|
Keep in mind that industrial tooling that ways 15 tons might physically survive a bomb, but I dunno if it would still be aligned closely enough to produce parts that are within tolerance. Obviously not a problem for the tank road wheel factory, but the aircraft turbine plant is going to suffer.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:What the hell! Were you targeting our troops? I get that the Allies have almost as many guns as we do but this is insane! Is that all because of counter-artillery fire or something? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Thats what happens when you have them packed in there like sardines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Drone posted:Is that all because of counter-artillery fire or something? Possibly. I know that the original WITP had some problems with counter-battery fire being overly powerful, but the combat system is so deliberately obfuscated that it's hard to really know what's going on. On a tangent, there was a discussion on a recent Three Moves Ahead where the guest said that the reason he prefers cardboard wargames to virtual ones is because he can understand how the engine runs underneath the hood, and it helps him make informed decisions. The purported reason behind keeping your video game mechanics a mystery is to prevent players from engaging in "gamey" behavior and instead make decisions based on what "makes sense in the real world", but I don't buy it - people still engage in gamey behavior anyway, only just in the bits and bobs of mechanics that they do understand, and sometimes even in the ones that they're only guessing at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Yeahhhh, the Japanese don't have that many fewer guns than the AMericans do and one would think on thier own ends they've had some time to setup their own fortifications on thier side of the island.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Aren't the American guns in this game far better than what the Japanese get? Even with numerical parity that would probably be what's causing so many casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Aren't the American guns in this game far better than what the Japanese get? Even with numerical parity that would probably be what's causing so many casualties. This would make sense in general, given how massive the US Army's hardon for artillery was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Possibly. I know that the original WITP had some problems with counter-battery fire being overly powerful, but the combat system is so deliberately obfuscated that it's hard to really know what's going on. People absolutely game the poo poo out of hex&counter games like ASL and there are entire groups that will fight over IFT or the IIFT. Also, the argument that games "hide" their rules is half-true, but that's a fault of the developer, or laziness. Nothing stops people from digging into the code or the various text files that give WitP or other games, like Panzer Corps, its ruleset and special instructions. On the other hand, grog games already have encyclopedia-sized manuals that, honestly, should have the proper documentation for how things work. Recently, when I was going through the manual for the various altitutes and dive bomber/torpedo bomber/level bomber discussion, nothing states what altitude a torpedo bomber will attack at. Is it beneficial to set them to their best altitude? Does it matter at all? How does escort work if they are set at the same initial height (For example: 12,000 feet) but the torpedo bombers drop to 10 on their attack run? Do the fighters follow or not? You could do extensive tests, like others have before, to find out the proper conditions, or you could look through the game's files to determine the best course of action, but that doesn't excuse the lack of documentation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
I wasn't saying that exposing your mechanics stops people from trying to game the system, I was saying that people are going to game the system regardless, but keeping the mechanics exposed at least makes your behavior informed. Like, if I add another 4 firepower to a fire group, I know exactly what sort of effect that has on the attack, and I'm not just taking it on faith that "more FP = better than". Jobbo_Fett posted:Nothing stops people from digging into the code or the various text files that give WitP or other games, like Panzer Corps, its ruleset and special instructions. I disagree. We have a pretty good idea of how Paradox's games work, because a lot of the mechanics are in text files that are right there and readable, but the same just doesn't apply to WITP, and the devs don't want to talk about it, either. Jobbo_Fett posted:Recently, when I was going through the manual for the various altitutes and dive bomber/torpedo bomber/level bomber discussion, nothing states what altitude a torpedo bomber will attack at. Is it beneficial to set them to their best altitude? Does it matter at all? How does escort work if they are set at the same initial height (For example: 12,000 feet) but the torpedo bombers drop to 10 on their attack run? Do the fighters follow or not? This I agree with. It shouldn't be up to players to "test" how the game works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I disagree. We have a pretty good idea of how Paradox's games work, because a lot of the mechanics are in text files that are right there and readable, but the same just doesn't apply to WITP, and the devs don't want to talk about it, either. The difference is that Paradox leaves it all out in text files, making it very easy in comparison. It would be nice if more games gave you the freedom to look into the code like they do, but its not like its impossible to check WitP's internals out. And again, I'm just saying its possible, not that its worth it, which is why documentation is absolutely vital. Also, documentation upkeep should absolutely be a thing; expansions should have designated spots for their documentation, or something that makes them pop-out. The same applies to patches. There's no reason not to have a text file that has an amalgamated list of details of all the patches, in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
   Go deeper with those depth charges!  We have another crack at it.   We bring down another Liberator.  We move the bombardment more towards the enemy rather than our own troops!   I think I need to rebuild the Kiddo Butai, I don't think their bombers are taking off again. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
*Cut to Grey Hunter screenshotting his entire carrier force still being set to "Training" mode*
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
I was curious what kind of impact this would have on aircraft pools for the US (bringing down one Liberator a day). Over the course of the war almost 19000 Liberators were built, which gives us a little over 13 Liberators coming off the line per day. This production is "back loaded" though, meaning that it was slow early on, and much faster later. It is said that the Ford Motor Company facility at Willow Run, which was a purpose built facility to build Liberators, churned out 1 plane every hour at it's peak in 1944. That was the largest facility building Liberators, but there were several other, smaller facilities so the numbers were likely even higher in that year. If you assume that half of those planes went to Europe, you still have over 12 Liberators a day rolling off the assembly lines and being shipped out. Basically, it's almost impossible for Japan to shoot down enough Liberators for it to matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
I believe the AI cheats when it comes to plane production - they basically get whatever reserves they need (though there is a delay, so they don't just appear the next day). I can tell you from experience that when playing as the Allies, you never have enough heavy bombers, at least for the first several years of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
They should be losing a load to wear and tear along with general irreparable operational losses. I don't know if the game even factors in a repair budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
goatface posted:They should be losing a load to wear and tear along with general irreparable operational losses. I don't know if the game even factors in a repair budget. The wear and tear modeling in WitP:AE is actually pretty robust. Individual air-frames are tracked for wear and tear, and planes in active air-groups are constantly accumulating it (though 0 range mid-altitude training or CAP won't generate any appreciable wear and tear). When the accumulated air-frame stress becomes too great, planes are either written off as operational losses or are taken out of service for repair, which consumes supplies. If you run your fighters at max range LRCAP, for example, you'll always have a portion of planes off-line after a while as they are rotated out of service for repairs. WitP:AE is a study in contradictions on what is tracked and what isn't - food, bullets, aviation fuel and bombs are just abstracted as "supplies", yet each air-frame and each pilot in the game is individually tracked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
From what I've played of this game, I really get the feeling that (unlike this game's granddaddy Gary Grigsby's Pacific War) it sits at the bottom of a sort of Uncanny Valley of complexity, where it would actually be easier to work with if it were more complex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
blueshifting posted:The wear and tear modeling in WitP:AE is actually pretty robust. Individual air-frames are tracked for wear and tear, and planes in active air-groups are constantly accumulating it (though 0 range mid-altitude training or CAP won't generate any appreciable wear and tear). When the accumulated air-frame stress becomes too great, planes are either written off as operational losses or are taken out of service for repair, which consumes supplies. If you run your fighters at max range LRCAP, for example, you'll always have a portion of planes off-line after a while as they are rotated out of service for repairs. As far as I understand it, individual airframes don't have recorded stats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Air frames and pilots are cooler than bombs and bullets. Fake grogging? RA Rx fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Resupply chains getting specific engines to specific airfields across the pacific would be a thing. A thing in that it would make the Japanese industry system seem trivial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:As far as I understand it, individual airframes don't have recorded stats. Each airframe may not have a unique ID in the system, but the game absolutely tracks air-frame fatigue for every plane. Notice "Maintenance" and "Repair". Repair fixes damage sustained while flying missions, while maintenance is necessary to keep planes flying as they accumulate wear and tear. A plane flying CAP that doesn't see combat won't see any battle damage, but it was still flying, and as such will accumulate air-frame fatigue. When that fatigue is too high, the plane is taken off-line for maintenance, which can last a long time. 
blueshifting fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
blueshifting posted:Each airframe may not have a unique ID in the system, but the game absolutely tracks air-frame fatigue for every plane. Notice "Maintenance" and "Repair". Repair fixes damage sustained while flying missions, while maintenance is necessary to keep planes flying as they accumulate wear and tear. A plane flying CAP that doesn't see combat won't see any battle damage, but it was still flying, and as such will accumulate air-frame fatigue. Then that fatigue is too high, the plane is taken off-line for maintenance, which can last a long time. Huh, for whatever reason I thought that was always for the planes stats, and not each frame. Thanks! Edit: Duh, aircraft data right next to it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
One nice thing is the game will select airframes for you. You generally set some percentage of a squadron to rest, and it will use the least fatigued planes automatically, so you don't have to think about it. Same with pilot fatigue. It adds some fun - you have to choose how hard you are willing to push your airframes and pilots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
  We can't seem to hit anything at the moment.  I wonder if I should just charge in.   There is another strike on our airfield.  Rangoon gets a real hammering today.  The Kido Butai has reached Rabaul! Time to see if their bombers will do something!  IIIIIttttttss Graph time!  We have finally matched the score of the AI, the difference is the Allies score is ten thousand points lower than my own at this point!   The one base we took this month was a good one! Oddly, all the bases seem to be worth more this time around!  Aircraft losses remain fairly consistent, but much lower than the AI. Then again, I doubt the AI had pool issues.  That seems to be mostly sorted now.  This is more likely to be a problem long term, the list of Aces is to full of dead or missing pilots.  Although the lack of replacement planes has helped me not reduce my training pools to much.  We still have amazingly low casualties.  You can see on the graph where the enemy carrier made its run, hopefully we can hunt her down now!  Lets just say I can take a few hits like that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
This graph of your ship loses in the previous LP still makes me chuckle. I wouldn't have wanted to be a pixel-sailor in your Navy!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Question about pacific/Atlantic sea campaigns. Did the Panama canal get much use, or was shipbuilding more an east coast to east coast, West coast to west coast aproach? If the Japanese interdicted the canal would it have had much effect, or was that just not logistically possible for them? Is it a possibility for Grey?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Question about pacific/Atlantic sea campaigns. Did the Panama canal get much use, or was shipbuilding more an east coast to east coast, West coast to west coast aproach? If the Japanese interdicted the canal would it have had much effect, or was that just not logistically possible for them? Yes, it did, as it was a the main way to ship things from the east coast to the west. The Japanese had a plan to attack the canals, but it was cancelled due to the end of the war. That being said, even if the Japanese had attack the canals, its unlikely it would've done a lot of damage, as the planned attack was something along the lines of one or more planes dropping a few bombs on the locks and thats it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
No, you should cause lots of disruption with these bombardment attacks, even though you can't see it. Right? The whole point of this is to disrupt them so they get a nasty (-)disruption penalty in the ensuing battle...
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Only one month away from all torpedoes being max effective!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Question about pacific/Atlantic sea campaigns. Did the Panama canal get much use, or was shipbuilding more an east coast to east coast, West coast to west coast aproach? If the Japanese interdicted the canal would it have had much effect, or was that just not logistically possible for them? US ships were specifically designed to be able to fit through the Panama Canal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Yes, it did, as it was a the main way to ship things from the east coast to the west. The Japanese had a plan to attack the canals, but it was cancelled due to the end of the war. That being said, even if the Japanese had attack the canals, its unlikely it would've done a lot of damage, as the planned attack was something along the lines of one or more planes dropping a few bombs on the locks and thats it. Also cancelled because the I-400 subs were big, expensive, and their planes under-armed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Also cancelled because the I-400 subs were big, expensive, and their planes under-armed. The cancellation was more because other targets were closer, then the war was over, rather than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Yes, it did, as it was a the main way to ship things from the east coast to the west. The Japanese had a plan to attack the canals, but it was cancelled due to the end of the war. That being said, even if the Japanese had attack the canals, its unlikely it would've done a lot of damage, as the planned attack was something along the lines of one or more planes dropping a few bombs on the locks and thats it. There were also plans for a commando raid from submarines using shaped charges on the locks. Also highly unlikely to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
  That's the stuff!  You, you I'm disappointed in.  Guess who's back with their latest terrible invasion plan!  They hit the beaches, white flags ready.  I'm ending the bombardment at Namou. I will give them a few days to recover then lose thousands of men in a pointless attack. But I have to do something! As you can see from the air losses, bugger all interesting happened today.  Face planted more like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:There were also plans for a commando raid from submarines using shaped charges on the locks. Also highly unlikely to work. drat, that would've made a sick Call of Duty level
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I'm ending the bombardment at Namou. I will give them a few days to recover then lose thousands of men in a pointless attack. But I have to do something! Two days of bombardment, lol why even bother 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Hm. As far as I can tell, there's a Dauntless squadron / leftover carrier planes operating out of Tarawa, and American fleet bases at Nauru and Ocean Island and Efate, likely with a few planes at Efate too. There's also liberators out of Fiji that attack Luganville regularly. However, none of these islands are threatening to a carrier or battleship fleet operating in the Solomons -> Luganville -> Noumea slot, they're too far away and the liberators are not good vs battleships. There are no local airfields except Noumea itself. Other than fuel and liberators, what stops Grey from bringing in the KB to trash the air cover, then bombarding Noumea back into the ocean with 14 and 16 inch guns? I don't see a reason that this is a bad plan given the force dispositions in the area. It's a little far from bases like Rabaul, but there's a lot of freedom to operate in this area that you don't have in the Marshalls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Now that Grey has China pretty much on complete lock down he should activate the Russians to farm more points. It would also give us more interesting things to read about! :-)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:There were also plans for a commando raid from submarines using shaped charges on the locks. Also highly unlikely to work. That is one big shaped charge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
  We drive off another sub. Our subs are firing above the enemy depth.  The Kido Butai is back baby!  12 bombs! That's going to leave a dent.  We have a few planes now, as you can see.  We bring down a couple of fighters.   We send another force into retreat.  Ahh, it feels good to have the Kido Butai back and and sinking things!  We're sinking so many things. Its amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:47
|
|