OVERLOADED AIRFIELDS

[Black Mamba 1942]

I call this the "tit for tat" response.[:D]

You do this, then I do that.
It's how wars are started, you know.[:D]

This has been beaten on for a long time around here.
There should have been more "hardcoded" caps on some of this games basic designs.
They weren't, and probably never will be.
It's too bad for some of us gamers.
Though apparently others really like these oversights in the game design.
As it stands now, houserules are the only answer.

Michaelm, in another post, states that this is on the top of the players request list to modify.
No time frame is given.[;)]

[Feinder]

I never claimed to be a saint.

[;)]

I play well with others, until 'others' don't play well. I try to resolve the situation 'diplomaticaly'. But if that doesn't work, I light off every cannon on the gun deck. That tends to make the 'diplomatic' solution look pretty good.

Fundamentally, you gotta keep an open dialog. Attempt to address and resolve problems BEFORE they escalate.

But I'm just being honest. I'm saying that if escalation is your chosen path, I don't mind blowing the hell out of you.

[:)]

-F-

[Nikademus]

sounds like how the Cold War was run.....[:D]

[MkXIV]

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

I think it is a problem, I had a game where my opp. was putting 2000 planes on a level; 5 field. Did it matter to him that there was a pemalty no! He still destoried base after base from these fields. He would even put 1500 on size 5 and cause problems. you could not get in range of these fields as because of so many [lanes he would sink any thing with in 8 hexes bith 1000 b17's or b24's. As stated in other threads if you go over a certain amount there should be no flights possible.

I am only in Feb 42 in my PBEM game, but I only have 4000 LBA aircraft on th entire MAP! Now I have gone into 1943 vs the AI and relize that a player in 43 or 44 will have alot more aircraft then, that but lets say he has 10,000 aircraft on the board, that is 20% of his LBA (and the VAST majority of his Heavy bombers) at one base! That means he is weak somewhere else (and probably at more then one place), It also means that he is taking a 1000 plane no fly hit every turn which means he has 10% of his LBA sitting aroung picking thier noses, and that isn't smart. I wish my PBEM opponat would not use 10% of his LBA.

[mogami]

Hi, Well when they place everything at one base they usally do it where it counts the most. Consider a base like Port Moresby completly immune to enemy air attack and with enough bombers to obliterate any approaching TF. The planes that don't fly because of being overstacked only serve as replacements the next air phase or turn.

[MkXIV]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well when they place everything at one base they usally do it where it counts the most. Consider a base like Port Moresby completly immune to enemy air attack and with enough bombers to obliterate any approaching TF. The planes that don't fly because of being overstacked only serve as replacements the next air phase or turn.

Good points,

Another issue that I wonder if it is occuring, are the bonuses given to having a Air Force HQ at the base be added before or after the overstacking penalty is applied?IMHO it should not be because the overstacking limits should be due to physical limitations (i.e. two runways with 1000 planes waiting for each) not lack of oganization. Also 4E bombers have had the replacments chopped greatly, which should help somewhat. I completely aggree and 2000 planes at wake is uncalled for but just trying to point out that is isn't exactly efficent either.

[mogami]

Hi, It may not be efficent when you have multiple airfields in an area but it is super efficent when you only have 1. Rather then being limited to only using 200 aircraft at a size 4 by placing 2000 you have 1000 flying. Since the excess would not even be conducting missions you now have 800 extra planes. (you turn an area with 1 size 4 into an area with 5 size 4's but only require 250 av support compared to 1000 needed for 5 size 4)

I think we need a change that stops all offensive missions from flying when airfield is more then 20 percent overloaded. (airfields could still fly transfer missions)

[Feinder]

Just to fan the flames a little, but it's really, really, REALLY tough to get 1000 planes at an AF. Beware of exaggering to make your point.

In 1945, with all squadrons deployed at full strength, Japan has about 3000 aircraft (not including naval squadrons). The Allies have about 6000.

But that's 1945.

In the fall of 1942, I'd guestimate the Allies have MAYBE got 2000 planes on the entire map, and those certainly aren't all bombers.

And why is it that everybody thinks raids over Sing by 200 Sallies and 150 Lillies is somehow normal?

(* shrug *)

-F-

[mogami]

Hi, It is not an Allied player only trick. There Japanese players who do it as well. I've seen that massive raid over Singapore from a size 4 base. The Japanese early on are even better at it because they have both a large number of groups and HQ that can move .

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just to fan the flames a little, but it's really, really, REALLY tough to get 1000 planes at an AF. Beware of exaggering to make your point.

In 1945, with all squadrons deployed at full strength, Japan has about 3000 aircraft (not including naval squadrons). The Allies have about 6000.

But that's 1945.

In the fall of 1942, I'd guestimate the Allies have MAYBE got 2000 planes on the entire map, and those certainly aren't all bombers.

And why is it that everybody thinks raids over Sing by 200 Sallies and 150 Lillies is somehow normal?

(* shrug *)

-F-

If I were silly/stupid enough I could probably scratch together over 300 4-E bombers in one spot, but I have no idea why I would want to. And that is with me being very, very deliberately careful to horde plane and avoid losses.

And yes, I can put more 2-E bombers together in a single spot, but again, why would I?

And no, I have no reason to change all of my 2-E bombers to 4-E bombers - I have missions for all of them.

(Just don't ask me to keep B-18s in play...<g>)

To me, the big issue in play balance is the ability of either side to match the other in the number of planes in the air at a given time. A Japanese player can easily put 200 to 300 planes in the air at a target at one time, either land-based or naval-based. If an Allied player wants to be able to defend against 100 Sallys escorted by 100 Zeros, he had better plan to put 200 fighters in the air - that's just the way that the game mechanics work.

Likewise, if the Death Star sends an attack of 100+ divebombers and torpedo bombers, escorted by 100 Zeros, an Allied base had also better be able to put 200 fighters up in the air if the Allied player wants a chance to stop the attack. (That's why the Allied carriers should not be used against a Death Star in 1942.) This also means that if an Allied player wants to be able to counterattack against a Death Star he has to be able to put a minimum of 100 fighters and 100 bombers in the air to fight through the Death Star CAP. (Again, not something that the Allied carriers can do in 1942.)

So, IMO, if one player wants to be able to send 200 to 300 planes on attack from a single base or a carrier formation the other player must be able to base equal amounts of planes to be able to defend against such an attack and be able to counter attack. That holds true in 1942 or 1945.

Dave Baranyi

[waynec]

Equally 6 Jap Carriers in 1 Task Force is equally crazy!!

i t may seem that way in the game due to game mechanics but look at the history. all 6 cv's were on the pearl harbour strike. all 6 were suppose to go into the indian ocean but kaga went in for repairs so there were only 5. the midway operation was suppose to have all 6 cv's. so the japanese and the computer keeping them together is japanese doctrine.

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

My rule of thumb is, "Play well with others."

-F-

"Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure".[:D][:D][:D]

[Tom Hunter]

Are the people who put 1000 planes into an L3 base the same people who think shore bombardment is too effective? [:-]

Efficient use of force wins the game faster, I would be pleased to play against some one who over stacked this way since he would be taking a big chunk of his air force out of the game.

If you have built your air bases up the right way and manage your fleet correctly an overstacked base is an opportunity, not a threat.

If you have done a poor job of preparing for war then you will lose one way or another.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Are the people who put 1000 planes into an L3 base the same people who think shore bombardment is too effective? [:-]

Efficient use of force wins the game faster, I would be pleased to play against some one who over stacked this way since he would be taking a big chunk of his air force out of the game.

If you have built your air bases up the right way and manage your fleet correctly an overstacked base is an opportunity, not a threat.

If you have done a poor job of preparing for war then you will lose one way or another.

No...both are BS aspects not only allowed by the game design but probably promoted by it. Who would, after having achieved all this gaming experience and design over 25 yrs, accidently not realize the consequences in doing so. Nobody is that stupid.

[Sneer]

After some time player should "feel" when bad weather will hold for few days
For me it is opportunity too
I great fan of closely cooperating airfields where it is only possible - If i don't have them I go for them (like invasion on east india) If I can't have them I don't fight there and look for better place.

[ChezDaJez]

If you have built your air bases up the right way and manage your fleet correctly an overstacked base is an opportunity, not a threat.

I think that would depend on which side was doing the building, Tom.[:D]

Granted there are many players on both sides that see nothing wrong with exploiting the overstacking rules. I think that's wrong for anyone to do so. I agree with Mogami's suggestion that the number of aircraft that can physically be at an airfield be capped through hard coding. Unlikely to happen though.

Now, I have no problem with a player (allied or Japanese) who takes the time and effort to build an airfield large enough to accomodate his airpower without overstacking. I may not like it and it may not be "fair" but who said war is "fair"?

I do have a problem with a player who routinely overstacks and then uses that airpower even partially. For example, I would have a problem with a player who bases 300 bombers on a level 4 airfield but only launches 100 per day while resting the others. Just like launching hundreds of bombers on night raids, its gamey.

Unfortunately, there are few penalties for the allied player in overstacking and plenty for the Japanese player once the allies have sufficient heavy bomber groups. The allied player can overstack 300-400 heavies and lay waste to anything within range. The Japanese player dares not overstack within allied heavy bomber range. Indeed, he dares not place any aircraft other than fighters within range of a heavy BG base. Even having just fighters is an invitation to having a very bad day. The Japanese player is not able to respond in kind. They can only put a maximum of 378 Bettys (12 Daitai / 6 Chutai) on one base. The Japanese player can't even muster 1000 LBs at any base in 1942.

Don't take this as a rant against the allied player. It's not. The Japanese player can be just as guilty of it early in the war. The only difference is the impact is far less significant on the overall game.

Chez