Matrix Games Forums

This gave me a headache. I could scarecely begin scanning this thread when my eyes glazed over and I passed out, my toes twitching and my chest hair curling and uncurling.  But I didn't lose consciousness before noting that Graymane did alot of work and that many posters knew exactly what he was talking about and derived a great deal of useful information from his tests.
 
This is why some players (moi....) will never be as good as others no matter how much experience we get.  We just don't want to delve into the game mechanics in this detail.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Which base did you do the testing on, and which scenario? This is important to know because quite often the scenario designer has subtly altered some details between scenarios, a situation most likely to arise between a Grand Campaign (such as scenario 1 or 2) and a limited map based scenario.

Alfred

I've updated the first post with the version and scenario I used (scenario 11 Marianas). I basically took that scenario and whacked out the Japanese so the turns would roll faster. I've been working on trying do this with a modified 1 or 2 scenario, but it is daunting to me as I'm not good at scenario design and I don't know a fast way to get rid of the Jap units so I can just run turns.

I've asked for help in the scenario design forum: tm.asp?m=2888387&mpage=1&key=&#2888387

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This gave me a headache. I could scarecely begin scanning this thread when my eyes glazed over and I passed out, my toes twitching and my chest hair curling and uncurling.  But I didn't lose consciousness before noting that Graymane did alot of work and that many posters knew exactly what he was talking about and derived a great deal of useful information from his tests.

This is why some players (moi....) will never be as good as others no matter how much experience we get.  We just don't want to delve into the game mechanics in this detail.

Well, to be honest, I think I'm more like you than you would expect -) The problem is, this was something that was just bugging the shit out of me. I can't believe a commander would show up at a base and ask his engineers "how long will it take you to build an airfield than support fighters flying CAP?" and not get some kind of a ball park answer (a day, a month, 6 months?).

Ok, as a software engineer and a manager, I CAN see how I could ask for an estimate and get no useful answer at all, but you get the point I hope -)

Bump!!

I need to get the figures (and number of engineers needed) to expand a size 2(0) port to size 3(0) and need some R&R before I try to do it. Then what about going from a 5 to 6 and even level 7 forts.

[&o]

Sensational piece of work, thank you Graymane! [&o]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Bump!!

I need to get the figures (and number of engineers needed) to expand a size 2(0) port to size 3(0) and need some R&R before I try to do it. Then what about going from a 5 to 6 and even level 7 forts.

[&o]

Well. the tables above will answer your question about engineers for AF/Port, but I didn't do any research on forts.

ORIGINAL: Graymane

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Bump!!

I need to get the figures (and number of engineers needed) to expand a size 2(0) port to size 3(0) and need some R&R before I try to do it. Then what about going from a 5 to 6 and even level 7 forts.

[&o]

Well. the tables above will answer your question about engineers for AF/Port, but I didn't do any research on forts.

According to what I use to calculate the percent in Tracker they are all the same...

nice job.

impressive study.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
nice job.
impressive study.

hear that! i've got this post bookmarked (along w/ no few others, such as Alfred's series of 101s) & refer to Greymane's charts rather often.

Another bad place for building up an airfield. Dutch Harbor. What a bear.

Thanks alot [:)]

ORIGINAL: Schanilec

Another bad place for building up an airfield. Dutch Harbor. What a bear.

Which is why, IRL, the US protected Dutch Harbor by building its airbase on nearby Umnak . . .

But it was hard to ship in construction materials to Umnak, because it was a bad place to build a port.

Ah, the Aleutians.

Greymane -

Very much appreciate your work to clarify this complex subject.

Mac

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Schanilec

Another bad place for building up an airfield. Dutch Harbor. What a bear.

Which is why, IRL, the US protected Dutch Harbor by building its airbase on nearby Umnak . . .

But it was hard to ship in construction materials to Umnak, because it was a bad place to build a port.

Ah, the Aleutians.

My thoughts exactly. Adak is a good base to build on.

Awesome work Greymane!! The engineer in me loves to know how things work I'll study this thing back and forth.

Here is a good question for you though, does the same apply to both sides? Allies always seem to be able to build faster, but that could just be due to larger numbers of mechanized (read Engineer Vehicles) Engineering units.

Deserves a bump from time to time. Good research!

I reopen this excellent thread because I discovered it just now through a link in the technical forum.
I thought to increase the size of a base was costly regarding supply consumption but assumption n°2 in the first post does not sustain this affirmation.
I have readen somewhere a engineer squad is using 1 supply point per phase (morning and afternoon) when building but it doesn't seem to be the case according to this thread.
Where is the truth ?

.

ORIGINAL: chemkid

really nice information - thanks a bundle! [:)]

enjoy the summer!
chem!

Yes but it does'nt answer my question.