A General Observation

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Which version? I'm guessing that this kind of behavior is an artifact of ALL versions of TOAW. I'm seeing
this behavior in 3.6.0.115 but I'm pretty sure they all do it.

Aye, Onkel Larry. Confirmed - see above.

[Lobster]

The air side of this game is very abstract just as the naval and transport sides are. In reality when an airfield is over run you lose all of the support equipment. It's too big to fly out. Either that or the airfield is evacuated long before the bad guys show up. But because the game is concentrated on the ground combat units everything else is modeled just kind of. How long have people been trying to get a better naval model in the game? That's how long it will take to fix the air side.

Personally I'd like to see other things fixed first. The encircled unit rule is in sore need of fixing. Ant units still run amok, for instance, an Army HQ cutting off entire divisions or more. One truck unit moving an entire division. One cut off supply source supplying an infinite number of units. And the list goes on.

Still, it's the best all around operational level game out there. Don't know why Matrix ignores it so much.

[sPzAbt653]

airplanes just sit there and allow themselves to be bombarded instead of bugging out.

My thought was that this type of result isn't very realistic. Although there are historic cases of planes being lost to bombardments, I think that most often the planes would relocate. Loss of the base may cause a TOAW Air Unit to go into reorg, but shouldn't cause the loss of many planes [unless there is no base available to relocate to].

It may be more realistic for ground or naval bombardments of air bases that contain air units to cause the air unit to lose a variable percentage of their aircraft, relocate to the nearest airfield, and go into reorg for the next player turn. I guess the same could be said for Air Units making Airfield Attacks [which I think may be resolved as bombardments anyway].

Maybe my thinking is out of whack, some others might weigh in with their opinion. Then maybe those in charge can make a decision as to whether a change might be valid for a future version.

[SMK-at-work]

Think Henderson Field!

Over-running airbases could also cause serious losses of aircraft that wee being serviced and/or still in their crates - eg as at Stalingrad plus losses of ground support equipment, spares, fuel and perhaps mechanics.

Even without actual over-runs a retreat could cause the loss of a lot of equipment, such as the RAF in France in 1940 - much equipment and spares could be evacuated, but that which couldn't be had to be destroyed (eg see Bombing of Souge Airfield here)

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

And while we're talking about things that need to be changed I've found one in my TGW game: This was pointed out by scenario designer Steve Still. When a ground unit moves into an enemy airfield hex that contains airplanes the airplanes bug out as expected.
But when you move some arty unit(s) adjacent the airplanes just sit there and allow themselves to be bombarded instead of bugging
out. And when you're fighting the PO the airplanes sometimes stay at the airfield in question and allow themselves to be bombarded
turn after turn. I'm seeing that behavour from Elmer in my game so I know it happens.

I see nothing particularly wrong with that - such bombardments cause a % loss, and units did not simply "bug out" from airfields - moving air units was not a trivial task, and if a turn is a day hten moving them the next day is perfctly reasonable.

If a turn is longer then the % loss represents aircraft not always being on the airfield - "realistically" if you had an artillery Bn or 2 zeroed in on an airfield for several days you would probably obliterate every aircraft on it....that can happen sometimes, but not usually!

[sPzAbt653]

Think Henderson Field!

I'm not much on the Pacific, but I think there was no available airfield to transfer to, so once the planes were based at Henderson they were resigned to their fate.

Over-running airbases could also cause serious losses of aircraft ...

But in TOAW, over-running an airbase causes the air unit(s) to relocate.

such as the RAF in France in 1940

The RAF in France was a special case. They had very small support elements. The pilots actually did most of the work. In this case I can see the crews abandoning planes at the airfields based on the speed of the German advance, but this wasn't a typical situation. And we aren't talking about ground units over-running airfields, we are talking about parking artillery within range and shelling an airfield round after round while the planes sit idle and take it.

units did not simply "bug out" from airfields

I think that in most cases airfields were relocated well ahead of the enemy's advance. One can point to a few special cases where this didn't happen, but it wasn't the norm.


I'm glad to hear someone else's opinion, because I've disliked this behavior for years, yet I've seen no one else ever mention it. So maybe I am being too particular.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes one of the main issues I have is that over-running airfields does NOT cause more serious aircraft loses - to some degree in TOAW you can ignore it as a risk!!

Artillery bombardment is somewhat a result of that I think - players know that if they over-run the airfield they will inflict few if any losses - whereas bombarding does some actual damage!

the a/c at Henderson certainly could have flown away - they flew there in the first place - but it was eth only airfield and if they wanted to have any air power they had to have the planes on that airfield.

I don't think the size of RAF units in France was particularly important - many front line airfields in WW2 had limited facilities an major maintenance was performed at depots well to the rear - to some extent the experience of the USAAF & RAF in Europe post-France was not-typical in that they often got to operate from large bases with considerable resources.

Here's and example of an airfield that was bombarded by the Soviets in 1945 - Baltiysk - East Prussia, now in Kaliningrad and another near Moscow 1941

I think there are plenty of examples of airfields being bombarded by artillery if you go looking - here's my google search for "airfield artillery fire" - and if there is a problem (I'm not sure there is) it probably comes back to not being able to build airfields when scenarios should allow for it (which is not always of course) and also the lack of other damage to air units from over-running.

[USXpat]

I make it a high priority to use artillery to bomb airfields at every opportunity. Aircraft range is always greater than artillery range (barring things like ICBMs). There's no real need for aircraft to be positioned so close to the front that they can be hit by artillery - and perhaps one major reason why the # of historical incidents is infrequent.

There can be an issue with a scenario that has a large number of air units with too few airfields. There's usually enough though, so the #1 remedy is just keeping out of range of artillery.

Given that so many scenarios involve WW2 East Front and include rail artillery -- and can easily be the "most effective fighter group of the Luftwaffe" (heh)... it does make sense to limit their use somehow, perhaps using options to activate them for a X number of turns with a lengthy inactive period before they can be used again, possibly disbanding them after a Y number of uses.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: USXpat

I make it a high priority to use artillery to bomb airfields at every opportunity. Aircraft range is always greater than artillery range (barring things like ICBMs). There's no real need for aircraft to be positioned so close to the front that they can be hit by artillery - and perhaps one major reason why the # of historical incidents is infrequent.

There can be an issue with a scenario that has a large number of air units with too few airfields. There's usually enough though, so the #1 remedy is just keeping out of range of artillery.

Given that so many scenarios involve WW2 East Front and include rail artillery -- and can easily be the "most effective fighter group of the Luftwaffe" (heh)... it does make sense to limit their use somehow, perhaps using options to activate them for a X number of turns with a lengthy inactive period before they can be used again, possibly disbanding them after a Y number of uses.

... or simply base them off-map

Klink, Oberst

[rhinobones]

The discussion about abstract modeling of airfields and deployed air squadrons is interesting.

For aircraft, maybe the existing concept of "support units" can be extended by the introduction of support units dedicated to aircraft support.

Such units would be deployed to airfields to service and repair aircraft units, thereby impacting aircraft availability and combat status. The more aircraft support units available, the quicker aircraft would be turned around from off-line to combat readiness. If aircraft support units are destroyed by enemy action, there is a loss of aircraft combat availability until support is restored, i.e. aircraft support units are either reconstituted or reinforced from reserves.

This concept can also be extended to cover the needs of naval and mechanized units. These units have unique support needs outside of the generic "Support Unit" modeling.

Regards, RhinoBones

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
The discussion about abstract modeling of airfields and deployed air squadrons is interesting.

For aircraft, maybe the existing concept of "support units" can be extended by the introduction of support units dedicated to aircraft support.

Such units would be deployed to airfields to service and repair aircraft units, thereby impacting aircraft availability and combat status. The more aircraft support units available, the quicker aircraft would be turned around from off-line to combat readiness. If aircraft support units are destroyed by enemy action, there is a loss of aircraft combat availability until support is restored, i.e. aircraft support units are either reconstituted or reinforced from reserves.

This concept can also be extended to cover the needs of naval and mechanized units. These units have unique support needs outside of the generic "Support Unit" modeling.

I like this idea. WITP-AE has what are called Airfield Support Units who service the airplanes. Fix 'em, load munitions on 'em, etc.
And you have to have them at the airfield for the planes to get fixed when they get damage or come up for their annual inspections
or their hourly inspections or get a flat tire etc. It'd be pretty cool if these kind of support units could be introduced to the TOAW
game engine. Keep these good ideas flowing Rhino dude.

[rhinobones]

Load'em, use'em, shoot'em, Larry, you know what it's all about.

Regards, RhinoBones