RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

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 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (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 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/21/2012 8:13:06 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Big thanks for the devices filters, very helpful.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 1/22/2012 12:40:25 AM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 1471

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/21/2012 8:24:26 PM

Mistmatz

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline

My opponent (japan) upgraded to R8 but now I can only download R9.

Any chance to get the R8 file again? Is there a repository of old revisions?

Thanks for the help.

NOTE: Shameless repost due to page flip and cold turkey. ;)

_____________________________

If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?

http://witp-ae.wikia.com/wiki/War_in_the_Pacific:_Admiral%27s_Edition_Wiki

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1472

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/21/2012 8:52:33 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

My opponent (japan) upgraded to R8 but now I can only download R9.

Any chance to get the R8 file again? Is there a repository of old revisions?

Thanks for the help.

NOTE: Shameless repost due to page flip and cold turkey. ;)

Your opponent could email it to you.

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1473

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/21/2012 9:06:50 PM

cohimbra

Posts: 632
Joined: 10/15/2011
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz
My opponent (japan) upgraded to R8 but now I can only download R9.
Any chance to get the R8 file again? Is there a repository of old revisions?
Thanks for the help.

Hi, I have the r8 in my comp. PM sent

< Message edited by cohimbra -- 1/21/2012 9:18:42 PM >

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1474

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/21/2012 11:11:10 PM

mikkey

Posts: 3142
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline

Mistmatz, here is r8 for you.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1475

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 12:22:26 AM

Nemo121

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

Question: Are the changes to number of firing passes from the file for Greyjoy's game and mine vs Damian going into the main BETA?

I think all of us who have played with this increased number of firing passes find it superior to the more limited number previously.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mikkey)

Post #: 1476

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 12:59:34 AM

Mistmatz

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

My opponent (japan) upgraded to R8 but now I can only download R9.

Any chance to get the R8 file again? Is there a repository of old revisions?

Thanks for the help.

NOTE: Shameless repost due to page flip and cold turkey. ;)

Thanks everybody, issue resolved.

This is truly an amazing community with lots of very helpful people. Thanks again.

_____________________________

If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?

http://witp-ae.wikia.com/wiki/War_in_the_Pacific:_Admiral%27s_Edition_Wiki

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1477

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 1:16:17 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Question: Are the changes to number of firing passes from the file for Greyjoy's game and mine vs Damian going into the main BETA?

I think all of us who have played with this increased number of firing passes find it superior to the more limited number previously.

Not in the beta at the moment.
Added this enhanced build to thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2989021&mpage=5&key=&#

< Message edited by michaelm -- 1/22/2012 1:40:47 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1478

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 1:20:45 AM

michaelm75au

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

Due to the increasing size of the beta EXEs I have to zip up the MP version in order to keep the file under 5 MB.
If you need to use the MP version, you will need to unzip the file.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 1479

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 6:03:20 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

I guess more feedback is needed for the 'more passes' EXE changes to flow into the beta but the problem with the defensive fire has to be looked at first to get a clear picture.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 1480

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 6:49:57 AM

michaelm75au

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

Defensive fire by bombers hasn't been changed. The additional combat rounds are only between the large CAP and Escorts, which is why I personally don't think this skews the result to benefit one side over the other.
I suppose if the escorts down more CAP, than the bomber defense is slightly better as less CAP attacking them.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 1481

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 8:26:30 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

But won't there be additional rounds between fighters from the CAP that come thru to the bombers?
If so the points that Nemo121 mentioned in the other thread may be important and a look at bomber defensive fire could clarify if there is something a bit off or not.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 1482

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 8:46:10 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

But won't there be additional rounds between fighters from the CAP that come thru to the bombers?
If so the points that Nemo121 mentioned in the other thread may be important and a look at bomber defensive fire could clarify if there is something a bit off or not.

There wont be any additional rounds. If anything I would think that there would be fewer.
If the current low max rounds (200) allowed 60 fighters thru to bombers, than those 60 bombers would have X rounds.
But if the higher max rounds (300) brought that down to 45 fighters getting thru, then there are fewer potential rounds. (Bomber intercept rounds are a factor of the number of CAP flights remaining and time to intercept. Current max is 200, as original CAP max.)

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 1483

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 10:28:17 PM

Nemo121

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

michaelm,

I'm just not sure that passes the "is it sensible" test....

E.g. If you have 50 fighters each fighter gets to make 4 passes - 50 x 4 = 200 rounds.
If, on the other hand, you have 200 fighters and ample time to make 4 passes each you only get each fighter making 1 pass. 200 x 1 = 200.

In a sense it penalises forces which put up large CAP by essentially removing a lot of those CAPing fighters from making firing passes.

Surely removing the overall CAP and replacing it with something a bit more dynamic along the lines of: X passes per fighter per Y minutes to target once the fighters intercept the bombers would give more face validity. After all you can't imagine 100 fighters arriving to a fight in real life and saying "Pull back guys, the others have made the maximum number of firing passes for this round of combat."

As it is the more fighters you have on CAP the fewer firing passes each fighter makes - which just doesn't seem logical at all.

That certainly explains why these 1000 fighter CAPs haven't been working in-game. Essentially they're no better than a 200 fighter CAP once the escorts have been dealt with. Whether you have 1,000 fighters or 200 fighters you only get the same number of firing passes on the bombers. I think the changes are a move in the right direction but I think, perhaps, we need to remove the overall CAP and replace it with something more dynamic. As it is I just don't see the benefit of having large numbers on CAP beyond a certain point ( probably about 200 to 300 fighters ).

On another note: I'd definitely say this is something which could be exploited to break through CAP no matter how strong it was... and that raises the issue of being able to exploit this code to gain advantage in-game.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/22/2012 10:31:22 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 1484

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/22/2012 10:52:00 PM

adek670

Posts: 281
Joined: 9/21/2010
From: Twickenham
Status: offline

Hi Guys,

is this an off-topic question??

plenty of posts since.

Never play betas as a rule - same with many of my opponents - sounds like there is some cool stuff being worked on and I was hoping that it would result in a final patch

Reaper

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1485

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 1:07:46 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Well I was wondering why there is a limit of rounds at all, sure combat has to stop sooner or later but isn't there anything in game that stops it "naturally" like distance after returning from the bomb run, CAP expended fuel/ammo, damaged planes stay on ground, etc.?
Wouldn't this all lead to a combat stop sooner or later?
Simply setting a limit in seems a bit abstract.
Maybe for testing purpose the limit should be massively raised(for the special beta in the other thread) to see if that produces any weird results with those big formations.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 1/23/2012 1:18:21 AM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 1486

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 5:59:41 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

But won't there be additional rounds between fighters from the CAP that come thru to the bombers?
If so the points that Nemo121 mentioned in the other thread may be important and a look at bomber defensive fire could clarify if there is something a bit off or not.

There wont be any additional rounds. If anything I would think that there would be fewer.
If the current low max rounds (200) allowed 60 fighters thru to bombers, than those 60 bombers would have X rounds.
But if the higher max rounds (300) brought that down to 45 fighters getting thru, then there are fewer potential rounds. (Bomber intercept rounds are a factor of the number of CAP flights remaining and time to intercept. Current max is 200, as original CAP max.)

What do you mean by "bomber intercept rounds"? Is that the maximum number of times you can have 1 fighter shoot at 1 bomber? If so, does that mean that any bombers beyond this number are invulnerable (i.e., if you have 600 bombers, only a maximum of 200 can be attacked)? This seems really odd, and definitely looks like the kind of thing we were seeing with large air combats. If it really is this way, wouldn't it be better if the maximum number of bombers in a strike were reduced to something close to the maximum number of rounds? (I'm not sure why there is a maximum number of rounds).

It seems to me that small air combat, with fewer than 200 planes, are probably way too deadly. Large air combats, with more than 200 planes are probably not deadly enough, and I suspect this is why. The new patch with the increased number of rounds seems to work pretty well, but I am curious why there is a limit at all?

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 1487

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 6:57:46 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

Not sure if I've missed something totally but I can't see 1108r9 for download anywhere?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Mistmatz)

Post #: 1488

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 7:04:59 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Not sure if I've missed something totally but I can't see 1108r9 for download anywhere?

...first post in this thread.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1489

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 7:31:46 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Thanks.

Me.....numpty.....

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1490

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 8:57:51 AM

michaelm75au

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

This is from memory so should be substantially correct.

In basic terms, air battles are firstly between flights of 8 or less planes. These are the prime blocks for determining initial detection, combat rounds, etc.
Once 'flights' are deemed to be participating in combat, the combat is then between the individual planes within those flight.

The same core air-to-air mechanics as in Witp exist in AE. But for AE, we added a whole extra dimension with altitude bands,
altitude advantage, speed differences, time to target, out of position, etc.

The max rounds is the number of times a flight from the CAP can engage a flight from the Escort - combat between flights.
The following is a trimmed down how:
A random flight from each side (CAP or Escort) is checked to see if they detect each other, are not delayed, etc.
If one doesn't pass the check, then a new random flight is selected.
Flights can engage multiple times until all planes in the flight are destroyed, out of fuel or ammo, drop out, etc.
It is also possible that some flights wont get to engage due to time-to-intercept, being out of position,etc
A round is counted when the flights engage each other, or a delayed CAP arrives.
This is repeated up to the determined 'max rounds' which is described below.

Compare this to WITP, where every Escort flight was engaged by every CAP flight in the hex in one massive bloody air combat.
It finished when there were no more Escort flights, or all CAP had been allowed to engaged.

As we approach the fighter combat between the large number of flights/planes, the 'max rounds' that was sufficient for smaller battles is being over-taxed. Not every flight (whether in CAP or Escort) is getting a chance to participate. Thus my desire to increase this 'max rounds' based on larger than expected number of CAP flights. I say CAP flights since having 5 CAP flights against 30 Escort flights shouldn't take longer than 30 CAP flights against 5 Escort flights.

My original estimate of the max rounds was based on the CAP flights being able to fight 15 times during a 30 minute period. This was then adjusted by time to target (less than 30 minutes would shorten the engagement time). Plus of course the old random factor.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1491

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 9:05:28 AM

michaelm75au

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

As I wanted to increase the number of rounds for larger air battles, I am not sure why you are are arguing against me.

'Is it sensible' works fine with the smaller air battles that have existed in games. We are now talking about large air battles happening reminiscent of the old Witp air battles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

michaelm,

I'm just not sure that passes the "is it sensible" test....

E.g. If you have 50 fighters each fighter gets to make 4 passes - 50 x 4 = 200 rounds.
If, on the other hand, you have 200 fighters and ample time to make 4 passes each you only get each fighter making 1 pass. 200 x 1 = 200.

In a sense it penalises forces which put up large CAP by essentially removing a lot of those CAPing fighters from making firing passes.

Surely removing the overall CAP and replacing it with something a bit more dynamic along the lines of: X passes per fighter per Y minutes to target once the fighters intercept the bombers would give more face validity. After all you can't imagine 100 fighters arriving to a fight in real life and saying "Pull back guys, the others have made the maximum number of firing passes for this round of combat."

As it is the more fighters you have on CAP the fewer firing passes each fighter makes - which just doesn't seem logical at all.

That certainly explains why these 1000 fighter CAPs haven't been working in-game. Essentially they're no better than a 200 fighter CAP once the escorts have been dealt with. Whether you have 1,000 fighters or 200 fighters you only get the same number of firing passes on the bombers. I think the changes are a move in the right direction but I think, perhaps, we need to remove the overall CAP and replace it with something more dynamic. As it is I just don't see the benefit of having large numbers on CAP beyond a certain point ( probably about 200 to 300 fighters ).

On another note: I'd definitely say this is something which could be exploited to break through CAP no matter how strong it was... and that raises the issue of being able to exploit this code to gain advantage in-game.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1492

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 8:11:16 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

If I may, Michael.

There are several hundred people playing the Babes version of this title and what is being reported by a couple forum dwellers is not seen as an issue. We have noticed the tendency to jerk the game exe around to satisfy a very few forum whiners. We wish that to stop.

The air model was put together by a group of very smart people, who not only understood the interior mechanisms, but also how they related to the game algorithms. You were the coder for Elf and his team, so you should know the incredible effort that went into making sure things played together.

And now here you are, pandering to the forum and skewing the model in ways that are not easy to understand and screwing it up for the normal, everyday, players.

Small steps, taken forthrightly, in a vacuum, can end up putting you on a cliff in the larger scheme of things. I think you should stop taking small steps unless and until you run them past the game developers and they have opportunity to comment.

[ed] We do pay attention to the forum complaints and ask our players to occasionally give us a data dump. Thus, we have distribtuted data from over a hundred responders so our data is relatively statistically signifigant. We do not depend on a today/tomorrow combat report. If you wish to tweak the algorithms, I urge you to consult with JWE before you do that. I know you have his email.

Matt

< Message edited by US87891 -- 1/23/2012 8:43:44 PM >

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 1493

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 9:29:44 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

First for now it is only a special EXE for the guys who want to test so no need to get into "whiner" mode yourself and btw I have no clue why you refer to Babes mod at all, this is a stock game problem.

Now those so called "whiners" pointed to something that did look correct(the one who started it wasn't even asking for changes he just wanted to understand what is going on), more players took a closer look and indeed confirmed that something looked wrong so michaelm made an exe for them and now there results seem to look much more realistic, all I can say is thanks to those "whiners".

So the air model was made by some smart guys, fine but to be honest I don't care who made the air model, I care if it works like it should(meaning giving us historical plausible results) and I bet those who made it do too(at least they should).

All michaelm did was raising the combat rounds limit, this is a VERY small step and an effective step, there is nothing hard to understand about and this isn't skewing the model if anything it skews it back where it belongs too and michaelm already mentioned that he was the one who guesstimated this limit so I don't see a problem at all with this small adjustment of a value that was set lng ago even before the game was released..

Lets put it simple, the guys should keep doing their tests(if you like do it too if you want to prove these changes are wrong) and sooner or later we have enough data to see if this adjustment is a good or a bad thing, after that I hope what ever comes out flows into this beta so more player can confirm the benefit of these adjustments.

Not sure why you act like this but you statement in the other thread that this game is already at the "margins of un-playability" says it all.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 1494

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/23/2012 9:53:48 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Normal..everyday players...... wow I never seen an ordinary modder being arrogant like that. You already crossed the line with your post in that other thread but this is realy pushing it to far.
Also your complaints are void. As said before there is a "special" exe with changes and its not included in the version of this thread.

< Message edited by Gr�fin Zeppelin -- 1/23/2012 9:59:12 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 1495

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 12:22:21 AM

Nemo121

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

US87891,

Wow. So an air model in which irrespective of the number of planes you have you only get 200 firing passes ( for example ) cannot be improved? Sure because in the Marianas Turkey Shoot while there were hundreds of Allied fighters in the air once they had used up their firing passes the rest pulled away and circled over the carriers letting the Japanese strike groups attack....

As to your statistics: That's all well and good but there's also a simple maths here. If there are more than 200 strike aircraft and CAP is limited to 200 firing passes then whatever number of strike aircraft more than 200 the Japanese manage to co-ordinate in a single raid WILL, because of game code ( and nothing else ), get through without being intercepted by CAP. I can't think of a single historical situation where uncommitted fighters were ordered not to intercept an incoming strike because some limited number of firing passes had been made. In real life they kept making firing passes until the enemy had attacked or they ran out of ammo or they were forced off by escorts. The game, currently, does not mirror that reality.

If you have ANY historical examples where any combatant forbade pilots from making firing passes while they still had time, ammunition and the inclination to do so because someone in high command felt they'd reached an arbitrary limit on the number of firing passes I'd be all ears. We both know that won't be the case though.

As to playing Da Babes versions.... What year are those games up to? Larger and larger strikes become more common in 1944 and 1945. This problem will only show up when those larger strikes are generated. The game works very well with combats of 100 planes vs 100 or even a bit more. The problem here is what happens when the attacking side comes with more than 200 strike aircraft --- Answer, everything over 200 planes gets a free pass at the Allied shipping. Historically that's just not supported as being the way things worked.

As to JWE: Well, I'm sure he's free to come here and explain why a hard limit on number of bomber interceptions is, in his mind, historically accurate. I just don't see the problem in suggesting that the game would be improved by the removal of an artificial limit which isn't supported by any historical evidence. Perhaps you or JWE or someone else could explain how this artificial hard limit improves historicity?

Michaelm,
How this can be exploited is simple. Get a combined strike of 600 kamis/strike aircraft ( something which isn't at all unheard of in late-war games - I believe the Da Babes info they refer to is going to be from early-war games in which you have much smaller strike packages and thus this problem doesn't arise ). Let the USN defending fighters make their 200 attack runs. That leaves 400 kamis/strike aircraft with a free pass to have attack runs at USN shipping --- not because the CAP ran out of time to intercept and not because the CAP ran out of numbers but purely because the CAP ran out of "firing passes".

Once the firing passes are used up it makes absolutely no difference whether the USN CV TFs have 100 fighters on CAP or 1000, they don't get additional firing passes.

If I can figure out that the way to get a strike through is to just accept 200 losses to bombers/strike aircraft from CAP firing passes in order to use them up in order to give any additional strike planes a free run at the target then others can figure that out too and that's what we're going to see happening.

Certainly it is difficult to organise such a large co-ordinated strike but whenever it does happen the USN is going to be at serious risk of having multiple CVs wiped out no matter how many hundreds of fighters happen to be in the air.

Perhaps the way to look at this is that the change in code has exposed this current issue - number of firing passes on bombers. It seems that the current code works very well with 100 to 150 planes per side ( certainly when I've seen those sorts of raids in the test BETA my opponent and I have felt it all looked quite reasonable ( a couple of leakers here and there but mostly CAPs which we would expect to be solid were ).

Perhaps though a new algorithm needs to come into play with larger raids where this firing pass limit vs bombers is replaced with something more dynamic and responsive to number of fighters intercepting and the time to target?

Bottom line though: If the code limits firing passes vs strike aircraft to 200 then simple logic tells you any strike aircraft greater than 200 in a strike get a free attack run at the target. Historically I can't find ANY justification for this. So I'm suggesting that this ahistorical limit on firing passes be looked at in order to conform better with historical reality.

If anyone wants to argue that limiting number of firing passes is historical then please, be my guest and make your argument. I ( and I'm sure others ) would be all ears.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/24/2012 12:31:01 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 1496

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 12:56:52 AM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
There are several hundred people playing the Babes version of this title and what is being reported by a couple forum dwellers is not seen as an issue. We have noticed the tendency to jerk the game exe around to satisfy a very few forum whiners. We wish that to stop.

Matt

Possibly true, there are only a couple of DBB AAR's and they are all still early game. There are very few players in the end game where the really large air battles occur, and only 3 AAR's active that I am aware of where the community has the ability to observe the combat results. 2 of which are participating in the beta testing.

This is the second time that you suggest that Michael does not converse with John and Ian and Andy. He has already clarified that there are background conversations that you are not part of. Please refrain from this silly accusation in the future.

This is also a special test of a beta, a test that seems to be well within the guidelines of the beta.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 1497

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 5:46:52 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Sure because in the Marianas Turkey Shoot while there were hundreds of Allied fighters in the air once they had used up their firing passes the rest pulled away and circled over the carriers letting the Japanese strike groups attack....

Nice

Thanks for the explanation Michael!

< Message edited by rader -- 1/24/2012 5:49:16 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 1498

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 5:58:23 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Nemo,

Far be it for me to speak for a developer, but I'm guessing that it is a bit of a fudge to get the code to work under certain circumstances -- and prevent big air battles from getting out of hand bloody. Another motivation might be to try to increase the 'leakyness' of CAP - which IMO is a good thing.

I for one actually think air combat is plenty bloody, and probably far too bloody, so I understand this motivation - it's just that bombers, when they get through are a bit too effective.

Maybe rather than try to make CAP more effective against big groups, a different approach would be to split raids into multiple smaller raids AND smaller groups of CAP - i.e. CAP along that particualr group's approach vector? I thought this was supposed to the AE way of handling things after all. I think everyone agrees that air combat in AE works great for anything less than ~200 aircraft a side.

EDIT: I understand the reluctance on the part of people who don't want major changes to the exe, and fully support not making any changes official until they've been well tested and have passed the mustard test (not sure if that's a real saying or if I just made that up).

EDIT2: If I had to guess, I would suppose that over 90% of all playtesting occured in the early game - that's where over 90% of the AARs are. One would therefore expect any issues to be found in the late war (not saying there necessarily are issues, but if there are, they are far more likely to be with late game mechanics).

< Message edited by rader -- 1/24/2012 6:05:51 AM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 1499

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 6:37:28 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I would take your game against GJ, Castor Troys previous excapades, PzB & Andy where things have been outside of the expected route of the game. to be where the devs could learn a lot.
Hopefully they are taking a lot of notice of these later war games.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 1500

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)