A/C under maintenance status

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

As per thread subject - quite often some of the aircraft are unavailable because they are apparently undergoing some maintenance procedures. I wonder if that ever changes throughout longer scenarios and they may be then returned to a reserve ststus and be equipped and/or armed to fly missions or the status remain unchangeable no matter how long the scenario if the planes start as undergoing maintenance.I can't remember I have ever seen anything like that myself so far.

[Tailhook]

I believe they remain in maintenence indefinitely. They're left for realism and/or scoring options usually. I'm sure you can script a status change. Otherwise you can setry a custom time to ready in the editor which performs the same function as you describe.

[Sensei.Tokugawa]

Thanks, but I am not dealing with the editor and I guess I am not going to so I am asking as a player who takes scenarios the way they are when they appear.However that is my impression they are not returned to the active pool anyway throughout the duration of the battles and operations.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: burroughs

Thanks, but I am not dealing with the editor and I guess I am not going to so I am asking as a player who takes scenarios the way they are when they appear.However that is my impression they are not returned to the active pool anyway throughout the duration of the battles and operations.

Page 120 of the Wargame of the Year Edition (issued with Northern Inferno) indicates that aircraft which are present but not for use are set to "maintenance."

Having dealt with military logistics, particularly combat platform maintenance issues over a long career, I fully agree it would be impressive if the "maintenance" resulted in aircraft being returned to a "ready" status after a period of time in longer scenarios. The "maintenance time" mechanism wouldn't be all that much different from tracking the "Ready Time" for changing platform loadouts in longer scenarios.

[Rory Noonan]

You could simulate that by choosing the 'reserve' load out and setting a custom ready time; or in fact any other load out you wish.

[ExNusquam]

It's worth noting that if the scenario designer has set up their aircraft properly, it shouldn't matter if the aircraft come back up from maintenance. You should get the intended sortie rates with the aircraft completely out of the picture. Having maintenance aircraft come back up would be a great feature if Command ever included mechanical breakdowns (and would hence require planning spares).

[mikmykWS]

Hi All

Pretty good walk through of our perspectives on air ops.

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=3262

Please do read.

Thanks!

Mike

[magi]

ORIGINAL: apache85

You could simulate that by choosing the 'reserve' load out and setting a custom ready time; or in fact any other load out you wish.

^^^ what he says.... or play in editor mode.... then you can make such changes as you wish.... thats what i do... often i dont like the designers details... like loadout.. composition.. disposition.. etc... with the push of a couple of buttons... walla..! we cool....

[magi]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Hi All

Pretty good walk through of our perspectives on air ops.

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=3262

Please do read.

Thanks!

Mike

that is really good..... thanks....

[SeaQueen]

The important thing from the perspective of sortie rates is not which aircraft is undergoing maintenance or what happens to be wrong with it, but how many aircraft you have flying versus how many you have stuck on the ground.

[whraven]

I understand the point about realistic sortie rates and the use of "under maintenance" to enforce this. However, when one or more aircraft are destroyed, the sortie rate becomes progressively inaccurate. For example, 20 aircraft with 5 down for maintenance, so 75% are available to maintain the sortie rate. Destroy, say, 5, and you are down to a 66% effective rate. To compensate, you'd need to allow one of the "under maintenance" aircraft to activate.

I realize this is a small point, but it might be something for designers to take into consideration.

[Gunner98]

ORIGINAL: whraven

I understand the point about realistic sortie rates and the use of "under maintenance" to enforce this. However, when one or more aircraft are destroyed, the sortie rate becomes progressively inaccurate. For example, 20 aircraft with 5 down for maintenance, so 75% are available to maintain the sortie rate. Destroy, say, 5, and you are down to a 66% effective rate. To compensate, you'd need to allow one of the "under maintenance" aircraft to activate.

I realize this is a small point, but it might be something for designers to take into consideration.

I think this one is up to the scenario designer to judge. It’s a matter of play balance, and the designer is the best one to handle that, not hard coding in the game.

If one side has significant advantage in technology vs the enemy, the default should probably be - expect no losses. If there are losses than the player has to play at a disadvantage - or restart from a save and try again to learn how his platforms function most effectively.

If sides are more equal, the designer can put AC on reserve status for a long time until he believes the player will need the additional AC, or find another way of adding reinforcements through Lua or ferry transfers. Or conversely, if the enemy casualties are expected to be heavy, let the player live with it an figure out how to achieve results with fewer resources.

Game mechanics belong to the Devs and they have done a pretty fantastic job in that department. Game balance is the role of the designer. If a scenario is too easy, players tire of it quickly. If it is too hard, no one plays it. Get that balance right and it’s a game folks will play over and over again. It has to be challenging – and not all scenarios are equal; some are very tough, and when you improve your performance, perhaps after several tries or come back to it after learning more about the game – it should feel good.

Just my $.02 CAD on the subject.

The Warsims link above is fantastic BTW, I'll need to look through the site in a little more depth to find some more gems.

Tx

B