Some of the air missions require way too much micro management IMHO.
The air resupply and transport missions are the worst but LRCAP is another. These missions sorely need another setting of some sort.
For example: ONE day of air resupply from PM to Buna or Gili Gili or <all those little bases on the way to Lae> will run my C47s up to over 30 or 40 fatigue each day. Then the next day I have to rest them and rotate them with another unit. The day after that the C47 units switch back <repeat every turn>... I do this each and every day rotating my C47 units just to keep my forward bases supplied. Why is this level of micro management of my supply units necessary?
Bottom line: IMHO Air Resupply, Air Transport and LRCAP missions need a setting to control the level of commitment of the air unit (it can be a % like the other air missions or just a check box called "Max Effort" with all other missions defaulting to a normal "Sustained Effort").
This would make a nice addition to WiTP (Lord knows I don't want to have to do this for the entire Pacific Theater for all of WWII!)
Air Mission Micromanagment
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
Air Mission Micromanagment
The Grumbling Grognard
I agree Grumble. It would be nice to a have %age slider on transport misisons, just like you have for training, ASW, and everything else.
My brother and I play 2-day turns; it helps to keep the long scenarios moving and adds a big element of "cross your fingers", because you don't have alot of control of what goes on on during day 2.
But the problem I've seen with my own transports running supplies from Cairns to PM, is that by the end of 2 days (remember, they don't get a break with 2 day turns), is their fatigue is usually over 40. I hate operational losses, and I've got to be VERY careful when using my transports with 2-day turns so that I don't run them into the ground.
A percentage slider would definately be nice. I could set it to 60% or whatever and never have to worry about it (actually, the same is true for my B-17s making long-rannge flights from Cairns also, they always rack up huge fatigue by the 2nd day, I definately can't run a squadron for 2 turns (4 days) in a row), but again, a %age slider would solve that problem.
-F-
My brother and I play 2-day turns; it helps to keep the long scenarios moving and adds a big element of "cross your fingers", because you don't have alot of control of what goes on on during day 2.
But the problem I've seen with my own transports running supplies from Cairns to PM, is that by the end of 2 days (remember, they don't get a break with 2 day turns), is their fatigue is usually over 40. I hate operational losses, and I've got to be VERY careful when using my transports with 2-day turns so that I don't run them into the ground.
A percentage slider would definately be nice. I could set it to 60% or whatever and never have to worry about it (actually, the same is true for my B-17s making long-rannge flights from Cairns also, they always rack up huge fatigue by the 2nd day, I definately can't run a squadron for 2 turns (4 days) in a row), but again, a %age slider would solve that problem.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
Unless I'm in a desperate supply situation, I almost never pay attention to the fatigue levels of my transport squadrons. I usually have all of them making missions every day, never falling below 12 operational aircraft (out of 16).
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon.....
Well, let's just say that in my current PBEM game with Knavey, after 2 months, my operational losses for ALL of my squadrons are less than 20, while his are well over 100.
Every plane, regardless of the type, that falls out of the sky is a point. That's 80+ "free" points in just 2 months. That's what, amost the value of a pair pair of cruisers? It makes you pause a bit when you think of it that way.
But yes, your squadrons won't necessarliy dip below 12 aircraft or whatever, because they have the ability to draw replacements. But you've still lost the 4 planes, and maybe their pilots.
Again, I hate operational losses. Some of them you can't control, like losing a couple of search planes because the weather turned bad. Or maybe you really did HAVE to run your squadrons into high fatigue because it was necessary to win the battle. But losing a pilot (esp a good one) because he fell asleep on patrol just galls me.
-F-
Every plane, regardless of the type, that falls out of the sky is a point. That's 80+ "free" points in just 2 months. That's what, amost the value of a pair pair of cruisers? It makes you pause a bit when you think of it that way.
But yes, your squadrons won't necessarliy dip below 12 aircraft or whatever, because they have the ability to draw replacements. But you've still lost the 4 planes, and maybe their pilots.
Again, I hate operational losses. Some of them you can't control, like losing a couple of search planes because the weather turned bad. Or maybe you really did HAVE to run your squadrons into high fatigue because it was necessary to win the battle. But losing a pilot (esp a good one) because he fell asleep on patrol just galls me.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
C47 Operational losses
I first noticed the high operational losses when about half way through my first game I found the "Aircraft lost" screen under the intell button.
When I sorted by the most lost aircraft the first few where no surprise:
1.) Zeros: Okay but they are about the only Japanese fighter type in the SW Pac
2.) Kates (poor sods would not give up on PM)
3.) Dauntless (work horse for the CV fleet--got two IJN CVs by this time)
4.) C47s!?
I had lost more C47s than any single type of allied fighter. More C47s were lost than Vals or even any of the level bombers I had pounding Rabaul or Lae for a month!
And as far as I saw they were 100% operational losses. I don't recall the number but it was high, too high for me.
This is when I started juggling my C47 units...on...off...on...off... :rolleyes:
When I sorted by the most lost aircraft the first few where no surprise:
1.) Zeros: Okay but they are about the only Japanese fighter type in the SW Pac
2.) Kates (poor sods would not give up on PM)
3.) Dauntless (work horse for the CV fleet--got two IJN CVs by this time)
4.) C47s!?
I had lost more C47s than any single type of allied fighter. More C47s were lost than Vals or even any of the level bombers I had pounding Rabaul or Lae for a month!
And as far as I saw they were 100% operational losses. I don't recall the number but it was high, too high for me.
This is when I started juggling my C47 units...on...off...on...off... :rolleyes:
The Grumbling Grognard
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
You think the Dakotas are bad, try using your PBY's for transport missions
I swear they simply crash into the ground at the destination to deliver the goods!
I have, but I avoid it when possible. PBYs are too valuable as LR Recon and search to burn up droping supplies a half ton of supplies/men every day.
The Grumbling Grognard
For WiTP - will never be in UV
How does this idea grab you all?
If you have a group of identical squadrons at a base, you tag them into a AC group; maybe by holding the ctrl key down like when selecting files in windows. When you do this it pops up a new button on the AC screen that allows you to rotate the same mission (set up on that screen) between each squadron. You could change the colour of the squadron icon (appearing along the bottom) and have the squadron slated to do the job this coming turn with a darker border or some such.
Such a group selection would lower mm but also be really helpful when you have more than single day turns selected.
Thoughts?
If you have a group of identical squadrons at a base, you tag them into a AC group; maybe by holding the ctrl key down like when selecting files in windows. When you do this it pops up a new button on the AC screen that allows you to rotate the same mission (set up on that screen) between each squadron. You could change the colour of the squadron icon (appearing along the bottom) and have the squadron slated to do the job this coming turn with a darker border or some such.
Such a group selection would lower mm but also be really helpful when you have more than single day turns selected.
Thoughts?
[center]
[/center]
[/center]
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
Re: For WiTP - will never be in UV
Originally posted by wobbly
How does this idea grab you all?
If you have a group of identical squadrons at a base, you tag them into a AC group; maybe by holding the ctrl key down like when selecting files in windows...
Thoughts?
Fine idea, but frankly the game system already has a mech to handle it in place. Allow the player to set the air group's % for missions of this sort. Then it simply scales the amount of troops/supply and fatigue that results from the setting.
The Grumbling Grognard
Re: Re: For WiTP - will never be in UV
Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
Fine idea, but frankly the game system already has a mech to handle it in place. Allow the player to set the air group's % for missions of this sort. Then it simply scales the amount of troops/supply and fatigue that results from the setting.
I was of the opinion, since you started this post, that you didn't think the current settings for particular missions was up to scratch. If i remember correctly - not all missions have a percentage capacity (can't see my game at the moment). This could be an alternative method for squadron control, for those with the current method, and the only way for those without.
Also it has the benefit of being visible from the main screen i.e. you only have to look at one squadron in the group to know what 2 squadrons are doing - each different group being colour coded.
[center]
[/center]
[/center]
-
Grumbling Grogn
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:31 am
- Location: Texas!
- Contact:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I actually like this method better. It has more of an "operational feel" to me. I assign the units and let the local guys do the juggling.
I was just making the point that another system appears to have been chosen by the designers. This other system (setting %) works pretty well and is already coded in the game engine. Thus revamping an existing code unit that already works (when used) would not be a good time investment.
A quicker fix that could work would be just to allow the % setting for all missions that need it (like transport/supply transport).
I was just making the point that another system appears to have been chosen by the designers. This other system (setting %) works pretty well and is already coded in the game engine. Thus revamping an existing code unit that already works (when used) would not be a good time investment.
A quicker fix that could work would be just to allow the % setting for all missions that need it (like transport/supply transport).
The Grumbling Grognard
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4908
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
On this occasion I want to second an idea someone else has posted in another thread: it would be nice to have a 'pure CAP' option, i.e. planes either flying CAP or stand down. Would be useful to influence moral and fatigue levels and avoid penny packet escort or sweep missions.
Re moral and fatigue: From what I have read on the Air War in the South Pacific I have gained the impression that it wasn't common to stand down entire squadrons when morale was low and fatigue high and let them fly again after the pilots and crews had recovered, like it can be done in UV.
It appears that IRL there were two instruments for preserving or restoring the physical and psychological health of pilots and aircrews.
For one, entire squadrons were rotated in and out of the combat zone, albeit with some shuffling of men and material between old and new units.
Secondly, in a squadron that found itself in the combat zone grounding pilots and crews was handled on an individual basis, i.e. when someone displayed signs of fatigue, stress, medical maladies or psychological problems, it was the job of the squadron's flight surgeon to ground the individual for some time, authorize a leave or even rotate the man out for good. The squadron itself remained in combat and relied on reserve pilots or replacements to keep up operational strength. But grounding an entire squadron seems to have been rare.
In UV, rotating entire units is no problem. And in regards to grounding, giving leave or rotating of individuals, UV manages individual pilots and seems to have a kind of 'flight surgeon'-function that pulls pilots with high fatigue and/or low morale off duty until he has recovered to a certain level. I remember posts from a long time ago that something was broken with this function, since a few pilots accumulated many missions (and high fatige etc.) while the majority didn't fly at all. I think this has been fixed, but I hardly ever check the poilot screens in my games.
Be it as it may, I would suggest that we can have more slide bars for setting % to micromanage the amount of fatigue and moral levels we demand our pilots to reach before they are grounded or allowed to fly again.
Maybe this isn't as dumb as it sounds. I'm sure quite a few people on this board are familiar with the system in Talonsoft's game 'Battle of Britain'. There you could leave the actual operational planning to the AI and just guide it with several parameters on which assets to use to hit what kind of targets under what kind of circumstances. Amongst others you could specify the minimum moral level a squadron must have to be eligible for flying and thus being at the disposal of the AI staff planners. Same applied for weather, for example you could order the AI to suspend flight operations and stand down the squadrons if cloud coverage was higher than say 8/10.
As commanding general the player had the opportunity to do everything on your own or to let the AI staff do the planning and then review, revise or cancel the computer's proposals for the day's operations.
I was quite impressed with this approach because it reduces micromanagment but still leaves the possibility to do so if you please. IMO something in this direction would look good on UV or WITP, but I'm aware that prospects of seeing this implemented are very slim. But it is after midnight here at my place, so I should be allowed some dreaming...
Btw, another dream feature would be airdrops of supplies to land units on the march between bases to help keeping up strength and reducing disruption.
Re moral and fatigue: From what I have read on the Air War in the South Pacific I have gained the impression that it wasn't common to stand down entire squadrons when morale was low and fatigue high and let them fly again after the pilots and crews had recovered, like it can be done in UV.
It appears that IRL there were two instruments for preserving or restoring the physical and psychological health of pilots and aircrews.
For one, entire squadrons were rotated in and out of the combat zone, albeit with some shuffling of men and material between old and new units.
Secondly, in a squadron that found itself in the combat zone grounding pilots and crews was handled on an individual basis, i.e. when someone displayed signs of fatigue, stress, medical maladies or psychological problems, it was the job of the squadron's flight surgeon to ground the individual for some time, authorize a leave or even rotate the man out for good. The squadron itself remained in combat and relied on reserve pilots or replacements to keep up operational strength. But grounding an entire squadron seems to have been rare.
In UV, rotating entire units is no problem. And in regards to grounding, giving leave or rotating of individuals, UV manages individual pilots and seems to have a kind of 'flight surgeon'-function that pulls pilots with high fatigue and/or low morale off duty until he has recovered to a certain level. I remember posts from a long time ago that something was broken with this function, since a few pilots accumulated many missions (and high fatige etc.) while the majority didn't fly at all. I think this has been fixed, but I hardly ever check the poilot screens in my games.
Be it as it may, I would suggest that we can have more slide bars for setting % to micromanage the amount of fatigue and moral levels we demand our pilots to reach before they are grounded or allowed to fly again.
Maybe this isn't as dumb as it sounds. I'm sure quite a few people on this board are familiar with the system in Talonsoft's game 'Battle of Britain'. There you could leave the actual operational planning to the AI and just guide it with several parameters on which assets to use to hit what kind of targets under what kind of circumstances. Amongst others you could specify the minimum moral level a squadron must have to be eligible for flying and thus being at the disposal of the AI staff planners. Same applied for weather, for example you could order the AI to suspend flight operations and stand down the squadrons if cloud coverage was higher than say 8/10.
As commanding general the player had the opportunity to do everything on your own or to let the AI staff do the planning and then review, revise or cancel the computer's proposals for the day's operations.
I was quite impressed with this approach because it reduces micromanagment but still leaves the possibility to do so if you please. IMO something in this direction would look good on UV or WITP, but I'm aware that prospects of seeing this implemented are very slim. But it is after midnight here at my place, so I should be allowed some dreaming...
Btw, another dream feature would be airdrops of supplies to land units on the march between bases to help keeping up strength and reducing disruption.
