The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer

User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31173
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Joel Billings »

With the release of the 1.02.01 version I wanted to let you know where things stand with some of the various issues that have recently been brought up with the air game.

Issue 1
– Ground support not being auto intercepted by aircraft that are no assigned to air directives.
This first came up in a recent version and was fixed in 1.02.01. You should now once again see auto intercepts in ground battles as long as the air units are not specifically assigned to other non-ground support air directives.

Issue 2 – Air superiority is not intercepting enemy ground support or ground attack missions.
We found that the routine that was counting the distance within the AS box could routine a bad value, making the routine think the hex was not in the AS box at the time the enemy mission flew. We also found that although a box was being displayed and was intended, the code was only providing AS within the radius of the center. So a 5 hex setting which should have provided a 11x11 box was actually only tracing out a circle with a radius of 11. That meant that targets in the corner of the box were not being covered by the AS mission. This has been fixed in 1.02.01. As far as we know, AS is now working as intended. If you use AS and think it’s not working, please provide us with pre-saves so we can look into it.

Issue 3 – Air Transport missions behind friendly lines are too easily intercepted by enemy fighters.
We’ve reduced the chances of intercepting transport flights that don’t fly over enemy territory. This change is in 1.02.01.

Issue 4 – Op Losses are too high.
After looking into this, Gary found that the code that was supposed to count aircraft that get damaged by flak, as lost to flak, when they are destroyed during the landing routine, was not working. So many losses intended to be flak losses were being credited as op losses. This has been fixed in a version we are working on now. In addition, we have decreased the chance for op losses except for an increase in night op losses as detailed below. These changes will be in the next update that goes out.

Issue 5 – Night bombing is too good.
We have just reduced the accuracy of night bombing for flights that don’t have navigation aides (like those in WitW for the Western Allies). In practice that means night bombing in WitE2 will be less accurate. In addition, we’ve greatly increased op losses for pilots under 70 experience, even more for those under 60 experience. These changes will be in the next update that goes out.

Issue 6 – It is very difficult to auto-intercept enemy ground attack air directives, especially against units that are in the front line.
This is WAD, although it may be harder to intercept than it should be. The system must detect the enemy air mission early enough in order to scramble fighters so they can reach the bombers before they get in and get out. When we put out the Torch expansion to WitW, we made these intercepts harder as we thought earlier in the war radar and air defenses were not as effective as they were later (also infrastructure was not as developed in North Africa as in Europe). This carried over to WitE2. The system involves airbases attempting to detect the enemy mission, with the larger airfields being better at detection. In cases where the defending airfields are far from the targets, and the airfields are lower level, it can be very hard or impossible to conduct an auto-intercept. In theory, air superiority missions can be used in these cases to try to cover specific areas. With the recent fixes for AS, this should hopefully work. We are not sure if the detection level system needs a complete overhaul to account for routine fighter flights over the front lines that might be standard and effectively built into the ground support rules, but not accounted for in the air execution phase. This is an issue that is subject to discussion, feedback, and saves so we can see what’s actually going on.


So recapping, we think we fixed 3 issues in 1.02.01, and have fixes for 2 more of the issues in the next version that will go out. That leaves one issue requiring more info. We’re interested in continued feedback as players try out these changes. Thanks to all that have contributed to the discussions to date.

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Hardradi
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:16 am
Location: Swan River Colony

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Hardradi »

Thank you for this sort of update. Much appreciated (and the patches).
AlbertN
Posts: 3828
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by AlbertN »

+1
MarkShot
Posts: 6811
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by MarkShot »

Seeing the air war strutting its stuff as I am a former prop-head is very important to me. Thanks!
(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)
Rosencrantus
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:49 am
Location: Canada

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Rosencrantus »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

With the release of the 1.02.01 version I wanted to let you know where things stand with some of the various issues that have recently been brought up with the air game.

Issue 6 – It is very difficult to auto-intercept enemy ground attack air directives, especially against units that are in the front line.
This is WAD, although it may be harder to intercept than it should be. The system must detect the enemy air mission early enough in order to scramble fighters so they can reach the bombers before they get in and get out. When we put out the Torch expansion to WitW, we made these intercepts harder as we thought earlier in the war radar and air defenses were not as effective as they were later (also infrastructure was not as developed in North Africa as in Europe). This carried over to WitE2. The system involves airbases attempting to detect the enemy mission, with the larger airfields being better at detection. In cases where the defending airfields are far from the targets, and the airfields are lower level, it can be very hard or impossible to conduct an auto-intercept. In theory, air superiority missions can be used in these cases to try to cover specific areas. With the recent fixes for AS, this should hopefully work. We are not sure if the detection level system needs a complete overhaul to account for routine fighter flights over the front lines that might be standard and effectively built into the ground support rules, but not accounted for in the air execution phase. This is an issue that is subject to discussion, feedback, and saves so we can see what’s actually going on.


So recapping, we think we fixed 3 issues in 1.02.01, and have fixes for 2 more of the issues in the next version that will go out. That leaves one issue requiring more info. We’re interested in continued feedback as players try out these changes. Thanks to all that have contributed to the discussions to date.


From my experience and just testing myself as the Soviets on T1, launching GA on frontline axis units sometimes leads to an interception, but after that one interception, most of the time unless the area has been concentrated with axis fighters (which becomes very difficult for the axis to do as they get spread out over the Soviet Union) there are no more interceptions. This is a problem as if the Soviet fighter escort is large enough, the first interception will still leave majority of the bombers untouched. As a result on subsequent days of the air phase, the unit that is getting GA'd gets heavily weakened, making defeating the unit much easier. What I propose is that for more subsequent Ground Attacks in an area, the increased likelihood of fighter interception to reflect that the air forces are more alert for ground attacks in that particular area. I don't want to punish the Soviets for having managed to defeat the LW in a particular part of the front as they should be rewarded with the capability of dealing heavy damage to enemy ground troops but its odd that there is usually only one interception against one GA mission during the entire air phase.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Zovs »

With the newest patch I have seen many more interceptions than just one.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
jubjub
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by jubjub »

Thanks Joel. With the anticipated increase in flak losses, I'd like to put my request in for additional detail into the execution of anti-aircraft fire.

Also, small item, but do you know where this bug is on the list? It would really be a QOL improvement over assigning individual missions per hex.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#5084108
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31173
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Joel Billings »

It's on the bug list, but I don't think Pavel has looked at it. I don't expect it will get looked at until after the editor work is done.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5063
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by tyronec »

Thanks for the update, much appreciated.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5063
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by tyronec »

From my experience and just testing myself as the Soviets on T1, launching GA on frontline axis units sometimes leads to an interception, but after that one interception, most of the time unless the area has been concentrated with axis fighters (which becomes very difficult for the axis to do as they get spread out over the Soviet Union) there are no more interceptions. This is a problem as if the Soviet fighter escort is large enough, the first interception will still leave majority of the bombers untouched. As a result on subsequent days of the air phase, the unit that is getting GA'd gets heavily weakened, making defeating the unit much easier. What I propose is that for more subsequent Ground Attacks in an area, the increased likelihood of fighter interception to reflect that the air forces are more alert for ground attacks in that particular area. I don't want to punish the Soviets for having managed to defeat the LW in a particular part of the front as they should be rewarded with the capability of dealing heavy damage to enemy ground troops but its odd that there is usually only one interception against one GA mission during the entire air phase.
I would concur with the above.
Can understand the logic that it is difficult to intercept one mission launched against units on the front line, however if the Soviets are massing large numbers of sorties on one hex then the probability of intercepts should increase.

This is using my RtL test bed, Soviets bombing a front line air base on T2.
All the Axis fighters get wiped out without one intercept.
If you try and bomb an airbase behind the front line then there is an increased likelihood of an intercept.

So the point I am making is not particularly about bombing air bases, rather that the Soviets can do massed bombings of a front line hex and not get intercepted even if there are Axis fighters within range.


Image
Attachments
h.jpg
h.jpg (214.13 KiB) Viewed 63 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
AlbertN
Posts: 3828
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by AlbertN »

Err... has something changed with the Naval Patrol missions?
I cannot isolate anymore ports as Talinn or Odessa ... I do exactly the same air directives that were isolating them before but now even without enemy air action, the Interdiction values drop during the enemy turn.
So when the turn comes back to me, the Interdiction value is not high enough anymore (That despite naval patrol missions being set to happen in both phases).
Markko
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:43 pm

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Markko »

So, yes, it would be hard to intercept a single, out-of-the-blue airstrike over a front-line hex. But, this game is simulating a week's worth of battles. Thus, if one instead imagines a front-line hex of importance to the command that is having constant enemy ground support missions on call to the enemy ground commanders .... one would have to assume that your ground commanders are heating up the radios calling for fighters to come and stop the bombing.

In the west, the I've heard a term like 'taxi-rank' with regard to ground support. Ie, the allied fighter-bombers were just circling overhead waiting for a call for ground support. This would seem to be a bit different from the quick in-and-out raid discussed above. I realize that was the western front, and thus different. But still, ground support seems to imply some planes on some sort of stand-by ready to respond to calls from the battlefield? Especially when there are longer-range planes from more-distant bases? If you call for a strike on an artillery position that is pounding you, being told that the planes are now taking off from their base and that they'll be there 2 hours from now doesn't do you a lot of good.

Ground support attacks are related to the intensity of the ground battle, and thus can be predicted by a ground commander, especially one who has the initiative and is launching attacks. Its a pretty fair guess that the defending commander is going to call for his ground support after you launch your next attack. It would seem possible that the ground commanders could clue in the air commanders as to the time of the expected ground battle?

It would appear that ground attack and ground support are two different cases. Perhaps the ground attack mission on a front-line hex is a quick in-and-out attack that hits before the target can call for defending fighters. But ground support is an ongoing activity during 7 days of ground battle. Ground support should be difficult unless one has control of the air on a regular basis. Perhaps the only time it should not be intercepted would be when under a friendly Air Superiority zone that is providing such air control?

Ground support could perhaps be easy to intercept, as it is easy to predict when and where it will be. But what keeps the enemy from doing this is your own fighters controlling the air over the battlefield ... either by AS mission or perhaps by just by having 60 fighters only 20 km away who aren't doing anything else.

And on ground attack missions, there does seem to be a difference between a single, more unpredictable raid on a target, and a sustained, multi-raid bombing campaign over several days, or several weeks. At some point, one would have to expect to find more enemy fighters waiting for you.



User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7070
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Zovs »

ORIGINAL: Markko

So, yes, it would be hard to intercept a single, out-of-the-blue airstrike over a front-line hex. But, this game is simulating a week's worth of battles. Thus, if one instead imagines a front-line hex of importance to the command that is having constant enemy ground support missions on call to the enemy ground commanders .... one would have to assume that your ground commanders are heating up the radios calling for fighters to come and stop the bombing.

In the west, the I've heard a term like 'taxi-rank' with regard to ground support. Ie, the allied fighter-bombers were just circling overhead waiting for a call for ground support. This would seem to be a bit different from the quick in-and-out raid discussed above. I realize that was the western front, and thus different. But still, ground support seems to imply some planes on some sort of stand-by ready to respond to calls from the battlefield? Especially when there are longer-range planes from more-distant bases? If you call for a strike on an artillery position that is pounding you, being told that the planes are now taking off from their base and that they'll be there 2 hours from now doesn't do you a lot of good.

Ground support attacks are related to the intensity of the ground battle, and thus can be predicted by a ground commander, especially one who has the initiative and is launching attacks. Its a pretty fair guess that the defending commander is going to call for his ground support after you launch your next attack. It would seem possible that the ground commanders could clue in the air commanders as to the time of the expected ground battle?

It would appear that ground attack and ground support are two different cases. Perhaps the ground attack mission on a front-line hex is a quick in-and-out attack that hits before the target can call for defending fighters. But ground support is an ongoing activity during 7 days of ground battle. Ground support should be difficult unless one has control of the air on a regular basis. Perhaps the only time it should not be intercepted would be when under a friendly Air Superiority zone that is providing such air control?

Ground support could perhaps be easy to intercept, as it is easy to predict when and where it will be. But what keeps the enemy from doing this is your own fighters controlling the air over the battlefield ... either by AS mission or perhaps by just by having 60 fighters only 20 km away who aren't doing anything else.

And on ground attack missions, there does seem to be a difference between a single, more unpredictable raid on a target, and a sustained, multi-raid bombing campaign over several days, or several weeks. At some point, one would have to expect to find more enemy fighters waiting for you.

Good points, but only for the Western Allies in 1944-45 and modern war, but not the eastern front 1941-1945.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
AlbertN
Posts: 3828
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by AlbertN »

Actually it was the Germans that had carousels of airplanes in the skies during '41 rapid advances as they were in wait to be called for support. Germans taught tactical doctrine to the Allies.

Markko is quite right on the point of missions spanning over the week and that sides fighting over a hex would be there.

The Allies late in the war simply had everything including plethora of planes and fuel to keep them in the sky in abundance.
Joch1955
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:25 am

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Joch1955 »

There actually would not have been a difference between Ground Attack and Ground Support in RL in WW2. Except in rare circumstances, ground units could not contact AC in the air. Typically, a ground HQ would send a request to an Air HQ, i.e. "we are attacking objective X in a few hours/tomorrow, can you schedule a strike?". Air HQ would designate the air group, pilots would be briefed on the ground, would fly to the target, drop their ordnance and fly back out so chances of interception were slim unless enemy CAP was already there.

That is the way it is supposed to work in game, enemy fighters assigned to GS may intercept your bombers and friendly fighters assigned to GS may intercept the enemy fighters leading to air combat in the hex. ( see 18.1.3 and 18.1.10 in the manual).
cameron88
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:35 am

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by cameron88 »

Issue 7 - Ground attack and bombing does virtually no damage, absolutely worthless to do direct bombing raids with JU87s, level bombers, or anything you could and would have done in WITE1 against enemy troops.

Issue 8 - Flak losses are stupidly high, i dont even need to explain this.
Jango32
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:43 pm

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Jango32 »

In my experience disruption caused by ground attack directives is very powerful and very useful to do to melt a unit's CV rating. So I don't think there is an issue 7 to consider.
Rosencrantus
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:49 am
Location: Canada

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by Rosencrantus »

ORIGINAL: Jango32

In my experience disruption caused by ground attack directives is very powerful and very useful to do to melt a unit's CV rating. So I don't think there is an issue 7 to consider.

+1. I know firsthand just how strong GA can be to weakening a unit.
AlbertN
Posts: 3828
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by AlbertN »

Agreeing that [Ground Attack - Unit] is way too strong if spammed. Probably even 1-2 rounds already fatigue the unit sensibly.

Frankly I'd simply erase tha aspect of the function and considering the 'turn lengthy' Ground Attack is factually Ground Support IF there is a real ground attack.

The best way to represent it would be that a 'Ground Attacked' (by planes) unit cannot be 'Ground Attacked' subsequently by land units. But since the game envision first A and then B in sequence, it would be clumsy and not applicable.

I think WITE1 had an approach to limit in planes and amount the ground attacks on a specific hex.

On a different notion has anything changed to Naval Interdiction? It seems to me something has - I cannot isolate anymore enemy ports by naval interdiction business. It seems to work during my turn BUT the interdiction lowers sensibly during the enemy turn; without enemy air intervention.
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

Post by KenchiSulla »

Hi Joel, Issue 4 - beta 1.02.06

I've been looking @ aircraft losses in the Operation Typhoon scenario and what I see:

- Direct kills by flak are fairly rare
- Crashes after being damaged by flak are common
- Some op losses occur

Roughly 5-15% of attacking bombers are lost by flak or ops... every time. That seems excessive...



Image
Attachments
Test.jpg
Test.jpg (94.91 KiB) Viewed 66 times
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”