ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
hahahahahahahaha, these Germans are sooooooooo abusing the Air War game ;-P
ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
hahahahahahahaha, these Germans are sooooooooo abusing the Air War game ;-P
Now the Soviets will never get any "descriptive" type of recon besides a counter since it normally takes a multitude of passes to see if the unit in open terrain is either infantry or armor, lol
ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
hahahahahahahaha, these Germans are sooooooooo abusing the Air War game ;-P
Now the Soviets will never get any "descriptive" type of recon besides a counter since it normally takes a multitude of passes to see if the unit in open terrain is either infantry or armor, lol
Will just have to spam all the hexes in a large area with 2 recon mission per hex to find out. Which brings us back to the same problem of having battle report exhaustion by someone doing that. We come a full 360 it looks like
ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
hahahahahahahaha, these Germans are sooooooooo abusing the Air War game ;-P
Now the Soviets will never get any "descriptive" type of recon besides a counter since it normally takes a multitude of passes to see if the unit in open terrain is either infantry or armor, lol
Will just have to spam all the hexes in a large area with 2 recon mission per hex to find out. Which brings us back to the same problem of having battle report exhaustion by someone doing that. We come a full 360 it looks like
However an Axis player could not optimise it to just the hex at a fighters maximum range. And to some extent at least there would be some cap (two times all hexes in range).
ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
hahahahahahahaha, these Germans are sooooooooo abusing the Air War game ;-P
Now the Soviets will never get any "descriptive" type of recon besides a counter since it normally takes a multitude of passes to see if the unit in open terrain is either infantry or armor, lol
Will just have to spam all the hexes in a large area with 2 recon mission per hex to find out. Which brings us back to the same problem of having battle report exhaustion by someone doing that. We come a full 360 it looks like
However an Axis player could not optimise it to just the hex at a fighters maximum range. And to some extent at least there would be some cap (two times all hexes in range).
Improvement from the previous, yes. The final solution...... I would venture to say no from a 30,000 foot view.
ORIGINAL: Crackaces The other possibility is the 2 hex rule .. so recon the same hex twice like you can only bomb a hex twice .. no historical reference or simulation argument there .. just an extension of an already established rule
I had to add this for the next patch to reduce chances for battle report exhaustion.
hahahahahahahaha, these Germans are sooooooooo abusing the Air War game ;-P
Now the Soviets will never get any "descriptive" type of recon besides a counter since it normally takes a multitude of passes to see if the unit in open terrain is either infantry or armor, lol
Will just have to spam all the hexes in a large area with 2 recon mission per hex to find out. Which brings us back to the same problem of having battle report exhaustion by someone doing that. We come a full 360 it looks like
However an Axis player could not optimise it to just the hex at a fighters maximum range. And to some extent at least there would be some cap (two times all hexes in range).
Improvement from the previous, yes. The final solution...... I would venture to say no from a 30,000 foot view.
The engineering constraint is what the maintainers are willing to code and how much the engine can be changed without lots of unintended consequences. It looks like the 2 operations hex air rule has been tested and the code works .. so now it's a simple call to this method to verify aircraft eligibility to conduct the operation. Not only an improvement but feasible
_____________________________
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Problem is we have a limit on battle reports (1000), and some people are ruining the game by exceeding that number. I was also thinking about recycling recon battle reports, but that would result in information loss. No good solution with the code as it is.
Problem is we have a limit on battle reports (1000), and some people are ruining the game by exceeding that number. I was also thinking about recycling recon battle reports, but that would result in information loss. No good solution with the code as it is.
Limiting recon spamming will indirectly solve the problem .. one does not have to directly address the problem ... Many years ago I remember a problem with shared memory involving data (vs text [program executable in memory] which is usually read only) on a certain platform .. long story short put a delay loop in the code that enabled shared memory for data and application programmers found other means to implement the API services that were faster [until the problem could be fixed] The gameplay encourages players to use a vulnerable part of the code .. discourage this behavior and they will not use this codepath My point being make some penalty for recon spamming like increased interception effectiveness [nothing to do with history just gameplay] after X times or limit recon somehow like airbase attacks and you are below your 1000 battle reports threshold ..
The other option is for the community to come up with a home rule ..
_____________________________
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
I suspect however the 1000 battle reports limit has been exceeded many times and not because of large scale use of recon. It is just usually not noticed in the middle of 999 other battle reports and because it does not affect the real result which is carried over to the next turn. Go to some of the turns where you have extremely large armies later in the war. Double it for when both sides can initiate combats. Add in aggressive air power use and you are probably there. But if not there are other actions that benefit from high volume use - like soviet ground spam bombing.
This is not to say house rules or coded rules to limit recon are not good ideas. But it will need to be replicated for everything else that could be used in high numbers.
< Message edited by Telemecus -- 11/30/2017 3:56:08 PM >
I suspect however the 1000 battle reports limit has been exceeded many times and not because of large scale use of recon. It is just usually not noticed in the middle of 999 other battle reports and because it does not affect the real result which is carried over to the next turn. Go to some of the turns where you have extremely large armies later in the war. Double it for when both sides can initiate combats. Add in aggressive air power use and you are probably there. But if not there are other actions that benefit from high volume use - like soviet ground spam bombing.
This is not to say house rules or coded rules to limit recon are not good ideas. But it will need to be replicated for everything else that could be used in high numbers.
Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015 From: Portaferry, N. Ireland Status: offline
Looking at these solutions neither seems to work that well -
Introduce a CAP radius function: - May be a solution if the airbases are well back from the front and you just want to cover them, but in some situations you want the CAP to cover large area of troops. So doesn't work all the time. - Not sure how easy it is for WITE modders to pick up and implement code from another game.
Two recons per hex limit. - Not really a solution if there are enough reconable hexes within range. - Has side effect of limiting recon when someone wants to use it for 'legitimate' reasons.
We should be looking at a solution that punishes mass recon by getting them shot down, so making the game engine work better. My two suggestions are: Less fatigue for fighter interception. At present most fatigue is for combat, not much for distance flown. Change this balance so that distance flown causes more fatigue and the actual combat less.
With either/both of these the 'defensive' player can set their fighter on higher intercept %age and shoot down more of recon for less fatigue.
Why not introduce a limit to the total amount of recons that a player can do in one turn - say 100?
I hardly ever stay below 100 recon flights as Axis. Sometimes a single swamp hex in an important location gets 5+ recon flights alone to make sure nothing unexpected happens.
Why not introduce a limit to the total amount of recons that a player can do in one turn - say 100?
I hardly ever stay below 100 recon flights as Axis. Sometimes a single swamp hex in an important location gets 5+ recon flights alone to make sure nothing unexpected happens.
When things get hot and heavy, extensive recon becomes uber-important for me. I wouldn't want to see a limit but would understand if it happened.
If in addition to normal battlefield intelligence you use recon to boost interdiction, see where bombers can go unescorted, track airbases and airgroups over multiple turns, establish what is the enemy air doctrine, and the many other uses for recon, you will easily go over 100 missions. For what it is worth in the earlier example of exhausting fighters by mass recon, every single recon mission had another reason for it that some could would call legitimate.
Inevitably any limit on recon will limit any of its many uses. But you could see that as making for a different and interesting game. In as much as recon is an Axis strength it would shift the game balance to the soviet side. But if to address the issue of bugged battle reports, and if not able to just ignore them as they do not affect the wargame situation, then it seems there is no other way than restricting the number of battles in a turn.
Why not simply delete excess recon missions or at least delete all detail (recon aircraft numbers/type and interceptor number/type) from the battle list? This really is an edge case and I don't believe a player would be sad because recon mission number 1349 isn't shown in all detail. A notification that a recon mission in Hex xy took place would be completely enough.
Many want to filter out the air recon battle icons from the map so they could more easily see the air combat missions. This last suggestion, perhaps, could fulfil that wish too.
< Message edited by Telemecus -- 12/1/2017 2:15:34 PM >
As an extreme micromanager I would always want everything. But given the constraints being faced and what is being addressed this seems a reasonable option to me. At least it separates out issues of recon use from battle report bugs.
< Message edited by Telemecus -- 12/1/2017 2:32:03 PM >
The more I'm searching the more I'm finding out that there were a ton of bombing missions done on both sides on many different cities. For instance Moscow was a target of bombing raid 134s times during the war. Oct 29 41 was the largest raid with over 300+ bombers of which 47 planes were shot down. Moscow would be on the Germans list of 4 of the worst places to bomb during WW2 Malta, London, Leningrad and Moscow.(Plus the Russians had a very large number of fighters in this area) Also seems that everything I'm reading that the AA was pretty effective for the Soviets but in the game Soviet AA couldn't hit a side of a building 1 mm away.
I found some more interesting things but will wait until I get the books in my hand on the Air war in Russia during WW2. I'm finding out that the Soviets aren't as bad as the game is making them out to be. Just the 1st phase was the problem.
Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007 From: Carnegie, Australia Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
The more I'm searching the more I'm finding out that there were a ton of bombing missions done on both sides on many different cities. For instance Moscow was a target of bombing raid 134s times during the war. Oct 29 41 was the largest raid with over 300+ bombers of which 47 planes were shot down. Moscow would be on the Germans list of 4 of the worst places to bomb during WW2 Malta, London, Leningrad and Moscow.(Plus the Russians had a very large number of fighters in this area) Also seems that everything I'm reading that the AA was pretty effective for the Soviets but in the game Soviet AA couldn't hit a side of a building 1 mm away.
I found some more interesting things but will wait until I get the books in my hand on the Air war in Russia during WW2. I'm finding out that the Soviets aren't as bad as the game is making them out to be. Just the 1st phase was the problem.
Apart from game mechanics there is another reason for the historical difference. The PVO AA Regiments in the game have the TOE of a PVO AA Battalion (not a regiment), so they are missing about 75% of their (historical) guns. This is my understanding after having read Askey. Also there are a couple of minor AA units that are not in the game. Askey also said that if the Germans had entered Moscow or Leningrad these units would have been used as ground troops.
(When I get my act together I will be posting on this in Scenario Design)
In a future version the PVO Rgts in Moscow will be represented by non-buildable PVO AA Brigades with ~100 76-85mm guns, about 4x the size of current PVO Rgts. I doubt the PVO Rgts in other locations were equally strong, except Leningrad which may have had these enlarged/special PVO Rgts as well.
Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007 From: Carnegie, Australia Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Denniss
In a future version the PVO Rgts in Moscow will be represented by non-buildable PVO AA Brigades with ~100 76-85mm guns, about 4x the size of current PVO Rgts. I doubt the PVO Rgts in other locations were equally strong, except Leningrad which may have had these enlarged/special PVO Rgts as well.
Correct. The PVO Regts were as strong as the priority of the city/installation they were defending. Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev were probably close to 100% TOE, and then it goes down hill from there.
In a future version the PVO Rgts in Moscow will be represented by non-buildable PVO AA Brigades with ~100 76-85mm guns, about 4x the size of current PVO Rgts. I doubt the PVO Rgts in other locations were equally strong, except Leningrad which may have had these enlarged/special PVO Rgts as well.
Sorry, but why PVO Brigades in Moscow instead PVO regiments? At start of the war the PVO of Moscow was presented by 1st PVO corps which has 6 PVO regiments. This corps has around 550 76-85mm AA guns. Same about PVO of Leningrad. There was 2nd PVO corps - 6 PVO regiments with around 600 76-85mm AA guns. 3rd PVO corps Baku, around 400 these guns. At start of the war USSR has around 3300 76-85mm AA guns and 42% of them was in these 3 PVO corps.
The separate PVO Brigades it was other PVO formations(e.g. 7th-Minsk, 13th-Belostok). There was also PVO brigade areas(e.g. Vyborg, Kishinev).
Also there was 2 PVO divisions - 3rd(Kiev) and 4th(Lvov).
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain Moscow would be on the Germans list of 4 of the worst places to bomb during WW2 Malta, London, Leningrad and Moscow.
I have been thinking a lot about this sentence. It seems to me it needs to be dis-aggregated a bit. British folk memory of German bombing tends to paint Coventry as being the worst hit. But almost certainly London received more bombing over a longer period. The repeated story of Coventry relates to a single raid over a smaller city. But apart from the docks the German bombing of London had little industrial targeting. The bombing of the Midlands and Belfast though did have real impacts on the aircraft industry which was intended. On a per square kilometre basis I am guessing Malta was the most heavily bombed in the war? But that was almost exclusively military targets - actual ships, aircraft etc. As I have heard so little about bombing of Moscow or Leningrad in what category do they belong? Was this bombing of military airfields and ports (like Malta), bombing of population (like London), or targetting industry (like perhaps Coventry or Belfast)?
< Message edited by Telemecus -- 12/5/2017 2:14:47 PM >
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain Moscow would be on the Germans list of 4 of the worst places to bomb during WW2 Malta, London, Leningrad and Moscow.
I have been thinking a lot about this sentence. It seems to me it needs to be dis-aggregated a bit. British folk memory of German bombing tends to paint Coventry as being the worst hit. But almost certainly London received more bombing over a longer period. The repeated story of Coventry relates to a single raid over a smaller city. But apart from the docks the German bombing of London had little industrial targeting. The bombing of the Midlands and Belfast though did have real impacts on the aircraft industry which was intended. On a per square kilometre basis I am guessing Malta was the most heavily bombed in the war? But that was almost exclusively military targets - actual ships, aircraft etc. As I have heard so little about bombing of Moscow or Leningrad in what category do they belong? Was this bombing of military airfields and ports (like Malta), bombing of population (like London), or targetting industry (like perhaps Coventry or Belfast)?
The sentence relates to the "actual defense" that was put up of the respective four places against German Bombers. Beyond that I don't know the strategic or tactical nature that was being persued until I dig deeper into the subject. But there does seem to be some very knowledgable persons that could probably answer the question(s).
Posts: 315
Joined: 1/17/2016 From: My Secret Bunker Status: offline
Just catching up on this thread...
It would be incredibly nice if one did not have to guess if bombing happened in day or night when reading the battle reports. After all, it is hardly a secret to those being bombed.
Once again I go and bomb a Rumanian brigade and bombers that came from the north, no aa joined. I had bombers come in from the south and BAM all kinds of flak as I flew over the PZ corps to get to the Rumanian brigade. the PZ Corps is 6-12 hexes from the place I bombed. pretty much all the units around the hex bombed are brigades so it had to be AA fire from the PZ corps as I flew over it unless Dinglir has 72 88mm, 32 37mm, 4 sdkfz, 42 37mm, and 48 75mm in his HQ sitting 2 hexes behind it but I doubt it since I have been bombing this area and only low caliber AA has been joining in until I flew over the damn PZ corps. I will post pictures later.
Once again I go and bomb a Rumanian brigade and bombers that came from the north, no aa joined. I had bombers come in from the south and BAM all kinds of flak as I flew over the PZ corps to get to the Rumanian brigade. the PZ Corps is 6-12 hexes from the place I bombed. pretty much all the units around the hex bombed are brigades so it had to be AA fire from the PZ corps as I flew over it unless Dinglir has 72 88mm, 32 37mm, 4 sdkfz, 42 37mm, and 48 75mm in his HQ sitting 2 hexes behind it but I doubt it since I have been bombing this area and only low caliber AA has been joining in until I flew over the damn PZ corps. I will post pictures later.
quote:
_____________________________
I have paid some attention to this after you mentioned it and it is even shown in the combat reports.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: The early air war 
RE: The early air war - 
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