Hello all
Something I was wondering.
Is the rate of Base construction/repair way too high?
several things that made me wonder about this.
1) In my current game, I have developed Port moresby to a 9/9 base by the start of August 42, using only one Engineer Bn + two Base forces.
2) also I have developed Gili gili into a size 5 A/F and size 8 port by the start of August 42, using again on Engineer Bn, one Engineer Rgt, and one Base force.
3) All of the Major Australian Bases (except for Charters Towers, due to a lack on anyone being there.) have reached maximum size by, Again, August 42, again, using only the Base Force, and one EAB bn.
4) In every invasion I've done, I have yet to force an airfield to close. This dispite, in my lates invasion using FOUR bombardment T/F's comprising 1st, 1 BB + 5 CL, 2nd 4 CA+2 CL, 3rd 4 CA + 1 CL, 4th 2 CA + 3 CL. I scored thousands of Runway hits, but the base was still launcing Cap and Naval strikes the next morning.
5) The AI has never been able to shut down an airbase, even when it repetadily hit's it with 70+ Level bombers, scoring hundreds of airfield hits, My aircraft are still flying.
The only way the AI to Date has been able to force me to cease Air activity is by sending in 120+ Zeros as escort, to basically wipe out my Fighters in Air to air, thereby leaving me with no fighters.
6) In my most recent game, I'm invading Guadalcanal in early Sept 42, and the Japanes have already built it up to a Size 7 A/F and a size 5 port! and according to recon, (4 weeks contiuious observation by recon flights at 25,000 ft.) they only ever havd 3 engineer unis present.....
7) Why do the allies get so many Construction units later in the game?
By the time I've gotten to Jan'43, there's nothing for them to build! All of my bases have been expanded to their maximum permitted size! And so have most of the Japanese bases I'm planning on takeing!
I'm thinking, that perhaps the Base construction rate needs to be made Geometric. i.e., every expansion step takes twice as long as the previous.
Doing this, would enable the Japanes to still have poor base construction rate, even if they had hundreds of engineering vehicle, (Which BTW, they did have.)
Is Base construction too fast?
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Is Base construction too fast?
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
I tend to agree with Possum on this.
In addition, the ability to expand air bases and ports beyond their size limitation seems too easy. IMHO, the maximum should be pegged at where the physical realities of the place dictate it should be (Rabaul with its immense natural harbor deserves a high limit, but Lunga should NEVER be able to become a huge port - by that I mean above size 3 or 4).
Expansion beyond that maximum should be well nigh impossible. If you have enough flat land for a size 4 airbase, so be it. Terraforming mountain ranges was quite beyond the engineering capabilities of the time (at least in the year-and-a-half time frame afforded by the game).
I think ... what do you think?
In addition, the ability to expand air bases and ports beyond their size limitation seems too easy. IMHO, the maximum should be pegged at where the physical realities of the place dictate it should be (Rabaul with its immense natural harbor deserves a high limit, but Lunga should NEVER be able to become a huge port - by that I mean above size 3 or 4).
Expansion beyond that maximum should be well nigh impossible. If you have enough flat land for a size 4 airbase, so be it. Terraforming mountain ranges was quite beyond the engineering capabilities of the time (at least in the year-and-a-half time frame afforded by the game).
I think ... what do you think?
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Yep, and after playing as the Japanese, it's too slow, but then, as the Japanses, Matrix has seen fit to hamstring your construction efforts, by a) failing to give you ANY construction vehicles, whe they historically had hundreds of assorted bits of machinery avaliable; and b) by failing to give you 1000's of korean labourers.
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
I kind of thought that Matrix had buffed Japanese engineering ability to make the game more playable.
No way are couple of tiny dozers and a few hundred slave laborers going to keep up with the SeaBees.
From what I've read Japanese base improvements like building revetments, runway upgrades etc were pitiful.
No way are couple of tiny dozers and a few hundred slave laborers going to keep up with the SeaBees.
From what I've read Japanese base improvements like building revetments, runway upgrades etc were pitiful.
If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom
Mojo's Mom
uh-huh
All depends on who you read, and how much credence you give
the author. The game UV is almost scripted from 'Fire in the Sky'
however is the author actually correct?
Try landing on one of the BAD islands, and try getting
a level 2 port and a level 3 field on it. Its not that easy.
I had every allied eng (except aussies) on the island and it still
took forever.
the author. The game UV is almost scripted from 'Fire in the Sky'
however is the author actually correct?
Try landing on one of the BAD islands, and try getting
a level 2 port and a level 3 field on it. Its not that easy.
I had every allied eng (except aussies) on the island and it still
took forever.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Any examples?
Hi,
Does anyone have any data on actual base building performed by the Japanese during the war? Their engineer units are not correctly represented (no heavy equipment and no slave labor) in the game but since they probably weren't as efficient as US engineers I would guess that the actual engineers themselves are too efficient at the same time.
I've seen data (Morison's The two-ocean war) saying that recon aircraft discovered the start of the building of the Guadalcanal airfield on the 5th of July and we know that it wasn't finished by the 8th of August when the Marines landed.
I've tested and it's a piece of cake to build an airfield (size 1) a lot quicker than that in the game with one Japanese engineer unit and plenty of supplies. I think I reached size 4 in about a month time.
So, do we have any other information that could help in determining their real life performance?
Regards
BPRE
Does anyone have any data on actual base building performed by the Japanese during the war? Their engineer units are not correctly represented (no heavy equipment and no slave labor) in the game but since they probably weren't as efficient as US engineers I would guess that the actual engineers themselves are too efficient at the same time.
I've seen data (Morison's The two-ocean war) saying that recon aircraft discovered the start of the building of the Guadalcanal airfield on the 5th of July and we know that it wasn't finished by the 8th of August when the Marines landed.
I've tested and it's a piece of cake to build an airfield (size 1) a lot quicker than that in the game with one Japanese engineer unit and plenty of supplies. I think I reached size 4 in about a month time.
So, do we have any other information that could help in determining their real life performance?
Regards
BPRE
Re: Any examples?
BPRE asks :-
"Does anyone have any data on actual base building performed by the Japanese during the war? Their engineer units are not correctly represented (no heavy equipment and no slave labor) in the game but since they probably weren't as efficient as US engineers I would guess that the actual engineers themselves are too efficient at the same time."
Well, we have Guadalcanal ... that doesn't suggest IJN engineers were Seabee standard. The Japanese were still scrambling to build fortifications in the Gilberts and Marshalls when Uncle Sam came calling. That's after about thirty months. Mind you, I guess fortifications will never be finished, so maybe that's not a good example.
"Truk" in UV represents several bases in the group. The Japanese built an airfield on the island of Eten. To do it, they had to level half the island. They started in 1934 and finished in 1941. It's safe to assume that this was a fairly high priority project, because Truk was the main base in the south Pacific. Flattening islands is pretty difficult if all you have are dynamite, picks and shovels. The IJN/IJA appear to have had far, far less heavy engineer equipment than any other major army. In spite of the fact that Yamamoto thought that the war would be about seizing islands and building airbases as fast as possible, the IJN didn't do anything to ensure that it could build airbases quickly, unlike the USN.
To compare with US Army engineers, there's a webpage on the 858 EAB at http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/858th.htm . The USAF has a page on EABs at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aeb1.htm . I came across some stuff on *airborne* EABs. Have a look at www.burmastar.org.uk/879th_engineers.htm . Weird.
Cheers,
Angus
"Does anyone have any data on actual base building performed by the Japanese during the war? Their engineer units are not correctly represented (no heavy equipment and no slave labor) in the game but since they probably weren't as efficient as US engineers I would guess that the actual engineers themselves are too efficient at the same time."
Well, we have Guadalcanal ... that doesn't suggest IJN engineers were Seabee standard. The Japanese were still scrambling to build fortifications in the Gilberts and Marshalls when Uncle Sam came calling. That's after about thirty months. Mind you, I guess fortifications will never be finished, so maybe that's not a good example.
"Truk" in UV represents several bases in the group. The Japanese built an airfield on the island of Eten. To do it, they had to level half the island. They started in 1934 and finished in 1941. It's safe to assume that this was a fairly high priority project, because Truk was the main base in the south Pacific. Flattening islands is pretty difficult if all you have are dynamite, picks and shovels. The IJN/IJA appear to have had far, far less heavy engineer equipment than any other major army. In spite of the fact that Yamamoto thought that the war would be about seizing islands and building airbases as fast as possible, the IJN didn't do anything to ensure that it could build airbases quickly, unlike the USN.
To compare with US Army engineers, there's a webpage on the 858 EAB at http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/858th.htm . The USAF has a page on EABs at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aeb1.htm . I came across some stuff on *airborne* EABs. Have a look at www.burmastar.org.uk/879th_engineers.htm . Weird.
Cheers,
Angus
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Re: Is Base construction too fast?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Possum
4) In every invasion I've done, I have yet to force an airfield to close. This dispite, in my lates invasion using FOUR bombardment T/F's comprising 1st, 1 BB + 5 CL, 2nd 4 CA+2 CL, 3rd 4 CA + 1 CL, 4th 2 CA + 3 CL. I scored thousands of Runway hits, but the base was still launcing Cap and Naval strikes the next morning.
Possum,
If you're looking for a one-punch knockout blow forget it. You won;t shut down an airfield in one turn if the enemy has supply and engineers there. Don't forget that the engineers repair damage rather quickly and if there's a lot of engineers there then a lot of damage gets repaired the same turn the base gets bombed. You need to bomb for several turns to ensure that you run the base out of supply first, then without supply the engineers can't repair. Patience and persistence are the key to wiping out an enemy airfield and causing it to stop working.
But I do agree that base construction and repair is way too fast in the game. I also think that base sizes are overstated in most cases. I think that there shouldn't be any expanding the base over the set limit, ie. you can't turn a level 6 airfield into a level 9 one just because there's a 3 level fudge factor. I say get rid of the fudge factor and have set limits for all bases that are more historically accurate.
Eric Larsen
4) In every invasion I've done, I have yet to force an airfield to close. This dispite, in my lates invasion using FOUR bombardment T/F's comprising 1st, 1 BB + 5 CL, 2nd 4 CA+2 CL, 3rd 4 CA + 1 CL, 4th 2 CA + 3 CL. I scored thousands of Runway hits, but the base was still launcing Cap and Naval strikes the next morning.
Possum,
If you're looking for a one-punch knockout blow forget it. You won;t shut down an airfield in one turn if the enemy has supply and engineers there. Don't forget that the engineers repair damage rather quickly and if there's a lot of engineers there then a lot of damage gets repaired the same turn the base gets bombed. You need to bomb for several turns to ensure that you run the base out of supply first, then without supply the engineers can't repair. Patience and persistence are the key to wiping out an enemy airfield and causing it to stop working.
But I do agree that base construction and repair is way too fast in the game. I also think that base sizes are overstated in most cases. I think that there shouldn't be any expanding the base over the set limit, ie. you can't turn a level 6 airfield into a level 9 one just because there's a 3 level fudge factor. I say get rid of the fudge factor and have set limits for all bases that are more historically accurate.
Eric Larsen
building over size
If any of you have ever built an airfield at Tulagi or Lea Lea (0 size airfields) you will know it takes a lot of engineers and supplies forever to do so. I think the max size at 3 over the base rating is probably fine - most of these locations you could build an airfield or port larger if you were willing to make the commitment - its just too easy. IMO all facilities over the basic rating should come at a steep price not just the size 0 airfields. If anything super ports should be more difficult to build than the airfields.
Guadalcanal is a bad example to use as the Japanese. At least until after the debacle at Midway became more widely known the contruction there was set at an extremely leasurly pace vs. the pell-mell assembly line type contruction later witnessed by determined SeeBee's who would start repairing strips even as the Marines were still cleaning out Japanese pockets of resistance.
I would have to agree though that, while i would expect well equipped and heavy machinery supported Allied type engineer units to be able to build fast, that overall the pace of base development in the game is rather high, at least for the period covered in UV.
I too have been able to upgrade bases at a rather fast pace that at time makes it seem far too easy. Hard to judge though at times as especially for the Allied player, one can find themselves with a very many engineer units which concentrated all at one base location leads to very quick buildups. I'm almost tempted to suggest that, like the AA model for Task groups that perhaps there should be a diminishing returns rule in place for players who stuff half dozen engineer units all at one base location to try to supercharge build efforts. maybe by linking 'disruption' to the build schedule. (just a thought)
One must also look at the types of tasks as well. By latewar, no question that SeeBee units had become masters of the quick build airfield....but this i would rank as a latewar attribute, honed by experience and lessons learned (as well as abundent resources) However its one thing to quickly build or repair an airstrip, and quite another to expand a port, or build permanent housing and protected abutments for aircraft and such. These should take longer than they do or, again to throw a thought to the wind.....perhaps they should be made *more expensive* in terms of logistics. That way again, it might discourage players from trying to achieve too much too soon by going into engineering overdrive.
On the question of airfield attack. I agree that its too anemic and have suggested it to Matrix that this needs serious looking at for the upcoming WitP. Weak effect against airfields has been a long standing attribute of GG games, particularily GGPW.
While i agree that it can be very hard to knock out a well established airfield in a single blow (if not impossible), it shouldn't be as hard all the time to knock out the aircraft that are based there. I've found that in UV, regardless of base size, fortification level, or just as importantly, the total # of aircraft base there, that all air attacks against the base produce little in the way of actual destroyed or damaged aircraft. Even bombardments often fail to produce good results.
Granted.....Matrix/2by3's implementation of Morale does help a bit, but by itself is not enough. Airfields even with low morale'd groups still tend to launch persistanly leading to an opposing player's only recourse to be to try to starve the base out, grounding the aircraft.
Dont mistake my intentions here, i'm not advocating "Tora Tora Tora" like airfield attacks all the time......but i do believe the 3 factors i listed above (make it four; include radar) should influence whether or not a base's air assets can be knocked out or suprised or just attritioned into being ineffective by taking away or nibbling away at the very weapons which make a base effective. Enemy tactics (flying under radar, time of raid etc) should also factor. A chance to suprise a base would be a nice feature. This would certainly make a player think twice before stuffing every available air group they have all at one base location. In all honesty this is what i've currently done in my current campaign. Having built up PM to its max airfield size i have something like 95% of all my SWPac LBA's based there....something like 300+ aircraft. The thought that keeps bugging me about this tactic, legitimate as it is is that in a more realistic scenerio....while a very powerful concentration of airpower, it also makes for a great big juicy target as well (fighter sweeps....bomb runs etc etc) But as currently modeled......i'm not worried much about having the aircraft destroyed or damaged as much as i'm worried about their supply consumption.
These considerations will be particularily important for latewar scenerios when the Allied side aquires enough carriers to go on historical "plane hunting" raids. Such things were not possible to duplicate in GGPW....and by the looks of it in UV it wont be for WitP either.
On the issue of max base size, you can exceed base size but it takes 10 times as long once you reach the normal max base size.
I would have to agree though that, while i would expect well equipped and heavy machinery supported Allied type engineer units to be able to build fast, that overall the pace of base development in the game is rather high, at least for the period covered in UV.
I too have been able to upgrade bases at a rather fast pace that at time makes it seem far too easy. Hard to judge though at times as especially for the Allied player, one can find themselves with a very many engineer units which concentrated all at one base location leads to very quick buildups. I'm almost tempted to suggest that, like the AA model for Task groups that perhaps there should be a diminishing returns rule in place for players who stuff half dozen engineer units all at one base location to try to supercharge build efforts. maybe by linking 'disruption' to the build schedule. (just a thought)
One must also look at the types of tasks as well. By latewar, no question that SeeBee units had become masters of the quick build airfield....but this i would rank as a latewar attribute, honed by experience and lessons learned (as well as abundent resources) However its one thing to quickly build or repair an airstrip, and quite another to expand a port, or build permanent housing and protected abutments for aircraft and such. These should take longer than they do or, again to throw a thought to the wind.....perhaps they should be made *more expensive* in terms of logistics. That way again, it might discourage players from trying to achieve too much too soon by going into engineering overdrive.
On the question of airfield attack. I agree that its too anemic and have suggested it to Matrix that this needs serious looking at for the upcoming WitP. Weak effect against airfields has been a long standing attribute of GG games, particularily GGPW.
While i agree that it can be very hard to knock out a well established airfield in a single blow (if not impossible), it shouldn't be as hard all the time to knock out the aircraft that are based there. I've found that in UV, regardless of base size, fortification level, or just as importantly, the total # of aircraft base there, that all air attacks against the base produce little in the way of actual destroyed or damaged aircraft. Even bombardments often fail to produce good results.
Granted.....Matrix/2by3's implementation of Morale does help a bit, but by itself is not enough. Airfields even with low morale'd groups still tend to launch persistanly leading to an opposing player's only recourse to be to try to starve the base out, grounding the aircraft.
Dont mistake my intentions here, i'm not advocating "Tora Tora Tora" like airfield attacks all the time......but i do believe the 3 factors i listed above (make it four; include radar) should influence whether or not a base's air assets can be knocked out or suprised or just attritioned into being ineffective by taking away or nibbling away at the very weapons which make a base effective. Enemy tactics (flying under radar, time of raid etc) should also factor. A chance to suprise a base would be a nice feature. This would certainly make a player think twice before stuffing every available air group they have all at one base location. In all honesty this is what i've currently done in my current campaign. Having built up PM to its max airfield size i have something like 95% of all my SWPac LBA's based there....something like 300+ aircraft. The thought that keeps bugging me about this tactic, legitimate as it is is that in a more realistic scenerio....while a very powerful concentration of airpower, it also makes for a great big juicy target as well (fighter sweeps....bomb runs etc etc) But as currently modeled......i'm not worried much about having the aircraft destroyed or damaged as much as i'm worried about their supply consumption.
These considerations will be particularily important for latewar scenerios when the Allied side aquires enough carriers to go on historical "plane hunting" raids. Such things were not possible to duplicate in GGPW....and by the looks of it in UV it wont be for WitP either.
On the issue of max base size, you can exceed base size but it takes 10 times as long once you reach the normal max base size.
I think the build and repair rates are fine the way they are.
- ducks the bottles of beers coming his way -
The larger the field the harder it is to knock out. In my game with Crocky it took a lot of effort to close down the Rabaul base and I had to keep at it to keep itclosed. I would not want my fields closed for weeks after taking 100% damage while the enemy used his freed-up aircraft to close them all one at a time.
- ducks the bottles of beers coming his way -
The larger the field the harder it is to knock out. In my game with Crocky it took a lot of effort to close down the Rabaul base and I had to keep at it to keep itclosed. I would not want my fields closed for weeks after taking 100% damage while the enemy used his freed-up aircraft to close them all one at a time.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
(aims up his bottle..........hold still please)
:p
Actually on the question of 'repair' i dont have a problem either. I had had a concern earlier but it had resulted from having an extremely large concentration of engineers at the base being attacked.
Airfield runway damage should be fairly easy to fix. Facilites, structures, and Port damage though, i'm still leary about, especially if there are heavy and permanent facilities such as dry docks and such.
:p
Actually on the question of 'repair' i dont have a problem either. I had had a concern earlier but it had resulted from having an extremely large concentration of engineers at the base being attacked.
Airfield runway damage should be fairly easy to fix. Facilites, structures, and Port damage though, i'm still leary about, especially if there are heavy and permanent facilities such as dry docks and such.
I think the Construction rates for low end bases is fine.
After all, a size 1 airfield is basically a cleared and stabalized piece of dirt, should be easilly thrown togeather in a few days to a coulpe of weeks, depending on resorces and terrain.
My beef is that the bases seem to be being compleatly developed way too fast.
From what I've read, Port moresby should possibly make a size 9 Port sometime around early 1945, if the allies had kept developing it.
Same with Townsville, Massive port construction and airbase contruction was still occuring at Townsville in late 43.
My idea for construction rates would be along the lines of
A/F size 0 to size 1, base time = 2 days
A/F size 1 to size 2, base time = 4 days
A/F size 2 to size 3, base time = 1 week
A/F size 3 to size 4, base time = 2 weeks
A/F size 4 to size 5, base time = 1 month
A/F size 5 to size 6, base time = 2 months
A/F size 6 to size 7, base time = 4 months
A/F size 7 to size 8, base time = 8 months
A/F size 8 to size 9, base time = 16 months
Construction assumes typical New Guinia/North Queensland/Solomons island Terrain (ie, it's easy to find a flat bit 2 x 1 Km in size and becomes much harder to creat flat terain there after.); And assume that only one SeeBee/EAB/Aust Eng Bn is working on the project.
Thus making it much more effective to build 2 size 4 airfields than to make a monster size 8 airfield.
Something simmilar with ports should happen too.
After all, a size 1 airfield is basically a cleared and stabalized piece of dirt, should be easilly thrown togeather in a few days to a coulpe of weeks, depending on resorces and terrain.
My beef is that the bases seem to be being compleatly developed way too fast.
From what I've read, Port moresby should possibly make a size 9 Port sometime around early 1945, if the allies had kept developing it.
Same with Townsville, Massive port construction and airbase contruction was still occuring at Townsville in late 43.
My idea for construction rates would be along the lines of
A/F size 0 to size 1, base time = 2 days
A/F size 1 to size 2, base time = 4 days
A/F size 2 to size 3, base time = 1 week
A/F size 3 to size 4, base time = 2 weeks
A/F size 4 to size 5, base time = 1 month
A/F size 5 to size 6, base time = 2 months
A/F size 6 to size 7, base time = 4 months
A/F size 7 to size 8, base time = 8 months
A/F size 8 to size 9, base time = 16 months
Construction assumes typical New Guinia/North Queensland/Solomons island Terrain (ie, it's easy to find a flat bit 2 x 1 Km in size and becomes much harder to creat flat terain there after.); And assume that only one SeeBee/EAB/Aust Eng Bn is working on the project.
Thus making it much more effective to build 2 size 4 airfields than to make a monster size 8 airfield.
Something simmilar with ports should happen too.
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
No, I hate that idea. It doesn't make any sense. The current standard airbase size handles the "this is the size which is easy to do, and its hard after that" issue just fine thank you. Any sort of strict exponential growth just doesn't make sense.
Keep in mind also that we're talking about 30km hexes -- Rabaul wasn't one airbase, but a cluster of a few ones.
What we have now might be a bit too fast, especially when it comes to massive engineering efforts. I think the "reduce the effectiveness of multiple engineer units" idea is the best one in this thread.
Keep in mind also that we're talking about 30km hexes -- Rabaul wasn't one airbase, but a cluster of a few ones.
What we have now might be a bit too fast, especially when it comes to massive engineering efforts. I think the "reduce the effectiveness of multiple engineer units" idea is the best one in this thread.
I love it when a plan comes together.
-
HARD_SARGE
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 9:58 am
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
I think that there shouldn't be any expanding the base over the set limit, ie. you can't turn a level 6 airfield into a level 9 one just because there's a 3 level fudge factor. I say get rid of the fudge factor and have set limits for all bases that are more historically accurate.
Yes but how many of these bases are in fact, many airstrips, Rabaul had 7 airfields on it, the game makes it a LARGE BASE instead of many different small bases, Lunga had Henderson field, later on had Fighter 1 and Fighter 2, but is Lunga Base for us in the game, not 3 different bases (which would work out to say a size 4 for the bombers and two size 2 for the fighters) and there were plenty of plans on where they could build more fields, which in the end were not needed, GC could of very easy of been a size 27 airbase, if they wanted to move inland and build some more strips (after the JP had moved on of course)
I don't know if bases are building too fast, in my game, I took most of Bville by the end of Oct 43, it is now Feb 43 and all of the bases are now szie 4 airfields (but one, the bench above Bruin) it took a long time to get them to expand, in fact Borin made it to size 3 way before Buka did, and Buka was a size 1 to start with, while Borin was still jungle when I took it
I took Vella LeVella and Munda during the same week, when Shortland fell, Vella was a size 3 and Munda still did not have a field on it, but the port had just opened up
to be honest, I have been rushing SB's and Eng to the front before I move my combat units, the boys on the front line are doing all the fighting, to save space for the builders
now the bench under Rabaul is turning out to be a royal bear, in over a week it has bulit it's port by 8% (that could be interesting, over 60 K in troops at Rabaul, but with no food, and 10 K in Aussy/Yanks on the bench under it with lots and lots of food, the movies and Beer are sitting down the coast waiting for the port to be opened)
I don't think the bases are being built too fast, it is the way the game works
HARD_Sarge
Yes but how many of these bases are in fact, many airstrips, Rabaul had 7 airfields on it, the game makes it a LARGE BASE instead of many different small bases, Lunga had Henderson field, later on had Fighter 1 and Fighter 2, but is Lunga Base for us in the game, not 3 different bases (which would work out to say a size 4 for the bombers and two size 2 for the fighters) and there were plenty of plans on where they could build more fields, which in the end were not needed, GC could of very easy of been a size 27 airbase, if they wanted to move inland and build some more strips (after the JP had moved on of course)
I don't know if bases are building too fast, in my game, I took most of Bville by the end of Oct 43, it is now Feb 43 and all of the bases are now szie 4 airfields (but one, the bench above Bruin) it took a long time to get them to expand, in fact Borin made it to size 3 way before Buka did, and Buka was a size 1 to start with, while Borin was still jungle when I took it
I took Vella LeVella and Munda during the same week, when Shortland fell, Vella was a size 3 and Munda still did not have a field on it, but the port had just opened up
to be honest, I have been rushing SB's and Eng to the front before I move my combat units, the boys on the front line are doing all the fighting, to save space for the builders
now the bench under Rabaul is turning out to be a royal bear, in over a week it has bulit it's port by 8% (that could be interesting, over 60 K in troops at Rabaul, but with no food, and 10 K in Aussy/Yanks on the bench under it with lots and lots of food, the movies and Beer are sitting down the coast waiting for the port to be opened)
I don't think the bases are being built too fast, it is the way the game works
HARD_Sarge
good point
Hard-Sarge has a good point. In these thirty kilometer hexes, these airfields represent multiple fields. I certainly don't know enough to criticize the size caps. Nikademus has a idea with potential about whether there should be limitation on effectiveness of multiple engineers, especially for airfields and ports. And the effectiveness should vary depending on whether you are just concentrating on airfields or are doing ports, forts and airfields all at the same time