Why strafing is so useless ?

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't want to be ignorant, but as a gorn I just can't help it. Strafe has one f, and one f only. Strafing also has one f and one f only.

I thought so.

All the girls say a gorn just can't handle two f's.

Regards,
Feltan

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Strafing with armor=0 planes is a costly mistake

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: mind_messing





Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

No, not flak.

There is really no reason to strafe or to train in it. I tested it a bit some years back and found that it was the bomb that matters.

Well, training strafing itself for strafing might not be so useful, but training sweep at 100ft is the quickest method to improve defensive skill in fighter pilots.

Yes, I sometimes do this if I have the luxury.

[Gaspote]

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ? [&:]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  There is no correlation between radar presence and flak effectiveness.

Alfred 

Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

Only commenting on game treatment as OP wanted to know why game results are as they are.[:)]

Alfred

Hmm, upon rereading, I may have misunderstood the question and what was meant was did I have a source for how AE treats it.

That being so, I am somewhat surprised at the inference that I made up the statement out of thin air. I would have thought that forumites could rely upon my accuracy. It is always preferable to have a relevant dev posting answers but in their absence, there are a few regulars who, whilst not devs themselves, can usually be relied upon to be accurate.

1. There is no mention in the manual of radar influencing ground AA fire against aircraft.

2. The manual makes two references of where radar can influence combat operations:

(a) s.7.4.1.1 which deals exclusively with CAP, and
(b) s.10.3 which deals exclusively with naval surface combat and the attempt to increase individual ship detection levels

3. I have never found any dev stating that radar influences ground AA fire against aircraft.

4. Of the threads where devs do talk about radar, this one is the most relevant.

tm.asp?m=2664947&mpage=1&key=radar&#2667506

Look for JWE's post. Pretty clear from his post that radar can impact on CAP and naval combat. Nothing else is covered. This is quite consistent with the manual.

5. On 28 September 2009, another key dev, TheElf stated the following:

"Radar detects Airplanes. The longer the range the sooner it does so. The higher the effect the more accurate the data and the better your CAP will perform. There really isn't much more to it."

Again quite consistent with the manual.

6. Hexes containing ground units with no radar but equipped with the Mark I eyeball and some AA devices do fire at incoming enemy bombers.

7. Hexes containing ground units with radar and equipped with some AA devices do not fire at enemy fighters sweeping.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ? [&:]

Did you read my post #6.

If so, please explain how, under those circumstances, what you want could be achieved. The conditions just do not exist. There are many things in the game which are, by necessity abstracted/simplified, in order to produce a commercial product which would be playable to more than 17 people on the planet.

Alfred

[Gaspote]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ? [&:]

Did you read my post #6.

If so, please explain how, under those circumstances, what you want could be achieved. The conditions just do not exist. There are many things in the game which are, by necessity abstracted/simplified, in order to produce a commercial product which would be playable to more than 17 people on the planet.

Alfred

I understand that reason is game balance.

But I don't think improving strafing should ruin game balance.

I just think strafing could be improve in order to change a bit gameplay, even without increasing the result, just reducing the effect of flak on strafing airplanes could be great. In order to give a role to fighter in case of air superiority and for suppressing flak during bombing (it already the case but you just avoid the lose of 4 bombers for the price of 15 fighters [:(]).

IMO not having strafing attack is like not having sweep. It's deleting one of the three main missions of fighters. I really understand that in real life it's tricky but in game,it's not tricky, it's useless.

[pontiouspilot]

Geoff....did you mean OCD in the 2nd line of your above note??!!

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred



Hmm, upon rereading, I may have misunderstood the question and what was meant was did I have a source for how AE treats it.

That being so, I am somewhat surprised at the inference that I made up the statement out of thin air. I would have thought that forumites could rely upon my accuracy. It is always preferable to have a relevant dev posting answers but in their absence, there are a few regulars who, whilst not devs themselves, can usually be relied upon to be accurate.

Alfred

Hey I make stuff up all the time, whether it's out of thin air or thick. I can even do it in a complete vacuum. No snide remarks about what's betwixt my ears.[:-]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Geoff....did you mean OCD in the 2nd line of your above note??!!

the Oxford English Dictionary.


Do you mean Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? You need to use a smiley when you go over my head like that.[8|]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Nobody know the reason ? Dev never explain why they chose to model strafing like this ? [&:]

Did you read my post #6.

If so, please explain how, under those circumstances, what you want could be achieved. The conditions just do not exist. There are many things in the game which are, by necessity abstracted/simplified, in order to produce a commercial product which would be playable to more than 17 people on the planet.

Alfred

I understand that reason is game balance.

But I don't think improving strafing should ruin game balance.

I just think strafing could be improve in order to change a bit gameplay, even without increasing the result, just reducing the effect of flak on strafing airplanes could be great. In order to give a role to fighter in case of air superiority and for suppressing flak during bombing (it already the case but you just avoid the lose of 4 bombers for the price of 15 fighters [:(]).

IMO not having strafing attack is like not having sweep. It's deleting one of the three main missions of fighters. I really understand that in real life it's tricky but in game,it's not tricky, it's useless.

You need to understand that the game is no longer in any kind of development that will allow this to get fixed to your satisfaction (or anyone elses). The betas are being done to fix issues and to make minor enhancements to the game. By one person who is very restricted to what he is alowed to do. Air combat adjustments of any kind are definately out of scope.

There are many factors in using planes in the game that could/should have been addressed. However, they were not. So if this one aspect bothers you to this extent then you need to play a differnt game. Otherwise you just need to accept this as the way it is and it is not going to change, ever.

[rustysi]

There are many things in the game which are, by necessity abstracted/simplified, in order to produce a commercial product which would be playable to more than 17 people on the planet.

Alfred

Not to mention affordable. Let's keep in mind it is a game, and not every aspect will match up with RL. It does the best it can, and IMHO that's pretty darn good.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

... Would strafing still have an effect on the supply of the unit being strafed?

Yes.

Any attack on a LCU, irrespective of the mode employed and how delivered will raise the subsequent supply consumption. How much depends on die rolls and whether the attacked LCU returns fire.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Strafing with armor=0 planes is a costly mistake

And

Strafing with DUR<30 planes is a costly mistake

Which ties to someone else's statement that the IJ really just can't do this. The allies have some VERY effective planes though ...

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: mind_messing





Got a source for that? My understanding was that radar presence (under the banner of "time until target X minuites" had an impact on all aspects of air combat.

Only commenting on game treatment as OP wanted to know why game results are as they are.[:)]

Alfred

Hmm, upon rereading, I may have misunderstood the question and what was meant was did I have a source for how AE treats it.

That being so, I am somewhat surprised at the inference that I made up the statement out of thin air. I would have thought that forumites could rely upon my accuracy. It is always preferable to have a relevant dev posting answers but in their absence, there are a few regulars who, whilst not devs themselves, can usually be relied upon to be accurate.

Alfred

Don't take it personally, it seems to be a trend on this forum that incorrect information regarding the code of the game is passed around, and much of the "knowledge" of the game is based on heresay. It's the old adage that "confidence is an excellent stand-in for competence."

I, for one, was under the assumption that radar improved flak effectiveness along with all the other aspects involved.

A direct reference to the source material stops this.

[Czert]

so as jf player - which planes to use for stafing ? none ? and as allied ? and whih is more efficient stafing or normal level bombing (by fighters if tehy have bombs).

[crsutton]

Except for low naval attack vs lightly armed ships I am saying that strafing is not a good idea to use at any time. You should do just as well bombing from low altitudes. The Allied mediums are good at it and many are designed for it but the problem is two fold. The first is you are going to lose too many to AA fire and the replacement rate for Allied medium bombers remains pitiful up to the beginning of 1945. And the second is that any bomber or fighter (no matter how good that gets caught) on the deck by a CAP trap is going to get beat to hell. Once again, you could lose a months production of mediums in one attack. Don't do it. It does not work very well anyways. Use your mediums at 6-8000 feet and use your fighters to shoot down Japanese fighters. I only use low level bombing attacks to hit shipping or undefended targets.

[Gaspote]

I found out that it's due to beta patch[:(]

Comparing beta and stock game result, flak is far more effective in beta than stock.

Using 36 Ki45a and 36 ki45b, with mixed pilots (80 to 45) in 1942.

In beta patch, I lost 50 from flak and 20 from ops loss in 2 week, destroying 13 planes on the ground on about 58(8 catalina, 28 P39, 16P40E, 6 beaufort).

In stock, I lost 28 from flak and 14 from ops loss in 2 week, destroying 29 planes on the ground.

I didn't try to get the best result, I just leave them in airfield attack(100ft) and spam next turn but I show what I wanted to see.
In stock, these result are balanced and seems good but in beta, it's really disappointing.

From the beta notes :
26/04/2013: 1123j - Flak calculation incorrect for land units

I think I should ask michaelm about this perhaps he change it for a good reason [&:]

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: czert2

so as jf player - which planes to use for stafing ? none ? and as allied ? and whih is more efficient stafing or normal level bombing (by fighters if tehy have bombs).

Ki-45 Nick has armor=1 DUR=36
Also, Chinese infantry's AA is really weak, so China is a theater where strafing is relatively "safe"
that said, since I only have Nates/ Oscars there, my strafing results had been very poor as to not bother

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I found out that it's due to beta patch[:(]

Comparing beta and stock game result, flak is far more effective in beta than stock.

Using 36 Ki45a and 36 ki45b, with mixed pilots (80 to 45) in 1942.

In beta patch, I lost 50 from flak and 20 from ops loss in 2 week, destroying 13 planes on the ground on about 58(8 catalina, 28 P39, 16P40E, 6 beaufort).

In stock, I lost 28 from flak and 14 from ops loss in 2 week, destroying 29 planes on the ground.

I didn't try to get the best result, I just leave them in airfield attack(100ft) and spam next turn but I show what I wanted to see.
In stock, these result are balanced and seems good but in beta, it's really disappointing.

From the beta notes :
26/04/2013: 1123j - Flak calculation incorrect for land units

I think I should ask michaelm about this perhaps he change it for a good reason [&:]

No, you are wrong. That build change did not alter how flak operates.

Alfred