Aviation Support

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Skeptical of the notion of a construction-engineer limit, insofar as it needs to be large and smartly balanced. A whole lotta working guys can work on a base at one time, and as the base gets bigger maybe even more can fit around the perimeter working on expansion.

I am also skeptical that a limit can be 'smartly done'. If it was easy to do, it would have been in the original release. But michaelm and the Babes Dev team have each been pulling off other minor miracles, so I figure that there is no harm in asking.

I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

I'm so sorry to hear that an honest cavalryman, such as yourself, would work for DOT. That's what the robots from the Corps of Engineers do. To be honest, I do feel like a slut everytime I get a check from DOD. What happened to us, bro? We were soldiers once, and young.

Game treats Eng units the same, but there lots of different ways of slicing and dicing Eng units. Babes has Japanese Eng units with tons of termite manpower, but squat for game construction purposes. There's units that can build and fight like hell but can't demo forts. There's units that can demo forts, but don't fight all that great. There's units that can build like army ants but can't fight. There's units that can play "stevedore" but not much else. The engine allows all these possibilities.

Modders make this happen. We know how to do it. Please, do not ask michael to tweak the Eng thing.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

I'm so sorry to hear that an honest cavalryman, such as yourself, would work for DOT. That's what the robots from the Corps of Engineers do. To be honest, I do feel like a slut everytime I get a check from DOD. What happened to us, bro? We were soldiers once, and young.

Game treats Eng units the same, but there lots of different ways of slicing and dicing Eng units. Babes has Japanese Eng units with tons of termite manpower, but squat for game construction purposes. There's units that can build and fight like hell but can't demo forts. There's units that can demo forts, but don't fight all that great. There's units that can build like army ants but can't fight. There's units that can play "stevedore" but not much else. The engine allows all these possibilities.

Modders make this happen. We know how to do it. Please, do not ask michael to tweak the Eng thing.

Old? Not me. After nearly a quarter-century of being 29, I'm just starting to get good at it. Or in the words of the Great American Philosopher Satchel Page, "I'm still the same man I once was . . . just not as often." And when the day comes that I can't honestly tell myself that I am worth every dollar that the hard-working American taxpayer is coughing up to pay my salary, that's the day I leave federal service . . . and become a consultant, where I'm told one can make real money. [:'(]

I am mightly impressed with the various DaBabes mods, but I don't want to see the mother game stagnate. I'm hoping there will be some backward-compatibility; as players find major imbalances (e.g. Type E ASW) and modders find solutions, I'd like to see some of these fixes can find a way to migrate back into standard AE.

. . . my apologies to michaelm. I've hijacked his Aviation Support thread, where we all agree that it would be a good thing to require players to find AS equal to the number of birds that we want to see fly.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Skeptical of the notion of a construction-engineer limit, insofar as it needs to be large and smartly balanced. A whole lotta working guys can work on a base at one time, and as the base gets bigger maybe even more can fit around the perimeter working on expansion.

I am also skeptical that a limit can be 'smartly done'. If it was easy to do, it would have been in the original release. But michaelm and the Babes Dev team have each been pulling off other minor miracles, so I figure that there is no harm in asking.

I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, there was a coded cap on engineer construction in WITP. Don't know if there still is (and I may be wrong in first place). Michael could probably tell.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
What number is the proposal here? It needs to be a reasonably high number for the allies to achieve an appropriate tempo.

Agreed -- but not so unlimited as to allow Level 9 airfields to be built from scratch in a week or two. It's not really an issue before 1943, when the trickle of Allied engineer units turns into a flow, then a flood in 1944 and a Tsunami in 1945.

Ideally, we would have a sliding scale, with each extra engineer unit providing less added benefit. That's probably not practical. If we used a hard cap, I'd suggest a limit in the 750-800 point range. Each engineer vehicle = 5 points, each squad = 1. The way the game engine values engineer points, that would still allow ports and airfields to be built much faster than IRL, but would somewhat limit the late-war fantasy one-level-per-day that we've seen in some AARs.

If a sliding cap were practical, I'd envision something along the lines of, the first 300 Engineer points = 100% benefit; 301-600 points = 50% benefit, 601-900 points = 25% benefit. 901+ = 10% benefit. With the actual #s subject to playtesting first, of course.

Large US Engineer Units:
Each Naval Construction Regiment (x3 Seabee Bns) has 174 engineer points. They arrive throughout 1943.
In early 1944, Engineer Aviation Brigades (x4 EAB Bns each) with 368 engineer points begin to arrive, one for each Air Force HQ in the Pacific.
Also in 1944 there are four Engineer Construction Brigades (x4 Bns) with 344 engineer points each.
And in 1945, one Combat Engineer Regiment (x4 Bns) arrives per Corps HQ. Each CER has 400 engineer points.

that would be a great idea!

[dwg]

I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

I've seen enough aircraft development projects up close and personal to know that the Mythical Man-Month effect is real, that there is a point past which throwing people at a project actually slows it down rather than helping. (Of course the usual response to hitting that point is to throw more managers at a project, which is even more of a problem, but I digress <g>...)

OTOH there's a point that people seem to be forgetting in this discussion, which is that we have two separate issues: 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, at a single airbase?', and 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, in a complex of airbases stretching over a 40 mile hex'. I live in Kent, pretty much the whole county will fit in a WITP hex, and there are something like 70 active or historical strips in the county.

Here's just a quick list of what was active in WWII (ALG=Advanced Landing Ground, quickly constructed in 43-44 for use by USAAF groups at D-Day, some were back in agricultural use before the end of 44):
Ashford, ALG, 3 sqns
Biggin Hill, 3 Sqns
Brenzett, ALG, 3 Sqns
Detling, 3 sqns
Eastchurch, Coastal Command and training base
Gravesend, 3 sqns
Hawkinge, 3 sqns
Headcorn, ALG, 3 sqns
High Haldon, ALG, 3 Sqns
Kingsnorth, ALG, 3 sqns
Lashenden, ALG, 3 Sqns
Lympne, 4-6 sqns
Manston, 3 sqns. With 9000' by 750' emergency diversion strip for damaged bombers returning from the continent. Manston was also one of the bases for Operation Market Garden, with 2 squadrons, with at least 56 Albemarles, launching from Manston towing 98 Horsas over 2 lifts.
New Romney, ALG
Newchurch, ALG, 4 Sqns
Penshurst, 1 Sqn
Rochester, Short Brothers site with Stirling production line (and proof that 4-engined bomber runways need be neither paved, nor particularly flat, Rochester has a distinct dip in the middle!)
Rochester Esplanade - Short's seaplane works - Sunderland and Shetland
Staplehurst, ALG, 3 sqns
Swingfield, 1 Sqn
West Malling, 2 Sqns
Woodchurch, ALG, 3 Sqns

That's a minimum of 53 squadrons, primarily single-engined fighters (West Malling was a night fighter base with Beaufighters), potentially as many as 1000 aircraft. Not counting the waterfront site at Rochester Esplanade, that is 21 airfield sites available for simultaneous use, or development. All this within a single 40 mile hex. If I'd picked Lincolnshire or East Anglia, then you would see a similar pattern of intense development, but we would be talking about 4-engined bomber bases instead.

The point of this is the sheer number of airfields which can be incorporated in a single WITP hex. There is a tendency to think 1 hex = 1 airfield, but other than the smaller islands, where stacking limits may be the more effective limitation, we need to remember to think in terms of multiple airfields. Throwing 21 battalions worth of construction engineers at a single airfield would invoke the Mythical-Man Month effect in spades, but throwing 21 battalions at 21 separate airfields would be entirely reasonable. Similarly 1000 aircraft operating out of a single airfield is entirely unreasonable, but 75 aircraft, or even more, operating out of a single airfield was perfectly normal, multiply that 20 times over and you get not 1000 aircraft, but 1500.

[JWE]

Good point dwg. But a lot of the hexes in AE are islands or atolls. The algorithm has to somehow account for that hex feature as well. Even Tinian is only 5mi at its widest, and 10mi long, and one would have to contend with Marpo Heights and (the rather generously named) Mt Laso. Even so, North Field was gigantic. It's probably worth thinking of as 4 fields in one.

I do like diminishing returns, though. A possible way to model diminishing returns without doing violence to the engineer abstract might be to make it depend on airfield size. The algorithm adds up all the effective 'squad equivalents' anyway, so perhaps divide the total by the present size of the airfield (making sure to check, If Size=0, Then Size=1)?

If you put 30 Eng squads in a hex, and AF=0, or 1, then they work like 30, and one can get from 0 to 1 and then to 2 pretty quick. Once you hit AF=2, they work like 15, so getting to 3 is harder (slower), unless you add more. Once you hit AF=3, they work like 10, so more are needed to keep up the tempo.

So this way, one can put 600 Eng squads in a hex, and get to AF=4 pretty quick, but to get to 5, there's only 150 effectively working, and only 100 effectively working to get from 6 to 7. Recall that 600 Eng squads need 600 Sup squads, and that totals out to 18,000 troops. Not sustainable at places with troop caps. And then 300 AvSup is about 5,000 more troops, so things tend to get crowded. Makes the choice of AF build locations a skoosh more reasonable.

Maybe?

[ed] I did want to keep it simple, because these cavalry guys can't seem to deal with anything more complicated than "the feed bag goes in the front, the shovel goes in the back." [;)]

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: dwg


OTOH there's a point that people seem to be forgetting in this discussion, which is that we have two separate issues: 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, at a single airbase?', and 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, in a complex of airbases stretching over a 40 mile hex'. I live in Kent, pretty much the whole county will fit in a WITP hex, and there are something like 70 active or historical strips in the county.

I haven't forgotten that point.

I absolutely recognize that in most AE hexes, engineers could be working on multiple airfields, plus port improvements, plus forts. But even allowing for that, the game engine allows the player to "level up" much faster in game than in real life. The US put the better part of 100,000 engineers on Okinawa in 1945, but even they couldn't build out all the airfields on the island in less than a week. In AE, a player can.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: JWE

I do like diminishing returns, though. A possible way to model diminishing returns without doing violence to the engineer abstract might be to make it depend on airfield size. The algorithm adds up all the effective 'squad equivalents' anyway, so perhaps divide the total by the present size of the airfield (making sure to check, If Size=0, Then Size=1)?

If you put 30 Eng squads in a hex, and AF=0, or 1, then they work like 30, and one can get from 0 to 1 and then to 2 pretty quick. Once you hit AF=2, they work like 15, so getting to 3 is harder (slower), unless you add more. Once you hit AF=3, they work like 10, so more are needed to keep up the tempo.

Mmmm . . . Mongo like.

So this way, one can put 600 Eng squads in a hex, and get to AF=4 pretty quick, but to get to 5, there's only 150 effectively working, and only 100 effectively working to get from 6 to 7. Recall that 600 Eng squads need 600 Sup squads, and that totals out to 18,000 troops. Not sustainable at places with troop caps. And then 300 AvSup is about 5,000 more troops, so things tend to get crowded. Makes the choice of AF build locations a skoosh more reasonable.

Oh . . . Mongo head hurt.

[ed] I did want to keep it simple, because these cavalry guys can't seem to deal with anything more complicated than "the feed bag goes in the front, the shovel goes in the back." [;)]

Hey, I resent that!

-- Do you deny it?

Well, no. But I resent it.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: dwg


OTOH there's a point that people seem to be forgetting in this discussion, which is that we have two separate issues: 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, at a single airbase?', and 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, in a complex of airbases stretching over a 40 mile hex'. I live in Kent, pretty much the whole county will fit in a WITP hex, and there are something like 70 active or historical strips in the county.

I haven't forgotten that point.

I absolutely recognize that in most AE hexes, engineers could be working on multiple airfields, plus port improvements, plus forts. But even allowing for that, the game engine allows the player to "level up" much faster in game than in real life. The US put the better part of 100,000 engineers on Okinawa in 1945, but even they couldn't build out all the airfields on the island in less than a week. In AE, a player can.

A week?

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Good point dwg. But a lot of the hexes in AE are islands or atolls. The algorithm has to somehow account for that hex feature as well.

Oh, I agree, there are two distinct situations here, one where you can build multiple basic strips and the second where you are forced into building a single base complex, with all the limitations that invokes.

I think your solution would work, though I might come at it from another angle and vary build cost by stacking limits. If no stacking limits, build cost stays constant per level (representing adding extra airfields), otherwise build cost=Current Level^(1+Stacking factor), where stacking factors increase from Large down to Very Small - I won't just say 1 to 5, because you would want to balance the effect against real-life examples such as Tinian. That makes the first couple of levels straightforward enough, but the costs then head sky high on the smaller islands.

Your approach limits the effectiveness of the engineers deployed, mine makes the job harder, the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I absolutely recognize that in most AE hexes, engineers could be working on multiple airfields, plus port improvements, plus forts. But even allowing for that, the game engine allows the player to "level up" much faster in game than in real life. The US put the better part of 100,000 engineers on Okinawa in 1945, but even they couldn't build out all the airfields on the island in less than a week. In AE, a player can.

That's a fair point, but any change needs to be balanced, recognising that it is possible to throw a basic strip down pretty much as fast as you can kick the PSP off the back of a wagon (okay, I exaggerate, but not by much - and in fact I've come across a couple of examples in the past week in which native volunteers built strips in the back-country of both Burma and Borneo with nothing more than the things they had to hand). And up to a certain point you can keep doing that if the space is available, but eventually you do want a more capable individual strip, particularly for loaded four-engined heavies, and those take much longer to put together. It's a pity we only have one kind of airfield to represent two distinct kinds of development.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I absolutely recognize that in most AE hexes, engineers could be working on multiple airfields, plus port improvements, plus forts. But even allowing for that, the game engine allows the player to "level up" much faster in game than in real life. The US put the better part of 100,000 engineers on Okinawa in 1945, but even they couldn't build out all the airfields on the island in less than a week. In AE, a player can.

That's a fair point, but any change needs to be balanced, recognising that it is possible to throw a basic strip down pretty much as fast as you can kick the PSP off the back of a wagon (okay, I exaggerate, but not by much - and in fact I've come across a couple of examples in the past week in which native volunteers built strips in the back-country of both Burma and Borneo with nothing more than the things they had to hand). And up to a certain point you can keep doing that if the space is available, but eventually you do want a more capable individual strip, particularly for loaded four-engined heavies, and those take much longer to put together. It's a pity we only have one kind of airfield to represent two distinct kinds of development.

We're in violent agreement. [:)]

I have no problem seeing a couple of steel-matted dirt strips up and running in a few days. My complaint is with the ahistoric speed players can build level 9 ports, airfields and forts.