Matrix Games Forums

It may have been wrong to release, but I liked seeing a behind-the-scenes look at the reasoning behind one of the decisions and compromises necessary to put AE out.

My only issue w/ the stack rule is whether or not increasing #s of aircraft squadrons and engines will overwhelm base capacity later in the war but I won't know the answer until I get a game that far (or I start counting bases, squadrons and av).

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I am going to get this back ON topic if that's OK......

ELF, thanks for posting that clarification, I was confused by overstack. Last question:

A (*) symbol indicates overstacking. It appears, though, that you won't see that symbol within a turn, only AFTER a turn is resolved. Is there any way, while you are giving orders, to tell if you are overstacking the base? Or is the only way to count engines? It would be very helpful to know BEFORE the turn resolution, so more of our planes fly.

Otherwise, thanks for the clarification, answered all my other questions![;)]

I agree with Q-Ball wholeheartedly.

I'm not seeing that the administrative limits add anything above what we get with the # of engines limitations. Seems like a lot of complexity and work for the player with little payoff.

If the dev's decide to keep the administrative limits rule, please at least make it possible to see where your bases are at during the turn.

Hmm, I'm not a developer, I like the rule (except of course that it puts a unduly disadvantage to the Japanese due to all the 2,3,4 plane squadrons they got (Did I mention I never looked whether the Allies got also lots of 2,3,4 planes squadrons?)) but being the "The GUI is insuffient"-guy i have to say ...

the *-indication needs to be instantanious!

Otherwise everyone and his dog will have to do the math in their head. Would be a nice ploy to increase the mathematical ability of the general populace except that the people who need that ploy don't play WitpAE. So it is just tedious.

I thought I read somewhere that dets didn't count.  Gotta check that....

2 cents here --------- when the asterisk arrives shouldn't really trump conciousness of what one is ordering durin the turn in my opinion, and I thank the developers from loosening the players' grip on total control. Everybody wants to make a good move, but even what gets written up as 'perfection' in history book very seldom actually went down that way.
As to the 'admin' (or any of the three explained above) check - I say why not, it's one more chance for Mr. Murphy to play.................

So if the asterisk indicates overstacking on an airfield, what does a red # of squadron number indicates?  I'm assuming it means "you've got too many squadrons here" so is that just another way of saying we're overstacking the airfield?  Or is it something else with a different penalty?

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Elf himself said back in Feb that he didnt agree with the rule and he had some ideas on how to make it better (last 2 paragraphs). Dont know about you, but I'd like to hear what his plan was.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

It's been a long time, but I am trying to come to terms with this rule. On the one hand I know what we are trying to do. Could we have a better rule. Absolutely. But this is what we put in. Ideally we'd have a drastically different AF system, but it didn't make the list. We discussed this quite a bit, but we had to compromise.

I feel some of the same frustrations having played several turns and struggled to jockey units around to avoid the penalties. It's a pain. But that is sorta the point. You can't just pile a bunch of units into an AF and not support them, or hell support them, and expect them to all operate without restriction. The idea was to limit the SCOPE of operations when players built their Land Deathstars.

If you jam 4 HVY LBA groups into a level 3 AF and try to obliterate your opponent you should feel a pinch.

The problem with the code as it is now is that essentially a level 2 AF with two groups Max size (3) a/c maxes the AF out from this penalty perspective.

We could certainly address this, but it'll take a code change. I would be willing to address it, and all MikeM needs is a "go" signal from Joe. If you all make a case to Joe, I have some ideas...

Putting aside the confidentiality violation ([:-]), pulling out a discussion form the middle of the sausage making process is wrong and has backfired on you in more ways than one. It is clear from his own words that you quoted that Elf was in the midst of "trying to come to terms with this rule." Teams need to have frank discussions where members can discuss, hold, and change (even multiple times) opinions that are different than any consensus they might ultimately reach. Your citation proves only that Elf faithfully participated in a team development process. Period.

I understand and agree with the developers wish to slow things down some( or a lot ). Maybe after further review a slightly different rule might be used. Something like the number of units can be 2 + 1*airfield size. Or something along that path. But, it will take a fair bit of everyone playing and discussing their ideas to agree on a change and what it should be. For now I suggest that the game is what it is now and play away. Note that valid, well thought out suggestions and/or criticisms are useful. Finger pointing and whining probably will not help much.

I have to make a brief public comment here because of what happened above. Yamato Hugger was a beta tester for WITP AE and during his participation in the latter part of the pre-release process he did quite a bit of testing for us, for which we are grateful. However, there are rules when it comes to beta testing and development and one of them is that you don't re-post things from the private development/beta forums or e-mails to the public. A development team needs a private forum for discussion where they can air out and debate concerns or ideas while knowing that it will not become public fodder.

For his own reasons that I don't care to speculate on, Yamato Hugger chose to jump into this thread to "troll" Elf and then post both here and to another thread in the public forum an excerpt of a private development forum discussion. This is the first time in my memory at Matrix that a beta tester has done this and it crosses a clear line when it comes to our policies. This is not something we can let slide.

As a result, Yamato Hugger has been removed from the WITP AE Beta Test team and has been issued a ban from the public forums as well for one month from this date. At the end of that time, he can e-mail me at erikr@matrixgames.com if he wishes to be reinstated.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: herwin

Watch 12-o'clock high.

No TV in the leper colony!

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

-Level Bombers have to pass 3 checks to fly all their non-overstacked complements. They are:

An experience test»»
A leadership test»»
A morale test in order to fly all of their planes»»

For each test failed, the number of bombers that fly the Mission will be reduced by 25%.

So, don't fly a 40 EXP Bomber unit with a crappy 25 Air Rating LDR, with Morale in the can, and you'll avoid these penalties.

Never understood the logic behind these penalties....and probably never will.

If a group is ordered to fly a mission, by God they better do as ordered or court martials will be issued.....or heads will roll in the Japanese case.

Headquarters of the Far East Air Force remained in Darwin under Col. Francis M. Brady during days devoted by General Brereton chiefly to consultation with Australian, British, and Dutch officials; not until 14 January would Brady move the headquarters to Java, and another week would elapse before the final selection of Bandoeng as its location. But throughout the NEI operations, and indeed for many months thereafter in the Southwest Pacific, it would not be uncommon for the tactical commander at the lower echelon to operate his planes with an extraordinary degree of independence of higher headquarters; problems of distance and inadequate communications frequently left no choice but to send him out with a general directive and leave him on his own.
The Army Air Forces in WWII, Volume 1 Caven and Crate Pages 377-78

The reality of war and hence the penalties.


Against Tarakan on the day of its occupation, Major Combs led a mission of seven B-17's; but in heavy wind and rain four of the seven were forced to turn back before reaching the target, and the remaining three, after a fight with enemy pursuits in which two Japanese planes were shot down, found the visibility too poor for accurate bombing.
The Army Air Forces in WWII, Volume 1 Caven and Crate Pages 379

On 19 January, Lt. John B. Connally, a veteran pilot of the 19th, led nine B-17's off the field at Malang. Three of the less experienced crews turned back, but the remaining six fought their way through severe thunderstorms to bomb shipping targets near Jolo and arrived safely at Del Monte.
The Army Air Forces in WWII, Volume 1 Caven and Crate Pages 381

ORIGINAL: Graymane

ORIGINAL: TheElf
A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as 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, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.

I don't understand this bit from reading the manual. This is what it actually says "...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...". From that, how do I infer that it adds to the size of the AF? I read that rule to say I can have 9 groups on the size 4 field in your example above, not that it is a size 9 AF with unlimited stacking. Does it act as a size 9 AF for other purposes or just for stacking?

bump. Still hoping to get this answered amid the brouhaha.

ORIGINAL: Graymane
Still hoping to get this answered amid the brouhaha.

Looks like the "brouhaha" won the fight today.
[&:]


Maybe tomorrow will be better!
[:)]

Well the above is very helpful. Sorry for the YH issue, but still a helpful discussion.

There is more useful info on how airfield stacking works in this thread from the tech forum:

tm.asp?m=2222404

"Si vis pacem, para bellum."

My latin sucks, does this have something to do with a Luger round?

Not really [;)]
If you want peace, prepare for war

From the manual:

--------------------------------
7.2.1.5 AIR HQS AND AIR MISSIONS
Air HQ’s will help air operations within their Operational Radius. Level bombers not located
within an air HQ’s Command Radius will have their number of planes flying reduced by 25% for
Offensive Missions. All other air strike Missions by units outside an air HQ’s command radius
will have the flying planes reduced by 10%.
The Command Radius of an HQ is displayed on its Ground Unit Information screen in the top
left corner.
--------------------------------

I didn't find this paragraph mentioned in the initial posting and wanted to put it in here as reference and also make sure I understand things correctly...

So, as I understand it a level bomber group that is not within command radius of _ANY_ air HQ will never operate more than 75% of its planes. Which means air HQs actually don't 'help' but they reduce limitations. Can someone please confirm or correct that statement?

Btw if the statement is true I find the wording 'help' irritating but english is not my mother tongue so this might explain my confusion.

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

From the manual:

--------------------------------
7.2.1.5 AIR HQS AND AIR MISSIONS
Air HQ’s will help air operations within their Operational Radius. Level bombers not located
within an air HQ’s Command Radius will have their number of planes flying reduced by 25% for
Offensive Missions. All other air strike Missions by units outside an air HQ’s command radius
will have the flying planes reduced by 10%.
The Command Radius of an HQ is displayed on its Ground Unit Information screen in the top
left corner.
--------------------------------

I didn't find this paragraph mentioned in the initial posting and wanted to put it in here as reference and also make sure I understand things correctly...

So, as I understand it a level bomber group that is not within command radius of _ANY_ air HQ will never operate more than 75% of its planes. Which means air HQs actually don't 'help' but they reduce limitations. Can someone please confirm or correct that statement?

Btw if the statement is true I find the wording 'help' irritating but english is not my mother tongue so this might explain my confusion.

To me - "reducing limitations" means "help"

From Dictionary.com
Help -
1. to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist: He planned to help me with my work. Let me help you with those packages.
2. to save; rescue; succor: Help me, I'm falling!
3. to make easier or less difficult; contribute to; facilitate: The exercise of restraint is certain to help the achievement of peace.
4. to be useful or profitable to: Her quick mind helped her career.
5. to refrain from; avoid (usually prec. by can or cannot): He can't help doing it.
6. to relieve or break the uniformity of: Small patches of bright color can help an otherwise dull interior.
7. to relieve (someone) in need, sickness, pain, or distress.
8. to remedy, stop, or prevent: Nothing will help my headache.
9. to serve food to at table (usually fol. by to): Help her to salad.
10. to serve or wait on (a customer), as in a store.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Not really [;)]
If you want peace, prepare for war

See also "Quidquid Latine dictum, altum videtur". ("Anything said in Latin sounds important")