How to get Tinian in shape for B-29's

[JohnDillworth]

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/philippines/clark/index.html

Clark Field 3 large runways, 2 small runways Level 8
Tinian 6 large runways level 4

[bradfordkay]

In the game system, Port Moresby has the potential to be built up larger than Tinian - that's what the SPS is all about. Tinian may have had the largest airfield in the world at the time (if wiki is to be trusted), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the island of Tinian had greater airfield capacity than Oahu, or Yokohama, or San Diego.

If the game as exists allows for the historical numbers of aircraft to perform the operations in a similar manner as IRL, I don't see the reason for the continued outcry.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Port Moresby had something like 6 or 7 airfields. It was also the main "theather combat training" center, forward maintenance, R&R center and don't know what else. Surely there was more space than on Saipan/Tinian/Guam.

more space perhaps, but I am not sure it had the ability to launch more aircraft for sustained operations. In 1943 Port Morseby was the largest airfield in the world. It was eclipsed by, you guessed it, Tinian in 1945. I am using wikipedia as source which might no be entirely accurate, but to have Tinian at less than half the size of Port Morseby does not seem correct.

It was eclipsed by Tinian only because there wasn't any use for a bigger airfield at Port Moresby. You're making the mistake of confounding the actual size with potential.

Even actual size isn't that clear cut. The size of an airfield according to Wikipedia isn't the airfield level we see, as our 'airfield level' takes the sum of all fields and strips in a single hex, while the biggest field according to other sources is just that one field.

You can also make a case that the same number of runways, split over a larger area deserves a higher 'airfield level' in the game. Less congestion in the air, planes don't have to taxi over other runways, harder to hit and close down dispersed fields than one big field, etc ...

[wwengr]

ORIGINAL: castor troy


10.000 supplies for one such raid sounds nice too, will really take an effort to supply the Superforts. [:D]

20,000 lb bomb load x 500 planes = 5,000 tons of bombs per raid. Anyone know the fuel load?

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

It just seems to me that Tinian is a least a 7 to start. Again, it was the largest airfield in the world in 1945. To have it as a level 4 seems inaccurate. It is hard to make the case for any other airfiled or base to be larger. So to have Port Morseby as a 9 and Tinian as a 4 seems incorrect. Morseby never support raids of the magnitude that were launched out of Tinian. at lease 6 8,000 foot runways with 11 miles of taxiways and 250+ dedicated hardstands to service each bomber. support facilitied to handle these massive beasts. Armours, supplies, radar, etc....What is being implied is that an 8,000 foot surfaced runway is not worth 1 base point. there were at least 6 of them plus a few smaller runways.

Tinian: Airfield 3 at start, SPS 4
North Field - 4 x 8500'
West Field - 2 x 8500'
There was one other field that was not used since it would have interfered with operation of West Field.

Port Moresby: Airfield 3 at start, SPS 6
Kila Drome (3 Mile) - 1 x 5,000'
Ward Drome (5 Mile) - 2 x 6000'
Jackson Drome (7 Mile) - 1 x 3000', 1 x 3750', 1 x 7500'
Berry Drome (12 Mile) - 1 x 4500'
Schwimmer Drome (14 Mile) - 1 x 5300'
Durand Airstrip (17 Mile) - 1 x 5300'
Rogers Airfield (30 Mile) - 1 x 4500
Fishermans Airfield - 1 small runway (no information on how long)
Flying Boat Base - Harbor of Port Moresby

The X Mile names were common names used by pilots that referred to map position... not sure what it was. It does imply a lot of space. Ward and Jackson were connected by a series of taxi ways. Rogers and Fishermans were crash strips where disabled planes could land and be maintained without interupting operations at the other airfields.

[Andrew Brown]

To provide a bit of explanation to help with this discussion (I hope):

SPS is indeed about maximum potential, not actual (historical) airfield size/number. But it is more than that - I also try to use SPS to represent difficulty of construction. This means that, for example, it should be harder to build airfields in remote rugged jungle terrain than in "developed" plains with good road/railway networks present. In the rough jungle terrain both construction and transport of materials will be harder. The only way to represent this is to use a lower SPS value for the rough/jungle hex, so that the much more costly "above SPS" values (from SPS to SPS+3) are reached earlier.

So the SPS value of the land and coastal hexes in AE are determined from a combination of terrain, presence of roads/railways and, for islands, island size.

Island size is included because, all things being equal, there is more potential to build lots of large airfields in a 3000 square mile area of flat land than on an island of, say, 40 square miles.

What all this means is that, unfortunately, in AE we only have this one value - SPS - being used to represent two things, potential maximum airfield development and difficulty of construction, so there are inevitable compromises. Again for example, a remote jungle (flat, not rugged) hex could, theoretically, be used to house as many airfields as a developed hex, assuming that sufficient construction effort was brought to bear. But because the jungle hex has a lower SPS value to represent difficulty of construction, the maximum airfield size will actually be lower.

Many things in AE are about compromises and this is one of them. As I mentioned above I think it is the comparison of sortie rates from bases such as Tinian with Real Life data that is the key. I am happy to revisit SPS allocation to bases if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I did do some testing of Tinian a long time ago (early on in the development of AE) because it is an "outlier" of sorts - a fairly small island that housed a lot of 4E bombers, and I was also able to launch some big raids, so it looked OK to me, but more data from testing or game play is always welcome and won't be ignored.

Andrew

[JohnDillworth]

Many things in AE are about compromises and this is one of them. As I mentioned above I think it is the comparison of sortie rates from bases such as Tinian with Real Life data that is the key. I am happy to revisit SPS allocation to bases if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I did do some testing of Tinian a long time ago (early on in the development of AE) because it is an "outlier" of sorts - a fairly small island that housed a lot of 4E bombers, and I was also able to launch some big raids, so it looked OK to me, but more data from testing or game play is always welcome and won't be ignored.

Andrew

Thank You, I know that the banter is never ignored. Sometimes the forum is more educational than the game. I have heard well reasoned arguments both ways but based on more runways than Clark, more runway length than Morseby, Tinian deserves consideration as a higher level airfield. Probably the equivalent of the 2 afore mentioned bases. I believe that a bump to 7 is probably correct and Siapan and Guam deserve consideration for a raise also. In the best of all possible worlds, the allies should probably be able to raise base levels to a higher level than the Japanese. They just had more ability to do this. The military culture was dedicated to infrastructure, supply and building. As for Tinian, it probably launched the greatest tonnage of Ordance against the empire of any allied base.
Thanks for enduring my rants

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Port Moresby had something like 6 or 7 airfields. It was also the main "theather combat training" center, forward maintenance, R&R center and don't know what else. Surely there was more space than on Saipan/Tinian/Guam.

more space perhaps, but I am not sure it had the ability to launch more aircraft for sustained operations. In 1943 Port Morseby was the largest airfield in the world. It was eclipsed by, you guessed it, Tinian in 1945. I am using wikipedia as source which might no be entirely accurate, but to have Tinian at less than half the size of Port Morseby does not seem correct.

what you seem to forget is that the size set in the editor is the potential size of an airfield/port and not what was there in real life. In real life you could put a 10 times bigger airfield complex into a clear hex somewhere on the continent or an island 2000 times bigger than Tinian than what you could build on Tinian.

On the continent or an island like New Guinea you have far more room to build an airfield complex. On Tinian you haven´t.

[Smeulders]

He does have a point with Clark being 8 at the start, a level that neither Tinian or Saipan can reach, although in real life the fields at those places got considerably larger than Clark. This might just mean that Clark is too large at the start though, unless there are quite a bit of other fields in that hex.

[usersatch]

I've learned a lot from this discussion. Thanks.  In the end, however, it sounds like we are back to where we started?  I have never used the editor, but can I go in and change the size of the Tinian and Saipan airfields?

[Andy Mac]

You can you dont need to and it will make them available quicker to launch massive raids earlier and make it easier on the Japanese but you can do it.

p.s. for the record I think they are correct as they are

[bsq]

It's not just the runways that make the difference.

Many locations you could quote many have more runways than there were on Tinian but what makes things different are more than just the number of strips.  Indeed many of the locations I have seen quoted had the classic triangular arrangements of strips meaning that there was only ever one active strip.

Start by looking at the strips though. 6 x 8500' long by 500' wide PARALLEL runways and it's that bold bit that is important.  It allows concurrent minimum separation take off's - critical when launching raids at the limits of the aircrafts range.  North Field could put 12 aircraft into the air every single minute.
Next the aircraft handling facilities - Tinian was set up to handle (normally) around 500 of the largest aircraft in existence at that time - with closer parking it was and did handle more aircraft - at that point it would be overstacked.  This includes all the maintenance, support and logistics for conducting offensive operations.
Tinian had no other purpose (for that matter neither did Saipan but it has something that Tinian doesn't - significant amounts of high ground), whereas places like Guam had other purposes.

Perhaps Tinian should be larger, but the B-29 altered so as to reflect the fact that it took 3 days per mission (plan/fly/rest).

[wwengr]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/philippines/clark/index.html

Clark Field 3 large runways, 2 small runways Level 8
Tinian 6 large runways level 4

For the Clark Airfield hex, you forgot:
Del Carmen Airfield - 1 Runway (fighters)
San Fernando Airfield - 1 Runway (fighters) (this is not the San Fernando Air Base further north by La Union, but rather just to the south of Clark)
Floridablanca Airfield - 1 Runway (light bombers, expanded in 1945 to handle B-17's)
Porac Airfield - 1 Runway (handled fighters and transports)
Mabalacat West Airfield - 1 Runway
Mabalacat East Airfield - 1 Runway

What is perhaps more important is that the dispersion of 7 airfields allowed many more simultaneous air traffic operations. Perhaps even more important, the space allowed for dispersion areas, fuel dumps, ammo bunkers, hangars and maintenance areas, troop housing and offices over a large area. Tinian had none of these. They had to build hardstands between the runways and house the troops in tents next to the runways. Numerous aircraft lost to taxi accidents. Every mission an incredible ballet of moving planes and materials around in a severely confined area.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

To provide a bit of explanation to help with this discussion (I hope):

SPS is indeed about maximum potential, not actual (historical) airfield size/number. But it is more than that - I also try to use SPS to represent difficulty of construction. This means that, for example, it should be harder to build airfields in remote rugged jungle terrain than in "developed" plains with good road/railway networks present. In the rough jungle terrain both construction and transport of materials will be harder. The only way to represent this is to use a lower SPS value for the rough/jungle hex, so that the much more costly "above SPS" values (from SPS to SPS+3) are reached earlier.

So the SPS value of the land and coastal hexes in AE are determined from a combination of terrain, presence of roads/railways and, for islands, island size.

Island size is included because, all things being equal, there is more potential to build lots of large airfields in a 3000 square mile area of flat land than on an island of, say, 40 square miles.

What all this means is that, unfortunately, in AE we only have this one value - SPS - being used to represent two things, potential maximum airfield development and difficulty of construction, so there are inevitable compromises. Again for example, a remote jungle (flat, not rugged) hex could, theoretically, be used to house as many airfields as a developed hex, assuming that sufficient construction effort was brought to bear. But because the jungle hex has a lower SPS value to represent difficulty of construction, the maximum airfield size will actually be lower.

Many things in AE are about compromises and this is one of them. As I mentioned above I think it is the comparison of sortie rates from bases such as Tinian with Real Life data that is the key. I am happy to revisit SPS allocation to bases if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I did do some testing of Tinian a long time ago (early on in the development of AE) because it is an "outlier" of sorts - a fairly small island that housed a lot of 4E bombers, and I was also able to launch some big raids, so it looked OK to me, but more data from testing or game play is always welcome and won't be ignored.

Andrew

To be brutally simple about this - the US could have built a level-9 (almost) anywhere they wanted to - ok maybe not on the top of Mt Everest [:D] it was just about priorities and resources. Due to the distance from the Marianas to Japan and the B-29 range - the capture of the Marianas and the B-29s were linked from before the operation was approved. Arnold and King forged an alliance over this one because it met the needs of both. The B-29s would be based in the Marianas if the US had to build a whole'nother Island to put them on!

But in the game the "size" of an airfield means more than how big are its runways - so when we decide how large to allow a "runway" to be in the game, we must consider the "definiion" of an airbase as determined by the code - not necessarily what we think it is in real life. This is what really drives the compromises Andrew talks about.

For those who want to experiment - the editor awaits!!! [:)]

[JohnDillworth]

To be brutally simple about this - the US could have built a level-9 (almost) anywhere they wanted to - ok maybe not on the top of Mt Everest

We shall agree to disagree on the size of the base. Alas, to the editor. But I am planning my next discussion. Do you know that Guam was one of largest ports in the world in 1945? More tonnage than Antwerp I am told. It started with the SeeBees completely dynamiting the coral reefs!

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
But I am planning my next discussion. Do you know that Guam was one of largest ports in the world in 1945? More tonnage than Antwerp I am told. It started with the SeeBees completely dynamiting the coral reefs!

Greenpeace must be informed about this!

[treespider]

So in game Tinian has an SPS of 4 which can be built to 7.

And with the proper application of HQ's and Command assignments the player can easily fly historically sized or larger raids from the Marianas, as demonstrated by AndyMac.

Now imagine if the US had had a wide open plain on the continent to develop its B-29 base and not some small cramped island where crews and aircraft were tripping over themselves. Perhaps the B-29 raids could have been even larger.

I'd leave it as is....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


To be brutally simple about this - the US could have built a level-9 (almost) anywhere they wanted to - ok maybe not on the top of Mt Everest [:D] it was just about priorities and resources. Due to the distance from the Marianas to Japan and the B-29 range - the capture of the Marianas and the B-29s were linked from before the operation was approved. Arnold and King forged an alliance over this one because it met the needs of both. The B-29s would be based in the Marianas if the US had to build a whole'nother Island to put them on!

To be brutally honest about it Joe, the restriction on increasing a facility to more than 3 levels above the given limit should be TOTALLY ELIMINATED for the US starting in 1944. They could (and did) create facilities of pretty much whatever size they decided they needed from that point on. As the Seabees put it..., "The difficult we do immediately..., the impossible takes a bit longer!" In 1944-45, America proved this wasn't just an idle boast.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


To be brutally simple about this - the US could have built a level-9 (almost) anywhere they wanted to - ok maybe not on the top of Mt Everest [:D] it was just about priorities and resources. Due to the distance from the Marianas to Japan and the B-29 range - the capture of the Marianas and the B-29s were linked from before the operation was approved. Arnold and King forged an alliance over this one because it met the needs of both. The B-29s would be based in the Marianas if the US had to build a whole'nother Island to put them on!

To be brutally honest about it Joe, the restriction on increasing a facility to more than 3 levels above the given limit should be TOTALLY ELIMINATED for the US starting in 1944. They could (and did) create facilities of pretty much whatever size they decided they needed from that point on. As the Seabees put it..., "The difficult we do immediately..., the impossible takes a bit longer!" In 1944-45, America proved this wasn't just an idle boast.

So you feel that the US should be able to build level 9 facilities anywhere? Canton Island? French Frigate Shoals?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
So you feel that the US should be able to build level 9 facilities anywhere? Canton Island? French Frigate Shoals?

When you look at what they did build at French Frigate Shoals, it's hard to argue against what they might have done had the need existed for a larger facility. I didn't say it should be cheap..., just that compared to any other power in the war, US engineering capacity was enormous....

[JohnDillworth]

o you feel that the US should be able to build level 9 facilities anywhere? Canton Island? French Frigate Shoals?

nope, just places where they historically based 500 of the largest bombers in the world.
[:'(]