State of the Air War in AE

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

State of the Air War in AE

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 >> State of the Air War in AE

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 8:46:29 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Hi all,
I thought I would make a post concerning the recent emphasis on the Air Model in AE. First let me say that the discussions here, for the most part, do not go unnoticed. In my case I have tried to get on the forums and stay apprised of issues, but usually I am late to a thread that is a hot topic. Recently circumstances have allowed me to spend more time reading through some of the latest topics, and I STILL hope to start my PBEM with JWE as soon as I can get back up to speed.

Concerning the Air model, and (AE in general) we are in an interesting time. The game has been out for some time and many, many smart people have had chance to play it and take into places that few of us are unlikely to reach. As an example PzB and Andy Mac are doing things in their game that have never been done before with AE. Others are testing bounds of the Original Engine and our �bolt on� design features in their own way. The bottom line is we are reaching uncharted territory more and more frequently.

In the last few weeks there has been a lot of attention on the Air model as we test this undiscovered territory, and tend to do so with wildly differing circumstances. ie. late war variables that are hard to predict and a-historical force allocations and unprecedented battles (in terms of RL). This is fine, in fact it is the whole point of the game, but the reality is a lot of what we see never happened IRL because the circumstances of the real war were very one-sided. Some players like Pzb are reaching areas of this game that have no precedent and are difficult to judge as realistic or not, unless one delves very deeply and with great detail into all the factors that are at work in HIS game. He does a fantastic job as a devout IJ FB, and by all accounts is probably one of the best, if not THE best at his game. There are others of course, (Nemo ;) but I can�t list them all.

Other people test the air model as a hobby. Again, this is fine. I welcome it. I just ask that when you do you do so responsibly. What I mean is that running a couple sterile tests in a sandbox scenario, makes not a scientific process. In particular doing so and then broadcasting your findings after a couple runs and making a claim that such and such is broken only stirs the pot!

There ARE issues. There always have been. There likely always will be. Some weaknesses have been identified, others are still hiding. Many of these are legacy weaknesses that are held over from the original WitP. Remember we �developers� are not the original developers. We are all players first. None of us were professionals to begin with. Some would argue (Right Castor? ; ) that we are still not professionals�

What are the weaknesses I see? Well there are several, and I won�t go into each and every one, but will speak to the one that generates most of the discussion here:

Uber Air battles. This is an easy one. It is a legacy weakness, and one that we spent an awful lot of time trying to address, uber CAP, bloody results, leaky CAP, you name it, this game does not do well. That said we made great strides, and expert players have shown that you CAN minimize the impact of this weakness by playing carefully. But you have to know what is reasonable and what isn�t. One of the ways to do this is to try to understand how real world Air Operations work. If you do a little light reading you will find that Air Operations in WWII were cyclical in nature. Sustained heavy combat Ops were difficult to maintain. Maintenance cycles and fatigue, force flow, logistics, often did not allow a �Balls to the Wall� �throw everything at them but the kitchen sink� mentality. Air forces spent themselves against each other, made gains or not, and then went into a phase of rebuilding.

Additionally, Commanders had a lot of responsibilities to cover with their Air assets. They couldn�t afford to mass them at a single point of attack, all at the same time, and from a material readiness of 100%. In fact Air units were NEVER at 100%. I hate to use exclusive words like NEVER, but in this case I am fairly confident�ok lets say it was rare, so I don�t have to respond to the first nit-noid challenge to that statement.

The average WitP�er may know this. He may not. Most of our experienced, well-read players know it as gospel, which is why it is rare to hear them complaining vocally about the air model, because they understand the dynamic, they know how to plan an Air Operation and execute it. More importantly they know when to cease operations, and pull back to lick their wounds. The Average player may not, and may also employ the old Tank Charge. This is the old Command & Conquer, or pick your average RTS game, strategy of build, build, build, ATTACK! And hope you carry the day by sheer brute force. At this point I hear a couple of you laughing, because you know what I am talking about. Others are saying� �uhhh, what�s wrong with that?�. Ok, I am talking to you, the latter -- Stop doing that! YOU are part of the problem ; )

This game doesn�t work that way. It never has. It never will. That is what makes it so special. Sure that tactic CAN and will work, but it will work in such a way that you will cry �I won, I won, but it shouldn�t have worked that way, such and such aspect of the game is broken!!!� and your opponent will say, �That is BS! That never happened in WWII!! This game is broken!�

It IS possible to push this game into ludicrous speed. I have said it before and will say it again. You can code a game and plan for as many wild and crazy permutations as you want, but you can�t code a human being�s play nor his propensity to try and game the system. The only way to prevent such things is with Hard Code, and despite some of the mis-informed comments I�ve seen on the forum of late there IS NO HARD CODE in the Air model. At least as far as the AE design team�s work is concerned. Any hard code that may be in the game is left over from the original designers, and was not part of our development process.

Part of the reason we are seeing a new round of scrutiny on the Air Model is that as the game progresses into �44 and �45 the likelihood of larger air battles are greatly, if not exponentially increased owing to the natural increase in Force flow, or the arrival of newer and bigger Air units. Additionally each game is different, as the players who run the games are different. We have several Mods out there, and Michaelm has graciously provided several different EXEs that treat all these factors somewhat differently. Few of us, developers included, can maintain the bubble on why one game plays out one way and another plays out that way. KEEP this in mind when you see something you don�t like. Check yourself first. Are you playing a personal mod? What version of the game are you playing? Are you playing responsibly? Are you that RTS player? What do you REALLY know about WWII? I thought I knew a lot when I started playing UV in 2002. I have learned A LOT since then.

The key to the Air War for those of you who want to know is to play as realistically as you can. Have a dialogue with your opponent. It takes two to play a game like this responsibly. Have realistic expectations, and don�t try to break your opponents back in one turn. It won�t work. You will be disappointed. Not only with the outcome of the battle, but with the way the engine handled it.

At this point I would like to invite those of you who are experienced Air players, to post your rules to success. (PzB, Nemo, Lo Baron, Nik et al you know who you are). I think the community would benefit greatly from a new round of insight into what IS reasonable and what isn�t.

I would also like to ask that is this thread becomes hot, that we keep this constructive and avoid flaming, bashing, whining etc. If you have an issue please start it in another post in the appropriate forum. Thanks for your attention!

Just my two cents, but overall I am still very happy with the way things are holding up.

Cheers!
Elf

< Message edited by TheElf -- 3/8/2012 10:14:42 AM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Post #: 1

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 8:59:17 AM

cantona2

Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Uber Air battles. This is an easy one. It is a legacy weakness, and one that we spent an awful lot of time trying to address, uber CAP, bloody results, leaky CAP, you name it, this game does not do well. That said we made great strides, and expert players have shown that you CAN minimize the impact of this weakness by playing carefully. But you have to know what is reasonable and what isn�t. One of the ways to do this is to try to understand how real world Air Operations work. If you do a little light reading you will find that Air Operations in WWII were cyclical in nature. Sustained heavy combat Ops were difficult to maintain. Maintenance cycles and fatigue, force flow, logistics, often did not allow a �Balls to the Wall� �throw everything at them but the kitchen sink� mentality. Air forces spent themselves against each other, made gains or not, and then went into a phase of rebuilding.
Additionally, Commanders had a lot of responsibilities to cover with their Air assets. They couldn�t afford to mass them at a single point of attack, all at the same time, and from a material readiness of 100%. In fact Air units were NEVER at 100%. I hate to use exclusive words like NEVER, but in this case I am fairly confident�ok lets say it was rare, so I don�t have to respond to the first nit-noid challenge to that statement.

The average WitP�er may know this. He may not. Most of our experienced, well-read players know it as gospel, which is why it is rare to hear them complaining vocally about the air model, because they understand the dynamic, they know how to plan an Air Operation and execute it. More importantly they know when to cease operations, and pull back to lick their wounds. The Average player may not, and may also employ the old Tank Charge. This is the old Command & Conquer, or pick your average RTS game, strategy of build, build, build, ATTACK! And hope you carry the day by sheer brute force. At this point I hear a couple of you laughing, because you know what I am talking about. Others are saying� �uhhh, what�s wrong with that?�. Ok, I am talking to you, the latter -- Stop doing that! YOU are part of the problem ; )

Part of the reason we are seeing a new round of scrutiny on the Air Model is that as the game progresses into �44 and �45 the likelihood of larger air battles are greatly, if not exponentially increased owing to the natural increase in Force flow, or the arrival of newer and bigger Air units. Additionally each game is different, as the players who run the games are different. We have several Mods out there, and Michaelm has graciously provided several different EXEs that treat all these factors somewhat differently. Few of us, developers included, can maintain the bubble on why one game plays out one way and another plays out that way. KEEP this in mind when you see something you don�t like. Check yourself first. Are you playing a personal mod? What version of the game are you playing? Are you playing responsibly? Are you that RTS player? What do you REALLY know about WWII? I thought I knew a lot when I started playing UV in 2002. I have learned A LOT since then.

The key to the Air War for those of you who want to know is to play as realistically as you can. Have a dialogue with your opponent. It takes two to play a game like this responsibly. Have realistic expectations, and don�t try to break your opponents back in one turn. It won�t work. You will be disappointed. Not only with the outcome of the battle, but with the way the engine handled it.

At this point I would like to invite those of you who are experienced Air players, to post your rules to success. (PzB, Nemo, Lo Baron, Nik et al you know who you are). I think the community would benefit greatly from a new round of insight into what IS reasonable and what isn�t.

I would also like to ask that is this thread becomes hot, that we keep this constructive and avoid flaming, bashing, whining etc. If you have an issue please start it in another post in the appropriate forum. Thanks for your attention!

Just my two cents, but overall I am still very happy with the way things are holding up.

Cheers!
Elf

Very well said, Especially the parts in bold! Most sensible thing you have said is the last highlighted part, it takes two to play this game. Talk to each other and keep that communication going regardless of what happens.

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 2

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 9:03:57 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Thanks for taking the time for this detailed explanation of the current as is model and your thoughts and conclusions on
the results witnessed by players not so accustomed to the scale of the game.

I am sure many will benefit from the information presented here, in addition it is very reassuring to see my personal experience
and conclusions confirmed by your post.

You did a marvelous job bringing A2A to the point where it is now, more so considering where you had to start from.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 3

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 9:09:04 AM

1275psi

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline

I totally agree with cantona
We are playing scene 1, PDU off, and I think both of us are having a fantastic game becuase we try to play tactically as per real life, we both cycle units when they have fought for 3 or four days, we both use airplanes in historical manner.

Now for Japan, that means if P 38's are always higher than my oscars, or zeros, so be it, I live with the losses, which reflect real life too.
The challenge is increased for me, trying to keep pilot, plane pools up, and not to break my units at the same time.
We are well into 43, and have Guadacanal recreated, and what a magnificent game matrix is giving us.
The air model, for us two, is working beautifully i think.

The biggest raid of thewar, 75 betties escorted by 60 odd zeros, and that will never happen again, it was my "max effort" day.

I remain delighted by this game, the support it recieves.
My personal opinion, anything else but scene one , pdu off, is for wimps................(LOL)
Its what works best.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 4

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 9:25:26 AM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

I've just started a Scenario 28 (Da Big Babes) "C" with reduced cargo limits, with PDU off - I'm looking forward to the challenge of keeping things historical!

For one thing, it's hard to mass massive raids there since it takes ages to build up airfields (less engineers) and also aviation support is at a premium.

I'm enjoying the challenge of having to use layered Nate CAP in order to stop Allied raids.

(in reply to 1275psi)

Post #: 5

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 9:29:55 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

I totally agree with cantona
We are playing scene 1, PDU off, and I think both of us are having a fantastic game becuase we try to play tactically as per real life, we both cycle units when they have fought for 3 or four days, we both use airplanes in historical manner.

Now for Japan, that means if P 38's are always higher than my oscars, or zeros, so be it, I live with the losses, which reflect real life too.
The challenge is increased for me, trying to keep pilot, plane pools up, and not to break my units at the same time.
We are well into 43, and have Guadacanal recreated, and what a magnificent game matrix is giving us.
The air model, for us two, is working beautifully i think.

The biggest raid of thewar, 75 betties escorted by 60 odd zeros, and that will never happen again, it was my "max effort" day.

I remain delighted by this game, the support it recieves.
My personal opinion, anything else but scene one , pdu off, is for wimps................(LOL)
Its what works best.

1275psi,
I am glad to hear you and Cantona are having a pleasant experience. Expectation management is a huge part of fighting the Air War in this game. It sounds like you understand what is a fair fight (in histroical terms) and what isn't. There was nothing fair about the WWII air war. Knowing that is the first step in understanding how to play this aspect of the game.

One of the challenges our community faces is knowing when to cede air superiority when your opponent gains it locally as Cantona has seemed to have done. In your case as the operational commander you have to ask are my objectives being met by continuing in the face of an unwinnable local engagement, in this case against his P-38s. Do you have the capacity to continue fighting on his terms or might you need to rethink your plan and put your valuable pilots to work somewhere else? Perhaps you really want to make a statement, perhaps living to fight another day is more important!

Also, you have to consider if there is another way to degrade his P-38 force so as to relieve pressure on the opposing Zero unit. All too often I think players think A2A combat is the only way to achieve a win. If the P-38s are located and Tokyo express type raid is possible that might be an alternative. Likewise establishing a second basewith LBA dedicated to well timed and escorted raids agains the P-38 Field may degrade his sortie count and Maintnenance cycle of a more complex twin engine aircraft such that he is forced to rotate them out and replace them with a less capable unit or face ever decreasing P-38 availability while you build up your Zero units or rotate in fresh ones.

just some thoughts...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to 1275psi)

Post #: 6

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 10:15:02 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

Thumbs up for that one! Perhaps it would be worth to be made sticky? It would make a good reminder to use some self-critical assessment of expectations when playing AE. And the thoughts presented don't apply only to the air model.
And plus, always good to know that devs are following important discussions!

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 7

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 10:36:03 AM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

I would like to hear TheElf's thoughts on the air issue that has brought the match between Greyjoy and Rader to a complete halt. Namely, the ability for bombers to get thru any sized CAP undamaged as long as they have enough escort fighters to use up the firing passes. IMHO this is a late war gamebreaker. See the last few pages of Greyjoy's AAR for a lengthy discussion of this issue.

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 8

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 10:37:35 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

I've not had a huge problem with enormous air battles thus far personally. I never overstack airfields though, so my airfields in direct contact with the enemy generally only have about 15 squadrons at an absolute maximum.

That said. My carrier force in 1944 can easily muster a 300 fighter escort, having about 600 fighters embarked. Given what Greyjoy discovered, presumably this would mean KBs CAP is irrelevant should they meet and they'd get the bombers entirely unscathed, so I think this is an issue which everybody will face in '44, given I lost quite a few CVs.

My only other mild gripe is escorting fighters behaving as ablative armour for bombers.

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 9

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 11:51:30 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I would like to hear TheElf's thoughts on the air issue that has brought the match between Greyjoy and Rader to a complete halt. Namely, the ability for bombers to get thru any sized CAP undamaged as long as they have enough escort fighters to use up the firing passes. IMHO this is a late war gamebreaker. See the last few pages of Greyjoy's AAR for a lengthy discussion of this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You need to manage your OWN expectations. You can do this by learning how to fight a war and not expecting to in this case to break the back of your opponent in one raid. That isn't the point. The point is to wear him down with force of attrition and by spreading your forces around so that you can hit him where he isn't (Sun Tzu). I would suggest to all that feel the Air system is broken, that they do some research on these forums, and in books and try to employ their Air Forces in such a way that these sorts of "all in" egagements are less the focus and acheiving Air superiority occurs across the entire map and not in one hex.

Now I am not saying there aren't issues, and there have been developers discussions on this issue, but this game has morphed. It is no longer the original AE. We have mods, and mulptiple Exe.s that people are running so it is VERY difficult to know where an issue stems.

I think Iain has pretty much summed it up already.

If you allow, let me add my thoughts:

GreyJoys attack on HI was a single axis all in invasion using surprise and concentration of force as key elements. As much as he benefitted from those two elements, he
immediately lost them when rader adapted.
The key to gaining (air)superiority is not by an out brute force action. For this the ability of large force concentrations to retain and regain their combat power is simply
too high. This is where WitP AE differs from many other games where players are used to the fact that overwhelming is equal to invincible. It is not. Not in the real war,
not in WitP.

The issue GJ and reader experienced were due to:
- massed concentration of force of BOTH players in a very confined area
- high value unit ops in an area where rader clearly had air superiority or at least parity
- GJ�s expectation that the ability to gain loacal superiority for a short ammount of time is enough to prevent critical losses against alpha strikes
- the expectaion that local strategic or tactical victories (sp. the invasion of Hokkaido) result in the collapse of resistance in a very short ammount
of time without in advance assuring success of attrition as a key element, which simply does not happen this way
- lack of (options) to disperse force in a way that an intact and combat ready opponent was able to inflict massive damage to concentrated high value assets

The underlying difficulty of the air model to handle large scale air battles in a way the participants are satisfied with the results is a secondary issue, which
hides the fact that a good overall strategy must aim to exactly prevent such situations from occuring in the first place.

One of the best ways to fight an air war on terms which enable a reliable prediction of results, as well as minimizing potential losses in single massive
events, is dispersal. And I mean dispersal in a tactical as well as a strategic sense. Neglectance of this will always lead to results which are unpredictable
and under certain circumstances lopsided. And this is a situation you want to avoid, because you yield control over the battlefield.

The second important aspect is attrition, again, in a tactical, localized fashion as well as a strategic one. I think there the implications are obvious.

That said: That the above is much more difficult to reach in scenario #2, and even more in GJ�s and raders specific situation, is clear. But first, it does
not change the truth of key elements needed to fight a successful war, second it does not provide a reason to see the root cause of the events in GJ/raders
AAR in the air model instead of the players who forced this situation.

Hope this helps.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/8/2012 1:12:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 10

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 12:36:07 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I've not had a huge problem with enormous air battles thus far personally. I never overstack airfields though, so my airfields in direct contact with the enemy generally only have about 15 squadrons at an absolute maximum.

That said. My carrier force in 1944 can easily muster a 300 fighter escort, having about 600 fighters embarked. Given what Greyjoy discovered, presumably this would mean KBs CAP is irrelevant should they meet and they'd get the bombers entirely unscathed, so I think this is an issue which everybody will face in '44, given I lost quite a few CVs.

My only other mild gripe is escorting fighters behaving as ablative armour for bombers.

this is another legitmate complaint. I have wanted to change this for some time. unfortunately tweaking this in the opposite direction really swings the balance towards the attacker as the Sweep is already a very powerful tool. How much should we change the Escort shield?

Very difficult to strike a balance. you have to look at the whole picture.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 11

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 12:42:10 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I would like to hear TheElf's thoughts on the air issue that has brought the match between Greyjoy and Rader to a complete halt. Namely, the ability for bombers to get thru any sized CAP undamaged as long as they have enough escort fighters to use up the firing passes. IMHO this is a late war gamebreaker. See the last few pages of Greyjoy's AAR for a lengthy discussion of this issue.

honestly? not for nothin' but I think the title of the AAR says a lot.

The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

Obviously I am being ironic, and not intending to make fun of or insult GJ, but there is something to it. GJ is a self admitted newb, and from what I HAVE read, it seems that Rader is a VERY competent IJ player. More so than the average certainly, but I don't know him well enough to be decisive in my opinion. It seems he's done a very good job managing his Air Force and Grey Joy really stepped in it.

None of this is to say that there isn't a legitimate breakdown in the code. I think there is a real issue. I don't think any Devs would deny it. But this game, like life, is about choices. These two players through intent or reaction have marched ever forward into a Aerial Arms race if you will and have exposed the bounds of the game itself. They have torn the fabric of reality through sheer weight of numbers.

As I just stated in Grey Joy's AAR how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

< Message edited by TheElf -- 3/8/2012 12:43:41 PM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 12

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 1:12:35 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Not knowing if this is a possibility code wise, but would it be possible to have a random number of airframes disabled on an AF once it reaches a certain size?? In GreyJoys and Raders, there are mainly these huge size 9 AFs that have too many engines/airframes on them. Yes, you can have over 250 planes on these AFs, but there should be a random number of planes disabled per turn that is generated daily. This would hopefully decrease the tempo of operations. We now have the option to use the modified PWHEX files for stacking limits to eliminate or at least make them very expensive the ground "Death Stars." Having over 500 engines/airframes on a size 9 AF should have a penalty, as an example. Particularly, if most have been involved in air strikes that are more than just CAP.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 13

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 1:17:20 PM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I would like to hear TheElf's thoughts on the air issue that has brought the match between Greyjoy and Rader to a complete halt. Namely, the ability for bombers to get thru any sized CAP undamaged as long as they have enough escort fighters to use up the firing passes. IMHO this is a late war gamebreaker. See the last few pages of Greyjoy's AAR for a lengthy discussion of this issue.

honestly? not for nothin' but I think the title of the AAR says a lot.

The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

Obviously I am being ironic, and not intending to make fun of or insult GJ, but there is something to it. GJ is a self admitted newb, and from what I HAVE read, it seems that Rader is a VERY competent IJ player. More so than the average certainly, but I don't know him well enough to be decisive in my opinion. It seems he's done a very good job managing his Air Force and Grey Joy really stepped in it.

None of this is to say that there isn't a legitimate breakdown in the code. I think there is a real issue. I don't think any Devs would deny it. But this game, like life, is about choices. These two players through intent or reaction have marched ever forward into a Aerial Arms race if you will and have exposed the bounds of the game itself. They have torn the fabric of reality through sheer weight of numbers.

As I just stated in Grey Joy's AAR how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

This problem is not unique to the Grey Joy/Rader match. I am in mid 45 in my game and this issue is very apparent. Speaking just for my game, the allies cannot operate their carriers within range of japanese escort fighters because they will be quickly sunk by 100s (or 1000s) of japanese naval bombers escorted by 100-200 fighters. On the flip side, the japanese will not be able to stop the allies from obliterating every airfield and strategic target in the home islands because the allied bombers will be made immune by having their escorts absorb all the firing passes. Well, unless the japanese do the same to the allied airbases first. The current situation imbalances the game in favor of the offense. There is no viable defense vs. a well escorted air raid. When I say well escorted, I don't mean a crazy # of escorts either. All it takes is around 100-200 escorts to make a raid completely immune. Given the massive late war airforces fielded by both sides, it's hard NOT to have a raid escorted by that many fighters. Even if you "disperse" your forces over many different bases and religiously avoid overstacking a base, large #s of fighters will still show up due to their being so many large airbases near each other in places like the home islands, China, the Phillipines, Indochina, Korea, Manchuria, etc.

I'm not privy to the code so I can't really say how many firing passes their should be but I would hope that larger #s of passes could at least be tested and hopefully, the current issue could at least be toned down by a change in the code. Perhaps, there could be a mechanic that allocates some fraction of the firing passes to CAP fighters that are deemed to have "broken thru" the escorts and reached the bombers unscathed due to the CAP being so much larger than the escorts. This may not be a viable solution but I'm sure lots of people can make suggestions that could be tested by the devs.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 14

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 1:33:58 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
As I just stated in Grey Joy's AAR how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

Well, it should be able to handle the full Allied CV strength at a minimum I would say. If you assume that no Allied CVs are lost up until March 44, that probably is something of a maximum CV force that the game will have to handle. It's probably headed towards 2500 aircraft if you include all the Brits, of which roughly half will be fighters, and half again most likely escorts. This is plenty sufficient to break the existing setup based on Greyjoys tests, and could in theory happen in the most conservative of games.

I guess in '45, even more likely to happen.

And borked results regarding CVs will provoke a hell of a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth then ones involving an unsinkable airfield.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 15

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 1:36:45 PM

Sardaukar

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

Nik has interesting solution to some aspects of massive air combats in his modded scenario, dramatically increasing the service ratings of planes. Very rarely in Pacific an air unit had more than 70% of it's planes fully functional same time. This would cut down the numbers somewhat..and with stacking limits, would make truly massive air raids more difficult to achieve.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 16

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 1:53:53 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
As I just stated in Grey Joy's AAR how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

Well, it should be able to handle the full Allied CV strength at a minimum I would say. If you assume that no Allied CVs are lost up until March 44, that probably is something of a maximum CV force that the game will have to handle. It's probably headed towards 2500 aircraft if you include all the Brits, of which roughly half will be fighters, and half again most likely escorts. This is plenty sufficient to break the existing setup based on Greyjoys tests, and could in theory happen in the most conservative of games.

I guess in '45, even more likely to happen.

And borked results regarding CVs will provoke a hell of a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth then ones involving an unsinkable airfield.

The seeds of your answer are in the Elf's OP.

Can you stack 20 CVs in a hex in 1945? Yes. Should you? No.

As I said once in a post to the late Herwin: "It's just a hex." It has no internal dimensions in the game code. There's no breakdown into one-mile layers or anything similar. The game lets you glom 20 CVs into a hex--even those of different navies with different comm gear and sensors--and merrily sail around. But as the Elf could say even better than me, conducting the flight ops of 20 CVs in a 40-mile hex would be RL insanity. Any sweating JOOD frantically pulling CPA solutions out of his groaning maneuvering board could tell you that big ships need big room to play, or they go crunch.

And suppose these 20 'somehow' get their strikes generated and launched all at the same time so fuel consumption in marshaling areas doesn't make the strike range impossible? How do you coordinate that many moving pieces with 1945 technology? There's no tactical data nets, no sat comms or SSB radio, no digital phased-array radars. There's guys with finicky voice nets and other guys with grease pencils and plexiglass. Yet AE players constantly expect multi-thousand-plane stirkes to magically appear over the target, on time, coordinated, at the correct altitude, and instantly responding to their 70 Air Skill leader's every thought and whim. It wasn't so. It isn't so today, even.

If you want to operate 20 CVs near the HI, spread them out. Talk to your opponent about what you each should do regarding total numbers of strike and CAP. Or, as would be my prediliction, play with no HRs and take what you get from the engine if you deform it, or take what you get if you self-impose some level of historic rationality.

But don't toss in words like "borked" when you can't get ten pounds of donkey fazoo into a five pound sack.

(See, I'm adding a grin! But I'm still right.)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 17

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:16:51 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Nik has interesting solution to some aspects of massive air combats in his modded scenario, dramatically increasing the service ratings of planes. Very rarely in Pacific an air unit had more than 70% of it's planes fully functional same time. This would cut down the numbers somewhat..and with stacking limits, would make truly massive air raids more difficult to achieve.

I whole heartedly agree. In fact I have thought the same thing for quite a while. If I could snap my fingers I would increase ALL a/c by 1 in Service Rating. in fact the felxibility of doing just that was the whole reason I came up with the Service Rating in the first place. It was a simple variable that affected the sortie rate of a an A/C and it could be applied across the board or individually.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 18

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:22:05 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
As I just stated in Grey Joy's AAR how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

Well, it should be able to handle the full Allied CV strength at a minimum I would say. If you assume that no Allied CVs are lost up until March 44, that probably is something of a maximum CV force that the game will have to handle. It's probably headed towards 2500 aircraft if you include all the Brits, of which roughly half will be fighters, and half again most likely escorts. This is plenty sufficient to break the existing setup based on Greyjoys tests, and could in theory happen in the most conservative of games.

I guess in '45, even more likely to happen.

And borked results regarding CVs will provoke a hell of a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth then ones involving an unsinkable airfield.

again, personally I wouldn't stack all 20 CVs in a single hex. If they find you they'll have access to all your CVs at once. I would disperse them in several TFs across several Hexes. But I play differently than some. I understand that there is a point of diminishing returns in CAP, which is realistic btw, an FDO would lose his mind trying to coordinate the types of numbers that we seem to be talking about. They would be stepping all over each other.

Additionally I would never approach the HI, much like the US didn't IRL, until I had degraded his Air Force to a point that I felt comfortable taking the risk. And then I would probe in Force in several area, I would feint, and take my time trying to figure out where to make my move. I would NEVER barge into a well supplied complex of Large Interconnected AFs with high supply, masses of strikers, escorts, and HQ Bonuses. That is certifiable.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 19

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:35:43 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Can you stack 20 CVs in a hex in 1945? Yes. Should you? No.

It makes no odds if you do or not. It's the 300 escort max limit which is the issue, not glomming 20 CVs into one hex. The problem if anything is on the LBA side, not the CVs.

But when asked about the maximum size of likely air battles, that is probably the maximum likely size of an air battle, certainly an important air battle anyway which will provoke wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Don't you agree?

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 20

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:38:22 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
again, personally I wouldn't stack all 20 CVs in a single hex. If they find you they'll have access to all your CVs at once. I would disperse them in several TFs across several Hexes. But I play differently than some. I understand that there is a point of diminishing returns in CAP, which is realistic btw, an FDO would lose his mind trying to coordinate the types of numbers that we seem to be talking about. They would be stepping all over each other.

Additionally I would never approach the HI, much like the US didn't IRL, until I had degraded his Air Force to a point that I felt comfortable taking the risk. And then I would probe in Force in several area, I would feint, and take my time trying to figure out where to make my move. I would NEVER barge into a well supplied complex of Large Interconnected AFs with high supply, masses of strikers, escorts, and HQ Bonuses. That is certifiable.

I'm thinking more of the impact on KB, when the Allied CV force finds them. They are still running around in 44 in my game. However they are going to get banjaxed by the 300 escort rule if they meet the Allies. It's gonna suck when the Dauntlesses aren't even engaged.

Granted if KB met that lot they should suffer but that doesn't mean the entire Allied strike package should in theory hit them totally scot free, either.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 21

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:40:08 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

I still maintain that one of the easiest ways to avoid the problems we have been seeing is to ramp up the coordination penalties once you go behind a certain size strike.

The game already provides for coordination penalties if a carrier task force has a total number of planes above a given number with a random variable.

Surely the same can be provided for airbases as well, similar to CVTFs, and you could make it related to the size of the airfield (assuming a high-level airbase means a great number of runways and greater centralised coordination abilities to form up massive strike formations). For example, and this is purely as an example that would need to be explored, but you could use something as follows:

IF Number of planes on strike > (Airbase size * 20 + RANDOM(Airbase size * 20)) THEN low coordination penalty applied
IF Number of planes on strike > (Airbase size * 40 + RANDOM(Airbase size * 40)) THEN moderate coordination penalty applied
IF Number of planes on strike > (Airbase size * 60 + RANDOM(Airbase size * 60)) THEN heavy coordination penalty applied

So, a safe strike size launching from a level 4 airbase would be 80 aircraft total - beyond that and there is a chance they might be uncoordinated.
From a level 10 airbase you would be able to launch 200 aircraft safely with no coordination penalties. But try to launch more than 600 planes from a level 10 airbase and the odds are your strike will be horribly uncoordinated and arrive over the target in three or four different packages.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 22

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:41:54 PM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 23

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:42:04 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

And "should you" is into the realm of house rules, which I didnt think was germane to this thread.

how much of this sort of thing should the Game be capable of supporting in order to satisfy the community? 1,000,000 plane combats? Where can I safely draw the line?

was what I was thinking of. The answer is, I think, it should be big enough to handle all the CVs that you get in the late war. That is really the maximum size air fight you are likely to see, and the results will be of above average importance as well, so surely getting that to work is the important bit.

If it means big coordination penalties so massed CVs are suboptimal and massed LBA is likewise stiffed, then fine. But that is IMHO the answer to your question. It's an issue in numerous games, probably every one which reaches 45 in fact.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 24

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:43:29 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

I don't think the carrier dispersal strategy is the issue. The problem is that you can't defend your carriers no matter how you deploy them. At some point you are going to have to approach a hostile shore and I don't see how you can effectively suppress the entire japanese airforce when they have lots and lots of large airbases in escort fighter range of your landing zone. I understand that some of the bombers should get thru and sink some carriers but the way it is now, ALL the bombers will get thru and sink most or all of your carriers whether you have 4 in the hex or 20+. Maybe you can survive having one major carrier catastrophe during the war but the japanese player will do this to you time after time as you approach the home islands.

Exactly so, though it's not even a hostile shore issue, it can happen in CV vs CV as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 25

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:44:26 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

I still maintain that one of the easiest ways to avoid the problems we have been seeing is to ramp up the coordination penalties once you go behind a certain size strike.

I agree, though the CAP might need tweaking in that case, or it might end up like the WITP Cap Deflector Shield.

Certainly 'smaller' air battles (by small I mean several hundred a/c so not that small!) seem to work fine.

_____________________________

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 26

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:45:44 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

Again, there are existing chances of uncoordination for CVTFs coded in the game.

For an Allied CVTF in 1944 or later and a Japanese CVTF at any time, if the number of aircraft in that CVTF is greater than 200 + RANDOM(200), the chances of uncoordination is doubled.

Therefore the optimal number of aircraft in a CVTF is 300 and under - e.g. five or four carriers - since it allows the greatest chance to get big strikes with less uncoordination.

This chance of uncoordination should dissuade players creating a Death Star.

It's the uncoordination penalties that need to be looked at, in my opinion.

If the uncoordination becomes an issue (as was intended) once you pass 300 planes in the CVTF, then the "300 firing passes only" issue becomes a non-issue.

It will force players to use their carriers in a historic fashion - i.e. several task forces over several hexes.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 27

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:49:13 PM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

Allow me to qualify my previous post.

As long as uncoordination becomes an issue beyond a certain size strike, whether it emanates from a CVTF or a land base, then the "300 firing passes only" becomes a non-issue.

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 28

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 2:54:39 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

I think what is being lost here is that, while they have successfully explored the frontier of lunacy in terms of over stacking and uncovered the limits of computer processing power vis a vis AE, GJ and Rader did so by cramming an unrealistic number of aircraft into a relatively small space. In all likelihood, and I am guessing it sounds like they overcame all the little controls we put in place to break up Uber Air Battles in a unique set of circumstances that existed in their game.

What you are all advocating is hard coding essentially. We are talking about rewriting code for the game to accommodate gameplay that is aberrant. I admit that there are situations where large numbers of A/C come together regardless of how you play, and that others have begun to experience the same effects, but should we as developers risk making a change that could have 2nd and 3rd order effects on the rest of those that haven't seen this sort of thing in their game?

Development/support of this product is essentially over save for Michaelm's gracious charity. I can't just go in with a scalpel and start monkeying around with the code. Do I have ideas? yes. But it isn't my call.

Until something changes you all as players have to understand the limitations and try to live within them. That is the only way.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 29

RE: State of the Air War in AE - 3/8/2012 3:02:05 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
What you are all advocating is hard coding essentially. We are talking about rewriting code for the game to accommodate gameplay that is aberrant.

I don't think it's really all that aberrant. Given how strikes from land bases can coordinate from multiple bases with some frequency I think it would actually require the player to directly intervene, by deliberately standing some bases down, for it to work out. If you have all of Japan set to naval/rest, then it will happen if something sails by.

And for CVs, I don't think massing your CVs is particularly aberrant either. Splitting them up is a conscious choice after all, the natural thing to do is add newcomers to 'the fleet'. The weirdness there is knowing about the hardcoded limit and tailoring your CV fleet size accordingly, which as it involves knowing what's going on under the hood to an extent seems the weird and contrived option to me.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 30