Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE*

Yster wrote:
> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS

I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
for my taste that is too much clicking.

I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
with adding fighter groups.)

In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
me.)

Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.

In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
of the client or a change of the rules.

Susie
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

Splitting wings in combat time surely requiers a lot of Code changes
for Tim. Also, it will harm the versatility that several separated
wings would give you. Great wings will take more hits (think, they need
to move in formation and can't easy maneuver) while small wings are
more slippery and agile.

What we need is an interface to group a lot of objects and give orders
to them in a few steps (selecting by an ergonomic interface all objects
you want to group and then give orders). e.g. Using the "Data Grid",
choice a search criteria (a more improved criteria) and then select all
objects you want to group (using the selecting way like Windoze do).
Then push a "Group All" button, give a Group ID and... VOILA!. I think
this will not take too much code changes for Tim. (Mixed groups,
YEAH!... wings and Ships together if you want, why not?)

On the other hand, building wings must be more ergonomyc too. We would
have to be able to set a new wing configuration and build 200 of them
in one click (maybe like 1,5,10,20 quickbuild buttons?).

Building orders (ships and wings) would have to include all settings
like attack mode, cargo, crew, superweapons, devices, etc and finaly a
group identifier, so that you could build 30 ships and 200 wings yet
ready to move in one step the next turn.

Tim, you are the best... I love you... you are my father... (could you
make this improvements? ... :p)
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

IMO, the problem is ... why carriers has fighter bay size? and not just
a max fighter capacity?. A carrier would have to be able to take a
number of fighters, no matter the tactical decision of his multiple
wing configurations.

About the wing size, IMHO (... and IMHO again), 10 10 fighter wings
would have to be more stronger than just 1 100 fighter wing because
they are maximizing the attack options and they are more agil. Think
that a wing is a formation.




Ralph Hoenig wrote:
> While I agree with pretty much all of the things below, I think the main
> problem is:
>
> Small wings are a lot more efficient than big ones, period.
>
> If this would not be the case, most of the problems would go away, as there
> is no need for hundreds of 8/1/1 wings, you could just form a couple
> 160/20/20 wings (if you have 200 size bays, for example). If you still form
> the hundreds of wings, well, your choice. As it is right now, you don´t have
> much of a choice. Either you use micro-wings or non at all.
>
> Ralph Hoenig, Germany
>
>
> "Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> schrieb
> > Splitting wings in combat time surely requiers a lot of Code changes
> > for Tim. Also, it will harm the versatility that several separated
> > wings would give you. Great wings will take more hits (think, they need
> > to move in formation and can't easy maneuver) while small wings are
> > more slippery and agile.
> >
> > What we need is an interface to group a lot of objects and give orders
> > to them in a few steps (selecting by an ergonomic interface all objects
> > you want to group and then give orders). e.g. Using the "Data Grid",
> > choice a search criteria (a more improved criteria) and then select all
> > objects you want to group (using the selecting way like Windoze do).
> > Then push a "Group All" button, give a Group ID and... VOILA!. I think
> > this will not take too much code changes for Tim. (Mixed groups,
> > YEAH!... wings and Ships together if you want, why not?)
> >
> > On the other hand, building wings must be more ergonomyc too. We would
> > have to be able to set a new wing configuration and build 200 of them
> > in one click (maybe like 1,5,10,20 quickbuild buttons?).
> >
> > Building orders (ships and wings) would have to include all settings
> > like attack mode, cargo, crew, superweapons, devices, etc and finaly a
> > group identifier, so that you could build 30 ships and 200 wings yet
> > ready to move in one step the next turn.
> >
> > Tim, you are the best... I love you... you are my father... (could you
> > make this improvements? ... :p)
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

Are you suggesting a "Squadron controll" in the "Wing" screen where you can:
1)Split into X squadrons types (as % of wing)
2)Set the basic commands( the few on the main screen for each squadron.

That would be great. Can the currnet code structure handle such request?
(One ID# split into multiple groups and then combining after VCR)

Lastly, I don't have a problem with the fact that small wing are better than
one big one tactically. I found that I just don't have the TIME to do all
the micro management to play these races. I am sitting at trn15 with my
Robot and have a tough enough time setting the minefield grid (halleluja for
recharging!!!) and now the fighter are just to much. These small issues wrt
control over the race's resources and fleets in the client make some of
these Races weaker than they should be in any game as well as deterring
player from taking them on again. I would NEVER play Xtal after this Robot.



"Susie" <Susie_Derkins.TakeThisOut@web.de> wrote in message
news:1149987861.371754.33220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yster wrote:
>> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS
>
> I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
> would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
> solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
> the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
> rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
> Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
> a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
> mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
> I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
> had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
> for my taste that is too much clicking.
>
> I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
> introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
> wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
> 8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
> factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
> that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
> wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
> group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
> with adding fighter groups.)
>
> In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
> why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
> about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
> individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
> independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
> fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
> believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
> for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
> the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
> me.)
>
> Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
> equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
> strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
> balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
> and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
> fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.
>
> In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
> great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
> the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
> impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
> of the client or a change of the rules.
>
> Susie
>
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

General Harold Keith Johnson...



Ralph Hoenig wrote:
> To me, bay size reflects the fighter doctrin of the race, so it makes kind
> of sense to me to fix a bay in size.
>
> About the tactical options of multiple wings:
> Yes, if perfect coordination would be achieved(sp?), several smaller wings
> would be more effective than one big one. However, real live (yes, yes, I
> know, it´s a game, yada yada yada ) shows, this coordination is very hard to
> get in a real attack (Midway, for example, where the torpedo planes went in
> all alone and got slaughtered*). Even with up to date C3 equipment I belive
> it to be very hard to coordinate an attack from, say 10 different units at a
> single target in a way to maximize the firepower/swamp enemy
> defenses/suppress counterfire while simultaniously minimizing friction
> between those units (blocking line of sight/fire, restricting manouver space
> and so on).
> Look how hard it is for real world armies to implement true combined arms.
> Different units that have to trust and rely on one another, is not easy to
> achieve. If those units are thrown together on the fly, it is almost
> impossible.
> As an example, let me quote one regimental commander (no name in the book
> I´m reading right now), who was in the Korean war re. close air support:
>
> "If you want it, you can´t get it.
> If you can get it, it can´t find you.
> If it can find you, it can´t identify the target.
> If it can identify the target, it can´t hit it.
> But if it does hit the target, it doesn´t do a great deal of damage anyway"
>
> This was, because ground commanders had to deal with new and unfamiliar
> pilots on a daily basis.
>
> In the end, I think the tactical benefits of multiple small wings and the
> much easier control of few large wings should cancel each other out in raw
> combat efficiency.
>
>
> *Ironicaly, this mix up allowed the dive bombers to attack the jap carriers
> almost unoposed, because all the Zeros where at sea-level from shooting down
> torp-planes
>
>
> Wow, this got much longer than intended
>
> Ralph Hoenig, Germany
>
>
> "Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> schrieb
> IMO, the problem is ... why carriers has fighter bay size? and not just
> a max fighter capacity?. A carrier would have to be able to take a
> number of fighters, no matter the tactical decision of his multiple
> wing configurations.
>
> About the wing size, IMHO (... and IMHO again), 10 10 fighter wings
> would have to be more stronger than just 1 100 fighter wing because
> they are maximizing the attack options and they are more agil. Think
> that a wing is a formation.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

Fighters are indeed the biggy that needs some addressing in terms of the
game mechanics imo. Working fighters so they are best when put into sie of
wings that their carriers are designed to carry is the best thing to do imo.
I've no experience so far with Tim's latest changes to fighters in combat so
perhaps it has been addressed somewhat. But 10 wings of 10 fighters should
not be better than 1 wing of 100 when the race's ships themselves are
designed to carry wings of 100. Same for races that have other size fighter
bays.

"Susie" <Susie_Derkins.DeleteThis@web.de> wrote in message
news:1149987861.371754.33220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yster wrote:
>> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS
>
> I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
> would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
> solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
> the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
> rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
> Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
> a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
> mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
> I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
> had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
> for my taste that is too much clicking.
>
> I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
> introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
> wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
> 8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
> factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
> that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
> wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
> group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
> with adding fighter groups.)
>
> In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
> why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
> about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
> individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
> independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
> fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
> believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
> for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
> the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
> me.)
>
> Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
> equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
> strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
> balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
> and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
> fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.
>
> In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
> great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
> the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
> impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
> of the client or a change of the rules.
>
> Susie
>
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

Well, I think that ships fighter bays are designed with an idea when
fighters works in another way than now. Creativity is one of the
biggest fun in this game. I think it isn't the number of fighters, but
the way you make use of them. 100 fighters are 100 fighters (1 wing or
10 wings), the difference is his attack and deffense power due to his
"Formations" and coordination. So, some separated wings could take
advantage against (or versus) an alone wing. While both of them has
the same fire power, the separated one could make a front and a flank
attack and the alone one just are unidirectional. Also, the separated
one receive hits just on one wing at once (just a part from all
fighters), while the alone one receives hits from different directions
and is more hittable. The same with fighters against Vessels.

In one word: Maneuverability. Figure a wing (or squadron, since it's
the same in VGAP4) of 100 fighters moving all together. It's possible,
it's powerfull, but the same number of fighters in 10 wings will be
like bees against a coleopter. Then, if I can fill a carrier with 300
fighters, what's the matter how many wings there are? Let me be
creative



Eric wrote:
> Fighters are indeed the biggy that needs some addressing in terms of the
> game mechanics imo. Working fighters so they are best when put into sie of
> wings that their carriers are designed to carry is the best thing to do imo.
> I've no experience so far with Tim's latest changes to fighters in combat so
> perhaps it has been addressed somewhat. But 10 wings of 10 fighters should
> not be better than 1 wing of 100 when the race's ships themselves are
> designed to carry wings of 100. Same for races that have other size fighter
> bays.
>
> "Susie" <Susie_Derkins.TakeThisOut@web.de> wrote in message
> news:1149987861.371754.33220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Yster wrote:
> >> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS
> >
> > I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
> > would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
> > solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
> > the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
> > rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
> > Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
> > a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
> > mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
> > I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
> > had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
> > for my taste that is too much clicking.
> >
> > I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
> > introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
> > wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
> > 8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
> > factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
> > that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
> > wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
> > group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
> > with adding fighter groups.)
> >
> > In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
> > why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
> > about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
> > individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
> > independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
> > fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
> > believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
> > for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
> > the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
> > me.)
> >
> > Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
> > equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
> > strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
> > balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
> > and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
> > fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.
> >
> > In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
> > great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
> > the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
> > impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
> > of the client or a change of the rules.
> >
> > Susie
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

While I agree with pretty much all of the things below, I think the main
problem is:

Small wings are a lot more efficient than big ones, period.

If this would not be the case, most of the problems would go away, as there
is no need for hundreds of 8/1/1 wings, you could just form a couple
160/20/20 wings (if you have 200 size bays, for example). If you still form
the hundreds of wings, well, your choice. As it is right now, you don´t have
much of a choice. Either you use micro-wings or non at all.

Ralph Hoenig, Germany


"Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi DeleteThis @gmail.com> schrieb
> Splitting wings in combat time surely requiers a lot of Code changes
> for Tim. Also, it will harm the versatility that several separated
> wings would give you. Great wings will take more hits (think, they need
> to move in formation and can't easy maneuver) while small wings are
> more slippery and agile.
>
> What we need is an interface to group a lot of objects and give orders
> to them in a few steps (selecting by an ergonomic interface all objects
> you want to group and then give orders). e.g. Using the "Data Grid",
> choice a search criteria (a more improved criteria) and then select all
> objects you want to group (using the selecting way like Windoze do).
> Then push a "Group All" button, give a Group ID and... VOILA!. I think
> this will not take too much code changes for Tim. (Mixed groups,
> YEAH!... wings and Ships together if you want, why not?)
>
> On the other hand, building wings must be more ergonomyc too. We would
> have to be able to set a new wing configuration and build 200 of them
> in one click (maybe like 1,5,10,20 quickbuild buttons?).
>
> Building orders (ships and wings) would have to include all settings
> like attack mode, cargo, crew, superweapons, devices, etc and finaly a
> group identifier, so that you could build 30 ships and 200 wings yet
> ready to move in one step the next turn.
>
> Tim, you are the best... I love you... you are my father... (could you
> make this improvements? ... :p)
>
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

No, I don't want micromanagement... I just want the freedom to have it.

About wing size, I thought that big wings was too powerfull and so Tim
has changed the rules... could be that I missunderstood this?

Finaly, there are some micromanagement than can be solved with
Interface improvements.


Eric wrote:
> Well, very simply... because it takes alot of time to manage fractions of a
> whole rather than the whole. The game is already bogged down with alot of
> micromanagement that can be removed without affecting the actual game
> mechanics. What you want is micromanagement that cannot be removed as it's
> part of the game mechanics. I couldn't be more against that.
>
> I totally understand the miltary arguements and agree that of course 10
> wings of 10 or even 50 wings of 2 would likely be more effective in an
> actual battle versus 1 wing of 100. However, we only live once, and this is
> a game which already can take an insane ammount of time. Let me manage 1
> wing of 100, and let it work as effectively as 10 wings of 10 so I don't
> have to manage 10 wings. I'm cringing here.... seriously, at the thought
> that this won't be changed so that the mircromanagement doesn't win out.
> We're talking crazy ammounts of time here, and it's not fun (unless you're
> twisted and have too much time to burn).
>
> "Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150059334.403612.229420@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Well, I think that ships fighter bays are designed with an idea when
> > fighters works in another way than now. Creativity is one of the
> > biggest fun in this game. I think it isn't the number of fighters, but
> > the way you make use of them. 100 fighters are 100 fighters (1 wing or
> > 10 wings), the difference is his attack and deffense power due to his
> > "Formations" and coordination. So, some separated wings could take
> > advantage against (or versus) an alone wing. While both of them has
> > the same fire power, the separated one could make a front and a flank
> > attack and the alone one just are unidirectional. Also, the separated
> > one receive hits just on one wing at once (just a part from all
> > fighters), while the alone one receives hits from different directions
> > and is more hittable. The same with fighters against Vessels.
> >
> > In one word: Maneuverability. Figure a wing (or squadron, since it's
> > the same in VGAP4) of 100 fighters moving all together. It's possible,
> > it's powerfull, but the same number of fighters in 10 wings will be
> > like bees against a coleopter. Then, if I can fill a carrier with 300
> > fighters, what's the matter how many wings there are? Let me be
> > creative
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric wrote:
> >> Fighters are indeed the biggy that needs some addressing in terms of the
> >> game mechanics imo. Working fighters so they are best when put into sie
> >> of
> >> wings that their carriers are designed to carry is the best thing to do
> >> imo.
> >> I've no experience so far with Tim's latest changes to fighters in combat
> >> so
> >> perhaps it has been addressed somewhat. But 10 wings of 10 fighters
> >> should
> >> not be better than 1 wing of 100 when the race's ships themselves are
> >> designed to carry wings of 100. Same for races that have other size
> >> fighter
> >> bays.
> >>
> >> "Susie" <Susie_Derkins.RemoveThis@web.de> wrote in message
> >> news:1149987861.371754.33220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Yster wrote:
> >> >> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
> >> > would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
> >> > solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
> >> > the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
> >> > rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
> >> > Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
> >> > a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
> >> > mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
> >> > I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
> >> > had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
> >> > for my taste that is too much clicking.
> >> >
> >> > I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
> >> > introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
> >> > wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
> >> > 8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
> >> > factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
> >> > that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
> >> > wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
> >> > group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
> >> > with adding fighter groups.)
> >> >
> >> > In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
> >> > why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
> >> > about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
> >> > individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
> >> > independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
> >> > fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
> >> > believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
> >> > for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
> >> > the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
> >> > me.)
> >> >
> >> > Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
> >> > equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
> >> > strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
> >> > balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
> >> > and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
> >> > fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.
> >> >
> >> > In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
> >> > great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
> >> > the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
> >> > impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
> >> > of the client or a change of the rules.
> >> >
> >> > Susie
> >> >
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

To me, bay size reflects the fighter doctrin of the race, so it makes kind
of sense to me to fix a bay in size.

About the tactical options of multiple wings:
Yes, if perfect coordination would be achieved(sp?), several smaller wings
would be more effective than one big one. However, real live (yes, yes, I
know, it´s a game, yada yada yada ) shows, this coordination is very hard to
get in a real attack (Midway, for example, where the torpedo planes went in
all alone and got slaughtered*). Even with up to date C3 equipment I belive
it to be very hard to coordinate an attack from, say 10 different units at a
single target in a way to maximize the firepower/swamp enemy
defenses/suppress counterfire while simultaniously minimizing friction
between those units (blocking line of sight/fire, restricting manouver space
and so on).
Look how hard it is for real world armies to implement true combined arms.
Different units that have to trust and rely on one another, is not easy to
achieve. If those units are thrown together on the fly, it is almost
impossible.
As an example, let me quote one regimental commander (no name in the book
I´m reading right now), who was in the Korean war re. close air support:

"If you want it, you can´t get it.
If you can get it, it can´t find you.
If it can find you, it can´t identify the target.
If it can identify the target, it can´t hit it.
But if it does hit the target, it doesn´t do a great deal of damage anyway"

This was, because ground commanders had to deal with new and unfamiliar
pilots on a daily basis.

In the end, I think the tactical benefits of multiple small wings and the
much easier control of few large wings should cancel each other out in raw
combat efficiency.


*Ironicaly, this mix up allowed the dive bombers to attack the jap carriers
almost unoposed, because all the Zeros where at sea-level from shooting down
torp-planes


Wow, this got much longer than intended

Ralph Hoenig, Germany


"Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> schrieb
IMO, the problem is ... why carriers has fighter bay size? and not just
a max fighter capacity?. A carrier would have to be able to take a
number of fighters, no matter the tactical decision of his multiple
wing configurations.

About the wing size, IMHO (... and IMHO again), 10 10 fighter wings
would have to be more stronger than just 1 100 fighter wing because
they are maximizing the attack options and they are more agil. Think
that a wing is a formation.


 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

I can't follow: How would a new option that allows the player to split
a large wing in many squadrons during VCR decrease your freedom to have
micromanagement? It would be still possible for you to create small
fighter wings and manage them on your own.

Yes, big wings used to be too powerful and it was good that Tim changed
that. I don't think that anybody misses the super sized monster wings.
This threat is just about the unwanted side effects of the solution.

I am all for interface improvements! However, in this case it seems to
me that it would make sense to get rid of the problem by removing the
reason that causes people to create insane amounts of fighter wings.
Don't treat the symptoms, get rid of the cause of the disease.

Susie


Myflowers wrote:
> No, I don't want micromanagement... I just want the freedom to have it.
>
> About wing size, I thought that big wings was too powerfull and so Tim
> has changed the rules... could be that I missunderstood this?
>
> Finaly, there are some micromanagement than can be solved with
> Interface improvements.
>
>
> Eric wrote:
> > Well, very simply... because it takes alot of time to manage fractions of a
> > whole rather than the whole. The game is already bogged down with alot of
> > micromanagement that can be removed without affecting the actual game
> > mechanics. What you want is micromanagement that cannot be removed as it's
> > part of the game mechanics. I couldn't be more against that.
> >
> > I totally understand the miltary arguements and agree that of course 10
> > wings of 10 or even 50 wings of 2 would likely be more effective in an
> > actual battle versus 1 wing of 100. However, we only live once, and this is
> > a game which already can take an insane ammount of time. Let me manage 1
> > wing of 100, and let it work as effectively as 10 wings of 10 so I don't
> > have to manage 10 wings. I'm cringing here.... seriously, at the thought
> > that this won't be changed so that the mircromanagement doesn't win out.
> > We're talking crazy ammounts of time here, and it's not fun (unless you're
> > twisted and have too much time to burn).
> >
> > "Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150059334.403612.229420@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Well, I think that ships fighter bays are designed with an idea when
> > > fighters works in another way than now. Creativity is one of the
> > > biggest fun in this game. I think it isn't the number of fighters, but
> > > the way you make use of them. 100 fighters are 100 fighters (1 wing or
> > > 10 wings), the difference is his attack and deffense power due to his
> > > "Formations" and coordination. So, some separated wings could take
> > > advantage against (or versus) an alone wing. While both of them has
> > > the same fire power, the separated one could make a front and a flank
> > > attack and the alone one just are unidirectional. Also, the separated
> > > one receive hits just on one wing at once (just a part from all
> > > fighters), while the alone one receives hits from different directions
> > > and is more hittable. The same with fighters against Vessels.
> > >
> > > In one word: Maneuverability. Figure a wing (or squadron, since it's
> > > the same in VGAP4) of 100 fighters moving all together. It's possible,
> > > it's powerfull, but the same number of fighters in 10 wings will be
> > > like bees against a coleopter. Then, if I can fill a carrier with 300
> > > fighters, what's the matter how many wings there are? Let me be
> > > creative
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric wrote:
> > >> Fighters are indeed the biggy that needs some addressing in terms of the
> > >> game mechanics imo. Working fighters so they are best when put into sie
> > >> of
> > >> wings that their carriers are designed to carry is the best thing to do
> > >> imo.
> > >> I've no experience so far with Tim's latest changes to fighters in combat
> > >> so
> > >> perhaps it has been addressed somewhat. But 10 wings of 10 fighters
> > >> should
> > >> not be better than 1 wing of 100 when the race's ships themselves are
> > >> designed to carry wings of 100. Same for races that have other size
> > >> fighter
> > >> bays.
> > >>
> > >> "Susie" <Susie_Derkins.TakeThisOut@web.de> wrote in message
> > >> news:1149987861.371754.33220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > Yster wrote:
> > >> >> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS
> > >> >
> > >> > I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
> > >> > would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
> > >> > solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
> > >> > the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
> > >> > rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
> > >> > Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
> > >> > a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
> > >> > mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
> > >> > I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
> > >> > had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
> > >> > for my taste that is too much clicking.
> > >> >
> > >> > I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
> > >> > introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
> > >> > wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
> > >> > 8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
> > >> > factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
> > >> > that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
> > >> > wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
> > >> > group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
> > >> > with adding fighter groups.)
> > >> >
> > >> > In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
> > >> > why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
> > >> > about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
> > >> > individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
> > >> > independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
> > >> > fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
> > >> > believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
> > >> > for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
> > >> > the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
> > >> > me.)
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
> > >> > equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
> > >> > strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
> > >> > balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
> > >> > and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
> > >> > fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.
> > >> >
> > >> > In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
> > >> > great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
> > >> > the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
> > >> > impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
> > >> > of the client or a change of the rules.
> > >> >
> > >> > Susie
> > >> >
> > >
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

Well, very simply... because it takes alot of time to manage fractions of a
whole rather than the whole. The game is already bogged down with alot of
micromanagement that can be removed without affecting the actual game
mechanics. What you want is micromanagement that cannot be removed as it's
part of the game mechanics. I couldn't be more against that.

I totally understand the miltary arguements and agree that of course 10
wings of 10 or even 50 wings of 2 would likely be more effective in an
actual battle versus 1 wing of 100. However, we only live once, and this is
a game which already can take an insane ammount of time. Let me manage 1
wing of 100, and let it work as effectively as 10 wings of 10 so I don't
have to manage 10 wings. I'm cringing here.... seriously, at the thought
that this won't be changed so that the mircromanagement doesn't win out.
We're talking crazy ammounts of time here, and it's not fun (unless you're
twisted and have too much time to burn).

"Myflowers" <alfredo.punzi DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150059334.403612.229420@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I think that ships fighter bays are designed with an idea when
> fighters works in another way than now. Creativity is one of the
> biggest fun in this game. I think it isn't the number of fighters, but
> the way you make use of them. 100 fighters are 100 fighters (1 wing or
> 10 wings), the difference is his attack and deffense power due to his
> "Formations" and coordination. So, some separated wings could take
> advantage against (or versus) an alone wing. While both of them has
> the same fire power, the separated one could make a front and a flank
> attack and the alone one just are unidirectional. Also, the separated
> one receive hits just on one wing at once (just a part from all
> fighters), while the alone one receives hits from different directions
> and is more hittable. The same with fighters against Vessels.
>
> In one word: Maneuverability. Figure a wing (or squadron, since it's
> the same in VGAP4) of 100 fighters moving all together. It's possible,
> it's powerfull, but the same number of fighters in 10 wings will be
> like bees against a coleopter. Then, if I can fill a carrier with 300
> fighters, what's the matter how many wings there are? Let me be
> creative
>
>
>
> Eric wrote:
>> Fighters are indeed the biggy that needs some addressing in terms of the
>> game mechanics imo. Working fighters so they are best when put into sie
>> of
>> wings that their carriers are designed to carry is the best thing to do
>> imo.
>> I've no experience so far with Tim's latest changes to fighters in combat
>> so
>> perhaps it has been addressed somewhat. But 10 wings of 10 fighters
>> should
>> not be better than 1 wing of 100 when the race's ships themselves are
>> designed to carry wings of 100. Same for races that have other size
>> fighter
>> bays.
>>
>> "Susie" <Susie_Derkins DeleteThis @web.de> wrote in message
>> news:1149987861.371754.33220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Yster wrote:
>> >> WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS WE NEED FIGHTER GROUPS
>> >
>> > I am not sure what you are exactly asking for, but I am afraid if it
>> > would work similarly to groups of ships or fleets, then it would not
>> > solve the problem. I am playing the Robot in a game where money is not
>> > the limiting factor anymore, but minerals are short. In spite of that I
>> > rarely use fighters just because it is a nuisance to handle them.
>> > Fighter groups would not change that at all. Let's assume I would build
>> > a decent fleet of, let's say, 1000 fighter wings (8/1/1) for 170 000
>> > mc. (So far ressource points are no issues in this game.) In this case
>> > I had to click 1000 times the 'form new wing' button and afterwards I
>> > had to add 1000 fighter wings to a group. I don't know about you, but
>> > for my taste that is too much clicking.
>> >
>> > I prefer the suggestion that came up a few weeks ago: Let's just
>> > introduce a command for wings such that the wing is split in smaller
>> > wings during the VCR. In my example, I would just create one
>> > 8000/1000/1000 fighter wing and give it the order to split by the
>> > factor 1000. (Maybe the order the 'split by 1000' order should entail
>> > that the wing uses 1000 resource points.) To handle one large fighter
>> > wing is just so much easier than to create plenty of small wings and
>> > group them together afterwards. (Of course this approach is compatible
>> > with adding fighter groups.)
>> >
>> > In my opinon, an even better solution would be to get rid of the reason
>> > why people create many small wings and mix wings. What do you think
>> > about the following: Just simplify the VCR code and treat any
>> > individual fighter as a single entity that behaves and moves
>> > independently of other fighter? This way it does not matter how your
>> > fighters are distributed in wings. It would be quite some change, but I
>> > believe it would make VCRs much more comprehensible. (I am playing VGAP
>> > for quite some while (reg number 264) and the behaviour of wings and
>> > the result of mixing fighters in wings is still a complete mystery to
>> > me.)
>> >
>> > Of course having many independently actling fighters (which is
>> > equivalent to having many wings that consist only of one fighter) would
>> > strengthen point defense against fighter and weaken sand caster. To
>> > balance that one could decrease the point defense odds against fighter
>> > and change the code of sandcasters such that they don't just affect the
>> > fighters at a given point but in a region of the VCR.
>> >
>> > In any case, I agree with you and (as usual) with MCD: It would be
>> > great if Tim would do something about fighters. Right now the rules of
>> > the game reward small fighter wings, but the client makes it almost
>> > impossible to handle them. So some solution is needed. Either a change
>> > of the client or a change of the rules.
>> >
>> > Susie
>> >
>
 >> Stay informed about: Tim PLEASE: We need fighter groups. *PLEASE* 

I said that the splitting thing require a lot of code change ... I
haven't said that this will not reduce micromanagment . My idea is
ask for factibles changes, improvements that Tim could include without
a lot of code changes. If you have the tool to manage 300 wings in a
few seconds, then the number of wings is not yet a problem... that's
all


Susie ha escrito:

> I can't follow: How would a new option that allows the player to split
> a large wing in many squadrons during VCR decrease your freedom to have
> micromanagement? It would be still possible for you to create small
> fighter wings and manage them on your own.
>
> Yes, big wings used to be too powerful and it was good that Tim changed
> that. I don't think that anybody misses the super sized monster wings.
> This threat is just about the unwanted side effects of the solution.
>
> I am all for interface improvements! However, in this case it seems to
> me that it would make sense to get rid of the problem by removing the
> reason that causes people to create insane amounts of fighter wings.
> Don't treat the symptoms, get rid of the cause of the disease.
>
> Susie
>
>
> Myflowers wrote:
> > No, I don't want micromanagement... I just want the freedom to have it.
> >
> > About wing size, I thought that big wings was too powerfull and so Tim
> > has changed the rules... could be that I missunderstood this?
> >
> > Finaly, there are some micromanagement than can be solved with
> > Interface improvements.
> >
> >
> > Eric wrote:
> > > Well, very simply... because it takes alot of time to manage fractions of a
> > > whole rather than the whole. The game is already bogged down with alot of
> > > micromanagement that can be removed without affecting the actual game
> > > mechanics. What you want is micromanagement that cannot be removed as it's
> > > part of the game mechanics. I couldn't be more against that.
> > >
> > > I totally understand the miltary arguements and agree th