Minimum AF size

[Flying Tiger]

I have been looking again at the minimum AF size requirements, and i'm not convinced the current system (using the AC type and bombload formula) really works. Currently any fighter can operate off a level 1 AF, any level bomber requires a minimum level 4+ AF depending on bombload, recon AC i think require level 1 (or is it 2?), and amphibs (in AE - not WitP) either a port or level 1 AF.

But.... this is not really accurate. Some bombers were very light and could probably have operated safely off what we have rated as level 3 AF (eg. The Beaufort - light bombload, big rugged undercarriage, capable of operating of shortish rough fields). Also, some 'heavy' bombers were much more capable of shorter, rougher field ops than others. The B17 had very rugged gear and was often used from less than ideal strips, while the B24 required better (and longer) fields. In WitP both require the same size AF. B17 should probably need only a 4, B24 probably at least a 5 or even 6.

At the same time, some fighters (the Black Widow for example) were VERY heavy fighters and probably should require a level 2, or 3, or even 4 AF. Other fighters, like the Spit, while not heavy in the same way, could not operate off particularly rough strips because of their 'delicate' undercarriage. Spits should probably need at least a size 2 AF. And most rec types also needed longer, smoother (ie. sealed) strips to protect very delicate instruments.

So.... a simple solution? Add a 'minimum AF size' data line for each AC type.

And ops from AF lower than minimum size should result in far higher operational losses, as well as reduced bombload!!

[TheElf]

What is a size 3 AF?

[bradfordkay]

I know that B-17s at least staged through Namlea while operating against the Japanese during the fight for Celebes, so there is something to be said for FT's argument...

[John Lansford]

I thought twin engined bombers could operate off a size 3 airfield; ISTR B-25's flying off size 3's in my campaign, although perhaps not with the best bombload.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I thought twin engined bombers could operate off a size 3 airfield; ISTR B-25's flying off size 3's in my campaign, although perhaps not with the best bombload.

They currently can, which is why my Beauforts were able to cripple so many of Saso's APs during our PBEM. You lose the torpedo carrying ability at level 3 though, they drop down to 500 GPs.

[treespider]

Last time I checked any bomber could operate from Size 2 or larger...


...and nobody as answered Elf's question - exactly what is a Level 3 AF?

[Flying Tiger]

What is a size 3 AF?

 
errrr...? In game terms? A not particularly big flat area where aeroplanes can try to land and takeoff!!
 
 
SORRY Elf. I know you have been playing this game longer than me so i should not be cruel! Just not quite sure what you are asking? AF is abbreviation for AirField.
 
 
 
Yes, you can operate strike missions off any AF size 2+. But.... you lose bombload (and maybe range??) with all bombers other than dive bombers or dedicated torpedo bombers (ie. avenger, etc). This is exactly my argument! It is unrealistic (and un-historic) to launch

[Flying Tiger]

Whoops. hit the send button too soon!!
 

Last time I checked any bomber could operate from Size 2 or larger...

 
Yes, you can operate strike missions off any AF size 2+. But.... you lose bombload (and maybe range??) with all bombers other than dive bombers or dedicated torpedo bombers (ie. avenger, etc). But... this is part of my argument! It is unrealistic (and un-historic) to launch strike missions with medium bombers carrying ANY bombload from tiny strips. There is nothing in the documentation giving a description of each AF size, but i'm guessing a size 1 is an abolutely basic dirt/mud strip hacked out of the jungle. Size 2 would be only slightly better, possibly some steel matting, but definetly not sealed or even perfectly level. etc. etc. etc.
 
With current system ALL medium bombers need size 4 AF for full bombload (or torpedo) missions. Heavier bombers need larger AF depending on bombload capacity. My argument is that each AC type should be rated individually as to what size AF it needs to operate at maximum effectiveness. The player can still choose to operate the aircraft from a smaller field, but should be punished for doing so by escalating ops losses and reduced bombload (as in the current system).
 
 

[Flying Tiger]

I know that B-17s at least staged through Namlea while operating against the Japanese during the fight for Celebes, so there is something to be said for FT's argument...

 
Right! And B17s were also based out of Espiritu at the beginning of the Guadalcanal campaign (Aug '42). This was certainly not a 'size 5 AF' at that time.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

I know that B-17s at least staged through Namlea while operating against the Japanese during the fight for Celebes, so there is something to be said for FT's argument...

Right! And B17s were also based out of Espiritu at the beginning of the Guadalcanal campaign (Aug '42). This was certainly not a 'size 5 AF' at that time.

And what bombload and range did those B-17's operate with?

[Flying Tiger]

And what bombload and range did those B-17's operate with?

 
Operating in both search and strike roles. A few anti shipping strikes (generally ineffective) and some land attack also.
 
No idea of bombload or range limitations though!!

[Chris21wen]

I had this discusion with my PBEM oppoent recently and I still think it wrong for LB to use a level 2 AF. Level 3 for 2e and 4 for 4e LBs. Thats not to say I don't use them I do. Heavier restrictions on how many a/c can be at any AF should also be applied. A 100 on a level two is far to many, you'd probably have to park the dam thing on a runway.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

No idea of bombload or range limitations though!!

But those two elements are the important part of the discussion - are they not? As that is what the rule concerning AF size is designed to limit.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

I had this discusion with my PBEM oppoent recently and I still think it wrong for LB to use a level 2 AF. Level 3 for 2e and 4 for 4e LBs. Thats not to say I don't use them I do. Heavier restrictions on how many a/c can be at any AF should also be applied. A 100 on a level two is far to many, you'd probably have to park the dam thing on a runway.

But to return to Elf's question - What is a Level 2 AF or a Level 3 or a Level 4 or a Level 5?

Perhaps a Level 2 AF is multiple AF's with poor service facilities. Or perhaps it is a single slightly longer larger dirt strip with poor service facilities...

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Last time I checked any bomber could operate from Size 2 or larger...

You're right, but 2E bombers can't use torpedoes unless they're operating from a level 4 airfield. Also, if they fly from a base smaller than they're rated at (level 4 for 2E, etc.), they are considered to be at extended range, with all those limitations.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: treespider

Last time I checked any bomber could operate from Size 2 or larger...

You're right, but 2E bombers can't use torpedoes unless they're operating from a level 4 airfield.

Not the case in AE.

Also, if they fly from a base smaller than they're rated at (level 4 for 2E, etc.), they are considered to be at extended range, with all those limitations.

Many people cite instances of aircraft operating from this or that airfield ...but what were the aircraft carrying in terms of fuel load and bombs?

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Many people cite instances of aircraft operating from this or that airfield ...but what were the aircraft carrying in terms of fuel load and bombs?

I found some info on various sites :

On Espiritu Santo during Guadalcanal campaign :

"single B-17 drank up fifty drums of aviation fuel"
"50-gallon drum"
"On July 30, they made the first bombing raid on the island with the airplanes each having 20 100 pound bombs"

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

ORIGINAL: treespider

Many people cite instances of aircraft operating from this or that airfield ...but what were the aircraft carrying in terms of fuel load and bombs?

I found some info on various sites :

On Espiritu Santo during Guadalcanal campaign :

"single B-17 drank up fifty drums of aviation fuel"
"50-gallon drum"
"On July 30, they made the first bombing raid on the island with the airplanes each having 20 100 pound bombs"

So it doesn't sound like they were flying extended range missions or carrying a full bomb load...

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Skyland

ORIGINAL: treespider

Many people cite instances of aircraft operating from this or that airfield ...but what were the aircraft carrying in terms of fuel load and bombs?

I found some info on various sites :

On Espiritu Santo during Guadalcanal campaign :

"single B-17 drank up fifty drums of aviation fuel"
"50-gallon drum"
"On July 30, they made the first bombing raid on the island with the airplanes each having 20 100 pound bombs"

So it doesn't sound like they were flying extended range missions or carrying a full bomb load...

I've always felt that the game isn't quite stricked enough for overstaked AFs or undersized AFs.

I have a PBEM currently underway (early 42) where my opponent has over 600 planes (mostly Bettys and Sallys) that fly from a Lvl 3 AF each day. He is bombing a LVL 9 AF 2 hexes away and causes over 100 points of damage each turn, effectively closing the AF . I have tried to retake the AF, but any of my ships that get within 8 hexes of the base are blown out of the water (no torpedos, just bombs). We didn't have a house rule against this, so I'm really not complaining about him doing it, just complaining that he shouldn't be ABLE to do it. Just wait until I pay him back with my B-29s[X(]

[Flying Tiger]

I've always felt that the game isn't quite stricked enough for overstaked AFs or undersized AFs.

I have a PBEM currently underway (early 42) where my opponent has over 600 planes (mostly Bettys and Sallys) that fly from a Lvl 3 AF each day. He is bombing a LVL 9 AF 2 hexes away and causes over 100 points of damage each turn, effectively closing the AF . I have tried to retake the AF, but any of my ships that get within 8 hexes of the base are blown out of the water (no torpedos, just bombs). We didn't have a house rule against this, so I'm really not complaining about him doing it, just complaining that he shouldn't be ABLE to do it. Just wait until I pay him back with my B-29s[X(]

 
Definetly pay him back with nterest and enjoy it!! But.... this sort of thing really does detract from the game a bit, and i would still love to see it penalised more heavily.
 
If each aircraft type was individually rated for its minimum AF size then i think it would be VERY reasonable to add at least 50% ops losses (plus payload/range penalties) for operating from an AF one size smaller than minimum size, and at least 100% increase in ops losses for operating from AF 2 sizes smaller, or preferably just not an option - no transfer to base possible if AF is too small for AC type.
 
Also.... overstacking should be HEAVILY penalised as well. 600 planes from a lvl 3 AF is RIDICULOUS. All the planes must be lined up in rows with overlapping wingtips with one small corridor down the centre of the strip. One missed landing would destroy dozens of aircraft!! And any enemy bombers/naval fire/artillery fire would create havoc!! This sort of thing should be so heavily penalised that we simply choose not to do it - rather than relying on house rules all the time.