Matrix Games Forums

Ok is their some type of formula for the # of groups per level of AF? I find this somewhat frustrating

From page 214 in the eBook manual (section 9.4):

A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.

An airfield can operate 50 single engine (or 25 two engine, or 12 four engine) planes per AF size
or 1 group per AF size. The best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range
can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, or if not in the
same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups.

In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as
individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

NICE Thanks I am printing this out!!

So, are you saying that a Level 4 airfield could be "maxed out" if it had 4 fighter groups, each with just 5 or 6 planes in it ( due to losses). That seems very strange to me.
 
Surely the number of groups shouldn't matter, just the number of engines.

Would be maximum if each squadron had 1 plane in it. do not understand the need for this rule and aircraft stacking both. one or the other makes more sense to me.

One would think.......unfortunately not though.

Since the word "or" appears, it seems to me that the level 4 airfield could operate either:

200 engines (200 fighters or 100 2-engine bombers or 50 4-engine bombers)
or
4 groups regardless of the number of engines in those four groups

So, essentially this means that a Level 4 airfield could, potentially, be overstacked with 5 single seat fighters while at another stage it could comfortably hold 200 fighters ( assuming we had 4 x 50 fighter groups ) purely because of the group number rule.

Sounds like a poor design decision to me... I like tieing the overstacking to number of engines but tieing it to the number of groups appears excessive, particularly as during the early war the Allies will be operating a large number of very undersized groups...


It would make more sense though if this is
1. Number of engines OR
2. Number of groups .... whichever allows for more.

In that way you could have 20 x 6 single-engined plane groups at a Level 4 airfield and since it was only 120 engines it'd still be fine.

I think it means that you could have 10 groups of 20 fighters each  OR  4 groups with a total of more than 200 engines (example 100 4E bombers = 400 engines)

It is a 200 engine limit if you have more than 4 groups
If you have 4 or fewer groups, no limit on engines

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, are you saying that a Level 4 airfield could be "maxed out" if it had 4 fighter groups, each with just 5 or 6 planes in it ( due to losses). That seems very strange to me.

Surely the number of groups shouldn't matter, just the number of engines.

A operational squadron is more than just a gaggle of planes and pilots and an airfield is more than a runway with places to park aircraft.

Whilst it is true that a squadron can operate with just pilots and a few drums of fuel for a short period, this is unsustainable in the long term and all air units have a logistical tail that places a significant demand on airfield facilities. (One of the weaknesses in WITP/AE I believe, is the speed at which this tail can redeploy - it is assumed that a minimal ground support element moves with the aircraft and the rest catch up later I suppose).

Even when an air unit is decimated in air combat, the ground element is unaffected and still place a demand on base facilities. I believe the restriction on the number of groups is valid.

What Reg says is true.

The constraint on the number of air groups means that the game takes into consideration the operational difficulties of running 4 separate squadrons as opposed to running 1 squadron with the same number of planes.

This has changed slightly from the manual as well through the patches.

An airfield can be overstacked either of two ways;

either total aircraft 50 X airfield size or

Administratively which are by groups. A little more complicated.
One airgroup per size but modified by

Best AirHQ or Command HQ adds command radius to number of groups if in hex.
Best Command HQ adds 1/2 command radius (rounded down) to number of groups if within command radius to base.

Only best of above applies, cannot be stacked.

All seaplane groups and training groups count as one group to stack.

So for example level 4 airfield with command HQ within radius (5) may stack 4 + 2 groups or 5 groups plus as many seaplane/training groups as you want.

Then if admin overstacked could set groups on training to remove the penalty.

Even if overstacked, bases will fly but with a penalized reduced amount.

Questions???? just search forum for some of the designers comments.

Pat

So, Reg, you don't consider that if a group was reduced to just a single plane in a Level 1 airfield that it would occur to ANYONE to tell all of the guys NOT required to service that single plane to take up positions a bit farther away from the airfield in order to allow another airgroup + pilots + support groups into the airfield?
 
I'm sorry but that just beggars belief.
 
 
Medicff,
Thanks for the info. So it is "best of the options" which applies. That's more sensible. As to finding the designer's comments... With the search feature as it is and the scattered nature of responses sometimes piecing them together is nigh impossible.

In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as
individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

In fact thats a solution I find absolutely acceptable with HQ´s adding to the lot.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

So, Reg, you don't consider that if a group was reduced to just a single plane in a Level 1 airfield that it would occur to ANYONE to tell all of the guys NOT required to service that single plane to take up positions a bit farther away from the airfield in order to allow another airgroup + pilots + support groups into the airfield?

I'm sorry but that just beggars belief.


Medicff,
Thanks for the info. So it is "best of the options" which applies. That's more sensible. As to finding the designer's comments... With the search feature as it is and the scattered nature of responses sometimes piecing them together is nigh impossible.

The way to do that is stand down the group and set it to rest or training. then it does not count as a group at all and only counts as 1/3 of an airplane.

There seems to be a lot of incorrect information in this thread.
 
Airfield stacking limits are explained in the manual, section 9.4, pages 213-214. All of the information found there is valid and correct; Patch 1 added to this information, and Patch 2 made one change.
 
A brief summary of the manual information, including patches:
 
There are two types of stacking limits - physical and administrative.
 Physical stacking is the number of planes on an airfield. An airfield can operate 50 ENGINES per AF size. This means either 50 single-engine planes OR 25 twin-engine planes OR 12 four-engine planes OR any combination totaling 50 engines.
 Administrative stacking is the number of groups on an airfield. An airfield can operate 1 GROUP per AF size. The term "GROUP" refers to an air unit; Chutai, Daitai, Squadron, Group, etc. are all considered to be a "GROUP". 
 
Stacking limits are affected by HQ units- The best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, or if not in the same command, the nearest Air HQ will add 1/2 its command radius to the number of groups.
 PATCH 1 ADDITION: Command HQs can now act as Air HQs for Administrative stacking purposes. The effect radius of a Command HQ extends out to twice the command radius, but only applies half the affect when the distance to the base is more than the command radius.
 PATCH 2 CHANGE: All seaplanes, units in rest/training mode, and/or fragments of groups count as 1 group for Administrative stacking purposes; previously, each of these were counted as separate groups. This means that ALL of these type of units only count as 1; for example, if you had 3 float plane groups and 2 fighter groups in training mode, they would only total 1 group for the Adminstrative stacking limit.
 
Airfields of size 9+ DO NOT suffer from overstacking; note that a size 4+ airfield can easily become size 9 by adding an Air HQ(for Administrative limits only, HQs DO NOT affect Physical limits).
 
Please note, just because an airfield is overstacked DOES NOT mean that NO planes will fly- you just won't be able to launch ALL of your planes. Overstacking also affects how many casualties the base will suffer in an attack, and the speed of plane repairs.
 
As to why there are these limits - the main purpose is to prevent players from basing hundreds of planes at every base, regardless of size. To find more in-depth discussion of this topic, including input/ explainations from the devs, simply use the search function; it really does work. Try "aircraft restrictions" to start.
 
 

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Airfields of size 9+ DO NOT suffer from overstacking; note that a size 4+ airfield can easily become size 9 by adding an Air HQ(for Administrative limits only, HQs DO NOT affect Physical limits).

Please note, just because an airfield is overstacked DOES NOT mean that NO planes will fly- you just won't be able to launch ALL of your planes. Overstacking also affects how many casualties the base will suffer in an attack, and the speed of plane repairs.

As to why there are these limits - the main purpose is to prevent players from basing hundreds of planes at every base, regardless of size. To find more in-depth discussion of this topic, including input/ explainations from the devs, simply use the search function; it really does work. Try "aircraft restrictions" to start.

1st Para - wrong it can still only have 9 groups because it is still size 4 (with an HQ allowing 5 extra groups).

2nd Para - the effects can be dire. Try sending planes to an overstacked airfield - see how many op losses you get.

3rd Para - That would be great except that 3 key locations don't work because of it (Tinian, Saipan and Guam). Try conducting a strategic bombing campaign from these locations (sorry you can't - not in any historic sense in any case - you lose too many bombers to op losses because of an airfield that should have hundreds of 4E heavies, but can't. So why give me hundreds of B29's but nowhere to base them that can be utilised (until I take extra airfields in range in northern Luzon - very accurate historically [:(] )

There were 50 Sqn's based at Tinian alone - yet when I get to 12, I have to start standing them down - madness. Indeed, when I fly a new Sqn in I have to stand all the other Sqns there down or I risk taking massive op losses in the incoming unit.

ORIGINAL: bsq

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Airfields of size 9+ DO NOT suffer from overstacking; note that a size 4+ airfield can easily become size 9 by adding an Air HQ(for Administrative limits only, HQs DO NOT affect Physical limits).

Please note, just because an airfield is overstacked DOES NOT mean that NO planes will fly- you just won't be able to launch ALL of your planes. Overstacking also affects how many casualties the base will suffer in an attack, and the speed of plane repairs.

As to why there are these limits - the main purpose is to prevent players from basing hundreds of planes at every base, regardless of size. To find more in-depth discussion of this topic, including input/ explainations from the devs, simply use the search function; it really does work. Try "aircraft restrictions" to start.

1st Para - wrong it can still only have 9 groups because it is still size 4 (with an HQ allowing 5 extra groups).

2nd Para - the effects can be dire. Try sending planes to an overstacked airfield - see how many op losses you get.

3rd Para - That would be great except that 3 key locations don't work because of it (Tinian, Saipan and Guam). Try conducting a strategic bombing campaign from these locations (sorry you can't - not in any historic sense in any case - you lose too many bombers to op losses because of an airfield that should have hundreds of 4E heavies, but can't. So why give me hundreds of B29's but nowhere to base them that can be utilised (until I take extra airfields in range in northern Luzon - very accurate historically [:(] )

There were 50 Sqn's based at Tinian alone - yet when I get to 12, I have to start standing them down - madness. Indeed, when I fly a new Sqn in I have to stand all the other Sqns there down or I risk taking massive op losses in the incoming unit.

1st Para is CORRECT, a size 9+ AF DOES NOT suffer from overstacking. An airfield can operate 1 group per AF size, an Air HQ or a Command HQ adds their command radius to the AF size. A size 4 AF with an Air HQ (command radius of 5) becomes a size 9 AF for Administrative purposes. Thus, NO overstacking penalties. Note this is for Administration purposes ONLY- A size 4 AF with an Air HQ is still limited to a total of 200 engines.

2nd Para - Simple solution: Don't overstack your bases!

3rd Para - While this is an issue you should take up with the devs, if you build up the AF to it's max level and add an Air HQ, you WILL be able to use hundreds of bombers/fighters from those islands, certainly enough to pound Japan. And if this such a big issue for you, simply go to the editor and change the SPS of Tinian, Guam, and Saipan to 9. Then build up the bases, and put as many B-29s there as you feel appropiate.

Agreed a size 9 airfield does not suffer stacking penalties, however a size 4 with an AHQ does once the 10th unit arrives - try it - that's the bit thats wrong, because I can reproduce that problem over and over.

You cannot pound Japan from Tinian, Saipan and Guam - you cannot put enough aircraft there without penalty - period. I have taken it up with the devs, who are waiting for more evidence that supports this (quite rightly they won't just do it on a single report).

Yes I could edit the SPS of Tinian - but IMHO it should be more than it is in stock and should be corrected for everyone - nearly 1000 B-29s were based there IRL. At present you cannot stack more than 100 B-29s there without penalty and that's just plain wrong. So please tell me how you can launch more than 300 bombers on a raid from a location that can only stack 100??

(edit) Acutally you should read your original post, because you state the correct information at first and then go on to cite a contradictory example.

ORIGINAL: bsq

Agreed a size 9 airfield does not suffer stacking penalties, however a size 4 with an AHQ does once the 10th unit arrives - try it - that's the bit thats wrong, because I can reproduce that problem over and over.

You cannot pound Japan from Tinian, Saipan and Guam - you cannot put enough aircraft there without penalty - period. I have taken it up with the devs, who are waiting for more evidence that supports this (quite rightly they won't just do it on a single report).

Yes I could edit the SPS of Tinian - but IMHO it should be more than it is in stock and should be corrected for everyone - nearly 1000 B-29s were based there IRL. At present you cannot stack more than 100 B-29s there without penalty and that's just plain wrong. So please tell me how you can launch more than 300 bombers on a raid from a location that can only stack 100??

(edit) Acutally you should read your original post, because you state the correct information at first and then go on to cite a contradictory example.

First - no contradiction. I clearly stated in both posts that the HQ radius affected the Administrative limit; a size 4 AF with an Air HQ will act as a size 9 AF. Size 9+ AFs do not suffer from overstacking penalties.

Here is a quote from TheElf:
"Saipan:Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty."

Seems pretty clear to me. And yes, I have tried it, and it works for me. And again, USE THE EDITOR! Just because you personally strongly believe something should be changed doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

I really have no desire to argue about this; I am just tired of reading so many posts complaining about pet peeves. The game comes with an editor and you can change almost anything you want; it also takes less time and effort to do so than to constantly complain.

Have a nice day.