Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal

[Nikademus]

A while back I was asked if I would be presenting an updated version of my old mod series for AE. I have been tinkering with SCN4 in an attempt to create a better presentation of that conflict. The main mod is still in the testing stage but should be done shortly. I was planning on updating it to Spooky's site but will also post it here in this thread when ready.

Changes as follows:

1) A2A lethality tweak -

As with the original Nikmod, immediate goal was to address bloodiness in the game. This of course was also a major AE goal and does reduce it compared to stock. However while much improved pace of A2A ops remains overly high. (For example, it is still highly possible to gut whole squadrons in singlular raids or turns resulting in a much quicker pace vs. the slow attrition which was the norm for WWII. Challenge to this was that Fighter v Fighter and Fighter v Bomber operate very differently. carrier and land base air combat also presented different situations. Central problem remains that too many planes get too many "rounds" of combat resulting in too many hits and kills. For lower DUR planes this exaserbates into too many outright kills. After testing each variable and combos of variables I think i've found a good way to reduce the total combat rounds without messing with the stats of the planes too much. In addition to reducing overall losses it helps de-nerf the overpowered Sweep mission to a degree. Testing is ongoing, but so far results are very encouraging.

2) IJN flak adjustment

Japanese navy flak is way overmuscled. Mod reduces IJN flak effectiveness by 75%.

3) Air to ground Accuracy tweak

Air to ground devices (i.e. bombs/torpedoes) accuracy halved. This is done in part to compensate for the increased survivability of airplanes in the mod as well as to address the somewhat over-heavy effect ordinance has against ports and airbases. Goal is to slow pace of air operations in terms of quick suppression of targets.

4) Servicability tweak

Servicability in AE remains overly efficient (assuming adequate AV) averaging above 90% unless airbase is badly damaged or crowded. This is the critical "behind the scenes" culprit for accelerated pace of air operations. AE fortunately introduces variable "service rating" to editor. This has been tweaked upwards. Tentative schedule is a) fighters = 3, b) 2E bomber =4 c) 4E bomber = 5. Current version is testing universal service rating 5

Also experimenting with all ratings at max (5) Testing is ongoing.

5) SPS increase for Lunga

As many who've played with Scn04 are familiar with, a major change for SCN4 was altered SPS values of bases in this area to reduce the ability for players to quickly build up other bases and thus negate the challenges faced by both sides during the period covered. For Lunga, SPS 0 has been increased to 4 and Rabaul's SPS has been increased from 1 to 2 allowing it to achieve level 5. Originally this was restricted to zero to prevent Lunga from being quickly turned into a 4E megabase, something that did not occur till after the period primarily covered in SCN4. While effective, PBEM play has also shown that at level 2 Henderson is extremely vulneable to bombardment from the shore and with limited #'s of squadrons that can be held there, makes the airfield largely untendable....which kind of defeats the purpose of the struggle. Subject to change - testing is ongoing. Goal is to make Lunga more resistant to bomardment but not too much so. The lowered servicability %'s should help curb player tendancies to stuff the forward airbase with airpower.


Schedule -

May be able to release version 1 by this weekend (Memorial day)

[moonraker65]

Good stuff Nikademus [&o]. Any chance of making an Aug '42 start Grand Campaign with "Watchtower" as the main emphasis then "Cartwheel" as the next major operation ?

[Nikademus]

Possibly but that would require a fairly serious time investment so mod work has had to take a low priority for me of late. A 1942 start in general is something i'd like to see.

[Pratzen]

The biggest problem with scenario 4 is the nuclear subs. Exasperated by so many subs being in such a small area. If you are not going to look at that, well, what is the point of a mod of this scenario?

Quite frankly, compared to stock WITP, AE doesn't need a mod for the areas you address, IMO. (I am wondering if you and I are playing the same game...) And NiK A2A in WITP was a disaster. IMO. As bad as stock, only in the opposite direction.

[JuanG]

Sounds like an interesting changelist.

I'm particularly curious to see how those service rating changes you're testing pan out, because I'm doing something similar though perhaps not as extreme for my own scenarios.

Looking forward to it.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Pratzen

The biggest problem with scenario 4 is the nuclear subs. Exasperated by so many subs being in such a small area. If you are not going to look at that, well, what is the point of a mod of this scenario?

Quite frankly, compared to stock WITP, AE doesn't need a mod for the areas you address, IMO. (I am wondering if you and I are playing the same game...) And NiK A2A in WITP was a disaster. IMO. As bad as stock, only in the opposite direction.

Well i guess its a good thing its both free of charge and free to use or not use at your discretion. [:)]

[Sardaukar]

Sounds like interesting changes. I have been quite vocal that there has been something strange in how IJN flak works..and service ratings seem to be good way to reduce intensity of the air war. 

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Sounds like an interesting changelist.

I'm particularly curious to see how those service rating changes you're testing pan out, because I'm doing something similar though perhaps not as extreme for my own scenarios.

Looking forward to it.

Ditto. Looking forward to seeing the impact of service rating. This is definitely my favortie AI scenario. Playing as JAP always gives a good game.

Any chance that you will be able to add a couple more AI alternatives? The early Rebaul air raid is a good one, forcing the JAP player to be careful early. Maybe an early Milne Bay growth focus? Divert one ENG and INF and a bunch of supply from Lunga/Tulagi would create a real twist to the scenario. Lunga/Tulagi become more vulnerable, but PM becomes a very tough nut and Shortlands a very unsafe base from 2 sides. Not suggesting this is better than reality, but as a twist, it just gives the player something to consider. Maybe even going after Shortlands as a raid with Lunga invasion? A raid there can really upset the JAP plans.

Just some thoughts ....

[Nikademus]

Yes....Joe has been complaining for a long time that the scenario is just not balanced (aka too historical)......he can't develop his nefarious plans with oodles of logistical support, so i'm thinking of presenting a more balanced scenario that gives the Japan side a better chance. I'm debating on whether or not to leave in the PP restrictions as the LCU edge on the Allied side is pretty overwhelming. Then again with a massive increase in Japanese land assets, the Allied player would have to be more careful to watch their rear areas.

[Nikademus]

Version one is up on post one. Please note that current playtest values for servicability.

Feedback welcome.

- A word on Servicability.

I ask that players be a tad open minded regarding servicability percentages before sending comments my way that its over the top or other such. WitP, the game has conditioned players to expect "Five Nines" servicability at bases with enough AV and reletively free of bombardment. RL was not so rosy. While %'s varied from nation to nation, and situation to situaiton a more realistic "average" for an airbase under normal operating conditions and sortie count would fall more around 75%. This assumes good facilities and logistics. In situations of heavy combat and/or degraded servicing and supply situations, average servicability averages can fall as low as 30% or worse. This change will require the most 'adjustment' from players in that there will be less instances of setting aircraft to a mission and letting them go about their business. Units in heavy combat will require monitoring and rotation. Current playtest setting is Five for all units. Tentative setting is as listed in the FAQ on post 1, but more playtesting is required. Its easier to start from max and work down as needed in this case. Fortunately, this being a small scenario, testing and management duties are far lower than in the campaign game.

enjoy.

[Mac Linehan]

Hi, Nik -

Looks like a great Mod!

While I understand the serviceability concept in AE, I am still not clear as to how this is implemented in AE. I do understand that aircraft serviceability ratings differ in accordance with each aircraft's size, complexity and the maintenance effort required to keep it operational. I also understand the requirement of one AV support for each aircraft; and the airfield size requirements for larger aircraft.

So - when I periodically review each aircraft's numerical fatigue rating, is it best to stand down upon reaching (for example) 30% fatigue to perform preventive maintenance as opposed to 80% fatigue - that would down the aircraft for a much longer period of time?

Nik, I appreciate any thoughts and insight you might have on the matter. As a very detailed player (read "micromanager") I hope to squeeze the most serviceability out of HIJM's treasured air units.

Penguins Forever,

Mac

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yes....Joe has been complaining for a long time that the scenario is just not balanced (aka too historical)......he can't develop his nefarious plans with oodles of logistical support, so i'm thinking of presenting a more balanced scenario that gives the Japan side a better chance. I'm debating on whether or not to leave in the PP restrictions as the LCU edge on the Allied side is pretty overwhelming. Then again with a massive increase in Japanese land assets, the Allied player would have to be more careful to watch their rear areas.

Please don't!


This is tough for the JAP player, and it should be. IT is a great 2nd scenario for new players a Allies, and then once your up to speed there, it provides endless play value as JAP.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Version one is up on post one. Please note that current playtest values for servicability.

Feedback welcome.

- A word on Servicability.

I ask that players be a tad open minded regarding servicability percentages before sending comments my way that its over the top or other such. WitP, the game has conditioned players to expect "Five Nines" servicability at bases with enough AV and reletively free of bombardment. RL was not so rosy. While %'s varied from nation to nation, and situation to situaiton a more realistic "average" for an airbase under normal operating conditions and sortie count would fall more around 75%. This assumes good facilities and logistics. In situations of heavy combat and/or degraded servicing and supply situations, average servicability averages can fall as low as 30% or worse. This change will require the most 'adjustment' from players in that there will be less instances of setting aircraft to a mission and letting them go about their business. Units in heavy combat will require monitoring and rotation. Current playtest setting is Five for all units. Tentative setting is as listed in the FAQ on post 1, but more playtesting is required. Its easier to start from max and work down as needed in this case. Fortunately, this being a small scenario, testing and management duties are far lower than in the campaign game.

enjoy.

It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

So - when I periodically review each aircraft's numerical fatigue rating, is it best to stand down upon reaching (for example) 30% fatigue to perform preventive maintenance as opposed to 80% fatigue - that would down the aircraft for a much longer period of time?

Nik, I appreciate any thoughts and insight you might have on the matter. As a very detailed player (read "micromanager") I hope to squeeze the most serviceability out of HIJM's treasured air units.

Penguins Forever,

Mac

In general aircraft don't really need to be stood down unless they are either in heavy combat or are in a situation of inadequate AV support. There are several exceptions to this such as aircraft with a very high serv rating and high number of engines (aka B-17). Also a base that suffers damage will have it's ability to maintain aircraft impaired. Bigger airbases do a better job vs. smaller ones.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

As one of the "devs", I can tell you are no concrete plans to make further code changes at this time. Focus remains on bug hunting and correction of any major boo boo's found. Keep in mind that the serv rating is only one component of the formula that determines end servicability. This aspect of the mod is a work in progress too. I noted after several months of playing AE that planes with serv ratings between 1-3 did not noticably behave differently than in stock. The only real change i noticed was with the 4E's with the highest serv value. Between the increased AV requirement (based on engine #) coupled with the high serv rating and DUR value....4E serv values in places come off more historical. I've been playtesting the mod all weekend and the different aircraft types are certainly not all acting like 4E's despite the maxed out serv value.

For example, with a careful managed Rabaul my G4M/Zero force serv value remains 95-100%. A Zero datai at Lae ranges from 50% to 90% depending on the level of engagement. With regular stand downs, the serv value quickly goes up. An interesting result from the carrier battle i had was that numerous damaged Japanese planes remained out of service for quite some time after the battle encouraging withdraw to rest and retool (hence the carrier camping tactic is far less viable after heavy engagement)

Testing is ongoing. If i expand the mod to grand campaign i'll probably adust serv value downward for patrol planes to reduce micromanagement duties. Observations on patrol and CAP's show varied results thus far. Some units maintain high serv while other units fell sharply after a week or more. So far i'm not seeing any 'game breaking' results.

Air to air losses are improved but at times are still high. (This mod version is the "carrier friendly" version......i have a 2nd version which is "airbase friendly" but nerfs Carrier battles in that it makes bombers too survivable) lol...maybe i'll make both available and let interested parties decide which they like. Carrier battles are of course important but land based ops dominate the game overall.

Its been particularily interesting to compare the results as i'm also playing Hard Sarge in the "Big Week" scenario using BTR/BoB. One really notes the difference in the combat models when you get a message like 35 P-51B bouncing ME-110 group and you either get zero outright losses or maybe 1-2 destroyed. Put 35 x P51's against an unescorted 2E group in WitP and you'll get high losses 9 times out of 10 due to all the high number of individual combat rounds from almost every aircraft involved.

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

So - when I periodically review each aircraft's numerical fatigue rating, is it best to stand down upon reaching (for example) 30% fatigue to perform preventive maintenance as opposed to 80% fatigue - that would down the aircraft for a much longer period of time?

Nik, I appreciate any thoughts and insight you might have on the matter. As a very detailed player (read "micromanager") I hope to squeeze the most serviceability out of HIJM's treasured air units.

Penguins Forever,

Mac

In general aircraft don't really need to be stood down unless they are either in heavy combat or are in a situation of inadequate AV support. There are several exceptions to this such as aircraft with a very high serv rating and high number of engines (aka B-17). Also a base that suffers damage will have it's ability to maintain aircraft impaired. Bigger airbases do a better job vs. smaller ones.

Nik -

Thank You for your thoughts - I now have a much clearer picture of how servicability is implemented in the game.

Mac

[PaxMondo]

Well, I am looking forward to playing a game of it soon.  The GUA scenario is always fun.

[LoBaron]

This sounds very interesting.

Thanks for this work. [&o]

I´m VERY interested to test this one against my old opponent. [:D]


Edit:

What I really like about the idea behind the A2A lethality tweak. In A2A, morale is an important factor and this comes closer to the truth though.

What I am not so sure about is the effect of IJN AAA. Do you think summer to fall 42 already had an increased discepancy in AAA cap between IJN and USN?
I still wonder if there is this small bug in the pre combat AAA and if yes does it get solved in a patch.
AAA is severely handicapped by numbers and many historical examples we have available are either Allied AAA overwhelming IJN planes (by sheer numbers)
or IJN AAA overwhelmed by Allied air (by sheer numbers). There are deviations to this of course, but few enough to make them deviations.

Counting all those assumptions it could be that the numbers are just right, or theres a small bug that hands one AAA phase more to a pre-CAP (I hate that term) situation

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

As one of the "devs", I can tell you are no concrete plans to make further code changes at this time. Focus remains on bug hunting and correction of any major boo boo's found. Keep in mind that the serv rating is only one component of the formula that determines end servicability. This aspect of the mod is a work in progress too. I noted after several months of playing AE that planes with serv ratings between 1-3 did not noticably behave differently than in stock. The only real change i noticed was with the 4E's with the highest serv value. Between the increased AV requirement (based on engine #) coupled with the high serv rating and DUR value....4E serv values in places come off more historical. I've been playtesting the mod all weekend and the different aircraft types are certainly not all acting like 4E's despite the maxed out serv value.

For example, with a careful managed Rabaul my G4M/Zero force serv value remains 95-100%. A Zero datai at Lae ranges from 50% to 90% depending on the level of engagement. With regular stand downs, the serv value quickly goes up. An interesting result from the carrier battle i had was that numerous damaged Japanese planes remained out of service for quite some time after the battle encouraging withdraw to rest and retool (hence the carrier camping tactic is far less viable after heavy engagement)

Testing is ongoing. If i expand the mod to grand campaign i'll probably adust serv value downward for patrol planes to reduce micromanagement duties. Observations on patrol and CAP's show varied results thus far. Some units maintain high serv while other units fell sharply after a week or more. So far i'm not seeing any 'game breaking' results.

Air to air losses are improved but at times are still high. (This mod version is the "carrier friendly" version......i have a 2nd version which is "airbase friendly" but nerfs Carrier battles in that it makes bombers too survivable) lol...maybe i'll make both available and let interested parties decide which they like. Carrier battles are of course important but land based ops dominate the game overall.

Its been particularily interesting to compare the results as i'm also playing Hard Sarge in the "Big Week" scenario using BTR/BoB. One really notes the difference in the combat models when you get a message like 35 P-51B bouncing ME-110 group and you either get zero outright losses or maybe 1-2 destroyed. Put 35 x P51's against an unescorted 2E group in WitP and you'll get high losses 9 times out of 10 due to all the high number of individual combat rounds from almost every aircraft involved.

These results are very historical. Both Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz ended because both sides (esp the IJN) had run out of undamaged a/c. And yes USN AAA was that scary by that point. The US fighter control was so poor that CAP was not as effective as it could have been. Yet both battles saw the Japanese Strikes shredded by AAA. That doesn't mean huge numbers were shot down but instead the airframes were damaged beyond use in the short term which forced a witdraw.

So you results are not only historical, they feel "right"

[Rob Brennan UK]

my old opponent

Less of the OLD ! [;)]

Back OT , Hi Nik, Looks like LoBaron and I will be picking this up as our next challenge so a big thank you for giving it a tweak and it'll hopefully be differant enough to be a great challenge once again.

PS can you give Japanese subs wake homing anti CV torpedoes please as he definately had them in the last game we played .. and now i want them ! [:D]