Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

joliverlay -> Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/18/2006 9:05:46 PM)

I've posted on this elsewhere, but nobody seems to know what I am talking about, so I'll put it here.

Reduction in overall air losses improves the game. I agree.

But it greatly decreases the difficulty of achieveing autovictory.

Consider this A= Allied victory points without mod.
J = Jap Victory points without mod.
X = reduction in losses on both sides in Nik mod

Autovictory occurs in stock on 1/43 if J = 4A

Autovictory occurs in mode if (J-x) = 4(A-x)

or J-X = 4A - 4X

then J = 4A - 3X

autovictory require 3X less points in other areas! This is significant.

The autovictory condition is lowered by three points (1/43) for every reduction in aircraft losses in the mod.







witpqs -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/18/2006 11:08:57 PM)

I understand. I think that the modders are looking at ways to simultaneously 1) reduce A2A losses and 2) increase Ops losses. The Ops losses might make up for A2A losses. Otherwise, I guess the Allies have to fight harder to avoid autovictory.



Bombur -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/19/2006 6:14:39 AM)

Are you assuming the the decrease in losses for both sides is exactly the same???? Itīs likely that the side that will have more losses in the stock scenario will also have a bigger "x" value.



joliverlay -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/19/2006 8:35:47 PM)

The Nik mod is designed to reduce Air to Air losses significantly for both sides.

In my opinion the solution may be to increase operationl losses for both sides. However the losses should not be greater than is historically justified, and the ops losses should reflect the hudge difference in the allied ability to recovery pilots. For example, by late war something like 1/2 of the pilots lost over water were recovered by PBYs, subs, etc. whereas the japanese lost may pilots who initially survivied the loss of their aircraft.

One possiblity would be to eleminate the idea of rotating allied pilots out of the theater. Not that the did not leave, but it would compensate for the inability to simulate the experience recovered by air sea rescue if we make ops losses high.



Bombur -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/19/2006 10:35:53 PM)

quote:


In my opinion the solution may be to increase operationl losses for both sides.


-Agree, but under the current engine, I donīt know how to accomplish this. Maybe my idea of halving experience would be helpful, but it could also result in very small combat losses, as poor pilots seldom can shot down planes.


quote:


However the losses should not be greater than is historically justified, and the ops losses should reflect the hudge difference in the allied ability to recovery pilots. For example, by late war something like 1/2 of the pilots lost over water were recovered by PBYs, subs, etc. whereas the japanese lost may pilots who initially survivied the loss of their aircraft.


-Agree to some extent, the most important variable influencing the survival/capture of pilots is where they are shot down. A B-29 crew would most likely be captured or killed if their plane was lost over Japanese land. The ability to rescue pilots over the sea also depends on keeping air superiority over the area.

One possiblity would be to eleminate the idea of rotating allied pilots out of the theater. Not that the did not leave, but it would compensate for the inability to simulate the experience recovered by air sea rescue if we make ops losses high.



Nikademus -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/19/2006 10:52:34 PM)

Experience does not impact op losses.



Bombur -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/28/2006 3:29:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Experience does not impact op losses.




-You sank my idea[:(], I will sink two more fleet carriers as retribution[:D]
-More seriously, are you sure? Did you make tests? Isnīt experience related to op losses in UV?



joliverlay -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/28/2006 4:49:44 AM)

In a current game using the Nik mod we are having turns with ops losses on the order of 2.5 aircraft per 2500 sorties or 0.1%. Total losses are something like 0.5% of sorties flown (I'll have to check the exact number). This is low by at least 1/2 order of magnitude. Total losses should be over 2.5% of sorties flow based on statistics I've seen for the USAAF. In fact I belive the P-47s suffered something like 7% total losses includeing AAA, A tt A, and operations losses. Anyway, the losses in the game are two low. Reducing losses to get rid of lopsided turns for large raids is having some unintended consequences.

This ultra low loss rate allows Japan to extend the period when the pilot training program could keep up with losses, and has a profound effect on autovictory. Historical air loss rates would produce losses consistant with several destroyers per day in victory points.



joliverlay -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/28/2006 5:04:46 AM)

After looking, here are the stats,

In 4 months and 3 days we have flow 630,000 sorties with total losses of about 2000 aircraft (many of which were destroyed on the ground). This is a loss rate of 0.32% for all causes.

Another interesting fact. The japanese lost 43,000 aircraft in WW2. This is comparable (in victory points) to the loss of more than 100 aircraft carriers! (U.S. losses in both theaters were 21,500 aircraft.) Thus the aircraft losses are a major source of victory points.



Nikademus -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/28/2006 7:02:54 AM)

I'm sure, because linking exp to op losses was a suggestion i made for a future enhancement a long time ago. Thats why the empty airbase attack is so popular for accelerated training of green airgroups. Instead of using the "training" mission which was coded through tests to closely follow the standard length of time established for US airgroups from classroom to graduation, players set their green/half trained airgroups (exp 20 to use an example if the pool is empty) to bomb an empty enemy base hex and can build up experience in a fraction of the time with few op losses. If exp were linked to op losses you'd have half the FG cracking up on takeoff and landing as they've not fully completed their flight training yet. Hence the bomb the empty airbase would not be a viable tactic till at least around exp 50 (fully trained but unblooded)






VladViscious -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/28/2006 10:36:05 PM)

Just a quick note on the P-47 (My Favorite Plane). In WWII the Jug had flown 546,000 combat sorties at the very low loss rate of under 0.7%. Found in Aircraft of WWII by Stewart Wilson. This equates to losses of 3,822 air craft. There were a total of 15,683 planes of all versions produced during the war so overall loss was 24%. Not to bad considering the way the 9th AF used them. I have no sources but I have seen astounding numbers when you divide causes for loss. Very few were lost to Enemy Action compared to Crash.

TANSTAAFL!



joliverlay -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/28/2006 11:17:38 PM)

The 7% loss rate I reported was for USAAF units in Europe Only, and but it included all versions of the P-47. Other sources may give different numbers.

I've also found that 1125 P47s crashed in accidents between 1941 and 1945 in the continental US in accidents. If you added the accidental losses in all theaters it might well exceed the combat losses. Perhaps by alot.



Bombur -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/29/2006 2:34:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm sure, because linking exp to op losses was a suggestion i made for a future enhancement a long time ago. Thats why the empty airbase attack is so popular for accelerated training of green airgroups. Instead of using the "training" mission which was coded through tests to closely follow the standard length of time established for US airgroups from classroom to graduation, players set their green/half trained airgroups (exp 20 to use an example if the pool is empty) to bomb an empty enemy base hex and can build up experience in a fraction of the time with few op losses. If exp were linked to op losses you'd have half the FG cracking up on takeoff and landing as they've not fully completed their flight training yet. Hence the bomb the empty airbase would not be a viable tactic till at least around exp 50 (fully trained but unblooded)


-Thank you for info, Nik.



el cid again -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/29/2006 10:04:19 AM)

quote:

I understand. I think that the modders are looking at ways to simultaneously 1) reduce A2A losses and 2) increase Ops losses. The Ops losses might make up for A2A losses. Otherwise, I guess the Allies have to fight harder to avoid autovictory.


The object of all the modders I know of is (and in my view ought to be) to get things closer to right. Right means reasonably close to similar loss rates. You are correct that much discussion has been about how to increase ops losses (and also to increase losses to AAA) while reducing air combat losses. It appears that Nik - and now RHS - has succeeded to some extent in reducing air combat losses. RHS also may have increased AAA attrition (it is not yet clear - testing is ongoing - but it may have). But both seem to have FAILED to successfully increase ops losses. The theory that this was related to durability seems wholly incorrect. Dividing durability ratings by an average of six has produced ZERO impact on operational losses - sad to say.

The idea that this might impact autovictory never occurred to me (I cannot say about other modders). The idea that it is somehow undesireable if it does seems quite wrong to me. IF autovictory was based on anything meaningful, and IF the losses are SUPPOSED to be 4 times as great, THEN the autovictory should not cut in UNLESS they really would be 4 times as great. I myself personally hate autovictory - I want control - and I will decide if the contest is worthy of continuing or not. [Someone said, however, you can continue - which is not the case in UV - but I hope it is the case here. That would address my problem.] Why would you care if it "made it harder" if it made it closer to an accurate system? Whatever your thoughts may be, remember - you can always play the game as issued - or in mods previous to the ones which address the air combat problem. This is, in my view, not an issue worthy of concern: it is focused on relative difficulty of achieving a rather arbitrary measure - in a contest in which the long term outcome is virtually never in doubt. If the Allies are not going to defeat Japan, the Allies are not playing very well. By 1945, a fair fight would be the British Empire ALONE against the Japanese!



el cid again -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/29/2006 10:12:54 AM)

quote:

In a current game using the Nik mod we are having turns with ops losses on the order of 2.5 aircraft per 2500 sorties or 0.1%. Total losses are something like 0.5% of sorties flown (I'll have to check the exact number). This is low by at least 1/2 order of magnitude. Total losses should be over 2.5% of sorties flow based on statistics I've seen for the USAAF. In fact I belive the P-47s suffered something like 7% total losses includeing AAA, A tt A, and operations losses. Anyway, the losses in the game are two low. Reducing losses to get rid of lopsided turns for large raids is having some unintended consequences.

This ultra low loss rate allows Japan to extend the period when the pilot training program could keep up with losses, and has a profound effect on autovictory. Historical air loss rates would produce losses consistant with several destroyers per day in victory points.


I am well into testing a completely different plane data set which had similar objectives. While I succeeded in reducing plane losses due to air combat and may have increased AAA losses, I utterly failed to increase operational losses. These are running almost identically with the values reported for Nik mod and also which control runs of stock produce. It is almost certain that durability has ZERO impact on operational losses (although it probably has an impact on AAA and air combat losses). What I like about the new data set is that RELATIVE losses of different plane types seem better proportioned. This reflects a lot of work trying to get the data in sync with actual data in terms of firepower and weapon range, and to get durability somewhat more than "pull a number out of the air" - although I believe a better system should still be devises (this is a first pass). Bottom line: it may take code to fix the operational attrition rate.
If it is possible to achieve it with data manipulation, we need to be told (by someone looking at code) what fields matter.



Nikademus -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/29/2006 7:23:44 PM)

quote:

It appears that Nik - and now RHS - has succeeded to some extent in reducing air combat losses. RHS also may have increased AAA attrition (it is not yet clear - testing is ongoing - but it may have). But both seem to have FAILED to successfully increase ops losses


I think there is some confusion here that requires clearing up; Nikmod never attempted to increase op losses in the first place. As has been stated before in the past....op losses are deliberately low in the game to prevent mass loss of pilots.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/29/2006 7:50:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Experience does not impact op losses.



I've never understood why this was the case in the game.[&:]



el cid again -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/30/2006 12:49:44 PM)

quote:

As has been stated before in the past....op losses are deliberately low in the game to prevent mass loss of pilots.


Where is it stated?

Are you saying that a design decision to limit the number of pilots to a number smaller than any single combattant fielded drives an ahistoric attrition rate? AFBs should be howling - this favors Japan - giving her a fighting chance to train enough to compete. And then it cuts the game off at the knees midwar - the Allies never get enough time to complete their offensive. If Joe is right, no game will EVER begin in 1941 and enter 1945, because it will run out of things like pilots.

I thought the driving force behind reducing air air combat losses was (a) to make them more correct and (b) to solve the pilot limitation problem.
But I also thought everyone had agreed that we wanted higher rates of operational and AAA attrition. It really is a very good game, and 1942 is the most interesting period - with 1943 also interesting - so it doesn't matter too much if we can't get to 1945. Everyone pretty much knows what happens to Japan taking on the US, UK, China and, eventually, USSR.




Nikademus -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/30/2006 4:00:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Where is it stated?


in the archives of various threads not axed by the hacker attacks.

quote:


Are you saying that a design decision to limit the number of pilots to a number smaller than any single combattant fielded drives an ahistoric attrition rate?


no.

quote:


AFBs should be howling - this favors Japan - giving her a fighting chance to train enough to compete.


You should try playing a full game sometime. You'd know this isn't true, otherwise Mogami wouldn't have needed to come up with his patented on-map training method.

quote:


But I also thought everyone had agreed that we wanted higher rates of operational and AAA attrition.


When was this? Was there a staff meeting?



el cid again -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/30/2006 8:04:53 PM)

quote:

But I also thought everyone had agreed that we wanted higher rates of operational and AAA attrition.

When was this? Was there a staff meeting?


Yeah. Sorry you missed the memo.

Seriously, you do NOT think we should have correct attrition rates?



Nikademus -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/30/2006 8:12:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Seriously, you do NOT think we should have correct attrition rates?


When and where did i ever say that? I was simply setting the record straight that my mod never atttempted to influence operational losses. You can't FAIL at something that isn't being attempted at.




el cid again -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/31/2006 1:31:44 AM)

quote:

When and where did i ever say that? I was simply setting the record straight that my mod never atttempted to influence operational losses. You can't FAIL at something that isn't being attempted at.


OK - fair enough - you didn't do what you didn't try to do. And you wanted the record clear on that point. On the other hand, you are not opposed to getting attrition under control - you just didn't try. I didn't properly express that. I didn't misunderstand you don't like too small attrition rates - but I did not make it clear your mod was not attempting to do that. I am not sure I even knew it was not attempting to do that - seems logical that it might - but whatever my impression was - it is now clear that you didn't try. Got it.



Nomad -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/31/2006 3:08:27 AM)

I am not 100% positive on this but I believe that it will take a tweak inside the engine to raise the ops losses. [8D]



el cid again -> RE: Effects of Air Losses on Autovictory (3/31/2006 11:59:22 AM)

quote:

I am not 100% positive on this but I believe that it will take a tweak inside the engine to raise the ops losses.


Having tested the theory that durability should help - and having it turn out not to do so - causes me to agree. However, changing durability DID have two positive effects:

1) It increased the too low AAA attrition rate;

2) It caused RELATIVE attrition of all sorts (air air combat, AAA and operational) to be more correct between planes of different types. You no longer have the submarine observation floatplane rated higher than much bigger planes, stuff like that. As a result, it is much more likely to be lost to any cause.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125