Patch/Bug

Eagle Day to Bombing of the Reich is a improved and enhanced edition of Talonsoft's older Battle of Britain and Bombing the Reich. This updated version represents the best simulation of the air war over Britain and the strategic bombing campaign over Europe that has ever been made.

Moderators: Joel Billings, harley, warshipbuilder, simovitch

User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by Hard Sarge »

upped the Maint levels for Heavies and fighters

Image
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2958
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by KenchiSulla »

That one intrigues me sarge, looking forward to it :-)

Keep up the good job!
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by Hard Sarge »

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen
Image
User avatar
von Shagmeister
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Dromahane, Ireland

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by von Shagmeister »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen

That's where the structure of Allied units was superior to the Luftwaffe, they had inherent redundancy built into them.

ie
1943 TOE for a USAAF FG was 75 a/c (48+27, 3 Sqns of 25 a/c) ie 48 available for ops (16 per Sqn) with 27 immediate reserves (9 per Sqn), TOE later increased to 84 the in some cases 96 (8AF)

1943 TOE for USAAF BG was 32/36 a/c (24+8/24+12), usually 18 a/c per group required for ops (1 Sqn out of 4 usually rested every mission unless all out effort required, this was to rest crews and maintain a/c), TOE later increased to 48. At game start USAAF BGs have the 1944 TOE of 48 a/c of which a max of 32 can be available this is too high.

This system means for the USAAF that the required numbers can always be available for ops with significant numbers in reserve (in maintenance etc).

1943 RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn had a UE of 18 a/c (16 IE + 2 IR) and 27 pilots (24+3) presently 24+3 a/c. In real life 8-12 a/c was typical for a RAF fighter Sqn to generate for a mission.

However the above historical establishments do raise a number of issues with the game. I did calculate the over establishment of Allied fighters some time ago in the development forum and I will see if I can find the figures. I didn't calculate the over establishment of USAAF heavy bombers but at game start would be in the region of 33%. The over establishment issue is independant of the high servicabilty rates.

Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum

User avatar
von Shagmeister
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Dromahane, Ireland

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by von Shagmeister »

Found the figures in the Wish List Thread, bear in mind it would have been with an older OoB though probably little differnce to the numbers of units involved.


9. RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn Establishments

Can the a/c establishment of standard RAF single engine day fighter units be dropped from 24+3 to 16+2 (from 3 flights to 2 flights)

10. USAAF "B" Fighter Groups

Can the number of "B" Groups be decreased

The way "B" Fighter Groups are structured at the moment results in consistantly more a/c being available for ops than in real life.

At BTR start date the real life TO&E for a USAAF fighter Sqn was between 25-28 a/c (75-84 a/c per group). Game has 72 a/c per group of which 48 a/c are available for ops (24 reserve). When "B" Groups were flown "A" Group would fly 36 a/c (instead of 48 a/c (12 per Sqn instead of 16)) and "B" Group would fly 36 a/c. Therefore a single fighter group putting up "A" & "B" formations would try to put up 72 a/c (ie nearly all its reserve a/c)

The way "A" & "B" groups are structured at the moment 48+48 a/c are available for ops (with a further 24+24 reserve a/c). So not only are more a/c available for ops (96 as opposed 72) than in real life but also a significant reserve of serviceable a/c is still available (24+24) for the next days ops.

The result in the game is that "A" & "B" Groups can be flown every day with a higher than real life number of fighters whereas if "A" & "B" Groups were flown everyday in real life serviceabilty would soon become an issue and they would not be able to generate the required number of a/c for ops.

Even allowing for a late war establishment of 32 a/c per Sqn (96 a/c per group) which some groups were allocated this still only allows for 96 a/c per group instead of the equivalent of 144 a/c.

So short of allowing all a/c within a group to be available for ops (which would require a major reworking of the code) and decreasing the serviceabilty rates (which I believe are too high for all a/c of all nationalties) the easiest solution would be to limit the number of "B" groups available for ops.

Just had a look through the OoB and there are the equivalent of 47 USAAF fighter groups in the game. If you include "B" groups this goes up to 62.

Total no. of a/c in game 62x72 = 4464 a/c
Total no. of a/c (real life) should be 47x84 = 3948 a/c

ie an additional 516 a/c more than there should be (equivalent to 7+ extra fighter groups)

Also worked out the extra numbers for the RAF SE fighter Sqns that should be 2 flights only (130 Sqns total)

Total no. of a/c in game 130x27 = 3510 a/c
Total no. of a/c (real life) should be 130x18 = 2340 a/c

ie an additional 1170 a/c more than there should be (equivalent to 65 extra Sqns)

As you can see the over establishment of Allied fighters is significant. 
Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum

User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen

That's where the structure of Allied units was superior to the Luftwaffe, they had inherent redundancy built into them.

ie
1943 TOE for a USAAF FG was 75 a/c (48+27, 3 Sqns of 25 a/c) ie 48 available for ops (16 per Sqn) with 27 immediate reserves (9 per Sqn), TOE later increased to 84 the in some cases 96 (8AF) NOV of 43 was increased to 102, which doesn't count the fact that most Groups then became over strengthed

1943 TOE for USAAF BG was 32/36 a/c (24+8/24+12), usually 18 a/c per group required for ops (1 Sqn out of 4 usually rested every mission unless all out effort required, this was to rest crews and maintain a/c), TOE later increased to 48. At game start USAAF BGs have the 1944 TOE of 48 a/c of which a max of 32 can be available this is too high. again in Nov 43, the VIIIth BG went to 54

This system means for the USAAF that the required numbers can always be available for ops with significant numbers in reserve (in maintenance etc).

1943 RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn had a UE of 18 a/c (16 IE + 2 IR) and 27 pilots (24+3) presently 24+3 a/c. In real life 8-12 a/c was typical for a RAF fighter Sqn to generate for a mission.

and they also flew 2 or 3 missions a day, and most times the 2nd mission was a new set of pilots

However the above historical establishments do raise a number of issues with the game. I did calculate the over establishment of Allied fighters some time ago in the development forum and I will see if I can find the figures. I didn't calculate the over establishment of USAAF heavy bombers but at game start would be in the region of 33%. The over establishment issue is independant of the high servicabilty rates.

Image
User avatar
von Shagmeister
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Dromahane, Ireland

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by von Shagmeister »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

testing this part of it right now, to try and see if it helps, in the short run, you may not even notice it (a US FG has 24 spares

but it should show up more with the BG and Gruppen

That's where the structure of Allied units was superior to the Luftwaffe, they had inherent redundancy built into them.

ie
1943 TOE for a USAAF FG was 75 a/c (48+27, 3 Sqns of 25 a/c) ie 48 available for ops (16 per Sqn) with 27 immediate reserves (9 per Sqn), TOE later increased to 84 the in some cases 96 (8AF) NOV of 43 was increased to 102, which doesn't count the fact that most Groups then became over strengthed

1943 TOE for USAAF BG was 32/36 a/c (24+8/24+12), usually 18 a/c per group required for ops (1 Sqn out of 4 usually rested every mission unless all out effort required, this was to rest crews and maintain a/c), TOE later increased to 48. At game start USAAF BGs have the 1944 TOE of 48 a/c of which a max of 32 can be available this is too high. again in Nov 43, the VIIIth BG went to 54

This system means for the USAAF that the required numbers can always be available for ops with significant numbers in reserve (in maintenance etc).

1943 RAF SE Day Fighter Sqn had a UE of 18 a/c (16 IE + 2 IR) and 27 pilots (24+3) presently 24+3 a/c. In real life 8-12 a/c was typical for a RAF fighter Sqn to generate for a mission.

and they also flew 2 or 3 missions a day, and most times the 2nd mission was a new set of pilots

However the above historical establishments do raise a number of issues with the game. I did calculate the over establishment of Allied fighters some time ago in the development forum and I will see if I can find the figures. I didn't calculate the over establishment of USAAF heavy bombers but at game start would be in the region of 33%. The over establishment issue is independant of the high servicabilty rates.


May I ask the source for the 102 a/c TOE for USAAF FGs for Nov 43, I can find a source for TOE of 96 a/c and 135 pilots for early 44 for certain FGs also source for TOE for 8AF BGs of 54 a/c for Nov 43.
Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum

User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by Hard Sarge »

Freeman

two different books on the 56th

also, seeing, for Aug 17th, the IXth has 4 BGs of B-17s to aid in the raids of this day, and they are counting on sending 180 bombers to southern France

( I don't know where those numbers are coming from, but that is what Middlebrook is saying)
Image
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by Hard Sarge »

Slovak's updated (Mikkey)

name corrections by Lutzow (a couple of other names used the - instead of the /, so I used it that way for Frankfurt-Oder, just too long for the an der to be used, may be why it was the way it was)
Image
User avatar
von Shagmeister
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Dromahane, Ireland

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by von Shagmeister »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Freeman

two different books on the 56th

also, seeing, for Aug 17th, the IXth has 4 BGs of B-17s to aid in the raids of this day, and they are counting on sending 180 bombers to southern France

( I don't know where those numbers are coming from, but that is what Middlebrook is saying)


The Mighty Eight War Manual - Roger A. Freeman

Page 59

With the increase of some fighter groups of squadron aircraft complements to 32 and pilots to 45 in the winter of 43/44 .....

The Mighty Eight War Diary - Roger A. Freeman

Page 89-90

17Aug43

1BW (9xBGs: 91BG, 92BG, 303BG, 305BG, 306BG, 351BG, 379BG, 381BG, 384BG)

Despatched 230 B-17s (average per group = 25.5)

4BW (7xBGs: 94BG, 95BG, 96BG, 100BG, 385BG, 388BG, 390BG)

Despacted 146 B-17s (average per group = 20.8)

Total despatched 376 by 16xBGs (average per group = 23.5)

This was a max effort by 8BC with the 4th Sqn in each bomb group being required to fly as well as all servicable spares. Totals fall far short of the 32 per BG available for ops normally at the start of BTR (once the groups have filled out). The fact that the 48 a/c TOEs for BGs were starting to be adopted during this period isn't in dispute, but the amount of a/c they can routinely despatch is.

von Shagmeister

EDIT: Add date
Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum

User avatar
mikkey
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Slovakia

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by mikkey »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
Slovak's updated (Mikkey)
...
Thank you Hard Sarge!
PHague80
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:00 am

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by PHague80 »

I cannot seem to download the Patch from the Matrix site. Is the Download still available?

User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by Hard Sarge »

have you tried going here ?

products

then to the game

when you get to the info about the game, at the top it says downloads

click on that, at bottom of the info line, it has a link, click that

it works for me ?

Image
Attachments
dl.jpg
dl.jpg (175.38 KiB) Viewed 527 times
Image
PHague80
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:00 am

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by PHague80 »

I've done that and I get a "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" message.

I'm using explorer 8. Could that be the problem?
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by lastdingo »

I had a strange bug. For training purposes I had launched a couple of JG 301 units and a group of JG 2 (BTR axis side) shortly before the day ended. The planes barely made it into the air and did not land. I suspect they had taken off after the last enemy had landed.

They were visible in the net movement phase as aircraft icons (not as line+box as is my usual setting).

The next battle phase began with them dying. I lost 48 planes AND pilots during the first seconds of the day, before I had even launched anything. More died in the evening.

I replayed that turn multiple times in an effort to find a way how to minimise the damage from this bug and it turned out that the involved night fighters (JG 301 units) only died during the night phase. During the rounds when my AI opponent launched no night strikes they didn't die at all. Instead, the units were almost empty during the next movement phase. On one occasion they died two nights after the fact, when the AI finally launched some night attacks.

I still have the savegame and could send it if devs want it.

User avatar
harley
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:21 am

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by harley »

Hmmm...

sure, PM me the save. But usually these things require repeatable trigger steps to catch. If the save is before the end-of-turn I might be able to do some cleanup to stop it from killing them later. The old SAS bug was this sort of thing...
gigiddy gigiddy gig-i-ddy
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by lastdingo »

corrupted gamesave: http://oron.com/n8ckzfz7tzxo   (see the aircraft close to Berlin)
Repair is unnecessary, I already began a new game with a refined strategy.

I reproduced the problem in the meantime, though (luckily on my first turn).
Exactly the same; patrols launched so late (for training purposes) that they didn't get to land properly during action phase.

bettysteve
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 4:52 am

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by bettysteve »

hey hey, don't know if its my dodgy old XP Pro PC or the game, but every few minutes (10 to 20), the game drops to the taskbar all on its lonesome, the game continues to play while minimized and comes straight back when l click on it. l have tried turning off the modem, anti virus, heck l open task manager and turn off most of whats running, (l know what to turn off and what not to), and l get my processes down to like 30. It does get annoying when it minimizes all the time, but then, its not like its having a "RAM leak" that screws your game like civ4 or sims3 does, (when it occurs the game becomes unsavable and most crashworthy). just wondering if'n its just me, is all
begging for "likes" is demeaning to the begger.
proflui
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:38 am
Location: Hong Kong, now in Toronto

RE: Patch/Bug

Post by proflui »

message deleted
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich”