You guys are the Best !

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

You guys are the Best !

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> You guys are the Best !

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

You guys are the Best ! - 7/31/2002 11:32:55 PM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

...appreciate your willingness to listen as well :D

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 31

Re: Response... - 7/31/2002 11:42:40 PM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]Thanks very much for the detailed tests - the repair rate fix did go too far and we're planning to turn it back a few notches for the next patch.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's great, but what do we do with our heavy bombers in the mean time. (Answer: nothing, they are all under repair). This miss-fire effort at a "fix" to the low-level bombing problem is yet further evidence that aircraft altitude should be abstracted completely out of the scope of the game (as it is in the original PacWar).

_____________________________

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 32

- 8/2/2002 3:05:54 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I havn't found the new repair rates to be all that hard so far....but then again, i am careful now to ration out where, when and how i want my medium and big bombers to strike.

We do have to be careful here. Easing the repair rates of B-17's so that they can once more bomb 24/7 with only 1 or 2 down for repair is about the same as 1.2 was......no difference. Joel is right in cautioning against taking away penalties for "stuffing" forward bases full of every AG possible.....not hard to do in this game where even a level 4 airfield can hold over 200 aircraft without penalty. But even with full aviation support.....can one expect all these planes to be kept 80%+ operational in a sustained bombing operation?, especially when bombing airfields bursting with aircraft still seldom produces damaged or destroyed planes on the ground, the same problem often seen in PacWar....rarely it seems are planes damaged or destroyed in airraids, or even straffing attacks. Perhaps that needs to be looked at too.

I'm finding that if my bombers are spared from heavy flak and CAP concentrations (mainly by attacking bases at heights more common in Europe for B-17's) that i can keep up a sustained bombing campaign for over a week at time in which the target base gets it's cage rattled. If the base i'm attacking starts to wilt under the logistical stranglehold, i can then start lowering altitudes as flak levels drop and really paste the base. I Just retook Gili Gili that way from the AI utilizing PM and Cooktown (the B-17's at Cooktown alone, the twin engined brutes at PM)

Then a few days down time usually brings back a good portion of planes. It does help too, too have the big bombers operating from a more rearward base, usually alone (since in early days no fighter has the range to escort them anyway)

The medium bomber damage rates seem fine...heavy use/damage quickly brings them down but a few days rest brings their damaged units back to operational status and morale starts to edge up.

More testing should reveal it. Part of the problem is that damage to aircraft has to be abstracted to some extent.....after all there is a big difference between repairing a B-17 with bullet holes and another that has had one or two engines fragged. Given how many B-17's were operational in the theater at this time......and the priority of all future production (along with spare parts i would assume) all going to the 8th in Europe....i could see 'badly' damaged B-17's sitting on the tarmac for days at a time waiting for critical parts and engines to be brought in.

I believe a quick study of air ops in this theater at this time will reveal that the surviving Clark Field B-17's certainly did not conduct 'sustained' bombing operations against Japanese targets. More often then not they appear to have been used as long range reconesence planes and/or used to attack sighted convoys.......far less intensive ops than "bombing Rabaul" round the clock. It would reflect the careful use of limited resources, i.e. airframes, trained crewmen, and above all else, spare parts.

If possible for future patches or WitP, perhaps it might be feasible to attack "level of bomber damage' to the roll for repair to reflect the differences between lightly damaged planes and badly damaged ones.

Another option......modify the repair roll to the amount of replacements in the pool for that type. It may not be totally accurate but it could give an idea of the availability of spare parts by it's relationship to the avalability of whole airframes and might be easier to code vs keeping track of specific damage levels for each aircraft

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 33

- 8/2/2002 4:27:48 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]I havn't found the new repair rates to be all that hard so far....but then again, i am careful now to ration out where, when and how i want my medium and big bombers to strike.

I originally wasn`t going to bother to reply to this , but since some of us have put so much time into this issue, I`m compelled to. First we are just talking about the Heavy Bomber Repair rates.

"We do have to be careful here. Easing the repair rates of B-17's so that they can once more bomb 24/7 with only 1 or 2 down for repair is about the same as 1.2 was......no difference. "

No one is saying that at all, have you bothered to read the test reports and the obvious problem they show with the 1.2 repair rates...to distill it for you:

There...Is...No...Realistic...Repair...Rates...Going...On...

" Joel is right in cautioning against taking away penalties for "stuffing" forward bases full of every AG possible.....not hard to do in this game where even a level 4 airfield can hold over 200 aircraft without penalty. But even with full aviation support.....can one expect all these planes to be kept 80%+ operational in a sustained bombing operation?,"

???? :confused: Again you miss the point, The Heavy Bomb SQ`s are not even being repaired at a rate so that they are at 45% operational readiness... please read the Tests.....

" especially when bombing airfields bursting with aircraft still seldom produces damaged or destroyed planes on the ground, the same problem often seen in PacWar....rarely it seems are planes damaged or destroyed in airraids, or even straffing attacks. Perhaps that needs to be looked at too."

You do not "get" to the AC on the ground in any significant way until you max out the damage on the Runway/Airbase, and the AB goes into low supply, i.e, there is a "damage threshold" you must reach, same as in Pac War. It is a _good thing_ for Gameplay BTW.

"I'm finding that if my bombers are spared from heavy flak and CAP concentrations (mainly by attacking bases at heights more common in Europe for B-17's) that i can keep up a sustained bombing campaign for over a week at time in which the target base gets it's cage rattled. If the base i'm attacking starts to wilt under the logistical stranglehold, i can then start lowering altitudes as flak levels drop and really paste the base. I Just retook Gili Gili that way from the AI utilizing PM and Cooktown (the B-17's at Cooktown alone, the twin engined brutes at PM)"

That`s sounds like a good Battle you got going...

"Then a few days down time usually brings back a good portion of planes. "

??? Downtime does not effect the new repair rates ( the time in which AC are repaired ) of the _Heavy Bombers_ in any way... you are the only one seeing this.

" It does help too, too have the big bombers operating from a more rearward base, usually alone (since in early days no fighter has the range to escort them anyway)"

The medium bomber damage rates seem fine...heavy use/damage quickly brings them down but a few days rest brings their damaged units back to operational status and morale starts to edge up."

"More testing should reveal it. "

MORE ???, We just finished doing two that took us all day , if don`t like them why don`t you do an extensive test ( with save files of course ) with just the Heavy Bombers and post your detailed result of the repair rates ?? PS: Feel free to use my test report format.

Part of the problem is that damage to aircraft has to be abstracted to some extent.....after all there is a big difference between repairing a B-17 with bullet holes and another that has had one or two engines fragged. Given how many B-17's were operational in the theater at this time......and the priority of all future production (along with spare parts i would assume) all going to the 8th in Europe....i could see 'badly' damaged B-17's sitting on the tarmac for days at a time waiting for critical parts and engines to be brought in."

They took the parts out of some damaged AC to keep the rest flying...

I believe a quick study of air ops in this theater at this time will reveal that the surviving Clark Field B-17's certainly did not conduct 'sustained' bombing operations against Japanese targets. More often then not they appear to have been used as long range reconesence planes and/or used to attack sighted convoys.......far less intensive ops than "bombing Rabaul" round the clock. It would reflect the careful use of limited resources, i.e. airframes, trained crewmen, and above all else, spare parts."

Right, because almost all were destroyed on the Ground on the First Day .

"If possible for future patches or WitP, perhaps it might be feasible to attack "level of bomber damage' to the roll for repair to reflect the differences between lightly damaged planes and badly damaged ones."

Sounds good to me too.

" Another option......modify the repair roll to the amount of replacements in the pool for that type. It may not be totally accurate but it could give an idea of the availability of spare parts by it's relationship to the avalability of whole airframes and might be easier to code vs keeping track of specific damage levels for each aircraft [/B][/QUOTE]'"

Sounds good, someone Chain Gary & Joel to the computer for the rest of their lives...;)

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 34

- 8/2/2002 4:43:04 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

I didn't see a problem with repair rates in previous versions. If I used my bombers more, which I'm aggressive in doing, more would stay in the repair column & morale would go down. They may repair a couple if raids were cancelled due to weather. If I had a level 4 base, I would only have 4-6 units there with at least 1 being a patrol/recon/transport.
In my original post, I stated that none of mine had repaired in over a month of inactivity in rear areas but I later thought this might be on old bug from BOB/BTR where a/c that were used in a unit but then went to the pool during an upgrade/switch & later used again always stayed in the repair/in transit column until the unit was moved, then they became ready. Well that won't happen in UV as the unit simply splits or doesn't move if no a/c are available to move.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 35

Some info... - 8/2/2002 5:14:26 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Nikademus,

Good point, and we weren't planning to put the rate all the way back. An adjustment to repair rates has already been put into the next patch by Gary. In my experience, this puts the repair rate a bit slower than pre-1.20 but closer to that than to the 1.20 standard. In the meantime, please find creative, non-violent ways of using your damaged heavy bombers. :)

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 36

Some food for thought on the repair rate - 8/2/2002 7:47:27 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Here is an excerpt from Fire In the Sky, pg 276. It's a discussion on B-17's and maintenence:

"...Officers called upon Fortresses in Australia and the Solomons to fly many missions of all types, including long-range flights, which increased wear and tear on the aircraft and crew. Add to the equation improving but still mediocre maintenance, and the Forts were beaten up by 1943. (The importance of qualified groundcrews for heavy bombers can hardly be overstressed. Far more complex than fighters, heavies did not prove as amenable to the kind of patchwork maintenance that could keep a fighter in the air....There were many individual exceptions, but I think it is safe to say that heavy bombers did not recieve the high level of maintenance required until well into 1943.)"

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 37

Excellent Hard Info there but - 8/2/2002 8:37:47 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

.. the game engine cannot ( I suspect ) reflect that gradual improvement in it`s Repair Rate calculations. It would likely be a programing nightmare, and screw other stuff up as well IMO...per J.B.

What it`s set at in May `42 is what you get in Dec `43.

If I appear somewhat reactive on this I am..:p

This is because I play the Campaign Games, several at a time, both edited to Rich`s Semi Historical Midway occured, as well as those shipped.

Changes to the hardcoded aspects of the Game, ( stuff we can`t ajust with the Editor ) for purposes of "play balance" like the Repair Rates for the US Heavy Bomber`s may seem innocent enough, even desiraible, in the mid `43 scenarios and the End Game, where the US has overwhelming forces in different areas, CV`s, Ground, Fighters , Medium Bombers, however the impact in the early Games can be crippling, and effect the entire progress of the game., both in PBEM & VS AI.

I think it`s very important to "go slow" in that kind of "Balance" tweeking to avoid unintended consequences... ( and they thought only Harpoon Player`s talk like that :D )

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 38

Re: Excellent Hard Info there but - 8/2/2002 5:23:52 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

I haven't played enough to have an opinion on the 1.20 maintenance level and Matrix has already stated they're lowering it back closer to the earlier rate anyway. I posted the info from Fire in the Sky as IMO it supports the designers position that the game should make it difficult to keep Forts flying. We could debate "how difficult" untill the B-24's arrive. :)

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 39

- 8/2/2002 8:35:25 PM

Beckles

Posts: 128
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Kansas City, MO, USA
Status: offline

I didn't read every word of every post, but just wanted to add that I have noticed this too. Although the 80% number seems a bit high to me, what concerns me more is the decrease in chances of repair after a plane has been repaired. It seems to me that if the base is big enough to support level bombers and the number of bombers at the base and you have enough aviation support at the base that repairing one plane should not decrease the chances of repairing the next plane.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 40

Re: Some food for thought on the repair rate - 8/2/2002 11:59:15 PM

XPav

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
[B]Here is an excerpt from Fire In the Sky, pg 276. It's a discussion on B-17's and maintenence:

"...Officers called upon Fortresses in Australia and the Solomons to fly many missions of all types, including long-range flights, which increased wear and tear on the aircraft and crew. Add to the equation improving but still mediocre maintenance, and the Forts were beaten up by 1943. [/B][/QUOTE]

And after that, I believe the B-17s were withdrawn!

I just read that page last night, and while I don't have the book on me, they said that the B-17 (and other heavy bombers) wer used much more for patrol duties rather than bombing.

The medium bombers did most of the work.

So, quite frankly, after reading that, the repair rates don't bother me that much. Flying patrol missions doesn't seem to cause the massive damage that bombing missions do.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 41

Seeing the real thing - 8/3/2002 12:21:29 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Just found out there is a B-17 at a local airport this week. Hopefully my 2 1/2 year old son and I will see it tomorrow. I might even have a shot at a ride, but for $400/half hour I doubt my wife will agree to that.

"But honey, I need to take the flight for research related to this neat game I'm playing..."

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 42

- 8/3/2002 4:19:31 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Elmo, even if your wife ends up leaving you, it's definately worth it. I've gone on B17, Ford Trimotor & P51 flights. I liked the P51 the best since I was able to log the time as dual flight time.:D

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 43

- 8/3/2002 9:09:25 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

After reading Joel description of how the plane repair process works, I must say I am baffled by the logic to it. In contrast the way engineers repair and expand bases made perfect sense to be.

It seems to me that repairing a plane is a primarily a function of how many aviation support (AVS) you have, how busy the av support guys are, how advanced a base is, and the size/complexity of the plane being repaired.

I am not sure why having one plane repaired would affect the next plane being repaired assuming that you have enough facilities and mechanics to go around.

If I was designing this subsystem here is what I'd do.

Take the number of AV support and subtract the total number of sorties for the day. (This simulates the routine pre- and post flight maintaince and arming etc.) Sorties in excess of AV support would increase operational losses. The remaining AV support personal are available to repair damaged planes.
Each remaining AV support generates a repair point. I'd limit to the total number of repair points to say 30*base size. (I.e. there much more limited number of hangers, repair benches at level 1 dirt runway, than a Rabaul or Cooktown so having a ton of mechanics won't help.)

It would take say 5 points to repair a fighter/attack plane 10 for a level bomber and 20 for a heavy bomber. I'd keep the repair roll that says a plane has an 80% chance of actually being repaired.

So for example a Level 4 base with 120 planes, and 150 av support, would repair 2 fighter and 2 level bombers (30 points) on a day when all the planes were flying. However on days when no mission are schedule cause of weather, it could repair up to 6 heavy bombers (120 points.).

It seems to me that this would be far more historical than sticking 250 AV support points and all your planes in the most advance forward base.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 44

Support Based Repair vs Straight Prob - 8/3/2002 9:37:36 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Very good point on making repairs a function of the available support, facilities and operational tempo.

I would still randomize the actual repair, but instead of a flat percentage rate to repair, a normally distributed random variable for the amount of points to repair for each a/c using the idea presented by strollen:

fighter 5 +/- 2
med bombers 10 +/- 3
hvy bombers 20 +/- 6

Or something to that effect.

I believe that there must a random element to account for the vagaries of combat effects.

But the important point is that by controlling the OPTEMPO of the bases operations, it will give the player control over the maintenance situation.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 45

- 8/3/2002 11:18:32 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

I agree that there should be some random element, and your approach is as good as any.

The other point I forget to make is that the large bases like PM, Rabaul, and even Guadacanal actually were a collection of three or four different airbase with most fighters based on the smaller strips. So logically they should have a repair capacity several times a single strip. This of course assume they have enough mechanics and supplies.

I realize that UV probably won't see major changes, but hopefully something like this will make it into WITP.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 46

Cannibalization - 8/4/2002 12:29:29 AM

seeker124

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/22/2002
From: Poulsbo, WA, USA
Status: offline

Well, I've been baffled by why my B-17 raids have been slacking off so badly lately. Thought it was the pilot mis-allocation bug, but I reckon it was actually the decreased repair rates.

I concur that the repair rates need a tweak. Part of the problem, of course, is that, if the game simulation is good, the players will not (for long) make the same mistakes that the real commanders did. Instead they will immediately adopt the "historical war-winning solution". I suppose the drastically changed repair rates are a tweak to at least impede events that were too ahistorical from happening.

After all that: How about the idea of implementing cannibalization to influence ready planes. Something along the lines of the old John Hill game about the Yom Kippur war, where one squadron could be scrapped to bring one back into play from the damaged box. Applied on a plane by plane basis rather than squadron level (since the game already allows withdrawing a squadron). I'm not sure about this idea. It may be getting too far down into the weeds.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 47

Maintenance Stand Down - 8/4/2002 1:49:19 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

In a current PBEM game, I am running my B-17s about once every 2-3 days at 25,000 ft. It seems to working so far in turns of keeping a majority mission capable, but they really don't do anything (7 runway hits if I am lucky).

But if a an entire airfield suspends operations to conduct maintenance, there should be some increase in repair given adequate supplies, support, and airfield capacity, just as Strollen has suggested.

It may be a way to penalize heavy operations without the ridiculous situation of having 8 a/c sitting idle on an idle airfield for 2 weeks with only 1 a/c being repaired in that time frame (In a current PBEM game,Rockhampton on 16 May still has 7 of the 8 damaged B-17s that started there:mad: ).

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 48

Back a Bit - 8/4/2002 3:11:41 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

Both Joel and Erik said the they are knotching down the repair rate times to be a bit closer to 1.11, but still not as fast as it was.

I think that`s a very good thing.

Your once every 2-3 days Missions seems a bit light, but hopefully we`ll have some hard historical info on that soon.

I`ve found in further casual testing with 1.20 that once you get past 20,00 feet the damage you do isn`t ( acording to the After Action Reports ) worth the effort...especially with the small strike packages of 12-16 Bombers going in, however that may be Fog Of War and more damage is being done then the reports indicate.. IMHO UV has a very thick FOG which is good.

I`m going to try a H to H game playing both sides to see the actual damages done, hopefully ( and assuming the AI is being honest vs us ;) ) that will give some accurate info...

I don`t think more testing time ( for me anyway ) is warrented until the next Patch.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 49

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> You guys are the Best !

Page: << < prev 1 [2]