LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Various days, normally starting 1700 UTC or later

Moderators: El Duck, Evil Overlord

User avatar
desev
Field Marshall
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:40 am

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88139Post desev
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:08 am

I am the more confused one it seems:
a) When I mentioned popular vote was as, before your post, both Jar and me had posted against any further change. But that was before and myself did not speak again so yes, it's true technically I had not voted against the new proposal.
b) I had understood Setloz was disagreeing to the new change (As I understood the first change was from region to area and then to the rule I advocate). However he seems to accept it and be speaking of this new change and the previous change (which makes more sense than my previous understanding).

I had not paid further attention as I read it soon before sunday's game and expected to talk faster on GR -which never took place so we got nowhere-. So that means my old view on this conversation made no sense.

So back to rule crafting: I happen to disagree on the new proposal, yet I think it can be worked out:

I would believe anybody with a radical air superiority can destroy a nation using the capital ESE even w/o magic hour issues, so the game itself has a radical gamey imbalance when it gives so much power to capital bombing. Thus why we created the first area based rule, reducing the ability to destroy somebody by having air superiority unless that air superiority is brutal. Then came the glitch, and we kept the same sense of area bombing with the new rule we introduced a few sessions ago, as to limit the ataccker.

So here comes the tricky part: The latest proposal keeps such sense and wants to compensate as well for the midnight issue by adding the 10 to 50 infra rule. However, that means Japan has to keep bombing during the process the other two provinces as well so they don't go up, not just with usual costs but also with an enormous damage from AAs induced. That is: Given the first rule change still applies and that we can't return to the original rule, Japan would have to keep bombing them at great cost even while waiting for Nanking to repair. That really goes against Japan not just in terms of repairing IC costs, but in terms of months and months repairing the planes, and could end up ending easily as well with his ability to keep bombing during long periods.

So what can be done? For this campaign I don't think Japan can sustain his strategy if does not get "compensated" that way from the new restriction that would force him to overbomb the other two provinces during no-nanking times as to keep their infra still down as well.

If we just allowed not to bomb the other provinces, then would come, yet again, that such would overcompensates in favor of Japan. My proposal is: If we accept the 10/50 new rule, Japan does not have to pay attention to the real level of infra in the other provinces anymore, but merely bomb them the same days it does bomb Nanking. That way it bombs them only the same amount of days it would have bombed them without the new rule.

Even then, Japan can't destroy a capital as would do in Europe, where the infra would end up being kept always very low regardless it repairs a bit every night, so I can accept the new rule as long as we weaken the Japanese need to bomb the other provinces in the way I explained, yetI am still aware and unhappy, as we are still hurting Japan with a new restriction.

User avatar
setloz
Field Marshall
Posts: 2912
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:06 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88140Post setloz
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:06 am

El Duck wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:38 am
DES, I am very confused here. I read Setloz comment above as accepting the change. He could veto but chose to accept.
Duck, I am VERY tired of your pampering of china.
El Duck wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:38 am
Please confirm that you want to continue this gamey practice.
Now, this is where you really get me wrong. This practice has been hapening ever since i've begun playing AOD in multiplayer. I've written about how we dealt with it before.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the fact that you guys, "veterans" are just learning about the effects of a well known mechanic is sad. That you didn't care it happened the last two games, is even sadder.
That you accuse Desev, a player I have the utmost respect in regards to his fairness, of wanting to continue "a gamey practice" is the saddest.

At this moment, I think my goodwill has been interpreted as weakness.

As I was saying, you are proposing rule after rule change with only the benefit of China in mind. You have given ZERO interest as to whether Japan can sustain repairing the TAC planes following lvl 10AA damage post-rule change.

That is the equivalent of the allied players proposing a rule to ensure France does not fall.

The point of this long post is 4-fold:

1. My not vetoing was simply being worn down from your incessant unfair arguments and rules. I didn't like your proposal, but rather than pack up and leave, I said fux it, let's continue.
2. Desev actually has a point and I second his proposal. His tweaking of the rule will put less of a strain on the japanese economy, but it still doesn't mean the rule is fair.
3. Your proposed rule is UNFAIR. Just wanted to state that for the record. I really wonder what you'd say if you were the recipient of such a rule change mid game.
4. I think Desev is owed an apology. He's the last person I'd think of abusing a game mechanic. So your accusation is both unfounded and unwarranted.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.”
Gen. George S. Patton

User avatar
Jarski
Field Marshall
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:30 am

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88147Post Jarski
Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:30 pm

You do realize that Ducks proposal was a proposal?

You act as if you had no choice than to either leave the game or accept when that is clearly not the case, Duck wanted full support for the proposal, especially from you, since you are the one it is influencing the most. Just simply saying that no, I dont want that for this game, thanks, would have sufficed.

I have already expressed my feelings towards this issue which are that I do not favour any more "updates" to the rule for this game. This issue needs to be discussed thoroughly and hopefully the new betas will do something about it before our next game so any rules might become unnecessary.

We are fully aware of the effects of capital bombing, thank you very much, thats why we had the original rule, which was sufficient and fair for everyone untill your bombers were for some reason unable to target Nanjing. We accomodated the rule to fix that issue, but it opened the infamous midnight bombing issue in Asia, which previously had been discussed to some extent, but seems it never made it to the rules, guess due to it being limited to Asia and anyway, with the old rule, it wasnt so frequent as with the random chance the capital was not always bombed.

I do not see right now a way to fix both the Japanese bomber deflection AND the midnight bombing. So I recommend again we just roll with how it is now and fix what ever needs fixing for next game.

User avatar
princedetenebres
Field Marshall
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:10 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88152Post princedetenebres
Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:21 pm

setloz wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:06 am
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the fact that you guys, "veterans" are just learning about the effects of a well known mechanic is sad. That you didn't care it happened the last two games, is even sadder.
There's no need (or benefit) to being insulting. We are well aware of the problem. The attempted solution is the rule that we started with; which I think we all see is insufficient. But as Jarski says, it's difficult to get that right because of the other midnight issue he raised.

The question I am wondering is whether Bona knew that distributing his AA in that manner would have that effect because of a quirk in the AI pathfinding or target selection.

I do not accuse him of wrongdoing, even if so, but it is an exploit and should not be permitted to deflect Japan's planes.


I have not weighed in, as I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, or the best way to solve it -- it's one of many quirks that I try not to think about too much because it makes me want to stop playing AoD; it's f***d, but supply tracing directly/only from the capital has always been a ridiculous issue. I mean, hell, that was what ended me as the Soviets, after all, the capital bouncing to some random siberian province throwing the whole 400+ divisions out of supply, instead of say, back to Leningrad where we wouldn't be.

It's even worse than the previous game where loaded, unescorted transports could slip by my warships leaving the strait of hormuz, starting the battle at 200km somehow (NB: the strait is only 55km wide).

It's just one of the many joys of AoD.


So, hopefully we can come up with unanimous agreement on how to proceed, and what, if any, compensation is owed to Japan for struggling under the constraints of the system/rule.


Having said that, even if 1.11 allegedly fixes these issues, I'm assuming we're not intending to update to that for the current game, are we? I would worry that it would have unknown consequences on our save.

User avatar
Jarski
Field Marshall
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:30 am

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88153Post Jarski
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:22 pm

Updating mid-game would indeed bring unknown consequences, most likely would not work at all, so not recommended.

In the tests done by me and Desev online, Desev was able to bomb Nanjing using normal area bombing in the same setup where Setloz was unable to. The deflection occurred occasionally, but it definately was not even remotely close to the 100% deflection rate Setloz was experiencing.

I would not blame the AAs for it, or the test results would be more consistent, I dont see anything mysterious in the way Bona deployed his AAs, he placed them evenly on the frontline and slightly more to Nanjing obviously as its the capital and Suzhou to ensure high infra to its port for ESE purposes, Shanghai being a very difficult province to assault yet easy to reinforce was naturarly left with fewer AAs in favour of the other border provinces.

So what are you exactly thinking? That Bona and old Bob were during some rainy and dark night doing testruns with AAs and area bombings, and found out that in an area with 3 provinces, if one has 5 AA, one has 4 AA and one has 1 AA, the province with 5 AA is magically never targetted by bombers but only if those bombers are owned by a player whose name begins with a Set?

Blaming this on the way the AAs are placed is not very fruitfull. How else should he have placed them? No AAs to the capital at all? Max up Shanghai before adding AA to the more vulnerable and valuable provinces? I would have placed them in a similar fashion and in fact I think I did place a few of them during the times I was controlling China with the 2nd PC.

But yes, AoD is riddled with such "features", luckily it seems the betas will be hammering some of them out. This issue is particularly annoying as neither "side" is happy about the way it is handled.

I have considered some actions concerning this for the next update of Imp:

- Slightly(-1) lowering the strategic attack of TACs might help and increase the value of STR bombers which are a rare sight as it is.
- What I will certainly do is to create an event for China which allows them to evacuate the capital from Nanjing to Chonqing if it is threatened, much like what happened in reality. That should move the capital to a safer place and make it harder to bomb, at least untill/if the Japanese progress deep enough. More of a delaying action perhaps, but would prevent the problem from rising so early.

User avatar
princedetenebres
Field Marshall
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:10 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88154Post princedetenebres
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 pm

Jarski wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:22 pm
I would not blame the AAs for it, or the test results would be more consistent, I dont see anything mysterious in the way Bona deployed his AAs, he placed them evenly on the frontline and slightly more to Nanjing obviously as its the capital and Suzhou to ensure high infra to its port for ESE purposes, Shanghai being a very difficult province to assault yet easy to reinforce was naturarly left with fewer AAs in favour of the other border provinces.

So what are you exactly thinking? That Bona and old Bob were during some rainy and dark night doing testruns with AAs and area bombings, and found out that in an area with 3 provinces, if one has 5 AA, one has 4 AA and one has 1 AA, the province with 5 AA is magically never targetted by bombers but only if those bombers are owned by a player whose name begins with a Set?

Blaming this on the way the AAs are placed is not very fruitfull. How else should he have placed them? No AAs to the capital at all? Max up Shanghai before adding AA to the more vulnerable and valuable provinces? I would have placed them in a similar fashion and in fact I think I did place a few of them during the times I was controlling China with the 2nd PC.
I was careful to not suggest he was doing anything nefarious; just that he might've noticed a glitch that caused the AI's target selection behavior. I did not accuse him of anything more than observing something, and more than that, I didn't say that he did, but asked if that was the case or not. Just like I'd noticed a few games ago that units sent by sea using move don't lose org unlike when they use sea transport, or that other one that I've noticed and haven't mentioned before (I'll tell you after the game ;) ).

Like you say, there are "features" that are obviously unintentional (as with my example of starting fights in a strait at a range of 200 km when the zone is 55km across) and a limitation of the system.

I was unaware that you and Des had done tests and weren't able to replicate the problem.

But yes, now that I think about it, I assume that's the real reason Bona dropped - so that he would have more time to locate and test such strange things in the game so that he's armed with a bunch of exploits we don't know about for next game. He's probably up right this very moment working on that! :)
Jarski wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:22 pm
Updating mid-game would indeed bring unknown consequences, most likely would not work at all, so not recommended.

I have considered some actions concerning this for the next update of Imp:

- Slightly(-1) lowering the strategic attack of TACs might help and increase the value of STR bombers which are a rare sight as it is.
- What I will certainly do is to create an event for China which allows them to evacuate the capital from Nanjing to Chonqing if it is threatened, much like what happened in reality. That should move the capital to a safer place and make it harder to bomb, at least untill/if the Japanese progress deep enough. More of a delaying action perhaps, but would prevent the problem from rising so early.
I support these changes; and not updating to a new game version mid-game. Stardock does that to me all the time with GalCiv3 and ruins my saves, so I'd rather not repeat that here!

I do think that part of the issue is that our rule regarding bombing doesn't make sense when the capital is on the front line; but then again, as we all know, the effect of having one's infra reduced is so wildly OP that it's a real dilemma as to how to get a rule right that will address it appropriately without being too restrictive.

User avatar
Jarski
Field Marshall
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:30 am

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88159Post Jarski
Tue May 01, 2018 2:59 am

princedetenebres wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 pm
But yes, now that I think about it, I assume that's the real reason Bona dropped - so that he would have more time to locate and test such strange things in the game so that he's armed with a bunch of exploits we don't know about for next game. He's probably up right this very moment working on that! :)
Hahah Dx

Yeah I think this problem sneaked up on us a bit. I mean we all knew the effects of capital bombing, no question there, but it rarely happens outside of the Sino-Japanese war. It has happened there in previous games, which is why we added the rule. But in previous games China has been poorly prepared in terms of air defence so the Japanese players have not come across the deflection issue or it has been to a lesser decree than what Setloz has been experiencing. Working area bombing kept the midnight bombing issue somewhat hidden from our bug detection radars, and also, being contained to the Asian theater did not help either. Now that manual bombing was allowed, it sprung out from hiding. So now we have a bunch of dilemmas with no clear good for all solutions.

So I strongly recommend to go with the easiest path available, which is to continue as it is now. China is far from being beaten, and even if the current rule is more favourable towards Japan, it should be balancing it out considering the old one was, in this precise case, more favourable towards China.

El Duck
Field Marshall
Posts: 3836
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88162Post El Duck
Tue May 01, 2018 7:19 am

Lots of discussion and good points. I thought this issue was resolved but it clearly it is not. Thanks for all your thoughts. I think working together we can find a satisfactory solution.

SET did approve my newest proposal, but he did not seem very happy about it. I think it is easy to protect the capital in areas where the magic hour comes in the local night but much harder where it does not. Perhaps we should just go with the status quo in China. Is that the way to go? Jar seems to favor that and I certainly can go along with it. SET, what do you think?

We could go with the rest of my proposal and ban capital bombing at night in areas where the magic hour comes during the local night. This would at least reduce the effect of this exploit in the area where most of the action will be. I don't like having a different rule for different areas of the world but the effect of unfeterred bombing of the capital with no chance of repair is so extreme that I think we should do something where the fix is so easy.

You guys have finally commenting like mad on this issue. Please let me know what you think about my new idea, and as Prince said, don't be insulting.

El Duck
Field Marshall
Posts: 3836
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88184Post El Duck
Thu May 03, 2018 6:02 pm

OK, at least for now we will stay with the rule as updated above and in the approved rule thread. If people wish we can talk about it in more detail before the session tomorrow.

User avatar
desev
Field Marshall
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:40 am

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88191Post desev
Fri May 04, 2018 6:09 am

As I said, my condition to accept the new limit on the rule is tweaking it as explained in my previous post.

El Duck
Field Marshall
Posts: 3836
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88192Post El Duck
Fri May 04, 2018 7:12 am

Hi DES. Thanks very much for your post and proposal. This topic is so difficult and there has been so much going on about it and in my personal life that I barely skimmed your very reasonable proposal and then actually forgot all about it.

I have had my oldest and best friend visiting me for the past few days and I have not had much time to look at the thread or think about the game. He and I grew up about 100 yards apart and went to the same school. After graduation I accept a commission as a military officer and he went into the CIA. We were stationed in Germany at the same time twice for over 8 years and then both lived in Seattle for another 2 along the way. He does not live near me and so now we only see each other a few days a year and those days are very important and include quite a lot of good beer and even some small amount of scotch. That may explain some of my interesting post the last few days and my lack of memory regarding your post. My buddy has gone home now and I should be back to normal, such as it is. I am sorry for my lapse.

I believe that all of us are absolutely fed up with this subject. I really hope that everyone cam accept your idea, I know that I am willing to give it a try. I will post this change to the approved rules if we can get universal approval.

"In areas when local night is game night we will continue with the existing rule and just not allow night bombing of the capital.

In areas where the local night is game daylight the attacker hs to bomb all area provinces when he bombs the capital. When the capital is reduced to 10 infrastructure the attacker must stop capital bombing and allow the capital to be repaired to 50 at which time he may again start bombing."

So, DES, do I have your idea written correctly? My one worry is that 10 is too low. Does 10 allow units to resupply? I am not sure. It might be good to do a test to see what the best levels should be. I just pulled 10/50 out of the air so as to have something. Perhaps you might somehow test what the fairest levels should be.

User avatar
desev
Field Marshall
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:40 am

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88198Post desev
Fri May 04, 2018 11:01 am

What I mean as a needed tweak to the rule proposal is during the days Japan can't bomb Nanking it should be exempt as well of bombing the other two provinces, thus meaning they no longer have to bomb the other provinces below the level of Nanking anymore, but merely bomb them both on every day it does want to bomb Nanking.

Mr_B0narpte
Field Marshall
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Newport, Wales UK

Re: LOGISTICAL STRIKES ON THE CHINESE CAPITAL

Post: # 88207Post Mr_B0narpte
Sun May 06, 2018 3:25 pm

I'm sorry to see this has continued to be a very divisive issue. I'm also sorry my absense has exacerbated the situation.

I don't think my comments will help, I just wanted to input on what I did and my thoughts on what I was doing.

For this game, I feared (but have no proof either way) that placing AA guns in certain areas would make them less likely to be targeted by random area bombings. This is why I didn't place 10 AA in Nanjing ASAP, and instead - as Jarski noted - I tried placing it in other provinces in the same area while building it up in Nanjing. I never wanted Nanjing to be untargetable. Further tests for this would be interesting. I have done none myself but from experience it looks hardcoded for bombers to avoid AA guns when heading to their target province, I have no idea if it has an impact on influencing the target province when doing random area/region bombing.

For my previous game, my strategy was simply to overwhelm China by outproducing it in regards to infantry. I only had one or two parallels of tactical bombers which had lower priority then the infantry. I ended up spending months trying to bomb Chongqing via area bombing, with it rarely if never being touched. Only once I divided my 7 TAC into individual wings did it then start to get semi-regulalry hit. As they were TAC III even one hit would make a big dent in Chongqing's infrastructure.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests