No AAA losses in combat? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support



Message

Kender -> No AAA losses in combat? (3/4/2012 6:36:29 PM)

AAA losses in version 3.4 seemed very low. So I ran a simulation running a full turn of only air attacks against all kind of different units in a 1980's scenario. No aircraft interdiction from the defender. Ran the same attacks in Force AAA-lethality level of 40 and 500.

There were ZERO aircraft losses for almost all units. Only aircraft losses occured when attacking pure anti-aircraft unit counters (dome-symbol) or stacks that included at least one AAA-unit counter.

This did not happen in previous patches of TOAW 3. Is this a bug? Or is it caused by changing the AAA-lethality level?



Oberst_Klink -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? (3/4/2012 6:50:34 PM)

Kamerad Kender,

there is already a thread about this 'bug' in 3.4. Unfortunately non AA-type units, even with AA equipment, don't resolve AAA combat. Unit counters that are designed as AA units do *as you noted*. It should be *I hope* be solved with 3.5.

Klink, Oberst



Kender -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? (3/4/2012 7:12:59 PM)

Danke Herr Oberst

Where is the other link? I did not see it.

Is there a workaround? Without AAA defense most post WW1-scenarios will become very "unrealistic".



Curtis Lemay -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? (3/4/2012 7:29:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kender

Danke Herr Oberst

Where is the other link? I did not see it.

Is there a workaround? Without AAA defense most post WW1-scenarios will become very "unrealistic".


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3004187



Oberst_Klink -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? (3/4/2012 8:21:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kender

Danke Herr Oberst

Where is the other link? I did not see it.

Is there a workaround? Without AAA defense most post WW1-scenarios will become very "unrealistic".

Well, I like the Btl/Rgt unit size scenarios and I always create/use independent Flak or AA detachments. As I said, until 3.5 we have to live with it I am afraid.

Klink, Oberst



governato -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (3/4/2012 8:40:58 PM)

"However, there's a workaround. Modify the unit icon graphics, replace the AA icon with the infantry icon."


This is the suggested workaround from the above thread..which should help: one could replace the AA icon with the infantry or tank icon. However I am unsure on how to do it in practice.

Could someone point me to the folder where the individual icons are? I was able to find just a global graphic file with all the units next to each other, so it does not look like it's the one I am looking for. Tx!





Telumar -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (3/5/2012 8:22:35 AM)

It is the right file. I just answered your PM, btw.



governato -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (3/5/2012 5:36:25 PM)

Will give it a try and report if successful!



Oberst_Klink -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (3/8/2012 2:21:57 PM)

Update:

While doing intensive playtesting, the AA fire seems to be effective during the movement/interdiction phase...

The moving Tank Bde got harassed by the fascist's LwKdo Don Gruppen and see the results of the AA gunners:

AIRCombat: Committed to furball: Axis LwKdo Don, III./KG 3.

Combat : Smite: Axis LwKdo Don, III./KG 3, (other), attrition%= 7.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-88 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-88 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-88 (late) damaged, sent to replacement pool.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-88 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-88 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-88 (late) damaged, sent to replacement pool.
Combat : Weighted direct combat losses: 19%
Combat : Check morale: Axis LwKdo Don, III./KG 3, ouch=171,ouch threshold=50.
Combat : Morale check passed (quality or deployment).
Combat : End smite...

and look at THAT:

Combat : Smite: Axis LwKdo Don, III./SG 2, (other), attrition%= 9.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-87 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-87 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-87 (late) destroyed.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-87 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-87 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-87 (late) damaged, sent to replacement pool.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-87 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-87 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-87 (late) damaged, sent to replacement pool.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-87 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-87 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-87 (late) destroyed.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-87 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-87 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-87 (late) destroyed.
Combat : Soviet Union weapons firing on Axis Ju-87 (late).
Combat : Potentially effective hit on Axis Ju-87 (late) by Soviet Union weapon.
Combat : Ju-87 (late) damaged, sent to replacement pool.
Combat : Weighted direct combat losses: 33%
Combat : Check morale: Axis LwKdo Don, III./SG 2, ouch=300,ouch threshold=50.
Combat : Morale check failed (loss tolerance exceeded).
Combat : End smite...

perhaps direct attacks are the same... I need to check out what AAA settings I got, but this is certainly WAD.

BTW, the interdiction cost the Soviets 10 trucks, 3 (!!!) T-34

Klink, Oberst

[image]local://upfiles/28259/9ED8453FC1B44C80BC64EEF1AFDB96B0.jpg[/image]



BigDuke66 -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (11/10/2012 4:34:21 PM)

Did you check this further?
Would really like to know whats up with this, as I think it's a major gamebreaker.



sanderz -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (6/30/2013 10:32:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

"However, there's a workaround. Modify the unit icon graphics, replace the AA icon with the infantry icon."


This is the suggested workaround from the above thread..which should help: one could replace the AA icon with the infantry or tank icon. However I am unsure on how to do it in practice.

Could someone point me to the folder where the individual icons are? I was able to find just a global graphic file with all the units next to each other, so it does not look like it's the one I am looking for. Tx!



hi

(haven't played the game much)

is this easy to do?
and if so how exactly?
what file name needs editing? (i thinking of playing Directive 21)

many thanks





Curtis Lemay -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (6/30/2013 8:05:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

"However, there's a workaround. Modify the unit icon graphics, replace the AA icon with the infantry icon."


This is the suggested workaround from the above thread..which should help: one could replace the AA icon with the infantry or tank icon. However I am unsure on how to do it in practice.

Could someone point me to the folder where the individual icons are? I was able to find just a global graphic file with all the units next to each other, so it does not look like it's the one I am looking for. Tx!



hi

(haven't played the game much)

is this easy to do?
and if so how exactly?
what file name needs editing? (i thinking of playing Directive 21)

many thanks


It would be a lot of work. Understand that the first step is to replace all the icons of the infantry and armor units in the game with AAA icons. That has to be done in the Force Editor one unit at a time. Once you've done that, those units will employ AAA, just like AAA units do now. Unfortunately, they will all look like AAA units.

As Telumar suggested, though, you can then modify the unit graphics files to make them look like infantry and armor again. To do so, you would have to graphically copy the infantry icon graphic and paste it over the AAA icon graphic in each of the unit graphics used in the scenario in question. Then copy the armor graphic and paste it over the motor AAA icon graphic the same way, again, in all those unit graphic files. This could be done in the Paint program or any other graphics program.

I've attached one of the unit graphic files here, with the armor/motor AAA & infantry/AAA icons circled. This is the graphic for gray units at the medium zoom level for the bmp graphics. There are also small and huge graphics for each color as well. Finally, this would have to be repeated for the png unit graphics.

Of course, once you've done that, real AAA units will also look like infantry or armor, too.

[image]local://upfiles/14086/F3166DCEF0AD44F5B9A2F8053A84A88F.jpg[/image]



Shazman -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/1/2013 3:07:56 AM)

Uhm...I just got done testing a little scenario. The unit with all AA that had an infantry symbol shot down nothing. The unit with all AA that had the AA symbol shot aircraft down just fine. Sure things aren't just the opposite of what you are saying?

Wasn't the problem with non AA symbol units? The AA equipment in non AA units didn't shoot things down I think is what the problem was.

Yup, that's it. I made all the infantry symbol units into AA symbols and they shot stuff down just fine. Made them back to infantry symbols and they couldn't shoot down a kite.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/1/2013 3:15:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

Uhm...I just got done testing a little scenario. The unit with all AA that had an infantry symbol shot down nothing. The unit with all AA that had the AA symbol shot aircraft down just fine. Sure things aren't just the opposite of what you are saying?

Wasn't the problem with non AA symbol units? The AA equipment in non AA units didn't shoot things down I think is what the problem was.


That's just what the above addresses: All the infantry and armor units in the game would have to have their unit icons changed to AAA icons in the Force Editor. Then they could use their AAA when attacked. But, they would then look like AAA units. So, you edit the AAA icon graphics so that those graphics look like infantry and armor icons instead.



Shazman -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/1/2013 3:33:10 AM)

Ah, I see. What a huge pain in the butt. WTF. Why can't someone just patch the game like a real game company would do? This 'work around' borders on ludicrous. Well, actually it probably crossed the border and penetrated deep into the land of lunacy.



sanderz -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/1/2013 11:37:17 AM)

thanks for all the info

way too complicated for me but useful info i'm sure for others

i think i'll come back to this game after the patch

cheers



Curtis Lemay -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/2/2013 4:03:08 AM)

It occurs to me that it might be possible to more easily change the unit icons via the .xml files, instead of the Force Editor. But one would need to really know what they were doing to pull that off.



Silvanski -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/2/2013 4:15:41 AM)

And it occurs that an interim 3.4 bug fix is not within the realms of possibility...



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/2/2013 4:48:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

And it occurs that an interim 3.4 bug fix is not within the realms of possibility...


I think not.

But it's like : All Quit on the TOAW Front.
There is also still no News about Ralph. Does somebody know something?



Telumar -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/2/2013 8:38:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

And it occurs that an interim 3.4 bug fix is not within the realms of possibility...


I think not.

But it's like : All Quit on the TOAW Front.
There is also still no News about Ralph. Does somebody know something?


Sadly not.



Alpha77 -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/4/2013 11:12:59 AM)

Well they just can put out a quick "hotfix" for the AA problem, cant they ? Instead working on the COMPLETE new patch (if there is any work on it at all), just make a quick fix for this serious error. I played now enough to know the impact of the error, as it seem planes won´t lose anything (also from modern AA missiles in WW3 scens!). Seems it is true, only the AA units may work but also cause no serious losses (this might be historical as AA also works to scare away enemy planes and not destroy them, but this needed to be tested)...

I attacked with slower and lighter ALPHA JETS WP units that have much ZSU23/4 as well an assortment of AA missiles, but the Alphas did not lose anyone. This may be probable if fast and very low flying and more robust Tornados or F111s do this attack, but not light trainer/CAS planes like the Alpha imo.

BTW: Even for HOI severall so called "hotfixes" were released besides the "real" patches (I dont play this game anymore, but just that Matrix people know!).



Oberst_Klink -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/6/2013 8:31:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

And it occurs that an interim 3.4 bug fix is not within the realms of possibility...


I think not.

But it's like : All Quit on the TOAW Front.
There is also still no News about Ralph. Does somebody know something?

We should ask Erik if those of us, who already spend 100+ hrs on developing new scenario masterpieces to give us at least access to try 3.5 in its latest stage, even if we're not the 'official' beta-testers. That at least would compensate for the no-news and status-updates (or the lack of?) for 3.5.

Klink, Oberst



kmitahj -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/16/2013 5:50:41 PM)

Hi,
It seems it is common opinion that AAA fix is conceptually easy. I wonder if there is indeed an agreement WHAT the fix really should look like? I mean it would be possible - maybe even easy - to make binary patch of a game which would make all units behave kinda like AA units - that is all units would have a chance to contirbute to low alt. anti-aircraft fire. But would it be a solution?
I didn't test it really but I suspect that it may result in switching "no AAA loses" problem into "much too much AAA loses". The thing is that - as far as I understand - air attacks aren't resolved as point attacks (like one air unit againt one target unit) but rather as area attacks against whole hex. That means that in general program adds up AA fire strength of all units in the hex (and for some map scales probably even units from nearby hexes) and then uses such total AA fire strength together with attacking airunit defense strength in procedure which decides about airplane hits if any. Currently when adding up AA strength program skips over all units which are not designated as AA-units and perhaps, just perhaps it was done so deliberately because otherwise attacking hexes dense packed with land units with internal AA equipment would often - though depending on particular scenario and map scale - result in prohibitive, unrealistic loses of airplanes?

If the simplest fix would really turn out to be more the problem then a solution then what the refined solution should look like?
- should it simply disciminate non-AA-units by adding only a pctage (how much?) of its AA fire strength to the total?
- or should it maybe select only one non-AA-unit from the whole hex stack (in addition to AA-units if any) to contribute to AA fire? (if so which one? one with highest AA strength, one on the top of the stack, randomly choosen one?)
- or maybe it should scale down AA fire totals by factor related to aerial density of AA equipment (i.e. same number of AA equipment in a hex will result in a AA strength scaled down depending on the map scale/hex size)
- or it should rather scale it down based on AA equipment pctage compared to total of all equipment in the hex (that is based on how much of other equipment in a hex has to be covered by single AA barrel)
- something different yet?




governato -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/22/2013 4:21:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kmitahj

Currently when adding up AA strength program skips over all units which are not designated as AA-units and perhaps, just perhaps it was done so deliberately because otherwise attacking hexes dense packed with land units with internal AA equipment would often - though depending on particular scenario and map scale - result in prohibitive, unrealistic loses of airplanes?

If the simplest fix would really turn out to be more the problem then a solution then what the refined solution should look like?
- should it simply disciminate non-AA-units by adding only a pctage (how much?) of its AA fire strength to the total?
- or should it maybe select only one non-AA-unit from the whole hex stack (in addition to AA-units if any) to contribute to AA fire? (if so which one? one with highest AA strength, one on the top of the stack, randomly choosen one?)
- or maybe it should scale down AA fire totals by factor related to aerial density of AA equipment (i.e. same number of AA equipment in a hex will result in a AA strength scaled down depending on the map scale/hex size)
- or it should rather scale it down based on AA equipment pctage compared to total of all equipment in the hex (that is based on how much of other equipment in a hex has to be covered by single AA barrel)
- something different yet?




These are the definitely the right questions to ask. I 'd count all the AA equipment 'as is' (the same way as all the units in an hex are counted for ground combat) and then let the designers adjust the AA strength factor for the scenario scale
and the factors you pointed at. The (very) general assumption 'd be that the AA units 'd efficiently go where the action is. There are of course limitations: this approach works well in a small scale desert scenario, as AA barrels would not protect empty ground, but rather closely follow ground units, but this 'd be less accurate in say a weekly turn, 10km/hex scenario in Europe, where most of the AA 'd be assigned to protect ground installations (factories, civilians etc). Just my 2c! Also, very impressed that you are able to patch the executable.



BigDuke66 -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/22/2013 5:58:40 PM)

Patched the EXE???
Who patched the EXE?

The simply solution talked of is toying around with the unit counters so none-AA units also do AA if the have equipment in them.



governato -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/22/2013 6:06:31 PM)

BigDuke, check the 'discontinued' forum, towards the end.



BigDuke66 -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/22/2013 6:32:35 PM)

Oh missed that one, thanks.



governato -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/23/2013 6:50:10 AM)

I have posted some test results using kmitahj patch/hack in the Scenario design section, under the 'Eastern Front thread'. Simply put: AA now works! I am impressed.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/23/2013 9:08:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

I have posted some test results using kmitahj patch/hack in the Scenario design section, under the 'Eastern Front thread'. Simply put: AA now works! I am impressed.

Yes, Hurrah es funktioniert indeed!

Combat :Soviet Union 2 Air Army, 267 Fighter equipment added to combat inventory.
Supply :Bombardment:,10,Soviet Union 2 Air Army, 267 Fighter
News :Soviet Union 17 Air Army, 282 Mixed bombards the target.
AIRCombat: Axis LwKdo Don, II./SG 2 contributes anti-aircraft fire (52).
AIRCombat: Axis LwKdo Don, I./SG 2 contributes anti-aircraft fire (38).
AIRCombat: Axis 1.Pz.Armee, HQ 1.Pz.Armee contributes anti-aircraft fire (23).
AIRCombat:Attempt Penetration: Soviet Union 17 Air Army, 282 Mixed.
News :Axis LwKdo Don, I./ZG 1 supports the defense.
AIRCombat:Committed to furball (escort): Soviet Union 17 Air Army, 205 Fighter.

Klink, Oberst

Edit: The 'a/c in range SAM' might be a tad iffy, but probably also fixable...



governato -> RE: No AAA losses in combat? Suggested fix. (7/23/2013 7:47:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kmitahj
Speaking of patch deficiences here is one discovered in latest tests. As I said above it is rather dumb patch: it is allowing literally all units in range to participate in AAA fire. All units in this case means that also AIR units within fixed range (50km) may contribute to AAA fire as if they were equipped with long-range SAM missiles. BAD!!!
I'm going to find a way to exclude AIR units (and only AIR units) from participating in AAA procedure. However such bit smarter version won't be ready before weekend when I should have some time to work at it.


Hey Obertst et al.
What do you think of the above feature? I gave it some thought and I am actually fine with nearby Air units contributing AA. These are not really 'SAM missiles', but rather a possible representation of what would happen in real life, fighters closeby would definitely be scrambled to intercept incoming planes. So why not in TOAW? My only concern is to make sure that they can be hit as well and that these planes use us supply and readiness as they intercept. Curious to get some opinions on the topic.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375