CHS questions, comments & feedback

[tsimmonds]

Because it is too easy to build an airbase up to its SPS, which is one of the factors that leads to unreasonably fast play. As discussed in the "airbase and strike size" thread in the main forum, airbase size has very little meaningful impact on the number of a/c that can operate from it. The main effects are how fast the base can be built up, and which bombers may operate at full effectiveness. Any airbase with SPS 4 can ultimately support B29s; any airbase with SPS 2 can ultimately support B17s and B24s; any airbase with SPS 1 can ultimately support Nells and Bettys. The only question is how much time and effort will have to be put into getting them buiilt up that far.

Perhaps 1 is not the right value, perhaps 2 is. And there of course need to be some 4s for the B29s.

[Tristanjohn]

I'd guess you people know that Ron says he hasn't been able to get into the forum for the past 24 hours. If not, I posted a similar thread in the main forum about this.

Anyone interested in working to resolve this issue?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I'd guess you people know that Ron says he hasn't been able to get into the forum for the past 24 hours. If not, I posted a similar thread in the main forum about this.

Anyone interested in working to resolve this issue?

Haha! Working again.

[Bradley7735]

Because it is too easy to build an airbase up to its SPS, which is one of the factors that leads to unreasonably fast play. As discussed in the "airbase and strike size" thread in the main forum, airbase size has very little meaningful impact on the number of a/c that can operate from it. The main effects are how fast the base can be built up, and which bombers may operate at full effectiveness. Any airbase with SPS 4 can ultimately support B29s; any airbase with SPS 2 can ultimately support B17s and B24s; any airbase with SPS 1 can ultimately support Nells and Bettys. The only question is how much time and effort will have to be put into getting them buiilt up that far.

Perhaps 1 is not the right value, perhaps 2 is. And there of course need to be some 4s for the B29s

I can certainly understand the desire to control the issues discussed in that (and other) threads. However, I think this suggestion (sps's of 2 or less) creates another problem. You get a world where Japan can build airfields that support 100% of their airplanes, but rare places where the allies can support theirs. That's just about as backward as you can get from history. By making most airbases small so as to eliminate the massive B-17 raids, you end up making life perfect for the Japanese player (they can stack all their infantry on the large airbases) and life significantly difficult for the allies. (they are forced to take relatively few large airbases to base their b-29's)

I think the fixes we want are probably code change only. OOB changes need to be done equally. (halve the bomb load on all 2 and 4 enging planes, allied and Japanese, lower the AV support on all base forces equally, allied and Japanese, reduce the number of construction engineers in all units, equally, allied and Japanese), etc etc etc. It would be better to have code changes to make construction take longer or having air bombardments less effective, or whatever.

By changing airbases to sps of 1 or 2, you only hamper the allies. It's not realistic or historic. (I do want to stress that I agree with you regarding the fast pace and unhistoric stacking of units in the game)

[tsimmonds]

You get a world where Japan can build airfields that support 100% of their airplanes, but rare places where the allies can support theirs.

But the size of the airbase actually does very little to limit the number of a/c that can be deployed from it. Yes, there is a % reduction; to get around a % reduction, you simply base more a/c there. Did you read that thread? 2000 a/c operating from a level 6?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

You get a world where Japan can build airfields that support 100% of their airplanes, but rare places where the allies can support theirs.

But the size of the airbase actually does very little to limit the number of a/c that can be deployed from it. Yes, there is a % reduction; to get around a % reduction, you simply base more a/c there. Did you read that thread? 2000 a/c operating from a level 6?

Exactly so. The "penalty" only applies for bases where the number of aircraft flying are just over the specified capacity. Double or triple or quadruple the number of aircraft at a base over its capacity and awayyyyyy you go.

Makes no sense.

[Bradley7735]

But the size of the airbase actually does very little to limit the number of a/c that can be deployed from it. Yes, there is a % reduction; to get around a % reduction, you simply base more a/c there. Did you read that thread? 2000 a/c operating from a level 6?

Yeah, I know that anyone can base 2000 aircraft from a level 6 airbase. They can do it from a level 1 airbase as well. But, my point is that either player can do this. Japan or Allies. If you make everything smaller, you cause allied aircraft to incur additional ops loss rate (too small an airfield). I'm pretty sure that all factors being the same, none of Japan's aircraft have problems operating from a level 4 airfield (betties don't have additional ops losses) The same can't be said for the allies. They need level 5 or 7 airbases to field their aircraft.

Lowering the SPS of airbases doesn't fix the 2000 airplane problem. The only thing accomplished is that allies have more ops losses. (yeah, I know. Japan doesn't have 2000 airplanes to base at one airfield.) All I'm saying is that lowering the size of airfields across the map doesn't solve the problem of stacking units. I would prefer a slolution that affected both sides equally. Unfortunately, a slolution like that would probably require code changes. (making a cap on aircraft at a base, like it works for carriers. Or making AV support based on engines, not planes. Or eliminating the 250 AV rule. Or something like that.

(FYI, if I were the Japanese player and the allied player based 2,000 planes at one field, I'd put every single Betty on night airfield attack. If my opponent takes advantage of the stacking thing, then I'll take advantage of the night bombing thing. I bet he'd get 200 destroyed planes on average. The trick is to find a base to put the Betties that is just out of reach of all allied fighters. )

[tsimmonds]

The only thing accomplished is that allies have more ops losses.

Not so; it makes it much more expensive and time-consuming to build up an airbase to its max level (for both sides, but especially for IJ). This makes existing airbases relatively more valuable, and would be the main reason to make this change.

[tsimmonds]

All I'm saying is that lowering the size of airfields across the map doesn't solve the problem of stacking units. I would prefer a slolution that affected both sides equally. Unfortunately, a slolution like that would probably require code changes. (making a cap on aircraft at a base, like it works for carriers. Or making AV support based on engines, not planes. Or eliminating the 250 AV rule. Or something like that.

Actually, there is a very simple two-step way of dealing with this problem:

1) Do not base a/c at an airbase such that its capacity is exceeded, and
2) Only play PBEM with an opponent who will agree to this restriction.

[Captain Cruft]

I'm with irrelevant on this one. The suggestion is designed solely to slow down airbase construction times, not prevent bombers from flying out of bases that they did in real life. I was assuming we were only talking about islands and other hostile environments. Obviously mainland bases in good terrain should be essentially unlimited.

BTW, if the manual is telling the truth, in the CHS B-29s only need a size 6 airfield for maximum effect. This is because their load capacity is 14,000lbs as opposed to the 20,000lbs in stock scens. B-17s & B-24s still need a size 5 though (8,000 - 8,800lbs), as does the G5N Liz

[Mr.Frag]

BTW, if the manual is telling the truth, in the CHS B-29s only need a size 6 airfield for maximum effect. This is because their load capacity is 14,000lbs as opposed to the 20,000lbs in stock scens.

Thats not good, the control point on these monsters is the severe lack of suitable air bases. size 6 is way too common.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

BTW, if the manual is telling the truth, in the CHS B-29s only need a size 6 airfield for maximum effect. This is because their load capacity is 14,000lbs as opposed to the 20,000lbs in stock scens.

Thats not good, the control point on these monsters is the severe lack of suitable air bases. size 6 is way too common.

Well that's another good reason for reducing the SPS in various locations. Besides which, in the stock version size 6 will do for B-29s, they just can't fly with full load or at extended range. 10,000lbs of bombs per plane is still a lot.

P.S. Are any of the CHS team reading this and would like to comment? Seems like an important issue to me ...

[Don Bowen]

P.S. Are any of the CHS team reading this and would like to comment? Seems like an important issue to me ...

Yes, I am reading this but I am not ready to comment. CHS is a team effort and changes are made by multiple people - not just by one. Until we all review the reasoning behind the changes for Bomb Load of the B-29 and it's other effects, no changes can be made.

All input appreciated and will help.

Thanks

Don Bowen

[Captain Cruft]

OK cool.

Here is a quick off the top of my head list of all planes with heavier than 6,500lb bombloads:-

B-29 14,000 lbs
B-17 8,000 lbs +
B-24/Liberator 8,800 lbs
Lancaster 14,000 lbs
Tu-2s
G5N Liz

Interestingly enough, the early B-17D does not actually make it into this class so can fly fully loaded up from size 4 air bases. Which is possibly how they managed to plonk two 500lbers on the flight deck of the Ryujo in my test game ...

[Captain Cruft]

I witnessed another strange lack of penetration result. This time it was six 3in shell hits fired by a surfaced US sub at a Japanese AK. All shots bounced off i.e. no "penetration" message given. Damage to the AK was 3 sys, 0 flt, 0 fires.

The AK has deck armour of 5 IIRC, not sure about the belt armour.

[Bradley7735]

Hi Don,

One possible solution would be to increase the B-29 payload to just enough to put it into the size 7 category. I don't know how much the load is, but maybe it's not much more than what you have it at now?

Also, to CC and Irrelevant... I don't think reducing the SPS of airbases will slow down airfield construction. Building an airfield to level 4 is quicker than to level 5. Once I build to level 4, I ship all those engineers to the next base. Once that one is at level 4, I ship them again. If I could have built that base to level 5, then the engineers would stay put for a couple more weeks. The only way to slow down construction is to either reduce the number of engineers in all LCU's or put the sps to 0 (sps of 0 makes it 10 times longer for construction). Again, reducing all or almost all airbases to SPS of 1 hampers only the allies in that they suffer more ops losses for 4e bombers and their 4e bombers can only operate with limited bombloads and shorter range. You must have level 5, 6 and 7 airfields available somewhere. Lowering SPS's across the board also messes with the malaria calculations. Of course, that effect will be equal to both forces.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Don,

One possible solution would be to increase the B-29 payload to just enough to put it into the size 7 category. I don't know how much the load is, but maybe it's not much more than what you have it at now?

The load needs to be >= 19,500 lbs (3 x 6,500) to require a size 7.

Also, to CC and Irrelevant... I don't think reducing the SPS of airbases will slow down airfield construction.

It does, definitely. Whether the effect is significant or not is another matter. With the vast engineering units available to the US come 1943 quite possibly not.

To be honest I really don't know. Basically, this idea is just another attempt at a kludge to overcome the abstracted supply model, uber-fast port loading & lack of stacking limits etc. that all contribute to WitP accelerated time.

[Captain Cruft]

One more thing. Single SNLF units, which have 4 eng squads, do not seem to build anything.

My guess is that you need at least 10 eng squads to be present for construction to occur.

The same situation exists with some of the small isolated Allied garrison units at the start too e.g. Christmas Island, Fanning Island, Tonga etc.

[tsimmonds]

I don't think reducing the SPS of airbases will slow down airfield construction. Building an airfield to level 4 is quicker than to level 5.

If the SPS of an airbase is 1, it will take ten times longer and cost ten times more supply to build that airbase from a 3 to a 4 than it would if that airbase's SPS was 4.

[Tristanjohn]

Whatever changes are made, Bradley's point (made several times) that the effect needs to be felt evenly across the board is critically important. As it stands, the game affords Japan more than one artificial means to prosecute the war in an ahistorically fast and powerful manner. Leaning further in that direction is not the answer.