Aircraft Service Ratings

[treespider]

Thinking of arbitrarily adding 1 to everyone's service ratings for my mod...downside?

[JuanG]

Lower aircraft availabilities, thats about it in my experience.

1 didnt cut it for me, so I added at least 2. One trick is that even though the editor wont let you go above 5, the game seems to handle 6 and 7 just fine if you added them via witploadae csv edits.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Lower aircraft availabilities, thats about it in my experience.

1 didnt cut it for me, so I added at least 2. One trick is that even though the editor wont let you go above 5, the game seems to handle 6 and 7 just fine if you added them via witploadae csv edits.

+2 for each aircraft...or 2 as the minimum instead of 1?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Thinking of arbitrarily adding 1 to everyone's service ratings for my mod...downside?

Downside is adding one won't do squat.

I have currently two versions of my mod.

ver A has all planes save for PA and FP class at SL 5 (the exceptions are to ease administrative burden and help automate search)

ver B has a class of SL's:

1E fighter/bomber - 3
2E bomber/transport - 4
4E of any type -5

Ver A has a dramatic effect on Servicability ratings and discourages wide use of continuous bomber strikes by the same airgroup or high CAP/Escort by fighters (you either must give them downtime or accept a good level of Unservicables)

Ver B is much less effective. This is the ver Joe and I are currently testing. With adequate AV...so far not seeing alot of unservicables unless the raids/ops are opposed.

Can tell you right now SL 1-3 do little. You need 4 or 5 to start seeing a good impact outside of heavy combat, in which many cases heavy losses can mask the effect

[treespider]

So with your experience Nik would a +3 to current numbers be a fair compromise?

1's become 4
2+'s become 5

With PA and FP perhaps receiving the +0, +1, or +2.

I assume 6 and 7 are not recognized as anything but a 5.

This would be coupled with DBB AV levels and my redux of the airbases across the map...

[Nikademus]

Need to put more turns behind me before can say definitively. The B version of my mod (in regards to SL's) is the more conservative move after short tests with the A ver showed that it might be too much to have all planes at SL 5 except for the ones i mentioned. That is too much in terms of player overwork and the risk of bases under heavier attack to be unable to sustain an air defense. Ver B however, in quiet theaters so far has had little to show for it. vs stock SL ratings. SL's 1-3 are negligble in this regards. If you want an impact i'd say SL 3 is a minimum value, then go up from there. To my knowledge 5 is the highest effective level you can go.

JWE's approach was to implement an AV and support reduction, something i've had in mind myself for a long time. Adding the two together i'd probably start with SL's of 3-4 for most planes. 5 for the big ones. Babes i've played around with a bit...the reduced ENG/AV count does certainly restrict airbase buildups. Same concern though as with my A ver mod. I'm fearful that these reductions of John's might make it virtually impossible later on in the game for airbases, particularily Japanese airbases to remain operational given the paucity of ENG's

[witpqs]

IMO you are then compressing ratings too much between planes that are now different. I certainly see a difference between 2 and 1, it's just not a staggering difference. 1 vs 3 I see a great difference.

In addition to the changes in air support in Babes, remember Michael and Joe letting loose that the 250 base cap on air support will be removed (no cap thereafter), so if you have 400 you will need 400, etc.

Perhaps in the same release they can be persuaded (by y'all development insiders) to tweak the meaning of the 1 through 5 service rating settings upwards by some factor. For example a 1.5x makes them equal to present day 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, and 7.5. A 2x makes them equal to present day 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and so on.

[Nikademus]

I understand the concern...but in my games and tests, i don't see a difference..at least any worth noting between even a SL of 1 and 3 or 4 if it's a 1E. Overall servicability remains a major issue. Joe and I are through nearly the first two weeks of game (game time wise) and for the most part, all my airgroups are at 100% or very near 100% servicability with steady use. This is using the B ver of my SL ratings. Were we using the A ver.....there'd be signifigant drops in serv for units in moderate to heavy use, much less combat engaging ones.

the removal of the 250 AV cap would be a welcome addition but does not address the above. It does however address mega-stacking. Never understood the purpose of the rule but i'm sure Gary had his reasons. Some of his other design decisions seemed weird back in the day but now after AE i can see where he had it more right than we did.

[treespider]

From the discussion so far my inclination is to go the +2 route, considering I am coupling this to DBB AV Support reductions, and my airbase SPS size reductions.

[Nikademus]

That'll work to a degree as it will make the minimum SL 3.

From what i've seen thus far 2E bombers and such should be at least SL 4.

I've also been reducing SPS rates but so far its somewhat concentrated. I'll probably be lazy and just copy your reduction save where they differ from the specific troublespot bases I identified.

[Commander Stormwolf]

this way is correct

axis

Ha-35, Ha-32, Ha-33 = 1
Ha-43, small obsolete = 2
Aichi Ha-60, Ha-45 = 3

for multi engine

2xser1 = 2
2xser2 = 4
2xser 3 = 5

4xser 1 = 3

---------------------------------------------------

allied radial = 1
allied inline = 2
allied turbo radial = 2

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


this way is correct

In my view of the universe of mid-20th century earth with the code I have to work with those numbers do not look correct to me...but I digress.

[witpqs]

I've had Internet problems the last few hours. Wrote a reply to Nik but it got lost, I'll try to re-create it. Basically:

1) Removing the cap will make a difference in cases where it would have been invoked because high SL aircraft will suffer more than low SL aircraft.

Most importantly:

2) I do see differences even between SL 1 and SL 2. In one game where I got the first Corsair - SL 3 - that was a HUGE difference from SL 1 planes. How can Nik not see any difference between SL 1 and SL 3? I suspect the particular circumstances of his game(s) are masking the issue. Just one possibility is that having extra air support present does matter (query MichaelM to find out the ceiling as it is not an unlimited benefit) as it puts "extra guys" on the planes that need maintenance. Either way this cries out for controlled testing.

Honestly Nik, I most definitely have seen it, and you haven't. Figuring out why could be important to getting the results you want and only the results you want (meaning no side effects).

Your mod - just my suggestion. [8D]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I've had Internet problems the last few hours. Wrote a reply to Nik but it got lost, I'll try to re-create it. Basically:

1) Removing the cap will make a difference in cases where it would have been invoked because high SL aircraft will suffer more than low SL aircraft.

Most importantly:

2) I do see differences even between SL 1 and SL 2. In one game where I got the first Corsair - SL 3 - that was a HUGE difference from SL 1 planes. How can Nik not see any difference between SL 1 and SL 3? I suspect the particular circumstances of his game(s) are masking the issue. Just one possibility is that having extra air support present does matter (query MichaelM to find out the ceiling as it is not an unlimited benefit) as it puts "extra guys" on the planes that need maintenance. Either way this cries out for controlled testing.

Honestly Nik, I most definitely have seen it, and you haven't. Figuring out why could be important to getting the results you want and only the results you want (meaning no side effects).

Your mod - just my suggestion. [8D]

Don't get caught looking for the trees in the forest (no pun intended).

What Nik and I are striving for is to slow the pace of the air war significantly...so SL3 service rates become the new normal....an end to the day after day sorties being flown that one sees with current iterations of the game.

[topeverest]

a +2 will put more planes on the sideline from day to day, the problem I encounted in a mod I did was the relative difference in availability between 1E and 2/4E dissapeared. I wanted the 1E's to have more availability, especially cap. But then mine wasnt a statistical analysis. Just what I saw. Still a pretty good idea on how to slow down the war. I'd also shave air support by up to half before 43, reduce SPS of most bases, and reduce admin ratings in leaders / remove high values from commadner pools. I'd also reduce starting size of allied (and some empire) bases to 2 or 1 for all bases except home bases, which I made 4. PH excluded. cut all 'builder' engineer units in half. Do not use the other units. That last one combined with the bases and air support will slow down the war considerably, or it did for us.

I'd also put all reinforcements and most at start land units with fixed HQ units and all units arriving in their home cities. need to do math on PP's depending on what you do.

[PaxMondo]

Yeah, I've pumped the SR in my mod and definitely see the difference.
 
1.  When you upgrade planes.  SR = 3 you will take a couple of weeks before the unit is operational.  At SR=5, you are well over a month.  This is at a LVL9 AF and +250 AV for IJ.
 
2.  Add replacement planes.  Similar to above.
 
What you don't see is much impact upon the operational tempo except for 2 above.Once you start losing planes, as the SR goes up, your unit degrades quickly.
 
That my testing.  YMMV.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I've had Internet problems the last few hours. Wrote a reply to Nik but it got lost, I'll try to re-create it. Basically:

1) Removing the cap will make a difference in cases where it would have been invoked because high SL aircraft will suffer more than low SL aircraft.

Most importantly:

2) I do see differences even between SL 1 and SL 2. In one game where I got the first Corsair - SL 3 - that was a HUGE difference from SL 1 planes. How can Nik not see any difference between SL 1 and SL 3? I suspect the particular circumstances of his game(s) are masking the issue. Just one possibility is that having extra air support present does matter (query MichaelM to find out the ceiling as it is not an unlimited benefit) as it puts "extra guys" on the planes that need maintenance. Either way this cries out for controlled testing.

Honestly Nik, I most definitely have seen it, and you haven't. Figuring out why could be important to getting the results you want and only the results you want (meaning no side effects).

Your mod - just my suggestion. [8D]

Don't get caught looking for the trees in the forest (no pun intended).

What Nik and I are striving for is to slow the pace of the air war significantly...so SL3 service rates become the new normal....an end to the day after day sorties being flown that one sees with current iterations of the game.

I'm cool with that, that's why I suggested (if it's possible) a universal modifier 1.5x or 2x or 3x or whatever.

What I foresee as a problem is compressing the SLs all at the high end so that there becomes actually no difference between (just for example) a 2 and a 3 because they are both changed to 5! That will have a negative impact. I think it will be a big one.

Sorry I hadn't made that clear. Slow down the air war, fine. That's the objective. The mechanism of compressing the SLs means that (another example) the difference between P-47 (SL 1) and various opposing a/c (SL 3?), which is quite large in-game now becomes none when they are the same or much smaller when they are different by one rather than different by two.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: treespider


Don't get caught looking for the trees in the forest (no pun intended).

What Nik and I are striving for is to slow the pace of the air war significantly...so SL3 service rates become the new normal....an end to the day after day sorties being flown that one sees with current iterations of the game.

Yup. Even in non-combat intensive situations, servicability levels tended to fall more around 70% vs. the 95-100% that is evident in pretty much any situation where AV and Required AV are equal or AV is greater. This was especially true for the multi engined beasts. Also....my mod greatly reduces a2a losses allowing more 'damaged' planes to survive. This allowed me to see how ineffective the Serv/UnServ equations are working. I have long suspected there's a flaw in how damaged aircraft are recorded...it seems way to many get put back into service the next day.

Anyway. All i can say is no....i have never seen any sig diff between SL 1 and 3. Further....in my current test game.....with more conservative SL applications (aka by B ver. mod) still seeing rampant cases of 100% servicability. This causes accelerated pace of air ops.

[JuanG]

Sorry I missed most of the conversation after my response, haven't had time to keep up with the forums recently.

However, thought this needed commenting;

ORIGINAL: treespider

I assume 6 and 7 are not recognized as anything but a 5.

6 and higher, if entered into the database via CSV (can't do it in the editor) are recognized by the game, and do have a noticable effect (try 5 vs 8). It would be nice if the editor allowed these values, as otherwise I think you might have to reset them every time you load up the scenario in the editor (not sure about that bit - have not used the editor myself for a while now).

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

6 and higher, if entered into the database via CSV (can't do it in the editor) are recognized by the game, and do have a noticable effect (try 5 vs 8). It would be nice if the editor allowed these values, as otherwise I think you might have to reset them every time you load up the scenario in the editor (not sure about that bit - have not used the editor myself for a while now).

This is a VERY interesting item. Thanks for sharing....