Matrix Games Forums

I suspect the increased perfomance people see in Allied types in A2A IS tied to the improved radar the allies get in early 43

Your test is illuminating, Andy. It appears that you are correct in that radar gives a significant advantage instead of a programmed Japanese drop-off. That I can live with.

You say that it is the CPS-1 radar that provides the greatest advantage? Hmmmm..... I think I will have to send my spies out to steal the plans and develop it for Japan first! Waaahaaahhaaa.....

Chez

Nicholas my initial test had no radars and losses were even with everything else being equal

Actually slightly favoured Japanese but it was within 10 on 6 tests
 
It was quite stark when you put radar in for one side but not the others how losses spiralled for both sides when the Japanese had it Allied losses jumped to 130 in one test
 
When I gave the allies the radar it was the same pattern.
 
Andy

Chez I didnt test sound detectors or lesser radars or whether ship based radars would affect it or even waht happens when 1 side has a 60 mile radar and the others have a sound detector.
 
I chose to use the CSP - 1 as its the best air search radar either side gets and with a 400 mile range I was sure it would work.
 
The tests you could run go on for ever I have satisfied myself with a relativeley few tests it is possible I am seeing outliers but it seems pretty clear

OK - here is the test we need:

Run 1942 for one set - we can use any test already run here;

Run 1944 for the same set - but add one to durability of Japanese planes;

Run 1944 for the same set - but use 41 for durability for all Japanese planes;


Nic has shown that zero armament does not prevent air combat kills.
They MIGHT have done something that makes changing durability have no impact.
This test will tell us.

There is a "knee" in the function at value 40 - to make heavy bombers hard to kill. RHS doesn't want
to use that - so all durabilities are below 40 deliberately. But IF a value above 40 STILL has zero
impact on losses - we will know this routine is not honest - but a branch to something wierd.
Stock had to put in the "knee" because they didn't get planes rated right. We are trying
to fix that and don't need a "knee" to show 4E bombers survive better. We also don't have to
divide their maneuverability by twice the number of engines to get a reasonable value.

CId I guess its late and I am slow but I dont see how changing the Dur by 1 will determine whether the Japanese have hard coded fall off in 43.
 
For this kind of precise testing you would need to run the scenario a lot of times to get a reasonable sample and testing depth to be able to see a pattern. If someone else is willing to do it fine but I estimate to pick up something that small you would need to run both the baseline and the sensitivity at least 50 times (Minimum)
 
Are we still testing the hard coded fall off presumption or have we moved on to something else I ask because I cannot really see how the test you want will help test the original proposition in this thread ?
 
Andy

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

CId I guess its late and I am slow but I dont see how changing the Dur by 1 will determine whether the Japanese have hard coded fall off in 43.

REPLY: That is already shown by two test series (one by Nic) - confirming an older test series I ran in 1.6.
THIS is to find out if it helps FIX the problem.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac


Are we still testing the hard coded fall off presumption or have we moved on to something else I ask because I cannot really see how the test you want will help test the original proposition in this thread ?

Andy

This is something else: I consider the question answered by Nic's test. Now we are trying to fix the problem.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

I noticed a post by Mike Wood that did NOT seem to say that. You got a different post in mind?

ORIGINAL: SamCole

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

Did anyone notice the testing posted by NIC in which radar was NOT a factor? This problem is confirmed - and radar is not the source - although it may exaserbate it in a game - I regard that as OK. Radar was real. The only thing wrong with radar in stock and CHS is Japan is not given the right radar capability.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: SamCole

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

Yes. I am more interested in how radar effects work.

Did anyone notice the testing posted by NIC in which radar was NOT a factor? This problem is confirmed - and radar is not the source - although it may exaserbate it in a game - I regard that as OK. Radar was real. The only thing wrong with radar in stock and CHS is Japan is not given the right radar capability.

So you are saying that Andy Macs tests and Joe Wilkersons statement that radar is a factor is wrong? [&:]
And what problem is confirmed?

Hmmm -

can I pick yes and no at the same time?

Yes - the problem is confirmed by two different test series run just now for this thread - and in one radar was
not a factor for sure - Nic said so and he is too bright to not mean it.

No - I don't mean to say radar doesn't contribute to this problem in games. Because I am sure it does.
However - I regard that as good simulation and not in need of correction per se. Maybe there needs to be
more radar on the other side - but it isn't going to be radar in the sense of the radar that really matters for
this pheonomena.

The radar must be REMOVED for any test to address this issue: what you see when it IS removed shows it is a problem still. A significant problem. Not sure how you can overlook what Nic did - or that someone else did the same thing on a lesser scale with similar results - but that should be convincing. Same situation, different date, different
result. Conclusive.

Further - note that this issue was brought to my attention by Joe Wilkerson in the first place.

Did you read this test by Andy Mac?
----------------------------------------------------
Bstarr I just redid the test for 44 and the results are very interesting.

OK Situation 4 Bases in use Nomou - Koumac/ Nandi - Suva

All bases given Lvl 9 AF and an aviation Regt no radars in range and both have 100k supplies (NO Air HQ in range either)

On each pair of bases each side has 2 x 100 plan groups of F4U1 all sqns have the same leader with 75 air xp/ 75 aggrsssion/ xp is 75 for all sqns

Each pair of bases is Caped by 1 sqn at 90% at 10000 feet and the other sweeps its opponents base at 10000 feet.

The date is December 44

So exact mirror images

Total losses

Jap US
65 79
83 83
63 95
44 70
71 67
81 70

Now I would need to run it more times to make it statistically significant but in the abscence of any radar it appears that there is no anti Japanese code given that everything was equal in this test.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 6 tests Without Radar - in 1944 there are 407 Japanese loses and 401 American

What is the problem?

And the statement by Joe Wilkerson that he could find NO code that supports your contention? post #28 of this thread:
-------------------------------------------
While I've heard "rumors" about an "Allied CAP Bonus" .. despite both Don and Joe looking in the code and discussing with Michael Wood .. we've never been able to find any "Allied CAP Bonus" in the code .. i.e. it doesn't exist.

However, I think Andy Mac is on to something. If most American radars upgrade in Mid-1943 .. that might explain it. The "bounce" formula does use a "detection" factor as one of its key ingredients and "detection" would certainly be impacted by radar. So the "alleged" CAP bonus could be device driven.

If someone is testing this we'd be interested in the results.
----------------------------------------------

Further - note that this issue was brought to my attention by Joe Wilkerson in the first place.

Except that Joe Wilkerson has subsequently pointed out that his "hunt" for the code that performs this alleged activity has shown that there is no such code. He was told (by 2 beta testers) that such code might exist, but it does not. That has been confirmed by Michael, Don and Joe.

So reference to the source of this as "Joe Wilkerson" is invalid (as was pointed out earlier in this thread - but is now re-stated for clarity).

Hello...

There is no "drop off thingy" in the code. But, you folks seem to be having a good time, so continue.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Did anyone notice the post by Mike Wood saying that there was no hard coded "drop off" thingy?[8D]

I noticed a post by Mike Wood that did NOT seem to say that. You got a different post in mind?

The fatal flaw in not having a PBEM turn in my intray is that I start to play with editors [:D][:D]

Joe/ Mike thansk for clearing this up I had reached that conclusion myself on the back of my testing but its always nice to hear it straight from the top !!!!.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The fatal flaw in not having a PBEM turn in my intray is that I start to play with editors [:D][:D]

Joe/ Mike thansk for clearing this up I had reached that conclusion myself on the back of my testing but its always nice to hear it straight from the top !!!!.

I did the same thing. When I first saw this thread I got concerned so I ran some tests to see for myself, Japanese had the same setup as Allies- Lvl 10 af, 100k supplies, 270 av support, 270 support, 1 airgroup per side, P-38j x 36 per side, leader for both groups used 75 for every skill, both airgroups exp 75, morale 80, bases Japanese Rockhampton, Allies Brisbane. There where other forces on the map but far away.
In my first series of test I ran without radar June 42 and June 44, whichever airgroup did the sweep usually won the day, cap was always set to 90% 10k and sweep to 10K. 2nd series With radar(CSP-1) the sweep got smashed, ergo there is no drop off.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

There is no "drop off thingy" in the code. But, you folks seem to be having a good time, so continue.

Bye...

Michael Wood

[quote]ORIGINAL: el cid again

OK- so riddle me this:

How did Nic get 20 run tests with such different results in identical situations in 1942 and 1944?

And how did someone else duplicate the result with 10 run tests?

Finally - why did Joe - with 12,000 turns experience (quoting) - have the wrong impression?
If radar did that - what a major impact it must have indeed!

Then there is this:

I ran a strike test in 1945 - this isn't air combat - but I found the JNAF and JAAF combat ineffective attacking a US force in the Kure Hex WITHOUT air cover. The entire Japanese forces scored one bomb hit on USS New Jersey - causing it no pain but one point in system damage. Virtually the entire force was wiped out by the gunnery air defenses of this force of warships - which was not small but not large either. Even if the air forces could penetrate fighter defenses - why have them if they cannot deliver any weapons? Granted this is not a bad description of the operational situation IRL in 1945 - that was because of horrible operational factors NOT present in my test. MY air forces were fresh - well trained - and wholly fueled - so they could fly in sufficient mass that IRL they would have achieved saturation. And I am an anti-air warfare guy - trained first of all on a ship using systems from that era.


Something is very strange here - if there is NO code - how did these tests happen? SOMETHING is going on.