But in this optic I can't understand why the size of the base should change its political value. The value of a base should depend of its industry, ressources, population and political importance, not of the size of the airfield.
Size matters [:D]
It tells you whether or not you can fly B-29 for example. That is of no small value.
It tells you if you can reload torpeados and ammo, if you can repair damaged gun mounts or if you have to travel farther away.
As Japan I'll defend more fierciely a base from which the Allies can strike me back with heavies.
This is not in contradiction with the political value. A base should reflect both. Some bases have political value, all have a size value. The two should be summed up.
I believe there should also be an 'area value'. Example: one smal base like Exmouth has no VP value. However politically wise, if the Japs conquered it the Aussies would have been hard pressed to retake it. Hence if you hold all of Australia you get a bonus, if you loose just one city you loose the bonus. For political reasons.
Same should be with Burma, India, China, PI, ...
This would also contain the tactic of leaving a few bases in enemy hands to train you planes. If you miss just one, you loose the bous for the area.
You want battle training, you go to the front line or you loose VPs.
I have to say, the whole idea about revisiting the VP value of every unit in the game seems like a gigantic tangent from the obvious problems the game has like disappearing units and such. Although I agree that if one changes the VP of one unit, they all must be adjusdted.
I think the whole 4E "problem" isn't much more than sour grapes form the Japanese fanboys who are ticked off that there is actually something before 1944 that slows them down. The effectiveness of the B-17 against most other fighters was proven historically. Historical air battles were more typically a squadron or two of zeros pouncing on a squadron or two of b-17s and getting there butts chewed up in the process, so why should the game be any different.
I mean good god! If the problem is the fact that allied players use non-historic tactics like using 200+ heavies on a strike and if that bugs, you then make a house rule to prevent this! Don't reengineer the the scoring for the entire game!! Of course, if you want to talk about the use of non-historic tactics, there's that old adage about Jap Fanboys throwing stones while living in glass houses.[:-]
Point being, if it aint broke, which it aint, don't fix it.
"Point being, if it aint broke, which it aint, don't fix it. "
Either way,
The funny thing is, we'll have these very long, extremely well thought out discussions over something like this, when deep down, we know that they're never going to change the VP assignments...
:^)
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
Not to sidetrack the VP discussion, but here is a quick thought on the whole basing/AV issue that has come up before. Please look it over and give some feedback on it.
This would be one way of looking at airfield capacity as a user based template. It roughly follows the base capacity requirements in the rules, and the “capability” of the aircraft historically. For example, the size 4 field could be used by 4e aircraft, but the lack of taxiways and working off a single runway would limit the strike to one squadron of 16 planes or so.
Historical example: Funafuti, Nanomea and Nukfeateau(I think that’s the spelling) were all used during the Gilberts to bomb the Tarawa area, but by single squadrons that flew in, ran a mission or two and left to avoid counter strikes (one of which did occur as I remember).
Level 10 (many bases of different sizes) – 32 squadrons, 21 of 4e
9(several fields of different size) – 28 squadrons, 16 of 4e
8(improved lg.arfld) – 25 squadrons, 12 of 4e
7(large airfield) – 22 squadrons, 9 of 4e
6(med afld w/imp.fighter strip) – 18 squadrons, 4 of 4e
5(med afld w/fighter strip) – 15 squadrons, 2 of 4e type
4(medium airfield) – up to 12 squadrons, types same as 2, but 1 4e squadron allowed
3(small airfield) – up to 9 squadrons same types as 2
2(improved fighter strip) – up to 5/6 squadrons, may include f/b and 2e levels
1(fighter strip) – up to 3 fighter squadrons or 1 group
<Note> these are all based on Allied squadron size of 16, with 3 squadrons to a group generally. Smaller or larger unit sizes would have to be adjusted for.
Now, the player could have more a/c at an airfield than this list, but the extra should be either stood down, or set to naval search/CAP 10% maximum; as the basis for this is not the capacity of the base per se, but the ability of the base to launch that many a/c in a given window of time for a strike. The rationale for the allowing of the extra planes to operate at 10% levels are the ready fighters and early/late searches that fly off before/after the strike a/c.
Using the fully improved Marianas as an example, with the 3 fields fully built to 7; a maximum of 432 B-29s could sortie in one day from these bases, 144 from each. That is 3 groups per base; other groups would/could be there, but not flying missions that day.
Now, onto the question of AV support.
My thoughts would be something along the lines of this:
250 av support is fine for a base 5 to operate; every additional level would require 50 more AV to be present to support operations if the field is fully occupied. So, it would look like this:
Level 5 or less – 250 av
6 - 300 av
7 - 350 av
8 - 400 av
9 - 450 av
10 - 500 av
A fully loaded level 10 would need 2 aviation regiments or their equivalent.
If you were below the required amount for the field, you would treat that field as if it were the level that you had support for. Ex; Level 7 field with 250 av support would be treated just as if it were a level 5.
Conversely, if the field is not full, you don’t need all those men there at the moment. One group of 64 Mitchells in Seattle doesn’t have to have 500 av support to keep it going. But, if you want to fly in 400 planes the next day and operate them, you better have the av support there and waiting for them.
Taken in combination, this setup would not only limit the basing of aircraft, but also require a increasingly heavy commitment of av support to maintain larger #’s of 4E bombers at larger bases. This would seem to alleviate some of the consternation over the abilities of these a/c and tie them into a more realistic setting of base ability to handle them. If one is concerned about the # of 2E bombers working out of a base, just take the 4E limits and double them, remembering that the 2E would count against the 4E capacity. In other words, level 4 base can either have 2 2E squadrons or 1 4E squadron, not both.
Currently, this would all be up to the player to self monitor, but I think it is relatively simple and straight-forward to implement. Slight <emphasize> errors of a couple of planes over or a couple of AV support short can be tolerated for short periods, but should be corrected ASAP by the player.
Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze" ..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...
Restricting the 4e bombers is fine. Concurrently the IJN should not be allowed to have a limitless supply of aerial torpedoes at every two bit airfield either: something along the line of equating a 9 plane chutai carrying torpedoes to a 4e squadron in tadpubs scheme above. More could be present and even fly but they'd carry bombs rather than torpedoes.
I agree on the VP points issue. It makes no sense that shooting down 6-7 zeroes or Buffaloes gives you as many VPs as sinking a destroyer.
While this is never going to be done, I would like to see either 0 vps for a single engine aircraft destroyed, 1 point for a 2 engine and 2 points for a 4 engine. Or 1 vp for a 4 engine and o vps for all other aircraft.
Restricting the 4e bombers is fine. Concurrently the IJN should not be allowed to have a limitless supply of aerial torpedoes at every two bit airfield either: something along the line of equating a 9 plane chutai carrying torpedoes to a 4e squadron in tadpubs scheme above. More could be present and even fly but they'd carry bombs rather than torpedoes.
I view this in the same manner as the Beauforts, Swordfish, Dutch or land-based Kate torpedo bombers having an unlimited supply of torpedoes. Don't just change one system, change all or change none.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Yeah I'd agree on the Beauforts, Vildebeasts, TIVs etc having the same sort of restriction as I suggested for the G3s and G4s. I just forgot about them since 6 TIVs with 50 experience, 35 fatigue and 30 morale pale in comparision to 60 G3s/G4s with 85 exp, 12 fatigue and 93 morale in their effect on play.
Not to sidetrack the VP discussion, but here is a quick thought on the whole basing/AV issue that has come up before. Please look it over and give some feedback on it.
My initial reaction? Japanese Fan-Boy nonsense! You only restrict 4-engined aircraft, of which the Japs have virtually none while the Allies have many. Might not have been your intention..., but that's the way it comes across.
Not to sidetrack the VP discussion, but here is a quick thought on the whole basing/AV issue that has come up before. Please look it over and give some feedback on it.
My initial reaction? Japanese Fan-Boy nonsense! You only restrict 4-engined aircraft, of which the Japs have virtually none while the Allies have many. Might not have been your intention..., but that's the way it comes across.
Drop the fanboyism line and read the whole article. Said at the end of the 2nd to last paragraph to subsitute 2e at 2-1 for 4e. It's simply a starting point for a rationale discussion as to what an airfield size represents and a what a certain airfield complex could operate efficiently.
Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze" ..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...
Yeah I'd agree on the Beauforts, Vildebeasts, TIVs etc having the same sort of restriction as I suggested for the G3s and G4s. I just forgot about them since 6 TIVs with 50 experience, 35 fatigue and 30 morale pale in comparision to 60 G3s/G4s with 85 exp, 12 fatigue and 93 morale in their effect on play.
Experience does count for effectiveness but the bottom line is the availability of the loadouts. The same with big ship ammo, unlimited 500lb bombs and a whole host of other similar ordnance problems.
With the abstracted loadouts in WitP, we are going to have this situation. And for the most part, it cannot be corrected by house rules as we have little control over what gets loaded where.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
let's increase number of supply points needed to rearm certain types of weapon
I can't imagine supplying number of torps or other strange things in WITP
there is enough micromanagement by now
BTW I have never seen few hundred of torps used in one place by now
only mass attacks was port attacks by nell/betty groups but
first : most of them used heavy bombs
second: It was initial war strike - bases were obviously oversupplied
did sb see more then 100 torps used in one place in very short time frame ?
I didn't
I don't see a problem with torp
To make it simple give a victory point not for shooting down a/c, but numbers of engine on that a/c.
Fighter: 1 victory point
2E: 2 victory points
4E: 4 victory points
did sb see more then 100 torps used in one place in very short time frame ?
I didn't
I don't see a problem with torp
The problem is that there are no restrictions on loading ordnance anywhere except for shipboard mines. While I'm not an advocate for restricting the loading of ordnance to specific size airfields or ports, I do wish that there was some way of designating specific airfileds and ports as having ordnance depots. Its basically already done this way with mines except the player has no control over where mines can be loaded.
My proposal would be to allow the player to designate certain ports and airfields as supply depots for these weapons. So if I wanted to be able to load mines, torpedoes, big gun ammo or whatever at Darwin, I would designate it as a ordnance depot and the game would assume that a certain portion of available supply (above the normal base supply requirements) would consist of these weapons. As attack missions were flown, supply would decrease to reflect their usage. Once supply decreased to base level requirements, then only CAP or search missions could be flown. These depots would be player designated and could be changed as the front moves forward or back. The number of these depots would be limited but I have no idea the number should be determined.
The benefit would be that players would be somewhat limited in where these weapons could be loaded but at the same time, the player would not have another level of micromanagement to deal with.
Now this idea may not be the best fix and I understand that changes such as this stand little chance of being implemented. But still, it's nice to dream.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
I like abstraction of supply in Witp otherwise turns will be spent on puting every piece of staff on transport
I think that cost of amm/torps in supply should be higher
On a related note I remember seeing a while back that at one time the devs increased attrition effects, but too many people complained. Would increasing the effects of wear and tear help the problem?
