Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

 
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 >> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 12:01:07 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14683
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
hadnt realised PZB was in this thread - as it happens I dont agree entirely as 2 squads destroyed seems light to me given that those same caves would not be able to hold the AF or port and thats the crux on island combat.

its always going to be an abstraction when hexes are islands and control of the base is all or nothing and there is only one AF on a base

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 61
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 1:39:55 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24794
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I posted my observation a few times a number of months ago. It is my strong suspicion that performance is reasonable up to roughly pilot skill level 70. Then, as pilots gain skill above 70 the attack performance is simply too high. This applies to:

(Including Low in all variants listed below)
Naval attack (including torpedo)
ASW
Ground attack
Airfield attack
Maybe Port attack, but I have seen fewer so it is difficult to judge
Regarding the various strategic attacks (city, refinery, etc.), I have seen too few to judge.


It would be a mistake to only try to "nerf" the various ground attacks. The biggest issue seems to be to reduce performance benefit for skill levels above 70, making it more of diminishing returns.



Exactly.
I remember your posts on this topic, and it is very similar to what I mentioned a couple of times already.

When skills (and aggression or exp) values surpass a certain threshold the results get off the scale.
I do not know the exact formulas used, but I assume that a skill closing to 100 means a success roll in nearly every event,
something not in accordance with reality.

The only solution which makes sense is nerf skill gain,


This would be the wrong solution because no matter how long it takes there will still be pilots with "super powers".


quote:

or find a way to change how the game engine uses skill variables in dice rolls.


The programmers made the pilot skills have an effect (remember there were no pilots skills in WITP vanilla, they were added for AE), so they do have access to adjust the effect those skills have. I'm not suggesting it's easy, and they might not want to tackle it. But if this issue is addressed that's really the only way IMO because the other ways will create imbalances by fixing some of the issues and leaving others in place.

quote:


The second suggestion is, for everything I know about what can be done without tinkering with the code itself, impossible.

The first would require rolling back skill gain mechanics to the early patches of WitP AE. If some care to remember:
In the beginnings of AE there was an outcry to increase training speed, a suggestion which was finally implemented by the devs (and which
I always opposed).

Nerfing ground bombing would yield adverse results, I believe this can only be suggested if the impact is not thought through end to end.



< Message edited by witpqs -- 11/3/2011 1:40:18 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 62
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 1:43:05 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24794
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The sea bombardments are also nuclear.


Harry, see PzB's post and my reply to him. He sees only wimpy sea bombardments, you see only nuclear sea bombardments, and I am seeing all three varieties (Momma Bear, Pappa Bear, and Baby Bear) - so I think sea bombardments are in the Goldilocks Zone.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 63
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 8:43:46 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I posted my observation a few times a number of months ago. It is my strong suspicion that performance is reasonable up to roughly pilot skill level 70. Then, as pilots gain skill above 70 the attack performance is simply too high. This applies to:

(Including Low in all variants listed below)
Naval attack (including torpedo)
ASW
Ground attack
Airfield attack
Maybe Port attack, but I have seen fewer so it is difficult to judge
Regarding the various strategic attacks (city, refinery, etc.), I have seen too few to judge.


It would be a mistake to only try to "nerf" the various ground attacks. The biggest issue seems to be to reduce performance benefit for skill levels above 70, making it more of diminishing returns.



Exactly.
I remember your posts on this topic, and it is very similar to what I mentioned a couple of times already.

When skills (and aggression or exp) values surpass a certain threshold the results get off the scale.
I do not know the exact formulas used, but I assume that a skill closing to 100 means a success roll in nearly every event,
something not in accordance with reality.

The only solution which makes sense is nerf skill gain, or find a way to change how the game engine uses skill variables in dice rolls.
The second suggestion is, for everything I know about what can be done without tinkering with the code itself, impossible.

The first would require rolling back skill gain mechanics to the early patches of WitP AE. If some care to remember:
In the beginnings of AE there was an outcry to increase training speed, a suggestion which was finally implemented by the devs (and which
I always opposed).

Nerfing ground bombing would yield adverse results, I believe this can only be suggested if the impact is not thought through end to end.


Either there's a threshold in the code, in which case my current signature applies, or the model isn't robust--it's ill-posed--in which case some of fcharton's comments apply. Unfortunately, solving an ill-posed problem calls for math knowledge rarely found in programmers.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 64
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 8:47:34 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The sea bombardments are also nuclear.


Harry, see PzB's post and my reply to him. He sees only wimpy sea bombardments, you see only nuclear sea bombardments, and I am seeing all three varieties (Momma Bear, Pappa Bear, and Baby Bear) - so I think sea bombardments are in the Goldilocks Zone.


My opponent prefers to bombard with almost all of the surface ships of the combined fleet. (Like he prefers to strike an airbase with aircraft from all the carriers in the combined fleet.)

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 65
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 8:59:45 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
quote:

The only solution which makes sense is nerf skill gain,


This would be the wrong solution because no matter how long it takes there will still be pilots with "super powers".


Maybe, but its probably the easiest one. Personally I prefer a solution that still is possible over a solution that is optimal, in
case the latter cannont be realised.

As far as I know Michael is (and how long still?) the only guy left working on the game (besides DaBabes). If the patch process resembles what I do at work
at least to some extent, there is access to the old pilot training model (the one with the much reduced speed) and this part can be rollbacked.

Maybe this could be flavoured with a lower cap for training (e.g. from 70 to 60, or 50).

quote:


quote:

or find a way to change how the game engine uses skill variables in dice rolls.


The programmers made the pilot skills have an effect (remember there were no pilots skills in WITP vanilla, they were added for AE), so they do have access to adjust the effect those skills have. I'm not suggesting it's easy, and they might not want to tackle it. But if this issue is addressed that's really the only way IMO because the other ways will create imbalances by fixing some of the issues and leaving others in place.


Agree, but as I said already, I´d rather have a suboptimal solution than dreaming about one which will never happen.

Edit: I´d be careful when assuming that because originally there was just one variable, and now, depending on the situation, there is one for each specific situation,
this means the team had access to the coding part of the games engine which governs the specific diec rolls.
It only means there are more pools now where the numbers are drawn from, not that anybody has access to how they are used.


That said, I doubt it will happen at all, and WitP AE is already far better than any other game of this genre, TBH I can live with the smaller glitches of the games´ engine.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/3/2011 9:04:43 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 66
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 10:25:00 AM   
Banzan

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline
If you start playing around with training speed and caps, you may get balance problems. A good japanese player can easy preserve/rotate his high quality pilots and the allied pilots may become just cannonfodder. And to "battletrain" the pilots only works good in theory or against the AI.


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 67
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 12:01:43 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
quote:

The only solution which makes sense is nerf skill gain,


This would be the wrong solution because no matter how long it takes there will still be pilots with "super powers".


Maybe, but its probably the easiest one. Personally I prefer a solution that still is possible over a solution that is optimal, in
case the latter cannont be realised.

As far as I know Michael is (and how long still?) the only guy left working on the game (besides DaBabes). If the patch process resembles what I do at work
at least to some extent, there is access to the old pilot training model (the one with the much reduced speed) and this part can be rollbacked.

Maybe this could be flavoured with a lower cap for training (e.g. from 70 to 60, or 50).

quote:


quote:

or find a way to change how the game engine uses skill variables in dice rolls.


The programmers made the pilot skills have an effect (remember there were no pilots skills in WITP vanilla, they were added for AE), so they do have access to adjust the effect those skills have. I'm not suggesting it's easy, and they might not want to tackle it. But if this issue is addressed that's really the only way IMO because the other ways will create imbalances by fixing some of the issues and leaving others in place.


Agree, but as I said already, I´d rather have a suboptimal solution than dreaming about one which will never happen.

Edit: I´d be careful when assuming that because originally there was just one variable, and now, depending on the situation, there is one for each specific situation,
this means the team had access to the coding part of the games engine which governs the specific diec rolls.
It only means there are more pools now where the numbers are drawn from, not that anybody has access to how they are used.


That said, I doubt it will happen at all, and WitP AE is already far better than any other game of this genre, TBH I can live with the smaller glitches of the games´ engine.


You need data to do this. There isn't much available--I started with figures from Methods of Operations Research and then collected a summary of every fighter versus fighter combat available at the time (1978 or so) in the English open literature. The current generation of authors (Bergerud, et al.) have a much larger database. Once you have that, you have a number of approaches you can take.
1. You can eyeball it to come up with a linear fit. The problem is that the performance at the extremes is non-linear.
2. You can use classical statistics. All you know is that you can't exclude your resulting model.
3. You can use Bayesian statistics. With vague priors, you'll get something like the results of the classical model fitting. You're still force-fitting the data into a family of distributions.
4. You can train a neural network. That's magic and takes a lot of learning to get robustness.
5. You can try some version of Tykhinov regularisation, perhaps coming up with a support vector machine. See fcharton for help here. I'm not the specialist he is.

In any case, you can't impose a model, particularly a linear model, and get robustness at the extremes, so you have to do something more sophisticated. However, imagine doing this exercise for every variable in the game engine... JFD eventually abandoned this approach and used his judgement, figuring most of the variables would come out in the wash. If you do that, you have to understand what your scale parameter means and why performance doesn't scale linearly. Nobody understands war that well.

< Message edited by herwin -- 11/3/2011 12:03:28 PM >


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 68
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/3/2011 9:02:31 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24794
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Edit: I´d be careful when assuming that because originally there was just one variable, and now, depending on the situation, there is one for each specific situation,
this means the team had access to the coding part of the games engine which governs the specific diec rolls.
It only means there are more pools now where the numbers are drawn from, not that anybody has access to how they are used.


They don't strictly need access to how they are used. They can fudge the number before they hand it off.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 69
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 12:09:12 AM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline
The game appears to treat additional force (more bombs, more depth charges etc) in a linear fashion, so 10 bombs are 10 times effective as 1 bomb. Square Root is your friend here, but i suspect the game engine is not set up to handle this.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 70
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 7:41:04 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline
My personal view is that much of the silliness could be removed by deleting the ground attack option of B-29s. I think that should be doable without messing too much with the code otherwise (hopefully).

(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 71
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 11:58:57 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14026
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
How about trying to increase fatigue for 4E bomb missions so they couldn't easily operate on a daily basis with all bombers participating? This would just mean it modelled the kind of planning it would take to logistically use a 100 or more 4Es daily. In one of the recent patches I believe fatigue was increased for low level attacks, and it applies differently at different altitudes for 2E and 4E bombers, so this kind of thing most not be too hard to fix.

An earlier post about different bomb loads makes sense as well. Many IJN bombers are allowed the 800 kg bomb on port attacks. Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 72
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 1:09:45 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.

And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 73
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 1:45:42 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.

And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.


How do you suggest calibrating the (non-linear) model?

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 74
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 2:05:19 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14026
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

How about trying to increase fatigue for 4E bomb missions so they couldn't easily operate on a daily basis with all bombers participating? This would just mean it modelled the kind of planning it would take to logistically use a 100 or more 4Es daily. In one of the recent patches I believe fatigue was increased for low level attacks, and it applies differently at different altitudes for 2E and 4E bombers, so this kind of thing most not be too hard to fix.

An earlier post about different bomb loads makes sense as well. Many IJN bombers are allowed the 800 kg bomb on port attacks. Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.


quote:

And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.


quote:

How do you suggest calibrating the (non-linear) model?


I know next to nothing about how a game like this is coded, but there must be an easy approximation for limits on damage accrued that could be used as an airfield, a unit, or a city take damage. The game already understands how if a base has a certain amount of forts then damage is limited from bombing attacks. Would it also be possible to say that if damage levels were over certain levels it would in effect raise the level of forts to make it harder to do more damage to that base? And then when the damage dropped again below those levels, the "fake' fort reading would also disappear.

So damage up to say 25% of strength would be determined as it is now. Damage from 25% to 50% would add +1 fort to the base or unit before the attack was calculated. Damage from 50% 75% might need to add +3 forts to keep a unit from becoming wiped out. And from 75% -99% damage the forts would go to the maximum 9 forts to make it next to impossible to destroy the unit or base completely.

Would something like that work?

Much of this wouldn't be needed as often if there was a limit like the pilot fatigue proposed above that added extra fatigue for 4E missions (like 3 x fatigue), maybe a slight extra for 2E missions (1.5-2 x fatigue), and none for 1E missions. (Of course, maybe it should be airframe fatigue. I just thought of how some could get around this by switching pilots out).

(Of course I wish strafing and ground support missions worked, but you can't have everything, and if there were penalties for using 2E and 4E as they are used now, 350 days a year, then maybe more players would find a use for 1Es as ground support options).


< Message edited by obvert -- 11/4/2011 2:13:39 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 75
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 2:22:12 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

How about trying to increase fatigue for 4E bomb missions so they couldn't easily operate on a daily basis with all bombers participating? This would just mean it modelled the kind of planning it would take to logistically use a 100 or more 4Es daily. In one of the recent patches I believe fatigue was increased for low level attacks, and it applies differently at different altitudes for 2E and 4E bombers, so this kind of thing most not be too hard to fix.

An earlier post about different bomb loads makes sense as well. Many IJN bombers are allowed the 800 kg bomb on port attacks. Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.


quote:

And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.


quote:

How do you suggest calibrating the (non-linear) model?


I know next to nothing about how a game like this is coded, but there must be an easy approximation for limits on damage accrued that could be used as an airfield, a unit, or a city take damage. The game already understands how if a base has a certain amount of forts then damage is limited from bombing attacks. Would it also be possible to say that if damage levels were over certain levels it would in effect raise the level of forts to make it harder to do more damage to that base? And then when the damage dropped again below those levels, the "fake' fort reading would also disappear.

So damage up to say 25% of strength would be determined as it is now. Damage from 25% to 50% would add +1 fort to the base or unit before the attack was calculated. Damage from 50% 75% might need to add +3 forts to keep a unit from becoming wiped out. And from 75% -99% damage the forts would go to the maximum 9 forts to make it next to impossible to destroy the unit or base completely.

Would something like that work?



Hard to say. The Russian-language military analysis literature might be usefully mined for ideas. You could start with a coverage analysis--which can be treated in approximation as a lethal area analysis--but you still need a 'lethal area' for each bomb and some notion of targeting accuracy for the mission type, altitude, target, etc. A lethal area analysis does produce the desired diseconomies of scale--at the low end, it tends to be linear, and at the high end, it requires tens or hundreds of bombs for that last 10%.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 76
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 2:51:28 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
We already IMHO have a problem in the planes making individual attack runs. Level bombing mediums and heavies most definitely didnt do that, but the formation leader would aim and all planes dropped bombs simultaneously or slight delay "pattern".

Like firing a shotgun... The time it takes for all bombs to leave the racks is greater than 0 so there will always be the "carpet effect" of some kind and the hits are going to spread quite a lot along the flight path of the formation and to the sides:







However if we presume the individual squadrons or even wings of 4 bombers are making individual attack runs, at least when the target is smaller than an airfield as in, say, port and naval attacks and CAS, then we should do something about bombers getting the formation bonus against enemy CAP on their way in and out(and apparently some kind of numbers bonus against AAA too).

The current model might produce accurate/historical results in scenarios where each aircraft did its attack run independently or in small groups, but those attacks with long, long lines of separate bomber formations would be next to impossible to protect from enemy CAP and would suffer from especially light AAA which would have only a handful of targets at any time instead of potentially many hundred.

So IMHO if we have a problem, it is that the strikes are either way too effective for formation bombing or they are too easy to protect and not vulnerable enough.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 11/4/2011 3:09:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 77
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 3:04:48 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Yes, there was a 'right-sized' pattern for a given target array, and it would kill a percentage of the target. More bombers meant either a bigger (and less efficient) pattern or repeated bomb runs (with a longer 'dwell time' for the AA and lower performance as some bombs would hit existing craters).

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 78
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 3:06:01 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
Additionally bombers aren´t attacked while they fly over occupied hexes or even over airfields.
Bombers, especially heavy bombers have a lot of advantages over their real live counterparts.

Maybe it would be possible to handle the attacks on LCU/bases according to the rules of ship attacks. Each level of forts should add some "armor" to the baseforces, so attacks could ruin the runway but not all support units or planes. This way attacks on level9 forts with 250lbs bombs would be quite useless. There must always be the cance of a "lucky hit" but this one must be rare. Additionally not each single bomb should be calculated but the whole load of one bomber as such. This would be easily doable, just change all the bombs to one extreme large one. Should do the trick much better than now.
Or there is a dice roll whether the raid hits the target at all....

So many ideas. I´m afraid the realization isn´t possible.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 79
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 3:09:10 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.

And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.


How do you suggest calibrating the (non-linear) model?

I would first create the boundary conditions from RL results translated into game terms.

Lower Boundary condition: Using Iwo results. We know the bombing campaign was one year long. 4E's dropping standard 500 lb package. That is lvl 6 forts.

so for 500 lb bombs:
Lvl 0 = current hit probability (don't know this, but let's just call it bl%
Lvl 6 = 0.01 * bl% (so saying, 500 lb bombs are now too effective by 100x. I think that is a starting point.) You can use an inverse function to interpolate ... or if reals are being used a log. (but i think i remember that all the math in game is integer).

For bomb size, again all I have is that old engr assessment report on the Iwo fortifications where they thought the 1000 and particularly the 2000 lb DB dropped bombs had some penetration. I might start with a square function on bomb effect as a multiplier on the above to bring in the bomb size.

The difficulty in tuning here is that for both the 2000 and 10,000, the payloads are 1 bomb per plane. The 500 lb are between 10 - 40 / plane. So you model needs to take that into acct as each bomb is checked for a hit. Right now, B-29's drop SO many bombs that with the current hit% you get a LOT of effective hits, far more than what Iwo data suggests you should. When you go to those brit bombers, instead of 25 or so 500 lb, they carry 1x10,000. Again, not knowing the modelling, but it might be simply an artifact of a linear model (IF that is what is being used and we do not know). In which case, MAYBE going to an inverse function might give a more appropriate effect (understand when I say inverse, it might take an inverse square or cube or higher level)


The after action assessment that I read years ago was that the US engrs could not find any real impact of this one year bombing campaign upon the IJ positions. The forts were simply too strong for a 500 lb bomb to have any effect. The 1000 and 2000 bombs dropped during DDay did have effect as well as some of the BB salvos. The issue of course here will be hindsight: the allies did NOT know this. They wasted considerable effort on bombing, tying up these valuable units in a wasted campaign, that once we change the model, players won't use them in this wasted roll. But this is a secondary game balance issue.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 80
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 3:16:07 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
Maybe it also help to introduce "bombs" as a third supply item. This way players won´t drop three times the amount of bombs used by all countries together ;-).

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 81
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 3:24:08 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Why not for heavily fortified positions allow the 4E a 4,000 pound bomb to make this seem more realistic? It would also be modelled more correctly as when it hit it would do a LOT of damage, but because it's one bomb it wouldn't always hit.

And moreso as against heavily fortified positions, a 500 lb bomb should have NO effect (or a 0.001% probability of effect) and a 4000 lb bomb would be able to have effect IF it hits. That would be more accurate to the RL situation of wwii.


How do you suggest calibrating the (non-linear) model?

I would first create the boundary conditions from RL results translated into game terms.

Lower Boundary condition: Using Iwo results. We know the bombing campaign was one year long. 4E's dropping standard 500 lb package. That is lvl 6 forts.

so for 500 lb bombs:
Lvl 0 = current hit probability (don't know this, but let's just call it bl%
Lvl 6 = 0.01 * bl% (so saying, 500 lb bombs are now too effective by 100x. I think that is a starting point.) You can use an inverse function to interpolate ... or if reals are being used a log. (but i think i remember that all the math in game is integer).

For bomb size, again all I have is that old engr assessment report on the Iwo fortifications where they thought the 1000 and particularly the 2000 lb DB dropped bombs had some penetration. I might start with a square function on bomb effect as a multiplier on the above to bring in the bomb size.

The difficulty in tuning here is that for both the 2000 and 10,000, the payloads are 1 bomb per plane. The 500 lb are between 10 - 40 / plane. So you model needs to take that into acct as each bomb is checked for a hit. Right now, B-29's drop SO many bombs that with the current hit% you get a LOT of effective hits, far more than what Iwo data suggests you should. When you go to those brit bombers, instead of 25 or so 500 lb, they carry 1x10,000. Again, not knowing the modelling, but it might be simply an artifact of a linear model (IF that is what is being used and we do not know). In which case, MAYBE going to an inverse function might give a more appropriate effect (understand when I say inverse, it might take an inverse square or cube or higher level)


The after action assessment that I read years ago was that the US engrs could not find any real impact of this one year bombing campaign upon the IJ positions. The forts were simply too strong for a 500 lb bomb to have any effect. The 1000 and 2000 bombs dropped during DDay did have effect as well as some of the BB salvos. The issue of course here will be hindsight: the allies did NOT know this. They wasted considerable effort on bombing, tying up these valuable units in a wasted campaign, that once we change the model, players won't use them in this wasted roll. But this is a secondary game balance issue.



It's a lethal area versus protection effect. If you want to knock out a pillbox with artillery, you need slow fire with heavy artillery to maximise accuracy and terminal effect. Light artillery, otoh, is much better than heavy against troops in the open.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 82
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 3:40:08 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14026
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

I would first create the boundary conditions from RL results translated into game terms.

Lower Boundary condition: Using Iwo results. We know the bombing campaign was one year long. 4E's dropping standard 500 lb package. That is lvl 6 forts.

so for 500 lb bombs:
Lvl 0 = current hit probability (don't know this, but let's just call it bl%
Lvl 6 = 0.01 * bl% (so saying, 500 lb bombs are now too effective by 100x. I think that is a starting point.) You can use an inverse function to interpolate ... or if reals are being used a log. (but i think i remember that all the math in game is integer).

For bomb size, again all I have is that old engr assessment report on the Iwo fortifications where they thought the 1000 and particularly the 2000 lb DB dropped bombs had some penetration. I might start with a square function on bomb effect as a multiplier on the above to bring in the bomb size.

The difficulty in tuning here is that for both the 2000 and 10,000, the payloads are 1 bomb per plane. The 500 lb are between 10 - 40 / plane. So you model needs to take that into acct as each bomb is checked for a hit. Right now, B-29's drop SO many bombs that with the current hit% you get a LOT of effective hits, far more than what Iwo data suggests you should. When you go to those brit bombers, instead of 25 or so 500 lb, they carry 1x10,000. Again, not knowing the modelling, but it might be simply an artifact of a linear model (IF that is what is being used and we do not know). In which case, MAYBE going to an inverse function might give a more appropriate effect (understand when I say inverse, it might take an inverse square or cube or higher level)


The after action assessment that I read years ago was that the US engrs could not find any real impact of this one year bombing campaign upon the IJ positions. The forts were simply too strong for a 500 lb bomb to have any effect. The 1000 and 2000 bombs dropped during DDay did have effect as well as some of the BB salvos. The issue of course here will be hindsight: the allies did NOT know this. They wasted considerable effort on bombing, tying up these valuable units in a wasted campaign, that once we change the model, players won't use them in this wasted roll. But this is a secondary game balance issue.


quote:

Maybe it also help to introduce "bombs" as a third supply item. This way players won´t drop three times the amount of bombs used by all countries together ;-).


Although it's really informative to hear about all of the Real War information, what we really need is a working compromise approximation of results for 4E and 2E bombing. The most important factor in any of this is to find something that will work in games.

Could we introduce some system that used forts and different bomb loads as ways to limit effectiveness against dug in units and bases?

Could fatigue be introduced as a way of limiting mission frequency?

Could there be a 'bomb supply' as a separate item like torps? Could it be at any base force with a limit dependent on airfield size and air support, and a monthly allocation that was in the realm of reality?

Try to think practically in game terms, and with all of the experience here there should be some very easy to implement solutions that wouldn't neutralize any one type of equipment, but would give more realistic results for bombing things on the ground.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 83
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 4:32:13 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Could we introduce some system that used forts and different bomb loads as ways to limit effectiveness against dug in units and bases?

Could fatigue be introduced as a way of limiting mission frequency?


From previous responses by various team members, we know that all of this is already in the model and a LOT more.

Tuning and/or model adjustments are being offered here. We have been told no new "development" is being, or will be, done; only tweaks, bug removal, and UI enhancements. Trying to keep this in the "tweak" dept or it will be put into the WitP AE II wish list which may or may not ever happen.

And we have to remember that this is +20 year old code at the heart of everything. The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent".

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 11/4/2011 4:34:01 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 84
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 4:40:13 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24794
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent".


Looking at your avatar you're robbing the cradle, man!

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 85
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 5:32:22 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Hey, I have no idea who that is in the mirror shaving every morning.  I mean, who is that old fa__?    But me, I'm still that 26yo with a 28" waist ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 86
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 5:48:16 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Hey, I have no idea who that is in the mirror shaving every morning.  I mean, who is that old fa__?    But me, I'm still that 26yo with a 28" waist ....


WHEREAS THEE GUY IN THE MIRROR IS 62..., WITH AN 82-INCH WAIST.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 87
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 6:01:02 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Hey, I have no idea who that is in the mirror shaving every morning.  I mean, who is that old fa__?    But me, I'm still that 26yo with a 28" waist ....


WHEREAS THEE GUY IN THE MIRROR IS 62..., WITH AN 82-INCH WAIST.



64 with a 38-inch waist. I still hike in the Yosemite high country.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 88
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 6:21:10 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
From previous responses by various team members, we know that all of this is already in the model and a LOT more.

Tuning and/or model adjustments are being offered here. We have been told no new "development" is being, or will be, done; only tweaks, bug removal, and UI enhancements. Trying to keep this in the "tweak" dept or it will be put into the WitP AE II wish list which may or may not ever happen.

And we have to remember that this is +20 year old code at the heart of everything. The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent".


You are correct. Several key developers have also declared repeatedly that whoever tries to do "WitP II" it WONT be them. Once was enough. Gary Grigsby himself stated that he will never attempt such a beastie again.


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 89
RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II - 11/4/2011 6:42:08 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24794
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
From previous responses by various team members, we know that all of this is already in the model and a LOT more.

Tuning and/or model adjustments are being offered here. We have been told no new "development" is being, or will be, done; only tweaks, bug removal, and UI enhancements. Trying to keep this in the "tweak" dept or it will be put into the WitP AE II wish list which may or may not ever happen.

And we have to remember that this is +20 year old code at the heart of everything. The good news is that some of us started coding back with the 4004 chip (ok, digital coding. We didn't refer to analog programing as "coding"), so we think that 20 year old code is "recent".


You are correct. Several key developers have also declared repeatedly that whoever tries to do "WitP II" it WONT be them. Once was enough. Gary Grigsby himself stated that he will never attempt such a beastie again.



I've also heard people say "I'll never drink again!!!"

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.172