Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post bug reports and ask for help with other issues here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by Al Boone »

At the risk of receiving more abuse and characterizations, I must report that the computer program is not following the game rules for air field overstacking. I am using an example from The Thousand Mile War scenario.

Adak has an airfield size of 2 and is not within the command radius of any HQ.

If I give all 4 squadrons a combat mission instead of “rest” or “training”, it should immediately trigger an asterisk in front of the name air field in the lower game window because the number of squadrons or “groups” is 4, which exceeds the allowable “groups” by 2. This does not happen. See the attached game screen.

If I transfer out all units and move in 3 squadrons of 12 B-24 bombers assigned to “training”, the excess “group” does not trigger an air field overstack asterisk on the lower menu and the aircraft engine count is 16 + 16 + 16 = 48 (due to 1/3 engine count for “Training”), which is less than the allowable air field size of 100. If I assign 2 squadrons to combat missions, the overstack asterisk is shown. This is because the aircraft engine count ( 48 + 48 + 16) exceeds the allowable 100 aircraft engines, based on air field size = 2. See the attached game screen Therefore, it seems that the overstack rules are not being implemented or at least displayed properly on screen in regard to overstack “group” rules. It appears to be functioning properly, at least for the on screen display relative to aircraft engine size. It is impossible to tell if this is just a display problem or if overstack penalties are invoked since the game overstack penalty rules are totally useless for computation, even in a general approximation. (Please don’t give me any BS about using B-24 bombers on a size 2 airfield. I understand the rules! I am only putting them there to illustrate the overstack computing problems. Also Aviation Support, “bean counting” and other issues have nothing to do with this problem!)

From testing the aircraft at Dutch Harbor, I have discovered that the seaplanes at Dutch Harbor, even though they may be in the water 39 miles away from the air field with their own AV ship support, do add to the airfield aircraft engine count. Understanding the philosophical reasons aside, this can have a huge and undeterminable effect on overstack penalties:
Let us assume a size 1 air field with no HQ combat radius support and 3 squadrons of 9 each of 2 engine seaplanes with their own AV ship support. If not in “Training” or “Rest” the rules state that the air field is already overstacked by 2 “groups” and 3 X 9 X 2 = 54 aircraft engines versus the air field allowable 50 aircraft engines. Before an aircraft is even landed the commander is faced with possibly large and unidentifiable launch, air attack and repair penalties. The rules do not identify these penalties with other air field penalties such as “Aviation Support” or “bomber size” in any manner relative to any degree of magnitude or effect!

Well there it is! GO AHEAD – Accuse me of being determined (stubborn), “newbie”, bean counter, overly precise, disrespectful, inconsiderate of the need for “game mysteries”, etc………..


Image
Attachments
AdakOverstack1.jpg
AdakOverstack1.jpg (338.26 KiB) Viewed 651 times
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by Al Boone »

This is the 2nd missing game screen:

Image
Attachments
AdakOverstack2.jpg
AdakOverstack2.jpg (330.17 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
lazydawg
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Raleigh NC

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by lazydawg »

Al, I'm with you on this one, so keep fighting the good fight! I was sorry to see how your last thread rapidily degenerated because I'm looking for the same answers. Is the game working properly or is there a problem with the overstacking description in the manual?
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by TheElf »

Al,
I don't recall any negative feedback from your original post directed at you. Sorry if you felt targeted. As you may have noted, this forum is populated with intelligent well-read people who are passionate about the subject matter and vocal in their support or opposition to an idea. I believe whatever you are seeing to be an important issue, even if I have not been able to devote all my time to resolving it. Be assured that this post will be looked at and we (Devs) will take to heart your concerns.

There is a possibility that not all is right with this part of the code. There are many second and third order effects when code rewrites, such as AE is, are done. It is possible you are experiencing something that was not previously detected in Beta.

If you have a save prior to and after this turn, please advise and we will have our coder look at it.

~Elf
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

The first test for over stacking is physical. Is there enough room based on "engines" as the measurement?
(a) There is a minimum bar of 50 planes (regardless of how many groups or engines, and reserve planes don't count) before over-stacking is seriously looked at.
(b) The stacking limit for an AF is 50 x level AF. This is the maximum number of 'engines' that can be present before penalties kick in - these can be explained later.
(c) The number of 'engines' at the base is based on:
1. groups at rest/training - only 1/3 total planes are counted
2. other groups - total planes are counted
3. number of engines is multiplied by plane count
4. if counted 'engines' larger than maximum 'engines', then over-stacked.

Next is administrative. Is there enough admin control to handle the groups present?
(a) The stacking limit here is level AF + command value of a Air or Command HQ (more later on this)
(b) Groups present at base is based on:
1. All groups at rest/training count as 1 group
2. Detachments are not counted if the parent group is in base and has same HQ as the detachment
3. All fragments and Chutai, Section or flight groups count as 1 group
4. The units of a split group in the same base count as 1 if all have same HQ
5. Any case counts as 1
(c) if counted groups larger than admin stacking limit, then over-stacked.

Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

The value of a HQ for stacking.
The best and nearest Air HQ can be used to help increase the number of groups that can be 'administered'.
[Air HQ of same command as the base will use its full command radius value, or half it if it is of a different command.]

In addition, the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help.
[If base belongs to same Command or base is within radius, then it uses its full radius value, or half if not same.]

The best one HQ is used if there is both an Air and Command HQ within range.
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

If the manual is unclear, then it most probably my fault for being TOO vague with I added that section.
I didn't want to lay hard lines on exact conditions as I expected players to play with so fuzzy lines rather than layout the white tape. [:D]

The posts above are the basic outline of how we determine over-stacking of AF.
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

This base isn't over stacked as it does not breach the 'physical' maximum of 100 engines.
ORIGINAL: Al Boone

At the risk of receiving more abuse and characterizations, I must report that the computer program is not following the game rules for air field overstacking. I am using an example from The Thousand Mile War scenario.

Adak has an airfield size of 2 and is not within the command radius of any HQ.

If I give all 4 squadrons a combat mission instead of “rest” or “training”, it should immediately trigger an asterisk in front of the name air field in the lower game window because the number of squadrons or “groups” is 4, which exceeds the allowable “groups” by 2. This does not happen. See the attached game screen.

If I transfer out all units and move in 3 squadrons of 12 B-24 bombers assigned to “training”, the excess “group” does not trigger an air field overstack asterisk on the lower menu and the aircraft engine count is 16 + 16 + 16 = 48 (due to 1/3 engine count for “Training”), which is less than the allowable air field size of 100. If I assign 2 squadrons to combat missions, the overstack asterisk is shown. This is because the aircraft engine count ( 48 + 48 + 16) exceeds the allowable 100 aircraft engines, based on air field size = 2. See the attached game screen Therefore, it seems that the overstack rules are not being implemented or at least displayed properly on screen in regard to overstack “group” rules. It appears to be functioning properly, at least for the on screen display relative to aircraft engine size. It is impossible to tell if this is just a display problem or if overstack penalties are invoked since the game overstack penalty rules are totally useless for computation, even in a general approximation. (Please don’t give me any BS about using B-24 bombers on a size 2 airfield. I understand the rules! I am only putting them there to illustrate the overstack computing problems. Also Aviation Support, “bean counting” and other issues have nothing to do with this problem!)

From testing the aircraft at Dutch Harbor, I have discovered that the seaplanes at Dutch Harbor, even though they may be in the water 39 miles away from the air field with their own AV ship support, do add to the airfield aircraft engine count. Understanding the philosophical reasons aside, this can have a huge and undeterminable effect on overstack penalties:
Let us assume a size 1 air field with no HQ combat radius support and 3 squadrons of 9 each of 2 engine seaplanes with their own AV ship support. If not in “Training” or “Rest” the rules state that the air field is already overstacked by 1 “group” and 3 X 9 X 2 = 54 aircraft engines versus the air field allowable 50 aircraft engines. Before an aircraft is even landed the commander is faced with possibly large and unidentifiable launch, air attack and repair penalties. The rules do not identify these penalties with other air field penalties such as “Aviation Support” or “bomber size” in any manner relative to any degree of magnitude or effect!

Well there it is! GO AHEAD – Accuse me of being determined (stubborn), “newbie”, bean counter, overly precise, disrespectful, inconsiderate of the need for “game mysteries”, etc………..


Image
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

This one however breaches the 'physical' but not the 'administrative' limits.
The screen says it can support 4 groups, so I suspect that there is a command HQ somewhere in range of the base (has added a value of 2 to the base so it is probably between 5-10 hex away from the base.
ORIGINAL: Al Boone

This is the 2nd missing game screen:

Image
Michael
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

Lack of AV support is not directly tied to over-stacking.
The lack of support will be felt with slower repair/readiness of aircraft, and operational limits to launched aircraft.

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.
Michael
User avatar
lazydawg
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Raleigh NC

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by lazydawg »

Thanks guys! I had assumed that both the physical & administrative checks were performed in parallel & you had to pass both checks or the base would be overstacked. I didn't realize that the physical check occurs first. So the overstacking logic would be:

Pass Physical Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is overstacked
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

ORIGINAL: ncdawg

Thanks guys! I had assumed that both the physical & administrative checks were performed in parallel & you had to pass both checks or the base would be overstacked. I didn't realize that the physical check occurs first. So the overstacking logic would be:

Pass Physical Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is overstacked
No quite

Fail Physical Check --> Base is over-stacked

Pass Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not over-stacked

Pass Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is over-stacked
Michael
User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by Zebedee »

Many thanks michaelm and TheElf for clarifying so much in your posts.

Image
User avatar
lazydawg
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Raleigh NC

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by lazydawg »

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: ncdawg

Thanks guys! I had assumed that both the physical & administrative checks were performed in parallel & you had to pass both checks or the base would be overstacked. I didn't realize that the physical check occurs first. So the overstacking logic would be:

Pass Physical Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is overstacked
No quite

Fail Physical Check --> Base is over-stacked

Pass Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not over-stacked

Pass Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is over-stacked

Well if this is the case, there is a problem with the program. In Al's first example the nearest HQ to Adak is in Dutch Harbor (10 hexes away). The HQ has a command radius of 5. So Adak should pass the physical check and fail the administrative check. A save is attached.

Attachments
wpae199.zip
(807.8 KiB) Downloaded 15 times
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by Al Boone »

Michaelm - Thanks for the helpful information and explanations. I did not know that:
" the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help." I did not see this in the section 9.4 Airfields rules. Where is this written - for future reference and understanding. I based my assumptions on the section 9.4 AIRFIELDS rules only. Adak falls within administrative control (group overstacking effect) of the North Pacific HQ which has a command radius of 5, since Adak is 10 hexes from Dutch Harbor. Therefore I now see that Adak has an allowable "group" overstack limit of 4. I was not aware of the help of the "nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius)" and I do not recall seeing this in writing.

I am still having a problem understanding your comments on seaplanes. Am I incorrect about this also?

I realize that Aviation Support has no correlation to overstacking in reference to penalties. I also realize that the developers want us to not overstack in any manner, so they will not give any idea of overstack penalties in terms of reduced overstack launching, additional air attack casualties and reduced repair capabilities .

Sorry that I got a little "testy". I think that I got caught in the middle of that Beta Team pissing match between ELF and YH and got a little frustrated with the sidetracking after I spent a lot of time trying to be accurate and complete in my previous posts on this subject.
User avatar
lazydawg
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Raleigh NC

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by lazydawg »

Thanks guys !!!

I also didn't realize that the 2 X Command HQ radius also applied to airbase administration. (I guess that it is kind of implied in Section 8.1.1 of the manual, but it didn't jump out at me).

One item I did notice in one of michaelm's earlier posts is that resting/training groups now count as one group for administrative overstacking (versus counting as zero as stated in Section 9.4 of the manual). I assume that this means that all of the groups in resting/training mode total up to equal one group for administrative purposes.

All is right with the world again, so I can stop beating this dead horse.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Michaelm - Thanks for the helpful information and explanations. I did not know that:
" the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help." I did not see this in the section 9.4 Airfields rules. Where is this written - for future reference and understanding. I based my assumptions on the section 9.4 AIRFIELDS rules only. Adak falls within administrative control (group overstacking effect) of the North Pacific HQ which has a command radius of 5, since Adak is 10 hexes from Dutch Harbor. Therefore I now see that Adak has an allowable "group" overstack limit of 4. I was not aware of the help of the "nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius)" and I do not recall seeing this in writing.

I am still having a problem understanding your comments on seaplanes. Am I incorrect about this also?

I realize that Aviation Support has no correlation to overstacking in reference to penalties. I also realize that the developers want us to not overstack in any manner, so they will not give any idea of overstack penalties in terms of reduced overstack launching, additional air attack casualties and reduced repair capabilities .

Sorry that I got a little "testy". I think that I got caught in the middle of that Beta Team pissing match between ELF and YH and got a little frustrated with the sidetracking after I spent a lot of time trying to be accurate and complete in my previous posts on this subject.

Command HQ originally was not used to assist with Admin, but was added later after manual was released.
Michael
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by medicff »

Michael,

Thanks so much for the clarifications.

Elf stated
A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as the best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.


Is this true that a "9" AF or AF+HQ command radius = "9" HAVE NO ADMIN check or penalty?



ORIGINAL: michaelm

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.

Are Seaplanes/floatplanes counted towards engines and or administrative groups?

Still a little confused but getting there. Thanks.

User avatar
dasboot1960
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: St Augustine, Florida

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by dasboot1960 »

Fuzzy is better................more realistic. If you don't like it, all you have to do is roll a 'six' on combat resolution......

EMBRACE THE FUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Down like a CLOWN!
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12464
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

Post by michaelm75au »

ORIGINAL: medicff

Michael,

Thanks so much for the clarifications.

Elf stated
A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as the best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.


Is this true that a "9" AF or AF+HQ command radius = "9" HAVE NO ADMIN check or penalty?



ORIGINAL: michaelm

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.

Are Seaplanes/floatplanes counted towards engines and or administrative groups?

Still a little confused but getting there. Thanks.


1. The no over-stacking on 9+ applies to the AF level itself, not the modified one. If 9+ no need to check. This is an interpretation of the "A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking." rule. I should have been more precise that it applied to the actual AF level.
So for Saipan example, the operational limit would be 200 engines and 9 groups (with an hq of radius 5 in hex).

2. Seaplanes could probably be excluded but I will need to get confirmation of that.
Michael
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”