Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: rader

Antoher "wishlist" item would be to be able to put a name/note on air groups, land units, and maybe ships and bases just like you can give a name to TFs. This would be great to remind yourself what you are doing with those units/bases. Maybe hard to implement (not sure), but would be REALLY cool [8D]

This was requested sometime back. Michael said it was difficult due to space ...

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I would like to be able to fill out some of my American AA units with their original devices at the same time I could have some upgrade to newer devices. I'm just past the July 42 big AA device reinforcements. Many of my American AA are going to the newer devices, but I would like some that have withdrawl dates be able to fill out with current devices rather than try to upgrade to the newer ones. Someway to turn off looking for new devices for each unit would be nice here.

Not able to pick and choose what devices can upgrade.
However it is not difficult to add an option for the unit to upgrade or not. That way you can still have replacements on (which is needed for upgrades) but turn off the device upgrades for the unit.

Would this be of anything assistance in that scenario??

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I would like to be able to fill out some of my American AA units with their original devices at the same time I could have some upgrade to newer devices. I'm just past the July 42 big AA device reinforcements. Many of my American AA are going to the newer devices, but I would like some that have withdrawl dates be able to fill out with current devices rather than try to upgrade to the newer ones. Someway to turn off looking for new devices for each unit would be nice here.

Not able to pick and choose what devices can upgrade.
However it is not difficult to add an option for the unit to upgrade or not. That way you can still have replacements on (which is needed for upgrades) but turn off the device upgrades for the unit.

Would this be of anything assistance in that scenario??

Not sure about his scenario, but in my book that would be a fantastic option! [:)]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I would like to be able to fill out some of my American AA units with their original devices at the same time I could have some upgrade to newer devices. I'm just past the July 42 big AA device reinforcements. Many of my American AA are going to the newer devices, but I would like some that have withdrawl dates be able to fill out with current devices rather than try to upgrade to the newer ones. Someway to turn off looking for new devices for each unit would be nice here.

Not able to pick and choose what devices can upgrade.
However it is not difficult to add an option for the unit to upgrade or not. That way you can still have replacements on (which is needed for upgrades) but turn off the device upgrades for the unit.

Would this be of anything assistance in that scenario??

Not sure about his scenario, but in my book that would be a fantastic option! [:)]

it definitely would be! [:)]

[beppi]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I would like to be able to fill out some of my American AA units with their original devices at the same time I could have some upgrade to newer devices. I'm just past the July 42 big AA device reinforcements. Many of my American AA are going to the newer devices, but I would like some that have withdrawl dates be able to fill out with current devices rather than try to upgrade to the newer ones. Someway to turn off looking for new devices for each unit would be nice here.

Not able to pick and choose what devices can upgrade.
However it is not difficult to add an option for the unit to upgrade or not. That way you can still have replacements on (which is needed for upgrades) but turn off the device upgrades for the unit.

Would this be of anything assistance in that scenario??

Wow that would be a very very very very very very very nice addition. Did i already say very ?

[ny59giants]

My fellow warriors have answered for me that is exactly what I am looking for. [:)] A toggle that allows the LCU to take replacements, but not able to upgrade devices.

[michaelm75au]

Here is a beta of the beta for you to try out. [:D]

I haven't fully test the 'no upgrades' yet so it might need some tweaking.

Changed Location of Show TOE button on LCU screen [MEM]
Added Option to stop upgrades in LCU [MEM]
Tweak Made new stacking levels from pwhex override the default island stack size if present [MEM]
Tweak Enabled lcu on ship to be seen on prev/next from army list [MEM]
Tweak Allow prev/next on lcus on ships in a tf hex [MEM]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I would like to be able to fill out some of my American AA units with their original devices at the same time I could have some upgrade to newer devices. I'm just past the July 42 big AA device reinforcements. Many of my American AA are going to the newer devices, but I would like some that have withdrawl dates be able to fill out with current devices rather than try to upgrade to the newer ones. Someway to turn off looking for new devices for each unit would be nice here.

Not able to pick and choose what devices can upgrade.
However it is not difficult to add an option for the unit to upgrade or not. That way you can still have replacements on (which is needed for upgrades) but turn off the device upgrades for the unit.

Would this be of anything assistance in that scenario??

I would love that option!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Here is a beta of the beta for you to try out. [:D]

I haven't fully test the 'no upgrades' yet so it might need some tweaking.

Changed Location of Show TOE button on LCU screen [MEM]
Added Option to stop upgrades in LCU [MEM]
Tweak Made new stacking levels from pwhex override the default island stack size if present [MEM]
Tweak Enabled lcu on ship to be seen on prev/next from army list [MEM]
Tweak Allow prev/next on lcus on ships in a tf hex [MEM]

Wow!!!

Thanks Michael!!!

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I would like to be able to fill out some of my American AA units with their original devices at the same time I could have some upgrade to newer devices. I'm just past the July 42 big AA device reinforcements. Many of my American AA are going to the newer devices, but I would like some that have withdrawl dates be able to fill out with current devices rather than try to upgrade to the newer ones. Someway to turn off looking for new devices for each unit would be nice here.

Not able to pick and choose what devices can upgrade.
However it is not difficult to add an option for the unit to upgrade or not. That way you can still have replacements on (which is needed for upgrades) but turn off the device upgrades for the unit.

Would this be of anything assistance in that scenario??

That seems like a very useful option, Michael! [:)]

[Shark7]

michaelm,

Sort of a request RE: extreme altitude air missions (both high and low).

1. Pilot Fatigue should go up sharply at extremes of altitude. Especially above 30k or below 1k. It is stressful and physically demanding to fly at those levels for extended periods of time. At 100' it requires extreme concentration, and at 30k you are dealing with thin atmosphere and oxygen deprivation if you do not have supplemental O2.

2. A sharp increase in Ops losses both at high and low extremes, but particularly at the 100' missions (for both sides and all plane types). There is little margin for error at such low altitudes, and at high altitudes the possibility of a black out is present as well.

What this boils down to is currently I can fly missions day in and day out at extreme altitudes with very few negative effects. Something like this would help to make the extreme level missions something that you do once in a while, not every day. All indications I've seen lend to missions being flown between 5k and 15k most of the time.

Just my thoughts anyway.

[witpqs]

Shark7,

Just remember that some plane types automatically do some strafing runs at 100' when set to 1,000' or 2,000' or 3,000' or maybe even a little higher. They should not get penalized the same as a plane doing a mission set at 100'.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Shark7,

Just remember that some plane types automatically do some strafing runs at 100' when set to 1,000' or 2,000' or 3,000' or maybe even a little higher. They should not get penalized the same as a plane doing a mission set at 100'.

Good point. And I agree.

1. Strafing should be exempt, for strafing you go down low just long enough to shoot, then go back to a more acceptable altitude.
2. Any aircraft checked as an 'Attack Bomber' in the DB should be exempt as well, these planes were designed for that particular mission (low level attack).

[michaelm75au]

It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.

Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.

[newoldposter]

How do you full screen the beta?

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: newoldposter

How do you full screen the beta?

Just delete -w switch from shortcut

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: michaelm
It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.

Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.

You probably don't need to cause Ops losses if the increased fatigue is enough to cripple availability....

[michaelm75au]

One thing I have noticed during my 100' LB attacks is that the skill most often increased is Strafe. Because it is at 100'.

Thus low bombing skill wont necessarily be improved in this case.

[edit]
Re-worded as seems strafe or low ground can be increased depending on circumstances.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Reg

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: michaelm
It does basically do what you ask.
Planes flying at higher than 75% of their max altitude gain extra fatigue.
Low flying LBs gain extra fatigue also.

Attack bombers and torpdeo LBA are excluded from the low level check.

The fatigue gain would impact ops loss/damage upon landing.

LB planes on low level attacks (<1001) also have the number of bombs carried reduced (to 1/2 or 1/4 of normal), except for attack bombers.

I've checked the details and there is one bug there which is adding the fatigue to the wrong pilot. Not that it would make too much difference.
I review the code to make sure it is doing what it should.

Thanks Michael. My appreciate the details here, which would be in line with historical results.

I think we need to gather some more data. There is some evidence in the AAR's that suggests the effect isn't strong enough yet to deter people from doing it. Meaning, the fatigue gain isn't causing enough Op's losses, so players are able to use 4E's on <1000 ft runs effectively. The intent (obviously from your description) and the historical facts are that using B-29's (or other 4E's) at 1000 ft altitudes should cause losses such that this would only be used in dire circumstances. Pretty sure we aren't there yet, but haven't pulled together hard numbers yet.

You probably don't need to cause Ops losses if the increased fatigue is enough to cripple availability....

That's not a deterence and is the current result. Rotate your groups and you can bomb at low altitude non-stop.

This wasn't the result in 1944, you lost crews and aircraft at that altitude. Lots of them. That's why it wasn't done very often. The cost needs to be very high. I think the effect is there (meaning the bomb results are very good, 40x4E will completely demolish anything in the hex), but the cost isn't (should be +30% losses).

The real proof is that every AAR playing now (at least that I am following) has a house rule in it: no 4E bombing below 10,000 ft (except those bombers which historically did like the naval 4E's on naval attack).