New House Rule Idea for PBEM

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

New House Rule Idea for PBEM

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> New House Rule Idea for PBEM

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 5:29:14 AM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

The air war is totally screwed on this game...but its being fix so I will wait until then. However I was thinking of starting a pbem game and thought that putting all aircraft except recon and transports in national reserve. I think it will help address the issue until the developers can give us something to use. What you think of the idea?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 5:31:42 AM

Scotters1

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/19/2006
Status: offline

Is it really that bad?

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 2

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 5:38:19 AM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

I feel it is, the Luftwaffe isn't getting near enough kills versus antique Soviet aircraft since there is no air superiority phase in the game.� Where are the 100+ kills that the German aces had going to come from with the current situation.� As you get deeper into the campaign it starts to feel more and more unbalanced with the old Soviet aircraft making more and more of a large impact on ground operations.� Over 10-20% losses to air seems to me overkill IMO.� This idea keeps the focus on the ground war and helps even things out for the underdog...the Germans.

_____________________________

(in reply to Scotters1)

Post #: 3

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 5:55:01 AM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

I ran 9 AI vs AI tests before release running from Jun 41 - Jan 42. The results on air losses were:

Average Axis Air losses: 1,828 - Historical Losses: 2,626

Average Soviet Air losses: 11,045 - Historical Losses: 11,230

The reason for less than historical air losses for the Axis is that not enough planes are becoming damaged and destroyed through non-combat incidents.

Trey

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 4

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:03:27 AM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

Wow, thats spot on. Have you tried one in the later stages of the war?

_____________________________

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 5

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:07:36 AM

Ametysth

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

But it does remove the Red Army "And the kitchen sink"- doctrine.
If you remove Shturmovik, which was pretty much only plane in entire war (of any side) that was by design meant to take part in ongoing ground battles, you remove part of those ground battles you want to concentrate on. They were such of important part of the ground war that their production priority was about the same as T-34 tanks.

Couldn't the house rule be like "Air Doctrine Soviet fighter escort max 30%"? Wouldn't it result the same, by giving Germans numerical superiority?

Besides, it wasn't old designs that hampered Russian aviation, it was poor tactical doctrine in Air-to-Air combat. They were just as bad in dogfights flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and P-39's as they were with I-153's and -16's.

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 6

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 10:20:26 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
Wow, thats spot on.� Have you tried one in the later stages of the war?

Practically speaking I think the patch will be out before you go past Jan 42. PBEM might go at one week per day if it's a fast game (check the pace in the AAR's if you doubt it - I think the fastest has gone about 8 turns in 12 days) so that's something like 27 RL (real life) days before you hit Jan 42 and probably we'll see a patch by then. 4 weeks.

Cheers

< Message edited by jjdenver -- 1/1/2011 10:22:05 AM >

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649732

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 7

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 12:34:54 PM

raizer

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline

are AI vs AI test results the same as a test btwn 2 multiplayers?

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 8

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 2:49:55 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

No, which is why I don't think the AI results are representative for a human game.

Take my game with notenome for example. The Soviets are essentially not flying ground support missions, so I can't touch them there. Air base bombing isn't worth it for the Germans, there's no air superiority phase so I can't touch his planes there. I then open a new turn and see that he has bombed my air bases. Finally, I say, my fighters can do some damage to him. I then notice that dozens of my fighters and between 100 and 200 AA guns shoot down, at best, 1 enemy plane in most of the battles, resulting in a loss ratio of aircraft of about 1:1 and a total loss for both sides of about 70 planes a week. I also got an attack where 13 IL-2's killed over 200 men, 20 guns and some AFV's, all with around 30 Luftwaffe fighters in the area that didn't do anything about it at all.

The Luftwaffe can currently be gamed into a pulp by those minor air base bombardments (a 1:1 air loss ratio is completely absurd in July 1941) without the Axis being able to do anything about it. CAP doesn't seem to do anything, AA doesn't seem to be too effective at preventing damage to the area it's protecting.

So yes, the air model is broken in multiplayer games.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to raizer)

Post #: 9

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 2:54:02 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I suspect the AI is not doing what players are doing with the representative air forces. Russian players are bombing the crap out of German Panzer HQs and units and are pretty much unmolested in doing so. (See some of the AAR's between players). The overall losses might be close, but I suspect HOW they are happening is not. A lot of Soviet casualties should be air to air losses and my guess is that is not the case. It gives the Germans a big feeling of helplessness when they should have the ability to dictate where the Red Airforce can't attack. The Luftwaffe can't cover the entire front/theater, but the Germans should be able to control several sectors and make any Russian air attacks be extremely costly for little results. As time goes along, the Red Airforce can better oppose Luftwaffe control, but this never really took place until Stalingrad. The Red Airforce showed up for the Battle of Moscow and had some successes, but this was more of a result that the Luftwaffe aircraft were suffering from the weather and basically not available or available in only small numbers. Kursk was another huge battle where the Red Airforce was finally to openly oppose the Luftwaffe with success although neither side really had control of the airspace there during most of the battle.

(in reply to raizer)

Post #: 10

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 3:05:34 PM

raizer

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline

I had a feeling russian pbem can really punish the german players with the air force in summer/fall 41- after turn 1 and your movements all you need to do is set your stuff on 110% then at the start of your following turns-bomb german hqs/airbases and gladly take the 1:1 loss ratio...then turn your doctrine back up to 110% rinse and repeat. Come the summer of 42 and you own the skies

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 11

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 3:09:51 PM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

Ack. Sorry, I referenced the wrong numbers on the table. The Soviets actually lost 21,200 aircraft in this time period. 10,300 of them were through combat and the rest through non-combat. The issue that was brought up was though the combat losses were close, obviously not enough planes are being lost through operational losses such as non-combat crashes, etc.

In me and Bob's PBEM game, I lost 11,230 aicraft as the Soviets and Bob lost 1,808 as the Germans.

Trey

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to raizer)

Post #: 12

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 3:12:09 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Indeed, that's why this issue annoys me so much. What use is carefully husbanding my air force as the Axis if the Soviets can bomb it at their leisure with me being powerless to stop them as both CAP and AA don't really work?

Pavel correctly called my posts on the tester forum "emotional", but I was really tired of the "over 30 fighters committed, only a single Soviet plane shot down, compared to the number of bombers involved heavy damage to the Luftwaffe" results I was seeing.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to raizer)

Post #: 13

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 3:17:35 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

I just finished Road to Moscow as the Soviets w/ AI on Challenging. The Germans ended turn 16 with 300 aircraft, only 195 seviceable, and those were mainly recon aircraft. They ended the scenario with slightly more, because I didn't bother doing anything on the last turn. I was bombing his airfields like crazy for the previous 4-5 turns. Had the game continued, I'm quite sure I would have knocked the Luftwaffe out of the war. In 1941.

At the start of each turn, I'd send air units with low #'s of available aircraft to the national reserve, and bring in replacement air groups that had been in the national reserve rehabbing previously. Then I'd set minimum 'to fly %' to 20%, airfield attack level at 100%, and shift+right click on an enemy airfield>select all>launch>repeat until no more available. Other than a few recon missions, those were the only air missions I conducted during my little bombing campaign.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 14

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 3:32:54 PM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Indeed, that's why this issue annoys me so much. What use is carefully husbanding my air force as the Axis if the Soviets can bomb it at their leisure with me being powerless to stop them as both CAP and AA don't really work?

Pavel correctly called my posts on the tester forum "emotional", but I was really tired of the "over 30 fighters committed, only a single Soviet plane shot down, compared to the number of bombers involved heavy damage to the Luftwaffe" results I was seeing.

A great game is a work of art. "Emotional" is a good thing, even a compliment ;)

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 15

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 3:44:42 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

I suspect that the air doctrine settings are very important in this regard, very important. I have been fine tuning the percentages for the Axis and Su - and it makes a huge difference as to what happens. If you play against the Soviet AI and want to have a robust air war, then increase the percentages to force the Soviet AI to commit more and then watch the losses skyrocket (on both sides

). For a Soviet suicidal air defense, set the percentage needed to fly very low, and the percent of the nominal value needed to commit very high...

If a Soviet human wants none of the air war - then so be it; unimpeded Axis ground support, ground attacks and interdiction will take a toll. As for marauding Soviets attacking HQs, there are wayas to adjust the Axis percentages to handle it - and also antiaircraft units, properly deployed are efficacious.

The main thing which annoys me is more that I can't get upgraded FWs into action...

Marquo

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 16

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 5:06:00 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

The main problem with tweaking the air doctrine setting is that the setting you need to intercept the mission, interception, also influences how many planes fly to intercept recon mission. The average recon interception seems to go like this: about 10 planes scramble to intercept 2 recon planes. They never seem to find them and then for some random reason one of the fighters crashes. You'll appreciate the problem when the Soviets are flying LOTS of recon missions. Let's say your opponent flies 100 recon missions, and half of your interceptions result in a fighter casualty. You're losing 50 fighters each turn for 0 gain.

If notenome continues to bomb my air bases, and we don't agree on some sort of house rule not to do so, I guess I'll just set my 110% required to fly and just take the bomber losses. As I correctly estimated, the losses from air base bombardment at a 110% setting are lower than when my planes do try to intercept something. Try is the key word here, hardly a plane seems to be shot down by those ~70-80 experience pilots, whilst a dozen ~50 experience IL-2's bomb my air base and inflict substantial losses compared to both the size of their payload (small) and the number of bombers involved (minimal).

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/1/2011 6:25:29 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 17

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 5:52:21 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

"set stuff on 110% then at the start of your following turns-bomb german hqs/airbases and gladly take the 1:1 loss ratio...then turn your doctrine back up to 110% rinse and repeat,"

What about trying to fiddle with fighter intercept percentage rather than the percent needed to fly?

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 18

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:04:33 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

In a real air battle, the Soviets are going to lose badly, so tweaking the Soviet fighter intercept percentages doesn't help them much in 1941 provided the Germans can put a fair amount of planes up in the air to counter them.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 19

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:19:43 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

I have the Soviet AI percentage to fly at 5%, the human Axis percent to fly at 20% and the Axis intercept at 50% and it is a blast to watch. To increase the Soviet committment one has to also increase the escort level - the AI Soviet levels are at 100% of the nominal value. I lowered the Soviet percent to fly when I noted that the Soviet national Reserve was bloated with most of the Soviet Airforce and the Airbases were all but full.

Honestly I am not seeing the Axis fighter losses against recon missions - I just checked the last AI move - it did well over 100 recon missions and not one Axis fighter was lost - and not one Soviet recon plane was lost, either.

Marquo

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 20

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:21:33 PM

Redmarkus5

Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

Maybe we need a thread for compiling suggested PBEM House Rules? Some idiot tried to start one a while back, but... ;) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2648540

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 21

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:25:35 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Honestly I am not seeing the Axis fighter losses against recon missions - I just checked the last AI move - it did well over 100 recon missions and not one Axis fighter was lost - and not one Soviet recon plane was lost, either.

It varies due to fatique and damage. If the same unit tries to intercept a large amount of recon units, there's a good chance for some losses, especially if the unit was fatiqued at the end of the turn or bombed.

I'm not seeing 1 loss for every 2 intercepts yet, but it's a situation that I have seen playing as the Soviets. It's possible some of the latest changes resulted in fewer losses, but I'm still losing fighters to pointless intercepts.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/1/2011 6:26:43 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Redmarkus5)

Post #: 22

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 6:42:15 PM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Besides, it wasn't old designs that hampered Russian aviation, it was poor tactical doctrine in Air-to-Air combat. They were just as bad in dogfights flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and P-39's as they were with I-153's and -16's.

You are spot on Ametysth.

The Soviets had great planes by the middle of the war, the La-5/7 and Yak-3 were great aircraft, but pilot training/quality combined with horrible centralized control doctrine gave the Germans a huge advantage, (Granted there were some exceptional Soviet pilots).

I truly believe this is the one area the Germans always had an advantage until the very end of the war. The problem is the Eastern Front was huge, combined with a huge growth in the Soviet Air Force, the Luftwaffe had no hope of providing protection/support anywhere near what they could in the West. Most German ground units hardly ever saw the Luftwaffe and only the most important ground operations were supported...in general.

I am sure this is a mistake, but I never even mess with air, except to ensure the bases are in range to support my ground units.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Ametysth)

Post #: 23

RE: New House Rule Idea for PBEM - 1/1/2011 10:40:12 PM

CarnageINC

Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Besides, it wasn't old designs that hampered Russian aviation, it was poor tactical doctrine in Air-to-Air combat. They were just as bad in dogfights flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and P-39's as they were with I-153's and -16's.

You are spot on Ametysth.

The Soviets had great planes by the middle of the war, the La-5/7 and Yak-3 were great aircraft, but pilot training/quality combined with horrible centralized control doctrine gave the Germans a huge advantage, (Granted there were some exceptional Soviet pilots).

I truly believe this is the one area the Germans always had an advantage until the very end of the war. The problem is the Eastern Front was huge, combined with a huge growth in the Soviet Air Force, the Luftwaffe had no hope of providing protection/support anywhere near what they could in the West. Most German ground units hardly ever saw the Luftwaffe and only the most important ground operations were supported...in general.

I am sure this is a mistake, but I never even mess with air, except to ensure the bases are in range to support my ground units.

Exactly! The one advantage the Germans had is so off in the game that I feel until its properly addressed that it should be shelfed until it is properly fix. Not to knock the developers but I really don't expect a super improvement any time soon.

This idea will turn off a few players, I can live with that but it will help focus solely on the ground war which is the main focus for the game anyways. Yes there are arguments about the Shturmovik's but the Luftwaffe looses the Stuka's which were a great tank killer (which doesn't do diddly now) until the Soviets gained air superiority late in the war through shear numbers.

_____________________________

(in reply to Zemke)

Post #: 24