Hierarchy Module Document

[Curtis Lemay]

Now I move the returned units to the superior (they can't be subordinated at this point because only unmoved units can be subordinated):

(Note: even trying to subordinate them before caused a CTD. I had to make a fix to the Unit Report Dialog to stop that).

[Curtis Lemay]

But, after waiting one more turn, the units are at full MPs and can be subordinated to the superior again:

[Lobster]

I see there's a reduction in strength in the parent unit after all is said and done.

[Curtis Lemay]

I see there's a reduction in strength in the parent unit after all is said and done.

Supply had built up to 150% before the withdrawal events. Return drops it to 116%. Not sure why. Returned units are probably at 100%, so combining with the superior causes the overall drop? Edit: I moved the returns, so even if they returned with 150% the move would drop them to less than 100%.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've canceled Legacy bug #15 (possible issue with AAA). My tests show that AAA does operate from its AA_Range (confirmed by tracing via the debugger). This issue was raised by Steve on the Development Board and it was not unreasonable to do so, since the air attack he designed suffered practically no loss from Patriot batteries distributed at range. As best I can tell, Patriots are the best SAMs available too. The problem with his test was that he used Mig-29's as the attacking aircraft. The Mig-29 has a HUGE defense strength => very hard to shoot down. When lesser planes are used, the losses go up, showing the game is working ok. I'll detail the tests below.

[Curtis Lemay]

Here is the scenario that Steve designed with Mig-29s, except I've modified it to include three other air units armed with Mig-1s, Mig-15s, and Tu-20s. The target is the "Civ" unit in the middle of several ranged AAA units. The AAA units in the sea to the left are in range as well.

[Curtis Lemay]

Here are the test results (10 trials each). Note the very low figures for the Mig-29s. Easy to see why Steve thought there was a problem.

[Curtis Lemay]

There is one issue: Ranged AAA units are logged, but not to the Combat Report. It goes to one of the special logs (SitRep, TOAW, Uberdude, etc.). I think this is an issue. Using those logs can be seen as unfair since they are intended for testing the scenario not general game play. For this reason, I think the ranged AAA units need to be added to the Combat Report (and therefore to the Combat Chart). I don't know how hard that will be to do or even if I will have time to include it. We'll see.

[Lobster]

One thing this game has never modeled is operational losses.

[Curtis Lemay]

One thing this game has never modeled is operational losses.

Pestilence.

[Lobster]

Pestilence covers everything. Not a good substitute. Unless you modify it so you can have different pestilence for different unit types.

[sPzAbt653]

Easy to see why Steve thought there was a problem.

Losses weren't the point, I said in my report that the MiG-29 unit suffered losses. The issue was that there was no indication that any of all of the AAA units had fired. Having them included in the Combat Report would help with that, but there was also the issue that none of the AAA units used supply nor was their status changed to Veteran. There was also a possible issue with how parts of the Manual dealing with AAA units are worded.

[sPzAbt653]

One thing this game has never modeled is operational losses.

I tested this once, by moving units and monitoring losses to vehicles, which does happen. So if that's what you are talking about, it does occur [but these losses do go to the replacement que if the losing unit is in supply]. I don't think I tested air units though. That might be worth doing.

[Curtis Lemay]

Easy to see why Steve thought there was a problem.

Losses weren't the point, I said in my report that the MiG-29 unit suffered losses. The issue was that there was no indication that any of all of the AAA units had fired. Having them included in the Combat Report would help with that, but there was also the issue that none of the AAA units used supply nor was their status changed to Veteran. There was also a possible issue with how parts of the Manual dealing with AAA units are worded.

I agree that the AAA units need to be added to the Combat Report and will try to add that. I'm not sure that supply should be deducted due to the very short duration of AAA combat. I don't think Air Superiority combat consumes supply either, but if it does, AAA combat might justify the same deduction amount. Nor should they get veteran status since they, themselves, don't even come under fire.

[Curtis Lemay]

I agree that the AAA units need to be added to the Combat Report and will try to add that.

I've gotten started on the above. Note the Combat Report, below => Ranged AAA units are now in that report:

[Curtis Lemay]

And they appear in the Combat Chart as well. It just needs a bit more refinement. I want to change them from "D" to "AAA R#":

[Lobster]

One thing this game has never modeled is operational losses.

I tested this once, by moving units and monitoring losses to vehicles, which does happen. So if that's what you are talking about, it does occur [but these losses do go to the replacement que if the losing unit is in supply]. I don't think I tested air units though. That might be worth doing.

Yeah, it's the air units. In some scenarios where one side has massive superiority the losses are very small. Much smaller than they would be than if operational losses were implemented. Perhaps a pestilence for air units only? A portion to the replacement pool and the rest total losses. Not now because I'm sure it wouldn't be simple. But in the future, whenever that is.

[Lobster]

Easy to see why Steve thought there was a problem.

Losses weren't the point, I said in my report that the MiG-29 unit suffered losses. The issue was that there was no indication that any of all of the AAA units had fired. Having them included in the Combat Report would help with that, but there was also the issue that none of the AAA units used supply nor was their status changed to Veteran. There was also a possible issue with how parts of the Manual dealing with AAA units are worded.

I agree that the AAA units need to be added to the Combat Report and will try to add that. I'm not sure that supply should be deducted due to the very short duration of AAA combat. I don't think Air Superiority combat consumes supply either, but if it does, AAA combat might justify the same deduction amount. Nor should they get veteran status since they, themselves, don't even come under fire.

When the crews use the equipment they become more adept at using it. Efficiency is enhanced under combat conditions whether or not you are being shot at. You could say the same thing about each and every artillery unit. Rail artillery receives veteran status yet they would virtually never be shot at because of their long range. Same with ballistic rocket artillery. Does it get veteran status? Using equipment in a live combat role alone should give them veteran status. Training conditions are one thing. Combat conditions are quite another.
Also, if you use ammunition you should consume supply. AAA artillery uses a bunch of ammo. And SAMs are even more of an issue because it's not like you have a thousand rounds sitting around in boxes waiting to be launched. Strategic assets, for instance AAA covering a bridge, or SAMs had a fair amount of ammo available. But it still gets used up if the postition they are protecting gets attacked. But the fact that thay are static allows a 150% stockpile. So those units wouldn't be much of an issue. But the mobile AAA and missle batterieas do not have the same luxury.

[cathar1244]

I agree that the AAA units need to be added to the Combat Report and will try to add that. I'm not sure that supply should be deducted due to the very short duration of AAA combat.

Deduct supply. The AAA combat should reflect actions over time, not a tactical duel of guns versus aircraft. In scenarios with turns involving weeks or months, this is certainly valid.

[Curtis Lemay]

When the crews use the equipment they become more adept at using it. Efficiency is enhanced under combat conditions whether or not you are being shot at.

I could see proficiency increases, but that is different from becoming Veteran. That process is literally called "Seeing the Elephant" in the code. It only comes from coming under fire.

You could say the same thing about each and every artillery unit. Rail artillery receives veteran status yet they would virtually never be shot at because of their long range. Same with ballistic rocket artillery. Does it get veteran status? Using equipment in a live combat role alone should give them veteran status. Training conditions are one thing. Combat conditions are quite another.

If artillery is getting it without coming under counterbattery, then that's an issue.

Also, if you use ammunition you should consume supply. AAA artillery uses a bunch of ammo. And SAMs are even more of an issue because it's not like you have a thousand rounds sitting around in boxes waiting to be launched. Strategic assets, for instance AAA covering a bridge, or SAMs had a fair amount of ammo available. But it still gets used up if the postition they are protecting gets attacked. But the fact that thay are static allows a 150% stockpile. So those units wouldn't be much of an issue. But the mobile AAA and missle batterieas do not have the same luxury.

Time over target is very short for aircraft. I don't think the deduction should be different than the one for AS (Escort or CAP). Whatever that is should be about right. I'll have to check that, though.