Game 87

[Falco]

Is this confirmed?

 

It sounds very counter-intuïtive that one FC-order success depends on the success of another group, which could then be extrapolated to weather cancellation chance (each group or dependent on one group) as well, meaning that a standing order's chance to activate is reduced by another force's orders. This is specifically mentioned for the relationship between interception and Fighter Cover, so it's odd it would be this way for combining FC-missions without it being mentioned anywhere.

 

You don't believe me? I'm shocked. But yes, it is. Else, why would I say it? :-)

 

Wow ~ been playing this game for a long time and I am always finding out/relearning stuff. I just re-read the FC sections several times and did not find any reference to this....what section? Chapter D, of course, but I didn't see any mention of it in the FC SOAM Notes (Section 5.12), so where else would it be?

 

Can't remember if it is in the rules, but I (and some others) had this from the Russ-man himself. Actually, I don't believe I ever found this in the rules. Maybe Harbringer can clarify where he read it, if he has.

[Harbinger of Death]

Is this confirmed?

 

It sounds very counter-intuïtive that one FC-order success depends on the success of another group, which could then be extrapolated to weather cancellation chance (each group or dependent on one group) as well, meaning that a standing order's chance to activate is reduced by another force's orders. This is specifically mentioned for the relationship between interception and Fighter Cover, so it's odd it would be this way for combining FC-missions without it being mentioned anywhere.

 

You don't believe me? I'm shocked. But yes, it is. Else, why would I say it? :-)

 

Wow ~ been playing this game for a long time and I am always finding out/relearning stuff. I just re-read the FC sections several times and did not find any reference to this....what section? Chapter D, of course, but I didn't see any mention of it in the FC SOAM Notes (Section 5.12), so where else would it be?

 

Can't remember if it is in the rules, but I (and some others) had this from the Russ-man himself. Actually, I don't believe I ever found this in the rules. Maybe Harbringer can clarify where he read it, if he has.

 

Actually, I took a quick look and did not find it in the rules, nor did I find a discussion of the drop-off effect of range. However, it is in the Q&A that I have made available to several new players. When I first started playing Victory about seven years ago, I asked a lot of questions to Russ, and kept all the answers in a text file. It is fairly useful for new players.

[Mickey]

I guess you're referring to this (my bolding):

 

Q. If multiple air forces have FC SOAMs that cover the same province, will they (potentially) all react to a strike targetted at that province? Will they engage serially or all at once? If multiple strikes are targeting that province, will they all have a chance to react to each of the strikes?

 

A. You can have multiple air forces on FC SOAMs over a specific target area (either from the same base or from multiple bases). The air forces involved will either respond or not (i.e. if the enemy force is 'sighted' and if the distance to target area check is passed - 5% per province/sea zone, min 5%, based on air force that is the furthest from the target area). A maximum of 50 air groups can respond in any given FC respond and they can be from 2 or more air forces.

 

 

This suggests that it's an all-or-nothing check (either all forces able to FC will intercept up to a max of 50 groups, or none will) with the worst check being the limiting factor for the entire array of FC-forces.

 

So only put overlapping FC's over a target if the cover from further away really adds to the total relative to the distance difference.

[Harbinger of Death]

I guess you're referring to this (my bolding):

 

Q. If multiple air forces have FC SOAMs that cover the same province, will they (potentially) all react to a strike targetted at that province? Will they engage serially or all at once? If multiple strikes are targeting that province, will they all have a chance to react to each of the strikes?

 

A. You can have multiple air forces on FC SOAMs over a specific target area (either from the same base or from multiple bases). The air forces involved will either respond or not (i.e. if the enemy force is 'sighted' and if the distance to target area check is passed - 5% per province/sea zone, min 5%, based on air force that is the furthest from the target area). A maximum of 50 air groups can respond in any given FC respond and they can be from 2 or more air forces.

 

 

This suggests that it's an all-or-nothing check (either all forces able to FC will intercept up to a max of 50 groups, or none will) with the worst check being the limiting factor for the entire array of FC-forces.

 

So only put overlapping FC's over a target if the cover from further away really adds to the total relative to the distance difference.

You are correct --- all or nothing. Overlapping FC only makes sense if ranges are similar (I'd say within one or two max), or if you are desperate

[Mickey]

Must say i have some doubts about some of these answers in the FAQ...

 

Like this one:

 

Q. Can a ground force containing a Static AAA participate in the following missions: OMG - DA (attacking province surrounding the city it is located in) or OMG - CA (attacking the city in the province in which it is located in)?

 

A. Yes to both.

 

I'm pretty sure a static can only do GE against a neighboring province, not a DA. Or am i wrong there?

[Falco]

Must say i have some doubts about some of these answers in the FAQ...

 

Like this one:

 

Q. Can a ground force containing a Static AAA participate in the following missions: OMG - DA (attacking province surrounding the city it is located in) or OMG - CA (attacking the city in the province in which it is located in)?

 

A. Yes to both.

 

I'm pretty sure a static can only do GE against a neighboring province, not a DA. Or am i wrong there?

 

Province surrounding the city means the province the city is located in. So Rome - xRome. So the answer is correct.

[DezertCamel]

the AAA unit can do any combat order da or ca and even ge, but is useless since it has no attack power just defensive. it will only take loses. it is only good for shooting down planes and defensive operations.

[Mickey]

Must say i have some doubts about some of these answers in the FAQ...

 

Like this one:

 

Q. Can a ground force containing a Static AAA participate in the following missions: OMG - DA (attacking province surrounding the city it is located in) or OMG - CA (attacking the city in the province in which it is located in)?

 

A. Yes to both.

 

I'm pretty sure a static can only do GE against a neighboring province, not a DA. Or am i wrong there?

 

Province surrounding the city means the province the city is located in. So Rome - xRome. So the answer is correct.

 

Aaaah... THAT neighbouring province... my faith in humanity has been restored (and my faith in my reading skills late at night lessened...)

[Falco]

Didn't we have a Spongistan here too? Borrowing from Dageraad, from another thread:

 

"YIHAAAAAAA

STOMP

WHAMMO

STAMP

SPLOTCH"

[Duke of York]

So, this means that if I do a FC with 5% chance of an intercept, together with a FC with 95% chance of an intercept on the same province, the chance for BOTH FC go down to 5%?

 

That's called a bug, in my dictionary.

This extreme example does certainly look buggy, but there's a good justification for the rules as they are. If it would be a check per air division it would mean that you could just add more air divisions to the fighter cover and still get a very good chance to intercept. And that defeats the purpose of the reduction in intercept change as the distance gets bigger, as well as benefitting bigger players more than small and benefitting British players more than Germans and Russians (althought that might be a good thing).

 

For example, for an intercept at distance 8 (40% chance of failure):

If it would check per air division when using 3 divs to intercept your changes are:

50 ftr intercept 65%

25 ftr intercept 29%

no intercept 6%

That's significantly better than 60% chance of a 50 ftr intercept and 40% chance of no intercept as it is now. And the odds get even better when you add a 4th or even 5th division.

[Earthling]

The FC ruling makes sense.....it's a way of balancing the SMR's out so you cannot have a fighter with a huge SMR covering most of you nation with the hopes of engageing every time an attack take splace. Will have to adjust several FC routes in a couple of games........

[Mickey]

Sorry Earthling, but it makes no sense to have all groups use the same failure chance. Almost everything in air missions is calculated based on the individual group traits with limitations placed on the force-level. Why then for this one instance should there be an all-or-nothing value where different air forces interact in this way? Given that the failure-to-intercept chance for each air force has to be calculated separately anyway (because of speed class modifications), it would make much more sense to have each force use that percentage directly to see whether they come in the FC-pool from which the 50 groups are drawn.

 

This causes all kinds of unneccesary complications. For instance: if you have a russian mix and you intercept a force of Do-217's (CSC=5) which are attacking at range 1 from your I-153's (CSC=4) and range 4 from your Yak-1's (CSC=6), what would be the total interception chance; 45% or 30%? Would be much more realistic to give the I-153's their own 45% chance and the Yak-1's their own 80% chance.

[Falco]

Sorry Earthling, but it makes no sense to have all groups use the same failure chance. Almost everything in air missions is calculated based on the individual group traits with limitations placed on the force-level. Why then for this one instance should there be an all-or-nothing value where different air forces interact in this way? Given that the failure-to-intercept chance for each air force has to be calculated separately anyway (because of speed class modifications), it would make much more sense to have each force use that percentage directly to see whether they come in the FC-pool from which the 50 groups are drawn.

 

This causes all kinds of unneccesary complications. For instance: if you have a russian mix and you intercept a force of Do-217's (CSC=5) which are attacking at range 1 from your I-153's (CSC=4) and range 4 from your Yak-1's (CSC=6), what would be the total interception chance; 45% or 30%? Would be much more realistic to give the I-153's their own 45% chance and the Yak-1's their own 80% chance.

 

Programming wise I can certainly see why they did it this way. Air combat is decided by grouping all planes together. Not only would they have to check all different groups, but you'd also get different groups of intercepting fighters with multiple airstrikes per turn. for example, v87 has shown wave after wave of Algerian bombers, flying through FC. Programming that one check and calculating the yes or no FC this way is a lot easier than checking 10 different groups, with different speed classes and different SMR. Also because the current engine also checks the effectiveness of the groups on FC and chooses the 50 best fighters to cover the target. It would complicate things a lot, to check all the groups, decide which groups FC, followed by a check which are the most effective if more than 50 groups are present.

 

 

The FC ruling makes sense.....it's a way of balancing the SMR's out so you cannot have a fighter with a huge SMR covering most of you nation with the hopes of engageing every time an attack take splace. Will have to adjust several FC routes in a couple of games........

 

And yes, this also is an important reason. Just make 100 fighters fly different routes over targets, to optimally cover everything. This would make FC an even simpler and more effective order versus bombers, and I already think it's fairly easy to defend forces using FC. Only thing missing is covering total allies, that is the single biggest error in FC.

[dageraad]

New map:

 

 

- Iraq has gained a major tactical victory agains the Polish army and the Baltic relief force that was trying to save it.

- Persia is playing hide-and-seek with the Icelanders and Finns. One army nearly made it to the border with Southern Russia, while large stretches of Northern Russia appear to be very empty.

- Transjordan has reached the Algerian coast coming from the south. He is hunting for the Algerian Airforce, of which there is still a lot present and it is really biting.

- Bad days for the Tunisian battlefleet. They prefer to be sunk by 2 Syrian detroyers rather than let the Persian Navy find them.

-

[Earthling]

- Persia is playing hide-and-seek with the Icelanders and Finns. One army nearly made it to the border with Southern Russia, while large stretches of Northern Russia appear to be very empty.

 

And Peek-a-boo as well. As far as the large stretches of empty ~ come on in! Or, are you too gutless? It's your turn to make a move at this point. I have the vast majority of my assets elsewhere anyhow. Been too busy planning my invasion of my favorite city.