State of the Air War in AE

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ? [&:]

A very useful tool to blank out contributors with a too big discrepancy between content and posting frequency, mylady.
I reccommend.

Welcome back! So when are you allowed to get your cruiser back? Don´t say you fell in love with a CM.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


I will, thanks. I was referring to the reports anyway, did not find any charts up to now. But there I always allow for bias. I am lurking
the IL-2 forums for more than 10 years now and there the battles of words over different climb rates are epic.
Won´t participate though. One discussion platform with one or the other irrational individuum is enough. [;)]

You are correct on the even shorter burst lenghts btw, I allowed for inexperienced pray and spray guys to flow into statistics, but
probably overdid.

Did you try Cliffs of Dover btw? As a long time vet of IL-2 as well, I bought it and shelved it for lack of content. FM and graphics are
superb, or at least have the potential to be superb after patch 153, and the model detail is the best I have ever seen.
Still it has nothing to do with a complete simulator yet. Also, I am still hoping for a decent AI as I am an offline player.

The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true. It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with
the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.

Sry for OT.

I have the CloD but I'm probably the only one in the world with an awesome bug of the game minimizing itself to desktop every 20min. So no CLOD to me even if it otherwise runs well and smooth all settings maxed. [:(]

The latest 4.11 update to Il-2 includes a redone AI. Much better. But online is still where the real fun, action and challenge is. [;)] Most people use the hyperlobby but myself I've lately played mostly on various east european servers. Playerbase there is very adult, even more so than in the HL(where I'm one of the admins).

[janh]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true.

The word about the CoD quality spread so quickly that after a short while I didn't even bother checking patching progress anymore. Instead I finally bought the IL-2 compilation, much cheaper and, as far as people wrote, way better in many aspects. But due to WitP, ARMA, lately WiTE, and the bugger called real life I have not even yet installed it, and that is after a few years? Still looking forward to buying a new flightstick set and playing it, I had been an avid flight sim fan in earlier years (various Jane's products AH64 Longbow, Falcon, and a lot earlier stuff starting with original Gunship on C64!).

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.

Do I read that right that the flight model for jets in IL-2 is a bit goofy? In what respects?

[Bliztk]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Nik has interesting solution to some aspects of massive air combats in his modded scenario, dramatically increasing the service ratings of planes. Very rarely in Pacific an air unit had more than 70% of it's planes fully functional same time. This would cut down the numbers somewhat..and with stacking limits, would make truly massive air raids more difficult to achieve.

I whole heartedly agree. In fact I have thought the same thing for quite a while. If I could snap my fingers I would increase ALL a/c by 1 in Service Rating. in fact the felxibility of doing just that was the whole reason I came up with the Service Rating in the first place. It was a simple variable that affected the sortie rate of a an A/C and it could be applied across the board or individually.

I`m sorry to arrive late here, but doubling all the landbased Service Rating and tripling all the CV- based service rating for all planes would make wonders in way of improving air ops pace to this game.

Instead of doing a "max effort" everyday, you would need days, if not weeks between each max efforts

[LoBaron]

janh, putting my response to your post in a new thread to avoid cluttering this very useful discussion. [:)]

tm.asp?m=3059071&mpage=1&key=&#3059071

[LoBaron]

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

[Bliztk]

Yeah, but you mitigate the CV Death star, because if you spend 5 days of strikes with CAP, then your capabilities will degrade.

It would encourage the more historical operations, of two days max effort, two-three rest. Or our archfamous 20-CV force rotating its carriers in thirds 1/3 attack, 1/3 cover 1/3 rest.

For example

http://173.192.121.142/images/Users/1/P ... 0FIRST.pdf

F-A/18 Hornet got 57% avaliability rate in 2000 and the top got 73% in 2007.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree Blitzk, this and the reintroduction of the stacking limit could interesting perspectives.

On balancing side I might add though that high S/R impacts CAP as well, so there will be an outcry on numbers
of aircraft available for CAP duty depending on players´ habits, not that I would mind...

I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: witpqs



I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?

That sounds like a good idea...I think some sort of check for available AV support before attack missions should be there. We don't even know if there is one but is not working...also a possibility, since in past there has been several things not working as designed.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: witpqs



I suspect that removing the air support limit (of 250) would be enough and that limiting level 9 airfield complexes would be unneeded and a burden.

Edit to add: Increasing the effect of service rating sounds good too, I'm not sure about doubling it. Maybe try x1.5 effect first?

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support?
Would this be possible?

It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


Alfred,
I always respect your knowledge and perspective; however, are you truly saying that the current CAP vs Escort model works well enough that most players with at least a general eye towards history will not see very unusual results as the endgame approaches?

mike

My overall position is as follows.

1. Gary Grigsby game designs are always very dependent on die rolls. It is therefore practically guaranteed that any game design of his will experience some very odd outcomes. Players either accept these odd outcomes and tailor their play accordingly or they should not bother playing any of his games.

2. Personally I have no problems with odd outcomes. War is a very messy business and many events which are unforeseen and beyond the participants control occur. IRL, wargaming particular scenarios in advance do not fully predict what will subsequently occur when the actual operation is mounted.

3. This game is very abstracted, it is not a simulation. Within the abstracted game design parameters, the air combat model is close enough to be good enough. To make the air combat model more "realistic" for those who find it to be quite unsatisfactory, many things would have to be un-abstracted. Things such as (there are many more):

• introduction of avgas into the game
• breakdown of supplies into the various different ordnance carried by different aircraft models
• abandonment of the game's point to point air combat with area combat as per the naval combat side

These are things which simply cannot be accommodated within the current legacy code.

4. This game is not a tactical representation of the PTO. Invariably when people complain about an aspect of the game (not just the air combat model) their suggested fix is always to introduce more tactical and micromanagement elements into the game. That is fundamentally a dead end for these reasons:

• it harms future sales of the game. There is no one who decides to not buy the game because it is not detailed enough but there are potential purchasers who do not buy the game precisely because it is already too detailed with too much micromanagement
• adding more tactical elements is more likely to reduce the playability of the game rather than enhance its playability. The existing 50 or so regular posters who might relish the additional tactical details and who are very vocal advocates of playing only PBEMs, are not representative of the much broader and generally silent customer base
• coding and grafting additional tactical elements onto quite old legacy code is a complex task. Solutions which might cater to the small but extremely vocal PBEM crowd are not necessarily valid for the AI crowd and therefore much thought and play testing is always required. More importantly there is no one around to do the work

5. Complaints invariably arise when a player experiences an outcome which is contrary to their expectations. These expectations are preconceived and are usually based on wrong premises and errors in knowledge or understanding. Rather than examining whether their expectation was valid they immediately jump to the conclusion that because their own expectation and play simply could not be the problem, the game itself must be at fault. Because they fail to properly self analyse their own play decisions, these players fail to notice what can be done to avoid the failures they experience.

6. The code requires arbitrary limits to be incorporated. That is how any software operates. Players who are determined to "game" the code, or at least explore its outer limits will always find a way to highlight code issues. No solution will ever remove this behaviour and it always carries within it the seeds of creating greater unintended problems elsewhere.

As I said above, taking into account the overall picture, the air combat module is close enough to be good enough. Assemble a new AE development team, give them the necessary resources and time to do the job, and then we can start to consider real changes to the air combat module. Until then skillful play is the order of the day. And accept that Grigsby die roll outcomes are a fact of life.

Alfred

Edit:fixed spelling and "grammar" in point 4

Thanks Alfred. Cogent as always. Mike

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

Not really. It is currently only a percentual relation, and not an absolute one.

Theres a difference between penalizing an overstack by reducing the percentage of sorties to 75 or 50% of total planes or make
it limited by AV on an absolute basis.

In the first situation I can launch an attack from an airfield with 60AV and 5000 a/c and get 50% flying one strike (2500), in the second situation
I get 60 (or 120 if you want to double AV) planes for a strike, no matter what.

It would:
- lower number of offense sorties flown
- limit strike size if AV is dispersed as strategically advisable
- force a wider dispersion because it is easier to relocate planes than base forces

[janh]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

when we think about massed single or two day strikes against fleets the air support doesn't matter much, let not say nothing at all. Why? Because you can move in 1000 aircraft to airbases without any aviation support and have them strike the next day. While you need aviation support in real life to STRIKE (fueling, arming), you only need av support to "maintain" aircraft in the game, so launching those huge strikes for one or two days won't change. As long as an aircraft sits somewhere and isn't used you can fly it in the next day to strike. Usually it only takes one day to either wipe out a fleet, or not. Day two, three or four doesn't matter much.

This would only be influencing those fleet wipe outs if aviation support would be needed to launch strikes but as it stands now, only supply is needed to launch strikes.

Thats a really good observation! In fact its a damn great observation.

I wonder what happens if you bind the possible number of offensive sorties flown to the AV support? Would this be possible?

It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

For a minute I was sure you were right, I could have sworn that I read in the manual a while back. But I can't find it now. Either I am confused, or I read here on the forum a long time ago. Well, some will know better. As far as I see, besides the effects linked to airfield levels, there are the limitations due to supply points at the base (p. 252), an experience, a leadership, a morale test and a HQ test that all affect missions immediately, i.e. prior to execution. No AV there, but in the reductions due to maintenance and repair for the next turn.

Besides, it seems to me that high op-tempo and the strike resolution are two different, not directly linked issues. Reducing participating or ready planes due to increasing the AV needs will probably reduce the symptoms somewhat, since LBAstrikes will become smaller. And it is also a good thing to reduce op-tempo.
But I would bet the symptoms will still be evident in 1945 games, with 100s of 4EB and escorts participating. Allies and Japs have tons of base forces with sufficient AV in stock, and they add up linearly, i.e. don't convergence/reach any limit that can effectively work at a base (or is there a built in limit such as with the passes?).
Also, how would AV affect (pure) CV clashes? Seems players are commonly more conservative in AE when it comes to CVs, and hence large CV clashes with "CV death stars", be it spread out on a few hexes or concentrated, will always be quite common? Seems to me like curing the AV symptoms won't help much in the latter two examples?

[LoBaron]

It will not solve a GreyJoy vs. rader situation, but it does not intend to. In their PBEM they have so much AV support
amassed in one corner of the map that it lacks on other places.

But in normal distributed games it will prevent the immediate relocation of massive air forces and later reacting with AV
if needed. So your reaction time decreases and this again favours dispersion.

As far as carriers are concerned you could limit strike size on land targets to half the capacity for example, and leave the naval
strike size as is. Or limit naval strike sizes as well, interesting question.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's also a false observation. The number of aircraft that fly is reduced if you have less air support than needed at a base. To the best of my knowledge the formula applied has not been revealed by the developers.

Not really. It is currently only a percentual relation, and not an absolute one.

Theres a difference between penalizing an overstack by reducing the percentage of sorties to 75 or 50% of total planes or make
it limited by AV on an absolute basis.

In the first situation I can launch an attack from an airfield with 60AV and 5000 a/c and get 50% flying one strike (2500), in the second situation
I get 60 (or 120 if you want to double AV) planes for a strike, no matter what.

It would:
- lower number of offense sorties flown
- limit strike size if AV is dispersed as strategically advisable
- force a wider dispersion because it is easier to relocate planes than base forces

A percentage reduction is certainly a real reduction. There still might be better ways to do it, but one point to keep in mind is that the developers have not told us how exactly they do it at this time.

[witpqs]

I partly take that back, provided the manual is up to date. Page 214:

If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are
reduced by 25%

[Commander Stormwolf]

Let us not ask how the results of 1000 plane japanese raids should be..


...let us ask instead when in history did japan ever launch a 1000 plane raid..




.. and where did they find the aluminum to build the numbers of AC we can in AE..

I would say by the end of the game, japan should have ships but no planes to put onto them
they can have tanks..or anything made of steel... but japan could only make about 120 kilotones of aluminum per year


the air model is excellent (thank you whoever fixed it since WITP, WITP was broken, AE is good)

please fix the production model too (and it is easy to do... 50 HI points for ships per 1 HI point for planes)

[Rob Brennan UK]

That's most of an evening spent reading this thread from the beginning. [;)].

Plenty of good ideas and input from the community here, with a few OT ones as per usual.

Thanks to The Elf for being brave enough to start this thread.

I really like the idea of limiting bomber numbers to AV support levels. The fly in and shoot 75% of them is silly.
Thanks CT for raising this as an idea +1 from me on this.

Whether its bombers <= AV support or x2 (or whatever factor is dreamt up) its a good idea imo.