Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/7/2011 12:51:43 PM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
So i can focus the Problem at the Cv´s.
Waht i have make:
5 test at this Beta and the same with officel Patch.
Startpoint was Tokio.
Speed was mission speed.
No other tfs in way.
In all tests the same ships.
Bunkers was full at Startpoint.
5 test with the bigest 6 Cv´s start tokio and click next round the Tf reach Truk.
5 Test with 5 Destroyer 5000 endurance at the destroyers. all from the same class.


The beta patch:
CV´s notime in 5 test reach truck.
10-14 hex Away fuell ist out .

DD anytime reach Truck with a rest of full in the Bunkers.

Officel Patch:
Cv´s anytime reach Truck in all 5 tests.
All test have rest fuel in Bunker at Reachpoint.

DD the same as in Beta Patch all time the DD´s reach Truck.





Sorry for bad engl.
Anyone can translate from german to Engl i write it in Germann.






(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1231
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/7/2011 12:56:44 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
Your English is good enough to get your point across, sandmann.  You also did a pretty good job of isolating the problem so that michaelm should be able to reproduce it fairly easily.  As a software tester, it makes me proud. 


_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1232
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/7/2011 4:20:32 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Your English is good enough to get your point across, sandmann.  You also did a pretty good job of isolating the problem so that michaelm should be able to reproduce it fairly easily.  As a software tester, it makes me proud. 



I have noted that my opponent has been quite recently adding AO's to his CVTF's . I wondered where this behavior came from ... I am checking Allied CVTF's this turn for changes in behavior .. I bet he will make the connection when it is fixed ..

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 1233
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/7/2011 5:15:04 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline
If it is wished by the community, sandmann can post it in german (I am a native speaker) and I'll do the translation if needed to anyone. Good test btw 

_____________________________


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1234
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/7/2011 5:57:09 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

If it is wished by the community, sandmann can post it in german (I am a native speaker) and I'll do the translation if needed to anyone. Good test btw 


Do the umlats show up? I tried to post russian and it did not keep my cyrillic chars ....

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 1235
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 3:07:17 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

How many ships are in that TF? I think it seems to be 60+!!!
An Air Combat TF should be limited to 25 ships.



There seems to be a bug when creating Escort TF.
I tried creating an Escort TF with 2 CV, 3 CVE, 10 TK, 10 DD, 5 CL. And it changed to an Air Combat TF by itself.
When you go back and try to change the TF mission, it only shows Escort as expected.
[edit]
Actually it changes back to Air Combat during the turn even if correctly set to Escort at the start. Strange one.
Beginning to think it might have something to do with operational CVs.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 12/8/2011 3:21:39 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1236
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 3:24:21 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

This "function" came from WIPT and was not changed during AE development. It was discussed, but the decision was to leave it alone.

The "Escort" mission was designed to escort crippled ships home. If the cripple(s) are lost enroute home, the TF will revert to the proper mission for the remaining ships (usually surface combat). If one creates an escort TF with no damaged ships, the mission change logic will detect the lack of damaged ships, assume the cripples have gone under, and change the mission.

If the mission change logic is held off, the TF will remain "Escort" after the cripples sink. This somewhat masks the loss of the cripples and makes it easy for a player to just let the TF continue home.

I believe the decision was to leave it the way it was as there was no clearly better way.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1237
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 3:30:50 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Okay. That explains it. Couldn't remember the 'why'.

Also explains the increased endurance used as Air Combat TFs burn more fuel than ordinary TFs in order to simulate Air Operations.
[The above is in relation to reported available endurance.]

If I did change it, it would probably retain the original mission (ESCORT) if the TF had more than the maximum number of permissible ships present. That way it would not break code that expects normal missions to be limited to a maximum number of ships.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 12/8/2011 1:20:50 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1238
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 4:05:47 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Don, Michael,

I think it is better to have the TF stay as Escort if the player made it that or changed it to that. The reason is that the player's threshold for deciding to send some ships home for repair (or any other reason) might be less damage than the algorithm uses. And (AFAIK) Escort means that the TF will not split up if some ships sustain further damage. If I, as a player, set up an Escort TF with 5 ships plus 2 escorts (say DDs for example) then I really want those escorts to remain with the other 5 ships as a group. But the way it is now, that TF will change to something else if the code deems the ships not damaged enough. Then, the TF might split up subsequently when a ship is damaged. Or, if it changes to a Surface Combat TF, it could behave differently than just running away.

Of course, there is also the case of an Escort TF changing to an illegal sized TF of some type, like sandmann found.

That's my case for changing the behavior of the code on this one.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1239
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 4:38:10 AM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
sorry is it not the cv need  to many fuel .
in officell patch a cv can transfer from tokio to truk and need no extra fuel.
in the bbeta he is out of fuel 10 -14 hex away from truck.
See me test pls .
And Dd group with 5000 endurance can travel this way a a Cv with 8000 or more can it not ?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1240
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 2:19:24 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I transferred two CVs (Junyo of endurance/speed 8800/25 and Amagi of 9500/34) from Tokyo to Truk.
The TF values were:
Moves (m/c) 7/4
Fuel - 228/96 (48)

At arrival in Truk, the CVs showed remaining endurance of 6854 and 7323 respectively.
The final TF values were:
Moves (m/c) 7/4
Fuel - 177/48 (0)


This was based on scenario #1.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1241
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 2:35:47 PM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
yahh .
i have make  a next test .
with 1 DD and 1 Cv .

DD need  48, .... endurance per HEX
CV need now 52, ... Endurance per Hex.
This loks Ok for me.
Are then you drive CV in group self in claer Cv groups you go fast out of full.
No idee here waht is the Problem .


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1242
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 2:56:12 PM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
I think i have it .
Build a Air combat group .
6 CV´s
3 CVl
3CVE
11DD with 5000 endurance
2 DD with 6000 Endurance


In this taskforce mode the DD Need many more Fuell as alone.
One day move alone 200 - 300 Endurance for 1 DD
One day move in Aircombat Group a DD need 1200 - 1300 Endurance per day.
MOve mode is mission Speed

2600 Endurance for 2 days with mission speed for all ships
19 hex was traveld
Is 136,84 Endurance per hex and ship -
this 3x more as alone ?
This is very many

(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1243
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/8/2011 6:28:30 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Would it be possible to make a new kind of "Escort", maybe call is "Salvage Escort"(to simulate the many sea going tugs not included in the game)?

Maybe allow ships in that kind of Escort mission to gain repairs while enroute, perhaps at the cost of a weakened defense,(ala USS Hammons?)..Just thinking out loud..

_____________________________




(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1244
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9b updated 26 O... - 12/8/2011 9:05:18 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
A question re: this pilot pool being able to run out thing....

I'm curious if this has been fully thought through. In 1945 it is quite possible for Japan to lose 400 planes in a day when a major kamikaze action happens.

Given that in the Downfall scenarios with boosted IJAAF and IJNAF pilot replacement rates Japan gets some 360 pilots per month which equates to about 4,320 pilots per year - say 4,500 to make the math simple.

IN 1945 with the high loss rates which can occur it is quite possible for Japanese pilot losses to greatly exceed 10 pilots per day. In fact with kamikazes it isn't unusual for 30 kamikazes alone to be lost per day. Throw in another 20 pilots lost per day to dogfights, bombing raids, ops etc and you can easily end up losing 50 pilots per day - particularly once kamikazes are activated.

50 pilots per day lost for 90 days = 4,500 pilots. At that rate Japan will simply cease to be able to have pilots for planes for 3/4 of the year.

Obviously this can be countered by having large pilot reserves but to maintain this loss rate for a year you'd have to have a reserve of 13,500 pilots - something which the programme won't easily support due to pilot roster limitations.

Also, realistically, Japan just expanded pilot training hugely by asking for volunteers from the army, bomber crews etc etc. These steps aren't available to the Japanese player in game.

I am wondering if a work-around might be that AFTER Kamikazes are activated IF the pilots in training group ( the group of pilots in training for 12 months ) ever empties out then players could continue pulling pilots albeit that those pilots might just have a single point in any and all of the skills and thus would need significant on-map training.

I'm worried about the long-term effects for games which have kamikazes active if such a strict limit on pilot availability remains. Obviously one would have to ensure that the solution couldn't be used to work around the current system of pilot training. I suggest only allowing this new system after kamikazes since that's when Japanese pilot attrition rates will really skyrocket and this problem will become evident. It also avoids a player gaming the system to use up pilot replacements to avoid paying HI costs in 1942 or 1943.

I think this may not have been evident previously as very few people ( relatively speaking ) have experience of the immense pilot attrition Japan experiences once kamikazes are active. Bottom line, 360 pilots a month won't even begin to replace losses once kamis are active.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 1245
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9b updated 26 O... - 12/8/2011 9:31:51 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

A question re: this pilot pool being able to run out thing....

I'm curious if this has been fully thought through. In 1945 it is quite possible for Japan to lose 400 planes in a day when a major kamikaze action happens.

Given that in the Downfall scenarios with boosted IJAAF and IJNAF pilot replacement rates Japan gets some 360 pilots per month which equates to about 4,320 pilots per year - say 4,500 to make the math simple.

IN 1945 with the high loss rates which can occur it is quite possible for Japanese pilot losses to greatly exceed 10 pilots per day. In fact with kamikazes it isn't unusual for 30 kamikazes alone to be lost per day. Throw in another 20 pilots lost per day to dogfights, bombing raids, ops etc and you can easily end up losing 50 pilots per day - particularly once kamikazes are activated.

50 pilots per day lost for 90 days = 4,500 pilots. At that rate Japan will simply cease to be able to have pilots for planes for 3/4 of the year.

Obviously this can be countered by having large pilot reserves but to maintain this loss rate for a year you'd have to have a reserve of 13,500 pilots - something which the programme won't easily support due to pilot roster limitations.

Also, realistically, Japan just expanded pilot training hugely by asking for volunteers from the army, bomber crews etc etc. These steps aren't available to the Japanese player in game.

I am wondering if a work-around might be that AFTER Kamikazes are activated IF the pilots in training group ( the group of pilots in training for 12 months ) ever empties out then players could continue pulling pilots albeit that those pilots might just have a single point in any and all of the skills and thus would need significant on-map training.

I'm worried about the long-term effects for games which have kamikazes active if such a strict limit on pilot availability remains. Obviously one would have to ensure that the solution couldn't be used to work around the current system of pilot training. I suggest only allowing this new system after kamikazes since that's when Japanese pilot attrition rates will really skyrocket and this problem will become evident. It also avoids a player gaming the system to use up pilot replacements to avoid paying HI costs in 1942 or 1943.

I think this may not have been evident previously as very few people ( relatively speaking ) have experience of the immense pilot attrition Japan experiences once kamikazes are active. Bottom line, 360 pilots a month won't even begin to replace losses once kamis are active.


Doesn't your argument beg the question: Should a country that commits to killing it's own pilots be able to sustain that effort for month on end, let alone for a full year? Shouldn't a country that commits to killing it's own pilots face the very real prospect of running out of pilots altogether, and rather quickly at that? It seems like you are asking for the game to facilitate a JFBs wet dream rather than reflecting a plausible alternate reality.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1246
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9b updated 26 O... - 12/8/2011 10:10:18 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
HansBolter,

I don't think my argument begs that question because this is a game modelling discussion not a philosophy discussion. Philosophically there is so much about wartime Japan that was repugnant that the moral pressure they used to get people to "volunteer" is FAR down the list of things I find most repugnant about them. Historically though they were able to pressurise people into volunteering and had tens of thousands of suicide pilots/motorboat drivers/frogmen/ IJA troops etc ready to die in suicide attacks by the end of the war. They had, in August '45, over 5,000 dedicated kami planes with pilots, some 6,000 suicide motor boats ( with crews ), several hundred suicide frogmen - the limit there was diving suits, not numbers of "volunteers" and so on and so forth. "Volunteer" numbers wasn't their problem. Building the craft to put the volunteers into was their limiting factor. It might be reprehensible but it was also reality.

I see your position as being a moral one placing current morals onto Japan's situation in '44 and '45. The bottom line was that as they built planes, torpedo boats and frogsuits etc they WERE able to find men to fly/pilot and man those weapons systems. Morality may say that some of the methods to get those men to volunteer were repugnant but that's neither here nor there in terms of answering the simple question: DID they get the volunteers they needed? The answer is YES. When they wanted kamikazes they had the pilots to fly them. That was the reality in the war. In the game the current rule would prevent that reality being accurately modelled. That's why I'm asking for a change.

So, no, I don't think I'm asking for an alternate reality. I believe that there is clear historical evidence within Japanese documentation that Japan WAS able to generate thousands of young men per month willing to die for Japan at the hands of a suicide plane, a suicide motor launch, a Kaiten or in a frogsuit. Were many of those men young and misguided or pressurised into it? Sure. But I don't think our model extends to that level.


There's a few ways to make the change:
1. A dedicated "Kamikaze Pool" which activates when kamis activate and has a limitless number of very low experience pilots which have no HI cost or
2. lumping kamis in with the general pool and having a limitless number of pilots in the general pool.

or some variation thereof. Bottom line though, the current system of limiting graduates to 360 or so per month simply doesn't fit reality or allow historical operations to be conducted once kamikazes are active. That's just the objective reality of how the numbers interact with loss rates. Morality has nothing to do with that.


To put it in another context:
If you're going to model Iraq or Afghanistan over the past 4 or 5 years etc you can't just decide to not model suicide bombings cause they're morally repugnant or because they often recruit emotionally or intellectually vulnerable people to carry out suicide bombings. It may be repugnant etc etc BUT if you want the model to be accurate you have to model things which happened even if you don't approve of them. You can't just say "I will only allow 1 suicide bombing a month cause I think suicide bombings are morally repugnant."

Instead you should model the things which influence suicide bombing rates:
1. Relatives of those previously killed by Allied forces are more likely to volunteer for future suicide bombing missions.
2. In some areas intensive efforts are made to recruit widows of previous Shaheed - e.g. Chechnya.
3. In some areas where rape is used as a means of pacification those who are raped are sought out as recruits for suicide missions - again more in Chechnya than Afghanistan/Iraq
4. Provision for the families of suicide bombers - the greater the provisions made the greater the rate of volunteering ( particularly an issue in Iraq/Afghanistan and during the Intifada ).
etc etc etc

Does morality come into play when making the model? No, making the model accurate is what matters, not my ( or your )own personal moral view of the repugnance of targetting the widow of a fighter who is emotionally vulnerable and convincing her to blow herself up in a Russian theatre or on a Russian plane.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 12/8/2011 10:23:28 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 1247
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108q9b updated 26 O... - 12/8/2011 11:46:48 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
Nemo.

My questions weren't based on any assessment of morality. I'm sorry if the manner in which I structured the questions made it appear so.

It was a simple assessment of resources vs. time vs. intensity of use. If as you stated the Japanes take 50 pilot losses a day for 90 days straight (incredible intensity) they would have chewed through 4500 of the 5000 avaiable pilots you list in the next post. My point is should they really expect to be able to maintain that level of intensity for longer than 90 days? Or even for 90 days?

Shouldn't kamikaze efforts be more realistically structured in waves of intensity with periods of recuperation and build up for the next effort? And if so, then the 4500 yearly pilot allocation would last for far longer than 1/4 of a year. What I find to be delving into the realm of JFB wet dream is the desire to be able to sustain a loss rate of 50 pilots a day for 365 days straight.

The decision to send in suicide attacks was not taken lightly, even by those comitted to the belief that dying for thier emporor was the greatest honor they could achieve. It was a decision made in the face of ultimate disaster and collapse without that level of intense assault. Invoking kamikazes is something the Japanese should be considering doing only as a last dicth effort of desperation. Take the current Grey Joy vs. Rader game as an example. If in mid '44 the Japanese start sending out Kamikazes, is that something they should reailistically have the expectation of sustaining until '46? If Rader invokes them now, and susrtains daily operations of the magnitude described by your loss rate, shouldn't he face the prospect of running extremely low on pilots after 6 months of that level of intensity?

p.s. please don't think that I see asking for an alternate reailty as something to criticize. I'm all for alternate reality, that is what any wargame is about. What I push for is plausibility in the pursuit of alternate reality.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 12/8/2011 11:51:00 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1248
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:40:08 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandmann

I think i have it .
Build a Air combat group .
6 CV´s
3 CVl
3CVE
11DD with 5000 endurance
2 DD with 6000 Endurance


In this taskforce mode the DD Need many more Fuell as alone.
One day move alone 200 - 300 Endurance for 1 DD
One day move in Aircombat Group a DD need 1200 - 1300 Endurance per day.
MOve mode is mission Speed

2600 Endurance for 2 days with mission speed for all ships
19 hex was traveld
Is 136,84 Endurance per hex and ship -
this 3x more as alone ?
This is very many

Can you zip up your save and attach it here so I can run the test myself?
The endurance used looks correct when I run my tests on an Air Combat TF of 2xCV, 2xCVE, 2xDD.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1249
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 2:06:52 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
HansBolter,

Ah, ok. Sorry your use of alternate reality and the manner in which the question of "should they run out" was posed led me up the wrong street. My apologies.

In terms of having the numbers.... Well whenever they were running short the Japanese simply seem to have used peer pressure to get entire waves of IJAAF personnel ( these needn't be pilots but guards, various admin personnel, crews from bombers etc ) to volunteer to transition to kamikaze missions or just general 17 to 20 year olds in the general populace to volunteer.

To give some idea of the number of people who had volunteered for suicide missions:
According to Kamikaze Attacks of WW2 the Japanese themselves listed 1450 suicide motor boats available in Formosa for use against an invasion in July 45 with a total of 4,300 suicide motorboats of all types available as of end of July 1945. In addition they had some minisubs which had torpedoes replaced with contact triggers - thus turning them into suicide/ramming subs.

It should also be noted that while the crew of the suicide motor boats weren't particularly well-trained Kaiten crew were often trainee pilots. So, at this stage of the war not only did Japan have enough pilots for kamikaze missions but they actually were able to send small numbers on to be trained for Kaiten crewing.

In addition they had 1200 fully trained Fukuryu - suicide divers - with another 2800 or so ready to commence training by war's end. Training wouldn't exactly have taken too long but the key point is that that's another 4,000 men who had volunteered for missions which guaranteed their deaths.


All in all between the 5,000 pilots assigned to kamikazes in August 1945 if the HIs ever got invaded, the 4,000 suicide frogmen and the 4,000+ suicide motorboat pilots + the innumerable IJA troops who had contact-triggered AT mines on poles ( another suicide job ) + kaiten pilots + suicide minisub crews I easily count 15,000 men who'd volunteered for kamikaze type missions ( although they weren't all pilots of course ). Bottom line though, I just don't see that a shortage of volunteers was a problem for Japan.

I think they had enough volunteers for any suicide plane/boat/sub/hair-brained scheme they could develop and produce. Certainly everything I've ever read points to the limiting factor in number of kamikaze missions being availability of planes, not pilots. I think the game should represent that by allowing a limitless number of kamikaze pilots albeit that their experience on being recruited sucks.

I'd be happy to hear a counter-argument with quotes from Japanese documents stating they had kami planes but no pilots cause of a lack of volunteers/conscripts but all I've ever seen happen when they had too few volunteers was that they'd "volunteer" an entire unit and pilots who didn't want to be kamikazes could "opt out". Given the way Japanese society worked no-one ever opted out so they technically all volunteered even though, really, this wasn't so. Either way, the High Command got its 30 or 50 pilots and was able to send them out to die like good little drones whenever it wanted.


One thing to bear in mind is that if you DO send out 50 a day every day then pilot low naval skill will plummet and what you do send out will be ineffective. As you say it is much more likely to occur in pulses where little happens for 15 days and then 750 go out in a day. On average though one could easily see 1500 kamis + 1,000 conventional types being used per month for a pilot loss rate of 2,500 per month. At that rate Japan could simply be unable to recruit even a 1 Exp pilot 2 months into 1944. That seems like a seriously broken outcome for me in which the code may be working as designed but the impact on PBEMs may be completely unrealistic.

In reality Japan faced a simple algorithm. It could have more and more pilots per month if it was willing to graduate them with lower and lower experience/skill. Eventually that leads us to a situation where you have an infinite number of trainees but they graduate so quickly that they have negligible skill ( represented by exp 1, skill 1 ).

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 12/9/2011 2:12:44 AM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1250
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 2:06:57 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Here is a turn by turn of a TF with 2 CV, 2 CVE and 2 DD going from Toyko to Truk.
The daily ship endurance burn is calculated for each hex moved (40NM). Fuel left is then determined by how much endurance left.


[Edit]
Transposed one figure wrongly.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 12/9/2011 2:11:51 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1251
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 3:51:19 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
Same TF but with shorter range DDs





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1252
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 10:43:57 AM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
this looks good are very different to me game .
vs computer and in PBEM.
I need 1200- 1300  per day  and ship  in a AIrcombat Tf .

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1253
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 11:18:34 AM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
at moment me cv´s in tokio after refit.
make a cv´group , only 6 CV´s , 3 cvl´s , 3 cve .
The taskgroup stay in tokio and need ca 900 per day and ship and stay only in the same hex.
refuel after one day cost 20000 tons of fuel

(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1254
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:02:56 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandmann

at moment me cv´s in tokio after refit.
make a cv´group , only 6 CV´s , 3 cvl´s , 3 cve .
The taskgroup stay in tokio and need ca 900 per day and ship and stay only in the same hex.
refuel after one day cost 20000 tons of fuel

OK Sandman -
Upload a turn here and give some of us guys a chance to test it using your file. Maybe include beta save and non-beta save zipped.

Cheers

_____________________________


(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1255
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:17:38 PM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 1256
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:28:28 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandmann

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

That's under Q9b ... I'm not sure I still have so will test under the latest 8r5


_____________________________


(in reply to sandmann_slith)
Post #: 1257
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:37:19 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477


quote:

ORIGINAL: sandmann

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

That's under Q9b ... I'm not sure I still have so will test under the latest 8r5


here you go q9b

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 1258
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:41:29 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477


quote:

ORIGINAL: sandmann

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

That's under Q9b ... I'm not sure I still have so will test under the latest 8r5



No problems under the latest ... not docked in Tokyo harbor and no fuel expended.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 1259
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 Ju... - 12/9/2011 12:43:06 PM   
sandmann_slith

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
hrm then it is so it is fine .
you think is wrong version of beta that we use ?


(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 1260
Page:   <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108p3 updated 10 July (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  40 41 [42] 43 44   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.469