No AAA losses in combat?

[Alpha77]

Well they just can put out a quick "hotfix" for the AA problem, cant they ? Instead working on the COMPLETE new patch (if there is any work on it at all), just make a quick fix for this serious error. I played now enough to know the impact of the error, as it seem planes won´t lose anything (also from modern AA missiles in WW3 scens!). Seems it is true, only the AA units may work but also cause no serious losses (this might be historical as AA also works to scare away enemy planes and not destroy them, but this needed to be tested)...

I attacked with slower and lighter ALPHA JETS WP units that have much ZSU23/4 as well an assortment of AA missiles, but the Alphas did not lose anyone. This may be probable if fast and very low flying and more robust Tornados or F111s do this attack, but not light trainer/CAS planes like the Alpha imo.

BTW: Even for HOI severall so called "hotfixes" were released besides the "real" patches (I dont play this game anymore, but just that Matrix people know!).

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

And it occurs that an interim 3.4 bug fix is not within the realms of possibility...

I think not.

But it's like : All Quit on the TOAW Front.
There is also still no News about Ralph. Does somebody know something?

We should ask Erik if those of us, who already spend 100+ hrs on developing new scenario masterpieces to give us at least access to try 3.5 in its latest stage, even if we're not the 'official' beta-testers. That at least would compensate for the no-news and status-updates (or the lack of?) for 3.5.

Klink, Oberst

[kmitahj]

Hi,
It seems it is common opinion that AAA fix is conceptually easy. I wonder if there is indeed an agreement WHAT the fix really should look like? I mean it would be possible - maybe even easy - to make binary patch of a game which would make all units behave kinda like AA units - that is all units would have a chance to contirbute to low alt. anti-aircraft fire. But would it be a solution?
I didn't test it really but I suspect that it may result in switching "no AAA loses" problem into "much too much AAA loses". The thing is that - as far as I understand - air attacks aren't resolved as point attacks (like one air unit againt one target unit) but rather as area attacks against whole hex. That means that in general program adds up AA fire strength of all units in the hex (and for some map scales probably even units from nearby hexes) and then uses such total AA fire strength together with attacking airunit defense strength in procedure which decides about airplane hits if any. Currently when adding up AA strength program skips over all units which are not designated as AA-units and perhaps, just perhaps it was done so deliberately because otherwise attacking hexes dense packed with land units with internal AA equipment would often - though depending on particular scenario and map scale - result in prohibitive, unrealistic loses of airplanes?

If the simplest fix would really turn out to be more the problem then a solution then what the refined solution should look like?
- should it simply disciminate non-AA-units by adding only a pctage (how much?) of its AA fire strength to the total?
- or should it maybe select only one non-AA-unit from the whole hex stack (in addition to AA-units if any) to contribute to AA fire? (if so which one? one with highest AA strength, one on the top of the stack, randomly choosen one?)
- or maybe it should scale down AA fire totals by factor related to aerial density of AA equipment (i.e. same number of AA equipment in a hex will result in a AA strength scaled down depending on the map scale/hex size)
- or it should rather scale it down based on AA equipment pctage compared to total of all equipment in the hex (that is based on how much of other equipment in a hex has to be covered by single AA barrel)
- something different yet?

[governato]

ORIGINAL: kmitahj

Currently when adding up AA strength program skips over all units which are not designated as AA-units and perhaps, just perhaps it was done so deliberately because otherwise attacking hexes dense packed with land units with internal AA equipment would often - though depending on particular scenario and map scale - result in prohibitive, unrealistic loses of airplanes?

If the simplest fix would really turn out to be more the problem then a solution then what the refined solution should look like?
- should it simply disciminate non-AA-units by adding only a pctage (how much?) of its AA fire strength to the total?
- or should it maybe select only one non-AA-unit from the whole hex stack (in addition to AA-units if any) to contribute to AA fire? (if so which one? one with highest AA strength, one on the top of the stack, randomly choosen one?)
- or maybe it should scale down AA fire totals by factor related to aerial density of AA equipment (i.e. same number of AA equipment in a hex will result in a AA strength scaled down depending on the map scale/hex size)
- or it should rather scale it down based on AA equipment pctage compared to total of all equipment in the hex (that is based on how much of other equipment in a hex has to be covered by single AA barrel)
- something different yet?

These are the definitely the right questions to ask. I 'd count all the AA equipment 'as is' (the same way as all the units in an hex are counted for ground combat) and then let the designers adjust the AA strength factor for the scenario scale
and the factors you pointed at. The (very) general assumption 'd be that the AA units 'd efficiently go where the action is. There are of course limitations: this approach works well in a small scale desert scenario, as AA barrels would not protect empty ground, but rather closely follow ground units, but this 'd be less accurate in say a weekly turn, 10km/hex scenario in Europe, where most of the AA 'd be assigned to protect ground installations (factories, civilians etc). Just my 2c! Also, very impressed that you are able to patch the executable.

[BigDuke66]

Patched the EXE???
Who patched the EXE?

The simply solution talked of is toying around with the unit counters so none-AA units also do AA if the have equipment in them.

[governato]

BigDuke, check the 'discontinued' forum, towards the end.

[BigDuke66]

Oh missed that one, thanks.

[governato]

I have posted some test results using kmitahj patch/hack in the Scenario design section, under the 'Eastern Front thread'. Simply put: AA now works! I am impressed.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: governato

I have posted some test results using kmitahj patch/hack in the Scenario design section, under the 'Eastern Front thread'. Simply put: AA now works! I am impressed.

Yes, Hurrah es funktioniert indeed!

Combat :Soviet Union 2 Air Army, 267 Fighter equipment added to combat inventory.
Supply :Bombardment:,10,Soviet Union 2 Air Army, 267 Fighter
News :Soviet Union 17 Air Army, 282 Mixed bombards the target.
AIRCombat: Axis LwKdo Don, II./SG 2 contributes anti-aircraft fire (52).
AIRCombat: Axis LwKdo Don, I./SG 2 contributes anti-aircraft fire (38).
AIRCombat: Axis 1.Pz.Armee, HQ 1.Pz.Armee contributes anti-aircraft fire (23).
AIRCombat:Attempt Penetration: Soviet Union 17 Air Army, 282 Mixed.
News :Axis LwKdo Don, I./ZG 1 supports the defense.
AIRCombat:Committed to furball (escort): Soviet Union 17 Air Army, 205 Fighter.

Klink, Oberst

Edit: The 'a/c in range SAM' might be a tad iffy, but probably also fixable...

[governato]

ORIGINAL: kmitahj
Speaking of patch deficiences here is one discovered in latest tests. As I said above it is rather dumb patch: it is allowing literally all units in range to participate in AAA fire. All units in this case means that also AIR units within fixed range (50km) may contribute to AAA fire as if they were equipped with long-range SAM missiles. BAD!!!
I'm going to find a way to exclude AIR units (and only AIR units) from participating in AAA procedure. However such bit smarter version won't be ready before weekend when I should have some time to work at it.

Hey Obertst et al.
What do you think of the above feature? I gave it some thought and I am actually fine with nearby Air units contributing AA. These are not really 'SAM missiles', but rather a possible representation of what would happen in real life, fighters closeby would definitely be scrambled to intercept incoming planes. So why not in TOAW? My only concern is to make sure that they can be hit as well and that these planes use us supply and readiness as they intercept. Curious to get some opinions on the topic.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: kmitahj
Speaking of patch deficiences here is one discovered in latest tests. As I said above it is rather dumb patch: it is allowing literally all units in range to participate in AAA fire. All units in this case means that also AIR units within fixed range (50km) may contribute to AAA fire as if they were equipped with long-range SAM missiles. BAD!!!
I'm going to find a way to exclude AIR units (and only AIR units) from participating in AAA procedure. However such bit smarter version won't be ready before weekend when I should have some time to work at it.

Hey Obertst et al.
What do you think of the above feature? I gave it some thought and I am actually fine with nearby Air units contributing AA. These are not really 'SAM missiles', but rather a possible representation of what would happen in real life, fighters closeby would definitely be scrambled to intercept incoming planes. So why not in TOAW? My only concern is to make sure that they can be hit as well and that these planes use us supply and readiness as they intercept. Curious to get some opinions on the topic.

Think it won't affect your scale scenarios and yes, even my test showed it's producing the desired results, e.g. run test with the Yom Kippur 1973 scenario. The air losses on both sides were VERY close to historical.

Klink, Oberst

[Shazman]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: kmitahj
Speaking of patch deficiences here is one discovered in latest tests. As I said above it is rather dumb patch: it is allowing literally all units in range to participate in AAA fire. All units in this case means that also AIR units within fixed range (50km) may contribute to AAA fire as if they were equipped with long-range SAM missiles. BAD!!!
I'm going to find a way to exclude AIR units (and only AIR units) from participating in AAA procedure. However such bit smarter version won't be ready before weekend when I should have some time to work at it.

Hey Obertst et al.
What do you think of the above feature? I gave it some thought and I am actually fine with nearby Air units contributing AA. These are not really 'SAM missiles', but rather a possible representation of what would happen in real life, fighters closeby would definitely be scrambled to intercept incoming planes. So why not in TOAW? My only concern is to make sure that they can be hit as well and that these planes use us supply and readiness as they intercept. Curious to get some opinions on the topic.

You can already set the appropriate air units to intercept. Do you really want them to possibly intercept the same air units twice? Also, if all air units AA strengths are used then the bomber units can also take part. And then will bomber units also conduct bombing missions or ground support? The air game should be left as it was meant to be where you assign air units to missions and that is all they do.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Shazman
You can already set the appropriate air units to intercept. Do you really want them to possibly intercept the same air units twice? Also, if all air units AA strengths are used then the bomber units can also take part. And then will bomber units also conduct bombing missions or ground support? The air game should be left as it was meant to be where you assign air units to missions and that is all they do.

You make good points and yes I see the value of having a clean 'ground-only AA'. kmitahj is looking into how the code works (..from the executable, did I mention that I am impressed?), so we can make an informed decision. I agree that there is no need to do things twice if the code already takes care of air intercepts.

[r6kunz]

kmitahj, very impressive. Who would have thought just a couple of weeks ago we would have work being done on the code to resolve the AAA issue. I am not a big fan of the smileys, but...[&o]. And much thanks to you guys who are testing the alpha version of the patch (if we can call it that).

signed
Kunz, HPTM

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Shazman
You can already set the appropriate air units to intercept. Do you really want them to possibly intercept the same air units twice? Also, if all air units AA strengths are used then the bomber units can also take part. And then will bomber units also conduct bombing missions or ground support? The air game should be left as it was meant to be where you assign air units to missions and that is all they do.

You make good points and yes I see the value of having a clean 'ground-only AA'. kmitahj is looking into how the code works (..from the executable, did I mention that I am impressed?), so we can make an informed decision. I agree that there is no need to do things twice if the code already takes care of air intercepts.

Things will work out fine. I am already pleased from what I saw, tested, verified. Choppers get shot down now by V-C if they enter a hot L-Z

Klink, Oberst

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

kmitahj, very impressive. Who would have thought just a couple of weeks ago we would have work being done on the code to resolve the AAA issue. I am not a big fan of the smileys, but...[&o]. And much thanks to you guys who are testing the alpha version of the patch (if we can call it that).

signed
Kunz, HPTM

Rob,

tested it with your 3.7-beta; because your Air units are off map, the 'SAM' issue is not present, but the Germans can at least defend themselves with the unit internal AA weapons when the skies clear up. Everything else WAD. Kapitan Kloss (my nickname for the lad) done a good job. Vietnam scenarios now WAD, because 'Charlie' has for the first time in 3.4 the opportunity to shoot down choppers and low-level strike aircraft like the A1 Skyrider.

Klink, Oberst

[BigDuke66]

Good, good, now I wonder if there are any negative effects not yet discovered...

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Good, good, now I wonder if there are any negative effects not yet discovered...

I always run tests with the toaq_log, ubderdude=Y settings and all the other debugging mechanisms. With off-map 50km+ airbases there are no 'SAM' affects at all. In scenarios with one side without any a/c it really works like ace. Boonie Rat's Vietnam Combat Series is more enjoyable now, because the choppers get shot down. The Middle-East 67 and 73 produced historical results in terms of air power being reduced by hand-held SAMs and so on. The 2 weeks in Normandy, funny enough though, the difference was marginal, slight in fact. Not sure if it was caused by AAA lethality settings, have to check them out; but the Allies lost maybe just a handful of planes due to Flak; which seemed a bit too low.

Klink, Oberst

[BigDuke66]

Good, very good, if he can turn off the SAM effect a big stone will be out of the way.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Good, very good, if he can turn off the SAM effect a big stone will be out of the way.

He did it in record time!

Now it's all WAD. Tested with Korea, Middle East, Vietnam and my
WW2 stuff.

Klink, Oberst