Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


I will, thanks. I was referring to the reports anyway, did not find any charts up to now. But there I always allow for bias. I am lurking
the IL-2 forums for more than 10 years now and there the battles of words over different climb rates are epic.
Won´t participate though. One discussion platform with one or the other irrational individuum is enough.

You are correct on the even shorter burst lenghts btw, I allowed for inexperienced pray and spray guys to flow into statistics, but
probably overdid.

Did you try Cliffs of Dover btw? As a long time vet of IL-2 as well, I bought it and shelved it for lack of content. FM and graphics are
superb, or at least have the potential to be superb after patch 153, and the model detail is the best I have ever seen.
Still it has nothing to do with a complete simulator yet. Also, I am still hoping for a decent AI as I am an offline player.

The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true. It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with
the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


Alfred,
I always respect your knowledge and perspective; however, are you truly saying that the current CAP vs Escort model works well enough that most players with at least a general eye towards history will not see very unusual results as the endgame approaches?

mike

My overall position is as follows.

1. Gary Grigsby game designs are always very dependent on die rolls. It is therefore practically guaranteed that any game design of his will experience some very odd outcomes. Players either accept these odd outcomes and tailor their play accordingly or they should not bother playing any of his games.

2. Personally I have no problems with odd outcomes. War is a very messy business and many events which are unforeseen and beyond the participants control occur. IRL, wargaming particular scenarios in advance do not fully predict what will subsequently occur when the actual operation is mounted.

3. This game is very abstracted, it is not a simulation. Within the abstracted game design parameters, the air combat model is close enough to be good enough. To make the air combat model more "realistic" for those who find it to be quite unsatisfactory, many things would have to be un-abstracted. Things such as (there are many more):

• introduction of avgas into the game
  
• breakdown of supplies into the various different ordnance carried by different aircraft models
  
• abandonment of the game's point to point air combat with area combat as per the naval combat side
  

These are things which simply cannot be accommodated within the current legacy code.

4. This game is not a tactical representation of the PTO. Invariably when people complain about an aspect of the game (not just the air combat model) their suggested fix is always to introduce more tactical and micromanagement elements into the game. That is fundamentally a dead end for these reasons:

• it harms future sales of the game. There is no one who decides to not buy the game because it is not detailed enough but there are potential purchasers who do not buy the game precisely because it is already too detailed with too much micromanagement
  
• adding more tactical elements is more likely to reduce the playability of the game rather than enhance its playability. The existing 50 or so regular posters who might relish the additional tactical details and who are very vocal advocates of playing only PBEMs, are not representative of the much broader and generally silent customer base
  
• coding and grafting additional tactical elements onto quite old legacy code is a complex task. Solutions which might cater to the small but extremely vocal PBEM crowd are not necessarily valid for the AI crowd and therefore much thought and play testing is always required. More importantly there is no one around to do the work
  

5. Complaints invariably arise when a player experiences an outcome which is contrary to their expectations. These expectations are preconceived and are usually based on wrong premises and errors in knowledge or understanding. Rather than examining whether their expectation was valid they immediately jump to the conclusion that because their own expectation and play simply could not be the problem, the game itself must be at fault. Because they fail to properly self analyse their own play decisions, these players fail to notice what can be done to avoid the failures they experience.

6. The code requires arbitrary limits to be incorporated. That is how any software operates. Players who are determined to "game" the code, or at least explore its outer limits will always find a way to highlight code issues. No solution will ever remove this behaviour and it always carries within it the seeds of creating greater unintended problems elsewhere.

As I said above, taking into account the overall picture, the air combat module is close enough to be good enough. Assemble a new AE development team, give them the necessary resources and time to do the job, and then we can start to consider real changes to the air combat module. Until then skillful play is the order of the day. And accept that Grigsby die roll outcomes are a fact of life.

Alfred

Edit:fixed spelling and "grammar" in point 4

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support? Would this be possible?

It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

Not really. It is currently only a percentual relation, and not an absolute one.

Theres a difference between penalizing an overstack by reducing the percentage of sorties to 75 or 50% of total planes or make
it limited by AV on an absolute basis.

In the first situation I can launch an attack from an airfield with 60AV and 5000 a/c and get 50% flying one strike (2500), in the second situation
I get 60 (or 120 if you want to double AV) planes for a strike, no matter what.

It would:
- lower number of offense sorties flown
- limit strike size if AV is dispersed as strategically advisable
- force a wider dispersion because it is easier to relocate planes than base forces

quote:

If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are
reduced by 25%

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


Let us not ask how the results of 1000 plane japanese raids should be..


...let us ask instead when in history did japan ever launch a 1000 plane raid..




.. and where did they find the aluminum to build the numbers of AC we can in AE..

I would say by the end of the game, japan should have ships but no planes to put onto them
they can have tanks..or anything made of steel... but japan could only make about 120 kilotones of aluminum per year


the air model is excellent (thank you whoever fixed it since WITP, WITP was broken, AE is good)

please fix the production model too (and it is easy to do... 50 HI points for ships per 1 HI point for planes)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


AE --> AC are cheap

IRL --> AC are expensive

in terms of types of materials at least..

.. trainers can be built of wood and steel but not zeroes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

...but, in this game Japan can...and did in GJ and Rader's game... When you dont shut off Japans resources, as GreyJoy didnt...you will have these mega battles...thus, they need to be considered as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?

It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.