Airfield Penalties

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

Airfield Penalties
I have done some experiments using the TTMW scenario. The rules on manual page 213 indicate that there are 3 distinct possible conditions which affect Airfield operations:
1) Airfield size relative to bomber size (including bomb load).
2) Aviation Support relative to total number of aircraft.
3) AF overstacking:
a) Physical aircraft overstacking (by number of aircraft engines).
b) Administrative overstacking by numbers of groups (units).

Each condition has specific effects according to manual page 213-214:
1) Condition 1 has 3 possible bomber performance penalties.
2) Condition 2 has only one penalty – 25% reduction in bomber missions.
3) Condition 3 penalizes aircraft launches, increases ground aircraft losses and delays aircraft repairs, unfortunately with no insight into any penalty magnitudes.

The single Condition 2 penalty surprised me, but I think that we tend to confuse Condition 2 and 3 penalties. I am still surprised at the minimal effect of Condition 2 deficiencies. If I am correctly interpreting the rules, a level 8 Airfield will support 8 squadrons of 24 single engine fighters with little or no Aviation Support and incur no Airfield penalties in any manner. Add an Air HQ with a combat radius of 8 and 16 squadrons of 24 single engine fighters are possible without penalty or Aviation Support?

I also wonder how seaplanes, which may or may not have their own AV ship support, are treated relative to overstacking group count, assuming, maybe incorrectly, that engine count does not matter, since seaplanes are not physically on an Airfield? With inadequate AV ship support, do seaplanes add to the overstack group count or are they ignored for overstack group counting and engine count?

Using the initial Dutch Harbor setup from the TTMW scene, Dutch Harbor is a level 4 airfield with an Air HQ (combat radius = 5) present, which should allow 200 engines and 9 groups without overstacking, before rest/training adjustments . The pure aircraft engine count and group count seem to be 320(284) and 11(9) respectively (seaplane deductions, if appropriate, are shown in parentheses). With all aircraft in Training/stand down general training with 0% patrol, an asterisk appears in front of the airfield info on the bottom screen info display with an apparent rules indicated 107(95) division by 3 engine count and 0 group count (since PBYs have different HQ, they could count as 2 against the group count if this is not negated by their separate AV ship support or the fact that they are resting). If I place 118 squadron in Training 100%, the asterisk disappears. This would seem to indicate that the group number went from 10 to 9, which removes the overstack? This seems to indicate that PBYs are included in overstack calculations in spite of logic. It also seems to indicate that groups only qualify to not be counted for overstack if they are in 100% training, not just rest or in training. Unfortunately, the group count before I changed the 118 squadron status to 100% training seems to have been 10 which I can not follow since the 2 PBY groups are attached to a different HQ if they are counted at all which yields an initial group count of either 11 or 9.

I can find no other mitigating “circumcisions” and I do not think that the other HQ contributes? WHAT A CAN OF WORMS!





Image
Attachments
DHTTMW.jpg
DHTTMW.jpg (390.92 KiB) Viewed 1644 times
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

Condition 3 doesnt make any sense to me and never has, and I will never tire of pointing that out.

I can see av support being allocated by numbers of engines, but not base size being affected by numbers of engines (as I have pointed out time and again the potential B-29 stacking in the Marianas).

And admin stacking has no place at all (after Henderson opened, within 2 weeks there were 6 different squadrons operating from there, with no HQ units present, yet there were no administrative difficulties inflicting the penalties that a player experiences in the game).
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

I respect your opinion on the philosophy of the rules as written, but I would like to stay focused on clarifying the mechanics of these rules. Many times people make great efforts to ask reasonable questions only to find that their posts are highjacked by philosophical questions which leave the original inquirer screwed. Could someone in a knowledgable position please answer the actual and implied questions asked here?
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

I respect your opinion on the philosophy of the rules as written, but I would like to stay focused on clarifying the mechanics of these rules. Many times people make great efforts to ask reasonable questions only to find that their posts are highjacked by philosophical questions which leave the original inquirer screwed. Could someone in a knowledgable position please answer the actual and implied questions asked here?
3) Condition 3 penalizes aircraft launches, increases ground aircraft losses and delays aircraft repairs, unfortunately with no insight into any penalty magnitudes.

I was addressing part of the "implied question".
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Airfield Penalties
I have done some experiments using the TTMW scenario. The rules on manual page 213 indicate that there are 3 distinct possible conditions which affect Airfield operations:
1) Airfield size relative to bomber size (including bomb load).
2) Aviation Support relative to total number of aircraft.
3) AF overstacking:
a) Physical aircraft overstacking (by number of aircraft engines).
b) Administrative overstacking by numbers of groups (units).

Each condition has specific effects according to manual page 213-214:
1) Condition 1 has 3 possible bomber performance penalties.
2) Condition 2 has only one penalty – 25% reduction in bomber missions.
3) Condition 3 penalizes aircraft launches, increases ground aircraft losses and delays aircraft repairs, unfortunately with no insight into any penalty magnitudes.

I have experience with air traffic control systems, both military and civilian, so here's a go:

1) Airfield size--this probably reflects field length and condition, which would affect takeoff and landing of heavies.
2) Aviation support--this appears to be ground crew and hangar resources, which would affect the number of sorties generated. I believe the number of aviation squads also affects repair.
3) AF overstacking--ATC resources. Too many aircraft means that you overload the available runways. Too many groups makes strike co-ordination and the scheduling of takeoffs and landings much more difficult.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

Herwin, I am aware of all that you state. It actually should be fairly intuitive to all. My questions relate to game mechanics rather than your statements.

1) Are seaplanes at bases with airfields included in computations for overstacking.

2) If they are included in computation of overstacking, does having partial or full AV ship support mean that some administrative support is furnished at the AV ship, negating some inclusion in overstacking "group" count? I would find it dificult to believe that seaplanes have any effect on engine count since they occupy space in water, not on the airfield..........

3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?

4) Using the example which I cited at the beginning of this topic, the manner of calculating overstack or the implimentation of the "*" appears to be incorrect as programmed compared to rules page 214. Initially Dutch Harbor has an an "*" on the airfield on the bottom scene. If I change one of the single engine fighter squadrons from from "Training" with a"Patrol Level" of 0% to "Training" with a "Patrol Level" of 100%, the "*" immediately disappears. Since all "groups" are initially set on "Training" at some "Patrol Level" percentage (even some @ 0%), it seems that the "*" should not be triggered at all when the scene begins. There definitely seems to be a programming/rules problem here.

5) Can someone quantify the effects of overstacking which nebulously state "An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.". The lack of any precise penalty information negates any strategy decisions in dealing with intentional or unintentional use of overstack. This is very frustrating and should not occur in gaming rules writing, in my opinion.
Chris21wen
Posts: 7529
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I can see av support being allocated by numbers of engines, but not base size being affected by numbers of engines (as I have pointed out time and again the potential B-29 stacking in the Marianas).

Wasn't until I ready this thread that I realised the number of engines made a difference. Thinking about it it seems the ideal way of determining the physical size of an aircraft thus restricting how many you can have at an a/f. Now I've not sat down and worked out the number in the Marianas mind you so I might change my view on it.
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Herwin, I am aware of all that you state. It actually should be fairly intuitive to all. My questions relate to game mechanics rather than your statements.

1) Are seaplanes at bases with airfields included in computations for overstacking.

2) If they are included in computation of overstacking, does having partial or full AV ship support mean that some administrative support is furnished at the AV ship, negating some inclusion in overstacking "group" count? I would find it dificult to believe that seaplanes have any effect on engine count since they occupy space in water, not on the airfield..........

3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?

4) Using the example which I cited at the beginning of this topic, the manner of calculating overstack or the implimentation of the "*" appears to be incorrect as programmed compared to rules page 214. Initially Dutch Harbor has an an "*" on the airfield on the bottom scene. If I change one of the single engine fighter squadrons from from "Training" with a"Patrol Level" of 0% to "Training" with a "Patrol Level" of 100%, the "*" immediately disappears. Since all "groups" are initially set on "Training" at some "Patrol Level" percentage (even some @ 0%), it seems that the "*" should not be triggered at all when the scene begins. There definitely seems to be a programming/rules problem here.

5) Can someone quantify the effects of overstacking which nebulously state "An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.". The lack of any precise penalty information negates any strategy decisions in dealing with intentional or unintentional use of overstack. This is very frustrating and should not occur in gaming rules writing, in my opinion.

1) Yes.

2) No.

3) Yes, however, no aircraft will be repaired if you have no AV support there.

4) Quirky things happen before an actual turn resolution. As you see, as soon as you do something that forces the game to recalculate, it corrects itself. Just because the "*" is there at the start of a scenario doesnt mean thats the case.

5) Penalty is the same as WitP. You fail a check. Failing a check means 25% of your planes do nothing. Failing 2 checks means 43.75% of your planes do nothing (25% of the first fail = 75% and 25% of that for the 2nd fail = 56.25%). 3rd failed check means only 42.1875% of your planes are available, ect.

User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Graymane »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone
3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?

I'm not sure what you would consider a penalty, but since you have to have 1 aviation support per 1 aircraft, have 5 aviation support on a field with 20 planes means that next turn, you only have 5 operational planes.
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

Yamato Hugger -
1) How many aircraft repaired if I have some partial AV support? Is there an intermediate criteria?
2) If you try the scene as I have stated, the "*" mode does not seem to be working properly. I can change "Patrol Level" % to some % less than 100% without "*" effect, but "Patrol Level" at 100% removes the "*".

Greymane -
Where is this stated anywhere? What is your basis for saying this?
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

YH- What about casualties and repairs due to overstack?
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: Graymane
ORIGINAL: Al Boone
3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?

I'm not sure what you would consider a penalty, but since you have to have 1 aviation support per 1 aircraft, have 5 aviation support on a field with 20 planes means that next turn, you only have 5 operational planes.

No clue where you came up with this, but it isnt even a little bit true. This unit has flown 3 strikes from this completely unoccupied base:

Image
Attachments
aa.jpg
aa.jpg (206.37 KiB) Viewed 1644 times
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

YH- What about casualties and repairs due to overstack?

I have no idea what the exact formula is. I doubt any of the air guys are going to say either.
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

Guess the pilots themselves reload the planes [:D]
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

This is starting to get very frustrating. This game is very precise and complex on some issues and is very incomplete on other more significant issues. I appreciate Yamato Hugger's insight and help, but even his vast experience seems to not compensate for some serious rules/programming problems. There are still significant questions from my original post (not that I have any particular entitlement). There is also an issue of judging the credibility of replies by other people. How do we deal with incorrect info in replies? Do we just hope that "luminaries" correct mistakes?
User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Graymane »

Page 252-253. I just read the fine print again and tested it on the Alaska scenario and I'm wrong. "One Aviation Support point is required for each aircraft operating at an airbase for those aircraft to function at maximum efficiency". I guess I ignored the part in bold and assumed it meant you needed 1 point per plane to fly a mission.
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
User avatar
invernomuto
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Turin, Italy

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by invernomuto »

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Page 252-253. I just read the fine print again and tested it on the Alaska scenario and I'm wrong. "One Aviation Support point is required for each aircraft operating at an airbase for those aircraft to function at maximum efficiency". I guess I ignored the part in bold and assumed it meant you needed 1 point per plane to fly a mission.

However, without air support, your A/Cs will not be repaired, so the air squadron will lose efficiency very fast if used in missions.

Bye
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by John Lansford »

I was able to transfer 25 P-40's to an Australian base with only 8 Aviation support points, and the next day fly them off to another base.  Port Moresby has 84 aviation support points but I can only support 4 squadrons thanks to the size of the base (mostly fighters); had to transfer a medium bomber squadron to the mainland to get adequate #'s of fighters in the air when I exceeded 4 squadrons.
 
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by witpqs »

Can one of the developers who put in the administrative penalty (# of squadrons limitation) please explain a real-life example of it from WWII?
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

With out getting bogged down in specifics or philosophical debates with differing opinons, the "administrative" penalty, isn't meant to replicate "famous clerical errors" that caused regular inefficiencies in sortie generation. It isn't even an administrative penalty.

It's a capacity issue. At some point you have to draw a reasonable line that dictates what a Size X Airfield is capable of doing.

If you ask Person A he'll say this. If you ask person B he'll say that.

In this case I am person A and I say this...:

There is no definition in the game or the manual as to what an Size 1, 2, 10 AF is. Have a look. It was never provided in WitP and we didn't add it in AE. I thought about it, drafted it, but it was outside the scope of the project. Sorry.

However we did realize that SOME limitations needed to be instituted to blunt the effects of Uber Air Combat. Remember that? Anyone here need a reminder? See 90% of the posts in the old WitP forum...[;)]

Someone asked about reality. How's this..?:

I have a size 5 AF. I have 2000 aircraft spread between 150 units there. How many should fly in a given phase? All of them? I'll let you ponder the reality of that.

In short we concluded (correctly) that in a six hour AM phase not ALL of the aircraft, above a certain reasonable number, should fly. The way we drive this is with the overstacking rule. How do we implement that? It's in the rulebook. Will we ever divulge the secret formula? Not likely.

Bottom line. AF X cannot launch and recover all it's ready aircraft above a certain point and have them airborne every 6 hours. If they did, what sense would AF attack make, you'd never catch anything on the ground, then what would be the lamentation? Aircraft from any one base are NEVER ALL Airborne at the same time. Even today at a Navy Master Jet base, the VAST majority are on deck.

THIS is the ABSTRACT dynamic we are trying to replicate. It's not that they won't fly, it's that they won't ALL fly at the same time.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”