Optimal Altitude For Dive Bombing

[LoBaron]

It is an assumption admittedly. But please tell me why you say it is wrong. Have you ever seen a level boming attack described by a single combat report where
bombing altitudes were different, and have you ever seen a combat report with more than a single incoming altitude?

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

It is an assumption admittedly. But please tell me why you say it is wrong. Have you ever seen a level boming attack described by a single combat report where
bombing altitudes were different, and have you ever seen a combat report with more than a single incoming altitude?

Combat report is always showing only one altitude. But I've seen coordinated strikes bombing different altitudes.

I really don't know who air combat model works, but I think setting different altitude for bombers can distract CAP so that some of the fighters have to fly high and some low.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Finschhafen , at 100,126

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 64 NM, estimated altitude 29,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes

Allied aircraft
Mitchell II x 11
B-24D1 Liberator x 6

No Allied losses


Aircraft Attacking:
11 x Mitchell II bombing from 24000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 19th Tank Regiment, at 63,41 (Warazup)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 18
B-25C Mitchell x 12


No Allied losses


Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

[LoBaron]

Good observation, thanks!

You never stop learning... [:)]

[DHRedge]

When training aircraft, I noticed that below 5000 alt trained 'low' versions of skills, above 5000 trained higher alt versions of skills.

So between the 100 and 5000 range, there are different pilot skills used, or so it would seem by the effect of training, I don't know how that effects things like dive bombing or torpedoes, but it would be interesting to know how that adds into the computations.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Good observation, thanks!

You never stop learning... [:)]

I know nothing compared to you guys about aircraft code, but in those cases doesn't the Attack Bomber designation overcome the mission description? Just as TBs can come in at any altitude but descend for attack don't Attack Bombers come low to drop in all cases?

Edit: I think a Mitchell II is an AB. If not, never mind!

[LoBaron]

Alt bombers do not default to an attack alt different from preset alt (such as dive/glide bombers do).
The only difference of AB to conventional level bombers is that the bombload is not halved for low level attacks (making them extremely dangerous LowN beasts).


Currently I think the example shown by Puhis might either be a result of the "overcoordination" bug Michael patched in one of the recent betas, or could be a simple coincidence and both raids packs arrived over target in the same pulse without coordinating in game terms.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Alt bombers do not default to an attack alt different from preset alt (such as dive/glide bombers do).
The only difference of AB to conventional level bombers is that the bombload is not halved for low level attacks (making them extremely dangerous LowN beasts).

Ah. It's been about two years in real time since I had any ABs to play with. One of these days . . .

[Nemo121]

LoBaron,

Different altitudes within the same strike are modelled because if they weren't my whole kamikaze plan for '45 of splitting CAP with multiple altitude settings wouldn't work. In-game testing shows that it does work - in addition to which you can easily test this by setting one type of plan at maximum altitude and then selecting another type of plane to co-ordinate with it which is set to come in at low altitude. Ensure both plane types can fly ABOVE the CAP potentially.

You'll get a mix of messages.
1. Many saying the CAP cannot get to the high-flying planes.
2. Many saying your LOW CAP ( ideally made up exclusively from different fighters than your high CAP ) has engaged the low level attackers.

I've run this test which allows me to test Attacker altitude and ceiling vs CAP altitude and ceiling in a reliable fashion and conclusively shown that altitudes within a strike can be varied.

[LoBaron]

Love how you formulated that rationale Nemo. [:D]

I know about your tests, are they all pre-(current)beta? I remember you first posted extensively about them when playing your Downfall PBEM, and thats quite some time ago.

To my best knowledge the fact that alt settings govern coordination attempts by the game engine still apply.

Two points:

- there was a bug eliminated by Michael in one of the beta versions, causing the engine to "overcoordinate". He never officially said what was overcoordinating, but it could be part of what you were seeing as test results. If it truly was coordination, the only proof though would be that you sometimes got "failed to link up" messages ingame from units that usually do not coordinate as they were separated by altitude. Did you?

- besides coordination there is also "correlation". If the target is the same for several squadrons, there is always a chance that units arrive over target at the same time. This is much evident on sweep missions, where the percieved coordination is in fact correlation (combat executed in a single pulse because all units had the same target, arrived over target at the same time, and were not separated by CAP, without any forced grouping by the game engine as precondition). The more units are involved into the action, the higher that chance for some of the squadrons to happen.


I think one of the greatest difficulties when approaching this topic is terminology.

Many people here (not you, I am aware how you mean it, but I want to show why such debates might lead to confusion) equate coordination with "resolving combat in a single animation", which is incorrect. Just because something happens in a single combat animation does not mean the are related in any other way than time and location.

Coordination only means an attempt by the game engine to force synchronized arrival over target. This is a cause for combat observed in game, not the observed combat itself. And is only a small part influencing of how combat animations play out, as there are several other factors relevant.

[DHRedge]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Many people here (not you, I am aware how you mean it, but I want to show why such debates might lead to confusion) equate coordination with "resolving combat in a single animation", which is incorrect. Just because something happens in a single combat animation does not mean the are related in any other way than time and location.

Coordination only means an attempt by the game engine to force synchronized arrival over target. This is a cause for combat observed in game, not the observed combat itself. And is only a small part influencing of how combat animations play out, as there are several other factors relevant.

If you have not read my posts from many locations, much of this will not make sense, don't worry about that, it does make sense to those that have been reading my posts over the last years.

Note this is a reply on the concept you are discussing, although the fact that it is posted in a different context, yet is about the same event, shows coordination, with plausible deniability of correlation.

You get a good thinking award for making the distinction of cause and effect of mutual actions in space and time.

Two people coming to the same conclusion do not define the same source or cooperation, it only defines a form of meeting in some ethereal space where the same idea occurred in thoughts of multiple people simultaneously.

From that we can ponder the question, are people connected when in correlation, is it coordination, or is it swarm, where each acts independently, but by the some same pathing end up at the same location at the same time with a similar action or intent.

Therefore we proceed to a comment by John Locke, two people with the same idea at the same moment are essentially the same person. However, they were not the same person when moving to that action in space time, nor when moving away if on different paths. So do events create situations, or do the multitude of possibilities create the illusion of coordination inside of correlation. (also why these events model 'nuclear' effects since they are far more then what would be found as a average mass at one point in space and time (Crossing the streams from Ghost Busters))

It should also be noted, coordination above correlation is about the 'Tess' Model. Or the person that understands it, is in a coordinating role, or closer to the source that instigates action. However all the pieces are usually only seen by the 'Tess' and from that it looks random or like correlation, for those that do not have both the personal experience of an event, and the correlating other pieces that form the mosaic that tells the story and shows actual coordination.

If someone can find the correlations above some rate of randomness, then coordination does exist, basic chaos theory, order in the noise. If bees swarm, that is coordination by the fact that a swarm is at some location at some time. Note removing limitations of linear time makes it much easier, where something like stop action filming could photograph 1000 bees at some correlating location and action, and then show them all in the same picture, by sequencing the events outside of linear time, and by that create an event outside of linear time that shows a level of coordination when it could be correlation.

Although outside of linear time is a presumption that item creation is the intended act of correlation, it is also possible that the intent of the object creation is to be seen in a swarm in some replay outside of its linear time when it was created. The idea of preparatory work where components to form a coordinated action are all moving from different distances in time to arrive in the same sequence of some posting.

Side note, nobody has to believe in coordination if they don't want to, however, I am due beer and travel money and the fact that I can find the information is enough to show that it is coordinated.

I could also add the correlation that your argument is something my uncle would say,
Lo Ba Ron, Or I could again repeat the Bar requirements I have been specifying, Lo Bar On, in each another correlation appears, is it coordinate? at what point does the statistics over weight the skepticism. Note the intent is not to show the form, but to show the form exists. And of coarse, from that the realization that money must be sent to me will be clear to anyone reading all the posts. However not knowing about 'the bar' or 'my uncle' would not make the correlation visible to anyone else.

You would have to have the cumulative data of all my posts and experiences to see the significance of the correlations responding to this location in time. What I call checking in, and what is also usually called advisors giving different opinions from within the fog.

[LoBaron]

If you have not read my posts from many locations, much of this will not make sense, don't worry about that,

I have not, not much - but thats independent on the context you are referring to, I don´t.

Note this is a reply on the concept you are discussing, although the fact that it is posted in a different context, yet is about the same event, shows coordination, with plausible deniability of correlation.

I think theres a misunderstanding. I am not discussing the concept itself. I am just relating the concept to a specific situation in WitP AE. It does not leave much room for discussion. Discussing that specific concept without context would be rather trivial.

You get a good thinking award for making the distinction of cause and effect of mutual actions in space and time.

A WHAT?

Therefore we proceed to a comment by John Locke, two people with the same idea at the same moment are essentially the same person. However, they were not the same person when moving to that action in space time, nor when moving away if on different paths.

I respect John Locke for his thoughts on politics and religion and state. It is also correct that philosophical statements like the one above were meaningful and revolutionary in the 17th century, when the term "conciousness" still was undefined outside a religious framework.

But nowerdays such philiosophical statements - like the one above made in a quest to define "conciousness" - often are either plain wrong, or banal, depending on the interpretation. In this specific case whether the statement is wrong or banal (or impossible) depends on whether a weak or strong interpretation for "two people with the same idea at the same moment" is used.

Weak: The term is used to describe two people with roughly the same line of thought at a specific moment in time. In this case they are neither the same person, nor essentially the same person, nor do they have the same thought. You might as well say a person owning a Dogde Viper and a person owning a Ford Mustang own essentially the same car. The statement is plain wrong.

Strong: The term is used to describe two people with exactly the same electrochemical process going on in their brains at the same location in spacetime. In this case the statement is either banal or describes an impossibility. Banal, because in our physical universe the above is only possible in case we are really talking about ONE single person, as for two distinct people it will be impossible to meet the required criteria, or impossible if the philospher insists that he/she is referring to two distinct people.

The only way out of that trap would be separating the term "conciousness" from any physical boundaries or dependencies, and by doing so to enter the realm of religion, where empirical proof has no value and the discussion gets meaningless.

For more such examples of wrong/banal statements of (postmodern) philosophers I reccommend reading "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal/Jean Bricmont, that was written as a reaction to the so-called Sokal affair. A very amusing read.

Two people coming to the same conclusion do not define the same source or cooperation, it only defines a form of meeting in some ethereal space where the same idea occurred in thoughts of multiple people simultaneously.

From that we can ponder the question, are people connected when in correlation, is it coordination, or is it swarm, where each acts independently, but by the some same pathing end up at the same location at the same time with a similar action or intent.[...]

As for the rest, I agree it is sometimes entertaining to ponder on similar concepts, but with regards to coordination vs. correlation it can be defined in a short sentence, with or without context. There is no need to make things more comlicated than they are.

[DHRedge]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
There is no need to make things more comlicated than they are.

Funny thing, I always think I am making them simpler not more complicated.
Although thanks for the response,
mostly I was pondering on the correlations in your posts to other topics, while you were discussing correlation and coordination.

Can't get more coordinated then that. [:)]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: DHRedge
If you have not read my posts from many locations, much of this will not make sense, don't worry about that, it does make sense to those that have been reading my posts over the last years.

Note this is a reply on the concept you are discussing, although the fact that it is posted in a different context, yet is about the same event, shows coordination, with plausible deniability of correlation.

You get a good thinking award for making the distinction of cause and effect of mutual actions in space and time.

Two people coming to the same conclusion do not define the same source or cooperation, it only defines a form of meeting in some ethereal space where the same idea occurred in thoughts of multiple people simultaneously.

From that we can ponder the question, are people connected when in correlation, is it coordination, or is it swarm, where each acts independently, but by the some same pathing end up at the same location at the same time with a similar action or intent.

Therefore we proceed to a comment by John Locke, two people with the same idea at the same moment are essentially the same person. However, they were not the same person when moving to that action in space time, nor when moving away if on different paths. So do events create situations, or do the multitude of possibilities create the illusion of coordination inside of correlation. (also why these events model 'nuclear' effects since they are far more then what would be found as a average mass at one point in space and time (Crossing the streams from Ghost Busters))

It should also be noted, coordination above correlation is about the 'Tess' Model. Or the person that understands it, is in a coordinating role, or closer to the source that instigates action. However all the pieces are usually only seen by the 'Tess' and from that it looks random or like correlation, for those that do not have both the personal experience of an event, and the correlating other pieces that form the mosaic that tells the story and shows actual coordination.

If someone can find the correlations above some rate of randomness, then coordination does exist, basic chaos theory, order in the noise. If bees swarm, that is coordination by the fact that a swarm is at some location at some time. Note removing limitations of linear time makes it much easier, where something like stop action filming could photograph 1000 bees at some correlating location and action, and then show them all in the same picture, by sequencing the events outside of linear time, and by that create an event outside of linear time that shows a level of coordination when it could be correlation.

Although outside of linear time is a presumption that item creation is the intended act of correlation, it is also possible that the intent of the object creation is to be seen in a swarm in some replay outside of its linear time when it was created. The idea of preparatory work where components to form a coordinated action are all moving from different distances in time to arrive in the same sequence of some posting.

Side note, nobody has to believe in coordination if they don't want to, however, I am due beer and travel money and the fact that I can find the information is enough to show that it is coordinated.

I could also add the correlation that your argument is something my uncle would say,
Lo Ba Ron, Or I could again repeat the Bar requirements I have been specifying, Lo Bar On, in each another correlation appears, is it coordinate? at what point does the statistics over weight the skepticism. Note the intent is not to show the form, but to show the form exists. And of coarse, from that the realization that money must be sent to me will be clear to anyone reading all the posts. However not knowing about 'the bar' or 'my uncle' would not make the correlation visible to anyone else.

You would have to have the cumulative data of all my posts and experiences to see the significance of the correlations responding to this location in time. What I call checking in, and what is also usually called advisors giving different opinions from within the fog.

ORIGINAL: DHRedge
Funny thing, I always think I am making them simpler not more complicated.

To discuss the concept of self-delusion now would venture a bit too far off topic. [:)]

Although thanks for the response,
mostly I was pondering on the correlations in your posts to other topics, while you were discussing correlation and coordination.

Can't get more coordinated then that. [:)]

You are welcome. If you plan to skip some of the more cryptic statements and philosophical debaucheries for above sense of humor and content, this might even have the potential for some interesting discussions.

[DHRedge]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

To discuss the concept of self-delusion now would venture a bit too far off topic. [:)]


You are welcome. If you plan to skip some of the more cryptic statements and philosophical debaucheries for above sense of humor and content, this might even have the potential for some interesting discussions.

Self delusion presumes the inability to form the world around your perception of what is reality.

For instance, I too have supported the Snoopies for many years, I find Shultz to have written some insightful comments.
Note he had a Woodstock(life) bird behind his pilot.

And when Lucy lines up that football,
I get the 'Extra Point Good' signal.

Alive and Kicking - Simple Minds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIQo1OHkTI

Bob Eastwood

[:)]

Although in truth,
I think that song is about reconnecting to Oz when in times of trouble,
Ents on the March,
and the legendary captain of the Red October doing a Crazy Ivan. [:)]
Hence the playing of older songs from years ago. (Torpedoes in the water [:)] )

Currently you can see the Red October surfacing off the coast of New York
with lantern held high
and launching nukes [:)]

[LoBaron]

I find Shultz to have written some insightful comments.

Aye. Speaking of philosophy.




The best you can is good enough.

[DHRedge]

Ahh, yes, good posting.

A Farscape Reference,
and Big Fish comment, an old name I know, from a friend of years ago

Good song, also like the way the snoopy art melds seamlessly into the Heart Posts.

Although beware that optimism can be a trap, hope is a projection of future events, if those thoughts make you happy today, but are not also supported by actions, you may live in the life of always expecting things to happen without doing, 'the best you can'.

Who Wants To Live Forever - Queen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

Bob Eastwood