Air Field Overstack Problems - v1083c

[medicff]

thanks for the info. [&o]

[Al Boone]

Overstacking by administration "groups" - from response by michaelm

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 of a different command.]

I assume that the base must still be within the combat radius of this best and nearest Air HQ?
If not, what is the maximum range? (and see next question relative to similar situation)

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.]

If the base does not belong to the same command and is located between Combat Radius distance and 2 times combat radius distance, is the enhancement = ½ CR x ½ CR = ¼ Combat Radius, or does it become 0?

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.]

An effort should be made to more widely broadcast the above rule which was added after manual printing. It definitely should be added to future manual addenda for page 214.

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.

From this, do I assume that the inclusion of seaplanes is under review for possible future change relative to airfield overstacking? For now, is it handled as I have suggested above?

Manual page 214: An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks
and aircraft repairs.

Is it unlikely that we will ever get any even vague idea of the degree of overstack penalties associated with launches, casualties and repairs?

[pompack]

michaelm

Thank you so much for all the insight! [&o]

I really like the fact that this is so close to the reality of the time of managing complex a/c operations: you know which of your actions makes things better, you know which of your actions makes things worse, and you have very noisy aglorithms that provide a highly approximate value of the numeric results; which means that you better have a large safety factor figured in to take care of Murphy.

Of course today we have massive computer systems and the USAF ATO process which carefully plans out every a/c path three days in advance and assumes no potential opponent would ever be capable of doing anything to disrupt that plan [:D]

[Al Boone]

bump, please when time allows for answers to my questions above in post #22 of this thread.

Also there is confusion as follows:

Manual page 214 -

groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as
individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

From michaelm (from earlier in this thread) -

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.

These statements seem to conflict. Can they be clarified or the correct case identified and explained better?

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

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.

Is the "operational limits to launched aircraft" a change from stock WITP? I don't remember right now if there used to be any effect on operational limits to launched aircraft in the earlier version.

[jomni]

I avoid knowing the exact calculations as I find it quite gamey.
In real life, these things aren't quantifiable.
I just play as I please and discover the limitations.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

bump, please when time allows for answers to my questions above in post #22 of this thread.

Also there is confusion as follows:

Manual page 214 -

groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as
individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

From michaelm (from earlier in this thread) -

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 other case counts as 1
(c) if counted groups larger than admin stacking limit, then over-stacked.

These statements seem to conflict. Can they be clarified or the correct case identified and explained better?

Not counting groups at rest/training caused a problem if all groups at the base were in that state - ended up with 0 groups for admin which caused a crash.
Thus why it now counts as ONE group in total.

Split group count still applies
- if all 3 have different HQ = 3 groups
- if 2 are same HQ and one not = 2 groups
- all the same HQ = 1 group

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Overstacking by administration "groups" - from response by michaelm

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 of a different command.]

I assume that the base must still be within the combat radius of this best and nearest Air HQ? yes. Except for command hq where it can be twice the radius.
If not, what is the maximum range? (and see next question relative to similar situation)

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.]

If the base does not belong to the same command and is located between Combat Radius distance and 2 times combat radius distance, is the enhancement = ½ CR x ½ CR = ¼ Combat Radius, or does it become 0?
Only 1/2 applies once. The case is "not in same command" OR "more than normal radius".

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.]

An effort should be made to more widely broadcast the above rule which was added after manual printing. It definitely should be added to future manual addenda for page 214.

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.

From this, do I assume that the inclusion of seaplanes is under review for possible future change relative to airfield overstacking? For now, is it handled as I have suggested above?
Seaplanes will be excluded from physical stacking if in a coastal hex from patch01.

Manual page 214: An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks
and aircraft repairs.

Is it unlikely that we will ever get any even vague idea of the degree of overstack penalties associated with launches, casualties and repairs?

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

ORIGINAL: michaelm

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.

Is the "operational limits to launched aircraft" a change from stock WITP? I don't remember right now if there used to be any effect on operational limits to launched aircraft in the earlier version.

Not really. Lack of AV support (and/or supply) has always be able to make ready planes "not ready". Thus affecting how many planes are available to be launched.
So you can put a lot of planes at an under-supported base.
Launch them (with some penalties for over-stacking).
At end of turn, some will probably become inoperable due to lack of AV.
Launch them next turn (with maybe fewer penalties due to losses and lack of AV last turn)
And the cycle continues.

[Al Boone]

Thanks michaelm! I can't say enough about your patience, perception and intelligence in your replies. I think that your rules clarifications and changes which you state in reply to my inquiries are very useful and fit in very well with the game concepts and real world events.

Manual page 214: An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks
and aircraft repairs.

At some point I will again ask about the magnitude and effect of overstacking regarding penalties. Even some "broad stroke" explanation would be useful as we try to "make command decisions" about airfield aircraft densities and costs of operations.

[John Lansford]

So what does a red "number of squadrons" value on the air transfer screen indicate?  I've seen that in the past and had assumed there were too many squadrons there at that particular base.

[ago1000]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate location for this. The number of groups is displayed in the airfield information window if an airfield is overstacked. Is it possible to include the number of engines in that same window? This would help to see if your airfield is overstacked due to administration issues (# of groups) or airfield size (# of engines) or both. Furthermore, save on user having to calculate the number of engines on thier own.

[ago1000]

I take my last post back. It's there by stack level. Sorry folks.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

So what does a red "number of squadrons" value on the air transfer screen indicate?  I've seen that in the past and had assumed there were too many squadrons there at that particular base.

On a ship move, the RED indicates that the CV will be overloaded (ie cease air ops) if the group is moved.

On a base move, it means the base is over-stacked by number of groups (only, ignores plane numbers at this time - before you ask I can't remember why this is so) already.