Ellice and Palnyra Won't Expand Beyond Airfield Size 2!

[Capt Cliff]

I had engineers in Palmyra on turn 2 (Dec 12/41) and by Sept 9 42 NO EXPANSION of the airfield! Ellice is the same! This used to occur in version 1.0 if I remember rightly then they corrected it! I guess I could change the size in the editor, but either way it screws up shuttling air down to the South Pacific.

Oh, yes I got plenty of supply at both bases and I did try adding another engineer, but gave up when it was need in the South Pacific.

[BillBrown]

if you read the file changes to ver 3.1 from jeremy, you will see that this is an .exe change. i don't really like it, but it is a fact now.

[Capt Cliff]

Thanks Bill! I just skimmed them for important things that stood out.

I recheck the .doc's in the patch and couldn't find any reference to Ellice or Palmyra! But I'll take your word for it.

[CynicAl]

It's not Ellice or Palmyra specifically, it's an .exe change to atolls (terrain: 1) in general, which in 3.1 won't expand past 2/2 - also, small islands (terrain: 2) now won't expand past 4/4. The editor is the only way to get an atoll base past 2/2.

But honestly, how many atolls do you figure were actually large enough to support an airfield complex big enough to house 150+ aircraft? And a fair-sized port? What I'd rather see is an .exe adjustment to the basing requirements for level bombers. It's true that they required fairly extensive facilities to keep them in the fight - especially the big four-engined types! - but restricting them to size 4+ airfields seems a bit excessive.

[BillBrown]

actually what i think would be even better is for level 3 airbases support up to medium/tactical bombers and 6+ support heavy bombers( with a t least a 4+ port ). but, there are limits to what mika can do with the exe.

[showboat1]

Level 3 for tac bombers
Level 4 for hevy bombers
That would be fair.

[Ranger-75]

Originally posted by CynicAl
It's not Ellice or Palmyra specifically, it's an .exe change to atolls (terrain: 1) in general, which in 3.1 won't expand past 2/2 - also, small islands (terrain: 2) now won't expand past 4/4. The editor is the only way to get an atoll base past 2/2.

But honestly, how many atolls do you figure were actually large enough to support an airfield complex big enough to house 150+ aircraft? And a fair-sized port? What I'd rather see is an .exe adjustment to the basing requirements for level bombers. It's true that they required fairly extensive facilities to keep them in the fight - especially the big four-engined types! - but restricting them to size 4+ airfields seems a bit excessive.

Umm... how about Midway???

[Mika Väliviita]

The heavy and tac bombers are lumped together (for the purposes of airfield usage), and I can't separate them.

[IntellWeenie]

Originally posted by Ranger-75


Umm... how about Midway???

There are several airfields on atolls (terrain 1) that start at size 4 because historically they had that capacity. Some atolls are just biggerthan others, I guess.

Building up atolls anywhere else is limited to 2.

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Ranger-75


Umm... how about Midway???

In-game or IRL?

In the game, it starts out as a level 4 airfield because it's been edited to be that size.

IRL, Midway hosted about 115 aircraft on 4 June 1942, somewhat closer to the 90 of a size 3 airfield than the 160 of a size 4. But that was for a very short time, as it was not sustainable - there just wasn't enough room on the atoll. You can replicate that effect in-game by transporting 3 or 4 extra squadrons out to Midway by ship on the turn in which you expect your opponent to attack - they'll be good for one quick fight, then you'll have to pull them out. Eminently historical.

IW has a point, too.

[GET TRANSPT]

These changes to Atolls are really interesting,as they will change many, many tactics, such as the basing of Betty bombers on Tarawa to interdict Allied shipping, or capturing Tonga to harass Fiji. And one can forget about early (pre B-25) shuttling of Allied tac air from PH to Australia with Palmyra a size 2.


Those days are gone.

It's a whole new game.

[Ranger-75]

Originally posted by CynicAl


In-game or IRL?

In the game, it starts out as a level 4 airfield because it's been edited to be that size.

IRL, Midway hosted about 115 aircraft on 4 June 1942, somewhat closer to the 90 of a size 3 airfield than the 160 of a size 4. But that was for a very short time, as it was not sustainable - there just wasn't enough room on the atoll. You can replicate that effect in-game by transporting 3 or 4 extra squadrons out to Midway by ship on the turn in which you expect your opponent to attack - they'll be good for one quick fight, then you'll have to pull them out. Eminently historical.

IW has a point, too.

Not with the "new and improved" lowered size of USMC groups (24). What's the logic in that, an island base ias already helpless against even a 2 CV attack, now a single CV will be able to tear up an island base.

[Ranger-75]

Don't forget that maximum "operational' size of an air group is 10* air level, making a 50 plane fighter group, even if it is the ONLY air group on the island have 30 of its planes permanently damaged, and if you fly them off, there goes your group's experience since 60% of your air group just vanished.

Did anybody think this out ahead of time?


Mika, where is the hex code to move this back to the old "normal" of 4???

[GET TRANSPT]

I always tolerated losing 10 a/c of high experience groups when transferring to a size 4 base, 'cause if they got in combat they would soon lose their 10 extra" a/c and the program would not reinforce them (wasting a/c experience and supplies).

What the new island sizes encourages are moving understrength air groups to these itty bitty islands (I think the "small island " reduction is nastier), and heavily penalizes full strength air groups. I looked at the map and saw only a few islands were size "3" allowing for 6 air capacity. in the entire south and east (from Japan) Pacific, Kolombangara(sp), Rossell/Russell and Efate are the ONLY size 3. No more 6 capacity on Iwo Jima, the Aleutians, Santa Cruz, Shortland or Tarakan. It looks like "Battle for Kolombangara".

Espiritu Santo will be hard to take by the Japanese when their main base consists of xapacity Santa Cruz against 9 capacity Espiritu Santo and New Caledonia and 6 capacity Efate.

One can also forget about Betty bombers in the Central Pacific. One base (Kwajalein) and that's about it.

I liked the ver 2.3 size reduction to 1/0 (AF/ port) for Marcus Atoll. Now Marcus is back as a potential size 2 base but in doing so the airfield size baby has been thrown out with bathwater.

[Capt. Harlock]

I have to agree with all those against the airfield size reduction. It is not only important that Midway had more than 90 aircraft, it is also important to note the mix: fighters, torpedo-bombers, dive-bombers, and even some B-17s. The change from a level 3 airfield to a level 4 is MAJOR, especially when numbers of B-25s become available. (And there were not many Allied airfields that B-25s did not operate from.)

[sw30]

Originally posted by Ranger-75


Not with the "new and improved" lowered size of USMC groups (24). What's the logic in that, an island base ias already helpless against even a 2 CV attack, now a single CV will be able to tear up an island base.

4*24 is 96, + all the scouts, another 24 is 120, which is more than what midway had. You do know that Naval scouts stack for free, right? (well, only one of them.)

Originally posted by Ranger-75


Don't forget that maximum "operational' size of an air group is 10* air level, making a 50 plane fighter group, even if it is the ONLY air group on the island have 30 of its planes permanently damaged, and if you fly them off, there goes your group's experience since 60% of your air group just vanished.

This is not true either, on a quick search, I can't find the formula, but it is not the case that new planes come in at 0 experience.

You also do not have 30 of its planes "permanently damaged" They are just not currently flyable. As your unit gets attrited away, they get their replacements from the damaged planes, which means that they are not taking on replacements and losing experience points. In other words, at the end of the battle, you probably will have higher experience (even after reinforcing to max strength) than if you were able to fly all planes all the time.

Jeff

[Ranger-75]

sw30,

You are missing the point. If you fly a 50 strength fighter group to a "new & improved" level 2 base, 30 of them will be damaged, you will never have more than 20 "operational" planes, even if this is the ONLY group on the base.

If you fly that group off, 30 planes will "dissappear" (they actually go into the "pool",) and your group will have 20 planes in it, 18 operational.

Since the US groups rather rapidly add reinforcements / replacements to non isolated air groups this will cause a large experience drop. Also, you will not have many "understrength" US fighter groups to move into these bases.

It's not a good situation and is not liked by me.

[GET TRANSPT]

I entirely agree with Ranger 75's post-- at the risk of having him post another 15 posts today.


Moving air groups in Pacwar occurs very often, according to the dicates of the mobile, far- ranging Pacific war (air groups tend to go were the enemy carriers or transport TF's are.)

I think this new feature hurts the Japanese more due to their lower experience "replacement" pilots, and since all their naval air groups are the 50 or 40 a/c variety. Still, i have not playtested it. It definitely favors CV's

[Dawy]

For those who wish to modify the airfield sizes in the EXE, here are the hex locations to do it...

ADDRESS: 3B3B1 ---> 3B3B9

You should see a string of hex values like this

02 04 08 09 09 09 08 06 04

3B3B1 = Terrain 1 Airfield & Port Max..
through to
3B3B9 = Terrain 9 Airfield & Port Max..

Just be careful you don't screw it up...

[sw30]

Originally posted by Ranger-75
If you fly that group off, 30 planes will "dissappear" (they actually go into the "pool",) and your group will have 20 planes in it, 18 operational.

I guess this is where I say I don't understand. How often do you do this? I typically stick the Marine (shorter-ranged) planes in the Hawaiian islands, work them forward via AVs and CVEs, (you've got tons of those) and every once so often via the midaway-wake methods, which loses 4 planes. (new maximums are 24 for marine groups)

For the Army planes, I send them down south via size 4 airfields and work around to NG. (again, I often use AVs and CVEs, but not as many.) With the major fighter and bombers at 4 range+, it's not that bad. You might have some problems with size 48 fighters on size 4 AFs, but you've had the same problem in older versions.

This doesn't even apply to the brits, hardly any size 1 terrain there.

In other words, the ONLY times when I deliberate put a 48 strength group in a level 2 AF is if I'm putting them in combat, in which case a 48 size group will do a lot better than a similar 20 size group, even though their "active" planes are the same.

Incidentally, 2 CVEs and 4 Clemsons running repeatedly through the Japanese subs does wonders towards their destruction.

Jeff