High Altitude Sweep Rant

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I think you are misunderstanding the "xy squadron climbing to 38500ft to intercept" message though.
Sure, they climb. But "climbing to x" is not equal to "reaching x".

And except for if I do something wrong, am outnumbered or have a severe disadvantage in pilot quality
I never get bounced and bounced and bounced.
But it seems we are playing different games sometimes. [;)]

obviously, not sometimes but most times though

[Sly]

I have similar feelings about "X fighters climbing to 38500ft to intercept" message as you.
Having a Hurricanes against Oscars you can set them at dedicated altitude about 15000- 20000ft.
The opponent flying above is not the problem because effectiv detection can scramble Hurri's above Oscars.
Problem is then the Oscars flies above and on altitude  that Hurri's even cant rech, beyond max sevice ceiling, so in the game 38500Ft. Combat system give them initiativ set on the highest available altitude and then diving massacre.
It would be GREAT if combat system BEFORE scramble checked opponents altitude. When there is a chance to reach that altitude or above - scramble as it is now.
But then when attacking figters flies above and beyond max service ceiling defending fighters they should scramble to a dedicated altitude and "stay in formation on 15000ft" altitude obtaining some defensive bonus. Of course defenders fighter could still be dived (on 15000ft alt) but successive portions of CAPs would have a better chance to dive attacking figters. The idea is make high swedping attacks more balanced.
[align=left] [/align]

[herwin]

I don't want to start another flame war, but I suspect the issue is the balance of factors. Back in the 1970s, we--not just me, I knew systems engineers at the aircraft contractors were doing this--were trying to come up with estimation models for the exchange rates between aircraft models in combat. This was before the days of Top Gun, so we didn't have really good current data, and we had to make do with combat statistics and whatever came out of tests. This was the days of over-the-top air battle models, and what we were doing was coming up with parameter values for those models. Unfortunately, when I describe those models as 'over-the-top', I'm refering to their opacity when you tried to figure out the cause and effect relationships that produced some of the weird results.

This was more than theoretically important. Those battle models produced the results that led to mistakes like fighter aircraft without gun armament and the F-111B. I've seen the analysis that led to the F-111B. We're lucky the USN didn't end up with prop-driven missile-armed fighter aircraft that optimised loiter time at the cost of all the characteristics a modern fighter pilot would deem critical.

Ever play Tobruk? The board game version. That was the direct commercialisation of a code used to analyse tanks during the 1950s and 60s. It modelled the tank-versus-tank engagement by considering each round fired, assessing where on the target it hit, and the resulting terminal ballistics. It was the armoured equivalent of the air battle model and produced just as weird results.

This discussion takes me back to those days. There's a detailed engagement model that's producing rather opaque results. As usual in those models, the best results are produced by turning the knobs to their limits. Either we define house rules to enforce reasonable behaviour [8|], or we make the models even more complex and opaque [X(], or we back off on the hardware realism and introduce some higher-level realism so that people stop optimising their knob settings and instead play the game [;)].

[Sly]

[align=left]So things aren't so simply, can say.
I dont have any programming experience but understand that  one check  doesn't  fix  the system.
Well Harry, if i may say,  You  have such experience so better i will stay by haus rules for now [:)] waiting for higher level realism system .
Eventually I choose to play a strategic game not simulator  and for now WitP AE is the best strategic level game which I know
 
[/align][align=left] [/align]

[KenchiSulla]

It limits planes that are less powerful in HP at higher altitude to fly at max 20.000 feet. I do however agree about planes that get their 2nd best man. band in the last column. They will on top of the foodchain so to speak. How about a hard limit to 32k for those?

[castor troy]

Not that people would think I´m ignoring everything what is posted and what you could do to stop players from exploiting the game engine (a well working or not is up to everyone himself) with ceiling sweeps, I have done some tests with what people suggest.

And it does not work for me. Why? Because as soon as land based radar is working in the game (it obviously isn´t, never got any spotting with dozens of land based radar sets in my PBEM and we´re in mid 43 already - it´s looked at by the devs anyway) then you will soon find out that Cap will suddenly trump sweeps, while we had sweeps trump Cap with our strato sweeps that get the dive (the dive is still for me the number one factor, nothing is as powerful). So how did I test this? Easy, just put a TF with air search radar into a base hex and fly your sweeps against a Cap, with both sides being set to their second best man band. A hr like this usually means the fighters aren´t allowed to fly at their ceiling (except aircraft like the P-47, but hey, that would be "exploiting" the routine again, so instead of hoping for a change, you have to either exploit the game or exclude aircraft like the P-47 from the hr because they would again be allowed to fly at 42000ft).

Now what happens with working radar? You actually SPOT enemy raids. Means you´ve most often got enough time to position your fighters high enough (this does the game for you and due to the fact that raids usually are detected HIGHER than they actually are, your Cap is sent to the HIGHER alt then the raid actually is). Voila, you now have a sweep limited to the second best man band, let´s say 20000ft, got your Cap at the second best alt band (let´s say 20000ft too) and where does your Cap end up with a working radar? At 25000ft at least probably, getting the dive... boom... boom... boom...

While this hr is acceptable for some people, I didn´t really like it because I wasn´t convinced about it but with the recent toying around that supported what I´ve already thought makes this hr(s) not acceptable at all for me because it just swaps the dive from the ceiling sweeps to the radar supported Cap when you end up somewhere between 15 and 25000ft and the Cap can go higher (which every fighter on the map can I guess). So as soon as landbased radar actually works, this hr becomes pretty problematic I guess.

[USSAmerica]

So, CT, from your testing, do you think that once the land based radar is fixed and working, the "Strato Sweeps" will be somewhat balanced by more effective CAP?  Or, do you think Strato Sweeps will still be too powerful?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

So, CT, from your testing, do you think that once the land based radar is fixed and working, the "Strato Sweeps" will be somewhat balanced by more effective CAP?  Or, do you think Strato Sweeps will still be too powerful?

it´s neither the strato sweep nor the Cap, it´s purely the alt in every case and the alt results in the dive (in my opinion, other people´s opinions are different, even though my P-38 get 10:1 kills WITH the dive and 2:1 at best without the dive - against the same enemy). The strato sweeps can´t be cured by working radar because as long as the strato sweeper can go higher than the Cap, it doesn´t matter if the radar works or not because (in theory, in WITP they even got the bounce if the sweep was flying higher than the Cap could even reach), the Cap can´t reach the strato sweep anyway. That´s why I say I think that IF radar is going to work and IF you use the hr about man bands then you will end up with the Cap being HIGHER than the sweep, therefore reversing the situation of the stratosweeps you had without a hr, means now that the raids are spotted, the sweeps forced to fly below their ceiling and ending up lower than the Cap´s ceiling, the Cap now gets up in a higher position now DIVING on the enemy. At least that´s what is happening head to head when I´ve used TFs to provide air search radar for one of my bases with Cap.

This wasn´t just a test of the proposed hrs but also if I can use naval based radar to aid bases, which works just fine. It also proved (to me) that land based radar isn´t working (also supported by 1.5 years gametime in my PBEM). So if you tie your sweeps to an alt lower than the ceiling of the Cap, then the radar will usually put the Cap higher than the sweep, reversing in what we see during strato sweeps with the Cap being the winnner in 9 out of 10 times due to getting the dive. Again, this is happening in MY version of the game. Others of course have never seen this nor have they ever seen the never ending dive. My opponent and me are experiencing this quite a lot, no matter how many times we try all the suggestions of what works to counter ceiling attacks.

But hey, it was said (and accepted by me) that ceiling sweeps are exploiting the engine, so it´s our fault and not of the game, at least that´s what the devs are thinking. At least that´s a huge leap forward because it was said for months that everything would be absolutely fine. Guess it´s not, or how could you exploit it then? What I would like to have is a routine that forces me to do what they´ve done in real life. As it is now, it´s all about the dive and none of the hrs are ok with me, especially not if radar is going to work at some point.

[Jaroen]

I think most of us would prefer a game model where pilots and planes would fly at historical altitudes. This would hurt the Japanese later in the war because of advanced oxygen/heating/pressurisation technology (pilot tech) and less advanced engine/fuel technology (plane tech). But we'd accept the plane stats and consequences when historically correct. It's just something the Japanese had to deal with historically and so should the player.

So how come (some) players find unhistorical altitudes to be the only way to compete? My thinking is:
1. Low(er) pilot skills can perhaps be compensated by a big altitude advantage giving the initiative/surprise (= dive).
2. To counter this advantage the other player chooses to do the same thing.

BTW: I personally think from the examples shown that other factors besides altitude differences are a major cause for the 'dives'. In my experience against the AI it simple doesn't pay to fly high. But that's mainly flying against high experience Japanese pilots who quickly turn my dives, I do get those sometimes, into a normal engagement. Not nice against Jap aces. Fatigue already is bad and I've seen no benefit. But . . . all things being equal (like pilot skills) such an altitude advantage would turn up eventually.

I believe we don't really like that altitude chase since it turns out to be somewhat ridiculous, maybe. And we don't like to look at the altitude bands in an abstract sense. But what can be implemented/modelled in AE? What was the situation historically? How come the pilots/planes were usually operating on a low to middle altitude at the PTO? There certainly was an altitude advantage, so why didn't they always fly at maximum operation ceiling?
1. Oxygen + low temperature was a big issue. It was impossible/uncomfortable to fly for long periods higher than say 15.000 ft.
2. Engine performance fell down dramatically around 18.000 - 21.000 ft.
3. Navigation was hard and required lower altitudes to determine targets and bases.
4. Targeting thus necessitated low (to 7.000 ft.) to middle (max. 21.000 ft.) altitudes for tactical strikes.
5. These strikes were protected by fighters normally flying only slightly higher.
6. CAPs were small or non-existent and only fighting incoming bombers to save precious resources.
7. Warning times were short and offered only little time to gain altitude.
8. All this changed a lot with the later (past mid '43) high performance machines, better cockpit environments and much improved resources.

All the player can influence would be the resource management I'd say, allowing for (much) higher CAP density.

So what could perhaps be modelled into the game to influence players to do a different altitude selection?
1. As suggested before, a (very) high fatigue increase when flying over 15.000 feet.
2. Failing assault (ground, airfield and port) strikes when flying higher (as in: increased chance for not finding a target).
3. Even more decreased effectiveness of bombing when flying higher or more increased efficiency on low altitudes.

I personally think all this is modelled in some way already. Plane performance is already part of altitude equation and fatigue issues are also implemented. But perhaps stronger fatigue effects will model the historical situation better. Bombing effectiveness doesn't help with fighters flying CAPs/Sweeps but heavy fatigue will. Newer planes with good high altitude performance should be less fatiguing than the older ones which does result in an altitude advantage by new machines over older aircraft.

BTW: When flying on historical altitudes players will of course still experience that 'dive' message!!! It signifies initiative and surprise which will ususally be acquired by the better pilot (air skill) against defensively failing pilots (defensive skill) all other things being equal. That message is NOT tied to altitude advantage and might very well be on the side of a lower flying pilot.

[TheElf]

After much thought and debate, the Air team and I have decided to hard code the "typical" altitude flown for each aircraft in the database.  We have enough research already to come up with an "average" altitude for operations in the Pacific theater, and will take the guess work out of the equation for the lowest common denominator.  You can expect to see this new feature in the next patch and we hope it will fix the issue of the dive.  Of course we'll test it first...[;)]

[witpqs]

Ian,

Do tell a bit more - will it be a database entry or one altitude common to all fighters, for example?

In basic concept, I like this a bunch.

[vonTirpitz]

Get the popcorn out. I have faith that Ian and the devs will do what is in the best interest of the game.

That said, I am pretty sure we will get start reading future threads (probably from the usual sources) complaining about what is "typical" for each aircraft for each year, theater, weather condition, etc. [:D]

(Reminds me of a fellow who once suggested rewriting the rules of golf because of the other fellow he chose to play with always used a seven iron). [8D]

[TheElf]

Do tell a bit more - will it be a database entry or one altitude common to all fighters, for example?

In basic concept, I like this a bunch.

It will be hard coded, ie. uneditable.  It will be different based on what we "feel" is most typical for each individual aircraft.  Think Zero bonus...you know, where the player has no say in the matter.

[witpqs]

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

[davbaker]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Ever play Tobruk? The board game version. That was the direct commercialisation of a code used to analyse tanks during the 1950s and 60s. It modelled the tank-versus-tank engagement by considering each round fired, assessing where on the target it hit, and the resulting terminal ballistics. It was the armoured equivalent of the air battle model and produced just as weird results.

First Wargame I ever played when I was about 14 I think.
Got me started on this whole slippery slope [:)]
Thanks for reminding me and adding some interesting info on it.

Dave

[TheElf]

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Why would you want to do that?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Why would you want to do that?

Ian,

Maybe we are talking past each other. When you say "each individual aircraft" - you mean A) each model in the database? So you would set the P-51B at one altitude and the P-40E at another altitude, and so on.

Or do you mean B) "fighters" is one type, "fighter-bombers" is another type, etc?

If you mean B, then I like that plan.

If you mean A, then surely there would need to be a field in the database for modders to set new or altered aircraft types correctly. If not then what - the code goes by slot assignments?

[vonTirpitz]

I think that the point being made is that if the player has a choice to modify these parameters then it is likely that somebody will (eventually) misuse that ability and take advantage and exploit the logic in the game routines.

Carrying this logic forward will likely result in a colorful game of checkers before its all said and done.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So what about the ability of players to mod in aircraft? Why un-editable?

Please forgive my interjection (Ian) if I misinterpreted your statement. [;)]

[TheElf]

exactly...if we let players back into the loop after deliberately, and by request, removing them it would just lead more of the same nonsense and the "glitch" wouldn't really be fixed.  If I read this thread right, the majority of people believe that the problem is that players have the choice to fly High altitude Sweeps.  Ergo, remove the choice, solve the problem.

[vonTirpitz]

Aside some the comments and observations made by some of the more vocal in this community I have to state that I have not noticed any serious flaws in the air engine during my current PBEM. Perhaps this is due to my opponent and I playing a reasonable game and not "running the numbers" and maxing out each game setting trying to "find" something. Or perhaps it is just plain luck.

Either way we seem to be enjoying the game as it is generally currently written. Just my two cents.