Altitude House Rules

[Dili]

What is the least Mvr value that people use to cutoff fighter altitude advantage. I am thinking a value of 14. But maybe it will have to be 12. 15 can't be since then Thunderbolt couldn't "fly" but then there are still Lightning versions with 13.

[witpqs]

I use "no altitude restrictions", period (for all plane types and missions).

But AFAIK the rule that you are referring to, is that people use the 'second best maneuver band' of fighters, so it depends upon the stats of each plane.

[Dili]

I don't think that makes sense, so a fighter that is mediocre at altitude can be employed if there is no other 2 values in its mvr band? Fighter X can not be employed at 30000ft because its 20 mvr is the third step after 29 mvr and 27 mvr at lesser altitudes but Fighter Y that only has 15 and 10 as the Mvr values can be employed at 30000ft? So fighter X with double Mvr value of Fighter Y at 30000ft cannot be employed at 30000ft...

I think the exploitation of altitude advantage should stop when a fighter have such a low value that makes it difficult to gain advantage from altitude, for example when pilot control is approaching to be borderline not by a value difference that has no real life meaning for maneuverability like "second best band".

[Gaspote]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't think that makes sense, so a fighter that is mediocre at altitude can be employed if there is no other 2 values in its mvr band? Fighter X can not be employed at 30000ft because its 20 mvr is the third step after 29 mvr and 27 mvr at lesser altitudes but Fighter Y that only has 15 and 10 as the Mvr values can be employed at 30000ft? So fighter X with double Mvr value of Fighter Y at 30000ft cannot be employed at 30000ft...

This rules would totally disadvantage the allies because allied planes usually got a low manoeuverability with higher maximum speed. If you play like this, jap will always get altitude advantage. The second manoeuver band rules simply reduce the altitude of fight compare to using plane at their maximum ceilling.

[Dili]

Are you saying that Allies and Japs have different rules concerning Mvr? I see Spitfire and strangely Hurricane having a quite respectable mvr but for example Mustang don't.

This looks like a system that wasn't working - for example giving a big edge to speed - patched with wild different values to fix it.

[jmalter]

HRs are an 'acquired taste' for some, a requirement for others, a third group refuses them altogether.

Many HRs began life as a reaction to real or perceived imbalances when the game was young, & patch, beta & mod changes make them unnecessary.

There's a negotiation that occurs when opponents square off for a PBEM game, this includes Preferences settings as well as HRs.

[Sardaukar]

I think rule "no higher than best MVR band" when sweeping works just fine, if needed. Or no "strato-sweeps" e.g. no flying above certain altitude.

No restrictions to CAP altitude.

[Dili]

Thanks for replies.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I use "no altitude restrictions", period (for all plane types and missions).

Also no friend of an altitude HR.

But if it has to be implemented I would go for a hard alt cap for all mission types (including CAP, maybe depending on year) and independent on airframe mvr bands.

Mvr dependent alt restrictions tend to show similar characteristics as not using a HR at all(some airframes benefit more from such a HR than others, Japanese production can adapt to that, etc.), and HRs only affecting sweep affects the Allies late war worst, and significantly increases chances for complaints about inflated Japanese air production (usually by surprized individuals while playing scen2...).

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I use "no altitude restrictions", period (for all plane types and missions).

Also no friend of an altitude HR.

But if it has to be implemented I would go for a hard alt cap for all mission types (including CAP, maybe depending on year) and independent on airframe mvr bands.

+1

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I use "no altitude restrictions", period (for all plane types and missions).

Also no friend of an altitude HR.

But if it has to be implemented I would go for a hard alt cap for all mission types (including CAP, maybe depending on year) and independent on airframe mvr bands.

+1

+2 This is what Viberpol and I have used for five years now. Not perfect but it works OK.

[Dili]

If there wasn't this imbalance between Allied and Japanese aircraft it should be by a fixed value that represents such a low maneuverability/low speed that prevents a plane from getting an advantage by being higher.

I don't agree with hard cut for all planes/all missions because recon planes loose in that.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Dili

If there wasn't this imbalance between Allied and Japanese aircraft it should be by a fixed value that represents such a low maneuverability/low speed that prevents a plane from getting an advantage by being higher.

I don't agree with hard cut for all planes/all missions because recon planes loose in that.

Eh, not really. I think what people have been using is 20k at 1942, and +5k per year, right? Maybe going up to 40k in 1945 instead of 35k. If any house rule is used, this one could be OK and actually reflect reality to an extent as well. HRs dependent upon maneuver band details only increase the focus on high-flying air superiority aircraft, which itself focuses on the dive bonus.

Recon planes at 20k should be fine... You'll still lose some to flak, but not that many.

[LoBaron]

I don't agree with hard cut for all planes/all missions because recon planes loose in that.

The debate, obviously, is about fighter aircraft altitude HRs because thats what all the fuss is about.

Who cares about recon alt settings? Set them to the moon if you like... [&:]

[Sardaukar]

House Rules for altitude (usually sweeps) were seen by some necessary because of so called "strato-sweep" (flying sweeps on max. altitude over enemy CAP), which is not very realistic. Usually little bit of common sense is enough without house rules, but sometimes people want to clarify things for PBEM (AI obviously won't care). I'd like to see more severe fatigue penalties flying over certain altitudes, though (since that would be realistic, there is some penalty but IMHO, not enough).

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I don't agree with hard cut for all planes/all missions because recon planes loose in that.

The debate, obviously, is about fighter aircraft altitude HRs because thats what all the fuss is about.

Who cares about recon alt settings? Set them to the moon if you like... [&:]

Well doesn't make much sense to limit fighters without limiting recon/bombers. As there are high altitude recon there are also high altitude fighters that should be able to intercept it. Even if their mvr bands are something like 25 23 20 17 13...

House Rules for altitude (usually sweeps) were seen by some necessary because of so called "strato-sweep" (flying sweeps on max. altitude over enemy CAP), which is not very realistic. Usually little bit of common sense is enough without house rules, but sometimes people want to clarify things for PBEM (AI obviously won't care). I'd like to see more severe fatigue penalties flying over certain altitudes, though (since that would be realistic, there is some penalty but IMHO, not enough).

Good idea, more altitude more fatigue. Also more odds of combat not occurring or less intense if there is 2 bands difference between opponents.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Dili

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I don't agree with hard cut for all planes/all missions because recon planes loose in that.

The debate, obviously, is about fighter aircraft altitude HRs because thats what all the fuss is about.

Who cares about recon alt settings? Set them to the moon if you like... [&:]

Well doesn't make much sense to limit fighters without limiting recon/bombers. As there are high altitude recon there are also high altitude fighters that should be able to intercept it. Even if their mvr bands are something like 25 23 20 17 13...

Just think for a moment.

It is just the opposite. It does not make much sense to limit anything beyond fighters.

The whole discussion about alt limiting HRs is because a percentage of players believe that:
a) the altitude delta betweens fighters translates into too large an advantage for the higher positioned fighter, ingame.
b) this advantage results in an upward spiral where the two opposing players increase their fighter alt settings until they fight at max ceiling, which
c) leads to unrealistic altitudes being used ingame, and a permanent (reportedly overpowered) advantage of the airframe with the higher ceiling.

[I am not part of that percentage (I don´t think the alt advantage is too big in comparision to real life, and I abstract altitudes in this regard), but I understand how a player would come to this conclusion.]

So, by applying alt limits to fighters only you will cover the above issues. You won´t end in an upward spiral (you will, but only to the hard set limit), and you won´t have advantages of one airframe over another, just because one has a higher ceiling.

You will still have a chance to intercept recon (in the same way as it is possible to intercept any higher flying planes), and who cares about an unescorted bomber raid at 30k? Either it is big enough to be intercepted by lower set CAP and cut to pieces, or it is small enough to do no relevant damage.

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The whole discussion about alt limiting HRs is because a percentage of players believe that:
a) the altitude delta betweens fighters translates into too large an advantage for the higher positioned fighter, ingame.
b) this advantage results in an upward spiral where the two opposing players increase their fighter alt settings until they fight at max ceiling, which
c) leads to unrealistic altitudes being used ingame, and a permanent (reportedly overpowered) advantage of the airframe with the higher ceiling.

[I am not part of that percentage (I don´t think the alt advantage is too big in comparision to real life, and I abstract altitudes in this regard), but I understand how a player would come to this conclusion.]

So if you expected an enemy to sweep at 30k ft, what level would you set your CAP at? 15k ft? Could you explain the details please.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The whole discussion about alt limiting HRs is because a percentage of players believe that:
a) the altitude delta betweens fighters translates into too large an advantage for the higher positioned fighter, ingame.
b) this advantage results in an upward spiral where the two opposing players increase their fighter alt settings until they fight at max ceiling, which
c) leads to unrealistic altitudes being used ingame, and a permanent (reportedly overpowered) advantage of the airframe with the higher ceiling.

[I am not part of that percentage (I don´t think the alt advantage is too big in comparision to real life, and I abstract altitudes in this regard), but I understand how a player would come to this conclusion.]

So if you expected an enemy to sweep at 30k ft, what level would you set your CAP at? 15k ft? Could you explain the details please.

Set it at 1-5k.

Alfred

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The whole discussion about alt limiting HRs is because a percentage of players believe that:
a) the altitude delta betweens fighters translates into too large an advantage for the higher positioned fighter, ingame.
b) this advantage results in an upward spiral where the two opposing players increase their fighter alt settings until they fight at max ceiling, which
c) leads to unrealistic altitudes being used ingame, and a permanent (reportedly overpowered) advantage of the airframe with the higher ceiling.

[I am not part of that percentage (I don´t think the alt advantage is too big in comparision to real life, and I abstract altitudes in this regard), but I understand how a player would come to this conclusion.]

So if you expected an enemy to sweep at 30k ft, what level would you set your CAP at? 15k ft? Could you explain the details please.

Set it at 1-5k.

Alfred

Okay I guess I could do that. But was hoping for some details regarding this. As far as I understand, this would only be a good move if my pilots have high defensive ratings to counter the bounce.

Or I could just set at 30k and not suffer the bounce, all things else being equal?

Its the one aspect of the game that I am really struggling to get good information on. I have asked this question a number of times and the response I am generally getting or, experiment.

Experimenting is always good, but I am largely on this forum to benefit from the knowledge and experience of others. Well its useful to know that something works its much better to know why it works.

What should one do to get best results? Its an open ended question depending on the situation. What details of the situation would effect the answer? Can you construct a scenario where setting a much lower CAP will yield better results than setting a CAP at an equal altitude?