Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mbatch729

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed
Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 36000 feet *
CAP engaged:
Kanoya Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
21 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810
Raid is overhead

yup, your opponent is gamin the system.

Firstly, I want to express my thanks by all who worked on AE and specifically to you, Elf, for the much improved air model which has done a lot to make results less all-or-nothing nature of aircombat in WITP.

However I need to ask - if this sweeps at 36K ft is gaming the system then what altitude is not: 35K? 30K? 20K? Players have no way of knowing. If you leave it to people to pick then they are inevitably try to get the advantage and will leapfrog up the altitude bands until things are maxed out. Are we best to place a global max altitude across all aircraft or one based on maneuvre bands?

IMHO the only real solution would be to adjust the system to deal approriately with high altitude sweeps and reflect why all combat didn't revert to the highest altitude. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to suggest what the the changes ought to be other than noting that the dive should not be the be-all and end-all of combat as it seems to be in my games.

Historically in WWII, a sweep consisted of two elements, one offensive and one defensive. An element on the deck was offensively tasked with attacking bases and aircraft launching and landing. A second element at altitude was defending the low element from enemy aircraft at medium altitude using energy tactics. Think of a correctly organised sweep as a sandwich with no filling--the middle of the air was a dangerous place to be.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One could probably get some ROC vs Alt comparisons from IL-2 Sturmovik help program called IL2 Wingman. But of course not all may accept the stats from that simulator. 

We could also write code for a combat flight simulator...

Good point....[:D] But at least someone has done it, even though I think Oleg was bit biased. [8D]

unfortunately, and this was my point, this is not a Combat flight Sim. That is OTS of the AE project.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I wonder if there is anything to be done to have people fly fighters at realistic altitudes...apart from house rules.

I'd vote increasing the fatigue penalty for both pilot and planes when flying at highest 20%-25% of max. ceiling.

1. Players could CHOOSE to fly fighters at realistic altitudes.

2. I could hard code each Aircraft's most typical flight profile and completely remove you from the problem.

ORIGINAL: jomni

This wouldn't have happened if we let the computer do the tactical planning.  Because of all the micromanagement in the game, this will definitely lead into funny stuff.  I'm all for a simpler WITP game in the future with lots of "realistic abstractions".  Devs pls take note. Lol!

But face it, in the game the Hurricane is better than the Zero at those altitudes. And why should you limit your oppenent from engagning in the tactic just because it wasn't done historically? Best is to keep your Zeros grounded, or bomb his airfield at night when his pilots are sleeping in their planes. You just need to be as creative as your opponent and not complain about game mechanics. It's a game afterall so it should be gamey.

you are right. Instead this thread would be titled "Why can't I decide where my fighters fly? This AI is broken!!"

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Czert

Is here spoting chance afected by altitude ? I think IRL if we have two sweeps and one is at 10k and second at 30k, then 10k have much better chance of seeing upper bandints that oposite side ( trails in higher altitudes, and higher planes dont fly in sun forever ) . Yes, altitude gives you great advantage in combat, but you must spoot your enemies fist.
So, in effect, if lower sweep have plane with nice climb rate, it can make life harder for upper ones.

20k feet is 3.3 nautical miles. It isn't as far as you think. Trust me.

F4F Vterm was 725 ft/sec.

which means an F4F that spotted and made a high side run on a target 20k below it would be pulling off his target in about 27 seconds.

ORIGINAL: herwin

@TheElf

I don't disagree with you, but there are other factors:

1. As noted, fatigue.
2. Look down with eyeballs is even less effective than look down with radar. Eyeballs can't pick up doppler. Sure, you can see canopy glint, but only at specific positions relative to the sun and without cloud cover.
3. Look up with eyeballs is quite effective at picking up aircraft silhouettes.
4. The action during a WWII sweep was on the deck. The boys flying high were providing defence. Anyone hanging around in the middle was in trouble.

If you look at the engagement as involving target detection/acquisition/engagement/kill (DAEK) cycles, you're addressing engagement and kill, but not the other two phases, which are arguably at least as important.

The DEAK cycle is present in the code. Not that I would expect you to know that. Thanks for the lesson though.

ORIGINAL: herwin

Historically in WWII, a sweep consisted of two elements, one offensive and one defensive. An element on the deck was offensively tasked with attacking bases and aircraft launching and landing. A second element at altitude was defending the low element from enemy aircraft at medium altitude using energy tactics. Think of a correctly organised sweep as a sandwich with no filling--the middle of the air was a dangerous place to be.

this is a generalization. And as far as AE is concerned completely inaccurate.

ORIGINAL: herwin

@TheElf

I don't disagree with you, but there are other factors:

1. As noted, fatigue.
2. Look down with eyeballs is even less effective than look down with radar. Eyeballs can't pick up doppler. Sure, you can see canopy glint, but only at specific positions relative to the sun and without cloud cover.
3. Look up with eyeballs is quite effective at picking up aircraft silhouettes.
4. The action during a WWII sweep was on the deck. The boys flying high were providing defence. Anyone hanging around in the middle was in trouble.

You really need to read more than one book on this subject.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

@TheElf

I don't disagree with you, but there are other factors:

1. As noted, fatigue.
2. Look down with eyeballs is even less effective than look down with radar. Eyeballs can't pick up doppler. Sure, you can see canopy glint, but only at specific positions relative to the sun and without cloud cover.
3. Look up with eyeballs is quite effective at picking up aircraft silhouettes.
4. The action during a WWII sweep was on the deck. The boys flying high were providing defence. Anyone hanging around in the middle was in trouble.

You really need to read more than one book on this subject.

@Nikademus

Most of what I read was many years ago, and no longer at hand. Shaw is not only on my bookshelf, but particularly good.

ORIGINAL: herwin


@Nikademus

Most of what I read was many years ago, and no longer at hand.

I can tell.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin


@Nikademus

Most of what I read was many years ago, and no longer at hand.

I can tell.

Care to raise the level of discourse a bit?

Cat fight! Cat fight! RRRrrrrrrrr.... [X(]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Cat fight! Cat fight! RRRrrrrrrrr.... [X(]

[;)]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Care to raise the level of discourse a bit?

based on what you've written thus far, no. I'd love it if you'd try to lecture Elf some more on his day job though.

ORIGINAL: herwin

@TheElf


2. Look down with eyeballs is even less effective than look down with radar. Eyeballs can't pick up doppler. Sure, you can see canopy glint, but only at specific positions relative to the sun and without cloud cover.

According to Fire in the Sky and other works I'm sure, trained pilots had a knack for detecting the slightest movements some even at great distances.

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mbatch729

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed
Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 36000 feet *
CAP engaged:
Kanoya Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
21 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810
Raid is overhead

yup, your opponent is gamin the system.

Firstly, I want to express my thanks by all who worked on AE and specifically to you, Elf, for the much improved air model which has done a lot to make results less all-or-nothing nature of aircombat in WITP.

However I need to ask - if this sweeps at 36K ft is gaming the system then what altitude is not: 35K? 30K? 20K? Players have no way of knowing. If you leave it to people to pick then they are inevitably try to get the advantage and will leapfrog up the altitude bands until things are maxed out. Are we best to place a global max altitude across all aircraft or one based on maneuvre bands?

IMHO the only real solution would be to adjust the system to deal approriately with high altitude sweeps and reflect why all combat didn't revert to the highest altitude. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to suggest what the the changes ought to be other than noting that the dive should not be the be-all and end-all of combat as it seems to be in my games.

Ian (Elf),

I can tell from your responses that you are annoyed with some of the questions people are posing. In spite of that, it would be really helpful to most of us if you good take a shot at answering this question. Even if the "adjust the system" part is totally out of the question, players can implement house rules. Your suggestion as to a house rule would be a great benefit.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

Care to raise the level of discourse a bit?

based on what you've written thus far, no. I'd love it if you'd try to lecture Elf some more on his day job though.

OK, I see your issue. I've worked with a lot of pilots over the years, including some who flew USN aircraft in WWII. No, I am not and never have been a pilot, but I have been a systems engineer, chief engineer, and systems analyst for air, ground, and naval systems, and I have done aerodynamic modelling (aircraft, lifting bodies, reentry vehicles, bats, and primitive birds). Elf is sharp, but he's flown high performance jets--at least that's what he sounds like. The propellor/jet transition affected aircraft performance in major ways. Thrust in jet aircraft is force--mass times acceleration, while propellor engines produce something else--power--mass times rate of change of energy. Power for a jet aircraft is thrust times velocity. That results in energy management being more important for propellor aircraft than for jet aircraft, and in the acceleration of a propellor aircraft being much more sensitive to air speed than for a jet aircraft. Yes, I listen to the pilots, but my experience of pilots includes ones with experience in F4Us, AV8Bs, and helicopters as well as jets. The differences are interesting.

So please raise the level of discourse. I rely on Shaw since he's consistent with other sources, many of which I no longer have access to. Criticise his model of sweeps and his discussion of altitude management in WWII.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Care to raise the level of discourse a bit?

I hope I will be able to do so. You have my email, in any case.

Reading books and trolling the internet does not signify. Now you are supposed to be an expert and understand all this stuff, so I have to go to sailboat design. Hydrodynamics and aerodynamics differ by Reynolds numbers, but the physics (and the mechanics) is basically the same, in broad. Think you have gotten tangled up in your internet shorts and have lost sight of practicality.

Just think about the America’s Cup boat, Mariner. Brit Chance knows more about dynamics than I do, or you ever will, but it bit the big willy. Then off to Schnackenberg and Ooassenen that understood some of the old NACA shapes. And if you really want to get gnarly, how about Gregor Dimitrovich Simchij? Worked for Mikoyan Gurevich and developed a really cool rig for Galitsyn when he won the Olympics.

No, don’t think your books, or your internet sites, tell the story. Think you should do the Spanish thing and leave the ring.

this stuff is priceless...who needs radio or tv to be entertained?