AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[CV2]

This is perhaps the best source I could find on line on it. No mention of ANY daytime torpedo attacks at all.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/PBY_Catalina

Night attacks and night mining (which was a surprise to me, didnt know they dropped mines).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: CV2
My intent is nothing more than to make this a better game.

I have the same intent, but there are a few things I have to keep in mind:

1. The underlying game engine is not infinitely flexible. There are places where it definitely takes leave of its senses. So tolerate a few gotchas to avoid creating more than a few new ones. The number of patrol planes is sufficiently low that using them for naval attack is a diversion. Whenever I see my opponent wasting a dozen torpedoes on a couple of motorboats (HDMLs or PTs), I regard that as tolerable. That's an opportunity to hunt something bigger wasted.

2. It's easy to make any game engine too complicated and opaque. You end up with **** happening that makes no sense. That was discussed by Wayne Hughes in Military Modelling for Decision Making, 3rd edition, Wayne P. Hughes, Jr., ed., 1997. Starting on page 50, there is an essay by Hughes "On Model Stricture, or Stifling Thought", where he criticises the way complicated opaque models inhibit imagination and creativity. "Too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating." He then gives examples of systems that had to be abandoned because they "contain coding mysteries that produce counterintuitive, unexplained results."

What you have here is a Markov chain algorithm producing a joint distribution of outcomes that simulates combat. That's an incredible achievement, especially when the programmers didn't know that that was what they were building.

This link to Gibbs sampling discusses a way to improve the algorithm to reflect real-world data. The programmers won't want to go there. I don't blame them.

[herwin]

Suppose there's a problem with a specific combat model. You have a choice of two approaches: tweak it, or solve it from above. Remember: "Too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating." So tweaking it is about as likely to introduce new bugs as it is to remove old ones. There is an alternative known as Gibbs Sampling. As the Wikipedia article says, your goal is "to generate a sequence of samples from the joint probability distribution of two or more random variables. The purpose of such a sequence is to approximate the joint distribution....Gibbs sampling is applicable when the joint distribution is not known explicitly or is difficult to sample from directly, but the conditional distribution of each variable is known and is easy (or at least, easier) to sample from."

In other words, you know how each variable varies as a function of some or all of the other variables (and some of those other variables are likely to be already known for the battle you're trying to model). You then resample one variable at a time (basically a bootstrap) until the joint distribution stabilises and then take a final sample to represent the outcome of your battle. Example: for ground combat, some of the variables are fixed, and some of the conditional distributions are independent of the outcome. You know how victory depends on the casualty fractions of the two sides and vice versa, and you know how casualty fractions vary as a function of other parameters. You can incorporate most of the WitP-AE parameters in your model, but as conditional distributions rather than as logic built on random number draws. You can probably get by with less random number draws than the current model would use, produce a more realistic distribution of outcomes, and reduce the opacity linking inputs to outputs. At the same time, you would be more robust to attempts to game the system.

[CV2]

Well in the case of the patrol planes on naval attack, thats a simple matter of removing the button from that aircraft type which to be historically accurate, should be done. Im not talking about tweaking the routine, Im talking about removing the mission type altogether. Fortunately this one can be solved by a simple house rule if by no other means.

The admin stackingcan not be handled by house rule and should be fixed. Since it was added in AE and is therefore fresh code, it should be (emphasize should) easy to find and remove. My understanding is the original code was a nightmare. But here again, it isnt "tweaking" anything. Its simple removal of what should be (again stress should) a simple easy to find routine.

Ed: Or at the very least a selector switch put in at the start of the game like auto sub ops for example to toggle it on and off. There again, I cant believe this would be that difficult. Just adding a few if..then..else statements on existing lines.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Ldeathbow

I kinda hate to do this to you - but the answer is so complex it is best to aim you at the manual. Read section 9.4 Airfields, starting on page 213. Copied below for your convenience.

9.4 AIRFIELDS
Airfields accommodate, repair and resupply air units, and serve as a point from which to launch air strikes.
Airfield size has many effects. It is easier to damage and destroy aircraft on the ground at smaller airfields (less dispersion). It is also more likely that planes will suffer operational losses when landing at smaller airfields.
Level bombers require an airfield equal to size 4 + (bomb load / 6500) rounded down. So, a B29 requires a size 7 airfield to avoid the penalties. Light bombers require a starting airfield of 2 rather than 4.
Penalties include:
»»Increased operational losses on takeoff.
»»A reduction in their range as air units cannot fly combat Missions at greater than their normal range.
»»A diminished (extended range) bomb load.
If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are reduced by 25%.
If an Airfield has too many aircraft (physical space) or groups (administrative) present, then the airfield is deemed overstacked. And is indicated by an ‘*’ next to the airfield.
An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.
A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
An airfield can operate 50 single engine (or 25 two engine, or 12 four engine) planes per AF size or 1 group per AF size. The best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, or if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups.
In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

The easy answer is 2 groups (but that depends on wether they are on training status or active, etc.)

actually you can operate as many groups as you want. They'll just be limited in there sortie count due to the penalties. But they will fly...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: CV2

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Since all you want to do is jump and down and yell and scream, then I will ask
Why didn't you see this when you were testing the game and get it fixed. This behavior has been in since the first release

Believe me, I tried. Elf was extremely resistant to any changes (including ones he himself admitted were wrong), much less any suggestions from me. But now that he is not on the team anymore, maybe we can get some of these problems fixed. Another one I would like to see gone is that stupid admin stacking thing that has no basis in reality (which Elf admitted was wrong).

The only way things like this will get changed is if people stop defending it and actually speak out. Sending me PMs saying "I wanted to say that, Im glad you did" doesnt cut it. You need to say it HERE, not to me.

Yamato Hugger, to answer your question simply AE is an in depth expansion of a previously coded game. In the previously coded game aircraft were categorized in several broad categories. We added a couple new ones to highlight some special capabilities, but for the most part these categories remained the same. The PBY is a Patrol aircraft. So is the PB4Y. Patrol aircraft perform Naval attack in this game.

You are just going to have to come to grips with the fact that this game is the way it is. It plays well. It has it's flaws, but we worked to do our best to overcome them. Many of your suggestions, while valid, came very late in our development process. You were not brought in to redevelop the game. You were brought in to test it's playability and report it's flaws. You were a great tester. But the things you found had to be prioritized within the scope of the project, and considered relative to the risk of throwing the code into upheval. In some cases we took your suggestions and acted on them. In others we couldn't. I don't recall this issue being brought up. Not to say it wasn't, but it is such a minor issue compared to all the other things we were dealing with...

It's unfortunate, but it is the way it is. There are a lot of things that I would have liked to have done to make the game better. Some of them are as a result of your testing others were personal things I wanted. We just couldn't fit them in.

For the record I never admitted the admin stacking rule has no basis in reality. It does. And if you would like to have a debate, start a thread in the appropriate forum.

[vonTirpitz]

Could someone shed some light what the game message "Transports flying to X intercepted" actually means please? I have been unsuccessful in locating any specific information in the game manual or elsewhere on the forum so I wanted to post the query here.

I had posted a similar question in the tech support forum but it was more in reference to transport losses (or lack of) flying these missions. I noted that despite heavy flak in the area no enemy or friendly transports have been downed by flak or air-to-air after more than 400 turns of gameplay. Results from the PBEM seemingly indicates that operational losses are not affected by the message either.

So, in lieu of a definitive answer to the previous question, I wonder if the message may actually only indicate a reduction in the amount of supplies being successfully transported to the base being interdicted. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any information.

[wdolson]

It means enemy fighters intercepted your transport planes.

Bill

[vonTirpitz]

Thanks Bill. I understood what the message obviously implied. I suppose I was not clear enough with my question.

What exactly is the effect of it? I have seen no aircraft losses associated with it, no impact to the interceptors nor the transports and no apparent reduction in the amount of supplies flown.

edit: and when I say I see no apparent reduction in the supplies flown it is because I have not been able to accurately track the supplies to see if there is an impact. If the message indicates that the transport mission has been aborted then that would make perfect sense to me as well. I am simply curious if there is any practical reason to try and interdict these missions.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It means enemy fighters intercepted your transport planes.

Bill

[witpqs]

AFAIK it depends upon the outcome of that combat, which unfortunately is not included in the combat report. I have seen where, absent other air to air combat involving the fighter types in question, my fighters and enemy fighters both showed air to air losses but the transports were OK. I have also seen cases where a bunch of PBY's flying out trapped troops for shot down by a nearby KB, although in that case I did not know enough to look for such a message.

[vettim89]

I posted a question over in the Scen Design forum but perhaps it is best placed here. The PBY-5 is listed as a patrol aircraft and the "float capable" box is not checked. DOes this mean the game views the PBY the same way as say a PBJ Mitchell? In other words, does the PBY require at least a level 1 AB in order to fly patrol missions?

Also, in the editor on the air craft screen there is a box named "DT ordinance". What doe sit mean? I noticed not a single a/c in the Scenario 1 DB has the box checked?

Lastly, is the max load value what is used to indicate how much an a/c can move in the :transport" mission? Is that value used for anything else?

[Iron Duke]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Also, in the editor on the air craft screen there is a box named "DT ordinance". What doe sit mean? I noticed not a single a/c in the Scenario 1 DB has the box checked?

got this from

www.alternatewars.com


Ordnance coded as “external” will swap for drop tanks which are also coded as “external”; the same will happen with center-line ordnance.

You can define two bombs as "external" and one as "center-line" while defining two DT's as "external" and none as "center-line".

In this case the two "external" bombs would be replaced with two DTs, leaving the centerline bomb.

To override the above and allow an aircraft to carry a full suite of ordnance and DT's, tag the "DT ordnance" field.

[jcjordan]

Not sure if this has been fixed or not but in my scen1 started under original release unit but patched to last official update 3131 No80 RAAF renames to 440930 on 093044

[EasilyConfused]

Minor errors I noticed, apologies if it has already been reported:

1.  VS-2 (1777) has the presumably invalid rename date of 4301.
2.  VP-22 (2718) has the presumably invalid rename date of 441000.

[Chris21wen]

I'm playing the latest Beta but don't think this is a Beta problem as such.

No 1844 Sqn FAA is a commonwealth unit that comes with 12 a/c and is based on CVE Begum. Not paying any attension to the number of pilots available I increased the size to 24 to fit the ship now, some game turns later I find I'm 10 commonwealth pilots short. The Get Pilot Buttons are active but clicking on them does nothing

I've since resized back to 12.

Sardaukar suggests this is a scenario design issue, not technical thing.

[jcjordan]

I think this will also become a bigger problem in late 45 when some more air units that represent European units being transferred to the Pacific as IIRC there's a few more Commonwealth air units that come in in those. In the last official patch you could draw pilots with an empty pool but it seems that in the beta patches coming out that's not the case so you won't be able to fill air units w/ a Commonwealth nationality nor replace lost pilots. I also think that French units would be affected under the same case as there're a couple of those late war.

[Pascal_slith]

Edited for the answer was known.

Never mind...

[PaxMondo]

It was discovered in Mike's AAR that the Tojo uses Ha-34 in Scen 1 and Ha-35 in Scen 2. Is that intentional or was that an oversight when the Ha-34 change was made?

Thanks.

[inqistor]

There is 3066 No.1 Sqn RAAF unit at Kota Bharu. It begins war with 8 airframes, 4 under repair, and 2 in reserve. I have not found anything about their initial composition, and why there should be aircrafts in repair. The only sure thing is that they send 7 planes in intial strike, and made 17 sorties during whole night (not possible to replicate in-game).

Anyway, in Scenario beginning at 8th December this unit have identical composition, but Awajisan Maru is already heavily damaged. That means, that No.1 Sqn RAAF already took part in combat, and AAR shows that:

No.1 Squadron RAAF continued making bombing runs, some 17 sorties being flown, landing, rearming and taking off again until 05.00. Japanese escorts put up a thick cover of AA fire, shooting down at least two Hudsons and badly damaging three others.

which actually suggest, that this unit is already after initial loses (2 planes).

So... maybe it should start war with full complement of 4 planes in reserve, or maybe at 8th December it should have even less planes, and more damaged?

[BigDuke66]

Is it correct that the Australian DC-2 production runs from March to Mai 1942 but production is ZERO?