Paradropping broken?

[Barkdreg]

tHis seems to be regarded as the best quick-fix.

How about this?

For Battlefild Interdiction doctrine (ID 9100) change

command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.3 } to
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = [color=red]0.2[/color] }

For Infiltration Bombardement (ID=9360), Carousel Bombardement (ID=9370) and Keypoint Bombardement (ID=9380) change

command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.1 } to
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = [color=red]-0.1[/color] }

For Theater Operation (ID=17010) change

command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.3 } to
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = [color=red]-0.1[/color] }

For Blitzkrieg (ID=6260) and Deep Operatiopns (ID=6330) change

command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.2 } to
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = [color=red]-0.05[/color] }

This would give you an initial penalty of 45%. Each of the four mentioned air doctrines reduces this penalty by 10% to a 5% penalty. Either of the two land doctrines will erase the final 5% (Blitzkrieg is part of Spearhead, Deep Operations is part of Human Wave, so you can only get one of them).

It's not great, I know, but it should work.

 

[unmerged(38686)]

omg

para modifier was ok in 1.1 ARMA
and those code 1.1 and 1.2 are even same

Battlefild Interdiction doctrine (ID 9100)
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.3 }

Infiltration Bombardement (ID=9360), Carousel Bombardement (ID=9370) and Keypoint Bombardement (ID=9380)
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.1 }

Theater Operation (ID=17010)
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.3 }

but I'm not sure about this code(patch1.1 did not change land_doctrines_tech.txt file)

Blitzkrieg (ID=6260) and Deep Operatiopns (ID=6330)
command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = 0.2 }

then why this new bug occurs
I think 1.2 para fomula missing..."one minus"...(1-mdf%)

 

[unmerged(11218)]

People drop paratroopers directly on top of enemy units? This is madness and in would not happen in real life. When this happened at Crete and Arnhem the paratroopers were cut to pieces if I remember correctly. Therefore dropping these troops onto enemy units is something I personally wouldn't do.

 

[telesien]

I think 1.2 para fomula missing..."one minus"...(1-mdf%)

this would make different resultes than the one observed. this new bug must be result of hardcoded way the air mission effeciency was counted. this is now fixed, but it broke this part which was working well.

People drop paratroopers directly on top of enemy units? This is madness and in would not happen in real life. When this happened at Crete and Arnhem the paratroopers were cut to pieces if I remember correctly. Therefore dropping these troops onto enemy units is something I personally wouldn't do.

both operations were not as simple as it may look and especially the one on Crete was complicated and better planed that it may seem

 

[MartinBG]

Because if it weren't for the 5% limitation, this would be the perfect "workaround" (instead of waiting for a miraculous quick fix from PI. Make the numbers, simulate the progress of research and you'll see that it works (if the limitation weren't there...).

In fact, I'm confused now: somebody mentioned earlier that the limitation was not in effect, that he could get to +155% of mission efficiency.

So, who is right here? Is that limitation really in effect? If not, then this is the temporary solution. I already modded the files (including savegame) to compensate for this problem.

Yes but 5% limitation IS there can not be by-passed in-game with command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = x.x }. But you can change airborne_assault value in save game to what-ever you want and this will be used in-game untill you use again command = { type = task_efficiency which = airborne_assault value = x.x }.

Look at my previous posts in this thread for more detailed information.

 

[Primeagle]

What about other missions that actually used to work? Some one mentioned Convoy bombing. I don't know how to test it since there is no battle display.

 

[Gormadoc]

What about other missions that actually used to work? Some one mentioned Convoy bombing. I don't know how to test it since there is no battle display.

To test this reliably you will need to set up a controlled inviroment where you can isolate all effects.

I tested most of the mission efficiency's in arma 1.1 by making a small scenario centered around the black sea. With 3 countries. Think i should get that set up again to go through some of the missions again.

 

[blue emu]

People drop paratroopers directly on top of enemy units? This is madness...

Stop a moment and consider the granularity-level of the game... the provinces in HOI-2 are typically 100 km or more across. Are you claiming that in real life, the only successful paradrop operations were those in which the parachutists were dropped more than 100 km from the nearest enemy? Which operations were those?

 

[Caesar_Augustus]

Been following this thread with interest. I've been tinkering with this (new) bug that has creeped in and think to have found a reasonable solution.

First off, I'm using the three doctrine tech trees from the lastest CORE mod, with several adjustments with respect to standard game unit model numbers. Secondly, I have eliminated (this is only a matter of preference; they can be used in combination with doctrine tech modifiers) all airborne_assault task_efficiency parameters from the airborne units themselves (infantry tech). Thirdly, I've adjusted the five air_doctrine (CORE!) techs to the following values (not mentioning the names nor their tech id numbers to avoid confusion with the origional game techs):

air_doctrine tech 1: allows airborne assault mission, given it a task_efficiency of +0.55 and at the same time a -0.20. This means, given the base 25% +55% = 80% -20%= 60% mission_efficiency on the game tech screen (which means a -60 paradrop penalty to start off)

air_doctrine tech 2: task_efficiency -20 (now with a 40% mission_efficiency, which means a -40 paradrop penalty)

air_doctrine tech 3: task_efficiency -20 (now with a 20% mission_efficiency, which means a -20 paradrop penalty)

air_doctrine tech 4: task_efficiency -10 (now with a 10% mission_efficiency, which means a -10 paradrop penalty)

air_dcotrine tech 5: task_efficiency -5 (now with a 5% mission_efficiency, which means a -5 paradrop penalty)

So, at the worst, there is a -60 paradrop penalty and, after all tech research is done, a -5 paradrop penalty, which is the minimum. True, this does not work as originally intended, since there is no way to get negative mission_efficiency modifiers (and thus a positive paradrop "penalty") without editing the save game file, but at least this seems to be a most reasonable way to use airborne troops. True again, there will always be a negative paradrop penalty and never a positive value for this, but this makes paratroopers far from useless...

Just my contribution... *cough, cough* Nothing like a small hot-fix patch, though...

 

[Even Steven]

Bravo Paradox, you have done it again.
A patch is supposed to make the game better if you didnt know that :wacko:

 

[Adm. Spruance]

I've applied the temporary workaround. Kudos to those who developed it. Now to move forward and actually play the game.

 

[unmerged(51416)]

Stop a moment and consider the granularity-level of the game... the provinces in HOI-2 are typically 100 km or more across. Are you claiming that in real life, the only successful paradrop operations were those in which the parachutists were dropped more than 100 km from the nearest enemy? Which operations were those?

Not mentioning Market-Garden and 1 UK Airborne landing a bit far away and then stopped by armoured counterattack. And Eben Emal When one had suprise on his side, 'landing on top' wasn't that bad idea...

 

[unmerged(74599)]

I am glad to see that the patch fixes airborne assault finally.

My feeling is actually that airborne units are horrendously overpowered in DD generally, given that historically speaking the only truly succesful airborne assault in WW2, where airborne units comprised the main force of the operation, and were not merely an ancilliary part of a combined arms operation, was the invasion of Crete, and even then it only succeeded when reinforced.

Arnhem was a disaster that got a good paint job from the propoganda department.

The all out airborne assault form the air was one of those interesting ideas that military planners have that sound fine in theory, but never really proved themselves in the real world, at least not how it was envisioned. The 101st Airborne did not win at D-Day, that was the Marines, who used more conventional means of transport.

I think truly they should only act to pin an enemy, or occupy a vacant province, or add an extra line of assault to give an attacker the envelopment malus to a defender, and that is about it, but I am tollerant of these, what I consider, minor failings in the game system.

If you guys come up with a good workaround to fix it so that is simulates WAD, I will have to apply it though.

 

[unmerged(11218)]

Stop a moment and consider the granularity-level of the game... the provinces in HOI-2 are typically 100 km or more across. Are you claiming that in real life, the only successful paradrop operations were those in which the parachutists were dropped more than 100 km from the nearest enemy? Which operations were those?

I still wouldn't land my paratroopers directly onto the enemy. They can land behind enemy lines and 'march' to the fighting after a little re-organisation.

There will be no Operation Market Garden with my elite troops.

 

[telesien]

I still wouldn't land my paratroopers directly onto the enemy. They can land behind enemy lines and 'march' to the fighting after a little re-organisation.

There will be no Operation Market Garden with my elite troops.

that is pitty, since the airborne part (Market) was 100% succesful. the dissaster was caused by the bad planing involving classical land advance during operation Garden.

I am glad to see that the patch fixes airborne assault finally.

well you may think so, but making assault less effective with every next technology can't be wad even for you

 

[unmerged(74599)]

Well this really isnt the place to get into it, but an operation must be wholey succesful, in all its parts to be succesful, at least to the point of achieving its main objective. In this case the objective was securing a bridge across the Rhine.

For example, I load a weapon, but then do not aim it an hit my target, can I say that the loading operation was succesful? Well I guess I could, but it doesn't mean very much. Hanging a bunch of guys out to dry behind enemy lines, does not seem to me to be a very succesful "operation" and underscored the problems with airborne assault, in that they clearly needed to be reinforced and supported, as an essential part of the operation that they took part in. They lacked proper equipment to hold to the positions they held, for any length of time. Things such as proper anti-tank artillery, were not something that could really be part of an airborne operation.

That is an endemic problem of airborne operations. The Germans had similar problems with armoured cars in the Netherlands.

So really, the airborne assault was not succesfull because it was impossible to accomplish what needed to be accomplished in order to make it succesful overall, which was quickly reinforce the positions and cross the Rhine.

But yes I will make the Docs, simulate WAD and then nerf from there.

 

[unmerged(11218)]

that is pitty, since the airborne part (Market) was 100% succesful. the dissaster was caused by the bad planing involving classical land advance during operation Garden.

How could it be 100% successful when the allies failed to take the Bridge at Arnhem?

 

[telesien]

How could it be 100% successful when the allies failed to take the Bridge at Arnhem?

they were fighting right next to the bridge. and even longer than it was planned possible. it was the failure of land advance which should relieve them, but arrived too late (or maybe not at all. i am not sure abou this). i still insist that Market was succesful, but i am willing to take Arnhem situation in consideration and make it 90% succesful. still very high number for war operation

 

[unmerged(74599)]

Actually they got across the bridge and were wacked by the 2nd SS Panzer Division.

Really, to simulate how paratroopers were used in the war they should get one airdrop, which automtically reduces the strength of the unit by 75% and then it should lose its airborne status for the rest of the war. That seemed to be the patern.

 

[Myth]

Actually they got across the bridge and were wacked by the 2nd SS Panzer Division.

Really, to simulate how paratroopers were used in the war they should get one airdrop, which automtically reduces the strength of the unit by 75% and then it should lose its airborne status for the rest of the war. That seemed to be the patern.

Pattern? I figured the pattern would be set by the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. The former IIRC dropped in Sicily, Normandy, Netherlands and across the Rhine and the latter dropped on the final three at least. That's not bad, really.