beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Battle of Britain "Wings of Victory"
User avatar
Racoon
Senior Airman
Posts: 192
Joined: 08 Feb 2009, 14:09

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by Racoon »

Thanks Two27 and stickman for your detailed information. I just finished another raid on Brook lands Hawker factory, this time using Stukas, with great success. I will monitor the damage (as you suggested) in upcoming days.

However the re-bombing of the already destroyed buildings or open areas (by both dive bombers and level bombers) still makes me wonder what makes the AI to behave like that when there are plenty of intact targets right in front of him. :roll:

two27
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1061
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 20:02

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by two27 »

Target selection is all LW AI. I've only peeked under the hood at that code and quickly backed away. LW AI is on my radar so there is a chance I'll get to it for 2.13 release.

two27
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1061
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 20:02

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by two27 »

With Stickman posting testing results on the 2.13 campaign changes, there is probably some interest in where the campaign beta stands at present.

Manually set and verified the dogleg for the major land targets (fighter fields and fighter related factories) to prevent absurd raid paths. This will help keep assigned escorts with the bombers.

Extensive changes to the 3d-to-2d report data handoff. Not fully tested and probably not complete yet. Much better than it was.

Connected the campaign to the Options-Sim-Mission settings for LW and RAF skill.

Corrected LW escort takeoff times so there is much better chance to have the escorts show up on time.
Coded in a 5% failure rate that rendezvous is not successful.

Temporary change to have LW escorts fly in a block rather than Schwarme so the AC are easier to count/track in 3d.

Strafe no longer set to On by default for LW escorts.

Commented out much of the old Reconn code. (Maybe this is where I broke bomber attack types.)

Extensive changes to LW Task dialog to get the strength spinners for fighters and bombers to work as expected. This removed the last remaining LW unwanted unit lockout. (The spinners for escort allocation – attached, detached, return – is still unpredictable.)

LW can now add and remove units from a raid and have the correct number of aircraft added/subtracted.

LW will no longer be able to create a raid with 4 Staffeln in a Gruppe.

Bombers will always form 10 AC Staffeln (previously could be 10 or 12). Escorts will always form 12 AC Staffeln (same a before, but now it's locked in).

RAF delayed activation: The Polish and Czech squadrons begin the game with 0 AC and will activate with their full complement of AC on the correct dates. Like with some of the LW Gruppen, 245 now represents a different unit. 245 Sq was in Ireland during the battle and it's data now represents 312 (Czech) Sq.
Delayed units are 302, 303, 310, 312 (245), and 1C.

Two 13 Gr squadrons which were inactive during the battle are now inactive in the game. They have 0 AC and can't receive replacements. These are 232 and 263 Squadrons.

LW now has access to consolidation of 109s. When a 109 Gruppe in Calais drops below the minimum AC (36), one of the Luftflotte 3 109 Gruppen will have its AC count reduced to 0. It's pilots and planes will be allocated to the three neediest LF2 109 Gruppen. Gaining units have their skill and morale adjusted based on the losing unit's stats and number of pilots received in each unit. Additionally, LF3 109 Gruppen are considered to have been used up if the campaign start date is later than 10 July. Those Gruppen have 0 AC, can't receive replacements, and can't be stripped to provide AC and pilots for other units.

When LW player is looking at his own airfields, the Fighter and Bomber buttons now represent the 1st and 2nd units stationed there. Click the buttons to bring up the Gruppe detail dialog. Mousing over the buttons will provide a popup with the Gruppe's parent Geschwader designation.

RAF Directives, rest if Cat below now is ordered A,B,C, rather than the reverse. Also, put C back in which while not needed, serves to turn off the control since no squadron can have a category below C.

RAF 13 Group swap code (replacing Cat C sq from 10,11,12 Groups with a good squadron from 13 Group) now can make intelligent decisions.
First priority is swap a good squadron on an operational field.
Second priority concerns Cat C squadrons on inoperative fields. Now the code will look to put the good 13 Gr sq on a different field which is operational. If the only option is to leave a Cat C squadron on an inoperative field, then that is what it will do. No good can come of putting a healthy squadron on a field that is out of action. Better to save the good squadron and await a better opportunity for a swap.

RAF and LW Squadron/Geschwader list dialogs and unit detail dialogs now display meaningful information about what the unit is doing and if it is busy.

Tweaked LW victory condition. Be interesting to see how much difference it makes.

Completed rough draft of new RAF commander campaign tutorial. Trumper asked me to rewrite Chapter 4 (Campaign) for the manual. LW commander campaign tutorial next, but not until I get some LW items fixed so I don't have to make excuses in the manual.


Pending (items I want to get done fairly soon)

RAF:
RAF squadron relocations to be as smart as the swap code.

Fix RAF Frontline setting (Coastal, S.London, N.London) so it doesn't lock on S.London.

Fix RAF Task dialog squadron lockout that doesn't clear when a squadron is removed from a mission.

Research and solve RAF AI non-responsiveness when losses reach a certain level.

Maybe change how patrols are set up. Not sure about this (how to do it). But it might be better if squadrons on coastal squadrons were excluded from patrols; they are after all the best and most responsive interceptors.

LW:
When manually moving route waypoints, get the fuel remaining to recalculate instead of essentially locking with the original values.

Maybe try to get LW AI to take into account escort range BEFORE a raid is set up.

LW Task dialog escort type spinner fixed.

Seems there were more LW changes that need to be done before writing the new tutorial, but they aren't coming to mind at the moment.

User avatar
stickman
BDG
Posts: 8754
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:17
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by stickman »

Raccoon,
I just finished another raid on Brook lands Hawker factory, this time using Stukas, with great success. I will monitor the damage (as you suggested) in upcoming days.
Stukas are the best for bombing accuracy in BoBII. They will split up when bombing, and try to bomb individual (coded) target buildings in a Target,
even though the individual targets are scattered around quite some distance from the "Main Central" target.
Ben remade the Brighton Docks and terrain as per better historical. I helped him get him get the coordinates right in MAINWLD.
Brighton Docks is now a long thin "target" layout from west Brighton out-skirts to near Shoreham, and there are 22 individual targets, many of which are oil tanks.
The Stukas, when they bomb Brighton Docks, go after every one of these far flung targets. Quite impressive behavior, actually.
Level bombers, only used, will never destroy Brighton Docks, in 3D play. 2D play I am not sure.

However.. I have seen Stuka Staffeln "See the Target", and make their bomb run OK.... and none of them release their bombs, even with no RAF threats nearby.
This is despicable behavior!

ME110s when dive bombing are not as good as the Stukas bombing far flung and scattered individual targets around the Main Target.
Sometimes I see them all hammer onto the Main target area.
Sometimes I see them split up and attack individual targets within a Target with many individual targets.

For example at Manston (which I made true to 1939) with more individual targets than any other airfield yet made, and a lot of ObjectAdds buildings that are not real targets.
Some of the long huts are targets, and I randomly selected which of them are true targets, in a scattered fashion that even I forgot which ones are.
Most targets are not huts at Manston, and be more important things like hangars, workshops, Staff, and vital storage, etc. But.. some huts are targets too.
This Raid by a Gruppe of ME110s last month with v2.13 beta has the ME110s splitting up a bit and hammering the Hangers & Workshops first, which I assigned much higher scores to
rather than Staff buildings, Stores buildings or small huts.

We caught a Hurricane Squadron on the field that scrambled just after the ME110s bombed.
I tried to bomb them, but missed. Those Hurries hurt us later!
Image

Level bombers cannot bomb with this individual target accuracy, but Stukas would do better bombing as I have seen.
Stukas will need a good escort though!
However the re-bombing of the already destroyed buildings or open areas (by both dive bombers and level bombers) still makes me wonder what makes the AI to behave like that when there are plenty of intact targets right in front of him. :roll:
I'm not sure if Stukas bomb individual targets that are already destroyed. I need to test that more. Be stupid if they do.
I have never seen a Stuka drop a bomb very very far from it's intended target though. They usually hit within ~ 50 meters or better.
I have often seen level bombers over-shoot the target (at all altitudes) and miss the Main Target way off into fields and houses, or other undesirable bomb lays.
Know this about about level bombers:
Level bombers are "area-saturation" bombers and have no regard for individual targets. They will only try to release bombs unto the "Main Target" coordinates.

When I made Factories or Docks type Targets, I assigned the "Main Target" building and it's coordinates, to be the most central target within the "core" of all of the individual target buildings.
That is where the level bombers will go and release bombs at.
Also trying to reproduce the buildings best I can true to history on my research.

Thinking of "over-shoot". I was always foremost an amateur student of the "American Civil War", or "The War Between The States"
as my southern cousins call it, and I have heard them call it "The Northern Aggression!"
I always thought of it as "The War That Ended Slavery".
Whatever....Anyway.. during that war, on both sides, the artillerymen had a known historical tendency to OVER-SHOOT their targets, unless using point-blank canister Shot!

Just a thought that never leaves my mind.

Aloha!

User avatar
Racoon
Senior Airman
Posts: 192
Joined: 08 Feb 2009, 14:09

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by Racoon »

stickman, I understand the inaccuracies of saturation bombings but at least the bombers fly towards the intended buildings not open areas with nothing on them. Many times I've seen level bombers bomb an airfield but the open runway area (which doesn't have any effect in airfield status) instead of targeting other infrastructure, in fact, sometimes they don't even fly towards the buildings in the airfield to say they over shoot, rather they fly directly towards open field (and bomb it) with buildings on their port side.

Also ME-110s are assigned as dive bombers in BOB and as you said some times they go after individual targets but, more often they all drop their bombs on one hanger.

Also it would be nice to have the ME-110s on a bombing mission avoid dog-fighting (keep their bombs and proceed) as long as the escorting ME-109s are keeping the RAF at bay.

two27
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1061
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 20:02

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by two27 »

Runway status is one of the key factors in field availability in game as in the history. Of the RAF fields reduced to individual AC landings or single squadron operations (like Biggin Hill), the runways/open fields were the deciding factor. Unfortunately, LW intelligence didn't see it that way.

When I return to field damage and repair code, I am considering basing operational status solely on the field to more closely match the history. Some of the new RAF AI code looks at runway first.

One problem with 110s in 3d is that they dive bomb from altitude like Stukas. (Partly problem of LW AI not detecting AC type before setting altitude.) 110s were excellent low-level attack aircraft and someday I'd like them to play that role well in the game.

User avatar
stickman
BDG
Posts: 8754
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:17
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by stickman »

Racoon,
Many times I've seen level bombers bomb an airfield but the open runway area (which doesn't have any effect in airfield status) instead of targeting other infrastructure,
The take off & landing field is a sub-section of different types of targets within an overall airfield "Target".

Note that when you open a Target menu for an airfield, and click on the Damage button,
you will see 4 sub-sections of different types of targets within an overall airfield "Target". These are:

Hangar/Workshops
Staff Buildings
Fuel/Ammo Stores (not how I would label it. Would label it as Stores Buildings)
Landing Field

The Landing Field sub-section for all RAF airfield Targets at game start is 0/32.
Within the BFIELDS folder, MAINWLD, at every RAF airfield there are 32 (hidden and invisible until a bomb strikes one) individual targets
to crater an airfield.

Before v2.12, the only easy way to see the craters that spawn on these bomb hit "Landing Field" targets, was using the old Reconn Photo button
which caused most folks to get a CTD.
-- two27 decided to get rid of the bloody nasty CTD causing Reconn Photo button which was screen resolution affiliated with, and only worked with
-- campaign screen resolution of 1024x768!
-- Reconn had two more nasty bugs with it's code that two27 could not fix, so he asked BDG if he could simplify the Reconn process and make it work in the background, randomly.
-- Since I was about the only BDG guy around at that time last year who cared about LW Reconn, and killing bugs, I said "Yes! Simplify and kill bugs & CTDs!"
-- He did to my satisfaction. Good riddance to the old Rowan bug infested Reconn system!
-- "Beg yer pardon for side-tracking off topic and getting away from the original topic. Just like to let ya'all know why we ?()^-canned the old Rowan Reconn system".

No coder am I. I don't even have a copy of this OPEN SOURCE BoBII code.
I do love OPEN SOURCE code of all types. OPEN SOURCE = freedom for every body to make things better! Without corporate or other nazi politica/religousl restrictions.

Let me tell you what I do know, and that is the BoBII \ BFIELDS \ MAINWLD file, that is like code, but simple enough
that even for an ape like me has become familiar with, after trying to fakk with her, and getting my balls kicked hard!
I have learned better now how to tickle her better without violence, but do not yet understand all of her tricks
or her relationship with her husband, the CODE!

Example Kenley airfield.

Image

two27
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1061
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 20:02

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by two27 »

stickman wrote: two27 told me that a Spitfire or Hurricane Assembly factory must be better than 70% destroyed to stop it's production of aircraft.
I think that this means that 70% or better of the individual targets within a Target, must be Destroyed.
The Damaged or only Impaired, individual targets may be repaired and do not count into the 70%.
70% of total destruction of all individual AC factory assembly targets is needed to snuff the Targets's flame out?
Hi Racoon,

I missed this so a little late.

Factory damage is different from airfields.

A factory < 100 damage can be repaired. Factory damage >=100 can't repair and the basic capacity is lost. Dispersed production is roughly 60% of original max output, ramping up over four weeks.

Airfields are tricky and I am in the process of determining all the facts as part of the RAF AI rewrite. These values are correct, as far as they go.

The variable truestatus is used to make the following determinations.
RAF AI will want to move squadrons off fields with 90 damage (term code uses is NEARLYDESTROYED).
RAF AI will want to move squadrons onto fields that are < 60 damage (term code uses is BADDAMAGE).
A field is rendered inoperative at 100 damage.

Unknowns currently working on.
How is truestatus related to the subdamage types of Repair, Fuel, and Field?
How do subdamage types influence truestatus (if they do)?
Which value of the four (truestatus, repair, fuel, field) is the most accurate reflection of a field's operational status?
How are repairs applied to these four variables?
How is damage in 3d applied to these four variables? In 2d?

I have a feeling something is disconnected between truestatus and the subdamage types, but all I have is that itch. Could be that it all works and my understanding is faulty.

This is my current code research project so I may know more within the next month.

User avatar
stickman
BDG
Posts: 8754
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:17
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by stickman »

Randy,
Factory damage is different from airfields.

A factory < 100 damage can be repaired. Factory damage >=100 can't repair and the basic capacity is lost. Dispersed production is roughly 60% of original max output, ramping up over four weeks.
OK, thanks for the clarification. Now a question. What exactly do you mean by damage?
There are 4 states for targets at a Target: Functional, Impaired, Damaged, and Destroyed.
Assuming Impaired targets can be easily repaired, by "damage" do you mean targets that are Destroyed or Damaged?
Or do all targets at a factory need be totally Destroyed to meet the >=100 can't repair and the basic capacity is lost?

For v2.12 I remade all of the Fighter Assembly Factories except Kingston Factory, which is the biggest Hurricane factory at production 40 per week.
Rowan made these factories with few, and great huge factory and warehouse objects which were easily destroyed by a single bomb.
For WoV a BDG man remade some of these, but again, with huge factory and warehouse objects. Again easily destroyed. Too easily I think.
The Factories on the Itchen River I made true too old maps and period aerial photos. Brooklands Vickers Factory, too.
Langely Hawker Factory, and Brooklands Hawker Factory, I used my imagination as I had not very good info on them at that time. (I am thinking of making them better to history, now, as I get better info).
Anyway, my Factory and Docks Targets are made with some big targets and a lot of small targets, too. Much harder to destroy than in original Rowan game or v2.11.
I put in more targets, and many small targets, within these Targets intentionally, to make them harder to totally flatten and totally destroy in one bombing Raid.
Which I thought to be unrealistic before with earlier BoBII versions. :roll:

Please further illuminate me on what you mean by "damage" in the quote above, my dear cousin.

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

Off this particular topic, but testing stuff nonetheless..

In the beta code changes you wrote above, this page, you wrote:
LW now has access to consolidation of 109s. When a 109 Gruppe in Calais drops below the minimum AC (36), one of the Luftflotte 3 109 Gruppen will have its AC count reduced to 0. It's pilots and planes will be allocated to the three neediest LF2 109 Gruppen. Gaining units have their skill and morale adjusted based on the losing unit's stats and number of pilots received in each unit. Additionally, LF3 109 Gruppen are considered to have been used up if the campaign start date is later than 10 July. Those Gruppen have 0 AC, can't receive replacements, and can't be stripped to provide AC and pilots for other units.
Am on 17 July and I see that my JG27/I, Plumentot, Poor skill boys were consolidated with the Calais JG51 Gruppe boys, which have taken some serious losses. OK.
I still have my JG27/III Carquebut Regular Regular skill boys at Carquebut with 36 aircraft, hanging on the wire... to be consolidated!
I need forward fighter Bf109s at Carquebut in the west! A Gruppe of Bf109s at Le Havre would be nice to have, too.

Well.. If this was historically done, and you know more about this than I do, then OK.
I do feel a great NEED for a Gruppe of ME109s flying out of Carquebut though.
May JG27/III out of Carquebut, be the only LuftFlotte 3 fighter unit to be exempted from these consolidation orders, bitte?

----

As always.. I am slavish worshiper of history
Aloha!

two27
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1061
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 20:02

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by two27 »

stickman wrote:
OK, thanks for the clarification. Now a question. What exactly do you mean by damage?
Exactly. I have to get into the mainwld, understand it, find the interface to the code, understand it, then all the code and data flows. Damage and repair calculation, application, modification. Which is more accurate and reliable. Does the information get passed accurately both ways (3d to 2d and 2d to 3d) or is it one way and the downstream stuff is massaged in order to arrive at an approximation. All this.


LW now has access to consolidation of 109s. When a 109 Gruppe in Calais drops below the minimum AC (36), one of the Luftflotte 3 109 Gruppen will have its AC count reduced to 0. It's pilots and planes will be allocated to the three neediest LF2 109 Gruppen. Gaining units have their skill and morale adjusted based on the losing unit's stats and number of pilots received in each unit. Additionally, LF3 109 Gruppen are considered to have been used up if the campaign start date is later than 10 July. Those Gruppen have 0 AC, can't receive replacements, and can't be stripped to provide AC and pilots for other units.
Consolidation is not what I'd prefer, it is merely the best solution to bad problem. Rowan built a Gruppe's minimum aircraft requirement right into the bones of the game. No taking it out with disassembling the entire edifice and starting from scratch. So escorts must have 36 operational aircraft before they can fly, even if sending only a single AC up. Bombers must have 30 operational AC. Basically if every one of the 24 109 Gruppen were at 35 AC, then 840 first line fighters are non-mission capable. Assume a replacement AC arrives. One and only one 109 Gruppe could then fly, until it took a single casualty. Absurd from start to finish.

Further, Rowan didn't include all the historical airfields in the game limiting where Gruppen can be placed. They also failed to consider any LW unit moves (re-locations).

History: During the evolution of the battle, the LW consolidated nearly all of its 109 Gruppen in the Pas-de-Calais area. Also, LW 109 Gruppen were flying missions when they had as few as 5 operational AC (yes in the entire Gruppe).

Rowan's design and the history are incompatible.

All I can do is try to implement the spirit of the history while compensating for Rowan's design.

Considerations:
During the battle, LF3's fighters were moved into PdC fields.
109 Gruppen flew no matter what, through the end of the battle in October.

Goal: Keep LW escorts flying AND get the fighters into the PdC.

Consolidation was the solution. Over time LF3 109 Gruppen will be merged into LF2's force (pilots and aircraft). All that is lost are the actual LW 109 units and their insignia. I am considering for the future whether to apply this to LF2's Gruppen to keep the escorts flying once all of LF3's aircraft have been used up.

While you may consider doing the same for bombers and 110s as reasonable, I haven't reached a conclusion yet. LF3's bombers were gradually shifted to night raids, because their escorts had been sent to PdC. The bombers were still flying missions, sans escorts. Would be great if I could figure out how to get night raids into the game, but this is not likely.

110s are more sensitive in terms of history. They failed as escorts. Still, through the work of EG210, some in the LW were learning of and willing to accept their utility as attack aircraft. In addition, if memory serves, two of the 110 Gruppen were withdrawn during the battle for conversion to night fighters and the applicable retraining of their crews.

In my opinion, the 109 consolidation is working out. It probably doesn't go far enough. We have time to think about whether to extend this to LF2's 109s. For the rest, I'd like to wait. I have an overflowing list of things on my coding horizon.

User avatar
Racoon
Senior Airman
Posts: 192
Joined: 08 Feb 2009, 14:09

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by Racoon »

Thanks two27 and stickman for your detailed info and good news about improving BOB. I'm very grateful for all your dedication and hard work.

Thanks again. :D

User avatar
stickman
BDG
Posts: 8754
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:17
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by stickman »

Racoon,
stickman, I understand the inaccuracies of saturation bombings but at least the bombers fly towards the intended buildings not open areas with nothing on them. Many times I've seen level bombers bomb an airfield but the open runway area (which doesn't have any effect in airfield status) instead of targeting other infrastructure, in fact, sometimes they don't even fly towards the buildings in the airfield to say they over shoot, rather they fly directly towards open field (and bomb it) with buildings on their port side.
First.
If your level bombers bomb the "open space of the runway", then that is good.
As the runway portion of all airfields is a 4rth airfield type target unto itself, and it can hinder airfield operations, just as well as damaging the
1st airfield type targets which are Hangars and Workshops,
2nd airfield type targets which are Staff and airfield Operations,
3rd airfield type targets which are Stores (fuel, food, ammo, parts, parachutes, etc.)

Second.
The Main Central Target Point for level bombers at an airfield, is the most central Hangar target in a group of hangars, at most fields.
This is where the bombers navigate to and where the Lead bombardier fixes his sight on.

Third.
All airfields have 32 possible damage points on the runway. As mentioned above.
These are (normally) hard to hit unless your level bombers over shoot the Main target and bombs fall onto the runway.
Once they are hit and damaged, they produce craters on the field.
These carters were in the BoB1 past, were quickly bull-dozed in and filled and repaired rather quickly. I forgot how many game phases.
We can argue with two27 on how long it takes to repair a cratered runway (grass vs. concrete, even) at another time.

----

This habit of your level bombers bombing onto farm fields well away from the Main hangar/workshops target,
or luckily bombing the runway field, :wink:
may be because you.. like me.. as a Commander, and not just some Prop Head that hopes to hell his Directives Commander gives him a decent plan of attack,
plans his own assaults with what we hope to be a better plan of attack?

I never understood the BoBII players that say "I don't want plan in detail all of the RAF or LW tactical plans. I just want to fly and fight!"
Then they wonder why they die so quickly! Following stupid orders!

----
OT - I am reading another World War I book at lunch time where I work in an oil refinery.
This just reinforces my low class workingman's mind of never trusting the Masters above me to do the right thing!
----

I am thinking that you may have been "taking command" yourself and ordering your own Initial Way Point commands?
If so, good for you! :D
There are always several possible solutions and directions to solve a problem.

Now.. I have been testing for v2.13 much more than with previous BOBII upgrade versions.
Me being a Developer much more than a Tester with previous upgrades. No testers now, so I gotta be a tester. Hey! I need to fly more, too! :)

Anyway... as I never much like to follow given orders, and have been fiddling with the Initial Way Point in many of my assaults,

I have found that the Initial Way Point distance from the Target does indeed,
influence on how bombs are laid onto Target!
Simply saying..
If you plan & PEG, an Initial Way Point order that is 0.25 miles or maybe 0.50 miles BACK away from the game given Initial Way Point (don't always follow given orders)
then your level bomber bombs will fall short of the Main central Target.
Likewise,
If you plan & PEG, an Initial Way Point order that is 0.25 miles or maybe 0.50 miles FORWARD away from the game given Initial Way Point,
then your level bomber bombs will overshoot the Main central Target to some (as yet undetermined exact distance) away and over-shoot forward from the Main target.

:) I love learning "tricks of the trade"!
I am not a Master of this yet, and just saw it three days ago, so cannot write the definitive Operational Manual yet.
More bombing trials to come to offer good advisement.

LANcaster
Airman
Posts: 22
Joined: 31 Oct 2010, 23:48

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by LANcaster »

Brilliant report S-man.

Regarding ME110 "i cant see target thing"

Yes it happened many times. I cant be 100% precise but it mostly worked like this. First time attack - no problem, all wingmen see and attack using my 6-4 or whatever command to attack the target. Thereafter, less so. I wish i could say thereafter they NEVER attacked but sometimes they did. Mostly not though.

Perhaps it depends on whcih exact targets were hit and destroyed forst time round? Anyways, it would be great if our brilliant new coder could look into it.

Keep Bombing and Carry on.
LANcaster

User avatar
stickman
BDG
Posts: 8754
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:17
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by stickman »

Yes, I seeing the pattern with dive bombers claiming "I cannot see the target!"

My experience shows that Dive Bombers will see, and dive bomb good any target, that is not yet been damaged.
Also they will see and dive bomb a previously damaged target,
UNLESS!.. The "Main Mission" individual target has already been destroyed.

There still may be other individual targets in the Target, that need to be hit,
but... when the "Main Mission" individual target has already been destroyed, they cannot see it.
In fact, if you as a flying dive bomber leader approach a Target and press the F3 series of Ground Targets keys
and use the Red Target Diamond for pin-pointing the ground target,
you will see that nothing shows up "I cannot see!" because that Target is considered dead already.

An example that I recall from many years ago with Stukas or ME110s attacking Radars.
If the Dive Bombers hit the Radar Receiver Hut (which is the Main Mission target) and destroy it, without hitting any other of the radar installation targets,
and then during the next phase you attack the same radar Target, and the Radar Receiver Hut (or Mobile) has not been repaired, still dead,
then the dive bombers will not see the dead ghost of the Main Mission Target. All radar towers still may stand undamaged, but are ignored.
This still happens with v2.12 and v2.13 beta.

Kind of like if they shot dead the Lieutenant of an enemy Rifle Platoon,
thinking "Mission Accomplished!"
and ignore the rest of the Riflemen that are still alive & actually do all of the shooting! :roll:

I don't like this. Never did since old Rowan days.

User avatar
stickman
BDG
Posts: 8754
Joined: 05 Nov 2004, 13:17
Location: Oahu, Hawai'i

Re: beta Testing fixed LW Escort Rendezvous

Post by stickman »

I have not been idle, even though I have not reported anything more with my LW Campaign in a long time.

1. Successful chance of LW fighter rendezvous with a bomber Raid.
My Campaign is now on 29 July.
I have tried 110 Raids. 99 of which had successful rendezvous, or 90% per cent chance of success.
two27 wrote me that he coded in a 5% failure rate for successful rendezvous.
Well.. I got 10%. OK, way better than it was before! :D

These Raids were both with Attached and Detached escorts, although I was primarily testing with Attached escorts about 80% of the time, and about 20% of the time using Detached escorts.
Both Attached and Detached escorts behaved well as expected when the rendezvous was successful.

One thing that I noticed is that..
if you plan a Raid with an unescorted ME110 unit,
and then you plan another Raid of any type AC, with an escort,
this next Raid will have/generate no Escort Patrol Way Points :!:

If You let that Raid with no Escort Patrol Way Points, run, even though the Take Off Times are good for successful rendezvous,
the escorts will race ahead of the bombers to Target, pass over the Target and fly straight for home, lickety-split! :evil:

To fix this problem,
delete that Raid, and Authorize the Raid on that same Target again.
You will get the same plan and AC, but now you will have Escort Patrol Way Points generated. :)

So... always check that an Escort does have Patrol Way Points over the Target. If they do not, then they will not do their duty!
And it will be your fault as Air Fleet Operations Officer! :P
You may end up in a French canal with a 9mm bullet into the back of yer head!

----

On 23 July I sent a Gruppe of He111 bombers (purposely unescorted) to hit the farthest north RAF fighter field of Kirton.
The entire Gruppe of Heinkels were shot down by a Hurricane Squadron from Coltishall. :shock:
I should have been sacked for trying that. Even though I thought that I beat the RAF down in a bad way! Where the hell are they? Not in the air.
Never again, I promise! will I send our bomber boys without an escort deep into England.
Not even the ME110's can escort bombers to Kirton, until maybe I get the EG210 ME110's out of Wissant on 12 August. I think that they can reach.
I'll be back! Wir kommen!

new reply

Return to “BOB2 General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests