Changing Base HQs

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
Burden of proof is the same in legal or scientific fields.

It isn't really the same - scientific proof is 100% proven no doubt whatsoever. Legal allows for a level of doubt, varying with the subject matter (criminal or civil) and the systematic approach (common law adversarial, or civil law inquisitorial, or authoritarian show trial, to name a few possibilities). Anyway, this is neither a laboratory nor a court. We have been told this:

Burden of proof is not « how many elements of proof you must bring to prove your point », but « who has to bring the elements ».

It is the same in both fields : the one making the assertion has to provide the elements to prove his point. The fact that the contradictors can’t prove you wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right. If I say « I’m a Martian », the fact you can’t prove I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m really an alien.

It is even the same in all forms of debate. Discussing the game’s mechanics is much closer to scientific and legal debates as you’d think, since we rely on 1) a game engine which applies some « natural rules » we’re often in the process of discovering and 2) those « natural rules » are defined by people (the Devs) who have provided statements in the past, thankfully often referenced by Alfred, and me have to interpret those insights.

And, by the way, scientific proof is not always 100% either, it may be enough to prove 99% (or 99,99%, or whatever as long as it it infinitely more probable).

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

If I say « I’m a Martian », the fact you can’t prove I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m really an alien.

It would however be good evidence for a factual proposition, other than to prove the truth of what was said. Is that an exception to hearsay exclusion rules in the civil system?

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Hmm, wondering if perhaps post #21 from Yaab in this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4131332&mpage=1&key=coordination&#4131583

has perhaps been recalled incorrectly as emanating from me.  Succinct, direct, bullet style, in style could easily be mistaken for being a post of mine.[;)]


In other threads I have commented that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war.

Alfred

A very interesting string of links, thanks. Reminded some things I had forgotten.

While you’re here, when you say that you have commented « that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war », could we infer that the same factor has indeed no effect, or that you can’t provide a definitive answer ?[;)]

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

If I say « I’m a Martian », the fact you can’t prove I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m really an alien.

It would however be good evidence for a factual proposition, other than to prove the truth of what was said. Is that an exception to hearsay exclusion rules in the civil system?

« Evidence » is the word that eluded my memorial grasp earlier, thanks.

I’m not familiar enough with the common law systems to answer with certainty on such a comparison, but our evidence rules (as in most civil law systems) are more open (i.e., you may present many more evidences to the judge, who will have a greater freedom to ascertain whether they convince him or not).

As such, if witness Anna told that she heard Brigitte say she (Brigitte) saw Charlie steal a car, the evidence would be allowed, but it’ll usually only prove that Brigitte said that, not that Brigitte’s statement was true. It may be part of an array of presumptions though.

[Ian R]

In any event, you may choose to disregard my visceral sensation that paying the PP to line up the geographic command HQ of the bases is worth it.

The situation remains that no one with any real clout has said I'm wrong.

[Ambassador]

Well, no one with any real clout said you’re right either.[;)] Nobody contradicts the fact aligning bases to theater command HQ is useful, as RangerJoe said (and Alfred confirmed), it does have effect on other aspects. There just isn’t any evidence of it having an effect on strike coordination.

[RangerJoe]

That just shows that using units from commands all over the map in a campaign can cause problems for the air war since the captured bases may have many different higher commands. But if you capture a relatively undeveloped base with the intent of using it in another command for their air units, switch it to the other command before it gets built up since the cost of switching commands raises for the more developed bases.

So it is actually beneficial for the commands to capture bases in certain areas where their air units will function. Once captured by a certain command, the support units can be from anywhere.

Yes, most long term players should know this but newer players may not which is the reason for my stating it.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
In other threads I have commented that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war.

Alfred

Interesting. But cryptic as usual [:)]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
2. Switch a base to a restricted HQ to make airlifting of related restricted units possible.

This one does relate

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
2. Switch a base to a restricted HQ to make airlifting of related restricted units possible.

This one does relate

Yep, depending on the house rules you agreed upon (or self inflict if playing the AI).

If it is to circumvent the usual rules about restricted units not crossing borders before being bought by PP’s, I’d check with the opponent to see whether he considers the move is in good faith or merely circumvents the HR.

Other issues, like PT boats, upgrades, administrative stacking limits, I find no risk of contention, but moving restricted units may be a touchy subject.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That just shows that using units from commands all over the map in a campaign can cause problems for the air war since the captured bases may have many different higher commands. But if you capture a relatively undeveloped base with the intent of using it in another command for their air units, switch it to the other command before it gets built up since the cost of switching commands raises for the more developed bases.

So it is actually beneficial for the commands to capture bases in certain areas where their air units will function. Once captured by a certain command, the support units can be from anywhere.

Yes, most long term players should know this but newer players may not which is the reason for my stating it.

You do well, there are a lot of new players around since the last purchase availability.

EDIT : and the same caution should be put for a lot of other aspects, like turning replacements on for restricted units you plan to buy out. Sometimes, even letting a unit rest and recover from disabled devices may cost a lot more (for example, there is an Indian tank brigade costing nearly nothing if bought out right on day one).

[Alfred]

Time to put to rest some of the "hearsay" of this thread.  Bear in mind that disclosure of the algorithms is not on.  So consider the following more of a mental checklist on how to think about the concept of air coordination.
 
1.  The entire air war design of AE is focused on conducting air operations in raids, not the humungous single air Verduns in a single turn over a target of classical WITP.
 
2.  Players look at air coordination myopically, viz they only consider the number of planes in the raid, the more planes in the raid the better coordination is as far as they are concerned.  This is far too simplistic.  Consider this hypothetical situation:
 
(a)  Raid (A) arrives over target and is fully coordinated according to the code.  Total number of planes of raid (A) are 10 bombers (from 5 different groups) and  9 fighters.  A total of 19 planes.
 
(b)  Raid (B) subsequently arrives over the same target because it is not coordinated with raid (A).   Total number of planes of raid (B) are 16 bombers (from 1 group) and 25 fighters.  A total of 41 planes.
 
Over the many years since AE was released the usual complaint would be that raid (A) was the uncoordinated raid whereas (B) was coordinated.  And as usual, the player complaint and assessment is just wrong.  You see, players demand that all the planes they launch would arrive in a single raid over the target if it was coordinated.  Any other outcome is to them a failure of coordination.  They consistently fail to understand the ramifications of point 1.
 
3.  To achieve the player expectation of point 2, the focus on groups is too simplistic, and by itself, cannot ensure the preferred player outcome is achieved.  Just as important is understanding the considerations which impact on the number of planes flying.  I remind the reader of the hypothetical position presented in point 2.
 
4.  The HQ to which a base itself  is attached to, is not a direct factor in determining which groups fly together in a single coordinated raid.
 
5.  The manner in which a coordinated raid is formed is not well understood by players.  In simplified terms, a group qualifies and becomes the raid leader.  The next candidate group participant (remember the key initiating factor is having the same assigned altitude), if it passes various checks joins the raid leader.  Then the next candidate group participant, if it too passes its checks joins the raid leader as the third group.  And so on with some candidate groups passing and other candidates failing the various checks.
 
6.  The checks of point 5 are not the same checks which determine the number of planes which fly from each group.  Again I refer the reader to the hypothetical presented in point 2.
 
7.  A coordinated raid can take off but before the attack resolution, the degree of group coordination can decrease.  No I won't disclose what the relevant factors are as that is a prerogative of the devs.
 
 
In short, there are both direct and indirect considerations when it comes to structuring air operations.  The basic design philosophy is to place various checks with the explicit intention of minimising the size of air combat.  Having multiple raids in a single turn over the same target, rather than a humungous single raid, is the basic design philosophy as that is in accordance with the historical record.
 
Alfred

[Ambassador]

Thanks, Alfred !

I can’t help myself, I notice in your point 4 you state that the base’s HQ is not a « direct factor » in strike coordination. Given the discussion was quite specific, I’ll blame your phrasing on your NDA preventing you from confirming or denying an indirect effect, trusting you that, had a Dev provided a full statement on such indirect effect, you would have told us. Thus, no Dev speak, the matter will stay in the fog.

In your point 2, to link your example with LoBaron’s posts in the threads one can read by following the link you provided earlier, I suppose the raid B is what he called a « co-operated » raid ? From what I’ve understood of those threads, such a co-operated raid may appear to have many fighters protecting the bombers, but in reality the escorts won’t (necessarily ?) intercept the portion of the CAP intercepting the bombers. My understanding of this differenciation between coordinated strikes and cooperated strikes is that escorts in a coordinated strike better protect the bombers than escorts in a cooperated strikes.
Maybe I’m reading too much in LoBaron’s posts ?

Point 1 really is in the Manual, and in every design thread from twelve years back. As a former WitP player, I remember quite well the atrocious results of the gigantic air battles, when every squadron of escort met every squadron of CAP, then every squadron of CAP met every squadron of bombers... I’m thankful to the AE team for remedying this.[&o]

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Thanks, Alfred !

I can’t help myself, I notice in your point 4 you state that the base’s HQ is not a « direct factor » in strike coordination. ...

Yes -Thanks, Alfred!

I think you have to read point 4 with point 6. I plan to continue paying for base attachment, when running significant air campaigns, even if it is not a direct DRM.

More significant in my mind is that Alfred's point 5, when read together with Michaelm's 8th bullet point, tells you (as an example) to not try to put B17G's with B29s/B24s in the same strike package. Given the disparity in cruise speeds, you are better off forming separate strike packages at different altitudes, each with an escort component.

B-17G - cruises at 150mph
B-24J - cruises at 200mph
B-29B - cruises at 225mph.

Michaelm's 8th bullet point-

Groups need to be within 20% of the raid's speed or time to target for the raid and group within 30 minutes to participate in raid

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Thanks, Alfred !

I can’t help myself, I notice in your point 4 you state that the base’s HQ is not a « direct factor » in strike coordination. Given the discussion was quite specific, I’ll blame your phrasing on your NDA preventing you from confirming or denying an indirect effect, trusting you that, had a Dev provided a full statement on such indirect effect, you would have told us. Thus, no Dev speak, the matter will stay in the fog.

In your point 2, to link your example with LoBaron’s posts in the threads one can read by following the link you provided earlier, I suppose the raid B is what he called a « co-operated » raid ? From what I’ve understood of those threads, such a co-operated raid may appear to have many fighters protecting the bombers, but in reality the escorts won’t (necessarily ?) intercept the portion of the CAP intercepting the bombers. My understanding of this differenciation between coordinated strikes and cooperated strikes is that escorts in a coordinated strike better protect the bombers than escorts in a cooperated strikes.
Maybe I’m reading too much in LoBaron’s posts ?

Point 1 really is in the Manual, and in every design thread from twelve years back. As a former WitP player, I remember quite well the atrocious results of the gigantic air battles, when every squadron of escort met every squadron of CAP, then every squadron of CAP met every squadron of bombers... I’m thankful to the AE team for remedying this.[&o]

You might want to brush up on your Delphic Oracle reading skills if you want to advance your case for appointment to the Hof van Cassatie (I assume you are a Dutch speaker)[;)].

You can consider the fighters of Raid B as being a cooperative exemplar. Or Raid B was it's own (separate from raid A) mini coordinated raid. It would depend on various factors not included in the hypothetical situation I provided.

In the combat resolution stage, the performance of coordinated and cooperated escort fighters is not impacted by the categorization. Other factors come into play regarding how well the escorting fighters perform. I would steer you towards my posts on cooperation rather than LoBaron. In his Guide, LoBaron focussed on explaining how to maximise the chances of getting coordination. Which is why over the years, I've posted a lot less on the mechanics of coordination as I generally allowed LoBaron to take "first chair" on air matters whilst he was active on the forum.


To materially improve upon Lobaron's guide would require too much disclosure of the under the hood mechanics. You will therefore understand that I'm not really that interested in producing a rival air coordination guide to that of LoBaron's. Besides, me producing a Guide would potentially reduce the flow of cases to the AE Hof van Cassatie.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Thanks, Alfred !

I can’t help myself, I notice in your point 4 you state that the base’s HQ is not a « direct factor » in strike coordination. ...

Yes -Thanks, Alfred!

I think you have to read point 4 with point 6. I plan to continue paying for base attachment, when running significant air campaigns, even if it is not a direct DRM.

More significant in my mind is that Alfred's point 5, when read together with Michaelm's 8th bullet point, tells you (as an example) to not try to put B17G's with B29s/B24s in the same strike package. Given the disparity in cruise speeds, you are better off forming separate strike packages at different altitudes, each with an escort component.

B-17G - cruises at 150mph
B-24J - cruises at 200mph
B-29B - cruises at 225mph.

Michaelm's 8th bullet point-

Groups need to be within 20% of the raid's speed or time to target for the raid and group within 30 minutes to participate in raid

Well spotted.

You can entertain having that mixture of bombers, provided you understand you are punting what's left on the rank outsider in the 7th at Royal Randwick.

Alfred

[BBfanboy]

Alfred: you misspelled "Castration".

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Alfred: you misspelled "Castration".

[Ambassador]

Well, cruise speed of the various types of planes involved in a strike is a matter already heavily discussed.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Thanks, Alfred !

I can’t help myself, I notice in your point 4 you state that the base’s HQ is not a « direct factor » in strike coordination. Given the discussion was quite specific, I’ll blame your phrasing on your NDA preventing you from confirming or denying an indirect effect, trusting you that, had a Dev provided a full statement on such indirect effect, you would have told us. Thus, no Dev speak, the matter will stay in the fog.

In your point 2, to link your example with LoBaron’s posts in the threads one can read by following the link you provided earlier, I suppose the raid B is what he called a « co-operated » raid ? From what I’ve understood of those threads, such a co-operated raid may appear to have many fighters protecting the bombers, but in reality the escorts won’t (necessarily ?) intercept the portion of the CAP intercepting the bombers. My understanding of this differenciation between coordinated strikes and cooperated strikes is that escorts in a coordinated strike better protect the bombers than escorts in a cooperated strikes.
Maybe I’m reading too much in LoBaron’s posts ?

Point 1 really is in the Manual, and in every design thread from twelve years back. As a former WitP player, I remember quite well the atrocious results of the gigantic air battles, when every squadron of escort met every squadron of CAP, then every squadron of CAP met every squadron of bombers... I’m thankful to the AE team for remedying this.[&o]

You might want to brush up on your Delphic Oracle reading skills if you want to advance your case for appointment to the Hof van Cassatie (I assume you are a Dutch speaker)[;)].

You can consider the fighters of Raid B as being a cooperative exemplar. Or Raid B was it's own (separate from raid A) mini coordinated raid. It would depend on various factors not included in the hypothetical situation I provided.

In the combat resolution stage, the performance of coordinated and cooperated escort fighters is not impacted by the categorization. Other factors come into play regarding how well the escorting fighters perform. I would steer you towards my posts on cooperation rather than LoBaron. In his Guide, LoBaron focussed on explaining how to maximise the chances of getting coordination. Which is why over the years, I've posted a lot less on the mechanics of coordination as I generally allowed LoBaron to take "first chair" on air matters whilst he was active on the forum.


To materially improve upon Lobaron's guide would require too much disclosure of the under the hood mechanics. You will therefore understand that I'm not really that interested in producing a rival air coordination guide to that of LoBaron's. Besides, me producing a Guide would potentially reduce the flow of cases to the AE Hof van Cassatie.

Alfred

Understood.

But no, I’m not a native Dutch speaker; French is my primary language, although 75% of my ancestry is Flemish. And I have absolutely no intention of being appointed to the Cour de cassation. I’m not even interested in the Court of Appeals, I prefer to stay close to the ordinary people.[;)]
Which doesn’t mean my judgements are not heavily discussed, and published in the most prestigious law reviews, even when I have no intention to be published. Critical failure at stealth...[8|]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

... As a former WitP player, I remember quite well the atrocious results of the gigantic air battles, when every squadron of escort met every squadron of CAP, then every squadron of CAP met every squadron of bombers... I’m thankful to the AE team for remedying this.[&o]

I haven't checked this to see if the devs ever made a public comment but as it doesn't disclose any algorithm details, it should be safe to state.

Remedying the humungous Verdun style air combat of classical WITP was in the top 4 changes the AE devs set themselves to accomplish. This remained an area of great interest to them even after AE was released. Perusal of the public patch notes will show that important tweeks were made by the devs even years after the release of AE. Those tweeks most definitely were not the sole work of michaelm75au. As with all the significant patch changes a considerable amount of effort was also expended by other devs too.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

... I have absolutely no intention of being appointed to the Cour de cassation. I’m not even interested in the Court of Appeals, I prefer to stay close to the ordinary people.[;)] ...

Guess that means the ECJ is of no interest then.[:)]

But can I interest you in a sideways move to Alicante. For the lifestyle of course. Or would that involve in your professional life too much corporate contact and minimal ordinary people interaction.

Alfred