Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 1:59:15 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Did the AT unit participate in the attack and did it evaporate? (it seems to be absent from the second screenshot) If so, this is how OPART has always worked. I distinctly recall it taking place in the first PBEM game I ever played. That would be back in the days of OPART I.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 9/29/2007 2:02:14 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 121
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 2:31:13 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 660
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Did the AT unit participate in the attack and did it evaporate? (it seems to be absent from the second screenshot) If so, this is how OPART has always worked.


Evaporated = Eliminated = Yes it did evaporate.

It’s been a couple of months, but as I recall the AT unit was only used as a blocking unit. Don’t know about the early days of OPART, but this is the only instance I have detected of a unit successfully breaking out of a total encirclement. Paragraph 7.18 (and some sub paragraphs) seems to be requesting that a “breakout” possibility be incorporated into the game engine.

Also, upon further review, the AT unit is in a green state of supply. I had initially thought it was a depleted unit, but that is obviously not the case.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 122
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 2:38:38 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
I hesitate to argue with a months-old memory of what might have been, but my guess is that the unit was actually participating in the attack, evaporated and then its absence allowed a retreat path for the artillery unit to take. I've seen that case many times, but I've NEVER seen a case where a non-participating unit suddenly got overrun during its own turn, by a retreating enemy unit.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 123
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 5:30:34 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I hesitate to argue with a months-old memory of what might have been, but my guess is that the unit was actually participating in the attack, evaporated and then its absence allowed a retreat path for the artillery unit to take. I've seen that case many times, but I've NEVER seen a case where a non-participating unit suddenly got overrun during its own turn, by a retreating enemy unit.


Maybe it should happen, though. It might be a change for the better.

As it is, it's 'we're surrounded and running out of ammo, general, what can we do?'

'Hmmm. Panzers to the right of us, panzers to the left of us. There is that reserve field bakery company holding the door closed behind us...but it's not participating in the attack. Damn!!!'

As I understand it, the program has the defender look at all the attacking stacks and attack the weakest. How hard would it be to get it to look at all adjacent stacks and attack the weakest?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 9/29/2007 5:53:41 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 124
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 6:45:42 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Maybe it should happen, though. It might be a change for the better.

As it is, it's 'we're surrounded and running out of ammo, general, what can we do?'

'Hmmm. Panzers to the right of us, panzers to the left of us. There is that reserve field bakery company holding the door closed behind us...but it's not participating in the attack. Damn!!!'

As I understand it, the program has the defender look at all the attacking stacks and attack the weakest. How hard would it be to get it to look at all adjacent stacks and attack the weakest?


I don't think the item in bold is true yet. Regardless, this is in the wishlist (7.19).

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 125
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 6:59:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boonierat

Could it be possible to prevent a unit of splitting in 3 when its airlifted from one friendly-controlled airfield to another? its annoying having to recombine them almost every time


See 6.10.

quote:

Also, I'm probably gonna start beating the proverbial dead horse again but is there any particular reason why limiting air units to 3/hex max has never been changed?


Well, 8.15 & 8.16 are similar.

(in reply to Boonierat)
Post #: 126
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/29/2007 11:05:56 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Maybe it should happen, though. It might be a change for the better.

As it is, it's 'we're surrounded and running out of ammo, general, what can we do?'

'Hmmm. Panzers to the right of us, panzers to the left of us. There is that reserve field bakery company holding the door closed behind us...but it's not participating in the attack. Damn!!!'

As I understand it, the program has the defender look at all the attacking stacks and attack the weakest. How hard would it be to get it to look at all adjacent stacks and attack the weakest?


I don't think the item in bold is true yet. Regardless, this is in the wishlist (7.19).


What does this '(7.19)' refer to? The thread only has five pages, and it only goes back to August 2007.

Anyway, I'm quite sure defenders will attack the weakest attacking stack already. At any rate, that AT unit popping is pretty typical. One of the first things I learned...


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 127
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 9/30/2007 1:56:22 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What does this '(7.19)' refer to? The thread only has five pages, and it only goes back to August 2007.

Download the file attached to the first post of this thread. That is the wishlist. Item 7.19 is an item on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Anyway, I'm quite sure defenders will attack the weakest attacking stack already. At any rate, that AT unit popping is pretty typical. One of the first things I learned...

The defender is not going to fire at a unit that is not attacking it. The AT unit is grade A, prime beef, for an artillery unit - but only if it is part of the attack. The passive defenders in the AT unit are subject to bombardment losses, and AP fire before they can get off their first shot, and so it's not unlikely at all that the unit would evaporate if it were committed to that attack. Then, the retreat path would be opened for the artillery unit to run through, after the flank attack against it by the remaining units that are shown to have advanced into the hex is executed.

I think that there is a confusion of cause and effect in Rhinobones' description of the situation here.


< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 9/30/2007 1:58:07 AM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 128
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 7:03:34 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
I'm sitting here testing various series of events numbered between 571 and 720 or so. Go to game, find a bug, go back to the editor and find (hopefully) the cause, go to game, find...

It would be GREAT if there was a way in the event editor to skip to a specific event -- or at least to skip to the last defined event. It's getting really tedious scrolling through six hundred events every fifteen minutes.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 129
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 9:03:20 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
..could AA-units participate as defence in Airfield Attacks ?

..Airforces across the world park them on airfields for this purpose, it seems odd they are no use in toaw..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 130
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 9:13:49 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
. . . i'm at 6N 124E


Looked it up, nice place to launch satellites into synchronous orbit. That probably explains some of the experimenting . . . the elephants too.

Regards, RhinoBones

I'd love to retire in a place like that.


..got electricity, mains water, the internet, dusky maidens, and an organic food source (meat, veggie and fruit). In this day of electronic workplaces maybe Matrix could move their Toaw develoment office here ??


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to ralphtrick)
Post #: 131
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 9:16:17 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..could AA-units participate as defence in Airfield Attacks ?

..Airforces across the world park them on airfields for this purpose, it seems odd they are no use in toaw..


I wonder if they defend against bridge attacks now.

...kind of comic if they can't. AA would now be wildly effective -- except in two of its primary roles.

Anyway, someday someone has got to accept that the primary way in which AA exerts an effect is not to shoot down aircraft. It's to reduce the effectiveness of their attacks.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 132
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 9:19:00 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..could AA-units participate as defence in Airfield Attacks ?

..Airforces across the world park them on airfields for this purpose, it seems odd they are no use in toaw..


I wonder if they defend against bridge attacks now.

...kind of comic if they can't. AA would now be wildly effective -- except in two of its primary roles.

Anyway, someday someone has got to accept that the primary way in which AA exerts an effect is not to shoot down aircraft. It's to reduce the effectiveness of their attacks.


..as far as i can see they do a good job in attacks on a hex and thats all..


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 133
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 10:51:01 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..could AA-units participate as defence in Airfield Attacks ?

..Airforces across the world park them on airfields for this purpose, it seems odd they are no use in toaw..


I wonder if they defend against bridge attacks now.

...kind of comic if they can't. AA would now be wildly effective -- except in two of its primary roles.

Anyway, someday someone has got to accept that the primary way in which AA exerts an effect is not to shoot down aircraft. It's to reduce the effectiveness of their attacks.


..as far as i can see they do a good job in attacks on a hex and thats all..



They mow down attacking aircraft now -- one has to hack the hell out of the AA values to get anything resembling historical results.

Really, I'd like to see the following.

1. A reduction in AA values to produce historical losses to flak.

2. An AA effect that would divide the attacking strength of the aircraft in a given combat by the value of the AA present. This should probably not be linear: even a few flak guns would reduce the effectiveness of attacking aircraft as compared to their effectiveness if the target has no AA strength at all. Offhand, I'd about double the effectiveness of aircraft given no flak -- but have it rather rapidly fall to about half of its present value given even modest quantities of flak. The effect should -- if anything -- be increased for bridge attacks. No AA guns at a bridge, and bombing it is a training exercise. A couple of batteries and it becomes pretty hard to just concentrate on coming in low and straight and hitting that bridge dead-on. Flak should also affect the effectiveness of interdiction strikes and -- of course -- affect the effectiveness of airfield attacks.

3. Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage. Most times, most places, AA units did not participate in ground combat. It should be possible to choose this option for one side but not the other. For example, it was rare for the British to employ their flak units in ground combat before 1944. The Germans, on the other hand, used them in this role extensively from the word go. Moreover, and regardless of doctrine, flak often simply wasn't in a position to participate in ground battles. For example, if we had a 20 km hex scenario that included the German Sedan crossing in 1940, there was a ton of flak in the Sedan hex on May 14. That doesn't mean it was up supporting Grossdeutschland, though. It was mostly several km from the line, guarding the pontoon bridge over the Meuse. So unless one side enjoys virtual air supremacy, it's fairly unrealistic to allow flak to use its full firepower in ground combat. Even if it's in the hex, a lot of the time it's not at the actual front.





_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 134
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 3:39:16 PM   
Erik Nygaard

 

Posts: 566
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
3. Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage....


I often put AA units in separate formations with their own icon colour combination (= own airforce) and on internal support.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 135
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 4:13:45 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

I often put AA units in separate formations with their own icon colour combination (= own airforce) and on internal support.


Yeah. However, this is hardly an ideal solution, and increases the problem of ant units.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Erik Nygaard)
Post #: 136
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 8:45:16 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
3. Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage....


I often put AA units in separate formations with their own icon colour combination (= own airforce) and on internal support.



Yeah -- I had done that in Seelowe up until recently. Thing is, then you want to keep them away from the front entirely, as having uncooperative units in a stack will adversely affect its performance on defence.

The update to OPART III forced me to go through all the AA values. As long as I was having at the 40 mm Bofors, I figured I might as well give it an AP value of 0 and recolor the British AA units so as to make them cooperative. Now the Brit can stick his AA units in front-line stacks and gain some AA protection without negative consequences.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/1/2007 8:55:31 PM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Erik Nygaard)
Post #: 137
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 11:40:07 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
2. An AA effect that would divide the attacking strength of the aircraft in a given combat by the value of the AA present. This should probably not be linear: even a few flak guns would reduce the effectiveness of attacking aircraft as compared to their effectiveness if the target has no AA strength at all. Offhand, I'd about double the effectiveness of aircraft given no flak -- but have it rather rapidly fall to about half of its present value given even modest quantities of flak. The effect should -- if anything -- be increased for bridge attacks. No AA guns at a bridge, and bombing it is a training exercise. A couple of batteries and it becomes pretty hard to just concentrate on coming in low and straight and hitting that bridge dead-on. Flak should also affect the effectiveness of interdiction strikes and -- of course -- affect the effectiveness of airfield attacks.


See item 8.12 in the wishlist. But it would seem to me that if a plane is sent to the "on hand" pool by Flak, then that's a similar effect, just less subtle. The planes weren't destroyed, they just didn't get to drop their bombs.

quote:

3. Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage. Most times, most places, AA units did not participate in ground combat. It should be possible to choose this option for one side but not the other. For example, it was rare for the British to employ their flak units in ground combat before 1944. The Germans, on the other hand, used them in this role extensively from the word go. Moreover, and regardless of doctrine, flak often simply wasn't in a position to participate in ground battles. For example, if we had a 20 km hex scenario that included the German Sedan crossing in 1940, there was a ton of flak in the Sedan hex on May 14. That doesn't mean it was up supporting Grossdeutschland, though. It was mostly several km from the line, guarding the pontoon bridge over the Meuse. So unless one side enjoys virtual air supremacy, it's fairly unrealistic to allow flak to use its full firepower in ground combat. Even if it's in the hex, a lot of the time it's not at the actual front.


You can delete the Flak equipment's AP value in the equipment editor if you want.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 10/1/2007 11:42:39 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 138
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/1/2007 11:43:21 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm sitting here testing various series of events numbered between 571 and 720 or so. Go to game, find a bug, go back to the editor and find (hopefully) the cause, go to game, find...

It would be GREAT if there was a way in the event editor to skip to a specific event -- or at least to skip to the last defined event. It's getting really tedious scrolling through six hundred events every fifteen minutes.


You can use the F6/F7 thing. You need an XML editor, though.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 139
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/2/2007 5:11:45 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
2. An AA effect that would divide the attacking strength of the aircraft in a given combat by the value of the AA present. This should probably not be linear: even a few flak guns would reduce the effectiveness of attacking aircraft as compared to their effectiveness if the target has no AA strength at all. Offhand, I'd about double the effectiveness of aircraft given no flak -- but have it rather rapidly fall to about half of its present value given even modest quantities of flak. The effect should -- if anything -- be increased for bridge attacks. No AA guns at a bridge, and bombing it is a training exercise. A couple of batteries and it becomes pretty hard to just concentrate on coming in low and straight and hitting that bridge dead-on. Flak should also affect the effectiveness of interdiction strikes and -- of course -- affect the effectiveness of airfield attacks.


See item 8.12 in the wishlist. But it would seem to me that if a plane is sent to the "on hand" pool by Flak, then that's a similar effect, just less subtle. The planes weren't destroyed, they just didn't get to drop their bombs.


That's a pretty lame rationalization. This happens with all losses. What I'm talking about is that even if -- say -- only 5% percent of the planes on a sortie become OPART 'losses' due to flak, bombing effectiveness should drop by 50% or so.

An excellent example is those sorties against the British warships off Crete. Now, I haven;t been able to locate German losses to flak -- but they apparently weren't severe. Certainly nothing like what OPART III would produce. However, as long as the British were able to keep up their flak umbrella, their losses were fairly modest. Once they ran out of ammunition, though, they were promptly slaughtered.

Flak doesn't shoot down planes: it wrecks their aim. That's an overstatement -- but it's the gist of what needs to be simulated.
quote:



quote:

3. Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage. Most times, most places, AA units did not participate in ground combat. It should be possible to choose this option for one side but not the other. For example, it was rare for the British to employ their flak units in ground combat before 1944. The Germans, on the other hand, used them in this role extensively from the word go. Moreover, and regardless of doctrine, flak often simply wasn't in a position to participate in ground battles. For example, if we had a 20 km hex scenario that included the German Sedan crossing in 1940, there was a ton of flak in the Sedan hex on May 14. That doesn't mean it was up supporting Grossdeutschland, though. It was mostly several km from the line, guarding the pontoon bridge over the Meuse. So unless one side enjoys virtual air supremacy, it's fairly unrealistic to allow flak to use its full firepower in ground combat. Even if it's in the hex, a lot of the time it's not at the actual front.


You can delete the Flak equipment's AP value in the equipment editor if you want.


Yeah -- and I do. Ideally, however, one shouldn't have to resort to the editor for what was in fact a common situation -- flak not being used at the front, either out of doctrinal rigidity or because it had better things to do.

Flak needs a major rethink in OPART. It's not especially useful to just dig in your heels and insist everything's fine.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/2/2007 5:15:58 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 140
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 4:55:19 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See item 8.12 in the wishlist. But it would seem to me that if a plane is sent to the "on hand" pool by Flak, then that's a similar effect, just less subtle. The planes weren't destroyed, they just didn't get to drop their bombs.


That's a pretty lame rationalization. This happens with all losses. What I'm talking about is that even if -- say -- only 5% percent of the planes on a sortie become OPART 'losses' due to flak, bombing effectiveness should drop by 50% or so.

An excellent example is those sorties against the British warships off Crete. Now, I haven;t been able to locate German losses to flak -- but they apparently weren't severe. Certainly nothing like what OPART III would produce. However, as long as the British were able to keep up their flak umbrella, their losses were fairly modest. Once they ran out of ammunition, though, they were promptly slaughtered.

Flak doesn't shoot down planes: it wrecks their aim. That's an overstatement -- but it's the gist of what needs to be simulated.


As I said, there may be a case for a more subtle effect. But no one knows exactly what that effect should be. You haven't provided any hard data on that. And the effect that exists now (that I mentioned above) will be mixed in with it.

The bottom line is what kind of losses are effected on both the defenders and the air units under flak conditions. We need test scenarios that model known situations. (And, for the record, I've posted one on the development board - I can't really do that here).

quote:

Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage.

quote:

You can delete the Flak equipment's AP value in the equipment editor if you want.


Yeah -- and I do. Ideally, however, one shouldn't have to resort to the editor for what was in fact a common situation -- flak not being used at the front, either out of doctrinal rigidity or because it had better things to do.


Above you say it should be a designer option. Here you say it should be imposed by fiat. Which is it?

As I see it, it must be a designer option. And that's exactly what the equipment editor provides. Nothing else is required.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 141
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 8:50:15 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See item 8.12 in the wishlist. But it would seem to me that if a plane is sent to the "on hand" pool by Flak, then that's a similar effect, just less subtle. The planes weren't destroyed, they just didn't get to drop their bombs.


That's a pretty lame rationalization. This happens with all losses. What I'm talking about is that even if -- say -- only 5% percent of the planes on a sortie become OPART 'losses' due to flak, bombing effectiveness should drop by 50% or so.

An excellent example is those sorties against the British warships off Crete. Now, I haven;t been able to locate German losses to flak -- but they apparently weren't severe. Certainly nothing like what OPART III would produce. However, as long as the British were able to keep up their flak umbrella, their losses were fairly modest. Once they ran out of ammunition, though, they were promptly slaughtered.

Flak doesn't shoot down planes: it wrecks their aim. That's an overstatement -- but it's the gist of what needs to be simulated.


As I said, there may be a case for a more subtle effect. But no one knows exactly what that effect should be. You haven't provided any hard data on that. And the effect that exists now (that I mentioned above) will be mixed in with it.

The bottom line is what kind of losses are effected on both the defenders and the air units under flak conditions. We need test scenarios that model known situations. (And, for the record, I've posted one on the development board - I can't really do that here).

quote:

Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage.

quote:

You can delete the Flak equipment's AP value in the equipment editor if you want.


Yeah -- and I do. Ideally, however, one shouldn't have to resort to the editor for what was in fact a common situation -- flak not being used at the front, either out of doctrinal rigidity or because it had better things to do.


Above you say it should be a designer option. Here you say it should be imposed by fiat. Which is it?

As I see it, it must be a designer option. And that's exactly what the equipment editor provides. Nothing else is required.


I'm not going through this again. To me, the problems with flak are roughly as obvious as sunrise. If you insist on denying them, knock yourself out. OPART III will be that much worse a game, but realistically, there's not much I can do about that.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/3/2007 8:56:10 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 142
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 11:10:36 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2364
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

< Message edited by a white rabbit -- 10/3/2007 11:14:58 AM >


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 143
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 12:17:04 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..


There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

See the Seelowe thread at TDG. The figures are way out of line. If one reran the 1940 strike on the Meuse bridges, for example, it wouldn't be a matter of a third of the strike aircraft being shot down between the fighters and the flak -- the fighter pilots can go get coffee. In OPART, the German flak would suffice to shoot down every attacking aircraft ten times over by itself -- and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

For the time being, I've divided the AA values by anywhere from three to five, and losses are still suspiciously heavy.

The essence of the problem is that OPART doesn't reflect the primary effect of flak -- it plays hell with the aim. So we get flak that either (a) has little value at all, or (b) achieves its effect in entirely the wrong way. Flak in OPART is never going to work right if it simply functions by shooting down planes.

_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to a white rabbit)
Post #: 144
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 7:14:06 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'm not going through this again. To me, the problems with flak are roughly as obvious as sunrise. If you insist on denying them, knock yourself out. OPART III will be that much worse a game, but realistically, there's not much I can do about that.


The solution is certainly not "as obvious as sunrise". Someone is actually going to have to program exactly what it is you want. If you can't even spell that out it's never going to happen. And whatever change we make will have to first demonstrate that it produces historical results in rigourous test scenarios before it is released.

Whatever effect we implement for flak vs aircraft, it will have to demonstrate that the right number of planes are lost and the right number of targets are destroyed in a suite of test situations.

As to zeroing the AP of flak, I don't want that imposed on my scenarios, unless I specifically choose to do so in the editor (and that we can do now with the equipment editor). There are other, better, ways to deal with it:

1. See Germany 1945. Units are split between front-line and rear-area components. The rear-area part has the AAA and, in the Allied case, is debilitated from being useful in the front lines (via movement allowance). So Allied AAA can't be used offensively. But, if the Germans break into the Allied rear (say in a Bulge offensive) they will bump into the rear-area forces, where their defense strength will be augmented by AAA equipment.

2. See CFNA or France 1944. Very high movement allowances mean high cost to convert enemy hexes - unless the unit has significant recon included. Rear-area units like flak and HQs lack it, while front-line units like armor and recon have it. Again, spearheads have to be front-line elements while enemy penetrations still run into rear-area strength.

If, instead, you zero the AP of AAA, then if the enemy ever hits the rear-areas there won't be as much strength in that area as there should be.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 145
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 7:19:24 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..


There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

See the Seelowe thread at TDG. The figures are way out of line. If one reran the 1940 strike on the Meuse bridges, for example, it wouldn't be a matter of a third of the strike aircraft being shot down between the fighters and the flak -- the fighter pilots can go get coffee. In OPART, the German flak would suffice to shoot down every attacking aircraft ten times over by itself -- and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

For the time being, I've divided the AA values by anywhere from three to five, and losses are still suspiciously heavy.

The essence of the problem is that OPART doesn't reflect the primary effect of flak -- it plays hell with the aim. So we get flak that either (a) has little value at all, or (b) achieves its effect in entirely the wrong way. Flak in OPART is never going to work right if it simply functions by shooting down planes.


Some things to keep in mind for this debate...

TOAW III does abstract the aiming issue that Colin raises, by the different proportion applied to "return to inventory:losses" in the disabled results for airframe equipment. That higher proportion of returned equipment, relative to other equipment, represents damaged airframes, as well as those pilots who drop their loads off target.

Much testing needs to be done to get the numbers "right".

The "right" numbers are themselves in question. The cases being raised are, in themselves, statistical "outliers" which do not represent normal operations. The attack on Taranto achieved a good level of tactical surprise. Saying that the results, in losses to ships and or aircraft is somehow typical is like claiming that the Pearl Harbor attack was typical of WWII Pacific naval operations. How to model these eminently historical, but atypical tactical results in an operational game might generate an entire new subsection in the Wishlist.

Further regarding the right numbers, the testing must be set up rigorously and take into account a variety of AA values, proficiency, readiness, environmental, attrition divider, and hex-scale (density) settings. They must take into account, losses and return to inventory. They must be run with enough repetition to generate a good base of results. Averages and the range of the data is important, as well as the distribution of the outliers. The funny thing is though, the test data would likely be more comprehensive than the historical results of the last century, and as above, interpretation of what should be considered a "good correlation" is subject to some debate.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 10/3/2007 7:21:58 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 146
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 7:19:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7107
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..


There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.


I'm going to see if I can get my AAA thread moved here from the development board. I actually simulated Taranto (sort of). It's difficult because the ships were in port and it was at night. Hard to know just how to model those factors. Regardless, it didn't really work until the AD was up to 50.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 147
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 7:22:38 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..


There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.


I'm going to see if I can get my AAA thread moved here from the development board. I actually simulated Taranto (sort of). It's difficult because the ships were in port and it was at night. Hard to know just how to model those factors. Regardless, it didn't really work until the AD was up to 50.


Done.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 148
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 9:38:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2600
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..


There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

See the Seelowe thread at TDG. The figures are way out of line. If one reran the 1940 strike on the Meuse bridges, for example, it wouldn't be a matter of a third of the strike aircraft being shot down between the fighters and the flak -- the fighter pilots can go get coffee. In OPART, the German flak would suffice to shoot down every attacking aircraft ten times over by itself -- and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

For the time being, I've divided the AA values by anywhere from three to five, and losses are still suspiciously heavy.

The essence of the problem is that OPART doesn't reflect the primary effect of flak -- it plays hell with the aim. So we get flak that either (a) has little value at all, or (b) achieves its effect in entirely the wrong way. Flak in OPART is never going to work right if it simply functions by shooting down planes.


Some things to keep in mind for this debate...

TOAW III does abstract the aiming issue that Colin raises, by the different proportion applied to "return to inventory:losses" in the disabled results for airframe equipment. That higher proportion of returned equipment, relative to other equipment, represents damaged airframes, as well as those pilots who drop their loads off target.


Are you stating that more aircraft are returned to the pool if losses are inflicted by flak than if by other aircraft? More than the half that is returned for losses suffered by other types of equipment?

It did just occur to me that if reducing the effectiveness of aircraft by the amount of flak in a hex imposed insuperable programming problems, that increasing the proportion of 'losses' returned to the pool might offer an alternative approach?
quote:


quote:



Much testing needs to be done to get the numbers "right".

The "right" numbers are themselves in question. The cases being raised are, in themselves, statistical "outliers" which do not represent normal operations. The attack on Taranto achieved a good level of tactical surprise. Saying that the results, in losses to ships and or aircraft is somehow typical is like claiming that the Pearl Harbor attack was typical of WWII Pacific naval operations. How to model these eminently historical, but atypical tactical results in an operational game might generate an entire new subsection in the Wishlist.
quote:



I don't think the results at Taranto are especially atypical. The message seems the same as that in the results obtained at the Sedan bridgehead and everywhere else I've looked: flak losses are way too heavy. Just set up the Schweinfurt raid or something. I'll bet the Germans won't need to put a fighter into the sky: I imagine the flak at Schweinfurt will blow all three hundred B-17's out of the sky.
quote:





Further regarding the right numbers, the testing must be set up rigorously and take into account a variety of AA values, proficiency, readiness, environmental, attrition divider, and hex-scale (density) settings. They must take into account, losses and return to inventory. They must be run with enough repetition to generate a good base of results. Averages and the range of the data is important, as well as the distribution of the outliers. The funny thing is though, the test data would likely be more comprehensive than the historical results of the last century, and as above, interpretation of what should be considered a "good correlation" is subject to some debate.


Yeah. I'm certainly not arguing that numbers should just be pulled out of a hat. However, I'd insist that the results we're getting now are totally out to lunch: we've got nowhere to go but up.

Anyway, I see three approaches.

1. As you seem to imply currently happens, a gretly increased proportion of all 'losses' could be returned to the pool. 90%? 95%? The number would need to be researched.

2. Divide the attacking strength by the amount of flak in the target hex. As I discussed, the effect should not be linear: even a few flak pieces should seriously attenuate the effectiveness of bombers, or to put the same point differently, troops without any flak at all are really at the mercy of attacking aircraft.

3. If this is impossible, it should be practical to make the presence of any unit with a flak icon have the same effect on bombing effectiveness as clouds. Obviously, this would be a rough approximation, but it would be an improvement over the current situation, and the programming requirements would seem to be minimal.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 10/4/2007 12:20:07 AM >


_____________________________

"...this country belongs to us, to the white man."

-- Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, interview published on 6/3/2012. Interesting world.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 149
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 10/3/2007 11:17:57 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Are you stating that more aircraft are returned to the pool if losses are inflicted by flak than if by other aircraft? More than the half that is returned for losses suffered by other types of equipment?

It did just occur to me that if reducing the effectiveness of aircraft by the amount of flak in a hex imposed insuperable programming problems, that increasing the proportion of 'losses' returned to the pool might offer an alternative approach?

The amount returned to on hand for other types of equipment is approximately 33%. The amount returned to on hand for air and naval is approximately equal to the unit proficiency. All are subject to randomization, and differences induced by unsupplied conditions and evaporation dumps.


< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 10/3/2007 11:20:46 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125