why do air units rest so much?

[Adam Rinkleff]

TOAW really is pretty realistic.

NO, its not -- that's the problem, is you people honestly don't know what you are talking about, and your egos won't allow someone else to interject a counter-opinion.

You can't order air units to fly if they haven't got petrol

100% supply units should not run out of fuel within a day or two; are you reading what I'm writing, or just obsessed with disagreeing???

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

TOAW really is pretty realistic.

NO, its not -- that's the problem, is you people honestly don't know what you are talking about, and your egos won't allow someone else to interject a counter-opinion.

Lol. Did you happen to be standing in front of a mirror when that came into your head?

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: desert

and I know goddamn well that real air forces keep slugging it out unlike these babied units.

Time-period specific, perhaps?

..very few, and they tend to be the exception rather than the rule, especially as planes get more complex, sticking a few patches on a Camel and waiting for the glue to dry is one thing, fixing holes in the same place in any modern jet is not quite the same level of technology..

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

TOAW really is pretty realistic.

.

You can't order air units to fly if they haven't got petrol

100% supply units should not run out of fuel within a day or two;

..take a look at the fuel consumption figures for a combat jet..

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

TOAW really is pretty realistic.

NO, its not -- that's the problem, is you people honestly don't know what you are talking about, and your egos won't allow someone else to interject a counter-opinion.

TOAW is pretty realistic. You've got your MA in military history- cool. The US Army I'm sure has a lot of people with the same, and they considered TOAW to be realistic enough to use for their own studies.

Now, I happen to think that the initial reaction to this thread was coloured by people's perceptions of you. As it happens this issue has been raised before.

The argument that was made at the time was that this effect happens so that your air force can get caught with its pants down in the middle of an operation just the same as your army can. So early turn ending means that infantry aren't dug in, artillery aren't supporting because they were just bombarding one place- and fighters aren't able to intercept enemy bombers on one part of the front because they were fighting elsewhere on your turn.

Maybe this explanation isn't sufficient. However I feel that it's important to give it since all you've had so far is a shouting match- which you have happily exacerbated.

[Adam Rinkleff]

fixing holes in the same place in any modern jet is not quite the same level of technology..

And who said I was talking about modern jets? Why are you all so insistent on assuming that I'm wrong, without any idea of what is actually happening on my computer? I'm using 100% supplies across the board, and you guys are talking about running out of fuel... if that's what happens on 100% supply, then TOAW should be fixed to give people a little more flexibility.

The US Army I'm sure has a lot of people with the same, and they considered TOAW to be realistic enough to use for their own studies.

Given their track record, I'm not too impressed. There are LOTS of examples of air forces fighting on under extreme duress; I am not asking all of you how I can model a weak ultra-modern delicate force, but how I can model an effective air force with reliable machinery and excellent ground crews. TOAW seems to be using a one-size fits all equation, and rather than trying to understand it so that it can be fixed, everyone here seems almost obsessed with proving how wonderful it is. Groupthink is not cool!

You said this issue was brought up before; well, what was done to fix it? I rather doubt you guys convinced the people who brought this up before; my guess, is they simply left the TOAW community, and what good did that do?

Look, maybe everyone here is all pro army, and you don't think much of the air force... but honestly, air force pilots will usually keep flying as long as even just ONE plane is working. All I want to do is create an air force that does that, instead of being lectured to about how wrong my impressions are. And if TOAW can't model this, because someone wrote an equation which forces designers to accept super-delicate planes... then just admit it, and acknowledge the problem.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

Given their track record, I'm not too impressed.

Is it your opinion that you are a superior authority than the US Army on whether a wargame is realistic?

You said this issue was brought up before; well, what was done to fix it?

Nothing- I just gave you the reason why this is a feature not a bug.

I can understand that it is annoying for this to happen to you. However this feature is there to ensure that your fighter force is not always ready to act anywhere on the map against enemy airpower if it has been heavily engaged elsewhere earlier in the turn. I disagree with the explanations offered above. Clearly a well-supplied unit going onto "rest" does not represent running out of fuel. It represents the fact that your air force cannot be everywhere at once, and sometimes it gets caught out.

You should note that in addition to your manually setting them back, airfield attacks tend to trigger units on "rest" going back to air superiority.

I rather doubt you guys convinced the people who brought this up before; my guess, is they simply left the TOAW community,

I can't recall who brought it up before, but I doubt they left the TOAW community. Very few people are that petty.

Look, maybe everyone here is all pro army

Norm Koger is a veteran of the US air force.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

fixing holes in the same place in any modern jet is not quite the same level of technology..

And who said I was talking about modern jets? Why are you all so insistent on assuming that I'm wrong, without any idea of what is actually happening on my computer? I'm using 100% supplies across the board, and you guys are talking about running out of fuel... if that's what happens on 100% supply, then TOAW should be fixed to give people a little more flexibility.

The US Army I'm sure has a lot of people with the same, and they considered TOAW to be realistic enough to use for their own studies.

Given their track record, I'm not too impressed. There are LOTS of examples of air forces fighting on under extreme duress; I am not asking all of you how I can model a weak ultra-modern delicate force, but how I can model an effective air force with reliable machinery and excellent ground crews. TOAW seems to be using a one-size fits all equation, and rather than trying to understand it so that it can be fixed, everyone here seems almost obsessed with proving how wonderful it is. Groupthink is not cool!

You said this issue was brought up before; well, what was done to fix it? I rather doubt you guys convinced the people who brought this up before; my guess, is they simply left the TOAW community, and what good did that do?

Look, maybe everyone here is all pro army, and you don't think much of the air force... but honestly, air force pilots will usually keep flying as long as even just ONE plane is working. All I want to do is create an air force that does that, instead of being lectured to about how wrong my impressions are. And if TOAW can't model this, because someone wrote an equation which forces designers to accept super-delicate planes... then just admit it, and acknowledge the problem.

..take a look at the Japanese air units in South Pacific Struggle, sometimes they fly till around 1/3rd strength, sometimes the same unit craps out at 3/4 strength. If you want kamikaze, then look at the Japanese air design in Okinawa. Both scens give air the right feel and fit the historical use, what more do you want ?

..get the perspective right here, you are not the air group/wing commander, it isn't your role in a toaw scen. Air is something you call on, if it can fly it will, if it can't it won't, and the reasons air won't fly are many, from lack of serviceable aircraft to fog on the runway, you don't control any of these factors. The battle of the Bulge is just one battle where air was grounded by weather, there are many others. Don't you think that asking for 100% control, regardless of all external factors is just a tad unrealistic and anhistorical...

[Radu]

I'd like to put my two cents in, preferably without leading to more temper flaring.

First,AdamRinkleff, when you dismiss the modelling of air combat in TOAW, you do so in what quality? Just as it has been asked before,are you military educated to question the expertise of the designers? Or just a frustrated gamer? Do you know for a *fact* that airforce operations are merely reduced to hopping in the plane,without a significant logistical/planning effort, entailing significant man-hours?

Second. Could you offer some additional details regarding the context of the occurrence ? In which scenario did this occur specifically? What losses did the unit take? Is it reorganization (complete with the orange bar) what you're talking about, or merely a sudden switch from 'Air Superiority' to 'Rest'? What does the Airforce Briefing Screen say before/after the purported mis-functioning?

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

TOAW really is pretty realistic.

NO, its not -- that's the problem, is you people honestly don't know what you are talking about, and your egos won't allow someone else to interject a counter-opinion.

Lol. Did you happen to be standing in front of a mirror when that came into your head?

[:D][:D]

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Radu

I'd like to put my two cents in, preferably without leading to more temper flaring.

First,AdamRinkleff, when you dismiss the modelling of air combat in TOAW, you do so in what quality? Just as it has been asked before,are you military educated to question the expertise of the designers? Or just a frustrated gamer? Do you know for a *fact* that airforce operations are merely reduced to hopping in the plane,without a significant logistical/planning effort, entailing significant man-hours?

Second. Could you offer some additional details regarding the context of the occurrence ? In which scenario did this occur specifically? What losses did the unit take? Is it reorganization (complete with the orange bar) what you're talking about, or merely a sudden switch from 'Air Superiority' to 'Rest'? What does the Airforce Briefing Screen say before/after the purported mis-functioning?

Excellent questions.

[ColinWright]

Groupthink is not cool!

Lol. That's another first. No one's ever accused me of participating in 'groupthink' before. I almost feel comforted. 'See, I don't compulsively disagree with everybody.'

[wolflars]

Whoa, everybody just calm down here

Mr. Rinkleff,

You have raised a question that perhaps deserves to be answered. Now, your comments towards desert were rude and completely out of line. He is just trying to help. If you do not want what you consider “lame attempt to explain the pedantically obvious” you should not post questions on a public forum.

Before you indulge yourself in some fantasy that I am attacking you let me assure that I am not. On the contrary I am coming to your defense.

The TOAW community is too entrenched. Recent debates between several TOAW proponents and yourself, Mr vahauser, and some of the CA people are evidence enough. However, some of these people represent the most knowledgeable “experts” on the game. TOAW has been around for quite some time. Over the years many of these arguments and critiques have been brought up before. Often the results have been dismissed, incorporated, or added to the extensive “wish list.”


Your particular observation here appears to be one of convenience. You are simply annoyed by a feature. This does not necessarily mean the feature improperly handles what it is intended to model.

GD (Mr. Ben) has offered what seems to be a plausible explanation. Typically between GD, Colin, and Lemay and others you will get reasonable answers since they probably know the game better than anyone. If they seem too entrenched, they probably are (for example, Ben has no sense of humor and Lemay is not very good at expressing his ideas even when he is correct). Yet, you should take note that they are listening and responding to your posts, however inane.

Your comment regarding the questionable realism of TOAW is well deserved. It is a game. As such, it is one of the more realistic games available for modeling operational warfare—though I would argue it should be limited to covering warfare through only the 1950s, maybe 1960s, but no further. It has been noted, and generally accepted, that TOAW falls short at the extreme edges (2.5km and 50km scales).

Your comment about people or the game being “pro-Army” is possibly well deserved too (I am certainly “pro-Army” since I spent over a decade in the army and many months in combat—on the flip side I am under contract to study and critique Army methodology as it pertains to my subject matter expertise). Despite Mr. Koger’s background I find that the air model is somewhat lacking. But, again the initial design was to cover a specific period portraying specific elements of operational theory. Pertaining to the “track record” of which you speak I would like further elaboration as to what you mean.

I do believe some of your observations are warranted. Obviously your criticisms are welcome; otherwise people would not take the time to offer explanations or counter-arguments. You do, however, come off as being abrasive and rude—not willing to entertain discussion beyond ridicule of a system that none of us fully understand nor do you seem willing to debate and argue as one would expect a man with your level of education to do. Furthermore, if you think people are impressed by your so called credentials, I doubt it. I have a Ph.D. That trumps your M.A. Besides, an M.A. in military history lacks solid credibility in most academic circles since it is offered mostly through online schools, at least in the US (there are only a few notable exceptions so who am I to judge?).

TOAW is ambitious, that I will grant. Sometimes that ambition outweighs what it is actually capable of doing (go look at AT for an even more powerful editor despite the combat engines serious shortfalls). However, it is certainly one of the best systems out there. Your attacks on a community of gamers dedicated to improving it are largely unwarranted and unnecessary. Criticisms and questions are welcome and, provided they are reasonable, will and usually are responded to. Whether you like it or not, sometimes new ideas fail, sometimes they don’t.

Also, leave the King of Canada alone...judging him by his picture…are you serious?

All these attacks back and forth aside, hopefully you will take some time to answer Radu’s questions as this might lead to a better discussion to what I consider a worthwhile question about how air units perform.

My apologies for the long and didactic post .

[JAMiAM]

Two thumbs up, for an excellent post.

[Adam Rinkleff]

Are you military educated to question the expertise of the designers?

Yes. I think the program has enormous potential, but there is a problem here with certain egotistical individuals who are so confident about their opinions that they seem dead-set against even allowing other designers to manipulate certain key values. Why would any of you care if I created a scenario with more durable aircraft? Why would you object? Why wouldn't you want a wargame with more flexibility in design? That's fine if Jamiam is too busy to change or fix it; all I'm doing is trying to figure out if there is a way to manipulate the editable values to get the proper performance, and apparently there isn't.

Do you know for a *fact* that airforce operations are merely reduced to hopping in the plane,without a significant logistical/planning effort, entailing significant man-hours?

I never said that, and I think it is ridiculous to try and deliberately misrepresent what I have said; what you are doing here is called a "strawman argument". In any case, I know for a *FACT* that a decent scenario editor should give designers a wide-range of flexibility in deciding how units perform, and that if I set supply to 100%, readiness to 100%, proficiency to 100%, along with formation proficiency to 100%, and formation supply to 100%, and I still have a recurring problem in which aircraft which have seen only a day or two of light combat are deciding to spontaenously rest for days on end... that is not realistic, and at the very least the program should re-assign them after they have rested for long enough.

In which scenario did this occur specifically?

I am experimenting with the scenario designer, and not any specific scenario; the weather is great, the units aren't taking heavy damage, their supply/prof/readi ratings are all high, and they are still summarily deciding to rest.

What losses did the unit take?

Less than 5%.

Is it reorganization (complete with the orange bar) what you're talking about, or merely a sudden switch from 'Air Superiority' to 'Rest'?

A sudden switch which is wholly unannounced by the program, thus requiring me to check on the air units every single turn, which is a bit annoying. I know that some people will respond that this is a "realistic" simulation of everything a real-life commander would have to do; well um, actually, in a real military the subordinates don't get to spontaenously decide that it's naptime.

What does the Airforce Briefing Screen say before/after the purported mis-functioning?

Nothing relevant so far as I can tell, what sort of information would you expect to see?

[Adam Rinkleff]

nor do you seem willing to debate and argue

I didn't come here to debate and argue, I came here to ask a very specific question: How can I get my air units to stop resting spontaneously? If it can't be done, I think its a serious problem, but I'm not interested in arguing with people about it, especially when none of you are in any position to fix the program. If you think air forces sit around resting all day, fine; all I care about is getting my units to stop doing that so much. If you don't know a way to fix it, then just admit it; why sit here and try to convince me that its perfect, when I obviously disagree?

Your attacks on a community of gamers dedicated to improving it are largely unwarranted

Im not attacking anyone. I'm the one being flamed by trolls who think it is productive to follow me around and criticize everything I say; I don't follow them around making snide comments, that's trolling, and they are doing exactly that. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find people who actually understand how the program works, and how to get it to perform in a specific way, rather than people who simply want to assure me that its very realistic and I must be absurd to suggest that it might work differently.

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it, and don't respond to it. I respect other people's threads, and don't come in and spam them up with a bunch of BS naysaying attempts at flame-humor disagreement; it'd be nice if trolls like veers would do the same. About the only thing I've posted in a thread started by someone else is that I agreed with what they said, and just for that I got flamed by the lame trolls, so I really don't think I need accord their statements further respect.

[desert]

There is no way to "fix" it (spontaneous resting) that anyone here has ever heard of, I think.
 
By the way, do pilots really fly all day long? I thought they had a set amount of combat missions per day.

[Radu]

Ah, I think I've got the problem pinned down.

Micromanagement.

Having to tell (confirm) the air units every few turns "Yes,dammit,carry on", when no special events (like reorg from losses) took place.

I myself am new here, so I don't know wether this micromanagement burden can be removed in the first place. I personally only micromanage every turn small airforce scenarios, and in other instances I let the AI do the job.

But first thing's first: Have I defined the problem correctly? Is it a matter of micromanagement rather than reorg loss tolerance? (as apparently everyone else understood)

[Adam Rinkleff]

There is no way to "fix" it (spontaneous resting) that anyone here has ever heard of, I think.

Well, there should be, but I don't expect Jamiam to fix it so I guess that's the end of the thread. I suppose one solution would be to create lots of very small air units, and then at least some of them would keep flying.

By the way, do pilots really fly all day long?

Yah, its happened before, and I should really have the ability here to force my pilots to keep flying until they mutiny or fall out of the sky.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Radu

Ah, I think I've got the problem pinned down.

Micromanagement.

Having to tell (confirm) the air units every few turns "Yes,dammit,carry on", when no special events (like reorg from losses) took place.

I myself am new here, so I don't know wether this micromanagement burden can be removed in the first place. I personally only micromanage every turn small airforce scenarios, and in other instances I let the AI do the job.

But first thing's first: Have I defined the problem correctly? Is it a matter of micromanagement rather than reorg loss tolerance? (as apparently everyone else understood)

Well, first off, if you want fun and easy to play, TOAW is probably not the system for you (or for Adam, to be more precise). While it's possible to make too much of a good thing, TOAW is all about 'micromanagement.' No splashy special effects, no get falling-out-of-your chair-drunk and be able to play well anyway: it's all about thinking about your choices and carefully executing them. Get the MP's where they should be, position HQ's so that they'll be enhancing the supply of as many of the units in their formation as possible, look at the position you'll be in if the turn unexpectedly ends, ask yourself if continuing with this attack is really a good idea, have some air support ready for the next turn, etc.

So that Adam has to reassign his air units to the missions he wants them to carry out may not be the ideal state of affairs -- but it is not a 'serious problem' (Adam's words). The Germans have a pretty long air unit list in Seelowe -- but clicking through it every round just goes with the territory, in my view. For one thing, I don't want the computer deciding units should just 'carry on.' I'll look at them and decide if that's a good idea myself, thank you.

The system does have serious problems -- but failing to please Adam isn't one of them.