The tojo as uber.....

[Hortlund]

Glad you found it funny. If your posts were not filled with all that whining and complaining about pretty self-explaining truths, perhaps they would be funny too.

In my game as allied, Ive tried to set my CAP fighters on higher altitude than his sweeps. Guess what, my fighters still draw the short straw. 20 Hurricanes on CAP at 35k still lose 3-1 to 30 Oscars sweeping at 15k. I think we all have experiences like that, and therefore your whining and complaining is all the more silly.

[chesmart]

What we should do is test it further and see if we have consistent results with "Uber CAP". Lets test it further in test scenarios and we will see if it is that bad or not. Dont mind Castor he lives in a negative troll world, had an experience myself when i tried to reason with him. 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Glad you found it funny. If your posts were not filled with all that whining and complaining about pretty self-explaining truths, perhaps they would be funny too.

In my game as allied, Ive tried to set my CAP fighters on higher altitude than his sweeps. Guess what, my fighters still draw the short straw. 20 Hurricanes on CAP at 35k still lose 3-1 to 30 Oscars sweeping at 15k. I think we all have experiences like that, and therefore your whining and complaining is all the more silly.

oh yeah, try setting them lower, perhaps they get shred 10:1 then. Open your eyes. Take the example I posted from my last PBEM turn. A 0:10 turns into a 3:0. The reason for this was the bounce. And yeah, if you think the airwar in the Pacific happend above 30.000ft ->

www.amazon.com

some nice books for sale...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: che200

What we should do is test it further and see if we have consistent results with "Uber CAP". Lets test it further in test scenarios and we will see if it is that bad or not. Dont mind Castor he lives in a negative troll world, had an experience myself when i tried to reason with him. 

better to live in a troll world than in an ignorant brown noser world. You probably too think that the fights in the Pacific were going on at 30.000ft to just below 40.000ft and that this altitude was the standard for an Oscar, a Zero or a P-40. Not even the devs dare to say that this would be realistic, hence it happens in all PBEMs where people don´t restrict them to keeping their fighters at reasonable alts because the game can´t force them to. Not even the great Panzerjaeger keeps his fighters at reasonable alt it seems as he´s also fighting Oscars at 35.000ft. So what? Reasonable? Realistic? Sure, only the books and veterans are wrong. And me of course. And not to forget about the two others that think airwar in the Pacific at 38.000ft is off. But hey, better a troll than an ignorant dreamer. You sure can offer some quotes that prove the 35.000ft encounters of Oscars sweeping P-40 at 10.000ft, diving down at them and killing them off at 10:0? And no, this is not an AFB or JFB whine, you can do the same with Lightnings at 39.000ft against Oscars at x feet lower so it works just both ways. And that´s the reason why there seem to be some trolls saying that it´s just off. Oh I forgot, those fighters all had 21st century radar sets, heat shields and all the other stuff to make things possible. I´m looking for an interview with a USAAF veteran that quotes Oscars diving down 20.000ft to take out a whole squadron.

oops, too much sarcasm again, I better just keep going on with the Sputnik term.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: che200

What we should do is test it further and see if we have consistent results with "Uber CAP". Lets test it further in test scenarios and we will see if it is that bad or not. Dont mind Castor he lives in a negative troll world, had an experience myself when i tried to reason with him. 

Yup. But how to test it?
If you repeat the same turn over and over again on your computer, without changing a single bit, you'll always receive the same results.

I'm not a statistician, but I think we'd need about 100 trials for the results to be statistically important & credible.
And as we change things, altitude selection etc., that's not good, because every result can happen at least once. [;)]

[chesmart]

Create a test scenario with average pilots both sides using the planes you want to test and test them at the different altitudes. I would recommend Oscar vs P-40 for your first test.Use 10 tests at Different Altitudes as your Reference and from there you get the data. Unfortunately i cannot do it until i finish the mod i am creating. BTW guys Nemo is doing a Mod where The Altitude is limited, he is discussing it in the Scenario and Mod forum.

[Titanwarrior89]

Thats just it, there won't be any later stages. The game will be over. Japs win! Again I ask If "ANYONE" played into the later stages(pbem) as the allies and seen real world results for the allies in the game. All the players do here is throw up -"Look at what we get in 1944". Japs were not super human nor their aircraft. Game is off, as been from the beglining. Has anybody had a MIDWAY yet? Should it always happen-no it should not. But the way this game is set up it will never happen. Its hard for the allied player just to get a Coral sea result.[X(]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

July 15, 1942. Tokyo Rose

"Once again, highly trained Japanese army pilots, using their refined "high altitude sweep" tactics prevailed over the American dogs.

38 of the " universally respected and beloved" tojo fighters swept into Allied skies at a comfortable 36,000 feet and impaled a superior force of Allied P-40 aircraft-proving again the dominance of Japanese technoloy, pilot skill and industrial prowess. For the lost of just two "vaunted" tojos, the force of 38 "elite" army fighters, sporting weak armament and no armor, engaged 65 Allied planes and sliced up fourty P-40 Es in air to air combat. The highly skilled P 40 pilots while flying at the optimum altitude for their pitiful aircraft, grew over confident behind the superior armor and firepower of the hopelessly obsolete curtis fighters and were paid in kind for their reckless optimism. It is a shame that American and Australian girls have to lose their beloved sweetheat and husbands who are sent to war in this pitiful aircraft-no longer suited for any sort of front line activity but yet used by the Allies as they are unable to produce anything better. You Yanks thought you were in trouble facing our marvelous Zeros and Oscars and their tremendous high flying tactics. Now you must quiver in your boots at the the thought of facing the "new" superior tojo fighters."



Truthfully, this just totally blows. Tojos have slaughterd my hurricanes in India and are now doing a job on my fighters in OZ. This mediocre aircraft is a total killer and combined with superior numbers and the high altitude sweep just makes me sick. I have tried many solutions but it is July of 1942 and so far my the best tactic I have found to conter the Japanese air force is to pray that they do not show up in the same hex that I send my aircraft. Pretty sad. Takes me two months to build up my squadrons only to see them slaughtered in combat. I know I am not the first to complain about this but the high altitude sweep is totally out of whack. I suspect that Japanese players are going to be screaming about the same thing when our games get into the later stages. Any Japanese player who would build Tonys (service rating of 3) over these aircraft is out of his mind.

I have to confess that I am playing scen 2. Hindsight being 20/20, I should have negotiated a better deal....[:D]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: che200

What we should do is test it further and see if we have consistent results with "Uber CAP". Lets test it further in test scenarios and we will see if it is that bad or not. Dont mind Castor he lives in a negative troll world, had an experience myself when i tried to reason with him. 

Yup. But how to test it?
If you repeat the same turn over and over again on your computer, without changing a single bit, you'll always receive the same results.

I'm not a statistician, but I think we'd need about 100 trials for the results to be statistically important & credible.
And as we change things, altitude selection etc., that's not good, because every result can happen at least once. [;)]

If you close the program and restart it after every test turn, random seed for RNG gets reset and results will vary.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: che200
Create a test scenario with average pilots both sides using the planes you want to test and test them at the different altitudes. I would recommend Oscar vs P-40 for your first test.Use 10 tests at Different Altitudes as your Reference and from there you get the data.

IMHO this data wouldn't be statistically important & it would not be possible to draw any conslusions from it.
Just 10 trials with different settings -- meaning 10 different results and only results -- not a clear representation of the formula.
What we need is 100 - 200 trials with the same settings on different computers, so that the results differ not the settings.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
oh yeah, try setting them lower, perhaps they get shred 10:1 then. Open your eyes. Take the example I posted from my last PBEM turn. A 0:10 turns into a 3:0. The reason for this was the bounce. And yeah, if you think the airwar in the Pacific happend above 30.000ft ->

www.amazon.com

some nice books for sale...

Well, Ive tried to put them lower, and no, the difference was not that big. Ive also had successful dogfights where my Hurricanes and P40s have taken down more Oscars than they lost. Usually that was when I was outnumbering them.

What exactly is your problem with the bounce results? When one side had the bounce, they got 10-0 (with fog of war) and when the other side got the bounce, they got 3-0 (also with fog of war). So what?

If you dont want the airwar in the pacific to happen above 30k, then dont set your fighters at that altitude. Pretty simple really.

[Zigurat666]

I can hardly wait for AE to have some time behind it. I dont visit the forum much anymore because of the complaining. I dont play WitP much anymore since switching to AE but I used to gather lots of useful info from its forums.
I dont know,maybe its me but for those of you who dont like some of the elements of the game,move along and play something else or develop your own game. IMO this is one of the best PC strategy games I,ve come across and when I see something ingame that doesnt seem to be WAD I find a way to counteract it,thats really the whole point of a strategy game isn,t it?

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: castor troy


better to live in a troll world than in an ignorant brown noser world.

[8|]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I can hardly wait for AE to have some time behind it. I dont visit the forum much anymore because of the complaining. I dont play WitP much anymore since switching to AE but I used to gather lots of useful info from its forums.
I dont know,maybe its me but for those of you who dont like some of the elements of the game,move along and play something else or develop your own game. IMO this is one of the best PC strategy games I,ve come across and when I see something ingame that doesnt seem to be WAD I find a way to counteract it,thats really the whole point of a strategy game isn,t it?

Zig, I totally agree with you[&o]

There was a time when there was good information on this forum. I am sure it still is, but it is hidden behind all of the repetitive, argumenative, and just plain nasty posts.

[Titanwarrior89]

You really think I care what you think. [:-]

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I can hardly wait for AE to have some time behind it. I dont visit the forum much anymore because of the complaining. I dont play WitP much anymore since switching to AE but I used to gather lots of useful info from its forums.
I dont know,maybe its me but for those of you who dont like some of the elements of the game,move along and play something else or develop your own game. IMO this is one of the best PC strategy games I,ve come across and when I see something ingame that doesnt seem to be WAD I find a way to counteract it,thats really the whole point of a strategy game isn,t it?

[Titanwarrior89]

Same for you bud.[:-]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Zigurat666

I can hardly wait for AE to have some time behind it. I dont visit the forum much anymore because of the complaining. I dont play WitP much anymore since switching to AE but I used to gather lots of useful info from its forums.
I dont know,maybe its me but for those of you who dont like some of the elements of the game,move along and play something else or develop your own game. IMO this is one of the best PC strategy games I,ve come across and when I see something ingame that doesnt seem to be WAD I find a way to counteract it,thats really the whole point of a strategy game isn,t it?

Zig, I totally agree with you[&o]

There was a time when there was good information on this forum. I am sure it still is, but it is hidden behind all of the repetitive, argumenative, and just plain nasty posts.

[pompack]

I rest my case [8|]

[Titanwarrior89]

You should! Your better than thou attitude. Ever one has the right to complain who has bought the game and has been playing the system since release in july o4. As for you! Do you really think I care what YOU think. Take your friend and you two move along. [:-]Maybe you two could find another game. Since you guys seem to be the game wardens. [&o]

ORIGINAL: pompack

I rest my case [8|]

[vicberg]

There are wonderful turn-based air war board games out there dating back to the Avalon Hill days, covering all periods (WW1, WW2 and Modern). GDW has a wonderful game, if it can be found, called Air Combat (covering Modern Jets). The technology has changed but the tactics haven't. High altitude, by itself, isn't a bonus. There's a counter to everything in air battles, based on plane and pilot, and in modern age, missle quality. The goal is to get on the opponent six and has been for almost 100 years. This has been negated a bit due to radar missle and the ability to launch from any angle, but heat seakers are still based on oppoent six (or close to).

High altitude means energy, which means more options. Speed in a unmanuverable plane, like a P-40, meant high speed passes at the enemy, extend away, climb and turn, do it again. Against a Zero, this tactic often didn't work and why the Zero was dominant early war. The Zero could out climb and out-manuver the P-40, so it could negate the P-40 dive ability leaving the P-40 pilot with two choices: 1) fight a manuver battle against a more manuverable plane or 2) dive and run away. Of course, a good pilot in a P-40 could still beat a Zero, but it wasn't based strictly on altitude.

IMO, there should be a few things tweaked with the air combat:
1) Altitude bonus, by itself, should be removed...altitude is pretty much already included in plane air to air ability and pilot quality...all things being taking into affect, altitude should only affect the ability to "bounce" (surprise) the enemy and "bounce" should affect the first round of combat only (assuming the game does round by round combat).
2) There should be a true "bounce" check. Though lower altitude planes might not be able to exploit a bounce, it was possible IF the planes could climb fast enough and the altitude difference wasn't extreme. Bouncing comes down to how fast you can surprise the enemy. The check should go for both sides, with a bonus to the higher altitude planes. Pilot quality, alititude difference, climb ability, radar (if present) should come into play. Even if the higher altitude planes get a "bounce", if there's a 20,000 feet difference, the higher altitude planes might not be able to exploit it because it takes time to drop 20,000 feet and the defenders could see them coming and manuver accordingly...If someone wants to fly at 30,000+ feet, fine, but it will significantly reduce the ability to bounce someone at 10,000 feet.

The two changes above, are probably within the scope of changes to this game that are possible. There's another option that may not be doable.
3) There should be a "spot" check, with altitude, weather, pilot quantity, etc., coming into play. If there are multiple squadrons at multiple levels, who spots whom and at what level would have major affect. High level cap spots high level sweep but misses low level bombers/escorts. Mid-level cap bounces low level bombers/escorts, but gets bounced by high level sweep or misses high level bombers (which is what happened at Midway...fighters went low to attack torp bombers and missed high level dive bombers)...

This would open the air war up a bit from the current "fly as high as you can" approach...Fly cap at high altitude to get a bounce and miss either the bounce or the low level enemy altogether...fly cap at mid-level to bounce low level bombing raids and possibly get bounced from high level sweeps. Fly sweeps at high leve (30,000+)l and miss the cap entirely or the bounce.

To bring up another point about air combat. Japanese started the game with superior fighters and superior pilot quality (with combat experience from the war in China). This isn't really reflected in scenario #1. The zeroes were their top plane, and the zero squadrons (at least land based at Formosa) start with a rookie average quality. Hmmmm.....scenario #2 is the other way, with almost ALLl starting squadrons averaging 75-85 pilot quantlity. Not sure if that's correct either, but it's closer to the mark.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89
Same for you bud.[:-]

Demoting this one to the War Room ...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: castor troy
oh yeah, try setting them lower, perhaps they get shred 10:1 then. Open your eyes. Take the example I posted from my last PBEM turn. A 0:10 turns into a 3:0. The reason for this was the bounce. And yeah, if you think the airwar in the Pacific happend above 30.000ft ->

www.amazon.com

some nice books for sale...

Well, Ive tried to put them lower, and no, the difference was not that big. Ive also had successful dogfights where my Hurricanes and P40s have taken down more Oscars than they lost. Usually that was when I was outnumbering them.

What exactly is your problem with the bounce results? When one side had the bounce, they got 10-0 (with fog of war) and when the other side got the bounce, they got 3-0 (also with fog of war). So what?

If you dont want the airwar in the pacific to happen above 30k, then dont set your fighters at that altitude. Pretty simple really.

yeah, it is simple, I don´t deny that and also said that the only way to see it happen at realistic altitudes would be the players forcing themselve to do so. The problem in this is that everyone just tries to get at least 100ft higher than the enemy and those 100ft (just like 20.000ft) results in the allmighty bounce. So let the bounce be allmighty but then the aircraft need to have reasonable stats (or if the stats are correct then there needs to be a reasonable routine) because what you get just below 40.000ft when Lightnings encounter Oscars is not reasonable. At least not in my book. There are things you can prevent with hrs but I can´t really see a hr on altitude. What would that be? Realistically it would have to be Allied fighters in general being able to fly higher than Japanese from early 43 on. Can´t see how this should work though. It´s the game that needs to force the player to use it´s planes under conditions that suit them best, if they don´t use them under those conditions then the game should harm the player for doing so. But it´s the total opposite, like the game is now (decide yourselve if the stats or the routines are the reason), the player is just asked to use his aircraft in a way how they would never have worked well in real life. There´s a good reason why air engagements happened at low or medium alt in real life and not above 30.000ft.

Counted the kills during the combat replay and those are pretty spot on (don´t know if they even are hit by FOW at all) and as you can see both the cr (which just always shows fewer kills) and the loss list show different kills. And even if it would be 9 or 11:0 or 4 or 2:0, what should be noticed is the DIFFERENCE between having the bounce or not and that difference is off, as it´s just too much. But still, the main problem IMO is that you are not forced to do what one of the major changes from WITP to AE promised: looking at the stats to use your ac under best conditions to achieve best results. That´s just not true, otherwise you wouldn´t see Zeroes at 32.000ft or Oscars at 38.000ft. Same goes for a couple of Allied fighters too of course.