Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TheElf

... serviceability ratings ...

So the database now has a serviceability rating for each aircraft model?

There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

Does this mean that the life-time (flights) of each individual aircraft is tracked to influence the chance of an ops loss of that aircraft?

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....[8|]

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...

But I am having a hard time detecting a question in this post...

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

ORIGINAL: TheElf


We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

[sarcasm]Yeah but you can't set three different parts of the same unit to LRCAP three different bases...[8|][/sarcasm]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.

This was discussed and a design document was written, but ended up OTS...

Maybe later...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? [:'(]]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.

Got to be complicated, so it was shelved.

ORIGINAL: TheElf


The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

Does this mean that dates for upgrading aircraft for Dutch and UK are being debated/looked at or will they be the same?

Thanks. [&o]

EDIT: Sorry Ian, if the latter was directed at me, I skimmed through most of the thread but didn't see anything mentioned about upgrade dates for Dutch and UK.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: TheElf


The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

Does this mean that dates for upgrading aircraft for Dutch and UK are being debated/looked at or will they be the same?

Thanks. [&o]

EDIT: Sorry Ian, if the latter was directed at me, I skimmed through most of the thread but didn't see anything mentioned about upgrade dates for Dutch and UK.

I'm afraid I'll have to defer to Thomas...

He may not have refered to dates...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

... serviceability ratings ...

So the database now has a serviceability rating for each aircraft model?

There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

Does this mean that the life-time (flights) of each individual aircraft is tracked to influence the chance of an ops loss of that aircraft?

Yes

and...

Basically

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...

But I am having a hard time detecting a question in this post...

Fair enough. What justification is there for assigning USN CVE air group pilots experience levels in the 30's and 40's when the standard USN pilot experience is 60-70?

We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

OMG, I've been advocating this since Alpha! Right ON!!!!

It is only the replenishment groups that are assigned 30xp pilots and it is a real paiin.
 
Its supposed to be because they are just ferry pilots but as we all know what actually happens is thoase pilots replace combat losses diluting your CV Groups
 
PITA

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? [:'(]]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.

Got to be complicated, so it was shelved.

But my approach seems infinitely simpler.[;)] And gets the job done.

ORIGINAL: spence
Fair enough. What justification is there for assigning USN CVE air group pilots experience levels in the 30's and 40's when the standard USN pilot experience is 60-70?

Historically none. In the game? Because it hurts the Allies and helps Japan.

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

 
Will we get the serviceability rating, or will it be one of the hidden numbers of the game?

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...

TheElf wrote:

There are some other things thrown in like damage from a round of combat being retained from one phase, and one turn to another. That was not happening in stock.

While I principally like the realism of this, won't it just add to the already over-bloody air-combat?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...

Both are very important. So are adequate supplies and leadership. The main constraints on number of sorties generated are aircrew fatigue, maintenance fatigue, supplies/ammo/fuel, and the condition of the aircraft. Leadership and morale are very important in sustaining the effort.

ORIGINAL: TheElf


No. No more details to give out. If you want to ask a specific question a bout a detail you are interested in I can make an attempt.

OK I suppose I'm asking whether it's true that the bloodiness of the air-combat is going to be reduced and if so, by what method (reduced chance of aircraft finding each other, reduced chance of hitting, reduced chance of a hit destroying etc)

The reason I'm concerned me is best given in an example:

A) if you take an example of say 20 fighters escorting 60 bombers to bomb a base opposed by 40 fighters on CAP. Lets say this results in the 20 escorts going down with 20 bombers vs 20 destroyed fighters from the CAP. The bombers destroy 20 aircraft on the ground. 40 airframes lost on each side so lets call it a wash (going to ignore pilots as an unnecessary complication for example purposes)

B) Now lets say A2A casualties are reduced by 50%......results are now 10 escorts and 10 bombers destroyed vs 10 fighters on CAP, but still 20 on the ground - a win for the attacker. The balance of the game has been shifted towards the bomber simply becuase the part of the routine where the CAP does it's work has been marginalised. In fact it is worse.....becuase 25% more bombers got through, casualties on the ground will be 25.

Just keen to keep the sruggle for air superiority even between the side on the attack and the defence as it largely determines the pace of the war . Obviously the examples are simplistic, but if the A2A routuine is monkeyed with without adjusting the outcomes of the second part of the mission (base/port/ground attack/naval), you will inevitably shift the balance......and IMO not for the better.