Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1126b updated 17 Sept 2016

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

There is no AV cap of 250 anymore.
However, on larger AF an AV point can support 2 'planes' rather than the normal '1'.

Now I must ask why? Because I feel that with this change, big airfields actually need less AV support most of the time. Especially early game, when airplane maintenance is already way too easy...

IMO removing the 250 AV support cap was very good change, but I really can't understand this one...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: michaelm

There is no AV cap of 250 anymore.
However, on larger AF an AV point can support 2 'planes' rather than the normal '1'.

Now I must ask why? Because I feel that with this change, big airfields actually need less AV support most of the time. Especially early game, when airplane maintenance is already way too easy...

IMO removing the 250 AV support cap was very good change, but I really can't understand this one...

Some observations...

- Prior to this patch 250 AV was all that any airfield needed.

- Making support be more efficient at airfields size 8 or 9 can be a representation of the better facilities/equipment/tools available at such large aerodromes.

- My first reaction is that maybe 2x efficient is too much, maybe 1.5x or 1.3x or something? BUT - I have not play tested this yet, so I am not saying the 2x is wrong.

- The removal of the 250 air support cap will already dramatically change the dynamics regarding players' allocation of air support and the tempo of air operations. Having this '2x efficient' modifier for size 8 and 9 air bases will provide some mitigation while we get some playing time in and can give feedback concerning this modifier.

- Throwing one my buddy's way, if you play Treespider's mod you will become convinced that there is no such thing as a level 8 or 9 air base! [:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: michaelm

There is no AV cap of 250 anymore.
However, on larger AF an AV point can support 2 'planes' rather than the normal '1'.

Now I must ask why? Because I feel that with this change, big airfields actually need less AV support most of the time. Especially early game, when airplane maintenance is already way too easy...

IMO removing the 250 AV support cap was very good change, but I really can't understand this one...

Some observations...

- Prior to this patch 250 AV was all that any airfield needed.

- Making support be more efficient at airfields size 8 or 9 can be a representation of the better facilities/equipment/tools available at such large aerodromes.

- My first reaction is that maybe 2x efficient is too much, maybe 1.5x or 1.3x or something? BUT - I have not play tested this yet, so I am not saying the 2x is wrong.

- The removal of the 250 air support cap will already dramatically change the dynamics regarding players' allocation of air support and the tempo of air operations. Having this '2x efficient' modifier for size 8 and 9 air bases will provide some mitigation while we get some playing time in and can give feedback concerning this modifier.

+1

And I'm not sure that 2x isn't a good compromise.

Let's look at what many IJ players were doing: staging +1000 a/c at a level 9 AB with only 250 AV to maintain them. Now, you will need 500 AV (or more). That's a HUGE change of requirements. Particularly for IJ, this mean not just 3BF's with an air HQ, now you will need several air HQ's and a lot of BF's ... and IJ doesn't have those. So now, IJ will really start to look like it really was: understaffed with AV and this limited the number of a/c that the IJ could actually field.

I think this "fix" is phenomal and is going to really shake up a lot of IJ players who simply built 1000's of Tojo's in '43. They will still do that of course, but the number of Tojo's that will be availalbe on any given turn is going to be severely reduced. I think that '43 is going to be a much more "exciting" year than it used to be, and a more fun year as the allied players will be FAR more competitive.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
+1

And I'm not sure that 2x isn't a good compromise.

Let's look at what many IJ players were doing: staging +1000 a/c at a level 9 AB with only 250 AV to maintain them. Now, you will need 500 AV (or more). That's a HUGE change of requirements. Particularly for IJ, this mean not just 3BF's with an air HQ, now you will need several air HQ's and a lot of BF's ... and IJ doesn't have those. So now, IJ will really start to look like it really was: understaffed with AV and this limited the number of a/c that the IJ could actually field.

I think this "fix" is phenomal and is going to really shake up a lot of IJ players who simply built 1000's of Tojo's in '43. They will still do that of course, but the number of Tojo's that will be availalbe on any given turn is going to be severely reduced. I think that '43 is going to be a much more "exciting" year than it used to be, and a more fun year as the allied players will be FAR more competitive.

Completely agree. And don't forget to look at the map. Where exactly CAN the IJ player get his airfields up to Level 8 in order to gain this benefit? Only two islands (Guam & Okinawa) in the vast Pacific expanse bounded by Japan (N), Formosa/Phillipines (W), New Guinea/Solomons/Fiji (S) and Hawaii (E) have bases that could be turned into a giant air fortress. So unless the IJ wants to throw a large number of BF units into one tasty little basket (good luck with that), it means this zone will turn into the same kind of Allied Carrier playground that it was in real life.

[PaxMondo]

Even in Burma, its going to make holding it far more difficult for the IJ.  Same for the allies in '42 until all their BF's start showing up in '43.

[Puhis]

I suggest that this the rule should be changed to after 250 AV support, 1 squad can support 2 planes. I could understand that, but I still feel that big airfields don't actually need any new bonus.

As it is now, it just doesn't make sense. The all idea of removing 250 cap was to increase need of AV support. Now it actually reduce the need, because there is so many possible level 8 and 9 airfields. Now big airfields need less AV support, as long as there's no more than 500 planes.

Most of the gaming happens before 1944, when there's no 1000s of planes. At least I don't have. And in 1944 I don't think AV support is any problem...

IMO devs should really reconsider this rule.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Puhis




Now I must ask why? Because I feel that with this change, big airfields actually need less AV support most of the time. Especially early game, when airplane maintenance is already way too easy...

IMO removing the 250 AV support cap was very good change, but I really can't understand this one...

Some observations...

- Prior to this patch 250 AV was all that any airfield needed.

- Making support be more efficient at airfields size 8 or 9 can be a representation of the better facilities/equipment/tools available at such large aerodromes.

- My first reaction is that maybe 2x efficient is too much, maybe 1.5x or 1.3x or something? BUT - I have not play tested this yet, so I am not saying the 2x is wrong.

- The removal of the 250 air support cap will already dramatically change the dynamics regarding players' allocation of air support and the tempo of air operations. Having this '2x efficient' modifier for size 8 and 9 air bases will provide some mitigation while we get some playing time in and can give feedback concerning this modifier.

+1

And I'm not sure that 2x isn't a good compromise.

Let's look at what many IJ players were doing: staging +1000 a/c at a level 9 AB with only 250 AV to maintain them. Now, you will need 500 AV (or more). That's a HUGE change of requirements. Particularly for IJ, this mean not just 3BF's with an air HQ, now you will need several air HQ's and a lot of BF's ... and IJ doesn't have those. So now, IJ will really start to look like it really was: understaffed with AV and this limited the number of a/c that the IJ could actually field.

I think this "fix" is phenomal and is going to really shake up a lot of IJ players who simply built 1000's of Tojo's in '43. They will still do that of course, but the number of Tojo's that will be availalbe on any given turn is going to be severely reduced. I think that '43 is going to be a much more "exciting" year than it used to be, and a more fun year as the allied players will be FAR more competitive.

Agree on this, although my initial reaction was similar to Puhis´.
This is WiP, so can be adapted according to player reactions after some testing, and it has a huge impact on gameplay compared to before the beta.

What I really like to see is some binding of sorties to AV, some time in the far future. It is still possible to mass 4k planes at an 50AV airbase and let
a high percentage fly an attack mission, with degrading efficiency of later missions.

This would put the final nail into the massed air warfare coffin.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

" 18. Required Aviation Support is NOT capped at 250 for the human player. This was removed at start of AE but crept back in sometime during updates."

So here's the thing, it's a feature of the Patch. Opinions differ (shocker), but discussions on the plusses & minuses really belong in a different thread.

[DOCUP]

Thanks for all your hard work MichaelM.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: witpqs




Some observations...

- Prior to this patch 250 AV was all that any airfield needed.

- Making support be more efficient at airfields size 8 or 9 can be a representation of the better facilities/equipment/tools available at such large aerodromes.

- My first reaction is that maybe 2x efficient is too much, maybe 1.5x or 1.3x or something? BUT - I have not play tested this yet, so I am not saying the 2x is wrong.

- The removal of the 250 air support cap will already dramatically change the dynamics regarding players' allocation of air support and the tempo of air operations. Having this '2x efficient' modifier for size 8 and 9 air bases will provide some mitigation while we get some playing time in and can give feedback concerning this modifier.

+1

And I'm not sure that 2x isn't a good compromise.

Let's look at what many IJ players were doing: staging +1000 a/c at a level 9 AB with only 250 AV to maintain them. Now, you will need 500 AV (or more). That's a HUGE change of requirements. Particularly for IJ, this mean not just 3BF's with an air HQ, now you will need several air HQ's and a lot of BF's ... and IJ doesn't have those. So now, IJ will really start to look like it really was: understaffed with AV and this limited the number of a/c that the IJ could actually field.

I think this "fix" is phenomal and is going to really shake up a lot of IJ players who simply built 1000's of Tojo's in '43. They will still do that of course, but the number of Tojo's that will be availalbe on any given turn is going to be severely reduced. I think that '43 is going to be a much more "exciting" year than it used to be, and a more fun year as the allied players will be FAR more competitive.

Agree on this, although my initial reaction was similar to Puhis´.
This is WiP, so can be adapted according to player reactions after some testing, and it has a huge impact on gameplay compared to before the beta.

What I really like to see is some binding of sorties to AV, some time in the far future. It is still possible to mass 4k planes at an 50AV airbase and let
a high percentage fly an attack mission, with degrading efficiency of later missions.

This would put the final nail into the massed air warfare coffin.

I do not mean to hijack this thread but LoBaron .. the problem of massed air battles is far more fundemental in this game than numbers of planes supported at a base. The fundemetal paradigm of attacking aircraft poping out of the ether and appearing magically at the target with the alorithum of calculating air intercept from the target produces the situaiton where as hording aircraft at the target becomes prudent. Even one hex away attrites the number of interceptors. An algorithum that calculates air intercept from the source base to the target with all bases inbetween rewards the player to distrubute resources on multiple levels. BTW) This algorhythm is easy to implement once one understands the math ..

In the raid from England to Regensburg the entire Luftwaffee did not concentrate all in one place producing an airial furball but rather groups intercepted as the raid progressed. If I hold Tavoy and the IJ attack say Moulmein.. none of those planes will intercept in this game.. so if I want to protect Moulmein I better had put a big airforce there ... enough to resist a huge raid coming from Singapore .. In reality I would want to have multiple and interlocking interception points thus spreading out airbases ...

The alogorhythm to focus on the target produces other interesting results ... the KB lauched from a coastal hex that has 50 P40's on CAP .. they hit a target 8 hexes away .... none of those P40's particpated as the IJ turned on the cloaking shields to suddenly drop into the target ....

But OK .. focus on aviation support as the solution ...

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Kull
Opinions differ (shocker), but discussions on the plusses & minuses really belong in a different thread.

Agree Kull. And sorry for supporting OT.

Thanks again for your hard work, Michael.

Crackaces if you want to start a fundamental discussion on what just might be doable, and what is your personal fantasy for AE 2, lets move
to the general discussion ok?

[pws1225]

Wahoo!! Michael does it again. Many thanks.

[Olorin]

Thanks a lot michaelm! [&o]
Some great changes included in the new beta. I especially like the abolishment of the 250 aviation support cap.

Question: is the strategic move bug fixed? I couldn't find it in the change log. I am referring to the bug that wouldn't allow units to strategically move, if the destination was selected before packing was completed.

[Dan Nichols]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Thanks a lot michaelm! [&o]
Some great changes included in the new beta. I especially like the abolishment of the 250 aviation support cap.

Question: is the strategic move bug fixed? I couldn't find it in the change log. I am referring to the bug that wouldn't allow units to strategically move, if the destination was selected before packing was completed.

I haven't seen that one, can you elaborate some? I routinely set a destination after selecting strategic move mode.

And I would like to also include my heartfelt thanks to michaelm for all the hard work.

[Olorin]

When I set a unit to "strategic move", I have to wait until packing is finished and then select the destination. If I select a destination before packing is completed, the unit does not move at all, even after it's packed. Is this only happening to me [&:]

[Dan Nichols]

Must be, I have always set mode to strategic move mode, select the destination and then wait until tracker tells me it arrived at its destination. The only time I have had any trouble was when my opponent moved and occupied one of the hexes in the path. [:@]

[witpqs]

I used to see it fairly frequently, then it was fixed in an earlier patch. Sometime later I saw someone (forget who) report it, but I have still not seen it since a prior patch.

Hope that helps.

[Olorin]

I started seeing it two-three beta patches ago, can't remember which one unfortunately.

[Chris21wen]

Request

Any chance of showing which LCU have equipment that can be upgraded. Currently the only way to do this is to open the unit screen.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Request

Any chance of showing which LCU have equipment that can be upgraded. Currently the only way to do this is to open the unit screen.

Think that this should be in Tracker rather than in-game. There isn't really anywhere else to put this without overtaxing the existing LCU screens.[&:]