AE opponent wanted!

[irishman]

Hi, experienced player from a few years ago. I've been lurking for the last year waiting for AE. I'm an experienced IJN player and would like to play as the empire again in AE.
I'm up for what whatever house rules keep it realistic (AE should prevent 1000 bombers in the Aleutians etc) but it doesn't have to be a repeat of the history channel (e.g. invade Australia??)
Long haul players only please. I'll take my initial successes and will persevere through the slaughter of '44 and '45 if necessary. Don't quit if I take Hawaii etc...
Can do 1 turn per day, more at weekends and holidays.
Any takers??

[Yamato hugger]

Actually there are several islands in the Aleutians that can be built up to level 7 airfields meaning several thousand bombers can operate from there. Plus because of the smaller scale of the map, there are more islands in addition to that.

[Barb]

Hi, irishman.
I am trying to resist my commition yet, as I promised to myself I'll take at least AE Coral Sea scenario before setting up a PBEM. But the "Long haul" and "1turn per day and more in weekends and holidays" are what I am looking for.

On the other side, while not recreating history, I am used to use my forces close to history - this could be my big disadvantage.

[Terminus]

Just FYI, "several thousand bombers" can't operate in the Aleutians. The rules for airfield overstacking and aviation support are going to make sure of that.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just FYI, "several thousand bombers" can't operate in the Aleutians. The rules for airfield overstacking and aviation support are going to make sure of that.

Just FYI, yes, actually they can. The over stacking penalties are no more severe than in WitP. In AE only 84 B-29s can operate from a level 7 airfield (which in my opinion is stupid - how many were based on Guam [Guam is a level 8 and therefore can operate 96 4 engine bombers]? 4 bomb groups were stationed just at Northwest field alone on Guam - 200 planes and the limit was actually double that since there were 2 fields on Guam therefore Guam operated 4 times what AE will allow players to operate) therefore I can see players (justifiably in my opinion) overstacking bases to their WitP limits at a minimum. Base 1000 4 engine bombers at a base and 500 of them will fly. Av support isnt a limitation as 250 will service any number of planes just like in WitP. There are 3 potential level 7 fields within B-29 range of Sapporo in the Aleutians. So, yes. THOUSANDS of bombers can operate out of the Aleutians.

In fact, you can base more B-29s and hit the home islands than can base out of the Marianas (without overstacking). Now you can hit more targets from Saipan/Tinian/Guam, but strictly speaking more planes can base from and strike Japan from the Aleutians than from the Marianas. There are 4 level 7 fields up north that can hit factories in Japan and only 2 level 7's and 1 level 8 in the Marianas.

[rominet]

If Yamato Hugger is right, mod will be necessary for AE

[Yamato hugger]

I can see using number of engines counting for av support. But it makes no sense for basing requirement. A revetment is a revetment. Doesnt matter if you have a B-29 or a P-26 sitting in it, it still holds 1 plane. There isnt a separate revetment for each engine. And numbers of air units based at a base doesnt make any sense for stacking at an airfield either as CATUS shows us.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: rominet

If Yamato Hugger is right, mod will be necessary for AE

He is not, if he claims that you can operate 1,000 bombers out of the Aleutians. I guarantee you that you can't.

You can BASE them there, but "operating" bombers from there would imply that you can fly sustained combat operations from there with 1,000 bombers, and you can not.

That's the end of it.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just FYI, "several thousand bombers" can't operate in the Aleutians. The rules for airfield overstacking and aviation support are going to make sure of that.

Just FYI, yes, actually they can. The over stacking penalties are no more severe than in WitP. In AE only 84 B-29s can operate from a level 7 airfield (which in my opinion is stupid - how many were based on Guam [Guam is a level 8 and therefore can operate 96 4 engine bombers]? 4 bomb groups were stationed just at Northwest field alone on Guam - 200 planes and the limit was actually double that since there were 2 fields on Guam therefore Guam operated 4 times what AE will allow players to operate) therefore I can see players (justifiably in my opinion) overstacking bases to their WitP limits at a minimum. Base 1000 4 engine bombers at a base and 500 of them will fly. Av support isnt a limitation as 250 will service any number of planes just like in WitP. There are 3 potential level 7 fields within B-29 range of Sapporo in the Aleutians. So, yes. THOUSANDS of bombers can operate out of the Aleutians.

In fact, you can base more B-29s and hit the home islands than can base out of the Marianas (without overstacking). Now you can hit more targets from Saipan/Tinian/Guam, but strictly speaking more planes can base from and strike Japan from the Aleutians than from the Marianas. There are 4 level 7 fields up north that can hit factories in Japan and only 2 level 7's and 1 level 8 in the Marianas.

Actually Guam had more fields then that. Northwest field, as you called it , was actually 2 huge fields. Today it's called Anderson AFB, North and south. (andy south has had the runways plowed under for housing). Then you had Harmon field (now an industrial area) There was the field that became NAS then Won Pat airport. All four of these had B-29's. Then of course there was Orote (now abandonded) NAS. USN and USMC were here , with room for spilover from Army fields. There were small grass fields that I won't mention. But all of the above were cabable of handling bombers . In fact four of them would be considered level 9 in WITP. I can only speak for Guam, having walked everyone of these runways, but I understand from natives that Tinian had two fields, and Saipan had four, all of the same class. Also I'd like to point out that Anderson north during Vietnam had over three hundred B-52's and KC-135's alone.

Talk to any veteran who's been to Adak , and ask if he thinks that the aleutians are capable of that kind of basing. I think that , after they recover from laughing, you will get a resounding no.

So , while you may have found a way to "game the system" , I expect that only the AI would find that acceptable. I certainly would require a house rule to address that issue.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Talk to any veteran who's been to Adak , and ask if he thinks that the aleutians are capable of that kind of basing. I think that , after they recover from laughing, you will get a resounding no.

I have. My brothers squadron was stationed there for more than a year back in the late 60s. I harped long and hard to have all these bases reduced in capacity and weather effects being much more harsh in this area and it was poo-pooed. If you think I am advocating the practicality of these bases in real life, you are woefully mistaken.

However. I play a game, and within the game structure as it is, you CAN base there, therefore you (as the allies) SHOULD base there. Flatten everything you can from here, and move to warmer climates.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Talk to any veteran who's been to Adak , and ask if he thinks that the aleutians are capable of that kind of basing. I think that , after they recover from laughing, you will get a resounding no.

I have. My brothers squadron was stationed there for more than a year back in the late 60s. I harped long and hard to have all these bases reduced in capacity and weather effects being much more harsh in this area and it was poo-pooed. If you think I am advocating the practicality of these bases in real life, you are woefully mistaken.

However. I play a game, and within the game structure as it is, you CAN base there, therefore you (as the allies) SHOULD base there. Flatten everything you can from here, and move to warmer climates.

OK. Just so I understand clearly what you are saying. You know that to base that many planes in the Aluetian is unrealistic. But the game mechanicism lets you do it. Therfore you feel that you should do it. Is that correct?

If that is the case , then by all means. Against an AI it will be a lot of fun. But would you do it in a PBEM? I'm not a big beliver in house rules , or that this is gamey or that is gamey. But you really do have to ask yourself, is this gamey? Just my opion , but I'd consider it "classic gamey". [:)]

[Terminus]

Okay, one more time. Whether or not you could do it in real life is not what's on the table here and is not interesting. The issue is whether or not you can do it IN THE GAME, and you can not.

We have three things that prevent it: overstacking rules for airfields (both for air units and airframes), lower number of aviation support squads and maintenance issues for the individual aircraft.

The USAAF didn't feel it was cost effective to base its bombing campaign out of the Aleutians, even though it was proved possible to build a B-29 capable airfield up there. There were several good reasons for that, all of which we cover admirably in AE.

Oh, and there isn't that much Jap real estate you can reach from the Aleutians anyway, so it's really not worth putting even the few bombers you can sustain in there.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Okay, one more time. Whether or not you could do it in real life is not what's on the table here and is not interesting. The issue is whether or not you can do it IN THE GAME, and you can not.

We have three things that prevent it: overstacking rules for airfields (both for air units and airframes), lower number of aviation support squads and maintenance issues for the individual aircraft.

The USAAF didn't feel it was cost effective to base its bombing campaign out of the Aleutians, even though it was proved possible to build a B-29 capable airfield up there. There were several good reasons for that, all of which we cover admirably in AE.

Oh, and there isn't that much Jap real estate you can reach from the Aleutians anyway, so it's really not worth putting even the few bombers you can sustain in there.

Ok, 1 more time. Yes you CAN do it. The over stacking works just as much here as it will in the Marianas. Again, 250 support squads is all you need to fly every plane out of a single base regardless of the quantity of planes there, and aircraft maintenance isnt any different here than it is any where else.

And again, stacking limits should NOT be based on number of engines. A revetment is a revetment and you dont put a single engine in a revetment you put a AIRPLANE in it.

And again, stacking limits should NOT be based on number of air units at a base. Henderson Field was operating 6 different squadrons within 10 days of it becoming operational (level 2 airfield no air HQ) as just ONE example of why this is an unrealistic rule.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Okay, one more time. Whether or not you could do it in real life is not what's on the table here and is not interesting. The issue is whether or not you can do it IN THE GAME, and you can not.

We have three things that prevent it: overstacking rules for airfields (both for air units and airframes), lower number of aviation support squads and maintenance issues for the individual aircraft.

The USAAF didn't feel it was cost effective to base its bombing campaign out of the Aleutians, even though it was proved possible to build a B-29 capable airfield up there. There were several good reasons for that, all of which we cover admirably in AE.

Oh, and there isn't that much Jap real estate you can reach from the Aleutians anyway, so it's really not worth putting even the few bombers you can sustain in there.

Ok, 1 more time. Yes you CAN do it. The over stacking works just as much here as it will in the Marianas. Again, 250 support squads is all you need to fly every plane out of a single base regardless of the quantity of planes there, and aircraft maintenance isnt any different here than it is any where else.

And again, stacking limits should NOT be based on number of engines. A revetment is a revetment and you dont put a single engine in a revetment you put a AIRPLANE in it.

And again, stacking limits should NOT be based on number of air units at a base. Henderson Field was operating 6 different squadrons within 10 days of it becoming operational (level 2 airfield no air HQ) as just ONE example of why this is an unrealistic rule.

Actually , a reverment is sized according to the aircraft. One sized for fighters, another for bombers. 2ND , while you are right that engines don't matter for revertments, engines do matter for maintainance and also size (think parking space). I've seen a field send out word because there was no more parking space and that large aircraft needed to go somewhere else (NAS Roosevelt Roads in 1988 during a comptuex and major drug interdiction). You can put multiple fighters in a 4 engine bomber revertment.

Henderson field was operating naval single engine aircraft flown by people used to operating within the confines of an aircraft carrier. Not a heavy bomber division. [:)]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Henderson field was operating naval single engine aircraft flown by people used to operating within the confines of an aircraft carrier. Not a heavy bomber division. [:)]

Yes, and? The point I was making on Henderson was the fact that they were operating 6 squadrons out of a level 2 airfield which in AE is over-stacking. Can only operate 2 squadrons out of Henderson as it is. 3 and you fail a check which means 25% of planes dont fly.

You can put multiple fighters in a 4 engine bomber revertment.

You CAN put multiple 4E bombers in a 4E bomber revetment, but its called "overstacking" (additional damage to aircraft parked on the ground) which kind of defeats the purpose of revetments to begin with.

Hey, I guess I know nothing. As the game stands you can operate a grand total (after you improve all the airbases to maximum) of 264 B-29s (and absolutely nothing else) from Saipan / Guam / Tinian combined without overstacking the bases.

If YOU dont have a problem with this, then please have fun enjoy the game. But this is 2 of the many reasons I choose not to play it.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Henderson field was operating naval single engine aircraft flown by people used to operating within the confines of an aircraft carrier. Not a heavy bomber division. [:)]

Yes, and? The point I was making on Henderson was the fact that they were operating 6 squadrons out of a level 2 airfield which in AE is over-stacking. Can only operate 2 squadrons out of Henderson as it is. 3 and you fail a check which means 25% of planes dont fly.

You can put multiple fighters in a 4 engine bomber revertment.

You CAN put multiple 4E bombers in a 4E bomber revetment, but its called "overstacking" (additional damage to aircraft parked on the ground) which kind of defeats the purpose of revetments to begin with.

Hey, I guess I know nothing. As the game stands you can operate a grand total (after you improve all the airbases to maximum) of 264 B-29s (and absolutely nothing else) from Saipan / Guam / Tinian combined without overstacking the bases.

If YOU dont have a problem with this, then please have fun enjoy the game. But this is 2 of the many reasons I choose not to play it.

I certainly will enjoy it. And so should you.Play it, and keep writing in asking that it be modified as you feel right. Perhaps if enough people agree with you , Matrix will make the change. By not playing it, you are only punishing yourself. But, that's your perogative, and I salute you standing by your principals. [:)]

[Yamato hugger]

Im not asking for mods or changes. I dont care one way or the other if they do what I think should be done with it. I am perfectly content with WitP. I say what I think about AE because I feel that is my job as a tester, but frankly I could care less if they listen or not. Its YOU they will listen to, not me. Im not spending $$$ on this, you people are.

I say what I think is right about the game, and I say what I think is wrong about it. Different people see the same things differently. Im not trying to persuade anyone to get the game and Im not trying to prevent anyone from getting it. I present my views as I see them. Period.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

By not playing it, you are only punishing yourself. But, that's your perogative, and I salute you standing by your principals. [:)]

You have to remember, I HAVE played it. For over a year now. I will stick with WitP [;)]

And if I am "punishing myself" by doing so, I guess I will have to live with that choice.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Im not asking for mods or changes. I dont care one way or the other if they do what I think should be done with it. I am perfectly content with WitP. I say what I think about AE because I feel that is my job as a tester, but frankly I could care less if they listen or not. Its YOU they will listen to, not me. Im not spending $$$ on this, you people are.

I say what I think is right about the game, and I say what I think is wrong about it. Different people see the same things differently. Im not trying to persuade anyone to get the game and Im not trying to prevent anyone from getting it. I present my views as I see them. Period.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

By not playing it, you are only punishing yourself. But, that's your perogative, and I salute you standing by your principals. [:)]

You have to remember, I HAVE played it. For over a year now. I will stick with WitP [;)]

And if I am "punishing myself" by doing so, I guess I will have to live with that choice.

That's fair enough. I'll let you know what I think after I've played it for a year. [:)]

[Raverdave]

Irishman.  I will take you up on your offer. To be sure to be sure.  PM me.

[irishman]

Begorrah Raverdave! Unfortunately, I've arranged a game with Barb. I might take on a second game but I want to see AE first. It looks like a heavy workload for the Japanese!