Repairs & Fortifications

[Viking67]

Is there a way to turn off base repairs, so your engineers only focus on fortifications?

[Lifer]

No. All damage at a base has to be repaired before you can continue building fortifications, airfields and ports. On the plus side, repairing damage does not consume supplies.

Greg

[topeverest]

Yup...its the way it is. there are ways to use it to your advantage though...

[ilovestrategy]

Lifer, I love your Sig!

[Lifer]

Also your opponents advantage. As long as he can keep his objective damaged, you can't prepare for his arrival.

The quote is from his book Battle Studies. Interesting read on the subject of the men in battle and not strategy and tactics. Pretty sure you can find and read online or find it on ebay/Amazon. It is/was on the USMC's professional reading list.

Greg

[Fallschirmjager]

I really really wish this would make it's way into as future beta patch. Some bases like Singapore and Manila, Clark Field and Bataan. I really don't care if they are damaged. In fact I would like to leave them damaged so that the Japanese player has to clean it up when they arrive. I know I am going to lose bases like this, so I would prefer to leave repairs off and focus on building up as many forts as possible.

This would of course help the Japanese player too in certain situations in the mid and late game. Everyone gains something from this option. Maybe it can gain some support and find it's way into the game.

[SoliInvictus202]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I really really wish this would make it's way into as future beta patch. Some bases like Singapore and Manila, Clark Field and Bataan. I really don't care if they are damaged. In fact I would like to leave them damaged so that the Japanese player has to clean it up when they arrive. I know I am going to lose bases like this, so I would prefer to leave repairs off and focus on building up as many forts as possible.

This would of course help the Japanese player too in certain situations in the mid and late game. Everyone gains something from this option. Maybe it can gain some support and find it's way into the game.

I couldn't have said it better myself - would be great to see that at some stage

[Andy Mac]

Hmmm not sure I agree the balance we have now works and that would upset the applecart - if we went down that route (and I dont tyhink we should) I would want to take another look at increasing the build time for forts.

Think of Ports and AF's as 'Infrastructure' engineers are not able to soley concentrate on forts.

If an air raid destroys a bridge the engineers need to fix it. If they destroy a water plant or a hospital they need to repair it.

The only siotuation where a change like this would be on my persoanl list would be if you added a bombable Infrastructure similar to ports etc that could reduce movement rates, supply pass through etc etc.

But thats a fundamental rewrite that wont happen so what we have is tghe best compromise

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Hmmm not sure I agree the balance we have now works and that would upset the applecart - if we went down that route (and I dont tyhink we should) I would want to take another look at increasing the build time for forts.

Think of Ports and AF's as 'Infrastructure' engineers are not able to soley concentrate on forts.

If an air raid destroys a bridge the engineers need to fix it. If they destroy a water plant or a hospital they need to repair it.

The only siotuation where a change like this would be on my persoanl list would be if you added a bombable Infrastructure similar to ports etc that could reduce movement rates, supply pass through etc etc.

But thats a fundamental rewrite that wont happen so what we have is tghe best compromise

Fully agree with Andy Mac.

If we were to go down this path of allowing fort building at the expense of repairing port/AF infrastructure, we would then need to revisit not just the current fort build time as mentioned by Andy Mac but also the following.

• the cost in supplies to build forts to soak up the under used supplies not required for repairing the other infrastructure
• stop the distinction between repairs not consuming supplies but building infrastructure does - if the OP really wants to be more "realistic", how about we be consistent and admit that concrete, steel etc is just as required to build as to repair structures
• once the build time is increased, then for both game balance and simple real world common sense, the relative ease of reducing fort levels would also have to be altered
• remove the fantasy idea that provided supplies exist, every engineer is able to work non stop 24/7/365 never having to sleep - we don't have the same pilot flying both day and night, nor is land combat engaged in both continuous day and night phases

As always a suggestion to alter the game mechanics will lead to significant consequences elsewhere. That means there is always a lot of work entailed in assessing the simplest of suggestions put forward by consumers who are not saddled with the responsibility of coding and testing the "suggestion".

Alfred

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Hmmm not sure I agree the balance we have now works and that would upset the applecart - if we went down that route (and I dont tyhink we should) I would want to take another look at increasing the build time for forts.

Think of Ports and AF's as 'Infrastructure' engineers are not able to soley concentrate on forts.

If an air raid destroys a bridge the engineers need to fix it. If they destroy a water plant or a hospital they need to repair it.

The only siotuation where a change like this would be on my persoanl list would be if you added a bombable Infrastructure similar to ports etc that could reduce movement rates, supply pass through etc etc.

But thats a fundamental rewrite that wont happen so what we have is tghe best compromise

You may be right Andy, but what seems strange is that if you have no more aircraft, why would you waste time repairing runways or hangers? If no "mile long convoy" is coming (or can make it through enemy A/C), then why waste effort fixing the docks? There are times when the way the system works just appears to be wrong.

[Rainer]

If no "mile long convoy" is coming (or can make it through enemy A/C), then why waste effort fixing the docks?

Because it is designed that way. The current system cannot be rewritten. It's that simple.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

If no "mile long convoy" is coming (or can make it through enemy A/C), then why waste effort fixing the docks?

Because it is designed that way. The current system cannot be rewritten. It's that simple.

Beta patches have added simpler things than this.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Hmmm not sure I agree the balance we have now works and that would upset the applecart - if we went down that route (and I dont tyhink we should) I would want to take another look at increasing the build time for forts.

Think of Ports and AF's as 'Infrastructure' engineers are not able to soley concentrate on forts.

If an air raid destroys a bridge the engineers need to fix it. If they destroy a water plant or a hospital they need to repair it.

The only siotuation where a change like this would be on my persoanl list would be if you added a bombable Infrastructure similar to ports etc that could reduce movement rates, supply pass through etc etc.

But thats a fundamental rewrite that wont happen so what we have is tghe best compromise

You may be right Andy, but what seems strange is that if you have no more aircraft, why would you waste time repairing runways or hangers? If no "mile long convoy" is coming (or can make it through enemy A/C), then why waste effort fixing the docks? There are times when the way the system works just appears to be wrong.

Base damage, as many other things, is an abstraction.

For an airbase it does not only represent runways and hangars, but storage facilities, bunkers, roads, secondary defensive buildings (minus "forts"), medical facilities,
logistic and command facilities, repair shops, troops compartements, training facilities, tents,...
Basically anything troops use a base for except the troops themselves, and don´t forget we are talking about a 40 square mile area here.

A base is a logistics centre for the units located there and also the troops in supply in the surrounding area.

Seen from that perspective the "missing" option to stop repairs of such a facility hits the nail on the head.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

If no "mile long convoy" is coming (or can make it through enemy A/C), then why waste effort fixing the docks?

Because it is designed that way. The current system cannot be rewritten. It's that simple.

I KNOW that Rainer..., I was one of the playtesters for the AE Design team. My point was that the REASON this question keeps coming up is that the "rational" as the game explains it doesn't make sense to a lot of players. It's one of those "system quirks" that's going to keep generating questions because even though it "works" in the game, it just doesn't sound right.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Rainer

If no "mile long convoy" is coming (or can make it through enemy A/C), then why waste effort fixing the docks?

Because it is designed that way. The current system cannot be rewritten. It's that simple.

I KNOW that Rainer..., I was one of the playtesters for the AE Design team. My point was that the REASON this question keeps coming up is that the "rational" as the game explains it doesn't make sense to a lot of players. It's one of those "system quirks" that's going to keep generating questions because even though it "works" in the game, it just doesn't sound right.

You got a point there. I don´t think a code change is neccesary as a solution though.
How about a renaming?

We currently have: Airfield Runway damage, Airfield service damage and Port damage.

If that changes to something (sorry, cannot think of anything better now) like Runway/Road damage, Base Facility damage and Port/Logistics damage,
the impact of damage can remain the same but what is meant gets a bit more obvious.
No code change needed and it could thwart debates on the option to turn off repair.

[Fallschirmjager]

I have always thought of forts as all defensive structures and not just 'forts'
And I have always thought of them in bands.

Like lvl 1 is trenchs, barbed wire, sandbags
lvl 2 is rifle pits, machine gun emplacements (sandbags), sandbags for AA guns
lvl 3 is log rifle and machine gun bunkers, landmines and more barbed wire, trees are cut down to form firing lanes, berms are built for tanks and at guns
lvl 4 is more trees cleared for firing lanes, landmines are in belts, artillery is pre registered and it's ammunition is protected by log and sandbag structures

and on and on and on

And I think civilian infrastructure, where it exists is represented by things like shipyards, factories and manpower damage.
I think ports and airfields are just that. Ports and airfields.
If this game was set in Europe it would make more sense.

It really makes no sense that Iwo Jima or Makin atoll or the Gilberts should have to repair airfields and ports because it is supposed to simulate infrastructure.
And if I want to leave Singapore or Manila destroyed and focus on building defensive measure then I should be allowed to do so.
It is extremely gamey when 18 bombers can keep Manila are fort lvl 1 or two by a simple day time bombing run at 11,000 ft mostly out of harm from flak.

But everyone has their own opinion interpretation of the game mechanics.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
And I think civilian infrastructure, where it exists is represented by things like shipyards, factories and manpower damage.
I think ports and airfields are just that. Ports and airfields.
If this game was set in Europe it would make more sense.

It really makes no sense that Iwo Jima or Makin atoll or the Gilberts should have to repair airfields and ports because it is supposed to simulate infrastructure.
And if I want to leave Singapore or Manila destroyed and focus on building defensive measure then I should be allowed to do so.
It is extremely gamey when 18 bombers can keep Manila are fort lvl 1 or two by a simple day time bombing run at 11,000 ft mostly out of harm from flak.

But everyone has their own opinion interpretation of the game mechanics.

Rainer. This is exactly the point of view I'm talking about. From a purely game perspective, the coding might work. But from a "common sense" perspective, it makes none. Kurabiashi and his boys were not repairing the airfields on Iwo over the Winter of 44-45, they were digging tunnels and bunkers. No change in the description is going to make it make sense. Maybe we should have included a line that said: "We know it makes no sense..., shut up and live with it!". At least that might have stopped the questions...

[Rainer]

Agreed.

[Panther Bait]

Another way this could work better (given unlimited resources to make code changes of course), is if fortifications could be damaged, instead of just reduced. Damaged fortifications would provide some fraction of their full potential, but be easier to rebuild than completely new fortifications. Damage to the forts would represent all the things discussed above (infrastructure damage, etc.) plus actual breaches of the existing forts. Doing this would remove the restriction that base damage must be repaired before expanding forts, but the forts themselves would have to be 100% repaired before they could be expanded.

I could see where bombing would cause light damage only. Bombardments (ship or gun) maybe more damage (at least for the heavy guns). But neither of these could reduce the fort level.

DA/SA could do damage (from imbedded guns or engineers) or reduce the level (based on relative base AV odds to simulate overrunning the existing forts/displacing defenders).

I think to make this work, though, you would have to increase the cost (time and supplies) to build forts in the first place, especially at the higher levels. Damage could be repaired at something like the current cost to build, with or without a supply cost.

Anyway, no idea if this is even remotely possible, just a thought.

Mike