Cost to resize air units

[Chris21wen]

The manual says this

7.3 Air Group Resizing
...
The resize takes affect if the group’s ‘Resize Allowed’ toggle is ‘On’ and the group is located in a base with a size 1+ airfield
and the base’s supply is at least twice its requirements.
....

A unit schduled to resize was on a base that met this criteria but only just. The base needed 204, so according to the above >406 was needed. It had 600. No resize happened. The supply gradually increased and once it reach >1400 the unit resized. Fluke, luck so tested it three time and it happened every time I tried it. It was always a level 1 AF with a single ground unit present.

Whatever the supply requirement is it isn't what's implied here.

[PaxMondo]

The manual says this

7.3 Air Group Resizing
...
The resize takes affect if the group’s ‘Resize Allowed’ toggle is ‘On’ and the group is located in a base with a size 1+ airfield
and the base’s supply is at least twice its requirements.
....

A unit schduled to resize was on a base that met this criteria but only just. The base needed 204, so according to the above >406 was needed. It had 600. No resize happened. The supply gradually increased and once it reach >1400 the unit resized. Fluke, luck so tested it three time and it happened every time I tried it. It was always a level 1 AF with a single ground unit present.

Whatever the supply requirement is it isn't what's implied here.

So let''s tick the little boxes off first,

How many AC did you need for the re-size and how many were in the pool?
Confirm that the base has a line of supply (LOS) to the national capital?

[Chris21wen]

This is not about getting replacements, this is about resizing so neither of those two thing matter.

[Chris21wen]

Re-tested, this time nothing in the hex just the 6 x Dave set to resize to first 27, then 12. Base has no supply, no units has zero supply requirements but is a level 1 AF. For every single run through it did not resize to 27 until supply reached around 1140-1150. Can't be exact as it changed so there's some randomness involved and sometimes it never resized on the day the resize became available, but later.

Got tiired of testing but the resize to six folllowed the same pattern but I've only got 1100-1500 range.

[BBfanboy]

From my experience with Allied resizing, it appeared to me that there is a die roll or two involved and that the odds of success improve when there is more supply. Carrier had to be docked or disbanded in port. Never got it to work with a CV TF 'at sea' in the port hex.

[btd64]

From my experience with Allied resizing, it appeared to me that there is a die roll or two involved and that the odds of success improve when there is more supply. Carrier had to be docked or disbanded in port. Never got it to work with a CV TF 'at sea' in the port hex.

My experience too. Or there is the auto resizing that occurs with Bomber and fighter squadrons in 8/42 for example. I'm not familiar with resizing IJN or IJA squadrons....GP

[PaxMondo]

From my experience with Allied resizing, it appeared to me that there is a die roll or two involved and that the odds of success improve when there is more supply. Carrier had to be docked or disbanded in port. Never got it to work with a CV TF 'at sea' in the port hex.

My experience too. Or there is the auto resizing that occurs with Bomber and fighter squadrons in 8/42 for example. I'm not familiar with resizing IJN or IJA squadrons....GP

Chris is not referring to carrier group re-sizing, he's referring to LBA re-sizing. There are a few (couple?) of the groups that re-size for the IJ in stock Scen 1/2.

There is a date associated with it, can't happen before the date arrives. Check the date.

We don't know if there are any other variables required other than supply nor if there is a random element associated with it that is not part of the carrier-based re-sizing. The devs have never commented on this to my knowledge.

[BBfanboy]

American bomber units also resize from 8 to 12 and it just happens, AFAIK. I have some at PH that were among the first resized to 12 and others also at PH that are still at size 8. Type of aircraft (B-17/Bolo etc) does not seem to matter.
I wonder if the game has a limited number of units to resize but uses a random roll to decide which ones?

[Chris21wen]

I don't think it limits how many resize per turn but there must be some randomness involved as you just point out. There is definitely more supply needed than stated, approx 1100-1500 has been the norm during the test.

The scheduled updates is the problem.

[PaxMondo]

The resize requirements were updated in 2010 by MichealM. More accurately to state that he checked the code and found it had been changed from the manual, and apparently not by him. Earlier, during development, there were several coders.

"
RE: air unit resize problem
Checked code: the supply requirement is 2xrequired Supply +1000

The additional supply is to cater for a base with no supply or requirements being used as a 're-size' hub.
"

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... e#p2444002

[Chris21wen]

The resize requirements were updated in 2010 by MichealM. More accurately to state that he checked the code and found it had been changed from the manual, and apparently not by him. Earlier, during development, there were several coders.

"
RE: air unit resize problem
Checked code: the supply requirement is 2xrequired Supply +1000

The additional supply is to cater for a base with no supply or requirements being used as a 're-size' hub.
"

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... e#p2444002

Thanks for finding that, not sure why my search didn't there' nothing in the updates.

It matches what happening in my tests appart from the randomness, but it's not that random.

[PaxMondo]

The resize requirements were updated in 2010 by MichealM. More accurately to state that he checked the code and found it had been changed from the manual, and apparently not by him. Earlier, during development, there were several coders.

"
RE: air unit resize problem
Checked code: the supply requirement is 2xrequired Supply +1000

The additional supply is to cater for a base with no supply or requirements being used as a 're-size' hub.
"

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... e#p2444002

Thanks for finding that, not sure why my search didn't there' nothing in the updates.

It matches what happening in my tests appart from the randomness, but it's not that random.

No, there wouldn't be anything in the updates. The update log was maintained by MichelM and this change was apparently done sometime during the original development and was not communicated to the manual author. MichaelM found it in 2010 only by examining that specific section of code to answer a similar question to yours.

I wish I could say that this was a unique item, but ...

There is a wealth of information in these (and the previous WitP) forums provided by the devs. It does take more than a fair amount of time to sift through it though. And you do need to sift through it because as the various model components were developed (and there are hundreds in the game) they each evolved independently based upon play testing results AND "vigorous" discussions within the dev team in the background in their dev forum (which is not public and we do NOT have access to). Moreover, because the dev team itself evolved over the years that this game was developed, many of these components evolved with how the dev team's vision/intent evolved; and yes it definitely changed with time.

MichaelM's update log is just a list of all the "bugs" that he found and "squished" across a long period of time. AFAIK, he made no "changes" to the game, just bug fixes. When someone would point out a potential bug, he would go back to the dev forum, confirm the original intent, review the code, confirm the bug and then correct it. My understanding is that a great many of the bugs were essentially simple typos in the code, which is why they had been missed during the original reviews. And NO, the devs were not sloppy at all, it's just that there are millions of lines of code for thousands of model components. Many (most) of the outcomes are rare/small events that few ever notice and even fewer ever question. Simply an outcome of possibly the greatest model ever published ....

[Chris21wen]

I agree with everything you have said. It's a shame that in the vast majority of case documentation doesn't keep up with the product. WitP AE isn't unique in that respect it happens in many game by the vast majority of companies, but not only games, other computer stuff as well.

I was just wondering how big this forum would be if the original manual was not so vague and updates were kept track of.

[PaxMondo]

...
I was just wondering how big this forum would be if the original manual was not so vague and updates were kept track of.

Something to wonder ... but truthfully, I don't even know how they managed what they did. A large team, that evolved, over the course of many years; all volunteers, most of them had full-time day jobs ... and the code/model changing every day. It is always the challenge to document this kind of project.

Coders dream has always been self-documenting software. It isn't the coding that takes time; the coding is cool, fun, challenging, and when you get it right, the thrill is real. The downer to any project is having to document it ...

First off, you can't write the documentation for you ... the audience is a bunch of duffers, so you have to really "dumb it down" for them. But when you do, then you lose a lot of the detail, and if you have the detail, the audience can't/won't read it as its too long/too complicated. It's a typical nightmare ...

[Chris21wen]

....

..... the audience can't/won't read it as its too long/too complicated. It's a typical nightmare ...

True, but I look on it as a reference source when you ultimately reach the point where winging it stops and 'why did that happen' occurs.

Whenever I start to play a new game I look at the at the getting started bit, the options I don't need, how to save and tinker for a while. I look for a tutorial, not video, and follow that and a good one is worth the effort and will always get you started. From there use the manual as and when.

[btd64]

...
I was just wondering how big this forum would be if the original manual was not so vague and updates were kept track of.

First off, you can't write the documentation for you ... the audience is a bunch of duffers, so you have to really "dumb it down" for them. But when you do, then you lose a lot of the detail, and if you have the detail, the audience can't/won't read it as its too long/too complicated. It's a typical nightmare ...

First, once the manual is published by Matrix, it can't be updated. Second, if I was the manual team lead at the time, I would of provided a monthly update, or so, and posted it in the AE forum. Which is what I am doing presently with War in Spain 1936-39. It's difficult to keep up with the bug fixes and improvements in the game. But I update the manual and then post it in the forum....GP

[PaxMondo]

First, once the manual is published by Matrix, it can't be updated. Second, if I was the manual team lead at the time, I would of provided a monthly update, or so, and posted it in the AE forum. Which is what I am doing presently with War in Spain 1936-39.

Brian, you're a hero for taking that task on and I think you're doing a great job.

It's difficult to keep up with the bug fixes and improvements in the game.

"difficult"? I can think of a large number of better adjectives, how about "near impossible", "life damaging", "totally under appreciated" ....

But I update the manual and then post it in the forum....GP

Which is, I think, the best you can do and hope that players are actually READING it and give you CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.

[PaxMondo]

....

..... the audience can't/won't read it as its too long/too complicated. It's a typical nightmare ...

True, but I look on it as a reference source when you ultimately reach the point where winging it stops and 'why did that happen' occurs.

Whenever I start to play a new game I look at the at the getting started bit, the options I don't need, how to save and tinker for a while. I look for a tutorial, not video, and follow that and a good one is worth the effort and will always get you started. From there use the manual as and when.

Chris, we, sadly, are 2 of the few remaining people who still READ. The new generation only WATCHES....

I believe Asimov's Foundation future is coming sooner than some think ....

[btd64]

First, once the manual is published by Matrix, it can't be updated. Second, if I was the manual team lead at the time, I would of provided a monthly update, or so, and posted it in the AE forum. Which is what I am doing presently with War in Spain 1936-39.

Brian, you're a hero for taking that task on and I think you're doing a great job.

It's difficult to keep up with the bug fixes and improvements in the game.

"difficult"? I can think of a large number of better adjectives, how about "near impossible", "life damaging", "totally under appreciated" ....

But I update the manual and then post it in the forum....GP

Which is, I think, the best you can do and hope that players are actually READING it and give you CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.

Thanks Pax. I hope that you are doing well....GP

[PaxMondo]

Thanks Pax. I hope that you are doing well....GP

Relative term, but better, yes. Some days, like today, almost good.