Screenshots of a Bug with Air Strike loss column determination

[Romdanzer]

Hi All,

Well I have been wondering about this for a while - as can be seen in a much earlier post of mine on this subject:

tm.asp?m=2191709

NOW I have found proof! While browsing through the 431 (yes four hundred and thirty one) Air Strike reports of my 1939 Campaign game playing as German against the AI I found the following [See the attached screenshots of the two air strike reports]

Here is an obvious contradiction! My Luftflotte 1 (TAC-bomber) attacked the unit Kavalerijski Korpus in Turn 94 (August 1941) with an Air Strike effectiveness of 150% and the air strike air loss column was determined to be the column 2. The target suffered medium damage the luftflotte no damage.

IN THE SAME TURN - immediately after that attack again the same Luftflotte 1 attacked the SAME ground unit (which was now obviously WEAKER) and the air strike air loss column was determined to be the column 1.

HOW can this be? The same turn, the same air unit attacks the same land unit and while the land unit is WEAKER the air strike air loss column is WORSE!!? At most it should be the same if not a better column.

Sorry guys - but either the air strike air loss column determination needs a major overhaul if this is intended OR this is a bug is the calculation of the air strike air loss column....

I originally intended to post the result of my analysis of the 431 air strike reports - but now it seems this may not be necessary. This alone should be proof enough...but if need be I can go ahead with that and post my excel spreadsheet of this analysis I am currently conducting.

As the Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineer that I am maybe some out there will understand it when I say:

"Wastelands: we have a bug...."

Romdanzer

[doomtrader]

We just take a look into the code, and today is a little bit late.
But the mechanism work this way:
The weaker is attacked unit (in terms of max HP percentage), the higher is penalty for attacking unit.

In other words, weaker unit means less people and less equipment which means that it's harder to drop bomb at something.

[Romdanzer]

Hi Doomtrader,

Thanks for the quick reply, and I appreciate all the good and hard work you guys at Wastelands are doing (I'm looking forward to Bitter Glory very much).

And with all due respect....but I don't quite agree with your logic on this. That doesn't make sense to me at all. The consequences of that kind of logic would be this: A unit which is Stronger (and hence still has more anti-aircraft forces) is easier to attack? This would also mean units with higher tech levels which have MORE anti-aircraft weapons and units are easier to attack?

In fact quite the contrary a unit which is weaker becomes easier and easier to attack because it looses coherence in it's defensive capabilities and also looses anti-aircraft units which determine the Air attackers losses. Or in other words: The losses an air attacker has are proportional to the strength of the anti-aircraft abilities of the targets!

The question if the fewer amounts of targets can be actually hit would result more in: the weaker the unit the less max HP damage you can do. This is also more of a question of recon ability of the attacker. Hence the max HP damage is also dependent upon the air units tech level.

But once the recon of the attacker can find the enemy and it is really weak - then it's like shooting sitting ducks - no problem.

In any case - I agree for tonight it's too late - I'm going to bed - we can debate this another day.

My polish wife is waiting for me in our bed - dobre nocy [;)]

Romdanzer

[Anraz]

Some time ago  on the forum was discussion about wiping out land unit by airplanes and majority of  participants was against such possibility. This rule is en effect of this discussion.

[Romdanzer]

Hi Anraz!

Thanks for the answer - what you mention seems like a good idea which I would support, but somehow the system we currently have is not realizing this at all - but first of all I hope we are clear on the following:

I am talking about the losses the attacker (air unit) is suffering due to performing the air strike not the damage that is being performed on the land unit. Air plane losses suffered during air strikes should be dependent upon the anti-aircraft abilities of the unit. Something which is being considered in Bitter Glory for example and not inversely proportional to the amount of soldiers or tanks… this seems completely unlogical – why would an air unit suffer more losses when the enemy has less soldiers??? As it is now we have the following situation:


1) The current air strike system is not achieving this aim because low strength units can still be outright destroyed even if it results in higher loss amounts on the air unit

2) Currently we can have internal paradoxes – imagine the following comparison:

A lvl 1 inf corps has a base strength of 3 (consisting of 3 divisions of soldiers) and an air strike on this unit would result in more losses on average on the air striking unit than an attack on a lvl 5 motorised division, which has a base strength of 4.5 (consisting of 1 division of soldiers) because the lvl 1 inf corps has less strength than the lvl 5 motorised division.

and this despite the fact that the lvl 1 inf corps has MORE soldiers and therefore targets than the lvl 5 mot. Division. Although according to your logic the air strike on the lvl 5 motorised corps should be more costly because it has less targets…. This is an internal paradox of the current situation (!!) According to your statements the unit with less soldiers should be inflicting more air losses?

3) Another paradox comes about with when the effectiveness of units (and hence strength) are influeced due to other factors like low supply or events like for example the Sovjet shock events. A unit with very low effectiveness due to such factors starts to inflict MORE losses on the air unit than when it doesn't have these factors and has a HIGHER effectiveness !!! - what??....yes indeed - what a paradox - a unit which has lowered fighting capabilites is inflicting more losses on the attacking air unit....!


In my opinion the losses suffered by the air unit should be proportional to the anti-aircraft abilities of the unit. Hence size of unit (division or corps), tech level and type (inf, mot or armoured) and finally also current % strength. Correspondingly the larger the size, the higher the tech level and the higher the strength % the more air losses are suffered.

The damage suffered by the land unit should be made only dependent upon the air strike effectiveness. Therefore to implement this aim you mention and also according to the logic, the less targets there are, the harder it is to inflict damage by finding them; the air strike effectiveness could be made proportional to the strength of the unit. For example 100% strength results in say 100% air strike effectiveness modifier or 5% strength results in 5% air strike effectiveness modifier. Therefore it becomes increasingly harder to destroy a unit outright the fewer strength it has to begin with.

That would be my suggestion to improve the air strike dynamics.

Romdanzer

[Romdanzer]

Hi doomtrader,

Well I reread your comment about the loss column being determined by the max HP of the land unit? i.e. the weaker the unit strength the higher the Air loss potential?

That would mean that my assumptions 2) and 3) in my post above would be incorrect. As those are assuming the effective strength is used.... ah well my assumptions going through with me [8|]

However I would still disagree with the logic that the weaker the land unit the higher the potential for air losses should be with the attacking air unit. I think it should be exactly the opposite. The higher the strength of the unit (and hence it’s anti-aircraft abilities) the higher the potential for air losses with the attacking air unit should be.

I guess my underlying question of this whole thread can be summed up with this:

How EXACTLY should the loss column for the air unit losses be calculated during an air strike?

Romdanzer