RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

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: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

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 >> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 9:23:47 AM

PaxMondo

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

I agree with everything Alfred has written above as the baseline. It is what I use for my planning of what I want air groups to do. Airgroups will follow this most of the time.

Anecdotal evidence has demonstrated to me that Gary has some randomness on the above and/or other factors can influence air group behavior other than the settings. All this means is that when air groups don't do what I want them to do, I don't whine and complain, I accept that 'things' happen in combat.

EX:
- I've seen high aggression leaders defeat my rest settings and fly*
- Training settings can get involved in combat
- I've had my rest settings ignored and never really been able to state why*
- etc.

How often do I see exceptions? Not that often, but enough that I know they occur. Something like 1% or so, which seems really low except when you think about how many airgroups you have in combat every turn which means if you really look you can see something every few turns on one airgroup.

Again, not disputing anything Alfred has written. But if you see contradictions in the game, don't complain about the advice. Just understand that Gary likes his randomness and there is almost nothing in this game that you have 100% control of 100% of the time.

My opinion, YMMV.

*EDIT: meaning instead of 6 resting, only 3 rest or only 2 rest or none. Doesn't mean all them fly, just not half resting ...

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 4/1/2016 2:41:58 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 91

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 10:02:22 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Thanks for the input and more extensive breakdown of the CAP process Alfred and Pax. All of the above is very useful and reminds that as I test to both be aware of the settings and the randomness that may occur.

I've been planning to redo one of my tests to see if ten sets is producing a somewhat useful result or if I need to go to a longer set in light of some of the randomness, weather, etc, that can alter results from run to run.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 92

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 3:25:44 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I agree with everything Alfred has written above as the baseline. It is what I use for my planning of what I want air groups to do. Airgroups will follow this most of the time.

Anecdotal evidence has demonstrated to me that Gary has some randomness on the above and/or other factors can influence air group behavior other than the settings. All this means is that when air groups don't do what I want them to do, I don't whine and complain, I accept that 'things' happen in combat.

EX:
- I've seen high aggression leaders defeat my rest settings and fly*
- Training settings can get involved in combat
- I've had my rest settings ignored and never really been able to state why*
- etc.

How often do I see exceptions? Not that often, but enough that I know they occur. Something like 1% or so, which seems really low except when you think about how many airgroups you have in combat every turn which means if you really look you can see something every few turns on one airgroup.

Again, not disputing anything Alfred has written. But if you see contradictions in the game, don't complain about the advice. Just understand that Gary likes his randomness and there is almost nothing in this game that you have 100% control of 100% of the time.

My opinion, YMMV.

*EDIT: meaning instead of 6 resting, only 3 rest or only 2 rest or none. Doesn't mean all them fly, just not half resting ...

There's no randomness in the settings. If a unit does something I don't like or didn't think it was supposed to do, I go look at it... and there's always a reason it did what it did. Like range settings I did not intend, but were still set a certain way. Rest means rest. The de facto rest that Alfred and I have been yammering about means de facto rest. To get anecdotal, I've played 5,000 turns and never seen it vary.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 93

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 3:29:03 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Without the rest component you will fly mangled planes patched together with baling wire and spit. You will see your op losses climb and see lots of messages about engines cutting out.

If the engine cuts out on the first pass or the guns jamming in the replay, you know you need to raise the rest percentage. I think it may account for early running out of ammunition too, although I am not certain here (just a hunch I have from close watching of the replay).

It also helps immensely to have planes in reserve too.

Recap: you have plane fatigue plus pilot fatigue. Only rest helps with this, and when given an escort mission you need to determine the rest percent. The only place to have 0 rest I think maybe on high risk days with your carriers and never two days in a row if you can help it.

Of course your mileage may vary.

A hard working Oscar Sentai.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/1/2016 3:31:42 PM >

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 94

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 3:35:38 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There's no randomness in the settings. If a unit does something I don't like or didn't think it was supposed to do, I go look at it... and there's always a reason it did what it did. Like range settings I did not intend, but were still set a certain way. Rest means rest. The de facto rest that Alfred and I have been yammering about means de facto rest. To get anecdotal, I've played 5,000 turns and never seen it vary.

I don't think I have seen the rest percent violated either. Not ruling it out though.

Did you know if you set a target then the range settings work from the target? I screwed up a lot of long range CAP that way.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 95

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 5:01:00 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

There's no randomness in the settings. If a unit does something I don't like or didn't think it was supposed to do, I go look at it... and there's always a reason it did what it did. Like range settings I did not intend, but were still set a certain way. Rest means rest. The de facto rest that Alfred and I have been yammering about means de facto rest. To get anecdotal, I've played 5,000 turns and never seen it vary.

I don't think I have seen the rest percent violated either. Not ruling it out though.

Did you know if you set a target then the range settings work from the target? I screwed up a lot of long range CAP that way.

Yeah, this came up a while back when I noticed it. It burned me once, badly. A little counter-intuitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Without the rest component you will fly mangled planes patched together with baling wire and spit. You will see your op losses climb and see lots of messages about engines cutting out.

If the engine cuts out on the first pass or the guns jamming in the replay, you know you need to raise the rest percentage. I think it may account for early running out of ammunition too, although I am not certain here (just a hunch I have from close watching of the replay).

It also helps immensely to have planes in reserve too.

Recap: you have plane fatigue plus pilot fatigue. Only rest helps with this, and when given an escort mission you need to determine the rest percent. The only place to have 0 rest I think maybe on high risk days with your carriers and never two days in a row if you can help it.

Of course your mileage may vary.

A hard working Oscar Sentai.

Maybe I just pay more attention to my guys and rotate them more? Because I don't have a problem with planes held together by twine and spit being flown. Also note that the lower a plane's durability, the higher the chance it will be pulled into maintenance because of damage (watch 4E units because you will need to manually stand them down to get planes with 20-some damage into the repair line; with 1E fighters those planes will already be pulled for repairs). You do need to watch the fatigue. What you've posted here isn't great, but it's not awful. I've seen fatigue numbers in the 140s before

when I stopped paying attention to a unit, and the unit doesn't even have to have a mission percentage yet. It happens to me a lot with TBF units on Naval Attack with 0% Search, 0% ASW... I won't be using my CVs, and then one time I went to use them after a long spell in port and noticed the fatigue numbers. The planes weren't ready for days, screwing up my plans. Since then, I always check farther in advance. But I digress a little bit...

The "engine cuts out" and guns jamming messages are just flavor. They don't actually mean anything other than that the plane ran out of endurance, ops, whatever. I'm not sure if damage or fatigue play into those rolls. They very well might.

I've hypothesized before that mandated rest will help keep plane fatigue down, but have no proof because planes are selected pretty much at random from the ready stock of planes for whether they fly on a particular day. Just a possibility. There is no difference between setting 50% CAP/50% Rest and 50% CAP/no other settings in terms of pilot fatigue. The 50% of pilots that don't fly CAP that day will be resting simply because they aren't flying.

I run 0% Rest on 95% of my units all the time. Literally thousands of turns. My Ops losses (and air losses in general) are extremely ordinary. You don't need to mandate rest. You do need to check your units manually every now and again to make sure they don't need to be stood down.

Once I load up my next turn in my Allied game I'll grab a screenshot of a unit that's been flying CAP for dozens, maybe even hundreds, of turns in a row and show you that there's no need for excessive Rest settings. All you're doing with that is robbing yourself of combat power.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 96

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 5:15:01 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I understand your post. Read it twice.

I think you misunderstand how rest percentage works on Escort missions.

For most squadrons I don't normally look at plane fatigue daily or weekly. Monthly at best. That particular Oscar Sentai flies cap every day and also relocates every day. That is a lot of wear and tear. Setting the rest percentage removes micromanagement and also keeps the unit fighting day in day out. Not every day is a horrendous combat, but they can be.

I think the percent rest really works wonders on wave after wave defenses.

But as always, you could be right!

I have noticed when most planes going into repair mode on CV squadrons too. I am not sure what triggers it other than the obvious, but it does take a week or so to straighten out. I haven't seen that phenomena with land based air however.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/1/2016 5:16:30 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 97

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 5:44:18 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

Here we are. This unit has been training since December 7, 1941. I've never stood it down. The same planes, all war. Granted, depending on pilots, I alternate between Training 100% and CAP 90% (with 0% rest). For 1169 turns so far, this unit has never been stood down.

Obviously, combat changes things. So does the level of air support. You can see from the picture from Tracker that I shifted them from 100% Training to 90% CAP for XP purposes sometimes around turn 1108. They've been running constantly until now, turn 1169, and pilot fatigue is typically 4. Plane fatigue hovering around 10. The particular settings affect this (I fly them at 2K which helps keep pilot fatigue down, but I'm not sure does anything for plane fatigue), but the important thing is to note how rest is not necessary. That's my point.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 98

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 5:56:59 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I understand your post. Read it twice.

I think you misunderstand how rest percentage works on Escort missions.

For most squadrons I don't normally look at plane fatigue daily or weekly. Monthly at best. That particular Oscar Sentai flies cap every day and also relocates every day. That is a lot of wear and tear. Setting the rest percentage removes micromanagement and also keeps the unit fighting day in day out. Not every day is a horrendous combat, but they can be.

I think the percent rest really works wonders on wave after wave defenses.

But as always, you could be right!

I have noticed when most planes going into repair mode on CV squadrons too. I am not sure what triggers it other than the obvious, but it does take a week or so to straighten out. I haven't seen that phenomena with land based air however.

Relocating does add to fatigue, yes. My preferred method for dealing with that is to run a lower percentage of CAP or stand the unit down.

I understand how rest works on Escort missions (which is not CAP) - those boys won't fly. But then I tend to use dedicated CAP and dedicated escort units. It's just better that way. There's no confusion and you aren't running CAP on range 7 (or 8!) so that your escorts can fly that far with your strikes, for example, which just leads to unnecessary performance issues for your planes that are on CAP.

As to the point about using rest percentages to maintain a longer duration of operations... that's debatable. If your ships get sunk because you don't have enough planes in the air for the first one, it doesn't matter. Aside from that, some hypothetical numbers. Day 1 you have 100 planes escorting, but 20% of them are resting. So only 80 fly. Let's figure combat losses at 20% also, so on Day 2 you're down 16 planes and only have 84 as the maximum. With 20% rest, you're now only escorting with 68 planes. Compare to Day 1 with 0% rest, 100 fly. Even still assuming 20% losses despite the greater number of planes in your strike, you're still at 80 planes actually available to escort on Day 2 instead of 68 with the rest setting. Basically, it's an argument that when you use rest you are splitting your forces instead of bringing the greatest possible amount of force to bear. As the Allies when you need to sustain multiple days of operations, it may be worthwhile to hold a unit or two back to be fresh for a second day of escorting, but as Japan the strikes are pretty much one-shot, one-day. Rarely do you have the strike planes remaining for a second day of strikes, and rarely do you want to have KB fully revealed and vulnerable for a second day.

This calculus changes a bit on land, but not that much. It's easier to attain acceptable levels of CAP with fewer units if you don't use Rest (only 4 units instead of 5 in the case of 20% rest), which makes you less susceptible to airfield bombing and allows you to either defend in more places, or keep units a day away in reserve. The crux of my argument is that using no rest percentages allow you to bring the maximum amount of force to bear at the minimum cost while still maintaining a level of flexibility and sustainability comparable to using some percentage of rest.

One more picture. Maybe a fluke, but no Ops losses all war for this squadron either.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 99

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 6:22:36 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I agree with you on rear area training with good AV support and runways. No issues there.

I actually think you can set the range to normal and still not have any problems.

But for planes in combat (and land based air at that), day in and day out, rest works for me. Especially given the need to relocate every day.

I think what we see is there is no right answers, plenty of inferior answers, and a lot depends upon the circumstances your squadrons find themselves in.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/1/2016 6:24:42 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 100

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 6:27:28 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

If you go through old posts of mine on pilot training you will find I, contrary to the general "wisdom" have never been in favour of using the rest setting.

I see no benefit in using the rest setting when:

1.� the air unit has 4 aircraft in reserve

2.� the pilot roster is 133% of TOE

3.� the range set does not exceed normal range

4.� I have adequate aviation support

Occasionally a unit may need to be stood down but this is better than operating regularly at reduced capacity.

Alfred

Edit:

5. the altitude is less than 75% of the maximum altitude possible for the aircraft model

< Message edited by Alfred -- 4/1/2016 6:29:58 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 101

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/1/2016 7:09:51 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I am curious about using Rest in combat (Sweep vs CAP) situations. I think there is a place for it.

No Rest in training situations, is as Alfred has pointed out, I think well understood by most.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 102

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 1:17:49 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

If you go through old posts of mine on pilot training you will find I, contrary to the general "wisdom" have never been in favour of using the rest setting.

I see no benefit in using the rest setting when:

1.� the air unit has 4 aircraft in reserve

2.� the pilot roster is 133% of TOE

3.� the range set does not exceed normal range

4.� I have adequate aviation support

Occasionally a unit may need to be stood down but this is better than operating regularly at reduced capacity.

Alfred

Edit:

5. the altitude is less than 75% of the maximum altitude possible for the aircraft model

Alfred said it far more succinctly than I did.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 103

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 2:22:29 AM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
There's no randomness in the settings. If a unit does something I don't like or didn't think it was supposed to do, I go look at it... and there's always a reason it did what it did. Like range settings I did not intend, but were still set a certain way. Rest means rest. The de facto rest that Alfred and I have been yammering about means de facto rest. To get anecdotal, I've played 5,000 turns and never seen it vary.

Glad to hear you don't see any. Maybe I see it due to memory leak. I do. You don't. As I stated: YMMV.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 104

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 2:33:56 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
There's no randomness in the settings. If a unit does something I don't like or didn't think it was supposed to do, I go look at it... and there's always a reason it did what it did. Like range settings I did not intend, but were still set a certain way. Rest means rest. The de facto rest that Alfred and I have been yammering about means de facto rest. To get anecdotal, I've played 5,000 turns and never seen it vary.

Glad to hear you don't see any. Maybe I see it due to memory leak. I do. You don't. As I stated: YMMV.

If he isn't using the rest setting percent, how in the world is he going to see it?

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 105

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 8:43:37 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am curious about using Rest in combat (Sweep vs CAP) situations. I think there is a place for it.

No Rest in training situations, is as Alfred has pointed out, I think well understood by most.

+1

I completely agree. I'm starting to use the rest setting to add to some tests. I've noticed a few things but want to keep going before commenting on what might be happening.

I think the randomness Pax is referring to though could be a leader influence over a group in a certain situation in combat. Aggressiveness specifically.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 106

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 8:59:25 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

A pilot who does not fly a mission does not accrue fatigue and is therefore de facto "resting".

Assume an air unit with a 133% of TOE pilot roster with no "rest" level set. Each turn the AI will excuse from flying the 33% most tired pilots (and if their fatigue level is above a threshold they are actually made "inactive"). By not flying a mission the excused pilots get an opportunity to rest.

Stand down an entire air unit. No "rest" level is available to be chosen by the player. The entire unit is told to do nothing and so the pilots get an opportunity to rest.

So it is not whether they are formally at rest that matters re accruing/removing fatigue but whether they fly or do not fly a mission.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 107

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 11:21:34 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Yep. I get all of that. The questions I have are about rest settings and what they mean for a group of pilots (without extra pilots, so to see how rest settings actually operate at 1 to 1 pilot/plane) in combat situations:

1. If set to fly CAP x% and rest y% at zero hex range (no escort) do the pilots actually rest should a strike arrive? Or do all fly regardless of rest settings?

2. If set to fly CAP x% and without a rest % set, at zero hex range (no escort) do some pilots still rest should a strike arrive? Or do they all fly?

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 108

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 2:02:58 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

2. If set to fly CAP x% and without a rest % set, at zero hex range (no escort) do some pilots still rest should a strike arrive? Or do they all fly?

According to the manual they all attempt to intercept, following the 1/3rd rule.

I am a little more curious than you...What I am interested in is the Rest % done once, at the beginning of the day or twice at the beginning of each day air combat phase or applied for each interception with the latter what I am really curious about.

For example my CAP settings is 30/30(CAP/Rest), Range 0. So If I have a 100 plane squadron 30 are on active CAP (with 1/3 of the 30 actually airborne), while 30 planes have been stood down for rest. Now if a raid happens, then 40 more planes are scrambled, but there are still 30 stood down planes.

Now assume a second raid happens, but we lost 10 planes. 90 Plane squadron, 27 CAP (1/3rd in the air), 27 stood down for rest -- in effect you are moving 3 fighters from rest into operation to face subsequent air raids?

Or does the 30 planes on rest, rest all day no matter what is happening.

You can see I am not interested in using rest as a training tool. I am not talking about training. I am interested in countering wave, after wave of attacks. And it is in this kind of circumstance that I think the Rest percentage has a definite beneficial effect on the defender.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 109

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 4:40:14 PM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am curious about using Rest in combat (Sweep vs CAP) situations. I think there is a place for it.

No Rest in training situations, is as Alfred has pointed out, I think well understood by most.

+1

I completely agree. I'm starting to use the rest setting to add to some tests. I've noticed a few things but want to keep going before commenting on what might be happening.

I think the randomness Pax is referring to though could be a leader influence over a group in a certain situation in combat. Aggressiveness specifically.

Yes, I've convinced myself in many situations that it is the Leader Agressiveness. But I've also had enough cases where the Leader Aggression was in the 30's where that is harder to say. BUT, is it Leader or memory leak or just flat out random or even a Aggression=30 would have probability? Who knows?

As I stated up front: I believe and use exactly what Alfred posted for exactly his reasons. That fact that it doesn't work 100% of the time doesn't change the fact that it works 99% of the time. ;)While the "why" is interesting to me, I'm not really hung up on it. This is a "Gary" game after all. ;)

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 110

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 4:43:41 PM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A pilot who does not fly a mission does not accrue fatigue and is therefore de facto "resting".

Assume an air unit with a 133% of TOE pilot roster with no "rest" level set.� Each turn the AI will excuse from flying the 33% most tired pilots (and if their fatigue level is above a threshold they are actually made "inactive").� By not flying a mission the excused pilots get an opportunity to rest.

Stand down an entire air unit.� No "rest" level is available to be chosen by the player.� The entire unit is told to do nothing and so the pilots get an opportunity to rest.

So it is not whether they are formally at rest that matters re accruing/removing fatigue but whether they fly or do not fly a mission.

Alfred

This tied to your earlier post is very much what I do (again for exactly the reasons you state) for all groups in active combat areas.
I use the rest states on airgroups in rear or non-active combat areas. My experience is that I have lower ops losses when I do because frankly, I cannot take the time to look at every group every turn.
In combat areas, I do check them every turn and will stand down the entire group as needed.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 111

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/2/2016 9:26:26 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

I use rest in combat areas depending on frequency of strikes/sweeps, quality of opponent, time in game, service rating of airframes and daily checking of group fatigue/airframe damage or repairs.

This is something I'm particular about. I check a lot, and I don't let pilots go into combat above 30 fatigue or planes above 25 damage, usually.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 112

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/3/2016 9:49:50 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

2. If set to fly CAP x% and without a rest % set, at zero hex range (no escort) do some pilots still rest should a strike arrive? Or do they all fly?

According to the manual they all attempt to intercept, following the 1/3rd rule.

I am a little more curious than you...What I am interested in is the Rest % done once, at the beginning of the day or twice at the beginning of each day air combat phase or applied for each interception with the latter what I am really curious about.

For example my CAP settings is 30/30(CAP/Rest), Range 0. So If I have a 100 plane squadron 30 are on active CAP (with 1/3 of the 30 actually airborne), while 30 planes have been stood down for rest. Now if a raid happens, then 40 more planes are scrambled, but there are still 30 stood down planes.

Now assume a second raid happens, but we lost 10 planes. 90 Plane squadron, 27 CAP (1/3rd in the air), 27 stood down for rest -- in effect you are moving 3 fighters from rest into operation to face subsequent air raids?

Or does the 30 planes on rest, rest all day no matter what is happening.

You can see I am not interested in using rest as a training tool. I am not talking about training. I am interested in countering wave, after wave of attacks. And it is in this kind of circumstance that I think the Rest percentage has a definite beneficial effect on the defender.

Um... no. If you have 100 planes in the unit and 30% are set to CAP, you will only see 30 planes on CAP at the most. That's it. There is no wiggling or jostling or randomness here. It's 30% because you set 30%. I know this because I usually set 80% CAP (with no rest, as per my usual), and with the USAAF 25-plane units it's really, really easy to see that only 20 of them ever come up into the air.

RE: Obvert's #1 - the pilots not set to CAP will be resting. x% will fly CAP, y% will rest, and z% (where z = 100 - x - y) will also rest because they weren't assigned a mission that day.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 113

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/3/2016 10:47:02 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Ok, Lok, explain the below to me, please.

This is land based air coverage over a port/runway.

Pax feel free to chime in about your randomness...these are creme de la creme pilots and leader with high experience.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/3/2016 11:08:17 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 114

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/3/2016 11:56:57 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ok, Lok, explain the below to me, please.

This is land based air coverage over a port/runway.

Pax feel free to chime in about your randomness...these are creme de la creme pilots and leader with high experience.

This is the kind of stuff I've been seeing too. I haven't gotten enough tested, just ran a few pre-tests to see what I should be looking at. I'm going to try CAP/rest 50/50, 50/20 and 50/0 all at range zero. That should reveal a lot. Should have something by tomorrow.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 115

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/4/2016 12:42:57 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ok, Lok, explain the below to me, please.

This is land based air coverage over a port/runway.

Pax feel free to chime in about your randomness...these are creme de la creme pilots and leader with high experience.

I've never, ever seen that happen. Screenshot of the unit? I believe you, but that doesn't happen in my games.

The 3 in the air + 10 on standby doesn't even equal 40% of 42.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 4/4/2016 12:44:45 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 116

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/4/2016 1:19:33 AM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ok, Lok, explain the below to me, please.

This is land based air coverage over a port/runway.

Pax feel free to chime in about your randomness...these are creme de la creme pilots and leader with high experience.

This is typical of what I will see, and I 've been seeing it since release so nothing new. Not all the time, but every few turns I will see something exactly like this.

No surprise to me here at all.

As I've said, when I look into the leaders sometimes I convince myself it is leader aggression. Other times, I'm not sure what it is.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 4/4/2016 1:21:06 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 117

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/4/2016 2:06:14 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

There are more things in heaven and earth, Lok,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/4/2016 2:11:08 AM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 118

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/4/2016 2:17:08 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
As I've said, when I look into the leaders sometimes I convince myself it is leader aggression. Other times, I'm not sure what it is.

Sometimes, I think it may have to do with the number of incoming attacks. The above picture squadron had a long, long day.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 119

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1 - 4/4/2016 3:34:28 AM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
As I've said, when I look into the leaders sometimes I convince myself it is leader aggression. Other times, I'm not sure what it is.

Sometimes, I think it may have to do with the number of incoming attacks. The above picture squadron had a long, long day.

I have little doubt that is true ... what else there is, I can only speculate.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 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

2.297

Slitherine

RE: Low CAP vs High SWEEPS test #1