Matrix Games Forums

A very interesting discussion. I keep hoping that there is a grog out there who in an expert in historic aircraft maintainence rates or knows how to come up with pertainent data. When in any doubt about playability we should go with historic performance. Absent definitve data waiting and watching seems good, although I suppose if you are making a change anyway, playing around a little with the numbers (e.g., trying 70% instead of 80%) in the next change might be reasonable. Overall I like Joel's attitude here as long as they don't rule out playing around with this while they are making other fixes. If we can;t get good reliable data, however, it's going to be hard to arbitrarily pick a final number if/when the patches slow down.


"Actually, each turn the chance of a plane repairing drops whenever a plane at the same base is repaired. Given the way Gary does things, I would bet that the lowest numbered group tries to repair its planes first, then the next group, etc. If a lot of planes are damaged at the base, several planes may get repaired before you even get to a level bomber squadron. At this point, the chance of an additional repair will be lower. I think (but am not positive) that each time a plane is repaired (and assuming full aviation support and supply), the chance of the next damaged plane repairing is multiplied by .8. As each plane is repaired, the chance goes down again by .8. Thus after two planes have been repaired, the chance of a third plane repairing is .8x.8 or 64%. Now if that plane is a B-17, and it passes the .64 die roll, it still has to pass the .8 die roll that heavy bombers must make."

This provision together with an 80% non-repair rate does seem excessive. Is this not effected by the overall size of the base or the size of the support force. With a size 8 or 9 base and enough support this doesn't seem reasonable. For small damage under not emergency situations (i.e., not on Guadalcanal) didn't each aircraft have a dedicated ground support team that did most of the work? (I could be speaking through my *** here).


"Out of laziness and ignorance (of 1.20 effects), I chose to ship the large, full strength Brisbane base engineer unit (200+ aviation engineers) to Cooktown. It dropped my aircraft operational level in Brisbane to about half of what it needed. This would be rectified when the convoy returned with Cooktown's old base unit.
As soon as the aviation support level dropped in Brisbane, the ready levels of all a/c fell by over a third."

What the hell is this about. I missed how this is a 1.2 effect. Please enlighten!

I thought I would start the "Cartwheel" Scenario # 11 since the Heavy Bombers are already in Place.

I used 6 of the B-17/B-24 BS on Lunga.

I moved othe rAC SQ`s out to bring the Aircraft Support to 177 present, 161 required. There is plenty of Supply. The BS`s Start with good Morale.

Here is their makeup, the first number will indicate in the test the number of AC in the SQ. that are ready, the second is the number under repair.:

23 BS B-17 9/0
31 BS B-17 9/0
371 BS B-24 9/0
372 BS B-24 9/0
394 BS B-17 9/0
72 BS B-17 9/0

Total of 54 AC ready to fly.

All Missions are set at 15,000 feet, with 2 SQ. of P-38 as escort.

Day 1 6/15/43 Airfield Attack on Shortlands.

23 B-17 16 B-24 Attack No AC losses or damage.

Post Strike status:

23 BS 9/0
31 BS 7/2
371 BS 9/0
372 BS 7/2
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 2 Airfield Attack on Shortland.

28 B-17 13 B-24 Attack, No AC losses or damage

Post Strike status.

23 BS 9/0
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 8/1
372 BS 6/2
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 3 Airfield Attack on Shortland.

26 B-17 9 B-24 Attack No AC losses or damage.

Post Strike Status.

23 BS 8/1
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 6/3
372 BS 6/2
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 4 I stood down the Bombers, no missions.

Same status as above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 5 Again all Bombers Stand Down. No Missions.

Status

23 BS 8/1
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 6/3
372 BS 6/3
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 8/2
AS you can see, replacement AC are coming in damaged.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 6 Airfield Attack on Rabaul. Very Light CAP encountered.

7 B-17`s. No B-24`s attack. I B-17 Damage. 1 Destroyed.

Status

23 BS 8/1
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 5/4
372 BS 6/3
394 BS 8/1
72 BS 5/5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 7 Airfield Attack on Rabaul

No AC could find the target, no losses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 8 Airfield Attack on Rabaul. Heavy opposition, 30+ Cap.

16 B-17 6 B-24 attack. 1 Destroyed 2 Damaged.

Status

23 BS 6/2
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 4/4
372 BS 6/3
394 BS 3/4
72 BS 5/5

Please note that they are now at under 50% strength.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 9 Airfield Attack on Munda. No CAP encountered. A Milk Run.

15 B-17 and 9 B-24 attack. 1 B-17 damaged.

Status

23 BS 5/3
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 3/5
372 BS 5/4
394 BS 3/4
72 BS 3/7 There seems to be no repair going here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 10 Munda Again. Another Milk Run.

15 B-17 and 6 B-24 attack. No losses.

Status

23 BS 5/3
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 2/6
372 BS 5/4
394 BS 2/5
72 BS 3/7 The Bomb Sq`s are now at less then 45% ready.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 11 The whole Force stands down. All set at 0 training for
rest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 12 Still at rest, no missions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 13 Airfield Attack on Bunin

12 B-17s No B-24 No losses.

Status

23 BS 7/1
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 2/7
372 BS 4/5
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 4/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 14 Bunin Again

15 B-17`s and 6 B-24 attack No losses. No opposition.

Status

23 BS 6/2
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 2/7
372 BS 3/6
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 4/6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 15 Airfield Attack on Rabaul. Heavy Cap. No escorts.

Only 3 B-17 attack 1 destroyed 2 damaged.

Status

23 BS 5/2
31 BS 3/6
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/6
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 4/6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 16 stand down & rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 17 stand down & rest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

continued in next post.

Day 18 Munda Ground Attack. No opposition, no losses.

Status

23 BS 5/3
31 BS 3/6
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/6
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 5/5 Please note after 2 days down and a Milk Run, repair is not happening.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 19 Port Attack Shortlands. No opposition. No losses.

12 B-17 and 6 B-24 attack.

Status

23 BS 4/4
31 BS 3/6
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/5
394 BS 5/3
72 BS 5/5 It is getting worse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 20 Port Attack Shortland No opposition. No losses.

12 B-17`s attack, no B-24`s..........none.

Status

23 BS 4/4
31 BS 4/5
371 BS 2/8
372 BS 2/5
394 BS 4/4
72 BS 5/5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 21 Munda Ground Attack No losses or opposition.

3 B-17`s attack...that`s it.

Status No change from above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 22 and 23 The whole Bomb Force was put on rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 24 No Missions. This is the closing status.

23 BS 5/4
31 BS 5/4
371 BS 3/7
372 BS 2/8
394 BS 4/4
72 BS 6/4

Total 25 AC ready for opps and 31 down........


What I think is important here, besides the fact the AC repair rate needs changing, is that the test was done in 1943 , against almost no opposition, with rest periods.

I think it was a more then fair test.

If you are playing the Campaign Game, against stiffer Japanese opposition, this will cripple you for the whole game...

I have save files for evey two days if needed.

Started SC#17 and decided to see how long it took for the aircraft starting the scenario broken would take to repair.

4 B-17 squadrons at Rockhampton, Airfield rating 4, with 40,000+ supplies and only squadrons on field.:

Date: 05/01/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 6 1 0
435th BS 4 3 0
93rd BS 4 2 0

Date: 05/03/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 6 1 0
435th BS 4 3 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/05/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 4 3 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/06/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 5 2 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 5 2 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/07/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 5 2 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/10/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 6 1 0
93rd BS 5 1 0

Date: 05/12/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 6 1 0
93rd BS 6 0 0

Date: 05/18/1942
Unit Ready Damaged Reserve

28th BS 7 0 0
30th BS 7 0 0
435th BS 7 0 0
93rd BS 6 0 0

It took 17 days to fix 8 aircraft, during that time the aircraft were idle (training lvl 0).

SO if I operate my B-17s for 2 days and sustain 8 damaged/loss a/c, then I must stand them down for 17 days to be 100%.

These numbers reflect a binomial distribution for p=0.2. I am not picking apart the model, but observing that you can basically operate your B-17s once every 5 days, or they will attrit faster than you can fix them (assuming they have a well supplied airbase of thier own).

Once again, what is the realistic behavior for the pattern of heavy bomber usage in the PTO? If this is realistic, then fine. If not, lets try to find out, and make the adjustment.

Maybe having the repair penalty for smaller bases, lack of support, supplies and the like can achieve the desired effect of associated maintenance issues.

What the hell is this about. I missed how this is a 1.2 effect. Please enlighten!

wpurdom,

In UV, your a/c ready rates drop below 100% when the available aviation support points are below what is required for the no of available a/c on base (the excess a/c drop into repair/reserve status). This has always been the case regardless of the patch (I think).

Prior to 1.2, such an action as removing a base aviation engineer unit (therefore dropping aviation support below available a/c no's) would probably cost you no more than a few days to return your a/c (including B17's) to 100% availability once aviation support levels were restored by bringing in another base aviation engineer unit. I was not suggesting that a/c ready levels being reduced by insufficient aviation support was a 1.2 effect.

This example was mentioned in my post to the topic as I thought it illustrated how long it took for B17's now to return to full readiness even when combat was not involved. I wont repeat the base shuffle any time soon when B17's are involved.

Hope your enlightened;)

...if you look at the large Test I did upthread, you see that just _flying_ the AC will cause damage.

In missions where they took no losses or damage ( as indicated in the after action report ) the status screen indicated that AC shifted into the being repaired side ( or not repaired as in this case )

I _think_ in your test the AC your seeing as AC repaired, are the Sq filling out with new, ready AC. Those Rockport Sq`s usually fill out to 7-9 AC by June.

Anyway it`s a moot point if the only repair at a reasonable rate if they don`t fly or ground them for 17 days after 2 days Mission use

If you can, please move them into Combat and see what the repair rate is...or fire up Scenario 11 and try it out..

I was hoping dgaad would check in, he has good information on this kind of stuff...and seemed interested in the Air aspect of UV.

But..THANKS for pitching in !!:)

The issue is aircraft repair times for heavy bombers.

I posted the results of a test that given near perfect conditions, here is how long it takes.

The first time I looked at these squadrons on day 1 to start my "test", their strengths and status were as I listed in the post above. Black Cat, I do not understand the replacement comment and how it relates to my example.

As for operating the a/c, all that does is generate more damaged a/c. Other than that, it has no impact on the function on repairing a/c, assuming damaged a/c do not fly missions.

Your point compliments mine, by showing how fast damaged a/c accumulate.

I am going to try some schemes in my current PBEM games, and the one I am running against the AI, and see if I can find what the "optimal" operational pattern for heavy bombers is given the current non-repair rate for heavy bombers.

Just need to get them repaired, so I won't be able to start for a few days.....

Originally posted by denisonh
The issue is aircraft repair times for heavy bombers.

I posted the results of a test that given near perfect conditions, here is how long it takes.

The first time I looked at these squadrons on day 1 to start my "test", their strengths and status were as I listed in the post above. Black Cat, I do not understand the replacement comment and how it relates to my example.

As for operating the a/c, all that does is generate more damaged a/c. Other than that, it has no impact on the function on repairing a/c, assuming damaged a/c do not fly missions.

Your point compliments mine, by showing how fast damaged a/c accumulate.

I am going to try some schemes in my current PBEM games, and the one I am running against the AI, and see if I can find what the "optimal" operational pattern for heavy bombers is given the current non-repair rate for heavy bombers.

Just need to get them repaired, so I won't be able to start for a few days.....

The replacement comment had no relevance to your example, I was thinking outloud ( in type actually ) about another AC issue... Sorry

Look forward to your input.

Black Cat, Denisonh,

Thanks very much for the detailed tests - the repair rate fix did go too far and we're planning to turn it back a few notches for the next patch.

Regards,

- Erik

Thanks Erik, appreciate the hard work and effort you guys are putting in to make UV the best. (And WiTP that much better)

...appreciate your willingness to listen as well

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
Thanks very much for the detailed tests - the repair rate fix did go too far and we're planning to turn it back a few notches for the next patch.

That's great, but what do we do with our heavy bombers in the mean time. (Answer: nothing, they are all under repair). This miss-fire effort at a "fix" to the low-level bombing problem is yet further evidence that aircraft altitude should be abstracted completely out of the scope of the game (as it is in the original PacWar).

I havn't found the new repair rates to be all that hard so far....but then again, i am careful now to ration out where, when and how i want my medium and big bombers to strike.

We do have to be careful here. Easing the repair rates of B-17's so that they can once more bomb 24/7 with only 1 or 2 down for repair is about the same as 1.2 was......no difference. Joel is right in cautioning against taking away penalties for "stuffing" forward bases full of every AG possible.....not hard to do in this game where even a level 4 airfield can hold over 200 aircraft without penalty. But even with full aviation support.....can one expect all these planes to be kept 80%+ operational in a sustained bombing operation?, especially when bombing airfields bursting with aircraft still seldom produces damaged or destroyed planes on the ground, the same problem often seen in PacWar....rarely it seems are planes damaged or destroyed in airraids, or even straffing attacks. Perhaps that needs to be looked at too.

I'm finding that if my bombers are spared from heavy flak and CAP concentrations (mainly by attacking bases at heights more common in Europe for B-17's) that i can keep up a sustained bombing campaign for over a week at time in which the target base gets it's cage rattled. If the base i'm attacking starts to wilt under the logistical stranglehold, i can then start lowering altitudes as flak levels drop and really paste the base. I Just retook Gili Gili that way from the AI utilizing PM and Cooktown (the B-17's at Cooktown alone, the twin engined brutes at PM)


Then a few days down time usually brings back a good portion of planes. It does help too, too have the big bombers operating from a more rearward base, usually alone (since in early days no fighter has the range to escort them anyway)

The medium bomber damage rates seem fine...heavy use/damage quickly brings them down but a few days rest brings their damaged units back to operational status and morale starts to edge up.

More testing should reveal it. Part of the problem is that damage to aircraft has to be abstracted to some extent.....after all there is a big difference between repairing a B-17 with bullet holes and another that has had one or two engines fragged. Given how many B-17's were operational in the theater at this time......and the priority of all future production (along with spare parts i would assume) all going to the 8th in Europe....i could see 'badly' damaged B-17's sitting on the tarmac for days at a time waiting for critical parts and engines to be brought in.

I believe a quick study of air ops in this theater at this time will reveal that the surviving Clark Field B-17's certainly did not conduct 'sustained' bombing operations against Japanese targets. More often then not they appear to have been used as long range reconesence planes and/or used to attack sighted convoys.......far less intensive ops than "bombing Rabaul" round the clock. It would reflect the careful use of limited resources, i.e. airframes, trained crewmen, and above all else, spare parts.


If possible for future patches or WitP, perhaps it might be feasible to attack "level of bomber damage' to the roll for repair to reflect the differences between lightly damaged planes and badly damaged ones.

Another option......modify the repair roll to the amount of replacements in the pool for that type. It may not be totally accurate but it could give an idea of the availability of spare parts by it's relationship to the avalability of whole airframes and might be easier to code vs keeping track of specific damage levels for each aircraft

Originally posted by Nikademus
I havn't found the new repair rates to be all that hard so far....but then again, i am careful now to ration out where, when and how i want my medium and big bombers to strike.

I originally wasn`t going to bother to reply to this , but since some of us have put so much time into this issue, I`m compelled to. First we are just talking about the Heavy Bomber Repair rates.

"We do have to be careful here. Easing the repair rates of B-17's so that they can once more bomb 24/7 with only 1 or 2 down for repair is about the same as 1.2 was......no difference. "

No one is saying that at all, have you bothered to read the test reports and the obvious problem they show with the 1.2 repair rates...to distill it for you:

There...Is...No...Realistic...Repair...Rates...Going...On...


" Joel is right in cautioning against taking away penalties for "stuffing" forward bases full of every AG possible.....not hard to do in this game where even a level 4 airfield can hold over 200 aircraft without penalty. But even with full aviation support.....can one expect all these planes to be kept 80%+ operational in a sustained bombing operation?,"

???? Again you miss the point, The Heavy Bomb SQ`s are not even being repaired at a rate so that they are at 45% operational readiness... please read the Tests.....


" especially when bombing airfields bursting with aircraft still seldom produces damaged or destroyed planes on the ground, the same problem often seen in PacWar....rarely it seems are planes damaged or destroyed in airraids, or even straffing attacks. Perhaps that needs to be looked at too."

You do not "get" to the AC on the ground in any significant way until you max out the damage on the Runway/Airbase, and the AB goes into low supply, i.e, there is a "damage threshold" you must reach, same as in Pac War. It is a _good thing_ for Gameplay BTW.

"I'm finding that if my bombers are spared from heavy flak and CAP concentrations (mainly by attacking bases at heights more common in Europe for B-17's) that i can keep up a sustained bombing campaign for over a week at time in which the target base gets it's cage rattled. If the base i'm attacking starts to wilt under the logistical stranglehold, i can then start lowering altitudes as flak levels drop and really paste the base. I Just retook Gili Gili that way from the AI utilizing PM and Cooktown (the B-17's at Cooktown alone, the twin engined brutes at PM)"

That`s sounds like a good Battle you got going...


"Then a few days down time usually brings back a good portion of planes. "

??? Downtime does not effect the new repair rates ( the time in which AC are repaired ) of the _Heavy Bombers_ in any way... you are the only one seeing this.


" It does help too, too have the big bombers operating from a more rearward base, usually alone (since in early days no fighter has the range to escort them anyway)"

The medium bomber damage rates seem fine...heavy use/damage quickly brings them down but a few days rest brings their damaged units back to operational status and morale starts to edge up."

"More testing should reveal it. "

MORE ???, We just finished doing two that took us all day , if don`t like them why don`t you do an extensive test ( with save files of course ) with just the Heavy Bombers and post your detailed result of the repair rates ?? PS: Feel free to use my test report format.


Part of the problem is that damage to aircraft has to be abstracted to some extent.....after all there is a big difference between repairing a B-17 with bullet holes and another that has had one or two engines fragged. Given how many B-17's were operational in the theater at this time......and the priority of all future production (along with spare parts i would assume) all going to the 8th in Europe....i could see 'badly' damaged B-17's sitting on the tarmac for days at a time waiting for critical parts and engines to be brought in."

They took the parts out of some damaged AC to keep the rest flying...



I believe a quick study of air ops in this theater at this time will reveal that the surviving Clark Field B-17's certainly did not conduct 'sustained' bombing operations against Japanese targets. More often then not they appear to have been used as long range reconesence planes and/or used to attack sighted convoys.......far less intensive ops than "bombing Rabaul" round the clock. It would reflect the careful use of limited resources, i.e. airframes, trained crewmen, and above all else, spare parts."

Right, because almost all were destroyed on the Ground on the First Day .

"If possible for future patches or WitP, perhaps it might be feasible to attack "level of bomber damage' to the roll for repair to reflect the differences between lightly damaged planes and badly damaged ones."

Sounds good to me too.

" Another option......modify the repair roll to the amount of replacements in the pool for that type. It may not be totally accurate but it could give an idea of the availability of spare parts by it's relationship to the avalability of whole airframes and might be easier to code vs keeping track of specific damage levels for each aircraft

'"

Sounds good, someone Chain Gary & Joel to the computer for the rest of their lives...

I didn't see a problem with repair rates in previous versions. If I used my bombers more, which I'm aggressive in doing, more would stay in the repair column & morale would go down. They may repair a couple if raids were cancelled due to weather. If I had a level 4 base, I would only have 4-6 units there with at least 1 being a patrol/recon/transport.
In my original post, I stated that none of mine had repaired in over a month of inactivity in rear areas but I later thought this might be on old bug from BOB/BTR where a/c that were used in a unit but then went to the pool during an upgrade/switch & later used again always stayed in the repair/in transit column until the unit was moved, then they became ready. Well that won't happen in UV as the unit simply splits or doesn't move if no a/c are available to move.

Nikademus,

Good point, and we weren't planning to put the rate all the way back. An adjustment to repair rates has already been put into the next patch by Gary. In my experience, this puts the repair rate a bit slower than pre-1.20 but closer to that than to the 1.20 standard. In the meantime, please find creative, non-violent ways of using your damaged heavy bombers.

Regards,

- Erik

Here is an excerpt from Fire In the Sky, pg 276. It's a discussion on B-17's and maintenence:

"...Officers called upon Fortresses in Australia and the Solomons to fly many missions of all types, including long-range flights, which increased wear and tear on the aircraft and crew. Add to the equation improving but still mediocre maintenance, and the Forts were beaten up by 1943. (The importance of qualified groundcrews for heavy bombers can hardly be overstressed. Far more complex than fighters, heavies did not prove as amenable to the kind of patchwork maintenance that could keep a fighter in the air....There were many individual exceptions, but I think it is safe to say that heavy bombers did not recieve the high level of maintenance required until well into 1943.)"

.. the game engine cannot ( I suspect ) reflect that gradual improvement in it`s Repair Rate calculations. It would likely be a programing nightmare, and screw other stuff up as well IMO...per J.B.

What it`s set at in May `42 is what you get in Dec `43.

If I appear somewhat reactive on this I am..:p

This is because I play the Campaign Games, several at a time, both edited to Rich`s Semi Historical Midway occured, as well as those shipped.

Changes to the hardcoded aspects of the Game, ( stuff we can`t ajust with the Editor ) for purposes of "play balance" like the Repair Rates for the US Heavy Bomber`s may seem innocent enough, even desiraible, in the mid `43 scenarios and the End Game, where the US has overwhelming forces in different areas, CV`s, Ground, Fighters , Medium Bombers, however the impact in the early Games can be crippling, and effect the entire progress of the game., both in PBEM & VS AI.

I think it`s very important to "go slow" in that kind of "Balance" tweeking to avoid unintended consequences... ( and they thought only Harpoon Player`s talk like that )

I haven't played enough to have an opinion on the 1.20 maintenance level and Matrix has already stated they're lowering it back closer to the earlier rate anyway. I posted the info from Fire in the Sky as IMO it supports the designers position that the game should make it difficult to keep Forts flying. We could debate "how difficult" untill the B-24's arrive.

I didn't read every word of every post, but just wanted to add that I have noticed this too. Although the 80% number seems a bit high to me, what concerns me more is the decrease in chances of repair after a plane has been repaired. It seems to me that if the base is big enough to support level bombers and the number of bombers at the base and you have enough aviation support at the base that repairing one plane should not decrease the chances of repairing the next plane.