Trying to understand air base stacking

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So, basically, to answer original question, Air HQ bumps size of air base in PH over 9 and immune to administrative stacking limit.

No. Only AF 9 have unlimited air formations. AF8 and less only add the best HQ’s radius to the number of formations you can operate (on missions other than search or training, and not resting).

Check Clark Field at start. AF8 + an air HQ, yet it doesn’t have unlimited administrative formations.

EDIT: and by the way, Command HQ also help. Well, not « also » as much than « in place of an air HQ » as Clark has a formation limit of 17 (AF8 + USAFFE range 9) instead of 13 (AF8 + Far East USAAF range 5).

[stretch]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

here is Guam which I took a month ago, maxed out airfield, radius 5 air HQ, both base and HQ have the same parent HQ. I'm terrible about resetting targets for air HQs.

Base admin: 17 groups
Air Stacking: 400 (size 8)

so the 17 comes from what? size 8 AF + radius 5 HQ = 13. Where are the other 4 coming from? Do neighboring Air HQs stack at all because there is one on Tinian as well, with radius 1.

[Yaab]

Pacific OceanAreas must be a command HQ and it adds 1/2 (?) of its command range to admin stack limit.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Pacific OceanAreas must be a command HQ and it adds 1/2 (?) of its command range to admin stack limit.

Per Ambassador's example, PAO has added its full command range of +9 and this overrides the other Air HQ +5 boost.

[stretch]

Thank you I missed the override. That's why I always post pictures, its the fastest way to clear up a question answered already

[Ian R]

Noting that you have groups from four different command HQ command chains (11th from NORPAC, 7th from CENTPAC, 13th from SOPOAC, II FTr and V Bmr from SWPAC) on the base, have you reassigned air HQs to different command HQs?

Your strike coordination checks are going to be adversely effected by Guam being such a caravanserai.

[Randy Stead]

This has turned out to be a very educational and enlightening thread for this newb. I was apprehensive at first about posting the question, but in light of the trove of useful information I am glad I started it. So, I believe my original question has been answered, as to why PH had so many different groups but still functioned.

So what I have gleaned from this discussion is that size 9 and 10 fields haven no theoretical limit to the number of formations for administrative purposes, but that there is still a limit on the amount of planes that may be stationed at a 9 or 10 field before suffering from "disorganization"? You can physically put them there, but the more you add, the worse the effect.

Out of curiosity, I would ask experienced players what is the largest amount of planes you have managed to base and operate, without degradation of operations, at a 9 or 10 airfield?

[Ian R]

Randy, more than a thousand. With a level 9 airfield, the choke point is (1) available AV support* (2) delivering enough supply.

Example: there are several bases in (south) Korea that build to level 9.

You can put the entire Eighth Air Force there in 1945, and in theory, you could put it all in one base, although in practice you might give each division a base to make targeting easier.

Edit: I also have the base "owned" by the same command HQ as 8th AF and the HQs in place with good leaders, to aid in strike coordination.

[*I have never seen a developer say that having excess AV support is wasted; nor do I have any proof that it helps keep the high maintenance air frames flying. But it seems to.]

[Randy Stead]

Wow, Ian, that is a pile of planes! What a rich target should a strike package get through. I've not been here that long, but I know enough that dispersal of planes reduces your exposure to one massive wipeout attack.

[Ian R]

Well, you can build them to fort level 9 to minimize any night bombing damage, but basically the sky is full of Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Corsairs and Spitfires at that point.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead

Wow, Ian, that is a pile of planes! What a rich target should a strike package get through. I've not been here that long, but I know enough that dispersal of planes reduces your exposure to one massive wipeout attack.

And another piece of info - a level 9 or 10 AF does not mean one big complex, but a multi-airstrip complex within the 46 mile wide hex. It is "abstracted" as a single entity. That helps explain how one can operate so many planes from one hex.

[rustysi]

[*I have never seen a developer say that having excess AV support is wasted; nor do I have any proof that it helps keep the high maintenance air frames flying. But it seems to.]

+1

[rustysi]

And another piece of info - a level 9 or 10 AF does not mean one big complex, but a multi-airstrip complex within the 46 mile wide hex. It is "abstracted" as a single entity. That helps explain how one can operate so many planes from one hex.

IRL Rabaul had five separate air fields.

[Yaab]

And Port Moresby hex had seven airfields

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_More ... ld_Complex

[Ian R]

TRue size map

If you go to the map at the above link, pick up the UK and lay it over Korea, you see that South Korea is roughly the same size as the eastern half of England - where not only Bomber Command and the 8th AF were housed, but additionally thousands of air superiority, attack aircraft and medium bombers. Hundreds of bases would be shoe-horned into a dozen or so hexes in East Anglia and Cambridgeshire.

[bradfordkay]

I have a question about an earlier comment in this thread, where it was mentioned that a level 4 Saipan with a Command HQ (radius 5) becomes, effectively, a level 9 airfield and thus capable of handling large numbers of B-29 bombers. While I am in full understanding of how a command HQ can increase the number of air units operating from a base, I do not believe that it overrides the physical limitation of airfield size vis-a-vis bomb load. A B-29 needs a level 7 airfield in order to take off with a full bomb load, does it not?

[rustysi]

AFAIK, yes.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I have a question about an earlier comment in this thread, where it was mentioned that a level 4 Saipan with a Command HQ (radius 5) becomes, effectively, a level 9 airfield and thus capable of handling large numbers of B-29 bombers. While I am in full understanding of how a command HQ can increase the number of air units operating from a base, I do not believe that it overrides the physical limitation of airfield size vis-a-vis bomb load. A B-29 needs a level 7 airfield in order to take off with a full bomb load, does it not?

It isn't "the equivalent of a level 9 AF" for all purposes, just for administration of squadrons- command and control and such that makes for better coordination. The other restrictions like bombload and air support requirements for repairs, fueling and bomb/ammo loading still apply.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I have a question about an earlier comment in this thread, where it was mentioned that a level 4 Saipan with a Command HQ (radius 5) becomes, effectively, a level 9 airfield and thus capable of handling large numbers of B-29 bombers. While I am in full understanding of how a command HQ can increase the number of air units operating from a base, I do not believe that it overrides the physical limitation of airfield size vis-a-vis bomb load. A B-29 needs a level 7 airfield in order to take off with a full bomb load, does it not?

I was quoting a comment from the Elf in very old thread - the specific example was parking 20th AF HQ on Saipan.

The other question, is does that have the practical effect of doubling the AV value present?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I have a question about an earlier comment in this thread, where it was mentioned that a level 4 Saipan with a Command HQ (radius 5) becomes, effectively, a level 9 airfield and thus capable of handling large numbers of B-29 bombers. While I am in full understanding of how a command HQ can increase the number of air units operating from a base, I do not believe that it overrides the physical limitation of airfield size vis-a-vis bomb load. A B-29 needs a level 7 airfield in order to take off with a full bomb load, does it not?

I was quoting a comment from the Elf in very old thread - the specific example was parking 20th AF HQ on Saipan.

The other question, is does that have the practical effect of doubling the AV value present?

No.

Alfred