Perfection, of a kind, spence (A) vs fcharton (J), no spence, please

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
I make an effort to reduce my complaining all the time. I have to say when I'm able to just roll with the game and not put much thought into why something weird happened my mental health improves. [:D]

I have to say I like the complaining, even when some of the criticism of the game is obviously exagerated. I think it is a way to vent the frustration that goes with playing Japan, and it is reinforced by AAR writing anyway. Serious, scientific and toned down reports sound like work, who wants those here?

(as for my comment on the peanut gallery, nothing about you, Joseph, or other regulars in the AAR section, it is more about all those general forums threads)

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Once I hit end turn my control ends and I'm at the mercy of the virtual dice rolls that determine the fate of my units. Is that historical?

It is, somehow. You're supposed to be at the top, and on such a large theater, weird and unpredictable events should happen every day, and some of your orders will not be executed. This is what the virtual die rolls simulate. I still believe they go a bit overboard in the randomness they put in the game (ie that they tend to favour extreme outcomes over average ones), but that is another story.

Of course, one might object that in reality, the top commander does not need to check that every pilot affected to a new squadron has arrived, and set them to "active", or go through resource convoys and check that they have docked before they load, and that the local commander (simulated by those virtual die rolls) should make a better job at coordinating morning and afternoon naval raids, not sending the same unescorted bombers against the same fighters twice, for instance.

I think part of the frustration comes from the fact we have total control and responsibility on some details (where we are supposed to act as local commanders), but none at all on others, where we become far away staffs. I'm not sure how it could be improved, though.

Francois

[obvert]

One of the thing Jocke and I spoke of was that in the air war the training by both sides might be what is actually screwing up the results to make them so extreme. If you're flying pilots who are 40 exp and 60 skill you're going to have very different results than if the pilots are 60 exp and 70 skill. We've spoken a bit about trying something one day where the pilot training would be limited. I think that would go a long way to mitigating the extreme factor.

I find with naval results it's often not as extreme as I expect. When an engagement is lopsided it's still rare that all ships are sunk. I think the lack of ability to change crew exp and other ship factors keep this area of game intact.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: obvert
I find with naval results it's often not as extreme as I expect. When an engagement is lopsided it's still rare that all ships are sunk. I think the lack of ability to change crew exp and other ship factors keep this area of game intact.

Unless the large naval force sunk is attacked by air, in which case it becomes "sinkable".

I like your comment on experience, because it seems it might provide a common explanation to those extreme results. I have the impression air combat is more variable than land combat, which is more extreme than naval battles.

I believe variance depends upon two factors: the number of units involved, and the number, and nature, of combat phases.

My feeling is that air combat is most variable because it involves a lot of units (being resolved at the aircraft level) and consists of successive duels, where one unit can be eliminated. This means the same air skill gets reused many times, from a duel to the next, and that once one side begins to lose duels, it gets very bad very fast. I suspect the deep reason for this is that combat damage takes precedence over other reasons for aborting the fight (in other words, AE planes are too reliable).

Naval combat, on the other side, involves less units (rarely more than a dozen on each side), and the damage is cumulative and mostly defensive. Basically, when one side gets hit, it doesn't lose a ship, and hits do not reduce a lot one's offensive ability. THis means the combat keeps balanced for longer, and tends to end because ammunition gets low, or damage high for both sides.

Ground combat would stand in the middle. There are not many units, and you don't have those duels, but the sequence is split into many phases which reduce offensive firepower of the loser, which means something that goes wrong can get very wrong.

Francois

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

My feeling is that air combat is most variable because it involves a lot of unit (being resolved at the aircraft level) and consists of successive duels, where one unit can be eliminated. This means the same air skill gets reused many times, from a duel to the next, and that once one side begins to lose duels, it gets very bad very fast. I suspect the deep reason for this is that combat damage takes precedence over other reasons for aborting the fight (in other words, AE planes are too reliable).

I find the air model to be rock/paper/scissors. As you suggest, air combat tends to be more extreme in the results because unless damage results in an abort, one side stays until they are simply wiped out. I think it is rather simplistic to just have to set a low flying CAP protected by a high altitude CAP and watch the attacker follow the script of diving on the low fodder only in turn to be dove on by the high altitude CAP. Wouldn't some real pilots realize the situation and not play ball? Might they not ignore the low CAP which in this game usually represents crappier aircraft manned by inexperienced pilots and go after the higher aircraft instead? What if they could outclimb the opposition? Would they throw away their tactical advantage just to score some easy kills knowing full well they offer themselves up for the exact same treatment? Or in some case they might just abort all together if they didn't have the tactical advantage or maneuver and avoid combat until they did.

I think this game fails miserably to simulate anything close to some kind of tactical awareness of the situtation. Long lances being fired by every DD and CA in a Japanese SCTF at transports to then run up against an enemy surface force and get your ass handed to you because you expended 3/4 of your ammo on a few transports is one of my favourites. Even though you've had high DL's indicating the presence of enemy warships and the very real possiblity of running into them.

I'm just miffed, don't mind me. [8|]

[obvert]

Well, the fact that I'm in very late 44 and still have an IJN to fight with and even can hold my own in a surface conflict means that there is some moderation in the naval combat systems of the game. Sure it doesn't always go my way and there are things that seem counter to logical procedures and outcomes, but overall it's a fun part of the game that seems fairly well modeled.

And Joseph, in most cases I want to hit those transports! I'm usually upset because my combat ships duel it out with the SAGs and miss a chance to hit troops on ships. Again though that's a good intercept by the other side. Maybe if your commanders are using up all of the ammo too quickly your commanders are too aggressive? I've found even Tanaka is good at times but detrimental at others, especially if he chases the opponent out of air cover range.

Francois I think your analysis is spot on for air combat. It's a multiplier that goes one direction quickly based on results. The Allies should have an advantage, and they do as their pilots live longer and gain more experience. If all of those fighter pilots were more green though many of these same big extreme results would turn out more as they did in the war, with a slight advantage to one or another side. Experience would grow through combat but fewer pilots would gain the high skill levels to kill every time they got behind another plane.

We also have to realize though that it's also how we're using the air forces. Massive battles didn't occur as often in the Pacific or CBI. There were a lot of smaller engagements in the air. The Allies didn't send massive 200+ 4E strikes until near the end of the war. I saw them in 42 in both of my games. In 42 in reality the Allies were using 6-10 bombers for most strikes, with an occasional 30-40 plane raid. We want to do more, we want to get things done more quickly to prove we can, and then we get mad when there are problems.

The two places where I see a system problem are the strength of field/ground attacks by big bombing runs of 2E and 4E bombers and in the possible frequency of missions. yes, some fields were closed in WW2 in one day, but it's likely the bombers wouldn't return the next day or even the day after. If they did have this frequency they were much smaller and subject to attrition more quickly as reserves were not as readily available. Everyone knows how I feel about precision night bombing, which simply wasn't effective in this period and which should be severely limited in game.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: obvert
Experience would grow through combat but fewer pilots would gain the high skill levels to kill every time they got behind another plane.

I agree, but I suspect the problem with the duelling model runs deeper: the multiplier effect works for all other factors, turning a slight advantage into a decisive one. My impression is that the correct solution would be to allow for more mechanical damage, and planes aborting after a victory (misplaced, damage, whatever). This would also solve well known problems, such as the low level of operational losses, and the high rate of operation.

You might need to make the air to air combat less lethal, then, since ops would take a large part of the losses, but I think this might make the air model work much better.

ORIGINAL: obvert
The two places where I see a system problem are the strength of field/ground attacks by big bombing runs of 2E and 4E bombers and in the possible frequency of missions. yes, some fields were closed in WW2 in one day, but it's likely the bombers wouldn't return the next day or even the day after. If they did have this frequency they were much smaller and subject to attrition more quickly as reserves were not as readily available. Everyone knows how I feel about precision night bombing, which simply wasn't effective in this period and which should be severely limited in game.

I suspect increased aborts, and higher ops damage would solve both. One aspect of 4E bombing I find curious is that they don't seem much disturbed by enemy CAP. CAP shoot at them, kill a few, they shoot at CAP, kill a few, but once the A2A duels are over, the remaining guys are good to go.

My impression is that bomber runs were very fragile things (esp at night, or in closed terrain), and the role of the escort was to dsitract the CAP and let the bombers bomb inhindered, which means unescorted bombers might be able to shoot fighters down, but would not shoot AND bomb.

Francois

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: obvert
Experience would grow through combat but fewer pilots would gain the high skill levels to kill every time they got behind another plane.

I agree, but I suspect the problem with the duelling model runs deeper: the multiplier effect works for all other factors, turning a slight advantage into a decisive one. My impression is that the correct solution would be to allow for more mechanical damage, and planes aborting after a victory (misplaced, damage, whatever). This would also solve well known problems, such as the low level of operational losses, and the high rate of operation.

You might need to make the air to air combat less lethal, then, since ops would take a large part of the losses, but I think this might make the air model work much better.

ORIGINAL: obvert
The two places where I see a system problem are the strength of field/ground attacks by big bombing runs of 2E and 4E bombers and in the possible frequency of missions. yes, some fields were closed in WW2 in one day, but it's likely the bombers wouldn't return the next day or even the day after. If they did have this frequency they were much smaller and subject to attrition more quickly as reserves were not as readily available. Everyone knows how I feel about precision night bombing, which simply wasn't effective in this period and which should be severely limited in game.

I suspect increased aborts, and higher ops damage would solve both. One aspect of 4E bombing I find curious is that they don't seem much disturbed by enemy CAP. CAP shoot at them, kill a few, they shoot at CAP, kill a few, but once the A2A duels are over, the remaining guys are good to go.

My impression is that bomber runs were very fragile things (esp at night, or in closed terrain), and the role of the escort was to dsitract the CAP and let the bombers bomb inhindered, which means unescorted bombers might be able to shoot fighters down, but would not shoot AND bomb.

Francois

I think the lower experience would lead to more damaged airframes, planes dropping out of combat and being lost to ops. I've been watching quite a few replays right through various air combats recently and I notice that even in 44 there are a huge number of hits compared to kills, and if those hits are on Japanese airframes they drop out of combat more frequently. The Allies do not as quickly due to higher durability.

It would be interesting to try anyway.

For bombing advanced weather might also be a factor not used enough. it does limit air ops quite a lot from what I've heard.

I do see reduced effects when CAP intercepts bombers. This is in game already. This is the only reason I use NF and any night CAP. They aren't there to kill, simply distract bombers, and it works. Same for day. no CAP, no flak, and it's devastation. If both are present it's less effective, but still too strong. Any 4E strike on a port of over 100 planes will sink EVERY ship in port, virtually every time, except for BBs. Every strike of 100+ 4E in decent weather will close even a big field in a day. This is too strong, especially when these are abstracts of many fields separated by miles of territory. I think of London, look out my window, and I can't even spot from my 18th floor window the places where airfields exist that were used "within this hex" in WW2. A 100 plane strike would be aiming 15-20 bombers at 4-6 fields and trying to take damage them enough to close them. The Germans tried this early in WW2 and it was getting effective over many many days and missions but never really closed ALL of the fields. The US couldn't close all of the fields on and around Okinawa that the kamis were originating from and that was very late war with all of the tools and little opposing CAP.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: fcharton
One aspect of 4E bombing I find curious is that they don't seem much disturbed by enemy CAP. CAP shoot at them, kill a few, they shoot at CAP, kill a few, but once the A2A duels are over, the remaining guys are good to go.

I've brought this up many times and the AFB's nay-say it. This along with the night bombing accuracy of 4E's are very different than 2E's. But the AFB's don't see it ... [&:]

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: fcharton
One aspect of 4E bombing I find curious is that they don't seem much disturbed by enemy CAP. CAP shoot at them, kill a few, they shoot at CAP, kill a few, but once the A2A duels are over, the remaining guys are good to go.

I've brought this up many times and the AFB's nay-say it. This along with the night bombing accuracy of 4E's are very different than 2E's. But the AFB's don't see it ... [&:]

I tested it a bit (just a bit) in sandboxes scenarios some while ago and found that their accurancy, when CAP is present in decent numbers, drop in a sensible way. It's still very high but with some CAP in it the base won't get trashed so easily.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: fcharton
One aspect of 4E bombing I find curious is that they don't seem much disturbed by enemy CAP. CAP shoot at them, kill a few, they shoot at CAP, kill a few, but once the A2A duels are over, the remaining guys are good to go.

I've brought this up many times and the AFB's nay-say it. This along with the night bombing accuracy of 4E's are very different than 2E's. But the AFB's don't see it ... [&:]

I don't think the night bombing accuracy is different between the plane types, just that there are so many more bombs with the 4E that it gives a much higher chance for hits. I'd like to continue doing some tests on night bombing.

I ran a few turns the past few days and what I saw confirmed what I have seen in game even in the beta. Night bombing can still close airfields after a few days and takes out a bunch of NF CAP in the process along with a bunch of planes on the ground. Night bombing for two days lowers the morale of night and day CAP groups sufficiently enough that on day 3 it's sweep time and there is no ability to defend the base even with superior numbers and decent flak present, so it's closed up.

Two nights of bombing against a level 8 airfield with about 120 4E and another 100 2E (leaving it with ~ 40 damage) and then add 3 x 16 fighter spit groups sweeping in day, change the 4E to day bombing and escort with 50 P-40, and the 200+ fighters on CAP are decimated and ineffective, the field takes 99 damage and the Japanese lose about 60 planes on the ground as well.

If allowed with no HRs this system would be viable against any, and I mean any size of base with any number of fighters present, as the NF can't stop it at night, the morale of fighters will plummet and this in turn leads to crushing defeats by day.

[PaxMondo]

night CAP against 2E seems to have a reasonable effect. My testing showed almost no effect of night CAP against 4E. As for accuracy, 2E showed a distinct difference between night and day bombing. 4E showed only a slight difference. I used 3x and 4x the 2E number of planes and still could not match the 4E results. These were B25 2E and B24 4E, so I was dropping far more bombs with the 2E's but getting fewer hits.

This testing was all done on the last official patch ... have not redone it with the current beta.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

night CAP against 2E seems to have a reasonable effect. My testing showed almost no effect of night CAP against 4E. As for accuracy, 2E showed a distinct difference between night and day bombing. 4E showed only a slight difference. I used 3x and 4x the 2E number of planes and still could not match the 4E results. These were B25 2E and B24 4E, so I was dropping far more bombs with the 2E's but getting fewer hits.

This testing was all done on the last official patch ... have not redone it with the current beta.

They really tone down the 4E effect, even with B-29s. The first few rounds of combat are less devastating when the CAP is present, but after it's shot down and damaged sufficiently to not be a factor anymore, the B-29s wreck havoc. I've seen this in 42 using Oscars as night CAP as well. My opponent noticed it and commented to me that it was certainly expensive (double digit Oscars lost on some nights) but it really did reduce the bomber effectiveness.

Interesting on your tests. I'll try that since I have it all set up with both. It is the beta though which lessens the effects of all bombing due to fragmentation of groups and more packages arriving in smaller chunks.

[fcharton]

ORIGINAL: obvert
I don't think the night bombing accuracy is different between the plane types, just that there are so many more bombs with the 4E that it gives a much higher chance for hits. I'd like to continue doing some tests on night bombing.

I think it is the durability that matters. 4E have 60 durability, 2E have 40. Now, high durability make 4E much harder to damage and shoot, which is probably ok, but I suspect it also controls whether a bombing runs gets disorganised (planes abort once damage reaches a certain fraction of durability, something like that).

It is only a theory, but I think it would explain many things :

- why 4E seem to target better: high durability make them almost impervious to CAP
- why the effect seems stronger at night : fighters do less damage at night

ORIGINAL: obvert
Two nights of bombing against a level 8 airfield with about 120 4E and another 100 2E (leaving it with ~ 40 damage) and then add 3 x 16 fighter spit groups sweeping in day, change the 4E to day bombing and escort with 50 P-40, and the 200+ fighters on CAP are decimated and ineffective, the field takes 99 damage and the Japanese lose about 60 planes on the ground as well.

If allowed with no HRs this system would be viable against any, and I mean any size of base with any number of fighters present, as the NF can't stop it at night, the morale of fighters will plummet and this in turn leads to crushing defeats by day.

The only counter I see is to rotate away fighter squadrons as their morale drops (and disband the remaining fragments), and replace them with fresh ones. If your opponent is light on CAP on the last day, he is in for a bad surprise.

Francois

[PaxMondo]

Oh, and AA at night seems to do nothing ... tested and never saw a hit ... [:(]

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Oh, and AA at night seems to do nothing ... tested and never saw a hit ... [:(]

yes... at night AA is non-existent... [:(]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: obvert
I don't think the night bombing accuracy is different between the plane types, just that there are so many more bombs with the 4E that it gives a much higher chance for hits. I'd like to continue doing some tests on night bombing.

I think it is the durability that matters. 4E have 60 durability, 2E have 40. Now, high durability make 4E much harder to damage and shoot, which is probably ok, but I suspect it also controls whether a bombing runs gets disorganised (planes abort once damage reaches a certain fraction of durability, something like that).

It is only a theory, but I think it would explain many things :

- why 4E seem to target better: high durability make them almost impervious to CAP
- why the effect seems stronger at night : fighters do less damage at night

ORIGINAL: obvert
Two nights of bombing against a level 8 airfield with about 120 4E and another 100 2E (leaving it with ~ 40 damage) and then add 3 x 16 fighter spit groups sweeping in day, change the 4E to day bombing and escort with 50 P-40, and the 200+ fighters on CAP are decimated and ineffective, the field takes 99 damage and the Japanese lose about 60 planes on the ground as well.

If allowed with no HRs this system would be viable against any, and I mean any size of base with any number of fighters present, as the NF can't stop it at night, the morale of fighters will plummet and this in turn leads to crushing defeats by day.

The only counter I see is to rotate away fighter squadrons as their morale drops (and disband the remaining fragments), and replace them with fresh ones. If your opponent is light on CAP on the last day, he is in for a bad surprise.

Francois

That makes sense. I do see a higher promotion of 2E going down to flak as well, probably for this reason.

The rotation could work but once the Allies noticed they could simply change the pattern, go at night for 3-4 nights, then day bomb, or just throw in a sweep to test effectiveness periodically. Of course this all can work without the night bombing too, but the damage to the field, the increased ops losses and ground losses and the low morale just make it all quicker, easier and the Allies take many fewer losses in the process.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Oh, and AA at night seems to do nothing ... tested and never saw a hit ... [:(]

yes... at night AA is non-existent... [:(]

I get hits at Palembang with the 12cm guns late in war. i've noticed at other places with smaller guns it's very ineffective, but with a high concentration and the big guns, it does add in something.

Soon I'll be able to report on the Yokohama 100+ gun battery of naval DP guns including a whole bunch of 12.7cm DP guns and we'll see if that has some effect.

[GreyJoy]

Yes, maybe, but Japan gets so few 12cm AA guns that you can defend only one or maybe two bases on the whole map... pretty ineffective as a general defensive plan

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Yes, maybe, but Japan gets so few 12cm AA guns that you can defend only one or maybe two bases on the whole map... pretty ineffective as a general defensive plan

It's not a general plan, it's a point target plan. Palembang now. Also some protecting my army marching from Burma. Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Kobe later.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Yes, maybe, but Japan gets so few 12cm AA guns that you can defend only one or maybe two bases on the whole map... pretty ineffective as a general defensive plan

It's not a general plan, it's a point target plan. Palembang now. Also some protecting my army marching from Burma. Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Kobe later.

Don't know how's in stock, but in DBB you barely get 15 small AA battallions equipped with 4x 12 cm guns... once you place there in a couple of key bases, you won't have much else left for your LCUs or homeland cities...
I tend to have a balanced distribution (which hasn't worked out that well, mind you) at my main bases, with 1 12cm AA unit, 3 with 8cm and some 20mm to counter the DBs...plus some useless 25mm flak from naval base forces. Nothing more. Enough to take out a couple of bombers every once and then, but surely not enough to stop any serious bombing offensive.

Night bombing remains borked imho. In both games i'm playing (one as Japan and one as the Allies) we banned it and the game is much more interesting and balanced