Loss inflation?

[Lanconic]

Playing w the Beta Patch......

Just finished three days with losses (allied) over 300+ per day.

German losses were about 150+ per day

Not all my gruppe have converted to FW190-A5 but the majority have.

That kind of loss rate would not be sustainable. However....it doesnt bother me greatly
because.....it is the same for BOTH sides.

Even at the ball bearing raids I think the loss was 77 planes? (correct me if I am wrong)

The problem is that the PLAYERS are the problem.
The players are far more sanguine than any real life commander.
I cannot see Harris sending the entire Bomber Command to take out the AFGA plant
in Berlin.
But the AI does. So do some players.

Its like playing a tactical game of Marengo, the casualties are always greater for
both sides. Because of the way, the PLAYERS use their command.

If you use units in a way that promotes taking losses, they will take losses.
It is my opinion that THIS, is the root of the problem. Not a broken game engine.
If the players are ALWAYS playing for blood....they will get blood.

[joliverlay]

I must respectfully disagree. It is not just the players. For the Schwienfurt raids the 8th AAF flew extra, spare and any other aircraft they could find. They were equipped above the nominal TOE and the order came to put everything they had in the air. My recollection on the other side is not as clear, but my recollection is that at this time the germans followed the attackers and landed and refuled at intermidiate fields not having to return to the origional base intercepting the same raid more than one time during the day.

There are at least two discret problems with the game from a historical (as opposed to a game) point of view.

1. The aicraft losses are two high. I don't know if it is excessive ammo, to much contact, or excessive accuracy. I suspect the weapons are a tad to powerful and the aircraft find each other a little to easily (or quickly) and ammo is just not limited enought.

2. Both sides have a little to much control and knowledge.

The second problem bothers me the least because both sides could have improved command and control to some extent, and the intent of the game is to give the player more control than a single commander would ever have. The excessive losses in each individual combat is what bothers me.

I played one of the mods (which seems to have been taken down) that seemed much more historic. My losses were typically 60-80 allied bombers per day and perhaps 30-40 axis fighters. The raids went deep and hit important targets without being totally distroyed. The loss of axis pilots is less than in the game, but will add up nevertheless. The number of defending fighters being produced by industry did indeed seeem to be about 2X to high based on accumulation of extra AC.

I hope an "official" or "officially allowed" mod can be produced with lower losses on each side and toned down production. I don't think allied replacements are a problem unless (with lower losses) unless the allied changes the mediums to heavies and you end up with every Allied fighter being a P47 or P51.

Just my 2 cents. No criticism of the standard game intended....just observations.

[jomni]

Already discussed before.
Some say that looking at individual probabilities, losses are just about right.
It's the combination of the number of raids, how the computer that makes engagement decisions, player aggressiveness, etc. that makes the total loss losses excessive.

[Golden Bear]

Not too worried. As an Allied player I easily get 1:2 losses in my favor. Works both ways.

[harley]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

That kind of loss rate would not be sustainable. However....it doesnt bother me greatly
because.....it is the same for BOTH sides.
<snip>
The players are far more sanguine than any real life commander.
I cannot see Harris sending the entire Bomber Command to take out the AFGA plant
in Berlin.
But the AI does. So do some players.
<snip>
It is my opinion that THIS, is the root of the problem. Not a broken game engine.
If the players are ALWAYS playing for blood....they will get blood.

This is what Ron, Swift and I have been saying. If the play is historic, then the result is <reasonably> historic.

Where we have an issue is that the AI is incapable of discrimination or moderation. A human player can *choose* to stand down for a day, or go easy to rest, or change tactics and allow a raid through. The AI could do that, but it would end up fairly impotent. There'd be more complaints about a weak AI than an overly agressive one...

I have more to say, but I'll respond to joilverlay...

[harley]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay
I must respectfully disagree. It is not just the players.

Yes, in as much as I said about the aggressiveness of the AI.

1. The aicraft losses are two high. I don't know if it is excessive ammo, to much contact, or excessive accuracy. I suspect the weapons are a tad to powerful and the aircraft find each other a little to easily (or quickly) and ammo is just not limited enought.

I don't know that I agree with this position, but, the patch is coming along, and one of the changes not in the beta is a significant reduction in the amount of damaged aircraft crashes. We did some maths and worked out the %chance of lightly damaged AC from getting home, and made some major adjustments. I also modified the critical hit routines to allow for the effect of the weapon - lower effect = lower chance of CH, higher effect = higher chance. There are 2 types of CH, one is a damage multiplier, one is a raw damage addition. The first is medium-rare for a 16 effect weapon (4*MG151's) and will take down most bombers in one pass. The second is rare, and will take down anything.

That said - rare is relative. Every gang-of-weapons has a chance of doing a CH for every burst fired. Looking at the profiler, in an AI v AI game for the first turn of the 1943 campaign there were 1,500 combat events resulting is weapons firing, with about 5,000 individual gangs (like the 109 can have 3 different weapon models on board, so it's worked out 3 times, but the jug just has 50cals, so it's done once)

My losses were typically 60-80 allied bombers per day and perhaps 30-40 axis fighters. The raids went deep and hit important targets without being totally distroyed. The loss of axis pilots is less than in the game, but will add up nevertheless. The number of defending fighters being produced by industry did indeed seeem to be about 2X to high based on accumulation of extra AC.

I hope an "official" or "officially allowed" mod can be produced with lower losses on each side and toned down production. I don't think allied replacements are a problem unless (with lower losses) unless the allied changes the mediums to heavies and you end up with every Allied fighter being a P47 or P51.

Just my 2 cents. No criticism of the standard game intended....just observations.

So with the new combatty stuff, the end of the first day results in about 60 - 70 B17's and 30-40 fighters on both sides. All the other stuff you said applies. The same test game, now in September 1944, will still do massive losses, but on a day-by-day basis. Right now the allies are 50 down, the axis nearly 80. Why? Cos the allies have been building up huge stocks of everything, allowing a massive changeover to long-ranged escorts, with P51D's shooting up any interceptor that looks sideways at the bombers.

In the 392 days played both sides have flown 800,000 sorties (axis maybe 2 - 3% more) Allied losses are 23,000 (3%) and axis 19,000 (2.0%). The axis have the upper had earlier, the allies later.

So, while I may not agree with everyone, I think we've got a better system happening regardless...

[joliverlay]

Hi Harley,

Yes please do respond.

I would like to think the problem is mostly the players being overlay agressive. Indeed I used to think that. But I don't so much think so now. Also, if we are not supposed to be posting about this or mods, please let me know.

Jomni,

I don't recall actually seeing reports on individual probabilities being ok. However, I did see reports in the mod forum from folks trying to simulate historical raids and getting much higher than historical losses using (supposedly) historical numbers of aircraft. I did not believe them at first, or their reports for quite some time, and think I said so in an earlier post, but the more I play, the more I think the losses are actually two high in a historical context.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. Feel free to think what you like, but also consider doing some experiments to test what you think. Experiment always trumps theory, and I'd like to hear from others what their observations are.

[joliverlay]

Harley, We posted at the same time. My comments above were to your previous post not the nearest one above this.

[joliverlay]

Thanks for the detailed post Harley.

Wanted to add that I think a good AI with reasonable history and modeling is much much better than a perfect historical model and weak AI. So, I appreciate that your responses to the posts come form a context that includes keeping a competative AI.

I also appreciate your HARD work, and the HARD work of others involved.

[kaybayray]

Hey Guys <S> [8D]

I dont really think that losses are way out of line. I tend to agree with those that see that the results of overly aggressive Strategy and Tactics is much higher losses. My observations are that the AI seems a bit more aggressive now as opposed to the original. I appreciate Harley's point, if you dumb the AI down so that it does not respond to some Strikes it then ceases to be a challenge and becomes boreing. I am finding I must cover my bets a bit more now to avoid losses and failures. But I like that.

I see that the AI with respect to the Luftwaffe is performing much more intelligently. Interceptors are not as easily drawn away from Bomber formations. However my Bombers are fighting back more effectively now and I am seeing IMHO more realistic engagements as my formations are over enemy turf. My formations are no longer Target Drones.

I havnt run that many missions yet so I am sure I will see more as I play out my campaign. But I must report that overall I like the changes. I must point out that I am one of those that thinks if you run Ahistorical Missions / Campaigns you get Ahistorical results. I am not saying one is better or more appropriate than the other. To each his own I say. I am not even close to 44 yet so I will have to wait and see what happens when I start working on the truely long range strikes into Germany.

At the moment I am still Twiddling in Western Europe because I dont yet have the teeth to strike Germany. Plus I tend to play these games much more conservatively than I believe most do. I dont like seeing high losses joined with poor strike results. I also believe that I am in no big hurry.

However I do have one item to point out. I have yet to see any Strike fail to be intercepted. I have not yet seen the Luftwaffe fail to intercept anything. As many may think it trivial to locate a Bomber Formation in actual practice it is no slight task even with Radar. At alt with weather it's not that easy. But this is not a complaint, just an observation. This is just more reason for me to cover my bets tighter.

This, in practice forces me to adhere to the Doctrine of Force Concentration to create a Numerical Superiority in a localized tactic when I construct my Strikes. I must also choreograph my strikes not to allow the Luftwaffe to do the same to me as a result of my flight paths, strike targets and formation composition. This creates IMHO are very intricate Ballet of Aerial Combat. But this is the KayBay Way. [8D]

Later,
KayBay[8D]

[Thales99]

ORIGINAL: harley

I don't know that I agree with this position, but, the patch is coming along, and one of the changes not in the beta is a significant reduction in the amount of damaged aircraft crashes. We did some maths and worked out the %chance of lightly damaged AC from getting home, and made some major adjustments. I also modified the critical hit routines to allow for the effect of the weapon - lower effect = lower chance of CH, higher effect = higher chance. There are 2 types of CH, one is a damage multiplier, one is a raw damage addition. The first is medium-rare for a 16 effect weapon (4*MG151's) and will take down most bombers in one pass. The second is rare, and will take down anything.

That said - rare is relative. Every gang-of-weapons has a chance of doing a CH for every burst fired. Looking at the profiler, in an AI v AI game for the first turn of the 1943 campaign there were 1,500 combat events resulting is weapons firing, with about 5,000 individual gangs (like the 109 can have 3 different weapon models on board, so it's worked out 3 times, but the jug just has 50cals, so it's done once)

Is this critical hit chance dependent on the prevalence of high-effect weapons or on the sum of effect values? In the second case, a plane armed with 8 x rifle caliber gun like an early Spitfire (total effect 16) would have a higher chance of getting a critical hit on a heavy bomber than a plane armed with 3 x 30 mm cannon (total effect 15), which seems a bit strange.

[zoul310]

Thales, you forget rate of fire.
How many 30 mm rounds are fired on a pass ?
And how many .303 at the same time ?

[Thales99]

ORIGINAL: zoul310

Thales, you forget rate of fire.
How many 30 mm rounds are fired on a pass ?
And how many .303 at the same time ?

Sure, but even when taking into account the larger number of .303 guns, the higher accuracy, and the higher rate of fire (about double for .303 vs MK 108) you still have a vastly higher destructiveness of the 30 mm mine shell versus the rifle caliber shell. In "Flying guns WWII" by Williams the power of the MK 108 30 mm mine shell is calculated as 58 times (!) more destructive than a .303 shell (of course one can agree or disagree with this assertion).

If eight rifle caliber guns really had a higher potential to critically damage a plane than three 30 mm cannons (especially when looking at heavy bombers) one has to wonder why the Me 410 was not equipped with 16 x MG 17 instead of heavy cannons.

[zoul310]

I never said it was better but different.
Lack of punch from the 303 was evident and lots of complaints brought the addition of the 20 mm on Spit.
I guess the best overall compromise was the 50 cal. between punch and rate of fire.
Germans had to deal with heavies and had to find punchy weapons. But large caliber doesn't always mean the more the better. You needed highly trained pilots to be effective with a low rate of fire weapon like system.
It's like an excellent idea on paper but with a different outcome in real combat. Which was very typical of german engineering, complex, high rate of failure, but beautiful in concept...
But yes, if the shells hit the target... bad for the airplane !

[Thales99]

ORIGINAL: zoul310

I never said it was better but different.
Lack of punch from the 303 was evident and lots of complaints brought the addition of the 20 mm on Spit.
I guess the best overall compromise was the 50 cal. between punch and rate of fire.
Germans had to deal with heavies and had to find punchy weapons. But large caliber doesn't always mean the more the better. You needed highly trained pilots to be effective with a low rate of fire weapon like system.
It's like an excellent idea on paper but with a different outcome in real combat. Which was very typical of german engineering, complex, high rate of failure, but beautiful in concept...
But yes, if the shells hit the target... bad for the airplane !

600 rpm for the 30 mm MK 108 isn't exactly what I would call low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity was the main drawback.

But maybe looking at the early war (16 effect) and late war (14 effect) Spitfire is an even better example. Both the 50 cal and Hispano had higher range and accuracy than the .303, and the destructive power of the late war Spitfire was considerably higher (taking into account all factors like number of guns, rate of fire, etc.).

[zoul310]

You right. That Mk 108 had such a slow barrel. it's more an accuracy issue.