changes in the air modules, and questioning how it will affect the game. That sword goes both ways ... [;)]

The big thing I interpet from Alfred's musings is be very careful of what you ask for in a vain atempt to get the game to represent someones particular version of reality because you might get it ... .and the game might become quite unplayable .The laws of unintended consequences .. Alfred has been around since the WitP days and has that background of how the game has progressed and how these uninteded consequinces have caused great consternation .. so I beleive he is saying it might be better to adapt then make the situation worse .. at least that is what I perceive ..

I suspect Alfred is close to where Nemo was before he bugged out .. two very great minds for understanding this game but the forum is doing a good job of chasing them off ..

I fully aprechiate this post, and would go as far as to fully support it, even without knowing what the hell 'lamblasted' means. [:D]

Alfred has a quick mind and a huge accumulated knowledge of the game engine, and is very fast noticing complex connections between seemingly unrelated processes. His contempt in this regard is full justified.
Besides that, he is one of the few people here who are constantly aware that WitP AE requires a whole lot of abstraction.

People who comment on air coordination often do so without completely understanding what it means. The air war in WitP AE is technically point to point, but uses certain means to still display realistic air battles.

If anyone complains that a fully coordinated strike combat-resolves in packages, where a specific percentage of bombers gets completely mauled by CAP without a single escort fighter intercepting, he should think
about the following specific situation:

When a flight of 80 bombers - escorted by roughly 30 fighters - is intercepted by an equal or higher number of enemy fighters, does it seem reasonable that those 30 escort fighter are unable to cover the whole
bomber formation, and so are unable to prevent the interceptors from shooting down complete formations of the bombers without any opposition and then disappearing again?
If he answers with 'no', he has no understanding of the scale of WWII air combat and the complex situations presented to escorts in a fast moving 3D environment, and has never played a half decent
WWII flight simulation allowing such battles.

It is not only up to the escorts to provide complete protection against the bombers. If the CAP does not play their game it gets through, at least partly, without a fight.
The 8th did not fend off the majority of Luftwaffe intercepts in mid ´44 raids in most instances because they were great pilots (though many of em were). They fended off the interceptors
because they usually outnumbered the attackers 2:1-5:1 in fighters only, and because they mostly were protecting heavy bombers perfectly capable of protecting themselves alone with
some support. And even then some tactically well positioned German fighters were able to attack the bombers directly.

So if the situation is not mirroring the above strike superiority, theres no reason to expect that specific outcome.



Now, based on Damians post, the complete CAP over the transport TF was LRCAP. If this is true, the total number of fighter on CAP probably outnumbered the escorts by more than obvious
from the combat report, as LRCAP only displays the planes in the vincinity of the battle, not the total assigned to LRCAP (this contrasts with CAP, where it is exactly the other way around).
My additional assumption is that is that it engaged from a position of alt advantage (I always wondered why noone mentions on a regular basis, that carrier battle defeats are often simply
a result of the altitude chosen, but thats another story...).

Even so - Damians confirmation pending - it certainly looks like a certain percentage of DB/TBs got through and made their attack runs.

My conclusion would be, that considering the bad weather, and the fact that the CAP pilots were elite as well, that the initial setup was not exactly in favor of the strike (to use a bit of understantement).
That such a situation results in no hits is plausable even if hits would have been possible.


PS: I do think Bullwinkle hit the nail with his post as well, btw.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

PS: I do think Bullwinkle hit the nail with his post as well, btw.

Thanks. I'm wearing my Nice Guy Pants at the moment. [:)]

I'd ask everyone to step back from the line and think about things. When Michael is asked to "tweak" something, what is that? What's the baseline? When he began doing the betas the premise was he would fix bugs and add interface improvements. And he's done a boatload of both. Playing with the core air models is not fixing bugs, unless he found a bug that has been there ever since the dev team was on hand to backstop him. And if that's true then the air models are working closer to as intended NOW, and weren't before.

Coming up with a coordination model which works on land and at sea, which works from one base as well as several at once, which works at night and in the daytime, which works in good weather and bad, which works with aircraft with highly different specifications on speed and altitude capability is a monumental design and coding problem. And a model I suspect is very easy to break. And that's not including randoms, which I assume are deeply embedded.

If Michael wants to look at the save, great. That would be nice. But in April 2013 I think everyone should resist the siren song of "tweak." There's no end, but a very good chance of a crash.

[obvert]

His contempt in this regard is full justified.

A lot of good info here LoBaron, thanks. However, I can't imagine why contempt is justified in relation to players discussing this game openly in a forum designed for that purpose. Disagreement is fully justified if ideas differ, but that's why we talk things out. [;)] Contempt leads off the mark and away from the subject at hand.

When a flight of 80 bombers - escorted by roughly 30 fighters - is intercepted by an equal or higher number of enemy fighters, does it seem reasonable that those 30 escort fighter are unable to cover the whole
bomber formation, and so are unable to prevent the interceptors from shooting down complete formations of the bombers without any opposition and then disappearing again?
If he answers with 'no', he has no understanding of the scale of WWII air combat and the complex situations presented to escorts in a fast moving 3D environment, and has never played a half decent
WWII flight simulation allowing such battles.

It is not only up to the escorts to provide complete protection against the bombers. If the CAP does not play their game it gets through, at least partly, without a fight.
The 8th did not fend off the majority of Luftwaffe intercepts in mid ´44 raids in most instances because they were great pilots (though many of em were). They fended off the interceptors
because they usually outnumbered the attackers 2:1-5:1 in fighters only, and because they mostly were protecting heavy bombers perfectly capable of protecting themselves alone with
some support. And even then some tactically well positioned German fighters were able to attack the bombers directly.

So if the situation is not mirroring the above strike superiority, theres no reason to expect that specific outcome.

This is exactly it. How many of us have read of the chaos of air battles and how little each side knew of the whole even after coming together to go over the details? (Or played those things out in a simulator?)

It's just a big change, and I think people need more info, but want to use the stuff michaelm has worked so hard on even if they're not so sure if they can add this particular change in an ongoing game. I get that.

[JocMeister]

Discussion!

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I'd ask everyone to step back from the line and think about things. When Michael is asked to "tweak" something, what is that? What's the baseline? When he began doing the betas the premise was he would fix bugs and add interface improvements. And he's done a boatload of both. Playing with the core air models is not fixing bugs, unless he found a bug that has been there ever since the dev team was on hand to backstop him. And if that's true then the air models are working closer to as intended NOW, and weren't before.

But some big fixes inadvertently leads to game play change doesn´t it? I think all can agree on that this coordination fix has led to a very different air war? Some people love it and some people don´t. Leaving that out of it there are some big things to consider with this.

- How long has this bug been present is a very important one. I don´t think you can draw the conclusion that removing this bug have led to the air war becoming more in line with what the developers intended. Because they might have applied other tweaks and balances to the air war after the bug were introduced. So removing the bug might actually make it more removed from their intentions.

- What does this change lead to in the game? I´m not so sure having a discussion about how air war was in the real war is important. I want a game that works. No major game play changes has been implemented in a long time. Now this bug fix has led to a major change. Why are some people automatically assuming this is a good thing?

Almost everyone seems to agree this game is extremely complex and ALL changes should be applied very carefully as the consequences are very hard to predict. But when I voice concern that a major game play change has been implemented over night I´m an idiot? What? [X(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Discussion!

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I'd ask everyone to step back from the line and think about things. When Michael is asked to "tweak" something, what is that? What's the baseline? When he began doing the betas the premise was he would fix bugs and add interface improvements. And he's done a boatload of both. Playing with the core air models is not fixing bugs, unless he found a bug that has been there ever since the dev team was on hand to backstop him. And if that's true then the air models are working closer to as intended NOW, and weren't before.

But some big fixes inadvertently leads to game play change doesn´t it? I think all can agree on that this coordination fix has led to a very different air war? Some people love it and some people don´t. Leaving that out of it there are some big things to consider with this.

- How long has this bug been present is a very important one. I don´t think you can draw the conclusion that removing this bug have led to the air war becoming more in line with what the developers intended. Because they might have applied other tweaks and balances to the air war after the bug were introduced. So removing the bug might actually make it more removed from their intentions.

- What does this change lead to in the game? I´m not so sure having a discussion about how air war was in the real war is important. I want a game that works. No major game play changes has been implemented in a long time. Now this bug fix has led to a major change. Why are some people automatically assuming this is a good thing?

Almost everyone seems to agree this game is extremely complex and ALL changes should be applied very carefully as the consequences are very hard to predict. But when I voice concern that a major game play change has been implemented over night I´m an idiot? What? [X(]

In this context "might have" doesn't really matter to me. They can speak up and say if it does or doesn't. As far as what it has done, I am OK with what I have seen so far. Some things have been brought up which can be looked at in more detail to see if they are actual problem issues or not. That's where good, focused discussion with good data to back it up comes into play. And, certainly not least, is Michael's willingness to look at things that have a reasonable chance of being actual errors. We have all seen many examples of things that look one way in play results because of the circumstances, but were actually working correctly.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In this context "might have" doesn't really matter to me. They can speak up and say if it does or doesn't. As far as what it has done, I am OK with what I have seen so far. Some things have been brought up which can be looked at in more detail to see if they are actual problem issues or not. That's where good, focused discussion with good data to back it up comes into play. And, certainly not least, is Michael's willingness to look at things that have a reasonable chance of being actual errors. We have all seen many examples of things that look one way in play results because of the circumstances, but were actually working correctly.

+1

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: obvert
However, I can't imagine why contempt is justified in relation to players discussing this game openly in a forum designed for that purpose. Disagreement is fully justified if ideas differ, but that's why we talk things out. [;)] Contempt leads off the mark and away from the subject at hand.

obvert, sorry, maybe that is a language barrier issue. Of some words I assume to know the meaning, but it seems I don´t.
I thought 'contempt' was another word for 'very sure of oneself', or 'big self-confidence'.

The actual meaning of the word 'contempt' does not apply to Alfred IMHO. His tone might sometimes be influenced by frustration over having to point out the same misconceptions
over and over again, or by the readiness of peple to jump conclusions, which happens to me as well. This game is very complex, sometimes a percieved rootcause is crucified and burned
by the masses extensively, providing a very distorted picture of the truth, while the true rootcausefor an occurance is simple gameplay habits and overoptimistic expectations.


I am not pointing fingers here, and I am certainly not accusing Damian of this. He simply provided a result for analysis, mentioned the circumstances, began answering questions
that came up as a result of his post, and stated his personal opinion.

A discussion on that is valid, shouting 'needs to be fixed' without considering loads of context (and I mean much more than is done here on average), in my opinion, is not. Alfreds reactions might influenced by that
he accepted this as self evident years ago.


A generic PS: I am playing without beta, and my Allied carriers won CV vs. CV battles and came out on the winning end of several large strikes performed against them by LBA without catching a fish.
This is the same version that people used to 'demonstrate' that CAP is too leaky to show any realistic results. Maybe the carriers of those where in unrealistic situations? Maybe I simply know my
limitations better and risks I am to take? Maybe I know more about the individual factors that lead to specific OP results and avoid them? Or maybe I am simply lucky?
Anyways, I try for very long to adapt to a situation before I critizise external factors for the results I get.

And this is what Alfred means by suggesting to adapt and not to demand that something should changed to my perceived view of what is correct. Views are different. As it is very evident in this thread.

[Alfred]

obvert,

This is a very old topic. It resurfaces in various guises quite regularly, as the many threads attest. In my view, by far the best single thread which deals with this subject is the following thread from last March.

tm.asp?m=3056374&mpage=1&key=air%2Ccoordination

Reading that thread and fully comprehending it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to wade into these waters again. Otherwise they are prone to coming across as ill informed and unable to offer any constructive criticsm.

My post #17 (which immediately followed the Moose's post which itself provided context to my own post) did not say discussion was verboten but it did indicate perspective was needed. I do find perspective often lacking in those clamouring for changes. Too often the vociferous critics have no, I emphasise, no practical solution to the problem; which problem is more often than not one entirely of their own making being based on unwarranted false self perceptions as to what constitutes reality. Or in some cases it arises simply from just being a very poor player who, for whatever reason, does not understand the rules or how to implement them.

I do become exasperated when half baked ideas are put forward. Only a few people regularly post on the forum and by and large they have a substantial amount of game time. Posters who do their research and put forward a properly thought through proposal do get a good hearing from the devs. Unfortunately there are several people who when they experience an unsatisfactory outcome, which almost always is due to their own play decisions and not code problems, essentially rant and rave. I know that there are many people on this forum who believe that a public rant and rave is acceptable behaviour but I was brought up that only ill mannered people did so. There are polite ways to express disagreement. Your own post #22 is such an example. Instead what I see far too often are people who, incapable of themselves producing an AE, rant and rave and in the process denigrate the efforts and knowledge of the devs. I have enormous respect for the devs, not so for boorish behaviour.

Let me give you an example of a very recent, in the last 24 hours in fact, half baked idea in this general area from a very well known and experienced forum member. One of the significant factors which impacts upon the practical outcome of co-ordination is the size of the air group. Almost from the beginning Allied players have bemoaned the fact that Japanese airgroups often are larger than Allied airgroups and this provides them with a practical advantage. The recent half baked idea, raised in a post which was supportive of this current thread addressing the problem, is that post 1943 Allied fighter groups should be allowed to increase in size to 75 planes. No doubt that would make playing the Allied side so much easier; so much easier to meet 42 plane sweeps from Mr Tojo, so much easier to have a decent sized CAP and a decent sized escort from the same unit. But it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that then JFB players would complain about the advantage given to the Allied player. In the noise created, the subtle ramifications, such as less flexibility or overtaxing small (think particularly of level 1) airfields, or more quickly running up against the 200 pass limit, would be lost. And still the fundamental issues which arise from the necessity to abstract the entire air co-ordination issue would still not be addressed by this code change.

Sometime ago, Bullwinkle pointed out that AE is a Chevrolet but people demand a Cadillac. These same people are not prepared to pay the price of a Cadillac, which price is measured not just in dollar terms but also in game complexity. The people who complain the loudest do not represent the commercial marketplace of this product. In responding to the incessant demands to fix things, and yes post #6 is a clear cut demand for remedial action to make the beta playable, michaelm has made several code changes. Quite a few of those are changes I do not agree with but it is not my call to make and so I don't voice a criticsm. As I said in my previous email, I adapt to whatever is before me. If something is not accomplishing its design purpose, that is something which properly can be brought to michaelm's attention. That is how I read Damian's presentation of this anecdotal incident. It is the behaviour I see from the experienced military members of the forum. What I don't see from those who actually know what they say when it comes to military praxis, is a running battle disputing the validity of the choices made by the devs. A similar state of affairs also exists with those who actually do write computer programs.

As to those who tar me with having an opinion. I am constantly reminded of the great line from a former New York Senator (Daniel Moniham [sp]) that people are entitled to hold their own opinions but not their own facts. Too many around the forum incorporate their own "facts" into their opinions. I tend to document the "facts" I present and actually try to avoid presenting my own opinions. The forum provides a marketplace for the articulation of ideas which are supported by "facts". In such a marketplace, ideas which rest on non facts do not deserve much attention and will fail to find favour with the devs. Taking into account the complexity of this game and the learning cliff faced by newbies, it beholds all who post to be accurate and not create their own "facts" which can potentially adversely affect newbies.

Alfred

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

But some big fixes inadvertently leads to game play change doesn´t it? I think all can agree on that this coordination fix has led to a very different air war? Some people love it and some people don´t. Leaving that out of it there are some big things to consider with this.

A big part of my problem is I don't know WHAT was changed. Michael is pretty tight-lipped. The change notes are terse at best. You are in the later war era with huge strikes and think there's a big difference. In our game Mike has said he sees some change, but so far I don't think it's changed the game itself to any great degree, although this or that mission might have more or less coordination than before. Might. Which is sort of my point, and somewhat Alfred's. A lot of the discusison of these things is subjective and game-specific. Michael can't code to that.

- How long has this bug been present is a very important one. I don´t think you can draw the conclusion that removing this bug have led to the air war becoming more in line with what the developers intended. Because they might have applied other tweaks and balances to the air war after the bug were introduced. So removing the bug might actually make it more removed from their intentions.

Was it a bug fix? I can't tell. A bug that was a syntax error is easy to see and fix. A bug which means execution is different than design is much harder to weigh.

- What does this change lead to in the game? I´m not so sure having a discussion about how air war was in the real war is important. I want a game that works.

And I don't know what that means, objectively. Unless it means "does not crash." The game meets that test.

No major game play changes has been implemented in a long time. Now this bug fix has led to a major change. Why are some people automatically assuming this is a good thing?

Unless I have information that Michael executed a change to the models I have to asume he fixed a true bug which was deforming execution against the design models. To my knowledge he has not said exactly what he did. I don't really expect him to.

Almost everyone seems to agree this game is extremely complex and ALL changes should be applied very carefully as the consequences are very hard to predict. But when I voice concern that a major game play change has been implemented over night I´m an idiot? What? [X(]

You're not an idiot. But it has been said before and bears repeating every so often: the design team is gone. Poof. Away with the wind. Some working on Da Babes, some gone on to other things in life. Michael is working mostly alone, with some back-channel discussion with the remaining team out of sight. But there's no Matrix QA department in this, and for the most part Michael is making the beta changes on his own accord, and we can use them or not. To my knowledge there's been no announcement that Matrix/Slitherine will ever make the beta an official patch. That takes them spending on QA and in-house distribution implementation and AE is a mature title now.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

obvert,

This is a very old topic. It resurfaces in various guises quite regularly, as the many threads attest. In my view, by far the best single thread which deals with this subject is the following thread from last March.

tm.asp?m=3056374&mpage=1&key=air%2Ccoordination

Reading that thread and fully comprehending it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to wade into these waters again. Otherwise they are prone to coming across as ill informed and unable to offer any constructive criticsm.

Wow! After re-reading that thread I can feel hair springing forth all over my manly body!

We were giants in those days . . . [:'(]

[obvert]

Thanks for the long response Alfred.

Some of us newer players think we're beginning to understand things, and then are surprised when a long-time veteran player takes issue with what we've said simply because they've ...

A. Seen it before and know where that topic leads or
B. Just have a deeper understanding of the topic or
C. Didn't get their coffee that morning

It's often difficult to tell the difference unless the point is explained.

I do remember the thread you linked and I think there is some great stuff in there. I guess it's tough now talking about this idea because when change happens humans generally want evidence that the change is not detrimental to their interests. It's hard to say it won't alter their experience for the worse, reassure them it's all going to be fine, and not give them particulars of why that is the case and the evidence supporting it. I see this in many fields, especially politics!

I happen to come from a family of Chevy drivers. No really! [:)] My father owned in succession a 1957, a 1962, a 1967, and a 1969 corvette! Of course that was all before my time, which I still rib him about. You had all of those corvettes and I grew up driving around in a Nova? WTF?! [:(]

I'm happy with the family car when it comes to this game. I think if it were any better I might need a twelve step program, for real. I do like to talk about the particulars though, because that's how I best learn. If I can't debate something my ideas are never questioned and I can go on with completely erroneous ideas of how things are put together and work. I invite differing opinions, criticism and even respectful argument. My goals are to learn and to meet in the middle somewhere.

This issue is really interesting, and I hope everyone continues to voice their experience, tests, game results and ideas. Not with the sole purpose to have the game altered in beta but to at least figure out how things are different and what to do to make up for that. Sure, we each have to learn a bit ourselves, but this has always been a forum that helped teach people and learn new methods to deal with problems.

In the meantime I've got a turn in the box and I'm going to go drive my Chevy. [8D]

[n01487477]

Sorry guys to fray tempers again on this overdone topic. I took the results on the chin. In hindsight, I looked at a number of factors and realize that Floyd (my PBEM partner) had a large, large percent of his 9 fighter airgroups from 6 CV's LRCAP-ing the amphib fleet. I should have looked more than just posted, but wanted MichaelM to have a look-see anyway. Calling on the referee all the time is not a good idea... I called on him before I had processed everything that had really happened.

My attack was under bad conditions(weather, some fatigue, higher Allied fighter numbers at higher alt) and I didn't do some things to nullify the losses I took (sweeps, LRCap, escort fighters)etc.

Oh, and yes my planes did get through and took down a few AP's.

I rarely advocate for change except where it doesn't make sense (like the ship repair anomaly in Alfred's 101 thread).

I was not posting to advocate change here. I was posting to give the dev's a chance to see different dynamics within the air model. I don't know if Michael has looked at this, nor whether he will be bothered, but I'll be staying very quiet in this thread now

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Sorry guys to fray tempers again on this overdone topic. I took the results on the chin. In hindsight, I looked at a number of factors and realize that Floyd (my PBEM partner) had a large, large percent of his 9 fighter airgroups from 6 CV's LRCAP-ing the amphib fleet. I should have looked more than just posted, but wanted MichaelM to have a look-see anyway. Calling on the referee all the time is not a good idea... I called on him before I had processed everything that had really happened.

My attack was under bad conditions(weather, some fatigue, higher Allied fighter numbers at higher alt) and I didn't do some things to nullify the losses I took (sweeps, LRCap, escort fighters)etc.

Oh, and yes my planes did get through and took down a few AP's.

I rarely advocate for change except where it doesn't make sense (like the ship repair anomaly in Alfred's 101 thread).

I was not posting to advocate change here. I was posting to give the dev's a chance to see different dynamics within the air model. I don't know if Michael has looked at this, nor whether he will be bothered, but I'll be staying very quiet in this thread now

Damian, no need to apologize. You are a well known and very appreciated forum member and are spot on with your comments 99.9% of the time. Pity I couldn't really comment in this thread as I haven't a game going using the latest betas. [:D]

If there wouldn't be players commenting and posting their results this great game would be still in v1.0 and everyone should by now realize that not only the great support of michaelm or the devs but also by long term players and forum members has brought this game to where it is now, a pure and simple better product than it was after release (and that does not mean me saying it was crap after release!).

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

obvert,

This is a very old topic. It resurfaces in various guises quite regularly, as the many threads attest. In my view, by far the best single thread which deals with this subject is the following thread from last March.

tm.asp?m=3056374&mpage=1&key=air%2Ccoordination

Reading that thread and fully comprehending it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to wade into these waters again. Otherwise they are prone to coming across as ill informed and unable to offer any constructive criticsm.

My post #17 (which immediately followed the Moose's post which itself provided context to my own post) did not say discussion was verboten but it did indicate perspective was needed. I do find perspective often lacking in those clamouring for changes. Too often the vociferous critics have no, I emphasise, no practical solution to the problem; which problem is more often than not one entirely of their own making being based on unwarranted false self perceptions as to what constitutes reality. Or in some cases it arises simply from just being a very poor player who, for whatever reason, does not understand the rules or how to implement them.

I do become exasperated when half baked ideas are put forward. Only a few people regularly post on the forum and by and large they have a substantial amount of game time. Posters who do their research and put forward a properly thought through proposal do get a good hearing from the devs. Unfortunately there are several people who when they experience an unsatisfactory outcome, which almost always is due to their own play decisions and not code problems, essentially rant and rave. I know that there are many people on this forum who believe that a public rant and rave is acceptable behaviour but I was brought up that only ill mannered people did so. There are polite ways to express disagreement. Your own post #22 is such an example. Instead what I see far too often are people who, incapable of themselves producing an AE, rant and rave and in the process denigrate the efforts and knowledge of the devs. I have enormous respect for the devs, not so for boorish behaviour.

Let me give you an example of a very recent, in the last 24 hours in fact, half baked idea in this general area from a very well known and experienced forum member. One of the significant factors which impacts upon the practical outcome of co-ordination is the size of the air group. Almost from the beginning Allied players have bemoaned the fact that Japanese airgroups often are larger than Allied airgroups and this provides them with a practical advantage. The recent half baked idea, raised in a post which was supportive of this current thread addressing the problem, is that post 1943 Allied fighter groups should be allowed to increase in size to 75 planes. No doubt that would make playing the Allied side so much easier; so much easier to meet 42 plane sweeps from Mr Tojo, so much easier to have a decent sized CAP and a decent sized escort from the same unit. But it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that then JFB players would complain about the advantage given to the Allied player. In the noise created, the subtle ramifications, such as less flexibility or overtaxing small (think particularly of level 1) airfields, or more quickly running up against the 200 pass limit, would be lost. And still the fundamental issues which arise from the necessity to abstract the entire air co-ordination issue would still not be addressed by this code change.

Sometime ago, Bullwinkle pointed out that AE is a Chevrolet but people demand a Cadillac. These same people are not prepared to pay the price of a Cadillac, which price is measured not just in dollar terms but also in game complexity. The people who complain the loudest do not represent the commercial marketplace of this product. In responding to the incessant demands to fix things, and yes post #6 is a clear cut demand for remedial action to make the beta playable, michaelm has made several code changes. Quite a few of those are changes I do not agree with but it is not my call to make and so I don't voice a criticsm. As I said in my previous email, I adapt to whatever is before me. If something is not accomplishing its design purpose, that is something which properly can be brought to michaelm's attention. That is how I read Damian's presentation of this anecdotal incident. It is the behaviour I see from the experienced military members of the forum. What I don't see from those who actually know what they say when it comes to military praxis, is a running battle disputing the validity of the choices made by the devs. A similar state of affairs also exists with those who actually do write computer programs.

As to those who tar me with having an opinion. I am constantly reminded of the great line from a former New York Senator (Daniel Moniham [sp]) that people are entitled to hold their own opinions but not their own facts. Too many around the forum incorporate their own "facts" into their opinions. I tend to document the "facts" I present and actually try to avoid presenting my own opinions. The forum provides a marketplace for the articulation of ideas which are supported by "facts". In such a marketplace, ideas which rest on non facts do not deserve much attention and will fail to find favour with the devs. Taking into account the complexity of this game and the learning cliff faced by newbies, it beholds all who post to be accurate and not create their own "facts" which can potentially adversely affect newbies.

Alfred

Alfred,

As always a pleasure to read. Largely agree with you. Thanks for taking time to put this down.

Regards,

[JocMeister]

Nm...