RE: AVGAS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

witpqs -> RE: AVGAS (6/17/2011 6:38:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

This one isnt bad, IFF we could get the code tweaked (unlikely)


This one would way, way more than a tweak of the code. It would involve meaningful changes to the code even before testing, and lots of testing would be required to see the effects on the codes overall performance in terms of the results it gives.

Lots of words as for adding simply *3 after planes supply usage calculations [:'(]

Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

quote:


It seems, that Patrol Planes are using NO supply, unless my test Scenario made something wrong. This is obvious bug.

I thought that was fixed?



JeffroK -> RE: AVGAS (6/17/2011 11:25:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

quote:


It seems, that Patrol Planes are using NO supply, unless my test Scenario made something wrong. This is obvious bug.

I thought that was fixed?

Maybe we got suckered!

If the game was engineered and tested, why dont you know if its fixed?



witpqs -> RE: AVGAS (6/17/2011 11:51:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

quote:


It seems, that Patrol Planes are using NO supply, unless my test Scenario made something wrong. This is obvious bug.

I thought that was fixed?

Maybe we got suckered!

If the game was engineered and tested, why dont you know if its fixed?


You seem to be suggesting that if the product has any bugs at all then no software engineering or testing was done.



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/18/2011 7:32:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

Oh yeah, because checking if pilots are actually taken from trainee pool, needs THOUSANDS of testing hours, dozens of testers, and playing every game, for at least 6 months...

OH WAIT!
Actually you just need to fire up ANY GC Scenario, and check first Dutch unit, because their pilot pool is empty, and it should be IMPOSSIBLE to draw new pilots.
So... it can be checked in like... 5 seconds? That is, if ANYONE would actually CARE to test it.

quote:

quote:


It seems, that Patrol Planes are using NO supply, unless my test Scenario made something wrong. This is obvious bug.

I thought that was fixed?

Oh? So it is already known bug?
Who have discovered it, and when it was reported? Links please.



witpqs -> RE: AVGAS (6/18/2011 6:19:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

Oh yeah, because checking if pilots are actually taken from trainee pool, needs THOUSANDS of testing hours, dozens of testers, and playing every game, for at least 6 months...

OH WAIT!
Actually you just need to fire up ANY GC Scenario, and check first Dutch unit, because their pilot pool is empty, and it should be IMPOSSIBLE to draw new pilots.
So... it can be checked in like... 5 seconds? That is, if ANYONE would actually CARE to test it.


Sid suggested adding several new types of supply and resources to the game - a huge change that would require lots of investigation and testing. I said so, and you countered to the effect that only "*3" needed to be added to supply used by aircraft and implied no investigation or testing was needed. Now you are changing the issue to pilots taken from the trainee pool...

I will not respond to your nonsense any further.



Buck Beach -> RE: AVGAS (6/18/2011 6:35:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

Oh yeah, because checking if pilots are actually taken from trainee pool, needs THOUSANDS of testing hours, dozens of testers, and playing every game, for at least 6 months...

OH WAIT!
Actually you just need to fire up ANY GC Scenario, and check first Dutch unit, because their pilot pool is empty, and it should be IMPOSSIBLE to draw new pilots.
So... it can be checked in like... 5 seconds? That is, if ANYONE would actually CARE to test it.

quote:

quote:


It seems, that Patrol Planes are using NO supply, unless my test Scenario made something wrong. This is obvious bug.

I thought that was fixed?

Oh? So it is already known bug?
Who have discovered it, and when it was reported? Links please.


You seem to be stepping in your creditability mess kit with posts like this (assuming you have creditability). More and more your comments sound argumentative rather than being of a discussion and informative nature.

Not trying to pick a fight here, just an observation.



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/19/2011 8:14:49 AM)

After quick consultation with michaelm, I was able to start Test Scenario under latest beta.

First, quick repeat of Japan side test. Setting as from last modification, so Marcus have 7000 supply:

1) Float Plane unit set to rest, Patrol Planes set to Naval Search at 100% and 50%.
RESULTS: no supply was used. Clear proof, that air unit at rest do not use supply.

2) All air units flying. Results identical to test under latest official patch. Only Float Planes use supply.


So, time to change sides. This time Allies, on Wake, with Wake Base Force (or whatever is the name of this engineering unit there). Marines were removed. Unit have 1000 supply, Wake airfield size 10, and 10000 supply. WILDCATs from wake (12 planes), and Catalinas unit (also 12 planes).

First I wanted to cause LCU not consume any external supply. However it dumped over 800 on first turn into island pool. Both air units set to rest. Next days have not shown any obvious pattern, but external supply was used EVERY turn, with minimum of 2 Supply Points. Seems results will be HARD to determine. I am stating only use of external supply, not the one in LCU:

1) Only CATALINA unit set to Naval Search 100%, maximum range, 6k feet. Consumption:

First day 8. That is actually minimum stated by manual (12/3, and every pilot got 2 missions), however LCU should also used some, so this is BELOW minimum.

Second day 17 supply used

Third day 12 supply used. It seems there is no pattern, and randomization is too large, to get any average.

All pilots had 6 mission after 3 days, so obviously whole unit was flying all the time.



quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

Oh yeah, because checking if pilots are actually taken from trainee pool, needs THOUSANDS of testing hours, dozens of testers, and playing every game, for at least 6 months...

OH WAIT!
Actually you just need to fire up ANY GC Scenario, and check first Dutch unit, because their pilot pool is empty, and it should be IMPOSSIBLE to draw new pilots.
So... it can be checked in like... 5 seconds? That is, if ANYONE would actually CARE to test it.


Sid suggested adding several new types of supply and resources to the game - a huge change that would require lots of investigation and testing. I said so, and you countered to the effect that only "*3" needed to be added to supply used by aircraft and implied no investigation or testing was needed. Now you are changing the issue to pilots taken from the trainee pool...

You were clearly implying, that I am NOT doing testing. Any testing. Or that I have suggested that. Nevertheless, FACTS states otherwise, of which I kindly hinted you.
Not only THIS topic is carefully researched, by ME, but I have already made initial tests.
Whats more (my hint), when I have discovered, that pilots are not taken from trainee pool, I have carefully TESTED that issue, in TWO Scenarios, using dozens of pilots, to get any idea, where they are coming from. Obviously that was example of my insightful testing, but you should already know that. After all, that was YOU, who answered me.

On the other side, your claim that:
quote:

I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.

also suggests, that you bought this game, because current "developers" thoroughly tested WITP AE.
Both JeffK , and me pointed you, that FACTS states OTHERWISE. There are two possibilities for it:
either something is improperly tested,
or something is NOT tested at all

It is pretty clear, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss the fact, that replacement pilots from empty pool, do NOT work as intended. And all is needed is ANY test of this behavior. Not any complicated, few weeks of game. In FIRST turn, you can discover that.
Of course there are dozens upon dozens examples, that even simple testing was NOT done, as it would quickly lead to discovery simple bugs (like NOT working Search Arcs, or Japanese MTBs, which stuck at 1 day production - now seriously, how you could missed THAT, if it was tested?).

quote:


I will not respond to your nonsense any further.


Non-sense implies lack of logic, which is HARDLY possible in my case. Let me give an example:
In Thursday I have discovered, that Patrol Planes DO NOT use supply during Naval Search (Post #26).
Your answer, ONE day later, was:
quote:

I thought that was fixed?

This is exactly example of nonsense: WHAT was fixed? Use of supply by Patrol Planes?
But I have discovered it ONE DAY earlier! Who was supposed to fix that, and when?

[image]local://upfiles/35065/C73C1B0DB12E40668B8D6C1AFE20B877.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/19/2011 8:45:41 AM)

2) Only WILDCAT unit flying. CAP 100%:

First day 17 supply used. To my surprise, every pilot got 3 missions.

Second day 26 supply used.

Third day 9 supply used, which is below minimum - if ONE Fighter uses 1/3 point of supply per CAP mission, minimum should be 12/3=4 for whole unit, per ONE mission. There were 3 mission for every pilot, so minimum is 12.

All pilots had 9 missions after 3 days, so all planes were flying all the time.


3) Since results are so widely distributed, I have decided to check only LCU supply usage. Both internal, and external. Both Air Units set to rest:

First day 20 supply used, which is OVER 17 used by CATALINAs in first test, which could indicate, that also Allied Patrol Planes DO NOT use supply

Second day 5 supply point used

Third day 11 supply points used

Again, great randomization. In all tests LCU was in Combat Mode.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
You seem to be stepping in your creditability mess kit with posts like this (assuming you have creditability).

I like that, what you are suggesting.
I would like to point you to my latest topic, about Japanese 12cm AA Rockets. Terminus says one thing, JWE posts vague reference to some unnamed document, unknown friend of JWE claims a personal "collection" of materials, el cid again cities some book, and I give link to original research document, about the topic.
How do you evaluate creditability of every participant?

[image]local://upfiles/35065/E3901A9D01434C0CA7312988D1250C00.jpg[/image]



Buck Beach -> RE: AVGAS (6/19/2011 4:13:32 PM)

[sm=00000924.gif]



Tijanski -> RE: AVGAS (6/19/2011 5:08:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
I like that, what you are suggesting.
I would like to point you to my latest topic, about Japanese 12cm AA Rockets. Terminus says one thing, JWE posts vague reference to some unnamed document, unknown friend of JWE claims a personal "collection" of materials, el cid again cities some book, and I give link to original research document, about the topic.
How do you evaluate creditability of every participant?

When I look at the link I see JWEs references his source and even the page number. And when I click on US87891 I see his name, and when Ilook at his posts I see who he is. He works for the Military History Institute and it is the MHI collection that has the notes and appedexes that anybody can look at. Yes there is a credibility problem here. And you do not come out well.

And who are you anyway? What is your name? Where are you from? The other people tell you who they are and where they are from and why they know what they know. You hide your identity and even hide where you are form. You could be a little child with access to the internet and with a strange agenda for all I know. If you want credibility then you must be open and honest. Otherwise you have none.



Buck Beach -> RE: AVGAS (6/19/2011 6:09:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tijanski

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
I like that, what you are suggesting.
I would like to point you to my latest topic, about Japanese 12cm AA Rockets. Terminus says one thing, JWE posts vague reference to some unnamed document, unknown friend of JWE claims a personal "collection" of materials, el cid again cities some book, and I give link to original research document, about the topic.
How do you evaluate creditability of every participant?

When I look at the link I see JWEs references his source and even the page number. And when I click on US87891 I see his name, and when Ilook at his posts I see who he is. He works for the Military History Institute and it is the MHI collection that has the notes and appedexes that anybody can look at. Yes there is a credibility problem here. And you do not come out well.

And who are you anyway? What is your name? Where are you from? The other people tell you who they are and where they are from and why they know what they know. You hide your identity and even hide where you are form. You could be a little child with access to the internet and with a strange agenda for all I know. If you want credibility then you must be open and honest. Otherwise you have none.



Well above I decided to not comment but---- What I was thinking is that through your (inqistor)tests, thoughts, discussion and information, you are/were attracting some positive attention by long time board members and/or game developers. However in my view some of your more recent combative stances detract from what you were gaining.

Buck



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/22/2011 8:59:32 PM)

It seems it was bad idea after all.

Not only LCU consume supplies, but also repairs of planes use them, so it is impossible to evaluate consumption (although obviously it is too small). After consideration, I have decided to completely get rid of ALL Aviation Support. Airunits will fall into disrepair eventually, but I will make only few days of tests, and then divide missions flown, by expended supply (well, it also proved to be bad idea).

Wake was stripped of all LCU. Additional B-29 unit put on island, with mission to bombard Marcus.
First mission was set as Ground Attack. There is no ground units at Marcus, so nothing flew, and unit got destination resetted (well, I am guessing nothing flew. Marcus had 1/2 detection, and no supply was used, but I have not checked if there were missions added for pilots, which will be obvious at end of tests).

Second Day - mission set as Airfield Attack. 5 planes bombard using 105 supply

Third Day - 4 planes bombard, using 84 supply

Fourth Day - no attack - maybe because of weather

Fifth Day - 6 planes bombard, using 126 supply

It seems obvious, that every plane used 21 supply, which is pretty close to what manual claims, however after checking pilots screen, big surprise... sum of all missions is 23, and there were only 15 planes bombarding. One of the pilots have even 4 mission, but there were only 3 attacks. It seems planes make some unreported missions (maybe that was planes, which could not find target?), which uses NO supply.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tijanski
woof woof woof

Gee, comment from one of the many nicks whos only purpose on this forum, is supporting JWE. Very convincing
I am sure SOMEONE almost believed [:D][:D][:D]

[image]local://upfiles/35065/BDA1C291D7C54D76811103E13130133D.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/22/2011 9:03:47 PM)

It seems, that planes should influence supply usage, at least, at two occasions:

First, during making attack (ammo)
Second, during increasing mission for pilot (fuel)


Probably, when plane crashes (and maybe pilot dies) there should be third calculation, if mission update comes after landing.
Currently, it seems, there is quite a lots of missions, which uses completely NO supply.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
you are/were attracting some positive attention by long time board members and/or game developers. However in my view some of your more recent combative stances detract from what you were gaining.

This is not beauty contest, and since supply represents many things, and planes WERE using certain amount of those "things" I can HARDLY see any place for interpretation.



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/25/2011 8:05:18 AM)

Still Allied side:
B29 on Naval Search. Supply usage:
6 6 6, 2 missions per day per pilot.
For 10 planes it means, that rounding is always down. 1/3 supply point per plane, as manual states.

ASW - same situation.


Training - surprise, also uses supply.
6 in first turn, and 4 in second. However no mission is acquired by any pilot, so it is hard to tell, who actually uses supply.

I checked better this situation with Ground Attack:
It seems, that Marcus have 3/3 detection at the scenario beginning. I have waited until it completely dissapear, and ordered Ground Attack.
One of the players actually reported this several weeks ago. Planes did not fly, airunit got its target resetted, and no mission, or supply usage reported. It seems there is magical knowledge, that there is no enemy unit in base (it does not increased detection), so mission is not flown.



Fighters:
There was SS near Wake, I put LRCAP over it. Supply usage:
12 11, one of the planes was damaged during first day.
Again, same as with CAP, 3 missions per pilot per day. That gives 1/3 supply point per mission, exactly what manual says.

[image]local://upfiles/35065/2736D1F1E21B4C94BEA2913B764B3B44.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/25/2011 8:12:07 AM)

WILDCATs fly 100% CAP, and they report supply usage:
9 9 9, 3 missions per day per pilot.
This is LESS, that for LRCAP. It could actually mean, that CAP uses only 1/4 point of supply per mission.
Scenario was restarted, and all planes were operational at the scenario beginning.


I have also checked CATALINAs. 100% Naval Search on maximum range, and...
They USED supply:
8 6 6, some planes were damaged in first day. It seems either Allied planes works, and Japanese not, or that there is some bug when AV ship is present in port, which I have also checked (next post).

I also checked shorter range Naval Search, and supply usage is the same.
1/3 supply point per mission.

[image]local://upfiles/35065/E53C720B66AC4E6EB8DA08F6A89B7F17.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (6/25/2011 8:22:49 AM)

I returned to Japan side. Tests confirmed my first test (no supply usage). Then I moved AV ship to open sea.
Suddenly Patrol Planes began using supply!
9 in first, and 11 in second day. One unt was set on 50%, so maybe difference was because of roundings.

I have checked AV ship again, after scenario restart. FOR SURE no endurance is expended, no fuel from port, and no onboard ordance missions. Patrol Planes are flying for free.
But Float Planes NOT (you would guess if AT ALL, it would be other way).
Test for ASW of Float Planes shows identical supply usage, as for Naval Search.

Test for ASW of Patrol Planes shows identical supply usage, as for Naval Search. Yes, that means ZERO, with AV ship in port.


I again returned to Allied side, and checked CATALINAs for recon mission. Everything else set to 0.
Supply usage was 4 2. And also 2 pilots in every day reported missions flown (2 in first day, and 1 in second).
Recon mission use 1 FULL point of supply per mission. What is the difference between recon, and search for different supply usage?

[image]local://upfiles/35065/7269D54D1B894067AFA267B3F1C40F6D.jpg[/image]



Andrew Brown -> RE: AVGAS (6/25/2011 12:23:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I returned to Japan side. Tests confirmed my first test (no supply usage). Then I moved AV ship to open sea.
Suddenly Patrol Planes began using supply!
9 in first, and 11 in second day. One unt was set on 50%, so maybe difference was because of roundings.

I have checked AV ship again, after scenario restart. FOR SURE no endurance is expended, no fuel from port, and no onboard ordance missions. Patrol Planes are flying for free.
But Float Planes NOT (you would guess if AT ALL, it would be other way).
Test for ASW of Float Planes shows identical supply usage, as for Naval Search.

Test for ASW of Patrol Planes shows identical supply usage, as for Naval Search. Yes, that means ZERO, with AV ship in port.



That sounds like it should be reported in the tech support forum as a bug (along with a save game that can be used to see the problem).

Andrew



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/2/2011 8:02:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
That sounds like it should be reported in the tech support forum as a bug (along with a save game that can be used to see the problem).

That can be some design artifact, but as I said, this should work for Float Planes also, so something IS wrong.

Further testing, 2-engine bombers:
BETTYs on port attack. On first day they have not attacked, but most pilots registered mission. No supply was used.
Next day, they used 38 supply, and 19 planes bombed. It seems supply usage is calculated per plane, and rounded up.

On Naval Search they used 16 supply, and there was 48 missions flown, so 48/3=16, they use 1/3 point of supply.


For checking this weird Patrol Planes bahavior, I have added AVP to Allies base, and CS to Japanese:
CATALINAs used supply normally, both in Naval, and ASW mission.

MAVIS unit actually used 9 supply in one day, with only CS present in port, but it could be actually some repair cost.


Anyway, it seems neither AVP, nor CS will cause supply to NOT be used.

To ensure, I have added AV ship to Allies base, and as you could guess, suddenly CATALINAs used NO supply. The only problem seems to be AV presence. As I understand, there should be no difference between AV, and AVP, because both ship types should work the same way.

[image]local://upfiles/35065/C34B09A1216F400D91BCACBC64C79FF2.jpg[/image]



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/9/2011 8:21:08 AM)

Change of scenery. Ocean Island, in Japanese hands, and... what is the name of this other? Nauru? I needed isolated bases, close enough for short range planes to do attack. Lvl 10 airfields, and 10k supply. No Air Support. Latest beta patch.

NATEs are interesting for this task, because 4 hexes is their extended range, and they have no bombload then. If they use drop tanks, no bombs either.
So, port attack (on extended range there are no bombload)
missions are flown, but there are no attack, despite 100 altitude. No supply is used.

However, I have also MABEL unts there. I send it on Port Attack Mission:
3 MABELS make bombing run, and suddenly 29 NATES attacks later (there is report of them "bombing" but not device is listed). Later that day, another 3 MABELS attacks.
Overall 35 planes attack, and 35 supply is used. 1 supply per attack plane.
It seems actual bombload have no impact on used supply.


Dive bombers:
I have discovered, that they not DIVE in beta, but anyway:
At 20k 26 VALs attack, 26 supply is used
At 10k 26 VALs attack, 26 supply is used
At 11k 24 VALs attack, 24 supply is used
At 15k 23 VALs attack, 23 supply is used

Again, 1 supply per attack plane.

I should probably check later, what happens, when there IS dive.



el cid again -> RE: AVGAS (7/9/2011 9:26:49 AM)

Perhaps we should talk to Nemo?

He complained that my Me-264 consumed too much supply - to the extent the entire Empire could not afford to feed
a large force. What I did that caused supply consumption was to define a large "internal drop tank" - to account for the
way these planes had such huge fuel to total aircraft weight ratios. Apparently drop tanks DO use supply.

If we can define this effect, we might be able to insure each plane eats an appropriate amount of supply by using
a fictional "internal" drop tank of appropriate size for it. Sort of as if we were defining the fuel tanks for each plane.

Or maybe, because of all the effort put into this engine, we might get lucky and someone will decide it is a good idea to
write a single line of code to make supply per mission be related to something about the aircraft - number of engines
perhaps? We do not have a gross aircraft weight, or fuel weight in the data set. And not all planes have a load greater than
zero - so we have to do something. Maybe the sum of engines and on board weapons - to make bombers with lots of guns
eat a lot of supply? Maybe 1 plus number of engines is a good starting algorithm = the same as production cost in HI to
build a plane.



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/9/2011 10:43:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
What I did that caused supply consumption was to define a large "internal drop tank" - to account for the
way these planes had such huge fuel to total aircraft weight ratios. Apparently drop tanks DO use supply.

Hey!
That is actually great idea!

Are they consume different amount, depending of its size?
Actually there is also possibility to modify bombers bombload to include fuel. The only problem is that it is also used for kamikaze, and full amount is consumed only during bombing mission, but it is easy set for testing. I do not think, there is any link between bombload, and actual number of bombs used.



Halsey -> RE: AVGAS (7/10/2011 2:14:30 AM)

bump...



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/16/2011 8:12:54 AM)

Well, it seems fuel-tanks only double supply usage, so that would not solve prolem for small amounts (1/3 for search, and 1 for attack). Increasing bombload can have consequence in upping airfield requirement, but it can be good starting point for tests.

I have checked AVGAS density, and it is listed as 0.721 kg/l, but I think Allies used better fuel quality, than Japanese. And considering what Russians uses currently, they probably used some different quality also. So for different nations this ratio can be different.

So, some calculations. Those numbers should be added to bombload, to get REAL supply usage. Bombload is listed in lbs, but for every 1000 ONE supply point is used, so added usage is in kg:
JAPAN
Aircraft fuel capacity in kg
G3M2 Model 22 “Nell” 2793.154
G3M3 3736.222
G4M1 Model 11 “Betty” 2624.44
G4M2 4628.82
G4M3 3237.29
Ki-67-I Hiryu ("Flying Dragon") “Peggy” 2801.806
B4Y "Jean" 499.653

ALLIES
TBD-1 Devastator 490.28
TBF-1 Avenger 914.228
-1C 1981.308
Fairey Barracuda II 933.695
A-36 Apache 1023.82
SB2U-3 Vindicator 1468.677
SB2C-1C Helldiver 872.41
SBD-3 Dauntless 845.733
B-17E Flying Fortress 4614.4
B-24D or PB4Y Liberator 9863.28
B-29A Superfortress 19070.45
or 26056.94. B-29 is interesting, because it seems that 20000 is listed only for plane to use bigger auirfield. Standard bombload was 12000, and probably this value should be added. But it will increase minimal airfield size anyway.

Obviously whole modifications will work only for bombers, on bombing missions, not DB, or TB.



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/23/2011 8:21:17 AM)

I have found a Czech page, about planes, and it seems, I have already almost all Japanese bombers. Allies will be more complicated.

More statistics:
Plane... weight of fuel
Bristol Beaufort Mk.I 1868.111
Bristol Blenheim Mk.I 917.833
Mk IV 1534.288
Westland Lysander Mk.I 311.472
Petljakov Pe-2 1069.964


Ki-21 IIa 2260.335
Ki 49-IIa 2263.94
Ki 51 438.368



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/30/2011 8:25:44 AM)

To be absolutely sure, I have increased bombload of TBs, and DBs to 3500, and 2500, to check, if they are really using ONE supply point, or if this was rounding of 1k bombload.
Nope, thay are alway using 1 supply point.

More data:
Lockheed Hudson Mk.III 1757.798
LR 2805.411
Vickers Type 417 Wellington Mk.III 504.7+382.13 (*2?)
Martin B-26C Marauder 1904.882
Martin B-26F Marauder 2734.753
North American B-25 Mitchell 2499.707+1,146.39
North American B-25A Mitchell 1894.067+1,140.622
North American B-25B Mitchell 1889.02+1,146.39
North American B-25C-J Mitchell 1828.456+1,405.229

"+" means, there were "drop" tanks used in bomber bays.

Now, I am thinking about Testing Scenario. It should be pretty small, but in Guadalcanal supply is already scarce, and in other there is just not enough bombers to test it properly. It seems, that smallest left will be Armageddon. But I actually need something from early war, because I have currentl only early war bombers data.



oldman45 -> RE: AVGAS (7/30/2011 3:19:08 PM)

What about the 1000 mile scenario, that might work.



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (7/31/2011 11:11:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

What about the 1000 mile scenario, that might work.

Japan have only 3 bases, and only ONE bomber unit, so not much choice, however Allies have LOTS of bombers (but only 2 bases, so not much choice for transports).

However, extra supply usage can seriously hamper amphibious assault potential...
So, not perfect, but can be enough to start with. Lets see...



inqistor -> RE: AVGAS (8/6/2011 9:26:11 AM)

Here it is. Scenario 33.

THE THOUSAND-MILE WAR with modifications:
G4M1 BETTY capacity changed from 1764 to 4389 (supply usage from 2 to 5)
B-24D Liberator capacity changed from 8000 to 9000 (supply usage from 8 to 9, but players should use drop-tanks ALL THE TIME, so real consumption is 18)
B-25C Mitchell capacity changed from 4000 to 5829 (supply usage from 4 to 6)
Ventura capacity changed from 3000 to 5000 (supply usage from 3 to 5. I have not found fuel capacity for this plane, so this is estimation. Based on range, probably more than 1000, and less than 2000, so considering roundings, 2000 should give realistic results)

ALL planes can now use drop-tanks, but some of them are only for increased fuel consumption (EVERY USE OF DROP-TANK DOUBLES SUPPLY CONSUMPTION), and provide no range benefits.

RULES:
All planes should use drop-tanks, when flying longer range missions. It depends mostly on plane size. Bombers, and Patrol Planes should probably use it, when flying more than 3 hexes. Single engine fighters only at extreme ranges. P-38, and float planes from 5 hexes maybe.

Bombers should NEVER use drop-tanks during base attacks, with the EXCEPTION of B-24D, which should ALWAYS use drop-tanks during base attacks (increasing its capacity to needed number, would push it into larger category, so it would need larger airfield to operate).


That would give you overall impression, what should real supply consumption look like (with the exception of Patrol Planes, which should consume 10, and more supply, per long range patrol). It actually seems, that the main difference will be B-24, as smaller bombers use only 2 extra supply.

Comments are welcome.



el cid again -> RE: AVGAS (7/8/2015 9:12:09 PM)

Testing indicates remarkably little supply is consumed by air units, bombers in particular.
The exception is that drop tanks (mainly for fighters) do appear to demand supplies. But
before and after data indicates that a heavy bomber squadron actually bombing (any mission)
increases supply consumption in the base hex by zero over what it is if the same planes
are resting.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7


Interesting figures. It does look like supply usage by air units is too small in the game. Are the quoted supply consumption figures for air missions in the game confirmed by experimentation however?

I guess what would be needed, if a better supply consumption rate were to be used (assuming it is incorrect in the first place), would be a simple formula to calculate "fuel" (supply) usage for a mission. Something proportional to number of engines and mission range, I guess.

However the likelihood of something like this being changed in the game is very small, I admit.

Andrew




witpqs -> RE: AVGAS (7/8/2015 10:25:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Testing indicates remarkably little supply is consumed by air units, bombers in particular.
The exception is that drop tanks (mainly for fighters) do appear to demand supplies. But
before and after data indicates that a heavy bomber squadron actually bombing (any mission)
increases supply consumption in the base hex by zero over what it is if the same planes
are resting.


I have trouble believing your conclusion. The base might show with the same supply before and after, but there is supply movement during the turn.

Did you perform your test on an island with only one base?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.452637