Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 8:10:15 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
I may have missed something in all this discussion, but shouldn't the total firing passes as this is called here ONLY be related to the available fighters, means fighters that got ammo, fuel, no severe damage and enough time to intercept? So the number of fighters should be the basis, not a hardcoded number of firing passes because no matter how that hardcoded number looks like, it would near always be wrong.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1501
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/24/2012 8:12:25 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3487
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline
Michaelm

Has the TF Auto refuel system been changed in anyway recently? I'm continually getting TF arriving in port and not refueliing ,even though set to full refuel, where originally they did.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1502
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/24/2012 8:24:08 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Not that I am aware of.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 1503
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/24/2012 9:01:21 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3487
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline
Latest Beta

I've just spotted a ripe and apparently undefended level 4 port, 5 A/F for my SSTs and the Aus 2/9 Cav Cdo Bn (commanded by Col Blackburn VC). When I load a SST it will only do so in' strategic' mode. Surely the SST should load in 'combat' mode ala fast transports. This got me thinking about all those dot bases that the computer refuses to occupy. How can an SST land a unit on them?

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1504
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/24/2012 9:02:58 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3487
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Not that I am aware of.


OK, thanks.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1505
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/24/2012 11:34:12 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Latest Beta

I've just spotted a ripe and apparently undefended level 4 port, 5 A/F for my SSTs and the Aus 2/9 Cav Cdo Bn (commanded by Col Blackburn VC). When I load a SST it will only do so in' strategic' mode. Surely the SST should load in 'combat' mode ala fast transports. This got me thinking about all those dot bases that the computer refuses to occupy. How can an SST land a unit on them?


Sub transport need troops to be in Strat Mode, unless marked as Parachute in which they can load in Combat mode.
I traced some threads that spelled that out.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 1506
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 11:36:48 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I may have missed something in all this discussion, but shouldn't the total firing passes as this is called here ONLY be related to the available fighters, means fighters that got ammo, fuel, no severe damage and enough time to intercept? So the number of fighters should be the basis, not a hardcoded number of firing passes because no matter how that hardcoded number looks like, it would near always be wrong.


The upper limit was to stop the random selection process from continuing on until infinity if no flight was picked to engage another.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1507
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 12:47:45 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Have recently installed 1108r9 and entered this into the target box of the shortcut ("C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Beta2\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -fb -px1600 -py900) and yet I can't get AE to run in full screen (I have 1600x900 resolution on). Any ideas?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1508
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 12:56:21 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Is it -fb or -fd?
The 'fb' doesn't exist.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 1509
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 12:56:25 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Edit - all is fine when I load up a save. Strange. It's just on the menu it doesn't fill the screen!

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 1510
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 12:58:43 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Not sure if it fully blacks out the area around the fixed image of the menu screen.
At one stage it didn't do it at all.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 1511
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 1:30:27 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Hmm. Odd.

Thanks for all your hard work on AE Michael

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1512
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 2:06:14 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1918
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Have recently installed 1108r9 and entered this into the target box of the shortcut ("C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Beta2\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -fb -px1600 -py900) and yet I can't get AE to run in full screen (I have 1600x900 resolution on). Any ideas?






I run this: -f -px1920 -py1080 -altFont and my start screen is exactly like your but when I start my game it goes to the larger widescreen view.

Buck

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 1513
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 4:30:53 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14496
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Speedy, ditto what Buck said. Now go re-read Hitch-hikers' Guide to the Galaxy*.

* Sage advice: 1) Always bring a towel. 2) Don't Panic!


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1514
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 6:09:38 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1577
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
The upper limit was to stop the random selection process from continuing on until infinity if no flight was picked to engage another.


In that case shouldn't a limit per flight instead of a general limit be used?
So every flight can have his chance(or chances) and if they screw it it's over. With the general limit like it's now a lot don't even get a chance in those big fights.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 1/24/2012 6:10:24 PM >


_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club

"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1515
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 9:43:08 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
rader,

To be honest I don't care too much about what replaces it. I'm sure the community can come up with a reasonable model -- whether that's something which kicks in with a new algorithm as numbers rise or if that's breaking combat into portions less than 200 planes per side or whatever is up for discussion. Right now though it seems that the 200 interception limit is still beign stuck to so discussion of what could replace it seems a bit ahead of itself to me.


I'm more interested in establishing a sort of community view as to whether or not limiting interception firing passes to 200 is realistic.... why? Well, in my game I'm definitely going to try to mass strike aircraft on the basis that if I can get 600 to attack at one time 400 of them are guaranteed to get through no matter what the USN does.

I'm going to make some tests over the weekend of Japanese strikes vs multi-thousand fighter CAP so we can get some proper data with which to discuss this. With some proper data we can put this on a bit of a rational footing and explore the issues with the benefit of controlled, reproducable conditions.

This is also clearly what happened with some of your strikes vs Greyjoy and clearly points the way forward for you in that game.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/24/2012 9:49:49 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 1516
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 9:50:48 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6075
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

rader,

To be honest I don't care too much about what replaces it. I'm sure the community can come up with a reasonable model -- whether that's something which kicks in with a new algorithm as numbers rise or if that's breaking combat into portions less than 200 planes per side or whatever is up for discussion. Right now though it seems that the 200 interception limit is still beign stuck to so discussion of what could replace it seems a bit ahead of itself to me.


I'm more interested in establishing a sort of community view as to whether or not limiting interception firing passes to 200 is realistic.... why? Well, in my game I'm definitely going to try to mass strike aircraft on the basis that if I can get 600 to attack at one time 400 of them are guaranteed to get through no matter what the USN does.

I'm going to make some tests over the weekend of Japanese strikes vs multi-thousand fighter CAP so we can get some proper data with which to discuss this. With some proper data we can put this on a bit of a rational footing and explore the issues with the benefit of controlled, reproducable conditions.

This is also clearly what happened with some of your strikes vs Greyjoy and clearly points the way forward for you in that game.



But the new exe made my micheal doesn't already fix this issue? Am i wrong?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1517
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 10:09:48 PM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

rader,

To be honest I don't care too much about what replaces it. I'm sure the community can come up with a reasonable model -- whether that's something which kicks in with a new algorithm as numbers rise or if that's breaking combat into portions less than 200 planes per side or whatever is up for discussion. Right now though it seems that the 200 interception limit is still beign stuck to so discussion of what could replace it seems a bit ahead of itself to me.


I'm more interested in establishing a sort of community view as to whether or not limiting interception firing passes to 200 is realistic.... why? Well, in my game I'm definitely going to try to mass strike aircraft on the basis that if I can get 600 to attack at one time 400 of them are guaranteed to get through no matter what the USN does.

I'm going to make some tests over the weekend of Japanese strikes vs multi-thousand fighter CAP so we can get some proper data with which to discuss this. With some proper data we can put this on a bit of a rational footing and explore the issues with the benefit of controlled, reproducable conditions.

This is also clearly what happened with some of your strikes vs Greyjoy and clearly points the way forward for you in that game.



But the new exe made my micheal doesn't already fix this issue? Am i wrong?


No not really. It seems that there is a limit on the attack runs a defending CAP can do. For example if you have a 1000 planes on Cap and you face a 500 planes strike you are in serious trouble.

I had a similiar problem in my ongoing PBEM which is currently in 11/44. Faced similiar problems with my carrier CAP with may more than 1500 planes and it was impossible to defend against a 600 planes strike with 50% fighters and 50% bombers. Thought that the problem had to do something with fatigue, bad luck or just the CAP was not big enough. But if there is a hardcoded limit you run into late game problems. Btw. my game is a Scen 1 game and even there if the japanese just husband their planes for 2-3 months and then do a big strike you have a serious problem.

@Michaelm
Anyway Michaelm do you think it would be possible to use a player option (old style CAP / late game compatible CAP)
to have actually what the players want ? I understand that every early game player fears that any changes on the CAP system changes something drastic but currenty there is a problem late game. And i understand that usually most of the tests and optimizations are done for the first 1 to 2 years of the game. But now as quite a lot of players reach the lategame were the CAP sizes grow bigger and bigger it is not optimal.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 1518
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 11:00:16 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
GJ,

No, the new exe your game and mine is using helps tremendously in the fighter vs fighter round but it appears that as we've looked deeper we've uncovered a hard limit on the number of firing passes vs bombers. Basically whether you have 100 fighters on CAP or 2,000 you only get 200 firing passes vs bombers.

What this means for your CV TFs is that if you have 2,000 fighters on CAP and 800 unescorted bombers come in to attack you may well shoot down 200 of them ( assuming each firing pass results in a kill ) but the other 600 will be unintercepted because of the hard limit on firing passes. Those 600 bombers will then proceed to attack your CVs without being intercepted or fired upon by fighters. This explains why a lot of late-war scenarios were seeing devastating attacks on USN CV TFs in which large Japanese raids would continually "get through" no matter how much CAP the Allies had in the air.

Basically it is a simple numbers game. If Japan sends 800 planes to attack without any escort 600 of them are GUARANTEED to break through CAP and attack US shipping. That's simply the way the code works. This is why ( in your game and others ) when rader ( or others ) have attacked in large numbers so many of the planes have gotten through ( I'm sure you can think back to a few attacks where you had huge CAP but the bombers still got through --- that was probably in large part due to this hard limit on firing passes ).


I think the game has improved hugely over time and recently but sometimes this is the way things work.... As time passes and you fix one thing you actually uncover something else. That's not an attack on the game or anything, its just part of the process of iterating it to make it better with each iteration.


The reason Da Babes etc aren't seeing the problem is that most of their games appear to be early to mid-war games where you just don't see these large attacks. Your game and mine are late-war games in which masses kamikaze and massed normal strike group attacks are the norm and so that's why we've uncovered this. A few other late-war games ( based on postings here and elsewhere ) have also noted the problem but until now didn't know the reason why.


At present, for Japan, this changes the way you should play the late-war game. At present it totally makes sense for Japan to save up bombers and strike aircraft in order to launch massive raids over a single day such that they flood the defensive CAP with more than 200 strike craft. By doing that a large portion of bombers will always get through and it only takes 4 or 5 bad days for the USN CV TFs for them to be halved in number. For Japan giving the USN 4 or 5 bad days in 1944 is an eminently achievable goal (IMO of course ).


beppi,
I'm not sure we need a player switch because that would be open to conflict where one player might think switching to the new model was valid at a given time and the other wouldn't. I could foresee lots of disagreement. I think that, perhaps, all we need to do is scale the number of firing passes vs bombers based on the number of fighters intercepting.

What do I mean by that?
1. If you have 200 escorts and 200 bombers and 400 CAP fighters then the game would see a 1:1 ratio and use the current hard CAP of 200 firing passes on the assumption that 200 CAP fighters would tangle with 200 escorts and 200 would go for the bombers.

2. If you have 200 escorts and 200 bombers vs 800 CAP fighters then the game would assign 200 CAP fighters to tangle with the escorts and send 600 vs the bombers - yielding 600 firing passes.

Obviously those figures are just pulled out of the air but it shows how a system which compares CAP fighters to escorts + bombers could easily enough yield some sort of dynamic sliding scale where more CAP yields more firing passes.

I'm sure someone else can come up with a far better model though. I'm just using that to show how a dynamic model could be iterated towards.


Of course if anyone thinks a 200 firing pass hard limit is historically defensible then they should feel free to pipe up. It is important to consider all sides.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/24/2012 11:02:15 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 1519
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/24/2012 11:07:42 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6075
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Oh...that's more than scary nemo!

I will try some tests....

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1520
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 12:08:24 AM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

GJ,

No, the new exe your game and mine is using helps tremendously in the fighter vs fighter round but it appears that as we've looked deeper we've uncovered a hard limit on the number of firing passes vs bombers. Basically whether you have 100 fighters on CAP or 2,000 you only get 200 firing passes vs bombers.

What this means for your CV TFs is that if you have 2,000 fighters on CAP and 800 unescorted bombers come in to attack you may well shoot down 200 of them ( assuming each firing pass results in a kill ) but the other 600 will be unintercepted because of the hard limit on firing passes. Those 600 bombers will then proceed to attack your CVs without being intercepted or fired upon by fighters. This explains why a lot of late-war scenarios were seeing devastating attacks on USN CV TFs in which large Japanese raids would continually "get through" no matter how much CAP the Allies had in the air.

Basically it is a simple numbers game. If Japan sends 800 planes to attack without any escort 600 of them are GUARANTEED to break through CAP and attack US shipping. That's simply the way the code works. This is why ( in your game and others ) when rader ( or others ) have attacked in large numbers so many of the planes have gotten through ( I'm sure you can think back to a few attacks where you had huge CAP but the bombers still got through --- that was probably in large part due to this hard limit on firing passes ).


I think the game has improved hugely over time and recently but sometimes this is the way things work.... As time passes and you fix one thing you actually uncover something else. That's not an attack on the game or anything, its just part of the process of iterating it to make it better with each iteration.


The reason Da Babes etc aren't seeing the problem is that most of their games appear to be early to mid-war games where you just don't see these large attacks. Your game and mine are late-war games in which masses kamikaze and massed normal strike group attacks are the norm and so that's why we've uncovered this. A few other late-war games ( based on postings here and elsewhere ) have also noted the problem but until now didn't know the reason why.


At present, for Japan, this changes the way you should play the late-war game. At present it totally makes sense for Japan to save up bombers and strike aircraft in order to launch massive raids over a single day such that they flood the defensive CAP with more than 200 strike craft. By doing that a large portion of bombers will always get through and it only takes 4 or 5 bad days for the USN CV TFs for them to be halved in number. For Japan giving the USN 4 or 5 bad days in 1944 is an eminently achievable goal (IMO of course ).


beppi,
I'm not sure we need a player switch because that would be open to conflict where one player might think switching to the new model was valid at a given time and the other wouldn't. I could foresee lots of disagreement. I think that, perhaps, all we need to do is scale the number of firing passes vs bombers based on the number of fighters intercepting.

What do I mean by that?
1. If you have 200 escorts and 200 bombers and 400 CAP fighters then the game would see a 1:1 ratio and use the current hard CAP of 200 firing passes on the assumption that 200 CAP fighters would tangle with 200 escorts and 200 would go for the bombers.

2. If you have 200 escorts and 200 bombers vs 800 CAP fighters then the game would assign 200 CAP fighters to tangle with the escorts and send 600 vs the bombers - yielding 600 firing passes.

Obviously those figures are just pulled out of the air but it shows how a system which compares CAP fighters to escorts + bombers could easily enough yield some sort of dynamic sliding scale where more CAP yields more firing passes.

I'm sure someone else can come up with a far better model though. I'm just using that to show how a dynamic model could be iterated towards.


Of course if anyone thinks a 200 firing pass hard limit is historically defensible then they should feel free to pipe up. It is important to consider all sides.



Actually if i understood right the posting of michaelm it is not "that" harsh as you describe it.

Currently you have 200 firing passes. For each firing pass a group 1-8 planes fights another group of 1-8 planes. (michaelm described it as a maximum of 8 planes). So theoretical 1600 planes on each side (3200 total) can engage with the 200 firing passes BUT. this is the theoretic maximum. The problem for me is that a pass with 8 vs 8 planes does not kill or damage all 8 planes on each side. Usually 1 or maybe 2 planes get shot down, maybe another gets damaged or runs out of ammo.

And here it gets "problematic". Cause if you have a 700 planes strike against a 1400 defender cap it wil be impossible to completly defend against the strike. If you count 50% of the CAP are not out of position that are 700 planes. If you then say you have a warning time of 60 minutes each CAP plane should do much more than one firing pass. So if you say a pass takes 10 minutes each plane should be able to do 6 passes.

This would lead to a 700 * 6 to 4200 attacks. If you now count the optimum of 8 planes each pass you would need 525 passes to correctly fight the battle.

If you have 200 passes there can be 200 to 1600 engagements. If you say each plane can engage 6 times (just lets assume it) the CAP can handle 25 (worst, each group only has one plane) to 200 planes (optimum, each group has 8 planes always) on each side.

If you have 300 passes there can be 300 to 2400 engagements. So again the theoretic minum are only 37,5 planes for each side. The maxmimum here again are 300 planes for each side if you assume there should be 6 attacks. If you say that you just want 1 attack you can have from 300 to 2400 planes for each side. But 1 attack is not enough to bring down good numbers of attacker planes.

So i belive to understand the problem the devs tried to avoid. I do no think the "aspect" time is really possible during the calculations. So to limit each group from firing too often they used a hard cap which allows an maybe accurate simulation for small fights and scales to a limit. I understand that if you would just remove the cap each plan would fight each other until all planes are either damaged/destroyed/out of fuel/ammo.

So even small scale combat would lead to each sides pounding each in a quite ahistoric way. And i think that is the problem of the BigBabes players and that was the reason to ask for a switch. Basically you would need a "dynamic" rule depending on the size of the defender and even (for sweep) depending on the attacker size. I do not think that the problem is as easy to solve as someone might think. If you extend the firing passes to much you trash the early war small scale fights, if you keep it to low you screw the late war big attack hits big CAP scenarios.

Just to describe the effect:

Lest assume you have 160 attacker planes and 160 defender planes. We group the planes together in groups of 4 planes (the average between 1 and 8). And we have 200 firing passes. We assume each pass kills 0,1 planes, damages 0,2 planes and 0,1 plane drops out of combat. So we lose 0,5 planes each firing pass.

So we have 40(40 on each side, but always a group battles a group) groups, each group has 5 passes. So with a drop out rate of 0,5 planes each pass after the 5 passes we have 2,5 planes disabled and 1,5 planes each group are still ok. They fly home. Now if you unlimit the passes they fight until all 4 planes in each group are gone on both sides.

No limit basically (from my understanding) means that a fight goes on until all planes on one side are either destroyed or returned home for a reason. Even if that would take a very big amount of combat rounds. Again if you assume a round takes 10 minutes then you could have a fight which goes on for massive amounts of time.

Actually right now it is exactly the way for small scale combat. They fight until no fighting is possible as they will never run out of firing passes.

< Message edited by beppi -- 1/25/2012 12:25:25 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1521
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 12:14:05 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
beppi,
Hmm, that isn't the way I read it. I read a firing pass to mean a single plane vs single plane but drawn from 8 plane elements. Perhaps michael could clarify. Your reading does put a different spin on it.

I've been looking at my previous attacks vs CV TFs and I've never seen CAP ( no matter how large ) shoot down more than 200 strike planes. Has anyone?

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 1522
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 12:34:28 AM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

beppi,
Hmm, that isn't the way I read it. I read a firing pass to mean a single plane vs single plane but drawn from 8 plane elements. Perhaps michael could clarify. Your reading does put a different spin on it.

I've been looking at my previous attacks vs CV TFs and I've never seen CAP ( no matter how large ) shoot down more than 200 strike planes. Has anyone?


My estimations are just "how i understood it" an it is pure speculations.

But there have to be technical more than 200 firing passes. A firing pass does not lead to a killed plane. First you have to hit something. So if we assume that we have a 10% hit rate -> 200 planes just attacking would lead to a maximum of 20 killed planes. And then you have to take into account all other things which can happen (just damaged, engine cuts out, out of fuel, out of ammo and so on) which maybe reduces the hit rate even further.

Again i would be perfect if michaelm could clearify that point. But in the end i think there needs to be some sort of dynamic rule for firing passes. Cause either you screw up small scale combat or you screw up large scale combat.

< Message edited by beppi -- 1/25/2012 12:35:30 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1523
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 2:10:25 AM   
zuluhour


Posts: 3088
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Turn 359

message: failed to load
I did upload mod art but thought I already played a turn or two with it.
save attached

*the replay worked

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by zuluhour -- 1/25/2012 2:12:22 AM >

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 1524
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 3:21:44 AM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

Again i would be perfect if michaelm could clearify that point. But in the end i think there needs to be some sort of dynamic rule for firing passes. Cause either you screw up small scale combat or you screw up large scale combat.


Or you make all combats small combats, using only a portion of the CAP and offensive planes in each...

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 1525
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 7:33:27 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

beppi,
Hmm, that isn't the way I read it. I read a firing pass to mean a single plane vs single plane but drawn from 8 plane elements. Perhaps michael could clarify. Your reading does put a different spin on it.

I've been looking at my previous attacks vs CV TFs and I've never seen CAP ( no matter how large ) shoot down more than 200 strike planes. Has anyone?


The passes are by flights, and flights can contain a number of planes (usually 8 but can be fewer if losses taken). Each plane in a flight that engages gets a chance to 'fire'.

From Earlier post:
quote:


In basic terms, air battles are firstly between flights of 8 or less planes. These are the prime blocks for determining initial detection, combat rounds, etc.
Once 'flights' are deemed to be participating in combat, the combat is then between the individual planes within those flight.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1526
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 9:39:20 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Turn 359

message: failed to load
I did upload mod art but thought I already played a turn or two with it.
save attached

*the replay worked


Looks like an encryption error. I suspect that something happen to the save either when saving (but should have got an error) or while being sent/emailed. Sometimes files can be mangled in transit.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 1527
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 Ja... - 1/25/2012 12:44:24 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 3088
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Turn 359

message: failed to load
I did upload mod art but thought I already played a turn or two with it.
save attached

*the replay worked


Looks like an encryption error. I suspect that something happen to the save either when saving (but should have got an error) or while being sent/emailed. Sometimes files can be mangled in transit.

quote:

Looks like an encryption error. I suspect that something happen to the save either when saving (but should have got an error) or while being sent/emailed. Sometimes files can be mangled in transit.


Thanks michaelm, Terry resent file this morning and it loaded fine. I thought I may have mangled the files uploading art; I'm no whiz with the "machines". As always a very sincere thanks and sorry for panic.

Zulu HQ
Chief TWIT CnC

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1528
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/25/2012 1:12:33 PM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3487
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Latest Beta

I've just spotted a ripe and apparently undefended level 4 port, 5 A/F for my SSTs and the Aus 2/9 Cav Cdo Bn (commanded by Col Blackburn VC). When I load a SST it will only do so in' strategic' mode. Surely the SST should load in 'combat' mode ala fast transports. This got me thinking about all those dot bases that the computer refuses to occupy. How can an SST land a unit on them?


Sub transport need troops to be in Strat Mode, unless marked as Parachute in which they can load in Combat mode.
I traced some threads that spelled that out.


Missed that one but think it's wrong. These small commando units were used in small raids and should be capable of landing at an enemy base in combat mode.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1529
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 Ja... - 1/25/2012 1:31:50 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9056
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Latest Beta

I've just spotted a ripe and apparently undefended level 4 port, 5 A/F for my SSTs and the Aus 2/9 Cav Cdo Bn (commanded by Col Blackburn VC). When I load a SST it will only do so in' strategic' mode. Surely the SST should load in 'combat' mode ala fast transports. This got me thinking about all those dot bases that the computer refuses to occupy. How can an SST land a unit on them?


Sub transport need troops to be in Strat Mode, unless marked as Parachute in which they can load in Combat mode.
I traced some threads that spelled that out.


Missed that one but think it's wrong. These small commando units were used in small raids and should be capable of landing at an enemy base in combat mode.

True, but there currently isn't a 'commando' type unit defined. To make it load in combat mode, the unit would need to be designated as 'parachute' ie symbol = 13.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 1530
Page:   <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r8 updated 14 January 2012 (2nd part) Page: <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   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

0.133