GA

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderator: Joel Billings

HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
...

Show me a picture from early game for your fighter interception. Later in the war of course your interception is going to be good. My average is about 1 in 7 bombing raids if I had to guess on interception on GA. When I do intercept and there are Soviet fighters there I get eaten alive too :(

The mass bombings is a bit off the charts. I thought Soviet bombers were used for mostly ground support?

I'm not arguing I could get that early game - which is the point. There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

Think of it this way. An airbase with plenty of fuel can scramble on the possibility that this time its for real, one lacking fuel etc has to be damn sure its identified a real raid. You can map the varying response of the RAF during the Battle of Britain onto this distinction.

AFAIK, you get experience either by training (in reserve, not resting, exp<NM)or via pilot wins. Not sure you get anything for just flying around?

which indirectly leads to an answer on this
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Also can we fix the Minor countries air units in Axis Reserves and Soviet Garrison? I can't get mine out of the vicious circle of not coming to the map once place in either of those two boxes :(

all I can do is report what I see. I make no claims to competence at the game, I'm certainly doing nothing special to get the results I report.

so, have no idea why you can't so here we are. Open a random air base, select a Hungarian bomber AOG and I can bring Hungarian LB to the map ... 3 clicks and there they are

Image

edit: and as above (& I realise you aren't doing this), muddling up AS/AD, auto-intercept-GS and auto-intercept-GA really doesn't help understanding

edit 2: from Stahel's work using German combat diaries, interdiction was the main thing the VVS did in 1941. In our terms the German's over-reacted, there are reports of Pzr regiments deploying off road when threatened by a few SB-2s. Oddly I think the VVS abandoned this as it retrained in early 1942 to focus more closely on battlefield support, certainly by 1943 it seems they mostly (in game turns) ran GS.

Oh, THANK YOU. No I haven't tried that let me try real quick since I was just trying it from the TB boxes only. Why didn't anyone say anything? :(

That looks like it works. Thank you so much.
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Soooooooo, I looks to me that when you bring German Aircraft on air bases in the Soviet Union the Germans are acquiring their Air support as a Soviet & that Air Support experience is in the 40's. But if you place an airgroup in Germany the Germans will get the correct value of 70 for Air support. This could be an underlying cause I would suspect.



Image
Attachments
air suppor.. Germany.jpg
air suppor.. Germany.jpg (47.06 KiB) Viewed 420 times
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Soooooooo, I looks to me that when you bring German Aircraft on air bases in the Soviet Union the Germans are acquiring their Air support as a Soviet & that Air Support experience is in the 40's. But if you place an airgroup in Germany the Germans will get the correct value of 70 for Air support. This could be an underlying cause I would suspect.



Image

Matter of fact it looks like the whole darn Airbase acquired Soviet stats in Soviet union :(

Image
Attachments
air base.jpg
air base.jpg (48.63 KiB) Viewed 420 times
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Soooooooo, I looks to me that when you bring German Aircraft on air bases in the Soviet Union the Germans are acquiring their Air support as a Soviet & that Air Support experience is in the 40's. But if you place an airgroup in Germany the Germans will get the correct value of 70 for Air support. This could be an underlying cause I would suspect.



Image

Matter of fact it looks like the whole darn Airbase acquired Soviet stats in Soviet union :(

I am sure this is a BUG & a bad bug at that it looks like for German Airbases in Soviet Union acquiring wrong stats :(
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5475
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: GA

Post by tyronec »

There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.
I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: tyronec
There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.
I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.

Ya, I agree.
jubjub
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: GA

Post by jubjub »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: tyronec
There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.
I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.

Ya, I agree.


I don't think the VVS potential is overrated. The VVS was a major thorn in the Germans side through out the war. Check out the operational history of a couple of bomber regiments. Granted, these are probably standout performers among the VVS, but still show the Soviets were capable of inflicting large amounts of damage from the first few days of the war. There's no English articles, but the automatic google translate function seems to work well enough.


Single regiment flies 370 sorties in a day:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/31-%D0%B9 ... 0%BB%D0%BA

Regiment responsible for destroying 126 tanks, 150+ trucks, 15 artillery pieces, and 2735 manpower from June 23 to August 28, 1941.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/140-%D0%B ... 0%BB%D0%BA

Similar results flying SU-2's. From June 29 to August 15, the regiment, operating on the Central Front , performed 590 sorties, destroyed and damaged 45 aircraft, 125 tanks, 375 vehicles with cargo, 1 ammunition depot, 8 guns, 1 headquarters and up to 5,000 enemy soldiers and officers.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/103-%D0%B ... 0%BB%D0%BA
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: tyronec


I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.

Ya, I agree.


I don't think the VVS potential is overrated. The VVS was a major thorn in the Germans side through out the war. Check out the operational history of a couple of bomber regiments. Granted, these are probably standout performers among the VVS, but still show the Soviets were capable of inflicting large amounts of damage from the first few days of the war. There's no English articles, but the automatic google translate function seems to work well enough.


Single regiment flies 370 sorties in a day:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/31-%D0%B9 ... 0%BB%D0%BA

Regiment responsible for destroying 126 tanks, 150+ trucks, 15 artillery pieces, and 2735 manpower from June 23 to August 28, 1941.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/140-%D0%B ... 0%BB%D0%BA

Similar results flying SU-2's. From June 29 to August 15, the regiment, operating on the Central Front , performed 590 sorties, destroyed and damaged 45 aircraft, 125 tanks, 375 vehicles with cargo, 1 ammunition depot, 8 guns, 1 headquarters and up to 5,000 enemy soldiers and officers.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/103-%D0%B ... 0%BB%D0%BA


Well, I haven't asked for a cessation of ground bombing in our game. I do wish the auto-intercept is fixed if the powers in charge find a situation exists in the detriment thereof such intercept. If not I will just deal with it.
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: GA

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

I would absolutely love to see some Pro Axis stuff posted from time to time. Gets tiring of seeing everything about Soviets being GAWDS at everything they do from day 1 of the war :(
panzer51
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:27 am

RE: GA

Post by panzer51 »

Most of these are their own reports. You need to cross-reference them with German ones to see if any of these are true. Soviets were notorious in exaggeration of their successes especially in 1941 when reporting something bad to higher ups could've easily resulted in execution.
Jango32
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:43 pm

RE: GA

Post by Jango32 »

I'd be a bit wary of those numbers, the sources for the second & third mentioned regiments are TsAMO reports dated 25th of October 1944 and 30th of July 1943 respectively. With no document referenced in their content, it leads me to suspect that the numbers are likely unverified, and possibly exaggerated, claims.
jubjub
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: GA

Post by jubjub »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I would absolutely love to see some Pro Axis stuff posted from time to time. Gets tiring of seeing everything about Soviets being GAWDS at everything they do from day 1 of the war :(

Here's a pro axis rant:

In good supply, FW-190's and BF-109's absolutely destroy the VVS, especially when they fly in formations of 100+.

I do think the Soviet supply situation is overstated in '41, and this probably allows the VVS to fly too frequently. It seems unrealistic for the entire eastern front to have the supply backlog cleared after the second week of the war...

There also seems to be an issue with the air command leader checks. The requested amount of aircraft are able to fly every time, even with atrocious leaders.

I will also say that the Luftwaffe's ground attack capabilities seem pretty understated. They typically perform in line or worse than similar efforts by the VVS, despite a big skill gap. Their bombers also take huge ops losses, but this may be caused by the bug you found.
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

RE: GA

Post by malyhin1517 »

ORIGINAL: panzer51

Most of these are their own reports. You need to cross-reference them with German ones to see if any of these are true. Soviets were notorious in exaggeration of their successes especially in 1941 when reporting something bad to higher ups could've easily resulted in execution.
I agree with that! However, both sides had overestimated losses of the enemy! It is necessary to compare Russian and German reports to obtain truthful information.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
metaphore
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:34 am

RE: GA

Post by metaphore »

ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: metaphore
...
I don't have time for compiling further details and numbers. So, in final, just be aware that auto-interception is quite a complex piece of code and changing a single parameter in your ADs could result in some very unexpected things (like YHLA showed on his late AAR). I can tell myself that there are more loopholes than that and I really doubt that the whole system is actually "Working as Designed".

Your claim really isn't supported by your data. It also seems you are mixing up AD design with auto-intercept (which is outside the AD system).

Also auto-intercept works differently when it interactions with GA style missions compared to GS
Hi loki100,

Sorry but what is that claim I've made that is not supported by my data?

Is it the one showing that there were serious change considering previous results of auto-interception versus v.1.01.09b ones?
Or is it me, considering the complexity of the whole system triggering auto-interception(s), that it might not (no claim here) be "working as designed"?

If it's the later, which part is it?
Am I wrong saying that the complexity of auto-interception(s) relative to AD implementations might result in unexpected AD result?

I do believe that you are smart enough to understand that's the only reason why anyone would try to understand how auto-interception is precisely working : to implement Air Directives (or absence of) and Air Doctrines by knowing broadly their "effectiveness vs loss" outcome. My data are showing exactly that: I'm expecting losses in the range of 2,500 and got 1,500 since last patch. Why?

So far, no answer from you but certitude (kinda patronizing) that everything was "exactly working as designed" and that I should not mix up unrelated stuff (stuff obviously related in your second sentence - auto-interception for AS and GS works differently).

Or, am I wrong saying that, because of such code complexity, it might not be (no claim) "working as designed"?
I think you know the answer too... as, since the dev admiting it, you edited your own post claiming just the opposite.

Or, is it simply the word "loophole" that triggered you?

(Sorry Tyrone, no more hijaking here)
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11708
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: GA

Post by loki100 »

your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

So it has very little relevance to the interaction of auto-intercept and GA (ie actions within the air resolution phase). That you talk about Air Directives (which have nothing to do with auto-intercept) simply adds to the confusion.

As long as you muddy up all these, then yes, your claims tell us nothing about the interaction of auto-intercept and GA (or indeed naval patrols and strategic bombing).
ORIGINAL: metaphore

...
Or, am I wrong saying that, because of such code complexity, it might not be (no claim) "working as designed"?
I think you know the answer too... as, since the dev admiting it, you edited your own post claiming just the opposite.

Or, is it simply the word "loophole" that triggered you?

I don't have a clue what you are getting at with that part of your post. My post wasn't edited as you imply, not sure who this 'dev' is and no I don't know the answer. Which is why I'm posting data from my current games and (usefully) not talking about AD design or fighter interaction with GS.

Roger
metaphore
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:34 am

RE: GA

Post by metaphore »

ORIGINAL: loki100
your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

Ok, Loki, forget the rhetorical part and be practical then: which part of the manual specific rules changed since last patch? I can't see any patch note clarifying that.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11708
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: GA

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: loki100
your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

Ok, Loki, forget the rhetorical part and be practical then: which part of the manual specific rules changed since last patch? I can't see any patch note clarifying that.

None .. but the rules for interception of GS are different, read the manual as written and released. This isn't a new distinction, its been in the game since release - in fact in the game since well before release.
metaphore
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:34 am

RE: GA

Post by metaphore »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: loki100
your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

Ok, Loki, forget the rhetorical part and be practical then: which part of the manual specific rules changed since last patch? I can't see any patch note clarifying that.

None .. but the rules for interception of GS are different, read the manual as written and released. This isn't a new distinction, its been in the game since release - in fact in the game since well before release.

Roger. My issue is not that the rules are different for GA and GS (I've looked at it)... but, whatever they were before and are now for GA and GS, they were changed from one release to another without any documentation. So, for those of us having invested tons of hours of testing, we can't tell if it's WAD or NOT WAD - or related or not related, because both cases include auto-interception (AI).
metaphore
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:34 am

RE: GA

Post by metaphore »

Loki100:"There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should."

Sorry Loki, I had mixed two posts of you and fasely claimed that you had edited this part I was refering to.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”