Air coordination in 1120b

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

As long as both sides have the coordination issue then it is not such a big deal in reality.

But both sides don't have the same coordination issues and I think that is exactly my point. The Japanese player get much bigger air units to work with thus the coordination issue is less severe. Heck, one particular fighter unit consists of 90 aircraft. I can assure you that this is my opponent's favorite unit for sweeping. [:)] USA fighter units are at best 24 aircraft and Commonwealth average 12-16.

I have suggested before that Allied squadrons should be able to recombine into groups. Especially after 1944. Perhaps only at level 9 airfields. This simple fix would go well towards balancing out the equation in my mind.

My game is rounding into 45 and coordination is not such an issue simply because I got so much air power that I can just lay it on. But it hurts the Allied player severely in 42 when he just does not have enough bombers or escorts.

But as I have said, I am not sure it is a problem as it is. I have to get a few more turns under my belt.

[obvert]

Michael,

Nothing new. Just posting to ask if you've had a look and if something is in the works to better air coordination or if this is how it is designed to look and if we should move forward as such?

Thanks,
Erik

[Oberst_Klink]

Gentleman,

not that I am an expert about the WitP, but I thing the 'issues' of coordinating large scale raids are nicely simulated. Until late '44 or '45, when was the USAAF able to launch their large (OK, compared to the ETA small...) raids against mainland Japan? Think about the issues they still had in Europe coordinating raids, and they were based in a country with good infrastructures, radar installations, fighter and bomber control command posts with a bunch of nice WAAF personal wearing headsets using those casino croupier thingies moving around the air-groups on a glass plate.

I am now tempted to order Fire In The Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific, by Eric M Bergerud.

Klink, Oberst

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Michael,

Nothing new. Just posting to ask if you've had a look and if something is in the works to better air coordination or if this is how it is designed to look and if we should move forward as such?

Thanks,
Erik

I haven't had a chance to look at this specific save, but the coordination is based on the factors that were originally designed. It is just bad luck that the initial code had a bug in it that was over-coordinating things that players had accepted as the norm.

I will examine the save on weekend and break it down.

[1EyedJacks]

One bad result of the multiple un-coordinated strikes is the affect it has on CAP. The first few attacks drive down the CAP and the remaining attacks come in against greatly reduced CAP.

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...

[koniu]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...

Anyone tested beta patch in CV battle.
I am not telling about small engagements but those big with ~1000 planes.

Or at lest maybe someone have ready sandbox scenario so i can run few tests?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: koniu

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...

Anyone tested beta patch in CV battle.
I am not telling about small engagements but those big with ~1000 planes.

Or at lest maybe someone have ready sandbox scenario so i can run few tests?

No, but you only need to compare to fragmented strikes as they are now (they happen, just less often than they should according to Michael).

Actually I do not think it is a problem. 1EyedJacks is correct in that the initial waves reduce ammount of CAP for the follow up waves. But fragments still
put the strike into a disadvantage as compared to a balanced big escorted package. You got a higher chance for unescorted fragments, and those that are
are protected by fewer escorts. Usually this results in more losses on average for the strike.

The only situations, where the effect of CAP being severely reduced by fragments and so allowing the later fragments to get through unharmed, occur, are those where
the CAP was outnumbered severely anyway, and in those instances it does not make much differences if there are fragments or not.

I rather think that Michael found the bug has a positive effect, because there will be less situations on average where players will run into the 200 attack run limitation
that GreyJoy found in his PBEM against Rader. The smaller the packages, the less likely such situations occur.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: koniu

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...

Anyone tested beta patch in CV battle.
I am not telling about small engagements but those big with ~1000 planes.

Or at lest maybe someone have ready sandbox scenario so i can run few tests?

No, but you only need to compare to fragmented strikes as they are now (they happen, just less often than they should according to Michael).

Actually I do not think it is a problem. 1EyedJacks is correct in that the initial waves reduce ammount of CAP for the follow up waves. But fragments still
put the strike into a disadvantage as compared to a balanced big escorted package. You got a higher chance for unescorted fragments, and those that are
are protected by fewer escorts. Usually this results in more losses on average for the strike.

The only situations, where the effect of CAP being severely reduced by fragments and so allowing the later fragments to get through unharmed, occur, are those where
the CAP was outnumbered severely anyway, and in those instances it does not make much differences if there are fragments or not.

I rather think that Michael found the bug has a positive effect, because there will be less situations on average where players will run into the 200 attack run limitation
that GreyJoy found in his PBEM against Rader. The smaller the packages, the less likely such situations occur.

I've run one smaller test with CVs. I'm moving my test game forward to the point I'll start getting an Allied CV force again to test this out (it was an old AI game where the Allied side lost most of their CVs). In the test I ran with only a few CVs to each side coordination was good.

Have you tested the comment I've bolded? This was my thinking when Jocke and I first encountered the difference in coordination in the first patch after Michealm removed whatever was making planes coordinate better for the entire time AE has been released. I thought, 'this must be intentional because it's doing what so many players had asked for after the rader/GJ game.' Now I'm not so sure it's good, and Michaelm has not yet said if this is what coordination is supposed to look like after the change.

Your assumption that this will only be a problem for bases that are not heavily CAPed is not quite true in my experience. I had 180 planes show up on CAP in the first big attack after we noticed the coordination change. They did well initially but after a while they were worn down to nothing through a combination of extended fragments and the ever-lasting dive of LR CAP. The full report is about halfway down this AAR page linked below, 19-20 July 1943.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2953587&mpage=37&#3221318

When we re-ran the strike under the official patch the outcome was very different in terms of types of airplanes lost. In the official patch many more fighters were lost and fewer bombers, and the fields were hit harder, closing the level 7 base at Mandalay, whereas in the beta the base was open the next day (under 50 damage).

Really what this can do is make the game entirely different. LR CAP becomes a very powerful offensive weapon (if allowed) for one. You just send several fighter groups to LR CAP and the later strikes/sweeps ALL get this coverage as if they're escorting (with LR CAP continual dive bonus even though they've been in the battle the entire time), severely limiting the CAP's ability to ward off a strike.

It is really a major change. No one is playing in late game with it, and unless someone wants to try downfall with this beta and figure out what it really does, the speculation is not really useful. I'm thinking the late arriving kami fragments could be a killer to the Allies if they come in untouched, while the extra fragmentation of B-29 raids will make them very costly against even moderately protected bases. However, what we think it will do is not quite the same as what it will actually do, and until we know that, how can we upgrade and commit to using this not knowing the effects down the line?

[LoBaron]

Very good point re: LRCAP obvert, I did not take this into accout.

I was specifically referring to CV battles where it is not impacting, as you cannot LRCAP
enemy fleets.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I will examine the save on weekend and break it down.

Did you find anything odd with the save or is the raid working as its supposed to? I´m extra curious as some players using the BETA doesn´t seem to get that kind of severe fragmentation but rather much like the official patch.

Also out of curiosity, how long has this bug been present?

[michaelm75au]

Looking at just the PM air attack in the attacks, most of the individual raids come from differences in speed and distance that affect the time-to-target.
The most of the groups in the attack passed the command checks (that was where the bug was located) but fail the TTT check (which hasn't been touched). A few failed the command check due to leader rating, low experience and mixed HQs.
The long distance (from Australian bases) plus the speed difference add up to some scattering of the attack.

[obvert]

Thanks again for looking further into this.

I know it probably seems pretty simple for you looking at this example 'under the hood,' but for us when it has looked one way for so long and then is suddenly completely different it is really tough to know what to alter to get if not perfect at least acceptable coordination. With your explanation at least this opens some doors and makes the factors involved more clear for someone (like me) who doesn't have as much experience with how this works in the game engine.

I had a strong feeling based on tests that distance (and issues with speed, etc) was a major factor in getting the kind of splintering we suddenly were getting. It also confirms that HQ alignment helps as well, which in the past seems to have been a contested issue on the forum. Maybe we weren't forced to look at these things as much due to the bug you removed that made coordination work in spite of the other issues.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Thanks again for looking further into this.

I know it probably seems pretty simple for you looking at this example 'under the hood,' but for us when it has looked one way for so long and then is suddenly completely different it is really tough to know what to alter to get if not perfect at least acceptable coordination. With your explanation at least this opens some doors and makes the factors involved more clear for someone (like me) who doesn't have as much experience with how this works in the game engine.

I had a strong feeling based on tests that distance (and issues with speed, etc) was a major factor in getting the kind of splintering we suddenly were getting. It also confirms that HQ alignment helps as well, which in the past seems to have been a contested issue on the forum. Maybe we weren't forced to look at these things as much due to the bug you removed that made coordination work in spite of the other issues.

HQs may work in the beta or any of the later betas but they don't work at all in the official patch. Have spent roughly 100-120 turns H2H just looking at any difference with the only factor being changed were HQs (being at the base/not being at the base and having the squadrons set to the same HQ/not set to the same HQ). There was no difference, just like every other thing (except high experience) seems to have an influence like a baby fart and you won't notice it.

Perhaps someone has to do 5000 H2H turns to notice any statistical evidence for HQs or all the other stuff that is praised to work in terms of coordination, I say forget about it, because it is what it is, a series of strangely sized strikes that are neither realistic nor got anything to do with common sense when you see 200 bombers splitting up in 15 "waves" with only the first or second being the size of a box. BUT, it is working as designed (now that a bug was found which makes it even worse [:)]). And it has been out there even before release when the commercials were about enhancing the strike routines. No critics, just trying to point out you shouldn't sacrifice a chicken on your desk if someone tells you it helps.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

a series of strangely sized strikes that are neither realistic nor got anything to do with common sense when you see 200 bombers splitting up in 15 "waves" with only the first or second being the size of a box.

Which is almost exactly what happened IRL ... time and again. At least according to the guys that flew them. By late war, the allies had gotten coordination down to something approaching current stadards, but this is after thousands of missions. What most people overlook is that what was considered coordinated in the 40's and what is considered coordinated today ain't the same thing. Early to midwar for the allies, and entire war for everyone else, use Midway as your benchmark for coordination. That was the standard, not the exception. Those weren't green pilots, they were the very best on both sides. Several thousand hour pilots. With the influx of all the new pilots on both sides, it got worse before it got better.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: castor troy

a series of strangely sized strikes that are neither realistic nor got anything to do with common sense when you see 200 bombers splitting up in 15 "waves" with only the first or second being the size of a box.

Which is almost exactly what happened IRL ... time and again. At least according to the guys that flew them. By late war, the allies had gotten coordination down to something approaching current stadards, but this is after thousands of missions. What most people overlook is that what was considered coordinated in the 40's and what is considered coordinated today ain't the same thing. Early to midwar for the allies, and entire war for everyone else, use Midway as your benchmark for coordination. That was the standard, not the exception. Those weren't green pilots, they were the very best on both sides. Several thousand hour pilots. With the influx of all the new pilots on both sides, it got worse before it got better.

Midway? Are you talking about carrier strikes and the rest is talking about LBA strikes? When you are talking about carrier strikes, well, I am launching nearly 100% of super coordinated carrier strikes time and again with 6 and more US CVs stacked into a SINGLE TF in 42/43. These strikes consist of up to 350-400 aircraft in one strike, just like WITP style. So what? And I am surely not saying that this got anything to do with realism, just like the way LBA strikes got nothing to do with realism at all.

And re LBA strikes, I have yet to find a source that shows attacks that nearly come close to what we see in the game, not even those flown by 5th airforce with different aircraft types, at different altitudes quite early in the war. But discussing realism or what has been happening in real life is something I have been long tired of. What is going on all the time lately is all the fantasy of what you can do to get something you won't manage to do, no matter what, at least not that you would notice it when you try to test it.

It is working as designed, so...

[obvert]

The bug Michaelm removed and which affects recent betas obviously has an effect on coordination; it is more difficult to achieve.

It seems at this point to affect LBA most. According to michaelm's note this is probably has to do with groups being in different HQs, distance and speed to target and occasionally leader strengths not passing the command check. The players who have reported on it or done tests on it show the difficulty of coordinating large strikes were all referring to LBA.

Speaking of CVs though, I haven't seen where anyone has yet tested and posted results from a sandbox CV battle using more than 2 CVs on each side using one of these betas. I posted earlier about a 2 v 2 CV battle in late 41 using the beta after the command check bug was removed. Coordination was fine in that one. As normal main body was all together in the attack, only a few fragments in the second phase of afternoon strikes if I remember.

So really no one yet knows what coordination will be like using the betas for a larger 6-10 CV per side engagement. If I understand correctly, the CV is the HQ and the fleet commander is the HQ commander, so his numbers will affect coordination. Most of the time this guy has a high level of skill in air combat. I've not tried to put a low rated commander in a CV fleet to see what happens. Maybe this would help test the check?

Maybe this pattern of individual strikes coming in after the main box is meant to replicate not only the time of the groups getting strung out but placement across a large sky field of battle? So a later fragment might not be hit by CAP whereas the earlier ones were. It surely seems like it was a choice by the developers, and maybe this choice is now coming out more clearly.

[henry1611]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

HQs may work in the beta or any of the later betas but they don't work at all in the official patch.

From the most recent beta patch thread:

10/11/12: 1120 - Increased air hq and group leader effect on raid coordination.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: obvert

The bug Michaelm removed and which affects recent betas obviously has an effect on coordination; it is more difficult to achieve.

It seems at this point to affect LBA most. According to michaelm's note this is probably has to do with groups being in different HQs, distance and speed to target and occasionally leader strengths not passing the command check. The players who have reported on it or done tests on it show the difficulty of coordinating large strikes were all referring to LBA.

Speaking of CVs though, I haven't seen where anyone has yet tested and posted results from a sandbox CV battle using more than 2 CVs on each side using one of these betas. I posted earlier about a 2 v 2 CV battle in late 41 using the beta after the command check bug was removed. Coordination was fine in that one. As normal main body was all together in the attack, only a few fragments in the second phase of afternoon strikes if I remember.

So really no one yet knows what coordination will be like using the betas for a larger 6-10 CV per side engagement. If I understand correctly, the CV is the HQ and the fleet commander is the HQ commander, so his numbers will affect coordination. Most of the time this guy has a high level of skill in air combat. I've not tried to put a low rated commander in a CV fleet to see what happens. Maybe this would help test the check?

Maybe this pattern of individual strikes coming in after the main box is meant to replicate not only the time of the groups getting strung out but placement across a large sky field of battle? So a later fragment might not be hit by CAP whereas the earlier ones were. It surely seems like it was a choice by the developers, and maybe this choice is now coming out more clearly.

Basically you are saying what I offered in another thread on this (or heck, maybe it was a few pages back in this thread?) and what PaxMondo said a few posts ago. What we envision as coordinated is one big, cohesive block of aircraft. What IRL was considered 'coordinated' in WWII was much looser. Third comes the game engine, which tries to deal with the WWII version of 'coordinated'. As you put it, maybe some planes arrive at or near the same time but in different patches of sky and suffer from less mutual support. Maybe they arrive close enough together in time for a history to say 'coordinated' but still far enough apart for fighters to attack them separately.

So what we see in-game as 'uncoordinated' is really (often times) history's version of 'coordinated'.

BTW from what I have read and seen on TV the large raids in Europe that were well coordinated were not big lumps of hundreds of 4EBs. They were streams of squadron and group formations. Fighter attacks in different parts of the stream could not receive supporting (defensive) fire from parts of the stream miles and miles away. How should the game depict this? This is probably part of what we are seeing.

IMO.