Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Excessive non-combat aircraft damage

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Excessive non-combat aircraft damage Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/27/2006 11:27:17 PM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		I'm seeing very high aircraft damage rates among fighter units (CHS/Nik Mod). In a single day, squadrons of fighters are becoming more than 50% damaged at large, uncrowded and well-supplied bases (such as Pearl Harbor) just by flying CAP (no combat actions). In several days, the number of fighters damaged per squadron seems to stabilize ate around 66%, and will not recover unless the squadron is rested for several (4-5 or more) days. Interestingly, bombers don't seem to have this problem, and when damaged in combat they seem to repair faster than fighter units.

Combat only makes it worse. A F4U unit can only stay on CAP for 2-3 days before it is reduced to 5-7 operational aircraft. Meanwhile, morale is soaring to 99.

My guess is that the increased durability values are have uncovered a nasty side effect. Is this by design? If so, beware - the later war American iron is all but useless because of this. While the JFB (tm) club might approve, it is simply not historical or realistic.

Thoughts?

-CJ

< Message edited by CJ Martin -- 10/27/2006 11:29:08 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 12:46:04 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline 		In a standard Nik mod game I'm noticing large numbers of damaged P-40s. My heavies, also. I'm only up to May '42.

Perversely I like it - Bergerud's Fire in the Sky gave me a good appreciation of how difficult it was to maintain planes in the forward bases of So Pac & SW Pac. I'm mainly fighting in out of the way & smaller bases right now, however. Certainly Pearl IRL could do a better job of keeping planes operational.

Have you tried flying 20-30% CAP? If you have Corsairs you should also have CPS-1 radars coming on line and they'll usually help you scramble most of your fighters regardless of what level CAP you're flying. I'm not sure it would help, but I think so.

(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 2
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 12:56:10 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Nik is a FLAKOPLOSSFANBOY.

_____________________________


(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 3
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 12:59:47 AM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Lowering the CAP % means more fighters will go out on strikes, and this is not a good thing for CV's. Yes CV's are affected too. After a single at sea day one third to one half the fighter squadron is damaged. While I understand the difficulties of front line aircraft maintenance, there is no reason for this to be happening on carriers or well supplied bases.

I get the feeling that no one has played a NikMod game into mid-1943. USN carrier groups are crippled by this behavior.

-CJ

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 4
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:05:16 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Not true.
Some of us figured it out after playing only a few months.


Nik put in a lot of time and effort into this though, and a lot of players really seem to like it.

That's why it's cool to have so many mods available to us picky gamers.

_____________________________


(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 5
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:07:49 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

I'm seeing very high aircraft damage rates among fighter units (CHS/Nik Mod).


This seems to be new. I have not heard of it happening before. CHS with "nik mod" type aircraft durability increases has been around for a while, and the Nik mod itself for a while before that.

I wonder if this happens in games with older patch levels ?


< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 10/28/2006 1:19:20 AM >

(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 6
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:26:24 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I wonder if this happens in games with older patch levels ?


I also wonder if this is happening with the CHS experimental scenarios (159,160)?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 7
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:26:30 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		This doesn't just happen in Nik's mods - it happens in stock also. Large units (FG - 72 planes) get whacked when flying CAP or training. And heavy bombers seem to suffer too (flying missions though - so feels better). It seems not to be as much of an issue with smaller FS groups (24 planes). I fly Corsairs in 43 on 50% CAP and they seem to keep about 75% of the planes ready each turn - that feels OK to me.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 8
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:31:20 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline 		Sounds like a bit of comparative testing is needed, then. I will try to find a bit of time in the next few days to do this, if nobody else can in the meantime. But spare time for me is at a premium at present.

Andrew

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 10/28/2006 1:33:50 AM >

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 9
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 2:15:10 AM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		That's a thought - I jumped back into the game about a month or so ago. I'm thrilled with CHS and the new map, and spent a few weeks creating a CHS/Nikmod based scenerio that starts 01 Jun 43. Maybe something change in the latest patches? I sure don't remember this from stock and up to patch 1.4 or so.
 
Squadron size doesn't seem to matter. Small 16 plane squadrons have the same issues a 36 plane CV fighter squadron has.

Andrew - I'm looking forward to hearing what your testing comes up with if you find the time.

-CJ

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 10
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 2:23:16 AM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

This doesn't just happen in Nik's mods - it happens in stock also. Large units (FG - 72 planes) get whacked when flying CAP or training. And heavy bombers seem to suffer too (flying missions though - so feels better). It seems not to be as much of an issue with smaller FS groups (24 planes). I fly Corsairs in 43 on 50% CAP and they seem to keep about 75% of the planes ready each turn - that feels OK to me.


What version of WitP are you running? Are you patched all the way up to 1.804? I could accept 75% for land bases, less so for CV's.

I'm very curious, as my heavy bombers don't seem to have much of an issue. I can send out 70+ P-38's escorting 90+ B-24's (PM to Rabual), have 10-12 P-38's and about the same number of B-24's damaged, and the next turn 40-50 P-38's are damaged while the number of damaged B-24's matches up with the previous turns reports (10-12).

Since I'm using CHS as a baseline, I don't have any 72 plane fighter groups.

-CJ

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 11
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 5:12:18 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		Acutally a CV airgroup should be considering operating from a front line airfield. Just one that has some better runways. Think about the nature of carrier aircraft flying. It is very violent and more so then even those airgroups operating from dirt/grass/unprepared airfields. Also understand that there is only so many spare parts that can be carried to do repairs to the engines, flight controls, and weapons systems. It was even worst for electronics as they became more advance since the test procedures and training on how to repair them wasn't able to hit the fleet fast enough. So there were nearly always at least 2-3 hangar queens taking up space and being used to parts. The supply department had to keep track of what parts were needed and when the Carrier Task Forces hit the replenishment groups those parts had to come onboard. Or when the task forces anchored at fleet bases there was usually a mad rush to use those shore base facilities to get aircraft up. Oh and once you repair a major flight control surface or do an engine change there was usually a flight to do a check flight to make sure that every thing worked right.
Like I mentioned earlier the type and frequency of flying was hard on the aircraft. Even if the task force wasn't in a combat zone there was still ASW patrols, Surface Search, CAP, Training flights and those wonderful maintenance flight that had to be accomplish even in the backwaters of the war or what was considered friendly waters. So nearly every day from sun up to sun down there are flights going on with a carrier air group.
These issues combined with pilot training lead to a hard life for a number of carrier based aircraft and number in repair.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 12
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 7:28:40 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Andrew, I m playing CHS 2.08 scen 159 vs Japanese AI and I am definitely NOT seeing this problem. A very few of my rear area 24 plane fighter squadrons have as many as four planes under repair, but most of the squadrons have no planes under repair. This seems to be an across the board result (US, Australian, British - I can't count the Dutch because they certainly are not rear area!).


EDIT (next morning): this game has been patched through 1.802 to 1.804, on the first day of each patch release. SO it doesn't appear to be an official patch problem. I think that the guys are right about the durability modification...

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 10/28/2006 7:48:46 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 13
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:12:44 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Have discovered that too. Nikmod 8.1 PBEM. If fighters are set to 90% CAP then one third is damaged all the time. No matter how many AV support or supply or whatever is at the base. Don´t have the same thing in a stock PBEM or in a Nikmod 5.0 PBEM.

I noticed it but thought this would be something unique for my game (which wouldn´t surprise me) and therefore I didn´t post it. Good to see that other players are experiencing this too. I just hope my opponent has the same problem to make it "fair" again.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 14
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 1:19:04 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I also wonder if this is happening with the CHS experimental scenarios (159,160)?


Nope, not under 1.8.0.1 at least. Not tried Scens 159/160 with latest patch, though. I never fly units higher than 80 % CAP anyway..unless LRCAP, of course. I have had no problems with anything like that under 1.8.0.1..have to check if it happeens with newest patch. If it does..that'd be *BAD*..

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 10/28/2006 1:24:51 PM >

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 15
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 2:33:46 PM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Sorry YankeeAirRat, I don't buy that for a second.

As a former F-14 maintainer, I have a pretty fair grasp of the how things work on a carrier. While some 50 years seperate my sea time from those in WW2, the basic task (get the bird off the pointy end of the ship) remains the same. Modern jets are vastly more complex than WW2 era aircraft. You would be suprised just how much can be fixed while underway, and how many spare parts can be carried. At the risk of being considered a "smarty pants", I currently work for the USN (civil service) supporting the F/A-18 program as a Reliability & Maintainability engineering tech - so this subject is a bit more than a hobby to me.

There is no way you will convince me that it is accurate that one day out of port, one third to one half of all the CV's fighters are "damaged" and unable to fly. Not only that, they stay that way unless the squadron is completely stood down.

That is not reality, it is something broken. I'm thinking that the change in aircraft durability in NikMod has something to do with it, perhaps later patches makes this worse.

-CJ


(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 16
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 2:36:47 PM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Here's another interesting data point - the Spitfire doesn't seem to be nearly as affected by this issue. The spitfire has one of the lower durabilities among the mid-war allied fighters (again, NikMod) so I'm really thinking the problem is related to durability.

-CJ

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 17
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 2:58:09 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

Here's another interesting data point - the Spitfire doesn't seem to be nearly as affected by this issue. The spitfire has one of the lower durabilities among the mid-war allied fighters (again, NikMod) so I'm really thinking the problem is related to durability.

-CJ



Could be, I´m experiencing this in Nikmod 8.1 but not in 5.0. And 8.1 has the durability increased again by around 30!!

(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 18
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 3:49:21 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Pretty sure that durability is the prime element in determining maintenance times, the higher the durability the greater the hanger time. Not that we couldn't use a higher percentage of damaged aircraft but tampering with durability is dangerous as it is a reflection of the number of engines on an aircraft as well as robustness. That's why I went the other way and lowered weapon accuracy, effect and pilot experience.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 19
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/28/2006 5:33:33 PM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Agreed Ron.

I'll let you test your plan out a bit more before I make any major changes to my mod. I want to better understand cause -> effect. I do like the approach you've taken, and look forward to seeing how it plays out into 1943 and beyond. Since you can't stop the pilots from gaining experience, and the game doesn't have manditory pilot rotations, I wonder what your pilot rosters are going to look like late-war, and how that will play out.

Lot's of widgets to figure out, but I'm not complaining. We used a lot of "smoke and mirrors" in the flight sims I worked on too.

-CJ




(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 20
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/29/2006 11:38:14 AM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		Have noticed this as well in my Nikmod 8.0b game. Not too concerned as - a) It will effect my opponent also, and b) Will furhter reduce the effects of ubercap.

Will also mean having to look after sqds better instead of being able to leave them on 100% CAP for days on end (hardly likely in real life).

(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 21
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/29/2006 11:59:10 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Not completely off topic, it was forum member Halsey who told us recently (in forum) of his tactic of only using maybe 20% CAP to avoid this attrition problem, (and enhance the "chance to strike" with his carriers). In fact, having recently read after action reports of the Japanese at Midway, I learned they only used approx 7 or 8 fighters per carrier in their CAP's, (which is way less than the 70-80% some of us have been using)..Might explain why it has been hard to launch strikes against enemy carriers!

_____________________________




(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 22
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/29/2006 2:55:24 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks m10bob.

The real trick in getting your planes to launch, is detection.
Never go into an action blind.

I've read quite a few AAR's that a new player gets his CV's smoked because he sends them charging into unknown waters.
Better to let the opposing side launch a few strikes at other targets first.
I use these couple of days to set up my approach.

This is the "Bait and Ambush" tactic.
It's a common tactic that's been around since mankind has been able to walk upright.

CV TF's seem to have a cloaking device that gets turned off after their first strike is launched.
After that they will usually remain spotted until they move out of normal recon range.



_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 23
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/30/2006 1:11:30 PM   
CJ Martin

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		I decided to do a bit more testing, this time with the "Experimental" version of CHS for aircraft, and AAA settings closer to stock CHS.

After a few game turns, it looks like air to air combat is more bloody than NikMod but less than stock, AAA still a threat but not the buzzsaw of NikMod. Most importantly, non-combat aircraft damage is much lower. For example, 36 plane F4F-4 squadron, at sea, 60 CAP. Start with 36 up planes, day one 34 up / 2 down, Day two 35 up / 1 down, Day three 34 up / 2 down -> looks like this is where it stabilized, and I can live with that. Still need see how quickly combat damaged aircraft repair but so far it looks promising.

Ultimately, I think a combo of my latest changes and well as Ron's lower weapon / lower pilot experience changes will be the way to go. In my test I had one very bloody combat but the majority seem inline with historical claims. I need to test/gather more data now.

-CJ

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 24
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/30/2006 2:37:57 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline 		So there may be a durability limit which, when exceeded, greatly increases repair times in a non-linear way? If so, then I guess the next question is what exactly that durability limit is.

Unfortunately I am not able to help with testing this at all right now. Just too busy. I MIGHT be able to help at a later time, but that could be weeks away.

Apologies,
Andrew

(in reply to CJ Martin)
Post #: 25
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/30/2006 2:46:27 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

So there may be a durability limit which, when exceeded, greatly increases repair times in a non-linear way? If so, then I guess the next question is what exactly that durability limit is.

Unfortunately I am not able to help with testing this at all right now. Just too busy. I MIGHT be able to help at a later time, but that could be weeks away.

Apologies,
Andrew


Wasn't the 60 DUR the critical level ? Game probably treats >60 as heavy bombers and such. I seem to recall that sort of comment..at least from el cid who stated that in RHS all planes are <60 DUR because of that.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 26
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/30/2006 3:35:14 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I wonder if this happens in games with older patch levels ?


I also wonder if this is happening with the CHS experimental scenarios (159,160)?


No problems here--CHS experimental scenario 159/1.8.0.4.

On the other hand, the Japanese AI seems like it could use some tuning. With three CVs deadlined in early March 1942, the IJN sent the Akagi out alone for a strike on Palembang. Batavia had about 120 B17s, including some with enough experience to consistently get hits on maneuvering ships. Two hits. The KB was last spotted with two CVs (probably Zuikaku and Shokaku) in Truk. The Enterprise and Yorktown are now at sea south of Rabaul (which is where the 2nd MarDiv is currently dug in). Lexington and Saratoga just sortied from Pearl, and Hornet is headed in that general direction.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 27
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/30/2006 3:42:01 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		I'm afraid not much can be done to tune the AI. AI will always try to hit Java with KB..and that's where I usually kill it's carriers with B-17s too. They are my main CV-killers in about any game I've played against AI, no matter what version/mod. To give AI chance, it'd probably better to not deploy heavy bombers to Java/DEI area. I don't think they had ability to operate those in Real Life anyway due to lack of US aviation support personnel. In game it's not a problem, though.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 28
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/30/2006 8:28:27 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		They actually did operate B-17s from NEI airfields throughout the campaign, but in such small numbers as to be fairly ineffective. One of the problems was communication between US aircrew and Dutch groundcrews...


Instead of banning B-17s from the NEI, I refuse to allow replacements for them unless they can get back to Australia or I can get a major supply TF into a local port from Aden or the US west coast.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 10/30/2006 8:35:49 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 29
RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage - 10/31/2006 2:00:25 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

They actually did operate B-17s from NEI airfields throughout the campaign, but in such small numbers as to be fairly ineffective. One of the problems was communication between US aircrew and Dutch groundcrews...


Instead of banning B-17s from the NEI, I refuse to allow replacements for them unless they can get back to Australia or I can get a major supply TF into a local port from Aden or the US west coast.


Good compromise, I think.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Excessive non-combat aircraft damage Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984