slowing down the air carnage

[1275psi]

Instead of bitching about it, Im in a game where we are trying a house rule, and so far, it seems to be working pretty well -simply limit number of air units to airfield size -ie , a size 4 can only have 4 squadrons on it.

Normally one as japan can crush Phillipine air -and malaya air very easily -now not so at all- he persists -air combat a lot less drastic.
Also because of less recon -less damage being inflicted to fields -and this is applying especially to Naval bombardments.

its still early days -but as a simple house rule -its working pretty good so far!

[Raverdave]

Interesting rule.......................but what about when you get an airfield size 10 at say Pearl? Are you only going to have 10 squadrons based there?

[ADavidB]

Maybe the "best" solution has been reached by Tom Hunter and Mogami in their Lunacy game - they've both lost around 5000 planes each so they just don't have enough left to overstock their airfields...[;)]

Dave Baranyi

(More seriously, there are a lot of other serious problems in the game that should be handled first before limits on air bases are considered...)

[Black Mamba 1942]

Squash the bugs first!

Work on poor design later.[:D]

[bspanzer]

Being Herbie's opponent, I do think that think this house rule seems to be working so far for our game. It makes you manage your air group's alot closer. The Dutch and the British have put up a good fight so far.

As for stacking limits, we have no restrictions on Mainland USA, Pearl Harbor, Australia, Mainland Japan, & Formosa. Everywhere is else is based on the size of the airfield.

It's still early in our game, but the air results seem less drastic.

[Big B]

Demosthenes recently suggested lowering experience across the board, Ron has said this in the past as well - when I have time (I owe The Elf some art work) I will experiment with that and post the results..

B

[el cid again]

Normally one as japan can crush Phillipine air -and malaya air very easily -now not so at all- he persists -air combat a lot less drastic.

IF it is NOT so, it is also NOT historical. Japan was outnumbered 2:1 in the air over Malaya, but cleaned up. Now it had one special advantage not in the game - an RAF officer sent real time data on air ops (until he was shot - he was Irish by the way). But mostly it had the advantage of better planes and better organization - including concentration.

In general I think there should be limits to plane operations - but playing the game I think there ARE limitations - and I don't entirely understand all this stuff there are not. In any case, I have revised some things in the data set which will make the limitations more apparent. Big bombers won't be able to use small airfields, for example. Someone "adjusted" the factor (maxload) which is used to define that - incorrectly.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Normally one as japan can crush Phillipine air -and malaya air very easily -now not so at all- he persists -air combat a lot less drastic.

IF it is NOT so, it is also NOT historical. Japan was outnumbered 2:1 in the air over Malaya, but cleaned up. Now it had one special advantage not in the game - an RAF officer sent real time data on air ops (until he was shot - he was Irish by the way). But mostly it had the advantage of better planes and better organization - including concentration.

In general I think there should be limits to plane operations - but playing the game I think there ARE limitations - and I don't entirely understand all this stuff there are not. In any case, I have revised some things in the data set which will make the limitations more apparent. Big bombers won't be able to use small airfields, for example. Someone "adjusted" the factor (maxload) which is used to define that - incorrectly.

I don't see how Japan was outnumbered 2:1 in the air over Malaya, or anywhere...if we are talking the beginning of the war.
Assuming that WitP has a reasonably accurate model of aircraft involved, it breaks down like this:

Combat Aircraft Only (no Transports, Recons, Floatplanes - Just Ftr, FtrBmbr, DB&TB, LB)
Dec 7 1941 Japan - Based in IndoChina:
Ftr - 227
DB - 59
LB - 311
Total: 597 combat a/c

Dec 7 1941 Japan - Based in SouthernChina & Formosa:
Ftr - 201
DB - 59
LB - 198
Total: 458 combat a/c

Combined Japanese Total In IndoChina & South China - 1055 combat a/c

ALLIES:
Dec 7 1941 Britain - Based in India, Burma Malaysia:
Ftr - 190 (incl 79 AVG)
DB - 48
LB - 67
Combined British Total Combat a/c: 305

Dec 7 1941 NEI:
Ftr - 78
DB -
LB - 68
Combined Dutch Total Combat a/c: 146

Dec 7 1941 Australia & New Guinea:
Ftr - 95
DB -
LB - 48
Combined RAAF Total Combat a/c: 143

Dec 7 1941 USAAFFE PI:
Ftr - 125
DB -
LB - 35
Combined USAAFFETotal Combat a/c: 160

Combined Allied Total from Karachi India to the South Pacific- 754 combat a/c DEC 7 1941

The above allied totals do not reflect the losses on the ground on the first day of the war - this is pre-war, they would be signifigantly less if only available a/c were counted.

The Japanese total does not include China north of Hong Kong, nor Japan, nor the IJN.

B

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Squash the bugs first!

Work on poor design later.[:D]

Agreed!!! Especially when you consider that there is already some overlap so the players can't tell what is "bug" and what is "design".

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Instead of bitching about it, Im in a game where we are trying a house rule, and so far, it seems to be working pretty well -simply limit number of air units to airfield size -ie , a size 4 can only have 4 squadrons on it.

Normally one as japan can crush Phillipine air -and malaya air very easily -now not so at all- he persists -air combat a lot less drastic.
Also because of less recon -less damage being inflicted to fields -and this is applying especially to Naval bombardments.

its still early days -but as a simple house rule -its working pretty good so far!

one squadron for one AF size is too low. A size 4 field should be able to handle more planes than 4 squadrons. Maybe limiting to only the restriction to fighters and bombers only. Tranports, recon and patrol planes should not count toward this.

[1275psi]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Interesting rule.......................but what about when you get an airfield size 10 at say Pearl? Are you only going to have 10 squadrons based there?

Ohh -forgot that -unlimited to numbers in the USA and home islands...

[1275psi]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Instead of bitching about it, Im in a game where we are trying a house rule, and so far, it seems to be working pretty well -simply limit number of air units to airfield size -ie , a size 4 can only have 4 squadrons on it.

Normally one as japan can crush Phillipine air -and malaya air very easily -now not so at all- he persists -air combat a lot less drastic.
Also because of less recon -less damage being inflicted to fields -and this is applying especially to Naval bombardments.

its still early days -but as a simple house rule -its working pretty good so far!

one squadron for one AF size is too low. A size 4 field should be able to handle more planes than 4 squadrons. Maybe limiting to only the restriction to fighters and bombers only. Tranports, recon and patrol planes should not count toward this.

yes, I agree -in real life -but we are trying to slow down the carnage in the game -and so far so good
later on the allies get 72 plane units - a size 4 base will be able to have 70 plus fighters, say 48 bombers on a strike
By the ancedotal (spelling[8|]) evidence this is about the upper limit of the games mechanics for realistic resultsv -and we really are trying to give the squadrons some sort of life span

So far it really has added to the intensity of effort in plotting the moves -one has to think a lot more about fatigue and moral as well.
anyway -not going to argue over the cons or pros -we are going to keep giving it a go -and will regularily update on how its going.
As long as my opponent likes it -good.

[el cid again]

I don't see how Japan was outnumbered 2:1 in the air over Malaya, or anywhere...if we are talking the beginning of the war.

One Col Manoru Tsuji wrote a book (the Chief of Staff for Australia wrote the forward) called Japan's Greatest Victory, Britains Greatest Defeat about this campaign. He was the operations officer for Gen Yamashita - and before that he headed the special planning unit for the operation which put the intel together and came up with the operations plan (that unit on Taiwan). He has tables for both sides for all types of equipment - men - tanks - artillery - aircraft - you name it. In ALL categories Japan was outnumbered about 2:1. They understood it going in. They planned accordingly.

Japanese units in this campaign were not normally outfitted. Offered 5 divisions, Yamashita only used 3 - on logistic grounds - so they could be properly supported. But they issued extra weapons to those units. For example, a private line infantry soldier in 5th Division was given both a rifle and an LMG - and a bike so he could carry the weight. [Malaya had paved roads. 5th Division had motorized transport.] At each engagement the squad would decide how many fire teams to form - and each man would take whichever weapon was required - right up to 100% of the men with an LMG! In the event they also had local help - after the fight they did not have to go back for the bike and the other gun - Malays brought them forward - and could be trusted not to steal the guns or anything else! We don't usually understand the war quite in these terms - as the Aussie general said in his introduction - it takes materials like this to help us understand.

[el cid again]

The above allied totals do not reflect the losses on the ground on the first day of the war - this is pre-war, they would be signifigantly less if only available a/c were counted.

The Japanese total does not include China north of Hong Kong, nor Japan, nor the IJN.

The problem is the area you selected. The air war in Malaya is not affected by planes in Burma or India, nor Japan. But it IS affected by naval aircraft - which were vital to it. Another problem is that this is not really perfect data. The best sense of the air campaign can be seen in Bloody Shambles, which has Allied and Japanese authors.

[el cid again]

one squadron for one AF size is too low. A size 4 field should be able to handle more planes than 4 squadrons.

This is probably correct. One group per field level is more correct. It may be that one group per field level squared is more correct still. There are indications that a Level 10 airfield is a vast complex. See postings by Matrix for UV.

[el cid again]

later on the allies get 72 plane units

This is a problem. I restricted Japan to 48 plane units - and divided as needed to insure it - because we have a Matrix admission that more than 50 planes per side is a problem. Any idea WHAT allied units get 72 planes per unit?

[el cid again]

I am attempting a sort of "Nic mod" approach - but doing so on the basis of a technical analysis of what the data ought to be instead of just manipulating the data to get the result I want. I have redefined weapons ranges and effects, and at the same time making sure the plane performance is right (because it is not in many cases). When I finish that I will redefine the endurance values in some rational way (right now a Glen is harder to kill than an E13, and a B-29 is almost identical with a B-17, and other nonsense). Finally, I have established that rating speeds in knots instead of mph will help a little. I cannot fix the "more than 50 planes on a side" problem, but we can make it less bloody.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

later on the allies get 72 plane units

This is a problem. I restricted Japan to 48 plane units - and divided as needed to insure it - because we have a Matrix admission that more than 50 planes per side is a problem. Any idea WHAT allied units get 72 planes per unit?

US fighter groups have 72 planes, US medium bomber groups have 64, and US heavy bomber groups have 48.

This is in stock. In CHS all allied a/c were broken down into squadrons (except Soviet for lack of slots). I believe Andrew mentioned in CHS revisions now underway that B-29's have been put back into groups to free up slots?

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Maybe the "best" solution has been reached by Tom Hunter and Mogami in their Lunacy game - they've both lost around 5000 planes each so they just don't have enough left to overstock their airfields...[;)]

Dave Baranyi

(More seriously, there are a lot of other serious problems in the game that should be handled first before limits on air bases are considered...)

Hi, I never overstack airfields. In the game with TH the Allies are losing 18 ac per day and Japan 13 per day. Approx 25% of loss is OP loss.

To be clear the "Lunatic" in the Lunacy games is the Allied player. (for agreeing to play game where Japan attacks Soviets and sends Kwantung and CEA to Burma) However Tom and Oleg both prevented the "Lunatic" part of the game from happening. The TH game is pretty much a vanilla WITP game where I have stuck to my normal rules of play excepting turn 1 and paying PP for Kwantung and CEA units.

Japanese expansion in both games halted due to lack of supply and fuel and Allied build ups at point of contact that occured in the delay. I'm on the defensive and have been for some months.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I believe Andrew mentioned in CHS revisions now underway that B-29's have been put back into groups to free up slots?

That is correct. The B-29 and all Tiger Force squadrons have been recombined into groups because the space was required for (and used by) adding the 1945 US reinforcements from the ETO.

Andrew