Test Scenario?

[LoBaron]

All this talk about A2A is getting confusing. Theres a lot of feeling, different style of play, mistakes in AAR´s put down to failure of
the game engine (which in 99.9% of the situations is not true or at least only on a very small part of the result).
When discussing I always feel I´m at a huge disadvantage because my assumptions are based on random "flavoured" data
collected all over the forum.

The discussion is again changing in a direction that won´t yield many results. Theres one or the other good idea out there
but these cannot be verified in any way by just using the "yesterday my opponent attacked me with...and the result was..."
Theres just too many variables involved.

So I wonder if any gifted modder can provide a test scenario, very clean and easy to edit which fullfills the following requirements:

4 bases, 2 for each side.
the closer bases 3 hexes apart, the other two 6 hexes apart to allow testing of range impact.
All bases at level 2 AF (but this has to be adapted to the type of test anyway)

Moddable weather that is static for as long as desired.

For every side 3 AC squads. 1 fighter, 1 bomber and 1 recon.
All leader stats and all pilot stats at 50.

4 Base forces (with similar setups and all leader/exp stats at 50), 2 with radar, 2 without radar.

2 HQ´s also with the same requirements and range 1 to not to interfere with the other 2 bases.

Devs call somthing that looks similar the sandbox, I´d really like to get my hands on such a thing. Or make one myself but then I´d have to stop playing and thats
the main reason I´m here at all. [;)]

I tried to get the grip on the editor yesterday and I was a bit confused by all the possible settings. I bet there are guys out there with a huge lead
in experience playing around with that tool.


Just to make sure: I don´t to do tests to find another of better solution for things that happen in-game compared to the current model. Thats simply
not neccesary because the A2A model works really well. The result could easily lead to just the relevation that everythings WAD and we just have
to learn the ropes better.
On the other hand, what interests me most is very small, easy to do, subtle changes, and what the impact of thos would be.

che200 has something resembling this in the works I heard, but I can not yet say if it is the sandbox I´d need for these tests.

[chesmart]

                   It is not a sandbox scenario in the style that Jwilkerson talked about. What I did was get a scenario in my case i used  coral sea , Deactivate the units that where active in that particular scenario , then create 2 squadrons in 2 bases in my case i used lunga and tassafronga place 2 squadrons with the same aircraft stats,pilots and leaders and make them sweep and cap for 100 turns and keep detailed records of what happens. This is what Jwilkerson called a sandbox. To do that takes maybe a whole weekend and is very tedious( I did 10 turns with maybe a quarter of the mods Jwikerson did and got bored to death and it took me a whole evening)
                  
                    I am sorry but bbefore there is solid evidence that there is an altitude advantage bonus I am not going to do 100 turns, Write down the results and then analyse them. What I can do is Post the coralsea Scenario I edited and I will help the poor soul who is going to do it by further editing.

                    My results using 10 turns with max altitude set on zero vs P-40e was that the only advantage was onthe side doing the sweep. 10% you get an awry result. I did write them the results down to compare them but i did not go in the kind of detail a "sandbox" requires.

[LoBaron]

che200 sorry if I was not clear on that.
I highly apprechiate what you are doing and really look forward to see to what extent "clean" test can be done with your scenario!

[chesmart]

LoBaron an easier solution would be to limit aircraft to 30000 feet like nemo is proposing in the mod area, its very easy to do and you will get no more probs with differant altitudes. Personally for the people who are finding the current air model wrong i think that is the best solution.

 Here is a link to nemos mod:

tm.asp?m=2387966

[LoBaron]

Thanks for the link.

I want to make 2 things clear:

- I don´t think that the current air model is close to anything that earns to be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "wrong". Maybe I didn´t put enough
emphasise on this, it as as close to perfect, as a limited number of brains doing tests over tests and implementing revolutionary ideas that supercede the stock model
by far, can get. That doesn´t keep me from searching for improvements though if they are at all possible.

- What I want to test is only partly related to altitude, and in many cases as altitude only playing a secondary part. It´s not evident IMO that altitude changes are the "solve everything"
button (as my IT collegues like to call a fix to something, that is blamed for an error which is in fact caused by many different factors playing together).

[chesmart]

Pesonally LoBaron I think the people who are saying that the air model is wrong regarding air combat should be the people doing the testing. I am ready to help them by editing that test scenario to their needs, I am not doing it for the simple reason it is a very tedious and time consuming test to do it properly and get the results. If you want to do it LoBaron i am more then willing to assist you.