Matrix Games Forums

Just found this....
11/19/2005 v1.795 Beta
Bugs Fixed:

1) Some modified saved games were not able to load with new pilot routines. Fixed.
2) Added message, “PILOT COULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TO GROUP!”, in case pilot could not be created or assigned, when “Get Pilot” is clicked. Done.
3) Sometimes, when land units were transported by air, the vanished. Fixed.
4) Added message, “NO PILOTS AVAILABLE”, in case game maximum pilots has been reached, in case pilot could not be created or assigned, when “Get Pilot” is clicked. Should no longer crash. Done.
5) Bullet proofed against crash to desk top, when maximum pilots has been reached and artificial intelligence requests a pilot. Done.
6) Modified routine that returns pilots to active duty, to allow slightly wounded pilots to fly, when game approaches maximum pilots. These pilots are assigned a hefty fatigue penalty. Done.
7) Reworked air search routines. Altitude is now more important than before. For best results, stay at or below 6,000 feet.
8) Submarines now have a chance to reduce the effects of air searches. If the skipper of the submarine makes a successful naval skill check, the air searcher gains less information about submarine location and type. In addition, the skipper may avoid an air attack. In this case, no anti-aircraft check is made and no bombing/depth charge attack is made. Instead, a message is posted, concerning the suspected submarine location.
9) Heavy bombers may now fire more of there guns than before. Done.
10) Air search at low altitudes is now a little better. Done.
11) When the game runs low on leaders, it will now clear out more dead leaders (this fixes the save sent by Michael M.). Done.
12) No pilot slots left, no pilots in this group, but pilots in other groups of same nationality that you can steal not working properly. Fixed.
13) Fixed broken linked list causing get pilot routine to fail.
14) Raised leader clearing triggers.
15) Land unit fragments can no longer be set by move all or follow all commands, to avoid disappearing unit issues, particularly when fragments still unloading from transports are included in a “follow” order.


Looks like "naval search" and sub detection by air is finally taken care of [;)]

Great stuff!!!

However,

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
9) Heavy bombers may now fire more of there guns than before. Done.

[8|]

Heavy bombers may now fire more of there guns than before. Done

Yeah indeed......[:(]

Now also incorperate a stacking limit for a MAX number of AC at a certain AF size.....

There is already a penalty for having to many aircraft at an airfield.

If it works, I love the new submarine function...........

There is already a penalty for having to many aircraft at an airfield.

Than make it bigger. I can fly 500 heavy's with 200 escorts from a level 5-6 AF without to much difficulties...

You can? How? I very very rapidly get my number of serviceable aircraft reduced, and very rarely get 'large' numbers of a/c to fly, if I greatly exceed the stated airfield limits. Consequently I've tended to self-limit myself.

'Large' in this context means '>100', assuming a size 5-6 a/f and 3 complete bomber groups plus some escorts. I'd guess there could be other factors coming into play, such as too few escorts, not enough supply, no HQ, but I've tried to cover those.

Steve.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

There is already a penalty for having to many aircraft at an airfield.

Yes, but it seems not to work well. It's just too simple to launch large airstrikes by simple overstacking. Under the current rule (9.4. in the manual) it is easy to launch a massive airstrike from (just as example) a level 4 AF. Strike will be reduced by 25% if more than 200 aircraft in a strike and by additional 25% if more than 400 aircraft. Simply station 800 aircraft and 400 (at least, differnt maths possible when applying rule 9.4.[8D]) will launch under otherwise optimal conditions (Air HQ, good leader, weather etc.).

Simple solutions would be (1) not a simple percentage reduction but an absolute strike capacity limit (absolute maximum of 50x AF size for missions) and/or (2) dropping of the more than 250 AV support = unlimited AV support.

Additional modifications that could improve air model: (1) CAP limit depending on aircraft size. Just as example: only 15 x AF size fighter planes may fly CAP from a given AF (with CV's counting as level 2 AF, CVL/CVE as level 1 AF?). (2) A CAP coordination rule (maybe in addition to (1)) depend ing on nationalty and year (including effects of radar etc.) that would have only a percentage of available CAP encountering enemy strikes. (3) A strike coordination rule for land bases (to have, together with (2), smaller strikes encounter smaller amounts of CAP).

K

I'd guess there could be other factors coming into play,

Just put plenty of AV support, an air HQ and supplies there. Then you will be able to fly upto 600 aircraft from it.....

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

I'd guess there could be other factors coming into play,

Just put plenty of AV support, an air HQ and supplies there. Then you will be able to fly upto 600 aircraft from it.....

And the rest of of my post said:

such as too few escorts, not enough supply, no HQ, but I've tried to cover those.

[;)] - and I'm not getting the same result, or not for long, any old how. Within a few days my squadrons are greatly reduced in effective strength. Oh well, I'm not really complaining since it's supposed to work that way!

Steve.

If you have to many aircraft at an airfield it will effect how many can be repaired and servicable I believe, no matter the amount of support ( by the way, unless they changed it at a certain point you dont need more support there is an upper limit, once reached all aircraft are servicable by support ) a 360 AV unit with out disruption has no need for any more AV, all serviceable aircraft , even those over 360 will be handled, though I believe airfield size effects that as well.

The number that used to be official was 50 times the airfield size.... a size 5 airfield begins to suffer penalties at 251 servicable aircraft. It goes down hill from there.

The game assumes a bit of abstraction. As a matter of point, a simple number to represent a field cant take into all variables anyway, abstraction occurs and game balance.

I dont want to become a REAL military logistician to play a War Game. The abstractions on port and airfield are ok with me. I spend enough time every turn in upkeep and mundane tasks as is.

There is a bit of a "be careful what you wish for" element there. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Honda

Great stuff!!!

However,

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
9) Heavy bombers may now fire more of there guns than before. Done.

[8|]

This means that the 4E bombers now shoot more Zeros down than in return.

9) Heavy bombers may now fire more of there guns than before. Done.

Wonderful!
Why don't add a sweep mission for B17s?
They work great against japanese CAP...

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

There is already a penalty for having to many aircraft at an airfield.

Yes, but it seems not to work well. It's just too simple to launch large airstrikes by simple overstacking. Under the current rule (9.4. in the manual) it is easy to launch a massive airstrike from (just as example) a level 4 AF. Strike will be reduced by 25% if more than 200 aircraft in a strike and by additional 25% if more than 400 aircraft. Simply station 800 aircraft and 400 (at least, differnt maths possible when applying rule 9.4.[8D]) will launch under otherwise optimal conditions (Air HQ, good leader, weather etc.).

Simple solutions would be (1) not a simple percentage reduction but an absolute strike capacity limit (absolute maximum of 50x AF size for missions)

I totally agree with the above

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

If you have to many aircraft at an airfield it will effect how many can be repaired and servicable I believe, no matter the amount of support ( by the way, unless they changed it at a certain point you dont need more support there is an upper limit, once reached all aircraft are servicable by support ) a 360 AV unit with out disruption has no need for any more AV, all serviceable aircraft , even those over 360 will be handled, though I believe airfield size effects that as well.

Over 250 it's all the same. You don't need more than 250, the game will not consider the 'extra'.
You can 'service' 2.000 planes with 250 aviation points.

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

9) Heavy bombers may now fire more of there guns than before. Done.

Wonderful!
Why don't add a sweep mission for B17s?
They work great against japanese CAP...

I thought there was an intention to make the 4E not to an all killing monster? Now they´re killing everything on the ground and also in the air!

Weren´t they overpowered enough?

ORIGINAL: castor troy
I thought there was an intention to make the 4E not to an all killing monster? Now they´re killing everything on the ground and also in the air!

Weren´t they overpowered enough?

Care to test out the changes everyone? It is a beta after all.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, seriously. There needs to be some sort of stacking rule on airfields. My personal suggestion is using the carrier rule (10% over and nothing flys) since the code is already in there. There are other possible solutions that make equal sense. But I think the majority of the people, and not just Jap-fanboys or just allied-fanboys want this.

I think there needs to be a land stacking rule also, but that isnt as easy of a fix as this is.

The problem with stacking in land combat is that the reaction time is too fast for the movement speed. You can change the direction of a Corps in the space of a day, making it very hard to properly "punish" someone for not maintaining a supply line.

In reality, the decision cycles is much longer than a day, it takes time to get large formations to change their direction of march, and an attacker could easily move around a defender that is not maintaining a at leat semi-continuous front of some kind.

So we get this system where the smart move is to mass, mass, mass. The normal dangers involved in amssing do not apply, yet all the benefits are there.