200-firing passes rule

[GreyJoy]

I know i'm beating a dead horse...so i apologise in advance.

But i've been away for some months and i ignore the state of the actual state of the art.

Has something been done to change (don't care if in an official patch, in a mod or in a modified exe. file) this rule or at least to try to fix the problems connected to this?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Thank you

GJ

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I know i'm beating a dead horse...so i apologise in advance.

But i've been away for some months and i ignore the state of the actual state of the art.

Has something been done to change (don't care if in an official patch, in a mod or in a modified exe. file) this rule or at least to try to fix the problems connected to this?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Thank you

GJ

GJ -
I doubt it. The last one was the one you guys were playing with. The only way to combat this at present IMHO is by changing the size of the airgroups around mid'43 - '44 to be smaller on land and sea. Secondly, by reducing the amount of Aviation support stacking through HR's or HR's to limit the number of combat groups available. Thirdly by increasing the service rating across the board.

Finally, tm.asp?m=3056374 addresses many of the thoughts of the community.

I'm sure there are others with more clarity of thought on this issue, but having played Nemo in Downfall - I feel there is something that doesn't feel right in the late war modelling.

I doubt we'll see a code solution to this as there is too much opposition to change, even on a testing basis...Some change may be good for this but causes problems and other ripples in other ways too.

[Crackaces]

One very simple solution is to implement an intercept model for all the airgroups along the path from the base to the target rather than a very very simple model of only checking the CAP/LRCAP for bases around the target. Simply this s called the Circles of Apollonius problem. By coding this algorithum the effect is that the fighter groups are broken up by intercept points along the path rather than players attacking and defending prime targets.

Then the "200 pass alogorithum" handles the actual resolution of combat like today ..

Wolfram Alfa has an exellent implementation in Java. This handles of course just two "bases" and one intercept point. The added "do" loop is to check for the bases along the path and include them in an array of bases within range and the timing/order of intercept and resolution of the combat.

but alas ..

[GreyJoy]

Thanks guys.
 
I've read that whole thread Damian...thanks.
 
Gotta say that, a part from some evaluations on my strategic and tactical mistakes, the final point seems to be that nothing will be done because the actual rule is a good "medium" solution.
 
I still think (believes) that there's something very wrong in that part of the code that makes late war titanic battles absolutely one-sided (the attacker always win).
 
But i see that this is a dead horse now, so it's useless to keep on beating it.
 
Thank you for answering guys

[seille]

Maybe too few players reach that late stage of the war. And too few players complain about that (obvious) problem.
I don´t like the idea that the masses only always break thru and attack. I like the idea of crackaces of such multiple interceptions
based on attack path and defenders setup. But i doubt we´ll see changes here.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: seille

Maybe too few players reach that late stage of the war. And too few players complain about that (obvious) problem.
I don´t like the idea that the masses only always break thru and attack. I like the idea of crackaces of such multiple interceptions
based on attack path and defenders setup. But i doubt we´ll see changes here.

Using an intercept path rather than just look at the respurces at/around the target prevents what is in my opinion a very gamey move .. flying through a caldron of enemy bases unscathed to get to a frendly base. This is particulary gamey in 2 turn situations where as multiple bombers could be flown from one base to another through the enemy, and then launch a strike. Then add in the leaky CAP problem and bang you see a game ended ...[:(]

[JocMeister]

The big question would be I think if what happened to GJ/Rader could happen in Scen 1? I don´t think making any huge changes in the game based on Scenario 2 is a good way to go. Scen 2 is after all a fantasy scenario. Making engine adjustments based on that might upset all the other scenarios.

[witpqs]

They might well be looking at/working on the issue behind the scenes, under the cone of silence.

[Puhis]

I think air war enters fantacy land when there is level 9 airfield and 250 aviation support squads. No stacking penalty, no maintenance penalty. It's too easy to maintain and operate airplanes from smaller airfields, level 9 airfields with 250 aviation support make it ridiculously easy.

IMO more stacking penalties and maintenance penalties would make this game better and nail this "problem".

[witpqs]

They pretty much confirmed that the 250 cap on aviation support needed at a base is going away.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They pretty much confirmed that the 250 cap on aviation support needed at a base is going away.

Yep, I wonder what the status is there, because it does not seem to be a too extensive change but would tone down the issue by some orders of magnitude.

[castor troy]

as pointed out before, the 250av cap won't change the massed strikes though. One can launch 2000 aircraft from a level 9/10 airfield with 0 aviation support.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

as pointed out before, the 250av cap won't change the massed strikes though. One can launch 2000 aircraft from a level 9/10 airfield with 0 aviation support.

I know, I was just addressing that one point. The other one they might still be working on.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: castor troy

as pointed out before, the 250av cap won't change the massed strikes though. One can launch 2000 aircraft from a level 9/10 airfield with 0 aviation support.

I know, I was just addressing that one point. The other one they might still be working on.

I expect some equation where 1av sp= one engine. so a 4e will need 4av support for maintenance. So 100 b24s would need 400 av support on a base.

[michaelm75au]

There are penalties applied when launching strikes if not enough AV.
Plus lack of AV hurts more in support of planes as in repairs, maintenance, etc.
However, the incorrect current cap of 250 means additional planes above that level are automatically being supported.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

There are penalties applied when launching strikes if not enough AV.
Plus lack of AV hurts more in support of planes as in repairs, maintenance, etc.
However, the incorrect current cap of 250 means additional planes above that level are automatically being supported.

yes, there is that 25% penalty for not enough aviation support. Means moving 2000 aircraft to a level 9 airfield will have 1500 ready to strike if there is not a single av support at the base so it doesn't cure the whole issue.

All you say above is correct of course, just the penalties are by far not high enough. 2000 aircraft at a level 10 airfield with 0 aviation support should see a couple of dozen aircraft attacking perhaps. Who is going to ready those aircraft for their strike if there is no aviation support?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: castor troy

as pointed out before, the 250av cap won't change the massed strikes though. One can launch 2000 aircraft from a level 9/10 airfield with 0 aviation support.

I know, I was just addressing that one point. The other one they might still be working on.

I expect some equation where 1av sp= one engine. so a 4e will need 4av support for maintenance. So 100 b24s would need 400 av support on a base.

Higher needs for aviation support sure is a good idea and I sure would support it, I wonder if there is enough aviation support in total available though. I would not want to end up with more "engines" than aviation support squads on the map.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: witpqs


I know, I was just addressing that one point. The other one they might still be working on.

I expect some equation where 1av sp= one engine. so a 4e will need 4av support for maintenance. So 100 b24s would need 400 av support on a base.

Higher needs for aviation support sure is a good idea and I sure would support it, I wonder if there is enough aviation support in total available though. I would not want to end up with more "engines" than aviation support squads on the map.

What was the DaBabes fix for all this. I remember them doing something.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

as pointed out before, the 250av cap won't change the massed strikes though. One can launch 2000 aircraft from a level 9/10 airfield with 0 aviation support.

Agreed, and this needs to be adressed as well.

In the meantime a HR can reduce the problem to nearly non existent levels in PBEM, for those who witness the problem:
"No combat missions flown from AFs with less AV support available than # planes."

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

as pointed out before, the 250av cap won't change the massed strikes though. One can launch 2000 aircraft from a level 9/10 airfield with 0 aviation support.

Agreed, and this needs to be adressed as well.

In the meantime a HR can reduce the problem to nearly non existent levels in PBEM, for those who witness the problem:
"No combat missions flown from AFs with less AV support available than # planes."

Just to insert the side effects of not modeling a suggestion and the side effects of such a home rule .. I have a level 4 base with say 100 aircraft and a BF of 100 aviation support . the enemy bombs and disbales 1 aviation support . now the entire base is shutdown? [8|] If such a direction were to be taken it would have to be graduated ...

On the other question .. lets us restrcit the number of planes per base to the maximum TO&E aviation support on the base [thus a gamey kill one support squad does not shut down the base ..] in modeling this with Downfall huge sorties still occur ,because at least in my model, I am protecting my most important assests and gathering airplatforms around those assests. But if intercepts occured as soon as and where the first plane is detected then I might spread my fighter assests around more enabling more intercepts of smaller passes .. but the game does not support this which leads IMHO huge furballs ..