Matrix Games Forums

I think one problem that is manifesting itself here with Tinian is the unspoken assumption that anything the US could do in way of construction was possible for the Japanese to do too.  I question the validity of that assumption; not because I doubt the ingenuity of Japanese civil engineers but rather because of how civil engineering fits or doesn't fit in a "samurai society".
That is, when the question becomes "We have a billion yen, do we spend it on bulldozers or cannons" the answer is always "Cannons" to the soldiers.  Japan placed a relatively low priority on construction projects, preferring or at leasty choosing to use starved and unenthusiastic slave laborers to mechanical means even on projects with major operational or strategic importance (Burma Railway for instance).  Thus is does not seem the least bit strange to me that Japan could hardly complete a few fighter strips on Tinian given 3 years to work on it while in 3 months the US changed the island into the biggest airbase in the war.
 
Unfortunately there is no way for this difference to be implemented in the editor so I guess your jockeying the loads for the planes to get an approxiamation of historical capability is a good choice. 

ORIGINAL: spence

I think one problem that is manifesting itself here with Tinian is the unspoken assumption that anything the US could do in way of construction was possible for the Japanese to do too. I question the validity of that assumption; not because I doubt the ingenuity of Japanese civil engineers but rather because of how civil engineering fits or doesn't fit in a "samurai society".
That is, when the question becomes "We have a billion yen, do we spend it on bulldozers or cannons" the answer is always "Cannons" to the soldiers. Japan placed a relatively low priority on construction projects, preferring or at leasty choosing to use starved and unenthusiastic slave laborers to mechanical means even on projects with major operational or strategic importance (Burma Railway for instance). Thus is does not seem the least bit strange to me that Japan could hardly complete a few fighter strips on Tinian given 3 years to work on it while in 3 months the US changed the island into the biggest airbase in the war.

Unfortunately there is no way for this difference to be implemented in the editor so I guess your jockeying the loads for the planes to get an approxiamation of historical capability is a good choice.

Spence,

Maybe a code change for how SPS works?
For the Japanese - SPS + 3 or 2
For the Allies - SPS + 4 or 3

I know I'm dreaming here, but one can dream.

ORIGINAL: tanjman


Spence,

Maybe a code change for how SPS works?
For the Japanese - SPS + 3 or 2
For the Allies - SPS + 4 or 3

I know I'm dreaming here, but one can dream.

Dream on... this mod will not be designed with potential future coding changes in mind.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: spence

Here's a link to what appears to be a bunch of good maps of Pacific Islands and so forth at the end of the war:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historic ... _1945.html

Very interesting. I have a series of questions. Basically:

1. What does a port size rating mean to the game engine?
2. How do you determine the port size in 1941?
3. What determines the potential port size?

Here, I'm thinking about some of the major ports developed by the USN during the war: Ulithi, the Admiralties, perhaps Samoa. I suspect manpower availability should be part of the model.

Code: Select all

Size of Port
 - Influences	- Chance of being Targeted by enemy Air Strike.
 		- Additional damage to Ships in Base, due to existing Ships' damage.
 		- Amount of damage in enemy Air Strikes & Naval Bombardments.
 		- Port Facilites' damage repair time & Port expand time.
 		- Ship's Repair Time.
 		- Loading / Unloading Speed.
 		- Forts construction speed (combined with Airfield size).
 		- Garrison required in Chinese Bases (combined with Airfield size and production items in city).
 		- Reduction of LCU Fatigue (combined with Airfield size).
 		- Spoilage amount of Fuel / Supplies (combined with Airfield size).
 		- Victory Points for holding a Base (combined with Airfield size)
 - Size 1	- Barges & PT Boats can be activated (requires 10.000+ Supplies at Base).
 		- Fuel can be produced by HI & Oil centers in city.
 		- Ship Tenders (AD, AR, MLE...) can perform their duties.
 		- Can be Mined.
 - Size 3	- TFs can be disbanded - ships put At Anchor.
 		- PT Boats can reload Torpedoes. (requires 3.000+ Supplies at Base).
 		- Ships Docked /At Anchor  immune to Sub attacks.
 - Size 5	- Ship's systems (weapons, radars...) can be repaired.
 - Size 8	- Can be used for Auto Sub Ops (requires 10.000+ Supplies at Base).
 		- SS & Surface Ships can reload Torpedoes.
 - Size 9	- ML, DM & SS can reload Mines.

4. What does an airfield size rating mean to the game engine?
5. How do you determine the airfield size in 1941?
6. What determines the potential airfield size?

Here, I suspect buildable area, rock type, and manpower should be part of the model.

Code: Select all

Size of Airfield
 - Influences	- Operational Losses at take-off / landing.
 		- Chance of being Targeted by enemy Air Strike.
 		- Amount of damage in enemy Air Strikes & Naval Bombardments.
 		- Airfield Facilities' damage repair time & Airfield expand time.
 		- Chance to destroy / damage planes on ground.
 		- Level Bombers on Offensive Missions flying without penalties.
 		- What Missions planes can fly, when Airfield has sustained Runway Damage.
 		- Max. number of planes that can fly Missions.
 		- Max. number of Aviation Support in a main Base Force Unit in Base.
 		- Forts construction speed (combined with Port size).
 		- Garrison required in Chinese Bases (combined with Port size and production items in city).
 		- Reduction of LCU Fatigue (combined with Port size).
 		- Spoilage amount of Fuel / Supplies (combined with Port size).
 		- Victory Points for holding a Base (Combined with Port size).
 - Size 0	- Float Planes, Float Fighters or Patrol Planes can use - only if Costal hex.
 		- If SPS = 0, takes 10 * longer than normal to expand to Size 1.
 - Size 1	- Airfield / Port / Naval / Ground Attack and Sweep Missions can't be flown.
 		- Can be Targeted for Air Troop Transport.
 		- Ships' Air Units can transfer from their Ships.
 - Size 4	- Level Bombers with Bomb Load < 6,500 fly Offensive Missions without penalties.
 - Size 5	- Level Bombers with 6,500 < Bomb Load < 13,000 fly Offensive Missions without penalties.
 - Size 6	- Level Bombers with 13,000 < Bomb Load < 19,500 fly Offensive Missions without penalties.
 - Size 7	- Level Bombers with Bomb Load > 19.500 fly Offensive Missions without penalties.

If the game engine uses port and airfield size primarily to restrict the kinds of operations from a base, then we need to do a terrain analysis.

I wouldn't mind a version of CHS designed solely for PBEM that had accurate map data.

We can look at terrain to degree. Just because an area is currently well developed today and can accomodate commercial jetliners does not warrant it receiving a larger SPS value. I'm basing my SPS values on what was present at start as well as what was developed during the war. I will also likely give a minimum SPS value of 1 on any non-mountain continental or near continental type hex. In addition since I will be downgrading bombloads on the Superheavies (B-29, Lancaster Mk 1, and Lincoln) and perhaps other heavy bombers I am giving myself more flexibility to assign base values to ensure that these types of planes can still fly at extended range.

I'm leery of replacing guesses with guesses.

That said, it's generally clear that port size describes development and infrastructure and air base size is similar. Presence of harbour space and supporting population/industry will be the two primary limitations on port development. The limitations on potential airbase development will be mostly suitable firm ground for the installation with most continental locations a 5, and 6-9 indicating the presence of local infrastructure. A 0 for an airbase site indicates dredging and fill or major earth-moving will be required befor use, while a 1 is suitable for a fighter strip with clearance and grading, 2 for single-engined bombers, 3 for light twin-engined aircraft, 4 for heavier twin-engined aircraft, and 5+ for 4-engined aircraft.

A 0 for a port site will require construction of an artificial harbour. A 10 for a port site is a major natural harbour. A 0 for a port value is a beach. A 10 for a port value is a major active port like Osaka. The range between is probably more of a logarithmic model than a linear model.

The values in stock are clearly overstated.

Had to start somewhere - Modest beginnings....

ORIGINAL: herwin



I'm leery of replacing guesses with guesses.

That said, it's generally clear that port size describes development and infrastructure and air base size is similar. Presence of harbour space and supporting population/industry will be the two primary limitations on port development. The limitations on potential airbase development will be mostly suitable firm ground for the installation with most continental locations a 5,

remember the SPS of 1 can be expanded to 4

and 6-9 indicating the presence of local infrastructure. A 0 for an airbase site indicates dredging and fill or major earth-moving will be required befor use, while a 1 is suitable for a fighter strip with clearance and grading,

but this is where you need to be careful and why I am doing the mod...the 1 can be expanded to a 4 ...

2 for single-engined bombers, 3 for light twin-engined aircraft,

the 2 to a 5, the 3 to a 6

4 for heavier twin-engined aircraft,

the 4 to a 7

and 5+ for 4-engined aircraft.

the 5+ to an 8 or 9

A 0 for a port site will require construction of an artificial harbour. A 10 for a port site is a major natural harbour. A 0 for a port value is a beach. A 10 for a port value is a major active port like Osaka. The range between is probably more of a logarithmic model than a linear model.

The values in stock are clearly overstated.

sounds like to help simulate the difficulties Japan had building up bases you essentially need to make all non-established [at start] airbases no greater than SPS 4 and only for those bases that had that large a potential (Rabaul.....Saipan etc) That way Japan is forced to use the overbuild rate if they want an airbase comprable to a Clark Field or Saigon etc...(already established) The majority would have an SPS set lower than 4.

its an abstraction of course but the whole airbase size concept and buildup is abstracted. Looking forward to seeing this in action.

I already did a less ambitious version of this in the latest NM's for the India/Burmese frontier. (reduced all frontier bases to SPS 0 so that max airfield size was 3 to penalize LB's stationed so close up when in reality they staged in the rear where logistical support was best.......4E full capable bases were restricted to Calcutta and Diamond Harbor area as that was where they were based throughout the campaign)

Did a similar trick for China to force overbuild rates if Allies want 4E's without penalties.

Also reduced Akyab at game start to make it less attractive as a hindsight 2E to 4E base in early 42.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

sounds like to help simulate the difficulties Japan had building up bases you essentially need to make all non-established [at start] airbases no greater than SPS 4 and only for those bases that had that large a potential (Rabaul.....Saipan etc) That way Japan is forced to use the overbuild rate if they want an airbase comprable to a Clark Field or Saigon etc...(already established) The majority would have an SPS set lower than 4.

exactly

its an abstraction of course but the whole airbase size concept and buildup is abstracted. Looking forward to seeing this in action.

I already did a less ambitious version of this in the latest NM's for the India/Burmese frontier. (reduced all frontier bases to SPS 0 so that max airfield size was 3 to penalize LB's stationed so close up when in reality they staged in the rear where logistical support was best.......4E full capable bases were restricted to Calcutta and Diamond Harbor area as that was where they were based throughout the campaign)

Actually any base size 2 and above is 4E capable...you just suffer penalties...which is what I'm after.

Did a similar trick for China to force overbuild rates if Allies want 4E's without penalties.

Also reduced Akyab at game start to make it less attractive as a hindsight 2E to 4E base in early 42.

I will likely do the same...

In redoing the base sizes for my mod I am also looking at bomb loads for aircraft with loads listed as 6500lbs or greater.

Why? Because 6500 lbs is the magic number that trigger penalties for Level bombers operating from a Level 4 base. If they have a bomb load of greater than 6500lbs then they cannot fly at extended range from a level 4 base.

This got me thinking about operational bomb loads vs Maximum bomb loads. In doing some reasearch I found that even though the B-29 had a capacity of 20,000 lbs it only carried 4-6,000 lbs in the early high altitude runs over japan from the Marianas... this is info from the USSBS.

I checked baughers site and found similar information in his B-29 specs...
Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.

Likewise for the B-17E CHS rates the max load as 6800 lbs requiring it to operate from a level 5 base to reach extended ranges. However Baugher lists the B-17E's normal range as 2000 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs. So did the B-17E's normally operate with 4000 lbs which is less than than maximum capacity???

In comparing the two sets of numbers - 12,000/20,000 = .6 and 4000/6800 = .58%. Coincidence I think not.

Therefore I will spot check a number of other aircraft and if my findings are the same I plan on reducing Level Bomber Max Bomb loads to 60% of current CHS values.

ORIGINAL: treespider

Actually any base size 2 and above is 4E capable...you just suffer penalties...which is what I'm after.

Yes. The idea was to restrict the 4E's "full" capability (sans any penalties) to only Calcutta and Diamond Harbor, which was the area they were based during the Burma war due to the developed logistics. The Frontier bases could support them but at Level 3 they will be restricted to extended range loadouts and will compete for space with the mass of FB's and F's available, encouraging their use as FB/F ground and airfield attack support forces just as in RL.

ORIGINAL: treespider

Therefore I will spot check a number of other aircraft and if my findings are the same I plan on reducing Level Bomber Max Bomb loads to 60% of current CHS values.

Baugher lists B-24J max load as 8000....Normal load is 5,000....5,000/8,000=.625...I see a trend...

1st look at airfields on Luzon...

explain again why you want to reduce bombload values?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

explain again why you want to reduce bombload values?

To get an aircraft with a bombload greater then 6500 but less than 13,000 to fly at extended range it needs to be assigned to a level 5 airbase.

The B-29 throws a wrench in the works because its stated max load is 20,000 requiring a level 7 airbase for it to fly at extended range. To simulate the historical missions out of Tinian would require Tinian to be given an SPS of 4 (a key number). Which will be outside the norm for most airbases...

When I started to look into this I discovered that although the B-29's stated max load is 20,000 it normally operated with either 12,000 or 4,000-6,000lbs of bombs. By reducing the maxload from 20,000 to 12,000 The requirement for the B-29 to fly at extended Range goes from a Level 7 to a level 6....which brings Tinian back into a realm where I can make the SPS a 3 ( a key number).


And why are SPS 3 and 4 key numbers?

For the japanese to expand a base with an SPS of 3 to 4 they have to invest a fair amount of time and resources because it is beyond SPS. And why is this important? A level 4 is required for a base to become Torpedo capable for the Betty.

Likewise for the B-17E CHS rates the max load as 6800 lbs requiring it to operate from a level 5 base to reach extended ranges. However Baugher lists the B-17E's normal range as 2000 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs. So did the B-17E's normally operate with 4000 lbs which is less than than maximum capacity???

In comparing the two sets of numbers - 12,000/20,000 = .6 and 4000/6800 = .58%. Coincidence I think not.

i understand reducing the B29 bomb-load to allow Level 5 AF missions w/o penalty, but won't reducing B17 to below 6500 allow it to operate from level 4 AF's w/o penalty?

I don't see a problem with Saipen being one of the few SPS 4 bases for the Japanese to work with initially. Either way (overbuild or standard) they will have plenty of time to build it up to level 4. Overbuild is preferable, but it's not going to slow the Japanese player that much.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I don't see a problem with Saipen being one of the few SPS 4 bases for the Japanese to work with initially. Either way (overbuild or standard) they will have plenty of time to build it up to level 4. Overbuild is preferable, but it's not going to slow the Japanese player that much.

True but when you look at bases in the DEI that need to be downgraded as well then the change becomes significant.

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

Likewise for the B-17E CHS rates the max load as 6800 lbs requiring it to operate from a level 5 base to reach extended ranges. However Baugher lists the B-17E's normal range as 2000 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs. So did the B-17E's normally operate with 4000 lbs which is less than than maximum capacity???

In comparing the two sets of numbers - 12,000/20,000 = .6 and 4000/6800 = .58%. Coincidence I think not.

i understand reducing the B29 bomb-load to allow Level 5 AF missions w/o penalty, but won't reducing B17 to below 6500 allow it to operate from level 4 AF's w/o penalty?

Yes but they will be operating with a 4000 lb load instead of a 6800 lb load and more importantly you can only base 200 planes at a level 4 airbase without penalty...

the bombload though, only impacts where the plane can operate.....it won't reduce/increase what it actually attacks the target with. It still seems to me that the simpler solution is either to just allow a couple SPS 4's or adjust only the bombload value for the B-29 vs. an across the board change.

Just my 2 cents. It would make your test quicker to set up as well.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the bombload though, only impacts where the plane can operate.....it won't reduce/increase what it actually attacks the target with. It still seems to me that the simpler solution is either to just allow a couple SPS 4's or adjust only the bombload value for the B-29 vs. an across the board change.

Just my 2 cents. It would make your test quicker to set up as well.

I was under the impression from the Editor manual that MaxLoad not only determines where units can base without penalty but also what ordinance is carried...from the manual

Max Load is the maximum load that this particular aircraft is capable of loading (in terms of ordinance). The load cost of ordinance is used and added together when determining what loadout the aircraft is capable of carrying.