Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air coordination in 1120b

 
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 >> Air coordination in 1120b Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 11:19:51 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Michael, it seems like the coordination issues we reported earlier are still present in the latest BETA.

All leaders are between 58 and 65 in skill. AirHQ present at the originating base with a leader having Air skill of 68.

Could you please, please have a look at this again? Besides the possible major balancing issues there is really not much fun having to press escape 17(!) times for a single air raid.

I would happily have continued with the official patch but I desperately needed the fix for the HQ fragmentation bug.

Before we upgraded to the BETA strikes like this would fragment in two or three different strikes. Directly after the upgrade we got this. 17 fragments.

quote:

Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 18
LB-30 Liberator x 3
B-24D Liberator x 30
B-24D1 Liberator x 51
B-24J Liberator x 6
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 63

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x LB-30 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 56 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 11
B-25D1 Mitchell x 18

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 11

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 27 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 3 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 9

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 73 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 25 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 52 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 50 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Runway hits 6

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 52 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 8 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 9

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 61 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Allied aircraft
LB-30 Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x LB-30 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 25 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 8

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 43 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 22 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby , at 98,130

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D1 Liberator x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
Post #: 1
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 11:32:48 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
If no "fix" for this is possible is there any chance for a separate release with only pure bug fixes like the HQ fragment bug? I understand this would add a huge amount of workload on you but I thought I would ask anyway.

Cheers,
J

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 2
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 11:51:45 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6149
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Joc, i don't know, but i've always (and i mean ALWAYS) seen these results, even 20 months ago. I remember when i was bombing Tokyo against Rader... normally i had 2 big groups and then a series of little groups of B29s flying alone.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 12:36:52 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
GJ,

I have never seen this before in neither of my two PBEMs. I´ve dug up an older combat report with exactly the same planes involved from exactly the same airbase. Some squadrons are on a percentage of rest the numbers are a little bit different.

And this is even in Thunderstorms... The differences are strikingly obvious. If my drive hadn´t crashed I could probably dig up 30-40 CRs like this.

Something is without any doubt very, very different in the BETA. Whatever michaelm thought he did to fix it didn´t work. At least not fully.

quote:

Morning Air attack on Salamaua , at 98,127

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 24



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 44
LB-30 Liberator x 3
B-24D Liberator x 52
B-24D1 Liberator x 99
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 12


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 2 damaged



Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 85

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x LB-30 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 5 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
204 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (24 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(24 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
24 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on Salamaua , at 98,127

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
LB-30 Liberator x 9


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
LB-30 Liberator: 7 damaged



Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x LB-30 Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
204 Ku S-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 160 minutes



(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 4
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 12:53:19 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9114
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I can't put the bug back into code. The bug was causing the raids to almost always be coordinated.

If you have a specific save and details, I can look at your case and see why it comes out that way.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 5
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 1:01:02 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5713
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Joc,

Your 2nd example is of incredible coordination.  Never seen it and glad my opponent hasn't ever gotten those rolls.  1 in a million in the 40's for that to have happened.  Multiple services, multiple a/c at differing cruise speeds, multiple HQ's (I suspect) ... I've never been able to accomplish that.  Heck, I can't even get Betty's and Nells to coordinate that good, and they are far more compatible, but still 23 kts differnt cruising spd (196 v 173).

Heck you've got 223, 200, and 186 for cruising spds ... that's a big difference alone.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 1:41:49 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12264
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Joc, i don't know, but i've always (and i mean ALWAYS) seen these results, even 20 months ago. I remember when i was bombing Tokyo against Rader... normally i had 2 big groups and then a series of little groups of B29s flying alone.



same here, that kind of fragmentation is what is called the enhanced strike routine or whatever they did the commercials with and it has been in the game since day one. The bigger the strikes in total, the more of those < squadron size fragments you will see coming in after the first two or three "normal" sized waves.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 7
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 2:09:07 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Joc,

Your 2nd example is of incredible coordination.  Never seen it and glad my opponent hasn't ever gotten those rolls.  1 in a million in the 40's for that to have happened.  Multiple services, multiple a/c at differing cruise speeds, multiple HQ's (I suspect) ... I've never been able to accomplish that.  Heck, I can't even get Betty's and Nells to coordinate that good, and they are far more compatible, but still 23 kts differnt cruising spd (196 v 173).

Heck you've got 223, 200, and 186 for cruising spds ... that's a big difference alone.


Hey Pax,

I have heard cruising speeds can affect the coordination, but then if that is true, I'm curious why all of the types of 4E present in the first strikes come in later strikes as well? If the speed of various models is causing coordination issues is the engine just then throwing random groups out of the main body or does this directly relate to cruise speeds in some way? Seems pretty random in this case and in our previous tests.

Jocke's strikes have always managed good coordination. If this was due to a bug, (which I guess I didn't even realize was the case, but Michael seems to be saying this above in his post), then other Allied players must have been benefitting from this as well.

The question is really, what is it supposed to look like? What were the bug fixes supposed to produce? Only Michael can really answer this I'm thinking.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 8
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 2:13:47 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can't put the bug back into code. The bug was causing the raids to almost always be coordinated.

If you have a specific save and details, I can look at your case and see why it comes out that way.


Michael,

So this kind of fragmentation is whats it supposed to be? 15-20 fragments from a single strike or is this something else?

I have attached the save from just before the strike.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 9
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 7:25:01 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5713
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Joc,

Your 2nd example is of incredible coordination.  Never seen it and glad my opponent hasn't ever gotten those rolls.  1 in a million in the 40's for that to have happened.  Multiple services, multiple a/c at differing cruise speeds, multiple HQ's (I suspect) ... I've never been able to accomplish that.  Heck, I can't even get Betty's and Nells to coordinate that good, and they are far more compatible, but still 23 kts differnt cruising spd (196 v 173).

Heck you've got 223, 200, and 186 for cruising spds ... that's a big difference alone.


Hey Pax,

I have heard cruising speeds can affect the coordination, but then if that is true, I'm curious why all of the types of 4E present in the first strikes come in later strikes as well? If the speed of various models is causing coordination issues is the engine just then throwing random groups out of the main body or does this directly relate to cruise speeds in some way? Seems pretty random in this case and in our previous tests.

Jocke's strikes have always managed good coordination. If this was due to a bug, (which I guess I didn't even realize was the case, but Michael seems to be saying this above in his post), then other Allied players must have been benefitting from this as well.

The question is really, what is it supposed to look like? What were the bug fixes supposed to produce? Only Michael can really answer this I'm thinking.


Correct, Only Michael can answer definitively.

BUT, yes, cruising speeds were at that time critical for coordination. If you look at the IJ Naval bomber and fighter cruising speeds you will see a definitive pattern. The VAL and the JEAN were paired with the CLAUDE. The KATE was with the first ZERO and supposedly the Judy, but it was delayed. So the VAL was a lot slower than the KATE and ZERO and caused IRL the IJN a lot of coordination issues. ZERO cruise speeds increased slightly through the models to match bombers. Then look at the speeds that the JILL/GRACE/SAM speeds.

In the 40's you didn't have GPS, flights had to fly in together the whole way to stay in touch. TB's had trouble getting to altitude with their heavy loads, and flew lower until their fuel loads got lighter ... and then tried to marry up with the rest of the strike package. Sometimes they did, and sometimes not. Torpedo 8 won eternal glory over this ...


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 10
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 8:30:19 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Pax,

Interesting about airspeed! I fired up my sandbox used when we first tested the issue in an earlier version of the BETA. This is highly unscientific. I just quickly ran it about 40 times. I did not note weather or anything so take it for what it is. Just a quick test.

First setup was all B25Cs. Same HQ.

Second setup was 16 B25Cs, 16 B25Gs, 16 B17Es, and 16 B24D1s. All same HQ

From that test it looks like airspeed doesn´t have much impact on coordination. Most of tests ended with 3 different strikes including the tests with only B25Cs. I did not notice any patterns. At a glance it looked random which of the planes in the second setup coordinated. If I find the time I´ll try and run more tests and take some proper notes.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 11
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 8:54:05 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can't put the bug back into code. The bug was causing the raids to almost always be coordinated.

If you have a specific save and details, I can look at your case and see why it comes out that way.


Michael,

So this kind of fragmentation is whats it supposed to be? 15-20 fragments from a single strike or is this something else?

I have attached the save from just before the strike.





Yes.

Read page 309 of the manual for the design philosophy.

Alfred

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 12
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 9:11:29 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can't put the bug back into code. The bug was causing the raids to almost always be coordinated.

If you have a specific save and details, I can look at your case and see why it comes out that way.


Michael,

So this kind of fragmentation is whats it supposed to be? 15-20 fragments from a single strike or is this something else?

I have attached the save from just before the strike.





Yes.

Read page 309 of the manual for the design philosophy.

Alfred


I read the page. The page did not answer my question. But thank you anyway.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 13
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 9:18:56 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Read it again.

Alfred

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 14
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/18/2012 9:37:48 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I have. Nowhere does it specify what number of fragments one could expect. Only that fragments will occur rather then one big strike. It does not state what is "normal". And given we went from two or three fragments to 15-20 in one single patch I would like to know which one its supposed to be. Hence my question to michaelm in post #9.

The page in the manual you refer to does not provide an answer to that question. But thank you anyway.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 15
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/19/2012 5:17:21 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7136
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Coordination seems to be a little better with the latest beta but still a tremendous amount of fragmentation. But I really can't say if this is a bad thing or not. I am losing a bit more bombers but with LRCAP over the target I am also getting more chances to engage the defending fighters with my own fighters. I can't say if it I am OK with it or not. Got to give it a little time. Sure does run out the replay a lot longer though.

I think my biggest problem from day one has been that the Japanese player tends to have larger air units thus less problems with coordination. Frankly, in 1944 it should be the opposite. We will just have to see how this plays out. So far, it is not the end of the world for me.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 11/19/2012 5:20:03 AM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 16
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/19/2012 10:28:04 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7066
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

I think my biggest problem from day one has been that the Japanese player tends to have larger air units thus less problems with coordination. Frankly, in 1944 it should be the opposite. We will just have to see how this plays out. So far, it is not the end of the world for me.


Some of the modders should go through their games and have the Allied, mainly American, air groups and have the three parts of a 75 FG withdrawn and one month later come back as a 75 plane single unit. Doing the same with the four parts of a 48 plane BG and come back as a single 48 plane unit.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/19/2012 10:42:29 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9114
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can't put the bug back into code. The bug was causing the raids to almost always be coordinated.

If you have a specific save and details, I can look at your case and see why it comes out that way.


Michael,

So this kind of fragmentation is whats it supposed to be? 15-20 fragments from a single strike or is this something else?

I have attached the save from just before the strike.




This save didn't have any air attacks.
Can you please supply the save you send to the other player for the turn resolution.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 18
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/19/2012 2:20:02 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can't put the bug back into code. The bug was causing the raids to almost always be coordinated.

If you have a specific save and details, I can look at your case and see why it comes out that way.


Michael,

So this kind of fragmentation is whats it supposed to be? 15-20 fragments from a single strike or is this something else?

I have attached the save from just before the strike.




This save didn't have any air attacks.
Can you please supply the save you send to the other player for the turn resolution.


Hi Michael,

Jocke asked if I could post this while he was at work. Here is the turn he sent to me with the most recent big air raid that came in 15 or so multiple pieces.

Thanks



Attachment (1)

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 19
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/19/2012 3:15:15 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14671
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

I think my biggest problem from day one has been that the Japanese player tends to have larger air units thus less problems with coordination. Frankly, in 1944 it should be the opposite. We will just have to see how this plays out. So far, it is not the end of the world for me.


Some of the modders should go through their games and have the Allied, mainly American, air groups and have the three parts of a 75 FG withdrawn and one month later come back as a 75 plane single unit. Doing the same with the four parts of a 48 plane BG and come back as a single 48 plane unit.

I would be against that change. Having the big air groups is simply too hard to manage. As long as both sides have the coordination issue then it is not such a big deal in reality. As to whether it's a good representation of how things actually occurred, I personally don't have solid information. However - we should keep in mind that how things are represented in the game versus how they are represented in history writings can be very different for the same thing.

For example, when history says that a raid arrived intact, is that literally absolute or within certain parameters? E.g. some elements only separated by x number of minutes, etc. History might call a raid intact, while the game engine shows those separated groups/fragments. That can represent the fact that the fragments are too far apart to provide mutual support against fighters, which it seems to me would be not very far apart for bombers!

So while I don't know if the way they have is strictly the best way, I am convinced that there is more here than meets the eye and it would be folly to rush out and change mods based on this.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 20
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/19/2012 7:32:47 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7136
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

As long as both sides have the coordination issue then it is not such a big deal in reality.


But both sides don't have the same coordination issues and I think that is exactly my point. The Japanese player get much bigger air units to work with thus the coordination issue is less severe. Heck, one particular fighter unit consists of 90 aircraft. I can assure you that this is my opponent's favorite unit for sweeping. USA fighter units are at best 24 aircraft and Commonwealth average 12-16.

I have suggested before that Allied squadrons should be able to recombine into groups. Especially after 1944. Perhaps only at level 9 airfields. This simple fix would go well towards balancing out the equation in my mind.

My game is rounding into 45 and coordination is not such an issue simply because I got so much air power that I can just lay it on. But it hurts the Allied player severely in 42 when he just does not have enough bombers or escorts.

But as I have said, I am not sure it is a problem as it is. I have to get a few more turns under my belt.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/21/2012 9:09:49 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
Michael,

Nothing new. Just posting to ask if you've had a look and if something is in the works to better air coordination or if this is how it is designed to look and if we should move forward as such?

Thanks,
Erik

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 22
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/21/2012 9:58:25 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1299
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
Gentleman,

not that I am an expert about the WitP, but I thing the 'issues' of coordinating large scale raids are nicely simulated. Until late '44 or '45, when was the USAAF able to launch their large (OK, compared to the ETA small...) raids against mainland Japan? Think about the issues they still had in Europe coordinating raids, and they were based in a country with good infrastructures, radar installations, fighter and bomber control command posts with a bunch of nice WAAF personal wearing headsets using those casino croupier thingies moving around the air-groups on a glass plate.

I am now tempted to order Fire In The Sky: The Air War In The South Pacific, by Eric M Bergerud.

Klink, Oberst


_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 23
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/21/2012 12:42:13 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9114
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Michael,

Nothing new. Just posting to ask if you've had a look and if something is in the works to better air coordination or if this is how it is designed to look and if we should move forward as such?

Thanks,
Erik

I haven't had a chance to look at this specific save, but the coordination is based on the factors that were originally designed. It is just bad luck that the initial code had a bug in it that was over-coordinating things that players had accepted as the norm.

I will examine the save on weekend and break it down.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 24
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/21/2012 3:09:56 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 1927
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
One bad result of the multiple un-coordinated strikes is the affect it has on CAP. The first few attacks drive down the CAP and the remaining attacks come in against greatly reduced CAP.

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 25
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/27/2012 7:33:03 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2181
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...



Anyone tested beta patch in CV battle.
I am not telling about small engagements but those big with ~1000 planes.

Or at lest maybe someone have ready sandbox scenario so i can run few tests?



< Message edited by koniu -- 11/27/2012 7:36:05 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 26
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/27/2012 7:48:30 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4543
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...



Anyone tested beta patch in CV battle.
I am not telling about small engagements but those big with ~1000 planes.

Or at lest maybe someone have ready sandbox scenario so i can run few tests?




No, but you only need to compare to fragmented strikes as they are now (they happen, just less often than they should according to Michael).

Actually I do not think it is a problem. 1EyedJacks is correct in that the initial waves reduce ammount of CAP for the follow up waves. But fragments still
put the strike into a disadvantage as compared to a balanced big escorted package. You got a higher chance for unescorted fragments, and those that are
are protected by fewer escorts. Usually this results in more losses on average for the strike.

The only situations, where the effect of CAP being severely reduced by fragments and so allowing the later fragments to get through unharmed, occur, are those where
the CAP was outnumbered severely anyway, and in those instances it does not make much differences if there are fragments or not.

I rather think that Michael found the bug has a positive effect, because there will be less situations on average where players will run into the 200 attack run limitation
that GreyJoy found in his PBEM against Rader. The smaller the packages, the less likely such situations occur.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/27/2012 7:50:06 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 27
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/27/2012 8:59:15 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6968
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I fear in air engagements against carriers this will suck...



Anyone tested beta patch in CV battle.
I am not telling about small engagements but those big with ~1000 planes.

Or at lest maybe someone have ready sandbox scenario so i can run few tests?




No, but you only need to compare to fragmented strikes as they are now (they happen, just less often than they should according to Michael).

Actually I do not think it is a problem. 1EyedJacks is correct in that the initial waves reduce ammount of CAP for the follow up waves. But fragments still
put the strike into a disadvantage as compared to a balanced big escorted package. You got a higher chance for unescorted fragments, and those that are
are protected by fewer escorts. Usually this results in more losses on average for the strike.

The only situations, where the effect of CAP being severely reduced by fragments and so allowing the later fragments to get through unharmed, occur, are those where
the CAP was outnumbered severely anyway, and in those instances it does not make much differences if there are fragments or not.

I rather think that Michael found the bug has a positive effect, because there will be less situations on average where players will run into the 200 attack run limitation
that GreyJoy found in his PBEM against Rader. The smaller the packages, the less likely such situations occur.



I've run one smaller test with CVs. I'm moving my test game forward to the point I'll start getting an Allied CV force again to test this out (it was an old AI game where the Allied side lost most of their CVs). In the test I ran with only a few CVs to each side coordination was good.

Have you tested the comment I've bolded? This was my thinking when Jocke and I first encountered the difference in coordination in the first patch after Michealm removed whatever was making planes coordinate better for the entire time AE has been released. I thought, 'this must be intentional because it's doing what so many players had asked for after the rader/GJ game.' Now I'm not so sure it's good, and Michaelm has not yet said if this is what coordination is supposed to look like after the change.

Your assumption that this will only be a problem for bases that are not heavily CAPed is not quite true in my experience. I had 180 planes show up on CAP in the first big attack after we noticed the coordination change. They did well initially but after a while they were worn down to nothing through a combination of extended fragments and the ever-lasting dive of LR CAP. The full report is about halfway down this AAR page linked below, 19-20 July 1943.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2953587&mpage=37�

When we re-ran the strike under the official patch the outcome was very different in terms of types of airplanes lost. In the official patch many more fighters were lost and fewer bombers, and the fields were hit harder, closing the level 7 base at Mandalay, whereas in the beta the base was open the next day (under 50 damage).

Really what this can do is make the game entirely different. LR CAP becomes a very powerful offensive weapon (if allowed) for one. You just send several fighter groups to LR CAP and the later strikes/sweeps ALL get this coverage as if they're escorting (with LR CAP continual dive bonus even though they've been in the battle the entire time), severely limiting the CAP's ability to ward off a strike.

It is really a major change. No one is playing in late game with it, and unless someone wants to try downfall with this beta and figure out what it really does, the speculation is not really useful. I'm thinking the late arriving kami fragments could be a killer to the Allies if they come in untouched, while the extra fragmentation of B-29 raids will make them very costly against even moderately protected bases. However, what we think it will do is not quite the same as what it will actually do, and until we know that, how can we upgrade and commit to using this not knowing the effects down the line?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 28
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/27/2012 9:30:06 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4543
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Very good point re: LRCAP obvert, I did not take this into accout.

I was specifically referring to CV battles where it is not impacting, as you cannot LRCAP
enemy fleets.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 29
RE: Air coordination in 1120b - 11/30/2012 9:37:10 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4904
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
I will examine the save on weekend and break it down.


Did you find anything odd with the save or is the raid working as its supposed to? I´m extra curious as some players using the BETA doesn´t seem to get that kind of severe fragmentation but rather much like the official patch.

Also out of curiosity, how long has this bug been present?

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Air coordination in 1120b Page: [1] 2   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

0.137