Notes from a Small Island

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Commander, on the turn of the raid, mouseover didn't show any damage. I think that's normal for Manpower raids. Damage should register over following turns as fires burn.

Ah, that makes sense. I normally play two-day turns so it shows up.

I hope Obvert gets his computer sorted soon. This is a great contest.

Cheers,
CC

[Canoerebel]

6/23/44

In order of importance:

Sikhalin Island: Significant but largely unproductive enemy airstrike on Toyohara today. No indications that Erik is ready to commit his navy against my bases here but that's got to come soon. That's the most signficant thing in the game.

Strategic Bombing: Effective raid against enemy aircraft factories in Japan but the returns on the big Harbin raid are less than impressive.

Death Star: Enemy subs seemed to pull back, so Death Star, the Herd and damaged ships are steaming east in good order. The moderately damaged ships should reach shipyards in a week or so. The two heavily damaged carriers will take a good bit more time, but it's still remarkable that they're afloat after the great battle, the poor position they ended up in, and the wolfpacks Erik sent to to hunt them.

Burma: Erik has a vast number of divisions here and a good number of fighters. That's sufficient for now. It serves as a good deterrent. Eventually I'll figure out a way to make him regret leaning this far forward so late.

[Canoerebel]

6/24/44

I won't post a picture because this turn is similar to last. Highlights:

Harbin: What's up with Harbin's aircraft factories? I just noticed that there's only one (see diagram in preceeding post). Damage there ticked up today in several categories as fires continued to burn. Last night's target was Kurshiro Resources, with modest results.

Toyohara: Corsairs got a 3:1 advantage on sweeping enemy fighters, losses around 12 to 4 or thereabouts. Not big numbers.

Enemy Subs: continue to pull back west from the Aleutians, with Allied ASW sinking RO-68.

Death Star: The damaged carriers continue steaming east in good order, with the moderately damaged ones 30 hexes from Seattle and the heavily damaged ones 36 hexes out. By the way, looking at Death Star and especially at all the accompanying combat TFs, the strength is impressive (thanks, Joseph). I keep thinking about the invasion and the big carrier battle...I accomplished much of what I had hoped to, losses were remarkably light, but I've stuck my nose pretty far out there now and Erik's going to start swinging soon.

[Reg]

Hi CR,

I wouldn't worry about the effectiveness of that Harbin raid as those figures in your post above look interesting.

Harbin starts at Resources 400, Manpower 16, Heavy Industry 40, Light Industry 80 and a size 10 Nate aircraft factory so it looks like Erik has done some expansions and your raid has destroyed enough points to almost bring them back to their starting values.

That being the case he would be down 35 Res, 29 HI, 79 LI and 9 Emily Factory points (assuming he expanded to 20).

Not that bad.....

[Canoerebel]

Erik and I have run into another weird air battle over Shikuka. I've only seen the combat report, but it looks like 1000+ enemy fighters and about 90 strike aircraft visited the base. I had 700+ fighters on CAP. As with last time, the air battles were short and disinterested. Losses were light on both sides. But of those 90 strike aircraft, 40 got through to drop on ships, scoring two hits.

This is sobering because we're seeing immense numbers of fighters tie each other up with neither side actually fighting to any appreciable extent. This allows a disproportionate number of strike aircraft to get through. I'm concerned that a KB alpha strike (probably cooperating with LBA) would wipe out my fleet, making leaving Shikuka undefended and undefendable.

I sent this email to Erik: I think something’s wrong with the air combat model. The combats over Shikuka involves hundreds (thousands) of planes. The engagements are brief, the losses are light, and enemy strike aircraft get through under what seem to be weird circumstances. That’s the second time that’s happened.

When this happened several weeks ago, I asked for help from the forum but didn’t get anything besides scattered guesses that didn’t seem to hold much hope for addressing the situation. I don’t know what’s going on; my readers don’t seem to know what’s going on. You may or may not have ideas. I don’t want you to share with me, except whether you think there’s a situation here.

I’m afraid there is.


His reply: Yeah, I agree. Something is strange.

The fact that engagements are brief is telling. Also though, there are other issues with so much in one hex. I think this is a symptom of the stock non-SL kind of game, where it’s possible to have everything happen in one spot on map.

This seems similar to the problem that happens when sweeps cooperate/coordinate. It throws off combat so that a small number of passes occur and light losses. I hate that. I do everything to get good leaders so planes operate at max performance and I get no combat. Grrrr.

So… I think there is not much to do about it. It’s part of the difficulty of late game in an old operating system.

Let me know your thoughts.


My response: I’m real concerned about it. You had 90 or so bombers, 40 of which made it through the CAP to engage my ships. Imagine what’s going to happen when you send 500 or 1,000 bombers.

The CAP are playing with each other, dancing around doing nothing, and then a high percentage of the strike aircraft make it through. My fleet, rather than being protected by a lot of good fighters, is basically unprotected. If the fighters were engaging in massive dogfights with heavy losses on both sides and then a reasonable number of bombers made it through, that would be what you’d expect. But this is nuts.

It may be that the plan I conceived is unworkable in this environment, due to the game mechanics. If that’s so - if an unforeseeable aspect of the game engine voids what we’ve done – we may be fatally screwed.

Do we play it out for now? I guess so, but if it becomes obvious that game glitches are unworkable and fatal, we may have to suspend or terminate. That’s assuming what I’m envisioning actually happens. I bet it will.

[BillBrown]

This doesn't bode well. I wish I knew what was happening.

[ny59giants]

You are playing a game without any Stacking Limits anywhere and are expecting everything to be OK?!? 1500 plus airplanes in a single hex, the whole Allied fleet in one hex, and a huge number of troops in one hex. You are pushing the "Death Star" idea way past anything that is realistic and expect the game to function normally. [&:] You can blame the game engine for not working, but players in general, myself included, have to come up with realistic stacking for aircraft and ships in a hex and use the PWHEX files that support ground stacking limits.

[Canoerebel]

The whole Allied fleet isn't there and I don't know what stacking limits has to do with the air war.

Most of the Allied fleet is in the Aleutians or Gulf of Alaska.

Shikuka airfield is level 9 with 6,000 aviation support and about 1,000 aircraft. That's an issue?

[Canoerebel]

I had no choice in the lack of stacking limits. Erik started this game against Historiker many years ago when (I think) stacking limits weren't even an option. This is vanilla Scenario 1, I think.

Taking over the game in March 1944, I had a very strong Allied OOB that was very far behind. It was fun to conceive, organize and implement a plan that I thought might work. In doing so, I took advantage of the no stacking limits, but Erik is seriously over-stacked in Burma, so the thought that it might not be kosher never entered my mind. I do not see how building a level 9 airfield that can hold 1,000 or more aircraft is an abuse of the system. I knew that Greyjoy had problems with that many years ago, but I thought that had long-since been ironed out. I think Erik was under the same impression. We're both surprised to find this anomalous situation.

From Michael's comment, there may be a feeling that what I've done has been out of line. I don't think it is (and I think Michael is carrying over some frustration from my game with John III, but there is no abuse there either). I don't think Erik feels that way, but if he does, I'll offer to resign the game. We may have to anyway, as my plan may have "broken" the engine.

[Canoerebel]

The "realistic stacking for aircrafts and ships" is definitely a reference to my game with John III.

AE is a game in which Japan can create far more aircraft and pilots than it had in the war. It has a much greater ability to launch coordinated strikes, including combinations of Army and Navy squadrons. Japan (and both sides) can re-base aircraft and still launch strikes. If the Allies approach a group of interlocking big airfields, the amount of force Japan can bring to bear might be 10x or 20x what was possible in the real war. Throw in KB and you might bump that to 30x or 50x.

Faced with such a dilemma in the real war, the Allies would've consolidated carriers and kept them within supporting distance. Am I not supposed to do so? Anyway, the hex in itself is an abstraction. Having a Death Star is simply the best way to simulate a large armada with mutually supporting carriers capable of responsing to threats.

Bottom line: my use of my carriers is in response to the features that Japanese players want and enjoy and will use. How that's an abuse of the game, I dunno.

The Japanese players are often saying, "We shouldlnt' be hobbled by the bad decisions Japan made in the war. We should be able to create better ASW doctrine...or better coordination of Army and Navy....etc.

I agree with that. That's the fun of the game. But when IJ players then have the ability to create a lethal environment, I'm going to adapt my own doctrine too.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The whole Allied fleet isn't there and I don't know what stacking limits has to do with the air war.

Most of the Allied fleet is in the Aleutians or Gulf of Alaska.

Shikuka airfield is level 9 with 6,000 aviation support and about 1,000 aircraft. That's an issue?

Stacking limits = not able to stack as many AvSupp in a hex.


I haven't had this issue with large air combats. I don't know why you're having it, at this point, except for what I hypothesized about before.

[Barb]

Simplest solution to this problem (altough it is hard to guess the correct ratio of fighters employed on LRCAP vs Sweep) is to the Japanese player to redistribute his mission profile for fighters. Less should be employed in LRCAP, more should be set to Sweep or Escort. There is hardly any other solution that can bring difference at the instant. What do you thing?

[ny59giants]

You use the phrase, "supporting distance." that would mean for CVs to be operating in their TF about 10 to 15 miles apart. The thing is there is a button to follow a TF by 0, 1, or 2 hexes. We don't use that option. The game engine allows a player to place multiple TFs with hundreds of ships in that small 46 mile hex. It would be nice if you had SL here that allow either a cap on the number or in my ideal world on the overall tonnage you can have in a hex. Your two late war games have shown a viable tactic 'at sea.' The AFB side of me likes it. But part of me feels that you couldn't realistic place that many ships in a single hex.

My complaint isn't against you here or in John's game. It's the late war tactic of bringing the most air, ships, or troops into a single hex to win that battle. There was some help in a patch long ago in the air war with huge numbers, but it still gets overwhelmed. I'm in Sept '43 and don't want to lose the enjoyment of the war after countless hours playing. I may be projecting my own frustrations of what a late war game will bring when the numbers truly get high and overwhelming.

[JohnDillworth]

Ah, the “overwhelming number of planes swamps the game engine” conundrum. If I recall the ancient texts warn of this and this same issue, in the same part of the world caused one of the ancient gods to fall. You need to consult the most holy book of the Greyjoy AAR. I do believe his final game suffered this same malady and ultimately resulted in the disappearance of Greyjoy (all rise). Not sure if it was ever solved but the question was asked in that AAR. Anyone not familiar with Greyjoy AAR should realize it is written in an ancient, forgiven dialect (lots of mis-spellings) and should procede with great care. If you solve the riddle, one of the ancient gods may appear again

[Canoerebel]

The Rader vs. Greyjoy problem was fixed later. It had something to do with the maximum number of "passes" during aerial combat, if I remember correctly. I think it was soemthing like 300, so that when huge numbers (1,000s of planes) were involved, the combat was disproportionately limited.

Now whether that fix, which was handled by a subsequent patch, is included in this game, I don't know. I think it was, for Erik and I are patched up. But something's messing with aerial combat.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
You use the phrase, "supporting distance." that would mean for CVs to be operating in their TF about 10 to 15 miles apart. The thing is there is a button to follow a TF by 0, 1, or 2 hexes. We don't use that option. The game engine allows a player to place multiple TFs with hundreds of ships in that small 46 mile hex. It would be nice if you had SL here that allow either a cap on the number or in my ideal world on the overall tonnage you can have in a hex. Your two late war games have shown a viable tactic 'at sea.' The AFB side of me likes it. But part of me feels that you couldn't realistic place that many ships in a single hex.

My complaint isn't against you here or in John's game. It's the late war tactic of bringing the most air, ships, or troops into a single hex to win that battle. There was some help in a patch long ago in the air war with huge numbers, but it still gets overwhelmed. I'm in Sept '43 and don't want to lose the enjoyment of the war after countless hours playing. I may be projecting my own frustrations of what a late war game will bring when the numbers truly get high and overwhelming.

I would use "follow by 0, 1, or 2" if it worked in these situations. It doesn't, because proximity and supporting distance are abstracted like most everything else in teh game.

I don't have that number of ships in a single hex. Because in real life there are no hexes. In real life there is sea, and if the Allies wanted to keep a Death Star tightly together for mutual support, they could do so. Or they could spread out, but when they detected a combat TF closing or a massive raid inbound, they could take drastic action. But we don't play a minute-by-minute game. We play a 24-hour-unit of time with artifical hexes. So things get abstracted. And because of the benefits Japan gets in the game - and certainly in this mod - I adapted my own doctrine reasonably and sensibly.

[Lecivius]

I don't recall it was ever 'fixed'. I do know it was addressed, and an attempt was made to look into it, but as I recall there was not much that could actually be done to 'fix' the problem. I'll try to research as work allows.

I do like the "Japanese player to redistribute his mission profile for fighters. Less should be employed in LRCAP, more should be set to Sweep or Escort." idea, at least for 1 turn. It would tend to focus on a numbers problem as opposed to a setting problem. But even then, the game engine itself may be the issue.

<edit>

From reading Greyjoys AAR, and what The Elf added, it does not appear that this was ever 'fixed', or if such a fix was even possible.

tm.asp?m=2761796&mpage=222&key=

[MBF]

I remember MichaelM having a look and creating a special exe for them to use in testing to see if helped make the problem go away - like others I thought those fixes were incorporated in the betas. Of course since I suffer from CRS these recollections are worth the money paid for them ...

[cardas]

I believe this is what the "Bug in bomber intercept if too many rounds of fighter v fighter combat" fix was addressed at (ingame version shown as 1.7.11.24). If are running that or a later version some attempt at a patch should be included. Because it's a .exe fix and not a data error I'd be surprised if what version you started playing with mattered.

That's not saying there aren't still issues surrounding it present, especially the use of LRCAP seems different compared to the situation in the Greyjoy game that led to the fix. Without a dev looking into the code (or someone doing some testing) it's only really speculation though.

[BBfanboy]

Michael M solved the problem with the number of fighter intercepts occurring during an air combat, but I think the problem is now deeper. My guess is the very old game engine just cannot address enough RAM to process all the thousands of aircraft on each side and the bombing targets too. Your computer may be able to address gigabytes of RAM with a modern O/S and 64 bit processing, but the WITP-AE game engine is likely built on 16 or 32 bit processing in an era when the O/S (Win XP?) could only address megabytes of RAM.