Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

pat.casey
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:22 am

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by pat.casey »

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Just my opinion, but reading the runes I'm really not sure that there is any intention to address this. It's too difficult to do it properly without taking the thing back into Alpha, if you can even apply that status here.

As LoBaron has pointed out, there are "work-arounds" i.e. don't put your entire force in a single hex. Spread out, use the whole map ... Simples.

This may work around the game deficiency in the sense that we'll avoid the failure mode, but it just moves the problem down the stack. Instead of a "massive air battles produce unrealistic results", you instead get "large scale invasions are not practical against a prepared defender".

Historically there were plenty of cases where huge air forces were deployed into very, very narrow airspaces; the allies put 14,000 sorties over Normandy on d-day.

The historical generals did this because things like invasions required massive air and sea support to have a ghost of a chance of success.

So if you don't allow air massing, it disproportionately impacts the player on the late war offensive aka the allies.

This game is already demonstrating that its very, very hard, maybe impossible to launch an allied invasion of mainland Japan against a prepared Japanese player, even *with* massive air support. Can you imagine Greyjoy trying his Honshu invasions with a mere 400 plane CAS wing?
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8089
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by jwilkerson »

Now I really feel like we are hi-jacking ... so continuation of this discussion should move out of this AAR ... (a man's AAR is his "castle" ... or a woman's as well ... )

Many of the recent posts are "banging the horse shoe off the post" ... which means you guys are really close ...

We were facing at least a couple of issues in moving from WITP to AE ...

01 - The "Uber CAP" effect.

02 - The base "over stacking" capability.

101 - We did "break up the attacks" ... I think in part this was because Ian felt it was more realistic ... and more practically I think it was one of the steps taken to reduce the "Uber CAP" effect. But there were trade-offs ... reducing the number of shots per fighter ... over-balanced in favor of the bombers ... so breaking of the attacks also mitigated that.

102 - We did attempt to dramatically reduce overstacking. But this met with howls of disapproval from some playtesters. I think overstacking is still harder in AE than it was in WITP, but probably not as hard as it should be.

201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.

201.2 - Only allow 50 planes per airbase level.
This is a tough rule to enforce as each player is "on his own" to enforce. We use this in my current games, but I would say it is the most "abused" or "overlooked" rule, because it is tough to remember. But it is still a good goal and I think the intent of both the WITP and AE design. We just haven't been able to figure out how to make it work!

201.3 - Modders can drastically reduce the aviation support in their scenarios.
See Nik's May'42 start. Nik has been an advocate of this solution for years. It does help. The Allies should get 1 or 2 big Aviation units in late '43 to support the B-29s.

201.4 Expectation Re-set.
I do not think either the WITP Team or the AE Team attempted to write the game to handle Europe sized air battles (or beyond) ... if your game routinely strays into this "outside the edge" space ... then you should expect the results to be "outside the edge".

301 - Can the AE Team ... Will the AE Team fix this?
We will discuss it ... but the risks of making the changes suggested (several of which we have either already done or we have discussed) are huge. The probability of one change produced two or more unintended consequences is high.
But we will discuss options.


... ok ... I would suggest someone start a thread ... either in tech support or war room to continue the discussion ... so we can leave this AAR in peace ...

AE Project Lead
SCW Project Lead
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by rader »

Oh, feel free to discuss this here [:)] The only reason I see to move the discussion is so GJ can participate and so others are more likely to see it (or less likely if they don't want to...) ~ which are good reasons of course [;)]

We are going to continue, but we are taking a break this week as I am super busy with work and GJ has some other priorities at the moment too. We are sort of discussing HRs, and had a good long skype conversation on the weekend.

Even though we may sometimes complain, I think it's clear that the reason why these small issues stand out so much is because the game itself is spectacularly well done. Thanks to all the developers for their outstanding effort and dedication. You guys rock [&o]
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8089
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by jwilkerson »

ORIGINAL: rader
... <snip> ... We are sort of discussing HRs ... <snip> ...

I wonder what sort of HR will bring back all those carriers! [;)]
AE Project Lead
SCW Project Lead
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10396
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.
jw,

Thanks much for sharing your HR's. I can see how they work/help. Can you elaborate a bit on this one? I want to be sure I have this correct. So, you mean that B-17's can only have one group at a base, thus lowering the density of the 4E's? And this rule can only be broken by the late game B-29's when they start to historically stack in the Mariana's for long range attacks on the Home Islands?
Pax
User avatar
AcePylut
Posts: 1487
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:01 am

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by AcePylut »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

301 - Can the AE Team ... Will the AE Team fix this?
We will discuss it ... but the risks of making the changes suggested (several of which we have either already done or we have discussed) are huge. The probability of one change produced two or more unintended consequences is high.
But we will discuss options.


What about this idea: Scaling the # of cap passes based on raid/escort size?

I.e. there’s been talk that CAP will only make 200 firing passes. I like that for the smaller air battles… but what about making it a scalar? I.e. If the strike and CAP totals are less than X number of planes, max passes is 200. If the strike and CAP totals are between X and Y, then it’s more passes (300)… if it’s between Y and Z, more passes (400), and so on…

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
201 - HR to mitigate?

201.1 - Only allow B-29 to base more than one 4EB group per base.
My recent games have used this house rule.
The number of multi-group 4EB raids historically in the Pacific is tiny. The Balikpapan B-24 raids in October 1944 and the B-29 attacks are the exceptions.
jw,

Thanks much for sharing your HR's. I can see how they work/help. Can you elaborate a bit on this one? I want to be sure I have this correct. So, you mean that B-17's can only have one group at a base, thus lowering the density of the 4E's? And this rule can only be broken by the late game B-29's when they start to historically stack in the Mariana's for long range attacks on the Home Islands?

I think he means 'group' in the army administrative sense. Not a 12-plane squadron (depending on the time period). IIRC a group was about usually 4 squadrons.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8089
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by jwilkerson »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think he means 'group' in the army administrative sense. Not a 12-plane squadron (depending on the time period). IIRC a group was about usually 4 squadrons.
You think correctly! I mean "group" in the technical sense.
AE Project Lead
SCW Project Lead
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10396
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think he means 'group' in the army administrative sense. Not a 12-plane squadron (depending on the time period). IIRC a group was about usually 4 squadrons.
You think correctly! I mean "group" in the technical sense.
Thanks for confirming/clarifying ...
Pax
User avatar
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum »

Guys, Rader and GJ are playing the game that they want to play. Not the one that we want them to play.

They've been nothing but friendly and cordial to each other and Rader has most certainly not put a gun to GJ's head at any point or time during this campaign to make him go along with anything he didn't want to go along with.

You may not agree with the HRs that they established, and GJ may have initially bitten off a bit more than he could chew at first, but they're not our HRs, they belong only to Rader and GJ.

Both have been more than willing to work with each other to keep this game going and to keep it fun for them, so let's not trash either of them please, especially not in either of their respective AARs. [:-]
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by crsutton »

Troika,

You joined forum today, apparently read both AARs in your spare time and then set a record for quickest troll. Pretty impressive to me. Wonder who the hell you are?


Whoa....! That guy's post was gone before I could get my post typed.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by JeffroK »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Troika,

You joined forum today, apparently read both AARs in your spare time and then set a record for quickest troll. Pretty impressive to me. Wonder who the hell you are?


Whoa....! That guy's post was gone before I could get my post typed.
You can read the AAR's as a Guest, but I'm always dissapointed when I miss these posts![:'(]
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24606
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Troika,

You joined forum today, apparently read both AARs in your spare time and then set a record for quickest troll. Pretty impressive to me. Wonder who the hell you are?


Whoa....! That guy's post was gone before I could get my post typed.
Hmmm...me thinks JWilkerson was fast on the draw on this one's origin *COUGH* Helmut *COUGH*. Nice catch, JWilkerson!
Image
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by Nemo121 »

PaxMondo,

You faith in the goodness of human nature is refreshing but I fear misplaced. I believe 3 forum members ( including myself ) were the first to raise this. When we did personal attacks were made by people against myself ( and at least Rader also ) stating that we were whiny and this wasn't a bug etc etc etc that we didn't know anything about what we were talking about and we should leave this to the experts --- who hadn't spotted this bug. Now some of those same people have self-nominated themselves to be the "appropriate" people to look into this.

I think its a testament to optimism that you think those same people who showed themselves to be closed-minded when this was initially raised are going to be open-minded and take into account possible solutions coming from elsewhere. Sadly I've had dealing with them before and they suffer from a HUGE amount of "Not Invented Here Syndrome". I'm much more cynical and rely on past experience with some of these people over similar issues where bugs were identified, they attacked the people reporting the bugs, engaged in character slurring and then, later, when the issue raised WAS identified as a bug and fixed by michaelm were notable by their silence.

Obviously I don't include michaelm or jwilkerson as part of this cotterie but, personally, I'm less than hopeful that the best solution will be identified due to NIHS.

In the end though I hope you are right and my past experience proves wrong. If the air team do the fixing then I'd be confident we'll get a good solution but it seems the people who have appointed themselves to look into this aren't quite the air team and if that's so then I'd have significantly less confidence.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by Crackaces »

I would agree with your assessment Nemo. But I would also say that this is the human condition so well explored by Everett Rogers and how we look at new ideas and perspectives. I might propose the distribution of comments follows the distribution proposed by ER ...[8D]

I mentioned this before .. but I would propose the following that might provide better game play while "fixing" the problem:

1) Use a circles of apollonius intercept algorithum. Bascally for each group within range of intercept (not just the CAP at the target) calculate a solution that will be where, and how much fuel left to fight. Thus a battle could very well be a series of intercepts. I just do not see forces in between intercepting raids, but I could be wrong here ... I could picture in a huge raid vs. a huge CAP maybe going after escorts running them out of fuel and ammo in dog fights with a final desperate gamble of going after the escorted bombers ...

2) Have a decision for intercept escorts vs. vector to bombers. Given the above-- the defense can plan how many resources devoted to dealing with the escorts and how many should try and go straight for the bombers. Give the "tight" escorts a free shot at those going for the bombers.

3) Use altitudes better to determine tightness around the bombers. a fighter formation within 1000 feet of the bombers is a formation that simply soaks off attacks at a disadvantage like today but adding the feature of nailing interceptors going straight for the bombers. Then it is quite possible to fly formations > 1000 feet higher meant to defend against the interceptors trying to peel off escorts while having the disadvantage of not protecting the bombers as well against determined interecption.

This sort of detaill is not needed for a small raid but certainly is in the decision matrix for a large land based raid. Esepcally Scenario #2 OOB's ...Now we have a decision matrix of allocating resources to protect bombers vs. escort atrrition -- balancing the need to disrupt the raid with interceptor losses . Then add raid coordination die rolls, and we have the randomness to prevent the 200 escorts 200 bombers from penatrating CAP with assurity.

I think this worked very well in AH Luftwaffee with the circles of apollonius being worked out by the player .. the allocation decisions between intercept escorts or go striaght for the bombers and take your lumps was also interesting because games are about decisions and maximizing the probability of success given multiple factors, the opponets decision cycle ... and of course the randomness of fate as a die roll ...[:D]
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10396
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

PaxMondo,

You faith in the goodness of human nature is refreshing but I fear misplaced. ... In the end though I hope you are right and my past experience proves wrong.

In the general spirit of fun and "glass half fullness", I propose a bet. If we get a good resolution "we win". If we don't, "we lose". Stakes: un cafe + croissant (or equivalent pastry). I hope to be in France/Belguim/Italy in the summer of 2015, so we can settle up then at a location to be agreed upon. Ok? [;)]
Pax
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”