Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: dbmsts

Michealm this was written in the change log for the 1108k8 patch

Tweaked Group stacking on base with AF 6+ gains a 1/3 lowering of the "Aircraft Stack Level" for 4E planes[MEM]

Could you please exlpain this in detail? Will AFs of size 9 and 10 also have overstacking now or is this about something else?

See the immediately preceding post (#359) by Michael.

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

ORIGINAL: treespider

MichaelM wrote:

On a AF6+, instead of counting a 4E plane as 4 points towards stacking, it will only count as 2.67 points. You can still overload the AF but it requires more planes.
My logic here is that on "more developed" AFs there is usually more area to park planes that wont affect operating the groups. I have just drawn this line at 6+ size. If it becomes to contentious, I'll just drop it and revert back to same number overall.

I like it.

On the level of "liking/not liking" I have to say I don't like it. [:(]
This is what we want to increase the playability... more & more coordinated Allied "uber-fighters"... more 4Es in the air to destroy anything within range.[8|]

And more results like this one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 118 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 16
Liberator B.III x 13
Wellington B.X x 12
B-24D Liberator x 22
B-24D1 Liberator x 34
B-24J Liberator x 12

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator II: 1 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 75
Airbase supply hits 29
Runway hits 669

How about making more of them to withdraw if unescorted
or making them less fighter-proof? [&o]

Using version k8 und alternate font.
There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

ORIGINAL: treespider
I like it.

I like it too. I LOVE the ability to stockpile where I choose.

Thanks Michael.

Michael,
 
Thanks for the great ongoing support!
 
[&o][&o][&o]

ORIGINAL: dbmsts

Michealm this was written in the change log for the 1108k8 patch

Tweaked Group stacking on base with AF 6+ gains a 1/3 lowering of the "Aircraft Stack Level" for 4E planes[MEM]

Could you please exlpain this in detail? Will AFs of size 9 and 10 also have overstacking now or is this about something else?

From memory, AF 9+ never have had any restrictions.

ORIGINAL: Theages

Using version k8 und alternate font.
There is a minor display problem on the base screen. If there is a "(max draw ...)" present in the "Supplies" line, the "max draw" value overlaps with the yes/no of the stockpiling column if it is longer the approximately 3 numbers.

Thought I had checked alt font.
Ah welll. So hard to find space nowadays.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: treespider
I like it.

I like it too. I LOVE the ability to stockpile where I choose.

Thanks Michael.

+2! Count me in - outstanding work, Michael!

Mac

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The next build will expand the stockpiling option to bases. The code had hooks for this (added in last patch) but I hadn't activated it.
You will be able to stockpile supply, fuel, resource and oil at bases. This means that bases will retain these and not allow other bases to access them.
Note that this applies only to supply&resource movement between bases, normal LCU and industry access is not affected.

OMG! [&o] Can I now stuckpile fuel for ships for example in Brisbane and not have it being sucked to industry in other parts of Australia?

That's the theory.

No matter how smart the distribution method gets, there is always going to be some case where the PLAYER wants to keep huge stockpiles in one place determined by the player rather than the AI's ditribution net.

michaelm -

This is absolutely First Class - a very useful feature. Please keep up the good work!

AE Loyalist Mac

thanks

Viberpol may be on to something.

Maybe 7+ level airfields should be considered more sophisticated, and shouldn't the repair rates be across the board?
Not just 4E aircraft, say 20-25% reduction for all types.

Just my 2 cents from an AFB...[:D]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Viberpol may be on to something.

Maybe 7+ level airfields should be considered more sophisticated, and shouldn't the repair rates be across the board?
Not just 4E aircraft, say 20-25% reduction for all types.

Just my 2 cents from an AFB...[:D]

This is only stacking level - how many planes can fit at airfield without impact to ops.
Does not affect repair/support.

Gotcha!

I'm trying to figure out how to do a print screen to show you these two, but I'll write about them until I can get a picture.

1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics.

2: I have a ship docked and loading an LCU at Manila. When I click the "all task forces" button, it says 'Manila, headed to'. It should say "At Manila." All the task forces that are docked, or just sitting in base hexes say "xyz location, headed to" They should say, 'at xyz location' or 'at sea at xyz location' See my picture below. task force 122 is the example, but I could find others.

This is with the most recent patch (I downloaded it today.) I'll try to get some graphics loaded so you can see what I mean.

Thanks, Brad

Is it correct that after this message:
Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Loyang
the enemy unit disappears?

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics.

Thanks, Brad

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Is it correct that after this message:
Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Loyang
the enemy unit disappears?

I beleive that is correct, at least that is what happens for me.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
1: I'm playing vs the Japanese AI. I'm playing Da Babes lite, but I've modified that scenario quite a bit. On the opening day, the Japanese AI is programmed to strike a few bases on Luzon. I think Iba is one of the bases. In my scenario, Iba is completely empty. When the aircraft bomb the base, there are lots of flak graphics. Tons. There should be no flak graphics because there are no LCU's or ships there. I have seen other attacks at empty bases, and there are always lots of flak graphics.

Thanks, Brad

Flak is shown only if there are flak values present.
Pls attach the pre-turn (save #2) where you see this, thanks

PS if the save also has the "docked" issue, it would also be helpful.

Hi Michael,

Here is the Dec 7th turn. When you run it, you'll see several examples of the flak at empty bases (PI and Maylay peninsula).

Look at the transport task forces loading supplies at SF, Soerbaja, Singers, Manila. They all say "xyz location, moving to" I have noticed that once a task force has stopped loading stuff, it says the normal, correct response. But, if it's in the process of loading something, it says it's moving there.

FYI, this is heavily moded from stock. I apologize if it's my changes that are causing the problems and you spend time that isn't necessary.

Thanks, Brad

I like what michaelm has done for the "parking space" at bases..Tinian should be a good example..