Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Combat passes and related issues such as how long an aircraft may stay in the fight before leaving is one of the more opaque aspects of AE. Very little has been disclosed by the devs.

When shipped, the maximum number of air combat passes was 200. This was essentially an "arbitrary" number chosen by michaelm. Subsequently, circa 2011, this maximum number was increased to 300, another "arbitrary" number. Although I say "arbitrary" one must understand that michaelm had to take into account non direct combat considerations. As so much else in the game, it is an abstraction which needs to accommodate things like "loiter time", "fuel reserve", CPU processing demands, the design change from classical WITP of witnessing huge slugfests to the AE paradigm of raids, to mention only some relevant considerations.

The number of passes is the theoretical maximum number possible. Most air combat stops well short of the maximum. In part this is because each pass involves a flight and up to 8 aircraft can constitute a flight, so a theoretical maximum number of 2400 aircraft could participate in combat. Which means with absolute certainty, that sending more than 2400 aircraft guarantees the excess will not participate in combat.

However the number of 2400 is somewhat rubbery as I don't recall the devs ever clarifying whether the flight was cut out of the total number of aircraft present or out of the number of aircraft in each unit. IOW if 4 air units, each of 12 aircraft, are in combat is the number of flights 6 [(4x12)/8] or is it 4 [(12/8)(4)] if rounded down or 8 if rounded up. I suspect it is unit based and rounded down but I don't have access to the code.

Then of course there is the ubiquitous die rolls which can certainly reduce combat to much less than 300 passes.

A variable which I did not specifically mention in my previous post is pilot fatigue which can have a detrimental effect on pilot skill levels. Of particular relevance here is that flying aircraft at or close to their maximum altitude level will, in of itself, further increase pilot fatigue with a consequent impairment of combat performance in that combat. Where this additional pilot fatigue clicks in exactly is somewhat unclear as michaelm has in two separate posts stated that 75% and 80% of the maximum aircraft model altitude is the threshold for this additional malus.

The additional pilot fatigue brought about by flying too high complicates the organising of flight operations. Send two different fighter models, model "A" having a maximum altitude of 30k and model "B" being 40k, into combat at 24k will see the pilots flying model "A" accruing this additional fatigue whereas the model "B" pilots will not be so afflicted. Ceteris paribus, the "A" unit will perform worse (which can include RTB earlier than otherwise, missing their opponents, more prone to being shot down etc) in that specific combat.

The altitude fatigue is a deliberate design feature intended to minimise the unhistorical and unrealistic practice of many players flying their fighter sweeps at maximum altitude. When combined with distance flown from airfield to target, the greater the distance flown the more pilot fatigue is accrued, a substantial increase in pilot fatigue (whose new quantum is not disclosed to the player) can result in quite a poor combat performance which comes in well under player expectations. These are all design decisions intended to reduce the slugfests of classical WITP.

Another design decision is that even when sufficient escorting fighters are present, flying close to base with no fatigue problems and at appropriate altitudes, with excellent leaders etc, the algorithms are written to provide a chance for the CAP to eventually bypass the escorts and tangle with the bombers. The classical WITP feature that CAP had to defeat all of the escorting fighters before it could tangle with the bombers, does not exist in AE.

As to one air unit impacting on the performance of another friendly air unit, that is not how air combat is generally handled in AE. Individual units perform on the basis of their individual characteristics derived from their own leaders, pilot ratings, aircraft model stats. Of course if a Top Gun unit is present at the start of combat and it eliminates the best enemy aircraft, later arriving non Top Gun friendly units will probably find it easier to rack up kills against lesser quality opponents in that combat.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

It may have been a simple matter of your computer diverting significant processing power to another task (such as an anti-virus or some automated Windows process) at the moment that the combat report was generating, which created an error that merged two strikes into one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

It may have been a simple matter of your computer diverting significant processing power to another task (such as an anti-virus or some automated Windows process) at the moment that the combat report was generating, which created an error that merged two strikes into one.

I've never seen this. If a plane was shot down, listed as CAP in the larger group message, I've always seen it in the group listings as well. I would have thought it was LR CAP, but there is only one base operating fighters here!! Can't be.

I don't attribute anything to my computer having a momentary glitch right during this moment of the replay. I can't can I? Or I wouldn't trust any replay or report ever. I also have been playing on a crap 9 year old laptop with a terrible graphics card and very little RAM for years, and although it's a bit slower than some it didn't do this previously.

Now the newer laptop I'm running it on is decent, and hasn't shown any of the slowdown during replay my old one did, so I can't imagine suddenly it's the computer. I'm also not running anything else in the background during gameplay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

It may have been a simple matter of your computer diverting significant processing power to another task (such as an anti-virus or some automated Windows process) at the moment that the combat report was generating, which created an error that merged two strikes into one.

I've never seen this. If a plane was shot down, listed as CAP in the larger group message, I've always seen it in the group listings as well. I would have thought it was LR CAP, but there is only one base operating fighters here!! Can't be.

I don't attribute anything to my computer having a momentary glitch right during this moment of the replay. I can't can I? Or I wouldn't trust any replay or report ever. I also have been playing on a crap 9 year old laptop with a terrible graphics card and very little RAM for years, and although it's a bit slower than some it didn't do this previously.

Now the newer laptop I'm running it on is decent, and hasn't shown any of the slowdown during replay my old one did, so I can't imagine suddenly it's the computer. I'm also not running anything else in the background during gameplay.

I have no idea. I am not a computer programmer, and I have no idea how computer processors arrange tasks and then complete multiple tasks. (Apparently how they do so has been identified recently as a security vulnerability). It seems that at least two strikes, a sweep by the Ki-100s and the morning CV raid, were merged one combat and recieved the "passes" alocated to one combat, shortening both combats. I have noticed a problem with sweeps ahead when there are no fighters near the altitude of the "sweep ahead" in previous games. That is one cause of your poor combat results, however, that does not explain how the raids were merged.

This could be either a game-mechanic problem in how the WiTP engine manages fighters "sweeping ahead," in that it will merge them with another sweep, i.e. the engine treats a sweep ahead as both a "sweep" and a "raid" (the switch for each is "on" in the code) in which case the raid coordinates like other raids, except that it coordinates with sweeping fighters. This "sweeping raid" then encounters few fighters at the altitude of the fighters "sweeping ahead" (because it seems that "sweeping ahead fighters" are not subject to normal detection rules and CAP fighters do not seem to react properly to them). The game engine then assigns most of the passes to a combat that never occurs.

The only other explanation that seems likely is that it could be the result of an error during the execution of the game program as it was generating the combat report. If this is not normal game engine behavior, then it seems that the most likely explanation is that the WiTP.exe file was interrupted in it's task of generating the combat report by another process (and so many processes on modern PCs are automated and difficult for the user to control). When it returned to processing its tasks, the task of the actual raid, as opposed to the sweep advanced to first position, before the sweep was fully resolved, and the two tasks were merged. Again, I have no idea how computer processors arrange and perform their tasks, so I have no idea if this is a possible source of the error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Then I suspect that it may be a problem with the way in which the game handles fighters sweeping ahead into a hex in which other sweeps are scheduled. It seems to coordinate the sweeps as if they were a raid, and I suspect that CAP does not respond properly to fighters sweeping ahead when the altitude of the CAP and the sweeping ahead fighters differs substantially, because the CAP seems to react to the actual raid, rather than the sweep ahead.

This is really all speculation, however, and no one can be sure what is the cause until we have more instances of this to isolate the variables that are present in every situation and see what causes these shortened air-to-air combats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffroK

CAP v Sweep,
It seems less of a damaging prospect though when a short sweep combat only takes out a few of the CAP before quitting the battle, whereas it's a massive problem when it's part of a larger strike/sweep succession.
Is the engine smart enough to not send CAP after an incoming SWEEP and only attack a RAID. There may be minimal interaction between SWEEP & CAP because the Fighter Controllers (In the Radar equipped LCU) direct the CAP onto the RAID.

Even during the Battle of Britain, fighter controllers tried to avoid the Luftwaffe's Frei jagd sweeps?????????

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So if you send 6 groups and they come separately, the combats are bloody and often wreck both sides. Altitudes are altered over the course of action as well so that if high sweeps arrive the CAP reacts upward and often scrambles more fighters to max height. This helps a lower strike get through as the CAP takes longer to get all planes into position if they're spread out high and climbing up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

So if you send 6 groups and they come separately, the combats are bloody and often wreck both sides. Altitudes are altered over the course of action as well so that if high sweeps arrive the CAP reacts upward and often scrambles more fighters to max height. This helps a lower strike get through as the CAP takes longer to get all planes into position if they're spread out high and climbing up.

FWIW, I've never been convinced that this part in particular actually happens between combats - at least not to a degree that makes a difference on strikes/sweeps that arrive later in the day. Is there a source, or is this just forum gospel?

quote:



I've never seen anything in the combat results (or the reports) that suggests this is actually the case, and y'all know how closely I look at that stuff.

On the cooperating sweeps, I have seen a continuum of results... for the most part, cooperating sweeps do tend to have only 1 group participate in the combat with the rest never show up despite being there in the combat report text, however on at least one occasion I have seen the full 75 Thunderbolts in the combat animation with what seemed like a normal-length combat when 3 squadrons cooperated.

I've also seen 3 squadrons show up at the same time, with some number above 25 shown in the combat animation but less than 50 - which honestly is even weirder, as it means that some flights of at least one additional squadron that fragmented are participating while the rest of the squadron(s) do aerial cartwheels or something on the edge of the fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


What do you do when you set strikes? What works for you if you don't do this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

In my sweep vs low CAP tests I occasionally got cooperating sweeps, and the damage to both sides was always less than if one group swept independently. The same has occurred in game. I used to think this was an advantage, but as I've seen more of the behavior, and of course seen this late example, my thoughts have changed.

Something is wierd. I don't mind that if I knew how to avoid it, but I don't. I can't seem to make sweeps NOT cooperate now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


What do you do when you set strikes? What works for you if you don't do this?

Lots of planes on Escort with no LRCAP. Same HQ assigned (I have nearly all of my units assigned to 11th Air Flotilla or 3rd Air Army at this point for this reason). I don't have as much experience doing it with Japan, but I've done it with the Allies. Massed escort units assigned at the same location the strike is flying from (AF 9 is usually necessary). Although as the Allies, I was never flying into 500-plane CAPs really. As Japan, I'm not sure - the pace of the air war in that game is so much lower, I forget when things even happen. But I do know that my previously-cited strikes show what appear to be comparable numbers of bombers getting through for MM vs. my comparable CAP and he wasn't using LRCAP and the like. Yes, lots were getting shot down (your issue with it?) but a not-insignificant number were still getting through (what strikes CR as weird?).


I prefer to just sweep, sweep, sweep - and then strike. As either side. This is actually something that would work particularly well in this specific case, as he may not be able to fly all of his airframes in from the Aleutians (I haven't checked the ranges recently as it hasn't come up).

When I have set LRCAP over a hex I'm sweeping, the LRCAP gets trashed or doesn't show up in enough numbers to make it worthwhile (vs. just sweeping with the LRCAP unit also).

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

In my sweep vs low CAP tests I occasionally got cooperating sweeps, and the damage to both sides was always less than if one group swept independently. The same has occurred in game. I used to think this was an advantage, but as I've seen more of the behavior, and of course seen this late example, my thoughts have changed.

Something is wierd. I don't mind that if I knew how to avoid it, but I don't. I can't seem to make sweeps NOT cooperate now.

I guess you could try the reverse - assign them to vastly disparate air HQs and hope they don't cooperate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Long time lurker here.

I just realized how good is the name of your AAR. I have counted 3 elephants vanishing so far.

1. Half the KB on day 2
2. Historiker
3. sqz

I wonder what the next vanishing will be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Almost July of 1944, and now you are worrying about getting radar sets on Honshu. That statement is both joyful and sad at the same time. That is quite the testimony to an excellently played Japan, but also a little bit of victory disease too considering B29s show up in Feb of 1944, start coming more heavily in April of 44 and this a scenario 1 game.

How good is your memory from the lessons learned posts you did in the Jocke's game? Which should be mandatory reading for all JFBs, btw.

Anyhow, are you having better luck countering the Allied low strikes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Long time lurker here.

I just realized how good is the name of your AAR. I have counted 3 elephants vanishing so far.

1. Half the KB on day 2
2. Historiker
3. sqz

I wonder what the next vanishing will be?

It was a bit prophetic. I wasn't too happy about that after turn 2.

I named the first three Japanese PBEM AARs after books by Haruki Murakami, one of my favourite authors. The first was "South of the Border, West of the Sun."

Also amusing to me is that "sheep" became a continuing title for Jockmeister's AARs after our first game when he responded to my "Wild Sheep Chase" with "Rise of the Sheep," then "Return of the Sheep," "Awakening of the Sheep," and "Tale of the Sheep."

If I do another I'm considering "Hear the Wind Sing."

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Long time lurker here.

I just realized how good is the name of your AAR. I have counted 3 elephants vanishing so far.

1. Half the KB on day 2
2. Historiker
3. sqz

I wonder what the next vanishing will be?

It was a bit prophetic. I wasn't too happy about that after turn 2.

I named the first three Japanese PBEM AARs after books by Haruki Murakami, one of my favourite authors. The first was "South of the Border, West of the Sun."

Also amusing to me is that "sheep" became a continuing title for Jockmeister's AARs after our first game when he responded to my "Wild Sheep Chase" with "Rise of the Sheep," then "Return of the Sheep," "Awakening of the Sheep," and "Tale of the Sheep."

If I do another I'm considering "Hear the Wind Sing."

How about "Graves of the Fireflies?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


I have a LOT of radar sets in the major bases, but I'll not distribute them to smaller industrial centres only to see Tokyo nailed the following week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


I have a LOT of radar sets in the major bases, but I'll not distribute them to smaller industrial centres only to see Tokyo nailed the following week.

That is a horse of a different color then, and I misunderstood the previous post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


A variable which I did not specifically mention in my previous post is pilot fatigue which can have a detrimental effect on pilot skill levels. Of particular relevance here is that flying aircraft at or close to their maximum altitude level will, in of itself, further increase pilot fatigue with a consequent impairment of combat performance in that combat. Where this additional pilot fatigue clicks in exactly is somewhat unclear as michaelm has in two separate posts stated that 75% and 80% of the maximum aircraft model altitude is the threshold for this additional malus.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Long time lurker here.

I just realized how good is the name of your AAR. I have counted 3 elephants vanishing so far.

1. Half the KB on day 2
2. Historiker
3. sqz

I wonder what the next vanishing will be?

It was a bit prophetic. I wasn't too happy about that after turn 2.

I named the first three Japanese PBEM AARs after books by Haruki Murakami, one of my favourite authors. The first was "South of the Border, West of the Sun."

Also amusing to me is that "sheep" became a continuing title for Jockmeister's AARs after our first game when he responded to my "Wild Sheep Chase" with "Rise of the Sheep," then "Return of the Sheep," "Awakening of the Sheep," and "Tale of the Sheep."

If I do another I'm considering "Hear the Wind Sing."

How about "Graves of the Fireflies?"

This looks very cool. I'd like to watch it. When I run out of Murakami titles I might try this one!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Uhm...Soviets? Did I miss a memo?