Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (Full Version)

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



Message

CJ Martin -> Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/27/2006 11:27:17 PM)

I'm seeing very high aircraft damage rates among fighter units (CHS/Nik Mod). In a single day, squadrons of fighters are becoming more than 50% damaged at large, uncrowded and well-supplied bases (such as Pearl Harbor) just by flying CAP (no combat actions). In several days, the number of fighters damaged per squadron seems to stabilize ate around 66%, and will not recover unless the squadron is rested for several (4-5 or more) days. Interestingly, bombers don't seem to have this problem, and when damaged in combat they seem to repair faster than fighter units.

Combat only makes it worse. A F4U unit can only stay on CAP for 2-3 days before it is reduced to 5-7 operational aircraft. Meanwhile, morale is soaring to 99.

My guess is that the increased durability values are have uncovered a nasty side effect. Is this by design? If so, beware - the later war American iron is all but useless because of this. While the JFB (tm) club might approve, it is simply not historical or realistic.

Thoughts?

-CJ



ctangus -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 12:46:04 AM)

In a standard Nik mod game I'm noticing large numbers of damaged P-40s. My heavies, also. I'm only up to May '42.

Perversely I like it - Bergerud's Fire in the Sky gave me a good appreciation of how difficult it was to maintain planes in the forward bases of So Pac & SW Pac. I'm mainly fighting in out of the way & smaller bases right now, however. Certainly Pearl IRL could do a better job of keeping planes operational.

Have you tried flying 20-30% CAP? If you have Corsairs you should also have CPS-1 radars coming on line and they'll usually help you scramble most of your fighters regardless of what level CAP you're flying. I'm not sure it would help, but I think so.



Halsey -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 12:56:10 AM)

Nik is a FLAKOPLOSSFANBOY.[;)][:D]



CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 12:59:47 AM)

Lowering the CAP % means more fighters will go out on strikes, and this is not a good thing for CV's. Yes CV's are affected too. After a single at sea day one third to one half the fighter squadron is damaged. While I understand the difficulties of front line aircraft maintenance, there is no reason for this to be happening on carriers or well supplied bases.

I get the feeling that no one has played a NikMod game into mid-1943. USN carrier groups are crippled by this behavior.

-CJ



Halsey -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:05:16 AM)

Not true.
Some of us figured it out after playing only a few months.


Nik put in a lot of time and effort into this though, and a lot of players really seem to like it.[;)]

That's why it's cool to have so many mods available to us picky gamers.[&o]



Andrew Brown -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:07:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

I'm seeing very high aircraft damage rates among fighter units (CHS/Nik Mod).


This seems to be new. I have not heard of it happening before. CHS with "nik mod" type aircraft durability increases has been around for a while, and the Nik mod itself for a while before that.

I wonder if this happens in games with older patch levels ?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:26:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I wonder if this happens in games with older patch levels ?


I also wonder if this is happening with the CHS experimental scenarios (159,160)?



fcooke -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:26:30 AM)

This doesn't just happen in Nik's mods - it happens in stock also. Large units (FG - 72 planes) get whacked when flying CAP or training. And heavy bombers seem to suffer too (flying missions though - so feels better). It seems not to be as much of an issue with smaller FS groups (24 planes). I fly Corsairs in 43 on 50% CAP and they seem to keep about 75% of the planes ready each turn - that feels OK to me.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:31:20 AM)

Sounds like a bit of comparative testing is needed, then. I will try to find a bit of time in the next few days to do this, if nobody else can in the meantime. But spare time for me is at a premium at present.

Andrew



CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 2:15:10 AM)

That's a thought - I jumped back into the game about a month or so ago. I'm thrilled with CHS and the new map, and spent a few weeks creating a CHS/Nikmod based scenerio that starts 01 Jun 43. Maybe something change in the latest patches? I sure don't remember this from stock and up to patch 1.4 or so.
 
Squadron size doesn't seem to matter. Small 16 plane squadrons have the same issues a 36 plane CV fighter squadron has.

Andrew - I'm looking forward to hearing what your testing comes up with if you find the time.

-CJ



CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 2:23:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

This doesn't just happen in Nik's mods - it happens in stock also. Large units (FG - 72 planes) get whacked when flying CAP or training. And heavy bombers seem to suffer too (flying missions though - so feels better). It seems not to be as much of an issue with smaller FS groups (24 planes). I fly Corsairs in 43 on 50% CAP and they seem to keep about 75% of the planes ready each turn - that feels OK to me.


What version of WitP are you running? Are you patched all the way up to 1.804? I could accept 75% for land bases, less so for CV's.

I'm very curious, as my heavy bombers don't seem to have much of an issue. I can send out 70+ P-38's escorting 90+ B-24's (PM to Rabual), have 10-12 P-38's and about the same number of B-24's damaged, and the next turn 40-50 P-38's are damaged while the number of damaged B-24's matches up with the previous turns reports (10-12).

Since I'm using CHS as a baseline, I don't have any 72 plane fighter groups.

-CJ



YankeeAirRat -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 5:12:18 AM)

Acutally a CV airgroup should be considering operating from a front line airfield. Just one that has some better runways. Think about the nature of carrier aircraft flying. It is very violent and more so then even those airgroups operating from dirt/grass/unprepared airfields. Also understand that there is only so many spare parts that can be carried to do repairs to the engines, flight controls, and weapons systems. It was even worst for electronics as they became more advance since the test procedures and training on how to repair them wasn't able to hit the fleet fast enough. So there were nearly always at least 2-3 hangar queens taking up space and being used to parts. The supply department had to keep track of what parts were needed and when the Carrier Task Forces hit the replenishment groups those parts had to come onboard. Or when the task forces anchored at fleet bases there was usually a mad rush to use those shore base facilities to get aircraft up. Oh and once you repair a major flight control surface or do an engine change there was usually a flight to do a check flight to make sure that every thing worked right.
Like I mentioned earlier the type and frequency of flying was hard on the aircraft. Even if the task force wasn't in a combat zone there was still ASW patrols, Surface Search, CAP, Training flights and those wonderful maintenance flight that had to be accomplish even in the backwaters of the war or what was considered friendly waters. So nearly every day from sun up to sun down there are flights going on with a carrier air group.
These issues combined with pilot training lead to a hard life for a number of carrier based aircraft and number in repair.



bradfordkay -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 7:28:40 AM)

Andrew, I m playing CHS 2.08 scen 159 vs Japanese AI and I am definitely NOT seeing this problem. A very few of my rear area 24 plane fighter squadrons have as many as four planes under repair, but most of the squadrons have no planes under repair. This seems to be an across the board result (US, Australian, British - I can't count the Dutch because they certainly are not rear area!).


EDIT (next morning): this game has been patched through 1.802 to 1.804, on the first day of each patch release. SO it doesn't appear to be an official patch problem. I think that the guys are right about the durability modification...



castor troy -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:12:44 PM)

Have discovered that too. Nikmod 8.1 PBEM. If fighters are set to 90% CAP then one third is damaged all the time. No matter how many AV support or supply or whatever is at the base. Donīt have the same thing in a stock PBEM or in a Nikmod 5.0 PBEM. [&:][&:]

I noticed it but thought this would be something unique for my game (which wouldnīt surprise me) and therefore I didnīt post it. Good to see that other players are experiencing this too. I just hope my opponent has the same problem to make it "fair" again.



Sardaukar -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 1:19:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I also wonder if this is happening with the CHS experimental scenarios (159,160)?


Nope, not under 1.8.0.1 at least. Not tried Scens 159/160 with latest patch, though. I never fly units higher than 80 % CAP anyway..unless LRCAP, of course. I have had no problems with anything like that under 1.8.0.1..have to check if it happeens with newest patch. If it does..that'd be *BAD*..[:(]



CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 2:33:46 PM)

Sorry YankeeAirRat, I don't buy that for a second.

As a former F-14 maintainer, I have a pretty fair grasp of the how things work on a carrier. While some 50 years seperate my sea time from those in WW2, the basic task (get the bird off the pointy end of the ship) remains the same. Modern jets are vastly more complex than WW2 era aircraft. You would be suprised just how much can be fixed while underway, and how many spare parts can be carried. At the risk of being considered a "smarty pants", I currently work for the USN (civil service) supporting the F/A-18 program as a Reliability & Maintainability engineering tech - so this subject is a bit more than a hobby to me.

There is no way you will convince me that it is accurate that one day out of port, one third to one half of all the CV's fighters are "damaged" and unable to fly. Not only that, they stay that way unless the squadron is completely stood down.

That is not reality, it is something broken. I'm thinking that the change in aircraft durability in NikMod has something to do with it, perhaps later patches makes this worse.

-CJ




CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 2:36:47 PM)

Here's another interesting data point - the Spitfire doesn't seem to be nearly as affected by this issue. The spitfire has one of the lower durabilities among the mid-war allied fighters (again, NikMod) so I'm really thinking the problem is related to durability.

-CJ



castor troy -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 2:58:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

Here's another interesting data point - the Spitfire doesn't seem to be nearly as affected by this issue. The spitfire has one of the lower durabilities among the mid-war allied fighters (again, NikMod) so I'm really thinking the problem is related to durability.

-CJ



Could be, Iīm experiencing this in Nikmod 8.1 but not in 5.0. And 8.1 has the durability increased again by around 30!!



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 3:49:21 PM)

Pretty sure that durability is the prime element in determining maintenance times, the higher the durability the greater the hanger time. Not that we couldn't use a higher percentage of damaged aircraft but tampering with durability is dangerous as it is a reflection of the number of engines on an aircraft as well as robustness. That's why I went the other way and lowered weapon accuracy, effect and pilot experience.



CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/28/2006 5:33:33 PM)

Agreed Ron.

I'll let you test your plan out a bit more before I make any major changes to my mod. I want to better understand cause -> effect. I do like the approach you've taken, and look forward to seeing how it plays out into 1943 and beyond. Since you can't stop the pilots from gaining experience, and the game doesn't have manditory pilot rotations, I wonder what your pilot rosters are going to look like late-war, and how that will play out.

Lot's of widgets to figure out, but I'm not complaining. We used a lot of "smoke and mirrors" in the flight sims I worked on too. [:)]

-CJ






Miller -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/29/2006 11:38:14 AM)

Have noticed this as well in my Nikmod 8.0b game. Not too concerned as - a) It will effect my opponent also, and b) Will furhter reduce the effects of ubercap.

Will also mean having to look after sqds better instead of being able to leave them on 100% CAP for days on end (hardly likely in real life).



m10bob -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/29/2006 11:59:10 AM)

Not completely off topic, it was forum member Halsey who told us recently (in forum) of his tactic of only using maybe 20% CAP to avoid this attrition problem, (and enhance the "chance to strike" with his carriers). In fact, having recently read after action reports of the Japanese at Midway, I learned they only used approx 7 or 8 fighters per carrier in their CAP's, (which is way less than the 70-80% some of us have been using)..Might explain why it has been hard to launch strikes against enemy carriers!



Halsey -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/29/2006 2:55:24 PM)

Thanks m10bob.[;)]

The real trick in getting your planes to launch, is detection.
Never go into an action blind.

I've read quite a few AAR's that a new player gets his CV's smoked because he sends them charging into unknown waters.
Better to let the opposing side launch a few strikes at other targets first.[;)]
I use these couple of days to set up my approach.

This is the "Bait and Ambush" tactic.
It's a common tactic that's been around since mankind has been able to walk upright.[;)]

CV TF's seem to have a cloaking device that gets turned off after their first strike is launched.
After that they will usually remain spotted until they move out of normal recon range.




CJ Martin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/30/2006 1:11:30 PM)

I decided to do a bit more testing, this time with the "Experimental" version of CHS for aircraft, and AAA settings closer to stock CHS.

After a few game turns, it looks like air to air combat is more bloody than NikMod but less than stock, AAA still a threat but not the buzzsaw of NikMod. Most importantly, non-combat aircraft damage is much lower. For example, 36 plane F4F-4 squadron, at sea, 60 CAP. Start with 36 up planes, day one 34 up / 2 down, Day two 35 up / 1 down, Day three 34 up / 2 down -> looks like this is where it stabilized, and I can live with that. Still need see how quickly combat damaged aircraft repair but so far it looks promising.

Ultimately, I think a combo of my latest changes and well as Ron's lower weapon / lower pilot experience changes will be the way to go. In my test I had one very bloody combat but the majority seem inline with historical claims. I need to test/gather more data now.

-CJ



Andrew Brown -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/30/2006 2:37:57 PM)

So there may be a durability limit which, when exceeded, greatly increases repair times in a non-linear way? If so, then I guess the next question is what exactly that durability limit is.

Unfortunately I am not able to help with testing this at all right now. Just too busy. I MIGHT be able to help at a later time, but that could be weeks away.

Apologies,
Andrew



Sardaukar -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/30/2006 2:46:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

So there may be a durability limit which, when exceeded, greatly increases repair times in a non-linear way? If so, then I guess the next question is what exactly that durability limit is.

Unfortunately I am not able to help with testing this at all right now. Just too busy. I MIGHT be able to help at a later time, but that could be weeks away.

Apologies,
Andrew


Wasn't the 60 DUR the critical level ? Game probably treats >60 as heavy bombers and such. I seem to recall that sort of comment..at least from el cid who stated that in RHS all planes are <60 DUR because of that.



herwin -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/30/2006 3:35:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I wonder if this happens in games with older patch levels ?


I also wonder if this is happening with the CHS experimental scenarios (159,160)?


No problems here--CHS experimental scenario 159/1.8.0.4.

On the other hand, the Japanese AI seems like it could use some tuning. With three CVs deadlined in early March 1942, the IJN sent the Akagi out alone for a strike on Palembang. Batavia had about 120 B17s, including some with enough experience to consistently get hits on maneuvering ships. Two hits. The KB was last spotted with two CVs (probably Zuikaku and Shokaku) in Truk. The Enterprise and Yorktown are now at sea south of Rabaul (which is where the 2nd MarDiv is currently dug in). Lexington and Saratoga just sortied from Pearl, and Hornet is headed in that general direction.



Sardaukar -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/30/2006 3:42:01 PM)

I'm afraid not much can be done to tune the AI. AI will always try to hit Java with KB..and that's where I usually kill it's carriers with B-17s too. They are my main CV-killers in about any game I've played against AI, no matter what version/mod. To give AI chance, it'd probably better to not deploy heavy bombers to Java/DEI area. I don't think they had ability to operate those in Real Life anyway due to lack of US aviation support personnel. In game it's not a problem, though.



bradfordkay -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/30/2006 8:28:27 PM)

They actually did operate B-17s from NEI airfields throughout the campaign, but in such small numbers as to be fairly ineffective. One of the problems was communication between US aircrew and Dutch groundcrews...


Instead of banning B-17s from the NEI, I refuse to allow replacements for them unless they can get back to Australia or I can get a major supply TF into a local port from Aden or the US west coast.



Sardaukar -> RE: Excessive non-combat aircraft damage (10/31/2006 2:00:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

They actually did operate B-17s from NEI airfields throughout the campaign, but in such small numbers as to be fairly ineffective. One of the problems was communication between US aircrew and Dutch groundcrews...


Instead of banning B-17s from the NEI, I refuse to allow replacements for them unless they can get back to Australia or I can get a major supply TF into a local port from Aden or the US west coast.


Good compromise, I think.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375