Patch 1.13 News

[Czarina Julie]

That said, what (specific) triggers would you have for BP to trigger?

They way it is with land_percentage updated to use a new parameter/command of army_effectiness (as stated above). Basically instead of the unit count, an average of all army units strength. The outstanding question that still needs to be answered, do we or don't we include the army units in the redeployment queue?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

They way it is with land_percentage updated to use a new parameter/command of army_effectiness (as stated above). Basically instead of the unit count, an average of all army units strength. The outstanding question that still needs to be answered, do we or don't we include the army units in the redeployment queue?

That sounds awfully complicated to program, but if you wanted to go ahead, it should ideally be a separate event command, with people having the choice to still use land_percentage as it stands should they wish.

Ideally both would include all units in the redeployment queue as they are active units that form part of the army.

 

[Czarina Julie]

That sounds awfully complicated to program, but if you wanted to go ahead,

I haven't check yet but I'm fairly certain that the code is performing a loop through all the country's units to see which are land units. If so, then as it's looping through the units to determine if the unit is a land unit and adding it to the current count variable, it selects/gets the unit's strength and adds it to another variable. Once the loop (count) has finished, then it's just taking the sum of the unit's strength and dividing it by the number of (land) units counted to give us the average strength.

it should ideally be a separate event command

I believe we should use both. The army_effectiness to determine if the army is still able to conduct war (effective) and a redesigned land_percentage that gives us the core (owned) provinces still under the country's control.
Edit: I forgot about the lost_national.

Ideally both would include all units in the redeployment queue as they are active units that form part of the army.

I agreed but had to ask since IIRC some thought that they shouldn't be counted.

Of course this all depends on how much I can get coded to how long we should wait before releasing the patch. We can't get everything into 1.13

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I believe we should use both

I hope you think this still, perhaps reword the land_percentage to army_size, rename lost_national to lost_land_percentage, and then have a new command called army_effectiveness?

 

[Czarina Julie]

We could do that but I'm not even sure it will make the cut for 1.13. It all depends on how much time until the release date (which is currently undetermined).

 

[MJF]

One thing that's always bothered me is the ineffectiveness and high casualty counts for air strikes on enemy air bases. This was a major tactic, especially early in the war. The Luftwaffe decimated the USSRs airfields and airforce at the start of Barbarossa. Of course, heavy AA and even INTs/MRFs stationed there can and should have a defensive effect, but whenever I launch attacks on occupied airbases it's me, not them, that gets torn up - whether it's planes or carriers attacking. Is this fixable, or am I just doing it wrong?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I find carriers especially do take hefty losses no matter what you do - you can improve their efficiency with Subsidiary Carrier Role Doctrine, Carrier Task Force Doctrine, Deep Operations Doctrine, Massive Strike Doctrine, & Carrier Aviation Doctrine but I've also struggled to have success with carriers- least not without taking very heavy losses to a carrier or two.

However for tactical bombers with escort fighters I've encountered great success against aircraft of all kind. Researching the TAC doctrines, and especially the Infrastructure Destruction Doctrine, will be a big boost in this regard. Perhaps if you continue to take heavy losses, shifting to night time bombing will help.

 

[MJF]

I find carriers especially do take hefty losses no matter what you do.....I've also struggled to have success with carriers- least not without taking very heavy losses to a carrier or two.

However for tactical bombers with escort fighters I've encountered great success against aircraft of all kind.

Yep!

Researching the TAC doctrines, and especially the Infrastructure Destruction Doctrine, will be a big boost in this regard.

True!

Perhaps if you continue to take heavy losses, shifting to night time bombing will help.

Yes, General Herr Field Marshall!

Seems to me that a tweaking of carrier strikes on either air or ports could be made to result in somewhat better results and less carrier damage. However, repeated attacks should be met with strong rebuffs.

On a separate issue, It's just amazing to me how ineffective Pearl Harbor-type CV attacks are, vs how devastating land-based bomber attacks are. With Germany, if Sealion is successful, even in 1940, you can destroy almost the entire UK fleet in Scapa Flo with CAS and TAC sustained attacks. Keep the carriers just outside the port, and don't use them in the attack!

 

[Czarina Julie]

you can destroy almost the entire UK fleet in Scapa Flo with CAS and TAC sustained attacks. Keep the carriers just outside the port, and don't use them in the attack!

Agree! I believe that the TAC are way too destructive against ports (and even open sea provinces). The sea provinces should be the domain of the carriers and NAV bombers, not TAC. As for the CAS, well that I would leave as is since they are a very destructive force. How often do CAS get the ability to attack ships? You don't see the UK porting ships in its southern ports when France falls because they are within range of CAS in France.

Here's the navalattack parameter breakdown between Naval Bombers, Tactical Bombers, and CAS:

Bomber	navalattack	navalattack	Bomber	navalattack	Bomber
		0.5	Great War Bomber (1918)
		1	Interwar Bomber (1928)
		2	Early Bomber (1934)
Basic Naval Bomber (1938)	4	3	Basic Tactical Bomber (1937)	4	Basic CAS (1937)
Improved Naval Bomber (1941)	6	4	Improved Tactical Bomber (1940)	6	Improved CAS (1940)
Advanced Naval Bomber (1943)	8	5	Advanced Tactical Bomber (1943)	8	Advanced CAS (1943)
Turbojet Naval Bomber (1945)	10	6	Turbojet Tactical Bomber (1945)	10	Turbojet CAS (1945)
Improved Turbojet Naval Bomber (1949)	12	7	Improved Turbojet Tactical Bomber (1948)	12	Improved Turbojet CAS (1947)
				14	Modern Jet CAS (1955)

As we can see, the navalattack parameter is simply done. The CAS and Naval Bombers have the same navalattack for comparable (or close to) years and increments by two for each new bomber level. Whereas, the Tactical Bomber increments by one for each level (except 1918 to 1928 by only 0.5). If we look at the beginning of the Battle of Britain (1940), there is only a difference of two between Tactical and Naval/CAS. However, how many nations have 1940 level Tactical and CAS in 1940, let alone 1941 Naval? So I think we should not tweak any Tactical, CAS, or Naval bombers but look elsewhere for tweaks.

It's just amazing to me how ineffective Pearl Harbor-type CV attacks are, vs how devastating land-based bomber attacks are.

MJF has hit the issue on the head. The carriers, actually the CAGs, should be the destructive power of the navy. Before going further, we need to know how divisions, brigades/attachments, and the different unit types coexist (I know that this is basic knowledge for most but for it's for those that don't know it):

• Divisions - The term is not actually army divisions but units that are not brigades. They are independent units that can be place into the game(e.g. ships, plane, etc.).
• Brigades - These are dependent units that require a division before they can be placed into the game. They are the attachments (MPs, Engineers, Artillery, Fire Control, etc.)
• Currently, there are 3 unit types in the game For a brigade/attachment to be attached to a division, they must be the same unit type and the division allowed to use that brigade/attachment:
  • air_unit_type
  • land_unit_type
  • naval_unit_type

Why the history lesson? Because there are difference parameter/statistics between the three. Getting back on track with the carrier/CAG issue, air units use a different parameter for bombing naval targets, navalattack for air units and seaattack for naval units. Although we think of the CAGs as air units, they are not. They are naval units and use the seaatack parameter. Carrier bombing utilizes two parameters types to determine damage, seaattack against ships (except subs which they have subattack) and shorebombardment (yes CAGs bombs shores) against air bases. Since the issue we're talking about is a Pearl Harbor type event (bombing ships), we're going to focus on the seaattack parameter.

When a port strike mission occurs, it uses the CAG's seaatack parameter against the ships in port. The 1941 CAG, currently researched through the Advanced Air Carrier (1941), has a seaattack of 8. These numbers assume that the attacking nation has 1941 CAGs in 1941. The carrier has a build time of 180 days (6 months), so it's highly unlikable that any nation would have this except for Japan and they might have one due to the time to research the carrier technology and the time to upgrade the CAGs. We'll use an Improved Air Carrier (1938) carrier. The Improved CAG (1938) has a seaatack of 6. Now let's compare a 1938 CAG against a Great War Battleship (1918), Great War Battlecruiser (1918), and a Great War Heavy Cruiser (1981). A 1918 Battleship has a seaattack of 11, a 1918 Battlecruiser has a 9, 1918 Heavy Cruiser has a 6, and the 1938 CAG has an 6. Yes, looking at this one thinks that a 1918 Battleship and 1918 Battlecruiser are more powerful than the aircraft carrier CAG and the 1918 Heavy Cruiser has the same, all are true. But we must factor in the 1938 CAG's surfacedetectioncapability (ability to target enemy ships) and distance parameters. The surfacedetectioncapability is a huge advantage for the CAG but it's the distance (not to be confused with a naval unit's range...distance they can travel before refueling/resupplying) that makes the CAGs so lethal against ships, at sea. If we were to make the CAG's surfacedetectioncapability, distance, or seaattack higher values, many more ships would be at the bottom of the sea whether the enemy ships are in port or not. It's the task_efficiency for port_strike that matters.

Task efficiency for port strikes and air bases can currently be increased through the Naval Doctrines. The game has a task efficiency, for any task types, 0 through 1.0. Currently, the highest levels you can obtain for port strike and air base strike is 0.5. The game has three separate naval doctrines one can research. I'll call them UK (the left side of the Naval Doctrines screen), USA (the middle of the screen), and German (the left of the screen) for ease. The ability to conduct port and air base strikes is in the Fleet Auxiliary Carrier Doctrine which is required for any of the three doctrines. The worst doctrine to follow for air base and port strike operations is German. As one researches through this doctrine, they will accumulate only 0.1 in task efficiency in port and air base strikes with the Subsidiary Carrier Role Doctrine (1939). The UK path will accumulate 0.3 task efficiency in port and air base strikes with 3 doctrines. The USA path will accumulate 0.5 task efficiency in port and air base strikes with 6 doctrines. We could create a new technology tree to increase the task efficiency for both strike types but we could only increase it by a total of 0.5 since we have to consider all three doctrine types to stay within the 0 to 1.0 allowable range. If we did it this way, the UK path could increase to 0.8, the German path to 0.6 and the USA path to 1.0. Is this fair? Does it simulate real life?
No it doesn't. So the best way is to separate the port and air base strike efficiencies from their currently located doctrines into a separate technology tree or a separate CAG technology tree that any nation can research to any level they want up to 1.0. I think the best way to do this is a new CAG technology tree that increases the task efficiencies. What are your thoughts?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Balancing the naval doctrines would be ideal. The base strike doctine is simply objectively better right now - unless you intend to complete the war by 1941.

Over time it gets virtually all the advantages of the other two routes, while they just end in 1941/42.

Perhaps simply enabling the rest of the base strike doctrine techs to be researched after completing the entire routes of both would rectify this? Would mean base strike is still the best for carriers, but the others gradually catch up, but still lag behind, base strike.

Also play testing submarine warfare would be ideal as it's been a constant bone of contention. At the moment it's near impossible to starve the UK (or Japan) of merchant ships, as ASW is quite powerful, even in 1939/40. I guess half the problem is hindsight. Arguably if the UK prepared for ASW from 1936 it would've been ready for the dreaded 300 German U-boats that would otherwise had a decent chance of crippling Britain's sea routes.

 

[MJF]

As I remember, CV's in the game are treated as long range artillery units. There doesn't seem to be a way (currently) to have damage split into 2 screens - one for the vessel and one for the aircraft. If the current single damage factor is kept, there is no way to separate 1/3 of your planes shot down (more quickly replacable, with new crews) vs 1/3 ship damage, requiring 1 year of so in dry dock.

When a CV launches a port strike , the enemy attack values should be meaningless. Defense values, especially air defense, should count. I think it would be good if these "Pearl Harbor" attacks produced more damage, and less org drain, but after 2-3 attacks your org is too low to continue. I think the org drain was to simulate that these are "hit & run," you don't stay anchored for a few days repeating these, unless you want to go to the bottom yourself. I believe the attack takes place over a day's or night's period, so the org drain is ok, but the damage needs to be more.

If attacking an airbase, enemy planes defense values should be useless, but Int/MRF attack values could count, assuming some of them can launch. AA at the base is quite important here. I take tremendous losses whenever I try to CV-attack an enemy airbase. I take little loss in day 1 of a port strike, and drain org, but cause very little damage. It's the damage caused that is the glaring issue I believe.

 

[Czarina Julie]

"Pearl Harbor" attacks produced more damage, and less org drain, but after 2-3 attacks your org is too low to contunue. I think the org drain was to simulate that these are "hit & run," you don't stay anchored for a few days repeating these, unless you want to go to the bottom yourself. I believe the attack takes place over a day's or night's period, so the org drain is ok, but the damage needs to be more.

I think 2 port strikes before having to resupply is more than enough. Pearl Harbor had 2 waves of attacks and it caused more than enough damage. What we must factor more into the port strike logic is surprise. There is a modifier for surprise that separates the three types of battles AOD perform. They are air, land, and naval. Now here's where I need some help from you all. I believe that just adding to the naval surprise modifier, so that "Pearl Harbor" type events are more accurate, will skew the game too much. The naval surprise modifier, modifies all naval events/battles, not just the port strike. Therefore, I think adding a "temporary" surprise factor into the game code port strike logic is a better solution and leaving the normal process/research surprise factors as they are. The surprise factor in the port strike logic would not affect the country's surprise naval modifier. It would be a mathematical calculation coded within the port strike logic to inflict more damage because the enemy caught "with their pants down." Now where I need your help:

• Do you like/believe in the above logic to add in a surprise mathematical calculation for port strike logic?
• Any ideas what the surprise mathematical calculation should be?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

• Any ideas what the surprise mathematical calculation should be?

Not really, but it should certainly factor in the encrypt (attacker) or decrypt (defender) tech levels. Very hard to implement, but if the carrier fleet has been spotted, or entered into battle with the enemy, shortly before striking a port in a nearby area, the surprise element would be significantly reduced.

• Do you like/believe in the above logic to add in a surprise mathematical calculation for port strike logic?

I do.

 

[Pioniere]

Models for our new interwar regulars.

 

[m0xxY]

When will 1.13 release?

 

[Czarina Julie]

When will 1.13 release?

We were hoping for June. We'll still try for it but it will probably be mid-July to late July. We could release something in June but it would have no changes to the AOD Game executable. We need to finish the base/new technologies, updated AI files, 3 new countries (Orange Free State, Afghan People's Republic, and Austro-Hungarian Empire), new country events, new random events, new/updated global events, etc. Only then can we jump into the AOD Game Code.
Currently, the entire team is waiting on one person before they can resume testing and updating the files. The new and updated technologies are currently taking much more time than I estimated and the rest of the team can't do much without me getting those done and posted up to Steam so they can download the changes. The slowdown concerning the new /updated technologies is due to the fact that more than one person working it, will increase coordination which in turn increases the overall time.

 

[stevep]

We were hoping for June. We'll still try for it but it will probably be mid-July to late July. We could release something in June but it would have no changes to the AOD Game executable. We need to finish the base/new technologies, updated AI files, 3 new countries (Orange Free State, Afghan People's Republic, and Austro-Hungarian Empire), new country events, new random events, new/updated global events, etc. Only then can we jump into the AOD Game Code.
Currently, the entire team is waiting on one person before they can resume testing and updating the files. The new and updated technologies are currently taking much more time than I estimated and the rest of the team can't do much without me getting those done and posted up to Steam so they can download the changes. The slowdown concerning the new /updated technologies is due to the fact that more than one person working it, will increase coordination which in turn increases the overall time.

CJ

Please take you time. Given the huge amount of work involved I don't think anyone will bother about a few weeks. Better to get it right and well checked and also probably for you as your got a hell of a workload by the sound of it. While its fun its just a game.

Steve

 

[Pioniere]

Models have been expanded for other nations. Colors will be used for the later cold war era models. We now also have the 1964 version. Her is Vichy France, Nationalist France and U87 the Japan pro China.

Marine models updated for late coldwar.

 

[Beagá]

Thanks for the support for this game. Still the best HOI for me.

 

[Pioniere]

German mountaineer troops 1930 to 1964 models.