large A/C repair rates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support



Message

jcjordan -> large A/C repair rates (7/30/2002 5:00:40 AM)

Is it me or in the latest patch did repair rates on med/large A/C come to a halt? In my current save game after patching to 1.2, I have 2 large & 1 med group of bombers that are based in Nouema & Brisbane with plenty of extra support but have only repaired 1 a/c in a month out of 40 a/c.



Black Cat -> Re: large A/C repair rates (7/30/2002 8:29:28 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcjordan
[B]Is it me or in the latest patch did repair rates on med/large A/C come to a halt? In my current save game after patching to 1.2, I have 2 large & 1 med group of bombers that are based in Nouema & Brisbane with plenty of extra support but have only repaired 1 a/c in a month out of 40 a/c. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, you beat me to it..see the 1.2 Docs, they porked the AC repair rates for the B-17`s ( at least ) in 1.2 with item 13 .

I have had 2 Sq`s of B-17`s at Luganville for 25 + turns, 30,000 supply, way over in Base Suport, 5th. AF HQ is there, morale is 100% yada , yada,

In my Game, the 42nd. BS has had 7 AC in repair all those turns, the 98th. BS has 5 AC in repair... same with a B-17 Sq at Cooktown, they flew one mission, went from 12 AC operational to 4, 25 + turns and no repair......8 AC just sit there...

This TOTALLY F***S up the US Heavy Bomber Campaign, the conerstone of their Pacific War Strategy.

I mean really Matrix, don`t you think that`s overdoing it a little, who`s advising you guys on these "enhancements"...???

I`m _really_ upset here... :mad:



Joel Billings -> (7/30/2002 9:49:25 AM)

What has changed is that now B-17's that were going to repair have about an 80% chance of not repairing instead. It is very possible that at a base where lots of planes are repairing, this added 80% role will keep a few B-17's from repairing for a long time. Since it's a die roll, you can miss it many times in a row (just like the chance of repairing a big ship on the map). We may very well have over done it, but given the reports of what players were able to do with the US air force before 1.2, I'd bet this makes a much better game. Of course, that 80% number is easy to change (we started at 50% but it didn't seem enough in testing).

By the way, the chance of a medium bomber not repairing is about 15-25% (formula is {Bomb Load/1000*Bomb Load/1000}/60, with a max of 50/60=83%), and our testing indicated this had a fairly minor impact on repair times.

I don't expect this number to be changed anytime soon, but we'll consider changing it for the next patch once people have played with it some.

By the way, the more planes damaged at a base, the longer it will take to repair all of them. I strongly advise keeping B-17's out of bases that can be bombarded, because if they end up with a large pile of damaged aircraft, it could take a very long time for them to get repaired.



jcjordan -> (7/30/2002 10:03:26 AM)

Thanks Joel, I thought it strange on the B26 group in question. It's a disbanded group come back in & got planes from the pool from a unit that upgraded to B25J. Could this be the old error from BOB/BTR where transferred planes won't repair unless you move the unit? On the B17's they are also disbanded units returned & got transferred planes. I moved 1 B17 unit but only 1 a/c moved & the rest never have repaired so I moved it back to merge the unit.



Black Cat -> Thanks but (7/30/2002 10:39:45 AM)

Joel

I appreciate the fast response as well as your detailed explanation, however in my Game the B-17`s were the _only_ planes flying from those bases, hence the only planes being subject to damage.

Actual playing time ( The best test ) indicates that 80% is way excessive, it cripples the Heavy Bomber Sq`s through far tooooooo long repair rates.

My example of a B-17 Sq. taking 4 AC damage on the FIRST Mission, and having those 4 AC awaiting repair for over 25+ turns, and JCJordans ( thread starter ) actual play example of awaiting 30 days to fix one AC has got to be an indication that the number ( 80% ) is too high.

Since on almost any Bomb mission you will occur damage, that now in effect equals a lost AC.. if you fly the remaining 8 AC and 3 take damage now you have 5, another mission, 2 more damaged and now there are 2. See where this goes..

In effect, 3 - 4 missions wipe out, through the new Damage Model, for at least 25 days, perhaps more, an entire B-17 Sq. There`s not that many 25 day periods in the whole Campaign Game.... in an Historical Sim it`s not close to real.

Not right J.B. Really, Really Screws the U.S. Player...Big Time.
Both in PBEM and VS the AI.

Not to kiss *** here, but I will say..: you Guys at Matrix, and you and Gary are a Class Act, I`ve followed your work for a long time now, it`s great to see you team up with Dave and I respect your desire to help create a " balanced Game" by listening to the players...

However this "tweek" really unbalances the Game, in favor of the Japanese players , especially those who PBEM play Japan...and who have been _very vocal_ in slamming the B-17`s.

If I were more cynical, I could almost suspect them of being self serving, rather then trying to improve an already excellent Sim..:rolleyes:

In fact , almost all of 1.2 was composed of a downward revision of the U.S. Medium/Heavy Bombers.

Well, I hope the serious player who read this thread will at least post there opinion,, based on the playing experience... I sure will:cool:

In the meanwhile I think I`d do an install in another folder and play with the 1.11 patch....just like the old Pac War days... back to " unimproved" Ver.1.17 eh Gary...??? ;)



gus -> Repair rates for 4e LBA (7/30/2002 11:09:17 AM)

Just piling on here :)

While I like most of the changes that the 1.2 patch brought to UV I have to agree with BlackCat that the repair rates for the four engine bombers appears to a bit excessive but I believe that the repair issue may be due to an algorithm starvation issue rather than a repair rate issue.

In one of my current games I have one squadron of B-17's with a total of 8 planes, one ready to fly and the other 7 being repaired. They have been in this exact state now for nearly 4 weeks although they are assigned to zero level training. Now there are other B-17 squadrons at the base and they do fly missions and they are being attrited. However their damaged a/c are getting (slowly) fixed so I am guessing that the repair algorithm for UV selects these squadrons prior to my poor malingering squadron when choosing a/c to be repaired so it places the other squadron's planes in the repair queue first and this queue is flushed each turn so the given squadron may never have its planes repaired as long as the other squadrons ahead of it use all of the available repair points for that turn. Then again I could be completely full of sh*t ")

So overall I don't know how serious this issue is in game turns yet as my B-17's overall do return to some degree of critical mass after a few days and launch sizeable raids again, just not as frequently and not with that lone squadron :)

Cheers

Gus



denisonh -> Avg Repair Time for a B-17 (7/30/2002 11:11:50 AM)

Based on what Joel is saying, the average days to repair would be 5 Days (Expected Value for p=0.2 of negative binomial distribution for 1 success; or 1/p if you like)

That means a B-17 broken on day 1 would be fixed on the Day 6 repair "roll". But the Standard deviation is approx 4.5 days, so expect a B-17 to be repaired in 5 days or less half of the time, with a 16.7% chance the aircraft will take 10 days or more to repair!

How does this match historical repair rates for B-17s in the PTO?

I would suggest that this is unrealistic and that way too many US Heavy bombers will be spending too much time on the tarmac.



dpstafford -> (7/30/2002 11:24:56 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]What has changed is that now B-17's that were going to repair have about an 80% chance of not repairing instead. [/B]/QUOTE]

A 500% change!!! Say it ain't so!!! So instead of addressing the overly accurate bombing directly, you just grounded the whole air wing!! Permanently!



Black Cat -> The way it works in the Real World (7/30/2002 11:36:45 AM)

FWIW.. in the real world of the old USAAF, the Sq`s would always have an aircraft or two called " Hanger Queens".

Their sole function was to be cannibalized of parts to keep the operational AC flying. Especially in the forward areas, where they were at the end of a long supply line.

The B-17s & B-24 were not B1`s, they were only slightly more complex then a `39 Chevy.

If they came back without airframe damage, which could not be fixed at the Sq. level, the holes were patched with tar, or whatever was handy, the blood was hosed out of the Cockpit, the new engine was put in and off it went in a few days, if not 24 hours...

There was no reason that an average Sq. of 12 AC, could not keep 8- 10 AC flying each mission for weeks, if not months....



denisonh -> Flying Lemons (7/30/2002 11:57:07 AM)

Yup.

Essentially, if you have 10 B-17s down in a sqd down, the chances for repair that day are:

10.7 % No a/c fixed
26.9% 1 a/c fixed
30.2% 2 a/c fixed
20.1% 3 a/c fixed
2.7% 4 a/c fixed
0.5% 5 a/c or more fixed

For 5 B-17s down

32.8% No a/c fixed
40.9% 1 a/c fixed
20.5% 2 a/c fixed
20.1% 3 a/c fixed
5.1% 4 a/c fixed
0.7% 5 a/c fixed


Extrapolate and you will find it will take a long time to get those 10 a/c working again, assuming they do nothing but sit on the tarmac for that time.



denisonh -> (7/30/2002 11:59:14 AM)

Cannabalization? Never.

The "politically correct" terminology is "Controlled Substitution".:)



Joel Billings -> Re: Repair rates for 4e LBA (7/30/2002 12:02:52 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gus
[B]Just piling on here :)


In one of my current games I have one squadron of B-17's with a total of 8 planes, one ready to fly and the other 7 being repaired. They have been in this exact state now for nearly 4 weeks although they are assigned to zero level training. Now there are other B-17 squadrons at the base and they do fly missions and they are being attrited. However their damaged a/c are getting (slowly) fixed so I am guessing that the repair algorithm for UV selects these squadrons prior to my poor malingering squadron when choosing a/c to be repaired so it places the other squadron's planes in the repair queue first and this queue is flushed each turn so the given squadron may never have its planes repaired as long as the other squadrons ahead of it use all of the available repair points for that turn.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, each turn the chance of a plane repairing drops whenever a plane at the same base is repaired. Given the way Gary does things, I would bet that the lowest numbered group tries to repair its planes first, then the next group, etc. If a lot of planes are damaged at the base, several planes may get repaired before you even get to a level bomber squadron. At this point, the chance of an additional repair will be lower. I think (but am not positive) that each time a plane is repaired (and assuming full aviation support and supply), the chance of the next damaged plane repairing is multiplied by .8. As each plane is repaired, the chance goes down again by .8. Thus after two planes have been repaired, the chance of a third plane repairing is .8x.8 or 64%. Now if that plane is a B-17, and it passes the .64 die roll, it still has to pass the .8 die roll that heavy bombers must make.

Yes, we probably overdid it, only sustained play will tell for sure. Again, my sense was that the Japanese were getting crushed by US air (even more than they did historically), and that we needed to do something to limit the ability of the US player to stuff forward bases full of planes that could keep bombing round the clock.

By the way, my view of this game is that any 5 of you on the forum could pick apart just about any one formula or other part of this game. If you try to make it perfect, you won't get there. Even if we agreed on what was perfect, the code probably can't do it without causing many more problems. This is a game. Even as complex as it is, so many things have been simplified that it is all subject to raging debates. We will continue to release periodic updates, but sometimes it's better to just enjoy the whole and not try to disect how the sausage gets made. Now I'll get off my soapbox.



Black Cat -> We all agree (7/30/2002 12:14:09 PM)

We all ( 5 of us ) want what you want Joel, the best , most accurate Sim of the Pacific War possible, for the Greater Glory & Profit of Matrix Games....and our enjoyment...

I`ll refrain from posting opinions and just post actual play test results, it`s your call, I`ll go along with what you decide.

Thanks for info, have a good night :)



denisonh -> B-17 Repair: The Point (7/30/2002 12:21:22 PM)

The whole gist is to help highlight the issue with realistic operations involving the Heavy Bombers.

If I use them historically, at 25,00 feet, from a base dedicated to their operation with adequate support and supply, what is my OR rate or "operational readiness" rate and how often should I be able to conduct missions?

If I try to use or abuse them for more than 2-3 days at a time, yes my OR will drop and an excessive time will be required to get the squadron back on line. But if I am within the reason using them 2 days at a time and resting, my OR rate should be reasonable. (I will start tracking this one)

The whole issue with the B-17s IIRC, is using them to skip bomb and/or conduct low altitude missions. Yes, there should be a penalty for that, but not in historical use.

Just something to keep in mind as the engine gets retooled.

P.S. Would like to more about how repair process is modeled.



Ron Saueracker -> 4E Repair rates (7/30/2002 12:33:26 PM)

Hey Joel. Question for ya. Do the number of *s next to damage message have any significance, like perhaps damage severity? I'm not sure if I'm seeing things, but it seems to me that fighter attacks cause 1 or 2 * ratings and flak 3 or 4*ratings. If so, is this cumulative with ***** being most severe level of damage sustainable? Also, if damage is on a degree scale, does this affect the repair rates?

To Black Cat. I've done lots of the anti-Allied LBA whining, despite preferring playing the Allies. It was just TOO ahistorically decisive for my taste. Anti shipping strikes were not the "cornerstone" of the US heavy bombing campaign in the PTO. That was left more to twin and single engined bombers.

Bye the bye, at what level, and against what targets were you using your B 17s, you failed to mention that. When I use B 17s a high altitude, I suffer negligibe damage... and cause little damage. It's amazing how reasonably historical results can be acheived in a game if one uses assets in a historical manner.



Raverdave -> (7/30/2002 1:44:19 PM)

Well time to wade in......................Matrix, you got the bombing side of it fixed, but I have to agree....I am seeing more and more of my bombers tied up for weeks getting repaired.......does the same happen for the IJN player??????



Apollo11 -> (7/30/2002 4:17:44 PM)

Hi all,

I would just like to ask few additional questions regarding B-17
repair time...

Is the "rule of the dice" for aircrfat to be repaired also used when
6 non-operational B-17 are the only aircrfat in the base?

I am asking this because in my test scenario vs. AI I massed all
B-17s in one base and (because of transfer) several remnants on
Bomber Groups were left as the only aircraft in particular bases.

After more than 15 days I still see them unrepaired in those
empty bases (no other aircrfat in those bases except for those
few remnants of moved B-17 Bomber groups)...


Leo "Apollo11"



Drongo -> Kids, dont try this at home! (7/30/2002 8:34:06 PM)

As the allied player in Scen 17(patch 1.20), I was keeping my B17's all snug and warm in sunny Brisbane prior to unleashing my heavy bomber offensive against Rabaul. They were all set on 10% training (which kept them virtually 100% operational for when needed). By late October '42, I had finished the mass movement of supplies to their intended center of operations, Cooktown. I had accumulated about a dozen squadrons of heavies by then in Brisbane. My final chore was to replace Cooktown's worn out base engineer unit with a full strength one. Out of laziness and ignorance (of 1.20 effects), I chose to ship the large, full strength Brisbane base engineer unit (200+ aviation engineers) to Cooktown. It dropped my aircraft operational level in Brisbane to about half of what it needed. This would be rectified when the convoy returned with Cooktown's old base unit.

As soon as the aviation support level dropped in Brisbane, the ready levels of all a/c fell by over a third. The convoy was back home just over a week later with the old unit, bringing the aviation support level back to what was needed. It is now early December '42 and I am still waiting for the last of my B17 units in Brisbane to regain full effectiveness prior to transferring to Cooktown. Since the passing of the planned bomber offensive start date of early November '42, I have launched a total of 2 strong (> 50% of total a/c) airstrikes from Cooktown. What with the initial cockup plus transfer repair plus the operational costs of the 2 attacks on Rabaul from 15000 feet plus weather, I will probably only manage two or three more heavy strikes max before end of year. Maybe operating at 30,000 ft will achieve better operational levels. At least I'm not blowing my supply levels in Cooktown the way I used to.

I was always opposed to the concept of B17's freely bombing everything at low level without any resultant penalty but from what I've seen, operational levels for 4 engined heavies engaged in conventional high level attacks in the PTO have surely dropped way below what must have been the historical norm (this is just the guess of a frustrated allied player, someone else will need to reach for their reference books).

I cannot praise Matrix highly enough for their efforts in trying to balance the game. I've never seen such dedication to players from a game company. I know the game can only be twigged so many times but is there some way that the 4 engined bomber repair penalty could be weighted more heavily to low level use and less to medium and high? Yes, I know it sounds silly, damage is damage, but see how you feel after spending hours setting up an operation that goes off with a whimper rather than a bang!



Joel Billings -> (7/31/2002 12:17:44 AM)

Unfortunately the repair rate cannot be tied to how the damage happened (at least not easily). No doubt if the repair rates are found to be too high, we'll tweak it down in the next patch. I am very interested in hearing the experience of players using heavy bombers on high altitude bombing missions (how often they can fly missions and keep 80%+ of the group operational).



Black Cat -> I`ll be happy to do that for you (7/31/2002 1:01:53 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]Unfortunately the repair rate cannot be tied to how the damage happened (at least not easily). No doubt if the repair rates are found to be too high, we'll tweak it down in the next patch. I am very interested in hearing the experience of players using heavy bombers on high altitude bombing missions (how often they can fly missions and keep 80%+ of the group operational). [/B][/QUOTE]

Starting now....

For a wider sample how about you other guys also play one



wpurdom -> Keep at it (7/31/2002 1:28:48 AM)

A very interesting discussion. I keep hoping that there is a grog out there who in an expert in historic aircraft maintainence rates or knows how to come up with pertainent data. When in any doubt about playability we should go with historic performance. Absent definitve data waiting and watching seems good, although I suppose if you are making a change anyway, playing around a little with the numbers (e.g., trying 70% instead of 80%) in the next change might be reasonable. Overall I like Joel's attitude here as long as they don't rule out playing around with this while they are making other fixes. If we can;t get good reliable data, however, it's going to be hard to arbitrarily pick a final number if/when the patches slow down.


"Actually, each turn the chance of a plane repairing drops whenever a plane at the same base is repaired. Given the way Gary does things, I would bet that the lowest numbered group tries to repair its planes first, then the next group, etc. If a lot of planes are damaged at the base, several planes may get repaired before you even get to a level bomber squadron. At this point, the chance of an additional repair will be lower. I think (but am not positive) that each time a plane is repaired (and assuming full aviation support and supply), the chance of the next damaged plane repairing is multiplied by .8. As each plane is repaired, the chance goes down again by .8. Thus after two planes have been repaired, the chance of a third plane repairing is .8x.8 or 64%. Now if that plane is a B-17, and it passes the .64 die roll, it still has to pass the .8 die roll that heavy bombers must make."

This provision together with an 80% non-repair rate does seem excessive. Is this not effected by the overall size of the base or the size of the support force. With a size 8 or 9 base and enough support this doesn't seem reasonable. For small damage under not emergency situations (i.e., not on Guadalcanal) didn't each aircraft have a dedicated ground support team that did most of the work? (I could be speaking through my *** here).


"Out of laziness and ignorance (of 1.20 effects), I chose to ship the large, full strength Brisbane base engineer unit (200+ aviation engineers) to Cooktown. It dropped my aircraft operational level in Brisbane to about half of what it needed. This would be rectified when the convoy returned with Cooktown's old base unit.
As soon as the aviation support level dropped in Brisbane, the ready levels of all a/c fell by over a third."

What the hell is this about. I missed how this is a 1.2 effect. Please enlighten!



Black Cat -> Results of Long 1.20 Test **Long Post** (7/31/2002 4:51:24 AM)

I thought I would start the "Cartwheel" Scenario # 11 since the Heavy Bombers are already in Place.

I used 6 of the B-17/B-24 BS on Lunga.

I moved othe rAC SQ`s out to bring the Aircraft Support to 177 present, 161 required. There is plenty of Supply. The BS`s Start with good Morale.

Here is their makeup, the first number will indicate in the test the number of AC in the SQ. that are ready, the second is the number under repair.:

23 BS B-17 9/0
31 BS B-17 9/0
371 BS B-24 9/0
372 BS B-24 9/0
394 BS B-17 9/0
72 BS B-17 9/0

Total of 54 AC ready to fly.

All Missions are set at 15,000 feet, with 2 SQ. of P-38 as escort.

Day 1 6/15/43 Airfield Attack on Shortlands.

23 B-17 16 B-24 Attack No AC losses or damage.

Post Strike status:

23 BS 9/0
31 BS 7/2
371 BS 9/0
372 BS 7/2
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 2 Airfield Attack on Shortland.

28 B-17 13 B-24 Attack, No AC losses or damage

Post Strike status.

23 BS 9/0
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 8/1
372 BS 6/2
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 3 Airfield Attack on Shortland.

26 B-17 9 B-24 Attack No AC losses or damage.

Post Strike Status.

23 BS 8/1
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 6/3
372 BS 6/2
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 4 I stood down the Bombers, no missions.

Same status as above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 5 Again all Bombers Stand Down. No Missions.

Status

23 BS 8/1
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 6/3
372 BS 6/3
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/2
AS you can see, replacement AC are coming in damaged.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 6 Airfield Attack on Rabaul. Very Light CAP encountered.

7 B-17`s. No B-24`s attack. I B-17 Damage. 1 Destroyed.

Status

23 BS 8/1
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 5/4
372 BS 6/3
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 5/5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 7 Airfield Attack on Rabaul

No AC could find the target, no losses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 8 Airfield Attack on Rabaul. Heavy opposition, 30+ Cap.

16 B-17 6 B-24 attack. 1 Destroyed 2 Damaged.

Status

23 BS 6/2
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 4/4
372 BS 6/3
394 BS 3/4
72 BS 5/5

Please note that they are now at under 50% strength.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 9 Airfield Attack on Munda. No CAP encountered. A Milk Run.

15 B-17 and 9 B-24 attack. 1 B-17 damaged.

Status

23 BS 5/3
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 3/5
372 BS 5/4
394 BS 3/4
72 BS 3/7 There seems to be no repair going here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 10 Munda Again. Another Milk Run.

15 B-17 and 6 B-24 attack. No losses.

Status

23 BS 5/3
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 2/6
372 BS 5/4
394 BS 2/5
72 BS 3/7 The Bomb Sq`s are now at less then 45% ready.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 11 The whole Force stands down. All set at 0 training for
rest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 12 Still at rest, no missions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 13 Airfield Attack on Bunin

12 B-17s No B-24 No losses.

Status

23 BS 7/1
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 2/7
372 BS 4/5
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 4/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 14 Bunin Again

15 B-17`s and 6 B-24 attack No losses. No opposition.

Status

23 BS 6/2
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 2/7
372 BS 3/6
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 4/6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 15 Airfield Attack on Rabaul. Heavy Cap. No escorts.

Only 3 B-17 attack 1 destroyed 2 damaged.

Status

23 BS 5/2
31 BS 3/6
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/6
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 4/6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 16 stand down & rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 17 stand down & rest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

continued in next post.



Black Cat -> Test of AC repair continued ** very long** (7/31/2002 5:13:58 AM)

Day 18 Munda Ground Attack. No opposition, no losses.

Status

23 BS 5/3
31 BS 3/6
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/6
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 5/5 Please note after 2 days down and a Milk Run, repair is not happening.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 19 Port Attack Shortlands. No opposition. No losses.

12 B-17 and 6 B-24 attack.

Status

23 BS 4/4
31 BS 3/6
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/5
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 5/5 It is getting worse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 20 Port Attack Shortland No opposition. No losses.

12 B-17`s attack, no B-24`s..........none.

Status

23 BS 4/4
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/5
394 BS 4/4
72 BS 5/5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 21 Munda Ground Attack No losses or opposition.

3 B-17`s attack...that`s it.

Status No change from above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 22 and 23 The whole Bomb Force was put on rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 24 No Missions. This is the closing status.

23 BS 5/4
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 3/7
372 BS 2/8
394 BS 4/4
72 BS 6/4

Total 25 AC ready for opps and 31 down........


What I think is important here, besides the fact the AC repair rate needs changing, is that the test was done in 1943 , against almost no opposition, with rest periods.

I think it was a more then fair test.

If you are playing the Campaign Game, against stiffer Japanese opposition, this will cripple you for the whole game...

I have save files for evey two days if needed.



denisonh -> Test of B-17 Repair Rate (7/31/2002 7:44:55 AM)

Started SC#17 and decided to see how long it took for the aircraft starting the scenario broken would take to repair.

4 B-17 squadrons at Rockhampton, Airfield rating 4, with 40,000+ supplies and only squadrons on field.:

Date: 05/01/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 6 1 0
435th BS 4 3 0
93rd BS 4 2 0

Date: 05/03/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 6 1 0
435th BS 4 3 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/05/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 4 3 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/06/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 5 2 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/07/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 5 2 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/10/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 6 1 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/12/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 6 1 0
93rd BS 6 0 0

Date: 05/18/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 7 0 0
93rd BS 6 0 0

It took 17 days to fix 8 aircraft, during that time the aircraft were idle (training lvl 0).

SO if I operate my B-17s for 2 days and sustain 8 damaged/loss a/c, then I must stand them down for 17 days to be 100%.

These numbers reflect a binomial distribution for p=0.2. I am not picking apart the model, but observing that you can basically operate your B-17s once every 5 days, or they will attrit faster than you can fix them (assuming they have a well supplied airbase of thier own).

Once again, what is the realistic behavior for the pattern of heavy bomber usage in the PTO? If this is realistic, then fine. If not, lets try to find out, and make the adjustment.

Maybe having the repair penalty for smaller bases, lack of support, supplies and the like can achieve the desired effect of associated maintenance issues.



Drongo -> (7/31/2002 8:20:22 AM)

[QUOTE]What the hell is this about. I missed how this is a 1.2 effect. Please enlighten![/QUOTE]

wpurdom,

In UV, your a/c ready rates drop below 100% when the available aviation support points are below what is required for the no of available a/c on base (the excess a/c drop into repair/reserve status). This has always been the case regardless of the patch (I think).

Prior to 1.2, such an action as removing a base aviation engineer unit (therefore dropping aviation support below available a/c no's) would probably cost you no more than a few days to return your a/c (including B17's) to 100% availability once aviation support levels were restored by bringing in another base aviation engineer unit. I was not suggesting that a/c ready levels being reduced by insufficient aviation support was a 1.2 effect.

This example was mentioned in my post to the topic as I thought it illustrated how long it took for B17's now to return to full readiness even when combat was not involved. I wont repeat the base shuffle any time soon when B17's are involved.

Hope your enlightened;)



Black Cat -> Thing is denisonh (7/31/2002 8:37:18 AM)

...if you look at the large Test I did upthread, you see that just _flying_ the AC will cause damage.

In missions where they took no losses or damage ( as indicated in the after action report ) the status screen indicated that AC shifted into the being repaired side ( or not repaired as in this case )

I _think_ in your test the AC your seeing as AC repaired, are the Sq filling out with new, ready AC. Those Rockport Sq`s usually fill out to 7-9 AC by June.

Anyway it`s a moot point if the only repair at a reasonable rate if they don`t fly or ground them for 17 days after 2 days Mission use :confused:

If you can, please move them into Combat and see what the repair rate is...or fire up Scenario 11 and try it out..

I was hoping dgaad would check in, he has good information on this kind of stuff...and seemed interested in the Air aspect of UV.

But..THANKS for pitching in !!:)



denisonh -> Repairing Aircraft (7/31/2002 9:19:32 AM)

The issue is aircraft repair times for heavy bombers.

I posted the results of a test that given near perfect conditions, here is how long it takes.

The first time I looked at these squadrons on day 1 to start my "test", their strengths and status were as I listed in the post above. Black Cat, I do not understand the replacement comment and how it relates to my example.

As for operating the a/c, all that does is generate more damaged a/c. Other than that, it has no impact on the function on repairing a/c, assuming damaged a/c do not fly missions.

Your point compliments mine, by showing how fast damaged a/c accumulate.

I am going to try some schemes in my current PBEM games, and the one I am running against the AI, and see if I can find what the "optimal" operational pattern for heavy bombers is given the current non-repair rate for heavy bombers.

Just need to get them repaired, so I won't be able to start for a few days.....



Black Cat -> Re: Repairing Aircraft (7/31/2002 12:43:33 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]The issue is aircraft repair times for heavy bombers.

I posted the results of a test that given near perfect conditions, here is how long it takes.

The first time I looked at these squadrons on day 1 to start my "test", their strengths and status were as I listed in the post above. Black Cat, I do not understand the replacement comment and how it relates to my example.

As for operating the a/c, all that does is generate more damaged a/c. Other than that, it has no impact on the function on repairing a/c, assuming damaged a/c do not fly missions.

Your point compliments mine, by showing how fast damaged a/c accumulate.

I am going to try some schemes in my current PBEM games, and the one I am running against the AI, and see if I can find what the "optimal" operational pattern for heavy bombers is given the current non-repair rate for heavy bombers.

Just need to get them repaired, so I won't be able to start for a few days..... [/B][/QUOTE]

The replacement comment had no relevance to your example, I was thinking outloud ( in type actually ) about another AC issue... Sorry :o

Look forward to your input.



Erik Rutins -> Response... (7/31/2002 7:44:20 PM)

Black Cat, Denisonh,

Thanks very much for the detailed tests - the repair rate fix did go too far and we're planning to turn it back a few notches for the next patch.

Regards,

- Erik



denisonh -> Thanks (7/31/2002 11:10:19 PM)

Thanks Erik, appreciate the hard work and effort you guys are putting in to make UV the best. (And WiTP that much better)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625