Swedish Hero bring you folks....., ANOTHER BUG. THE AA INTERCEPTION BUG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zappsweden]

Interception bug is not entirely terminated!

In my recent Rambo game, he complained that i dished out 5 points of damage in some interception duels already on L0 in 1940. We both had roughly same stats for the air fleets so the odds should be 3-3. With 3-3 odds, plus/minus give you 2-4 point of damage but never 5.

I did a hotseat testing regarding the issue. I placed one corps and one air fleet for each side (Germany and UK). Since it was hotseat i could read the odds too. It read 3-3 every time on direct air attacks, BUT when i attacked corps and forced interception it behaved differently. In some interception duels the german air suffered 5 points. That means odds was 3-4 i.e enabling from 3 to 5 points for the interceptor.

The common thing for this 3-4 odds was when the original attack was when allies attacked from a city (London).

I thought the interception flaw was fixed in the patch but only the entrench and terrain bonus values were fixed not the Anti-Aircraft bonuses.

THE AA BONUS IS STILL THERE. I even put AA on L5 for UK and retried it. BOOM, Axis air suffered 6-8 every time instead of the usual 2-4 points. Ofcourse Allies attacker from London to benefit from their AA research else it would not have worked.

1) SC still has interception flaw though it is smaller than what it was before the patch (only AA remaining?).

2) A unit that is intercepted loses one entrench point.

[ November 16, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Yes, it looks there is a bug, very frustrating indeed. In our game, the French Campaign was taking longer because I was picking off ships. So I noticed the "taking 5-hits" because I had my Luftwaffen in an intercept roll only for forward ground troops........That damn RAF in London was turning Manstein's Air into Swiss cheese every turn.

[jon_j_rambo]

Hey Terif, did you know about this?

[Terif]

To answer your question Rambo:

I did not know about this until know. There are still new things to discover in SC.

I just tested it too and it is correct: when an airfleet based in a city attacks and gets intercepted, the anti-air tech level increases its defence.

But fortunately in a normal game with one of the original scenarios this interception thing is not important and usually not noticable. Only UK has 1 tech level anti-air and only London to potentially use it. But usually it can attack from London only very seldom if Germany doesnt make a lot of mistakes or go on a ship hunt before France is dead... .

A lot of people complained about the "useless" anti-air tech. It seems it has another slight (unintended ?) advantage, so its a bit more valuable to research it. A nice feature, but not decissive.

[zappsweden]

Another thing. Since AA improves air defence on all resources, this BUG concerns the Carriers too ofcourse. A carrier can now use the London port for interception **** again. When AA reach L3-L5 it will become an apparent and almost deciding factor.

I predict L3-L4 carriers with L3-L4 AA striking from ports and inflicting 10-12 points on an air fleet like in the "good old" Carrier flaw strategies. This not only concerns Allies. Axis can do the same thing. It does not affect 1940 France much but in the mid game and certainly in the end game it will be a BIG BUG factor.

[ November 16, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Terif]

Swedish Hero bring you folks....., ANOTHER BUG. THE AA INTERCEPTION BUG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It does not affect 1940 France much but in the mid game and certainly in the end game it will be a BIG BUG factor

You tend to blow up things... . Like most other "bugs" you "discovered" too, this one is certainly not a big factor.

Like you admitted, in France it is pretty useless.

Later and at the end, a lot of other things are much more important... e.g. Jet tech, strategy, which units you built etc... One Lv AA only increases the defence value in a very special situation for a very limited amount of units similarly to one Jet tech lv...a nice side effect, but surely not important for the result.

And "super carriers" simply cant really use this AA thing: it only works if they get intercepted, but the key of an effective carrier war is just NOT to get intercepted by enemy air, it damages the carrier too much and the one extra damage point for the enemy from the AA really doesnt matter.

If you dont believe it, stop playing, stop the Tournament or whatever. Thats your choice.

But if you want my advice:

Stop complaining about this and that, start having fun with playing the game. Enjoy it DURING the game and try to have a good game. If you want to discover something, then you should discover the fun in SC again...

[ November 16, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Codename Condor]

The way i see this bug: AA another important tech to develop for axis.

- germany now has to develop AA and to use german/french cities and to ATTACK instead of defend, LR also valuable for germany. Ive tested the bug with level 5 AA and well, i can say its a HELL of a difference...If axis is lucky with jets and has tech advantage then germany can postpone sealion for ages, UK AFs would suffer heavy losses. But i dont see how germany can get level 5 in AA and Jets, the way i see this germany can get some help if she decides to defend the West.

how come nobody has detected this bug till now? cos nobody developed AA, AA tech was **** and not worthwhile, u spend only 1 chit there from time to time, in all my games i think the best AA evel i had was level 2 and i was lucky.

So, i dont see this bug as DISCORAUGING as i didnt see the Spain gambit bug discorauging it only opens new options and thast good for the game. And i wouldnt consider this bug as the CARRIER BUG, that was really discouraging.

-subs tech sux (subs sux)

-bomber tech sux (bombers sux)

-rockets tech sux (not worthwhile)

-tank tech sux (tanks sux)

-AA tech sucked

[ November 16, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Codename Condor ]

[zappsweden]

Terif, you are twisting the facts with a super carrier. The point with a Super Carrier is not trying to destroy enemy air. The point is being strong enought to PREVENT enemy air to interfere with the Carrier Training Program. If carriers can attack without interceptions they are very happy, believe me. Anyone would like to intercept a weak carrier. A Super Carrier is harder. With air support, a Super Carrier can kill the enemy air hence making Carrier training THE deciding factor.

Terif, do not tell me what factors are important and which ones are not. I DO know it by now. You have toned down many other flaws and bugs found earlier. Flaws and bugs that effected the gameplay dramatically when they were removed. As YOU once said before, when a minor change is made to the game it affects the whole balance. I have played enough games to know how even small factors can turn the tide in close long games.

This AA case is similar. In the end game (when Jets tech is high), the AA will be high (since ppl know about this). You say i blow things out of proportions. I think that it is YOU toning things down. I know plenty of ppl that were upset and disappointed with earlier flaws so it is not just me. Toning this down saying this wont produce a very different end game is nonsense.

For example if a L0 carrier shows up bombarding thinking he is the king I would jump at the chance to intercept. However, if an experienced L4 jet, L4 AA carrier shows up it aint so funny anymore.

The Tournament was cancelled because of my low motivation. That motivation is not just about the BUG but also affected by the number of players. If we were 20-30 players in the Tournament I would most probably not Cancelled it. There were 7 players left in the Tournament.

But, You were not even in the Tournament, so why do u care and why do you complain?

I do not get it, it does not sound at all that you (Terif) are pleased with me finding this BUG, instead you seem more concerned with me complaining too loud. Guess what, I say what I want and I SAY IT OUT LOUD IF I WANT.

Now it sound like I am pissed off. Truth is, I AM! :mad:

Terif wrote:

"

You tend to blow up things... . Like most other "bugs" you "discovered" too, this one is certainly not a big factor.

"

"bugs".

Stop this patronizing business.

You questioning bugs?

The whole sentence is a sign off God Almighty Attitude. I aint taking any smack here, whether the smack is hidden in a sentenc or said out loud.

[ November 16, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Condor, Terif developed AA in some of the games against me when he was Axis.

I do not know when he was Allies. Perhaps he was at L2-L4 AA there too, I would hardly tell the difference in the end game with variation in experience, FOW and stuff influencing losses. I would not be surprised if he knew about this and did not say anything (like in the past).

[Codename Condor]

zapp, if someone playing as allies has developed AA tech before then i can assure u he alredy knew about the AA bug. And i think that the axis player could detect it: funny odds when aiming at ports...

We all have developed AA as axis in one game or another, but thats not the same as saying he already knew about it.

[zappsweden]

Missunderstood Condor. Sorry.

[ November 16, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Codename Condor]

ZAPP, of course u can always know what level of AA the enemy has. Just try to attack a port level 5 AA and u can get FUNNY oods: 5-1, 6-1...

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Terif:

A lot of people complained about the "useless" anti-air tech. It seems it has another slight (unintended ?) advantage, so its a bit more valuable to research it. A nice feature, but not decissive.

Terif, stop the act. You have been acting for a long time now. You sometimes pretend you know very little and sometimes you know everything.

You know, as well as me, that interception flaw enabled the original attacker to exploit his defence terrain and entrenchments i.e the interceptor went all the way to the original attackers terrain. You also know that Hubert removed it (obviously since air duels were meant to be fought on neutral air space). So, what does "(unintended ?)" mean?

You act like it is not obvious that this AA thing is in the same category as the entrenchment and terrain thing???

I cannot believe for a second that you actually believe your own written words.

[ November 16, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Codename Condor]

what i say is: u can know what level of AA the enemy has just by aiming at the ports. U have played hundreds of games if u have got funny odds then u could guess the enemy level of AA and tho u can NOW guess that he already knew about the bug.

From my experience i cant say anybody knew about it.

[Terif]

Zapp:

1. I didnt know about it until now. Your memory of our games is obviously not very good... You were amused when I told you that I keep all my saves. Originally it was only because I was too lazy to delete them after my games, but now I am happy to have them. If necessary I can prove with them what really happened (Both Rambo and you seem to have a bad memory when I think back of some threads not too long ago...).

2. To develope AA as Allies is really a waste of mpp. I never did it and will never do it. Even with the AA thing its not worth researching it...

3. As Axis AA can be useful if you want to defend France. Therefore I sometimes developed it when I planed to defend it. It is very expensive for Allies to attack axis units in AA protected cities. But they have to if they want a bridgehead in France.

4. Only if Axis use all (or nearly all) airfleets in France, they can use the AA thing. Otherwise they simply cant attack, or they will be destroyed in the counterattack. The AA only slightly increases the damage for the enemy, but does not reduce the damage for your own air.

But if all/enough axis air is in France, then UK airfleets retreat out of range anyway and axis air can only attack an allied city/port to force an interception. This causes a lot of damage for your own AF, therefore you have no advantage in the end. There is only still the disadvantage that your air is missing in more important places.

Summary:

Condor is right, nobody detected this "bug" cause it has simply no effect on the gameplay and is not noticable in a normal game. Now players have more incentives to go for AA tech, but I think it is still a waste of mpp to invest much in this area. AA is nice to have, but usually there are lots of better investments.

[Terif]

You sometimes pretend you know very little and sometimes you know everything.

I know the things I learned and noticed in my games. I do not know everything and if something has no effect in gameplay I simply dont care and run tests and waste my time with this...

Ok, enough time wasted...I have to go back into my current game to play... .

[jon_j_rambo]

Terif:

1) Yes, it does make a difference. I was getting hammered with 5-hits several times before my ship sinking escapade. I only started the ship sinking AFTER encountering this. I had 4-Luftwaffen w/ Manstein getting butchered by 2-RAF. I don't need a lesson how to take France.

2) I've been trying new strategies, i.e..."Ardennes Gambit". That is, attack the French in the Ardennes on Turn#2, bypass the LC to put the French in a new "bad" situation early. Not everything is cookie cutter. SC is boring to me, it takes 25+ hours to play a game properly (either side). I don't have time for that...therefore, I will try new strategies. RACK is still the most proven Axis strategy. It takes 40+ hours to win using RACK.

3) Far as you calling Zapp "overeating" on bugs.....go check your mirror. You invented the "exploit bug" strategy. How many games did you win exploiting bugs?

4) Far as playing competitive games, I really don't care because of all the cheat programs out there. I'm not accusing anybody, there is just no trust.

5) Most likely I'm buying a new computer, mine is 5+ years old, worthless memory, no video card worth mentioning, etc. I'll be investigating new games.

von Rambo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT

[jon_j_rambo]

Wow, still alot of bad blood out there. I thought is was over. The thread starts out as a defect find...turns into a mud slinging contest.

Terif's time spent on SC:

(more than Hubert)

TCP/IP (300 games) * (5 hours) = 1500 hours

E-Mail (200 games) * (5 hours) = 1000 hours

Test (300 days) * (1 hour) = 300 hours

Forum (300 days) * (1 hour) = 300 hours

============================================

Total 3100 hours

equals number of 8-hour work day 387.5 days

Terif, you have spent OVER a full work year without vacation playing this game. If you would have spent that time working (even a crap job).

Working Walmart 3100 hours * 6.50/hour =$20,150

Working as zombie truck driver =

3100 hours * 15/hour = $46,500

Working on a real job

3100 hours * 30/hour = $93,000

Maybe you should invest your energy into different areas. Well, maybe you're rich already or playing SC at work...or in jail.

Rambo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smack King >>>>>>>> OUT

[ November 16, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Iron Ranger]

Somehow, all of this is just not a surprise.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

Somehow, all of this is just not a surprise.

Yeah, and this time I think it is even more obvious who the attacker is. I wont put up with being patronized and hammered when all I am doing is working for the good of SC and the good of the SC community.

There must be something wrong here. I discover something bad, something hidden in the game. Terif shows up and complains that I find bugs and complains about me complaining. Shortly you could say that he showed up just to say that this is a waste of time. I mean, who does that and..., why?

It is "funny" that Terif use quotes when he refers to the word... BUG.

It is just another way of looking at fair play when u downgrade the word... BUG. How can you (Terif) preach and complain about ppl fancying fair play?

Also, saying "unintended?" is acting like you do not know what a bug is (unlike all the other blokes I talked too about this AA thing). Stop acting.

Finally, no one decides what we want to discuss here (within the frames of SC). Coming here and expressing and complaining that this is an unjustified issue or "waste of time" is serious bad ass style, alternatively arrogance, alternatively lack of fair play, alternatively all the above

Zappsweden >>>>>>>>>>>> Fair Player >>>>>>>>>> OUT

Terif >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get The Fukk >>>>>>>>> OUT

[ November 16, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Iron Ranger]

Post by Iron Ranger

Final note: Combat loss's, expecially those involving air or naval combat, seam to be higher then what the formulas will provide. I noticed this alot with L4/5 air combat, its nothing to do 9-11 pts of damage each time.

Well this question has now been answered, the navel combat I was talking about were carriers. The reason is an incressed AA tech damage.

Side Note: Its not tested but I think air fleets intersepting out of MT or Swamp hexs do 1/2 damage in defence.

[Bill101]

I think that something is being missed here, and that is that the research being discussed is into Anti-Aircraft RADAR.

Radar helped aircraft to plot their own and enemy routes better, thus someone who has an advantage in radar will, everything else being equal, tend to do better in air to air combat than their opponent.

During the Battle of Britain the RAF were aided greatly by their use of radar, as they could manouevre into the best position to attack the Luftwaffe.

I'm not convinced that this is a bug. In fact it may be the effect that Hubert intended.

Whether the range of this bonus should depend on the level of research achieved will have to be answered either by Hubert or by a WWII radar expert, as I don't know how far into Europe the British radar allowed them to see at the beginning of the war.

[ November 16, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Bill101:

I think that something is being missed here, and that is that the research being discussed is into Anti-Aircraft RADAR.

Radar helped aircraft to plot their own and enemy routes better, thus someone who has an advantage in radar will, everything else being equal, tend to do better in air to air combat than their opponent.

Whether the range of this bonus should depend on the level of research achieved will have to be answered either by Hubert or by a WWII

It is still an obvious BUG since only the attackers AA is used. I could be 6 hexes away across the English channel being intercepted and my AA helps me but the enemy (being close to AA hex) gets no suppport at all. In the current case it is like the attacker is intercepted at the moment they enter the air, getting AA support from his starting grounds.

[ November 16, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Iron Ranger]

Changing your profile Zapp?

Was thinking about this (still need to test, for total understanding).

I'm not sure this is a bug, it might even be salvation (ok not for the AirKing). There has long been a complante that air was overpowering, now with alittle AA one air unit can wipe out another, and attacking it directily is foolish because of the entrenchment. Solotion: ground combat now becoume top prioity (as is should be) and air fleets are back to a supporting role, the the dominate role.

This could be a very good discovery.

Thanks for sharing this with everyone Zapp-Rambo.

[Bill101]

Zapp: You are right, I've just tested that. That is what needs to be amended, so that the radar helps both sides where applicable, rather than just the attacker.

I don't think it's a major issue though. Someone could exploit it, but there will be ways to counter it (like developing AA radar and attacking too!).

Besides, it's a discovery that helps the allies more initially. Maybe it's one step forward to abolishing bidding?

[ November 16, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]