Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AVGAS

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> AVGAS Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AVGAS - 6/12/2011 11:32:35 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
It seems actually, that AVGAS is NOT represented in game AT ALL. And it is quite possible, that adding it will resolve current problem with far too much supply available at front.

Current planes supply usage is:
1 point for combat mission
1/3rd point for short, or semi-combat mission (CAP, recon etc.)
bombload/1000 for bombers using bombs

It generally seems, that supply usage represents only used ammunition, not fuel.
Since 1 point of supply is equal roughly to 1 ton, upon closer examination:
B-17 takes 1700 gallons of fuel, it should use extra 6 points of supply for longer range mission
B-29 takes 8168 gallons, that gives 30 (!) extra supply, plus probably 2 points for MGs ammo. Try to base them in China now! One plane-strike-mission -50 supply :D
P-38 take 300-400 gallons, so 1.2-1.5 extra supply
For Japan:
A6M3a 570 litres (5.7 extra supply)
Dinah II 1490 litres (1.5 supply)
Betty 3640 litres (3.64 supply), and 6490 litres (6.49 supply) for G4M2 model

That would need introducing one code line, with smart formula, based probably on plane Durability, number of Engines, range and type.
Or simple overall calculation based on difference between maximum, and initial takeoff weight.
Post #: 1
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 11:52:52 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Not going to happen. Live with it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 12:26:37 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

It seems actually, that AVGAS is NOT represented in game AT ALL. And it is quite possible, that adding it will resolve current problem with far too much supply available at front.

Current planes supply usage is:
1 point for combat mission
1/3rd point for short, or semi-combat mission (CAP, recon etc.)
bombload/1000 for bombers using bombs

It generally seems, that supply usage represents only used ammunition, not fuel.
Since 1 point of supply is equal roughly to 1 ton, upon closer examination:
B-17 takes 1700 gallons of fuel, it should use extra 6 points of supply for longer range mission
B-29 takes 8168 gallons, that gives 30 (!) extra supply, plus probably 2 points for MGs ammo. Try to base them in China now! One plane-strike-mission -50 supply :D
P-38 take 300-400 gallons, so 1.2-1.5 extra supply
For Japan:
A6M3a 570 litres (5.7 extra supply)
Dinah II 1490 litres (1.5 supply)
Betty 3640 litres (3.64 supply), and 6490 litres (6.49 supply) for G4M2 model

That would need introducing one code line, with smart formula, based probably on plane Durability, number of Engines, range and type.
Or simple overall calculation based on difference between maximum, and initial takeoff weight.


Ammunition and POL make up a large part of supply. They both required toluene, and total ammo plus POL used by a unit in a day of active combat was about constant. So you can ignore the difference in computing supply usage.

_____________________________

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 inqistor)
Post #: 3
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 12:50:21 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The longer answer is the code just can't support an extra supply/resource type.  The one point of supply generated by refineries represents refined motor fuels and other petro chemicals used.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 4
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 2:53:31 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The longer answer is the code just can't support an extra supply/resource type.  The one point of supply generated by refineries represents refined motor fuels and other petro chemicals used.

Bill



There's no need to model both--it comes out in the wash.

_____________________________

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 wdolson)
Post #: 5
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 3:05:28 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I always thought it would be nice to have avgas in the game but a long time ago it was explained why it would not happen. Besides, its hard enough to keep airfields in supply, can you imagine having to ship in avgas too?

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 6
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 5:52:20 PM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I always thought it would be nice to have avgas in the game but a long time ago it was explained why it would not happen. Besides, its hard enough to keep airfields in supply, can you imagine having to ship in avgas too?


I can't think of a similar example from the Pacific War, but if you were modelling the Malta Convoys then that's a situation where I'd really like to be able to further break out the type of cargo a tanker or merchantman was carrying. I certainly wouldn't want to inflict that on AE at this point, but for a similar game still at the development stage I think it would be useful. Even when things come out in the wash including them can have considerable value from the flavour side of the equation.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 7
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 6:35:48 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
AvGas is supply. If you have to ship supply to places with airgroups, the shipment is AvGas, ammo, food, oil, new props, paint, hooches, toilet paper, and bombs and fuses and similar things. If you have to ship supply to places with LCUs, the shipment is petrol, ammo, food, oil, new tires, paint, hooches, toilet paper and mines and wire and other similar things. Supply models all this very well. It all comes out in the wash.

Mat

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 8
RE: AVGAS - 6/12/2011 11:31:03 PM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
AvGas is supply. [snip] It all comes out in the wash.


What makes differentiating supply interesting for Malta is that often only a couple of ships in the convoys made it through, meaning that the loading of individual ships becomes important. At the time of the Pedestal convoy the island had the military supply to defend the island on the ground, but avgas to keep the Malta-based RAF forces was critical, while food for the populace, and the consequent surrender of the island, was down to possibly as little as 10 days. In game terms, if the needed ship doesn't make it through, then you may have to organise another convoy, even though by the AE model there is plenty of supply on the island. Rather than coming out in the wash, the details of supply can potentially dictate major operational requirements.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 9
RE: AVGAS - 6/13/2011 3:34:16 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg


quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
AvGas is supply. [snip] It all comes out in the wash.


What makes differentiating supply interesting for Malta is that often only a couple of ships in the convoys made it through, meaning that the loading of individual ships becomes important. At the time of the Pedestal convoy the island had the military supply to defend the island on the ground, but avgas to keep the Malta-based RAF forces was critical, while food for the populace, and the consequent surrender of the island, was down to possibly as little as 10 days. In game terms, if the needed ship doesn't make it through, then you may have to organise another convoy, even though by the AE model there is plenty of supply on the island. Rather than coming out in the wash, the details of supply can potentially dictate major operational requirements.



The entire AE logistical show is an abstraction. You make a case for differentiating AVGAS - so what, just about every item could be similarly differentiated. How about water? Once the Japanese cross over the Johore Straits onto Singapore island itself just how long do you think the Allied forces should be allowed to survive without water even though in the game they could have several months of "supplies" still on hand. In the game it is common for Japanese forces to spend weeks on Singapore island before they can "starve" out the defenders.

Adding AVGAS as a third separate item for unit consumption in addition to the existing "supply" and "fuel" merely introduces considerable additional complexity without improving the existing logistical abstraction. Rather than introducing such a big change, it would be better to make aircraft operations consume both "supply" and "fuel". That would introduce its own game mechanic balance issues but would be safer than introducing AVGAS as a new and separate consumption item.

The bottom line is that players will always find ways to frontload their combat operations (which are thought of as being sexy)at the expense of rear area logistic concerns, which are not sexy. The market for a true "Logistics in the Pacific" or "Micro Economic Development in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" game probably only amounts to 17 people in the entire world.

Alfred

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 10
RE: AVGAS - 6/13/2011 5:07:31 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The market for a true "Logistics in the Pacific" or "Micro Economic Development in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" game probably only amounts to 17 people in the entire world.

Alfred

Oh Oh Oh!! Where can I download it!??! I'm number 18!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 11
RE: AVGAS - 6/13/2011 8:55:05 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The market for a true "Logistics in the Pacific" or "Micro Economic Development in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" game probably only amounts to 17 people in the entire world.

Alfred

Oh Oh Oh!! Where can I download it!??! I'm number 18!


What makes you think you weren't already included in Alfred's "17"?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 12
RE: AVGAS - 6/15/2011 6:43:00 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
OK, now I am suspicious...
No, seriously. I was talking EXCLUSIVELY about supply. It is CLEARLY stated in all examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Ammunition and POL make up a large part of supply. They both required toluene, and total ammo plus POL used by a unit in a day of active combat was about constant. So you can ignore the difference in computing supply usage.

But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 13
RE: AVGAS - 6/15/2011 7:29:00 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

OK, now I am suspicious...
No, seriously. I was talking EXCLUSIVELY about supply. It is CLEARLY stated in all examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Ammunition and POL make up a large part of supply. They both required toluene, and total ammo plus POL used by a unit in a day of active combat was about constant. So you can ignore the difference in computing supply usage.

But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7


Your points make a lot of sense. Take a look at the staff officer's logistics manuals--they probably provide the data you need.

_____________________________

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 inqistor)
Post #: 14
RE: AVGAS - 6/15/2011 7:34:07 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Your points make a lot of sense. Take a look at the staff officer's logistics manuals--they probably provide the data you need.


Well, there is nothing I can do with only editor

Change would have to be made in game code.


Speaking of logistics manual, I have found one for transporting air units by sea, but more interesting is evaluation of Japanese transport routines. It lists, that ONE soldier needed 3 cargo tons for short trip, and 5, for longer trip.
Also, 15000 strong Division needed over 122000 cargo tons, to be fully transported.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 15
RE: AVGAS - 6/15/2011 11:29:56 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Your points make a lot of sense. Take a look at the staff officer's logistics manuals--they probably provide the data you need.


Well, there is nothing I can do with only editor

Change would have to be made in game code.


Speaking of logistics manual, I have found one for transporting air units by sea, but more interesting is evaluation of Japanese transport routines. It lists, that ONE soldier needed 3 cargo tons for short trip, and 5, for longer trip.
Also, 15000 strong Division needed over 122000 cargo tons, to be fully transported.


Ask JWE what that translates into.

_____________________________

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 inqistor)
Post #: 16
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 12:46:51 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7


Interesting figures. It does look like supply usage by air units is too small in the game. Are the quoted supply consumption figures for air missions in the game confirmed by experimentation however?

I guess what would be needed, if a better supply consumption rate were to be used (assuming it is incorrect in the first place), would be a simple formula to calculate "fuel" (supply) usage for a mission. Something proportional to number of engines and mission range, I guess.

However the likelihood of something like this being changed in the game is very small, I admit.

Andrew

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 17
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 1:24:25 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
Supply requirements would have been an interesting item to put in the unit databases, which would probably have simplified programming any modifications of the game. All this stuff that is 'hard coded' never helps.

So, as others have said, won't happen in WitP AE. Maybe in WitP III as an optional complication? (wishful thinking from someone who is part of the '17')....

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 18
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 8:00:20 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
It could be handled (though maybe not in WITPAE) by a field similar to the Durability field, which provides a multiplier for various aircraft and another multiplier for extended range.

We could then get another field for .................................

PS I hope the devs look at the odeas brought up by the original poster et al, hopefully something might click and be possible. Just like all those ideas picked up since WITP vanilla.

Keep enquiring Inquisitor, and ignore the Danish Earsling comments.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 19
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 4:33:56 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Supply usage in the game has always been too small. This was true all the way back to UV. I think this is due to the game's origins from PacWar days in part, where jungle warfare was stressed and units could last a long time even in out of supply situations, leading to the Island hopping strategy.

Another reason is because, as mentioned, the model is an abstraction. While mathematically speaking the calculations are true in representing a "ton" of supply via the supply point, there is a loss in translation effect due to the simple fact that a supply point can be anything and everything at the same time. A can of beans, an ammo clip, an arty shell, or a gallon of AVGAS.

This is why players have always been able to do so much more, especially with air transport in Grigsby based games. (And why i eliminated transport planes from Scenario 4 despite their historical presence)

Future wargames can take two courses of action. They can either delve even deeper into details, representing all sorts of different supplies which IMO based on my experiences as a dev for this game, impractical for a game of this scale, or one can attempt to improve the abstraction by compensating for it when calculating what a supply point does for certain functions.

AE improved things alot supply wise, but ultimately it had to use the same code so there's only so much change that could be done...and yes, Terminus is right, there will be no major code changes along the lines of trying to introduce new concepts like specific AVGAS. Maybe in the next game. Be careful what you wish for. This game already could be considered too much management for players to complete in one lifetime.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 20
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 5:32:54 PM   
Sardaukar


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Supply usage in the game has always been too small. This was true all the way back to UV. I think this is due to the game's origins from PacWar days in part, where jungle warfare was stressed and units could last a long time even in out of supply situations, leading to the Island hopping strategy.

Another reason is because, as mentioned, the model is an abstraction. While mathematically speaking the calculations are true in representing a "ton" of supply via the supply point, there is a loss in translation effect due to the simple fact that a supply point can be anything and everything at the same time. A can of beans, an ammo clip, an arty shell, or a gallon of AVGAS.

This is why players have always been able to do so much more, especially with air transport in Grigsby based games. (And why i eliminated transport planes from Scenario 4 despite their historical presence)

Future wargames can take two courses of action. They can either delve even deeper into details, representing all sorts of different supplies which IMO based on my experiences as a dev for this game, impractical for a game of this scale, or one can attempt to improve the abstraction by compensating for it when calculating what a supply point does for certain functions.

AE improved things alot supply wise, but ultimately it had to use the same code so there's only so much change that could be done...and yes, Terminus is right, there will be no major code changes along the lines of trying to introduce new concepts like specific AVGAS. Maybe in the next game. Be careful what you wish for. This game already could be considered too much management for players to complete in one lifetime.


Indeed.

Would be interesting to be able to tweak the supply consumption per unit (especially air ops, that were notorious supply hogs), though, without introducing any new types of supply. I agree that game is enough management just with shipping fuel and supplies to bases (and resources & oil for production). I don't see need to introduce new type of supply.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 21
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 5:59:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Supply usage in the game has always been too small. This was true all the way back to UV. I think this is due to the game's origins from PacWar days in part, where jungle warfare was stressed and units could last a long time even in out of supply situations, leading to the Island hopping strategy.

Another reason is because, as mentioned, the model is an abstraction. While mathematically speaking the calculations are true in representing a "ton" of supply via the supply point, there is a loss in translation effect due to the simple fact that a supply point can be anything and everything at the same time. A can of beans, an ammo clip, an arty shell, or a gallon of AVGAS.

This is why players have always been able to do so much more, especially with air transport in Grigsby based games. (And why i eliminated transport planes from Scenario 4 despite their historical presence)

Future wargames can take two courses of action. They can either delve even deeper into details, representing all sorts of different supplies which IMO based on my experiences as a dev for this game, impractical for a game of this scale, or one can attempt to improve the abstraction by compensating for it when calculating what a supply point does for certain functions.

AE improved things alot supply wise, but ultimately it had to use the same code so there's only so much change that could be done...and yes, Terminus is right, there will be no major code changes along the lines of trying to introduce new concepts like specific AVGAS. Maybe in the next game. Be careful what you wish for. This game already could be considered too much management for players to complete in one lifetime.


Everything is relative. People who are unwilling to manage great detail won't attempt a game of this detail. People who are interested in modeling the kinds of decisions that made sense historically will accept the "dirt" of logistics. Yes - it must be simple. No - it does not have to be that "supply" = everything you might need. I recommend only three kinds of supplies: Fuel ( POL formally ), Ammo (all forms of munitions), and General (everything else). In terms of weight, Ammo is the vast majority in combat. Fuel matters more to things like ships and air units and motorized units - static and walking units don't need it at all (or not much). General matters mainly because things need to be maintained - or fixed. Resources are more difficult to simpify to such a point, but one attempt was made: JF Dunnigan had oil ( familiar to us ) and Northern Resource Points ( coal and iron ore ) and Southern Rersource points ( other minerals ) in the original, mechanical WITP. Crude, to be sure, but better than universal resource points by far. Holding Manchuria and Korea does not get you tin, gold, etc from the South. I prefer coal separately (2/3 of all resources by weight to Japan are coal alone), iron ore and copper (representing all other minerals needed in significant weight amounts - you might call it minerals). Oil - like everyone else = crude oil. And rubber (all trace materials represented here). Such games involved decisions that consider what is where resource wise far better than abstracting it all out. One cannot appreciate strategic locations like the tin islands, for example.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 6:34:02 PM   
Nikademus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Everything is relative.


Especially when reading your long winded ramblings.

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 23
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 6:48:14 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
JFD had built a detailed econometric model behind the original WitP. For example, he modelled substitutability of resources--e.g., AVGAS from coal.

_____________________________

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 el cid again)
Post #: 24
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 7:12:05 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Everything is relative.


Especially when reading your long winded ramblings.


Why don't you just ask T for the directions to the location of "The Green Button"

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 25
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 7:56:30 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Interesting figures. It does look like supply usage by air units is too small in the game. Are the quoted supply consumption figures for air missions in the game confirmed by experimentation however?


I admit I only wrote, what manual states, I have not checked the numbers.
However, at least for float planes, it will be pretty easy to check. Just dump some supply on empty island, and put there AVP. That way nothing will interfere with supply consumption:


After discovering, that my test scenario somehow do not show ANY air units in latest beta, I ran it under latest official patch.
Test bed:
Map cut to only Marcus Island, and Wake.
Marcus Island, AV Ship in port, 2 Patrol Units (12+4 reserve, and 8 planes. MAVIS/EMILY), both set to 100% Search, max range, 6k ft. 700 supply, nothing else on island.

First turn... no supply used. Most of pilots gained 2 missions, so they WERE flying,
I have made overall 5 days. NO SUPPLY was used. Pilots were gaining missions, quite a lot planes went into maintenance. No mission were used from AV (it have 60).




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 26
RE: AVGAS - 6/16/2011 8:00:38 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Second test:
I have added Float Plane unit, with 12 planes.
First turn... 4 supply points were used. That means 12/3 - exactly what manual says. It seems Patrol Planes DO NOT USE SUPPLY (or they actually use 0.33 supply point per plane check, not per whole unit check, but it is rounded down)!

Second turn, yes you guessed it, 8 supply points were used (so, anyone actually guessed it?)

Third turn, yes, this time you could guess, again 8 points

Fourth turn, yes... again 8 points

And fifth turn, oh yes, you could guess it already, again... 4 points (HUH?)

Now, does anyone see a pattern? No Float Plane was set to maintenance, but still quite a lot Patrol Planes.


Third test - I thought that it could be because Patrol Planes are set to 100%, or they use torpedoes. I have set both units to use bombs, and one of them to search at 50%. Results identical as in Second Test.

Fourth test - supply was in orange, when I added Float Plane unit, so I have set supply at 7000, and set Patrol Planes to bombs. Results still identical to Second Test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Keep enquiring Inquisitor, and ignore the Danish Earsling comments.

Well, as you can see IGNORING them do not change anything, so current plan is to DEFEAT them.



Whoops, this is THE SAME air unit, it was supposed to be Float Plane DAVEs, but I already deleted picture

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by inqistor -- 6/16/2011 8:04:20 PM >

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 27
RE: AVGAS - 6/17/2011 8:16:41 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Everything is relative.


Especially when reading your long winded ramblings.


Whereas, Like T's , yours are short & to the point.

Dont bag Sid all the time, sometimes he makes some sense.

This one isnt bad, IFF we could get the code tweaked (unlikely)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 28
RE: AVGAS - 6/17/2011 5:35:54 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

This one isnt bad, IFF we could get the code tweaked (unlikely)


This one would way, way more than a tweak of the code. It would involve meaningful changes to the code even before testing, and lots of testing would be required to see the effects on the codes overall performance in terms of the results it gives.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 29
RE: AVGAS - 6/17/2011 5:52:09 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

This one isnt bad, IFF we could get the code tweaked (unlikely)


This one would way, way more than a tweak of the code. It would involve meaningful changes to the code even before testing, and lots of testing would be required to see the effects on the codes overall performance in terms of the results it gives.

Lots of words as for adding simply *3 after planes supply usage calculations

It seems, that Patrol Planes are using NO supply, unless my test Scenario made something wrong. This is obvious bug.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> AVGAS Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.891