Potential Treespider Mod...hmmm.

[treespider]

The DARWIN thread has got me thinking about starting a new MOD....

Essentially similar to things Nikademus and I separately did back in WitP.

IMO the continental and some of the large island airfiled SPS values may be over-valued - particularly bases outside of developed areas. The US certainly could develop a large airbase as they did on Saipan however they could not do that with every base every where all the time.

Also keep in mind in the game to conduct offensive operations you only need a Level 2 airfield. As a result any base on the map can be made to support offensive operations. You can fly B-29's on bombing missions from a level 2 airfield. You can also put as many aircraft as you want at any airbase, however penalties start to accrue due to the size of the AF.

The penalties result from possible overstacking and small base effects...however I've read a number of "complaints" about round the clock bombing offensives in game. And others have posted historical statistics about the average number of a/c being operated by an average unit on any given day. By reducing airfields to sub-optimal sizes players will be forced to operate with penalties - reducing strike sizes and increasing OPS losses.

With all that in mind I am considering implementing the following:

1. Reducing many of the Airfield SPS values by 4 - outside of "developed" areas on the map.

Currently a place like Darwin has an SPS 6 which allows a size 9 airfield to be built. However I highly doubt that Darwin had the inherent infrastructure to support a Level 9 facility. With my proposal I would reduce Darwin to an SPS of 2. As a result Darwin could be built to Level 5 - allowing B-17's to operate.
With the addition of an Air HQ you could add to the number of aircraft and air units that could base there.

2. In conjunction with the last point of #1, I would adjust the Command Radius of some of the Air HQ's to allow a greater modifcation of an individual bases ability to service aircraft.

And as I stated some of the base sizes are perfectly fine...for example Saipan. Because of its historical use as a B-29 Base I would leave Saipan and the Marianasa as SPS 4 bases.

Anyhow just a thought...

Another side effect would be increased supply spoilage as a result of the smaller bases...

[Texas D]

Great ideal, sounds very interesting.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

I always thought the old treespider mod had some great ideas in it, both for slowing the pace of air operations and for China. I say go for it.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

I always thought the old treespider mod had some great ideas in it, both for slowing the pace of air operations and for China. I say go for it.

Well many of the recent changes have been good for the China theater...I may take them one step further and add in a number of bases...but all in all, China has moved in the right direction with the increased garrison requirements and the guerilla effects from lack of garrisons.

However any base additions would require AI script tweaking....[:(]

[WLockard]

One thing I would like to see in China is a complete lack of LI and HI for the Allies. It would be better if supplies were generated directly. It is too easy for Japan to eliminate all of the industry in China and starve the Allies out completely.

[topeverest]

Treespider...Intersting comments

History records the Americans building the largest airfields in the world at the time in the mariana's from basically nothing. It could have been done on any island of sufficient size and geography. It's a pretty big stretch to think that Darwin, an established major city with approriate forces and time, could not build an airfield of sufficient size...say 9. Also, thinking the Darwin thread through further, there are many, many other access points for the 29's into DEI if the allies choose a strategy of DEI bombardments and not invasions Should all those be reduced below where they are?

I believe the facts are fairly clear. The Americans could have bombed the resource / oil centers in DEI to the stone age had they desired to do so. I understand play balance required design change needs are sometimes required, but let me suggest caution before making it more difficult than it already is. Is there really a play imbalance? The HB's (29 / 32's, etc) were awesome weapons that the Japs had no answers for. Their effect was astounding. The game is merely reflecting this. I think it is for the players to develop their strategies around this fact and play to them. As an example, if an astute Allied player plans for and the concentrates his heavy bombers to attack a single location, that is merely applying force concentration for a high priority target. This is not different than the initial PH attack to start the game. I dont see the imbalance in either.

Am I missing your point?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Treespider...Intersting comments

History records the Americans building the largest airfields in the world at the time in the mariana's from basically nothing. It could have been done on any island of sufficient size and geography. It's a pretty big stretch to think that Darwin, an established major city with approriate forces and time, could not build an airfield of sufficient size...say 9. Also, thinking the Darwin thread through further, there are many, many other access points for the 29's into DEI if the allies choose a strategy of DEI bombardments and not invasions Should all those be reduced below where they are?

I believe the facts are fairly clear. The Americans could have bombed the resource / oil centers in DEI to the stone age had they desired to do so.

And I do not necessarily dispute that...however I do not think they did it everywhere all of the time...With the current SPS values it is not that difficult to build a String of 1st class Airfields all over the place.

I understand play balance required design change needs are sometimes required, but let me suggest caution before making it more difficult than it already is. Is there really a play imbalance? The HB's (29 / 32's, etc) were awesome weapons that the Japs had no answers for. Their effect was astounding. The game is merely reflecting this. I think it is for the players to develop their strategies around this fact and play to them. As an example, if an astute Allied player plans for and the concentrates his heavy bombers to attack a single location, that is merely applying force concentration for a high priority target. This is not different than the initial PH attack to start the game. I dont see the imbalance in either.

Am I missing your point?

Well one of the other impressions that I am getting from various threads is that the tempo of air operations is still too high...smaller airfields in general will help to slow that tempo...in two forms:

1. The penalties inherent in flying from small airfields fewer aircraft more ops losses etc...

2. Smaller airfields will be able to warehouse fewer supplies meaning the logistics tail to support major oprations from these bases will be necessarily larger.

Remember all that is required to conduct Offensive Ops is a Level 2 Airfield...You can bases as many aircraft as you want at a Level 2...and they will operate... just not as frequently or efficiently as they would from a Level 6....which is the desired effect since aircraft seem to be flying more frequently and efficiently than history.

So ignoring the conventional view of what a Level 2 represents now...in my ZEN view of the AE universe a major airbase developed from nothing could be a Level 2 or 3 with a Size 6 port present. Add in an Air HQ with a decent Command Radius and you can base a fair number of aircraft at the base and operate with a decent tempo....because the Size 6 port allows a fair amount of supplies to be warehoused in the hex.

[topeverest]

Thanks,

I understand your points. The theory is that too many large SPS's make it too easy to build up and exploit a large airforce. Smaller ones stretch the air HQ's and aviation support and supply chain more.

It makes me curious what the real effect would be if such changes occured. How much would the efficiency fall per SPS? If you run test scenrio and get effects, I would love to have a general guide on the costs and efficiencies that I can apply to my game.

[Alfred]

treespider,
 
I agree with your sentiments that too many out of the way places can be built up into too powerful airbases.  However I have some caveats as to the implementation of your downsizing.  For illustrative purposes I will concentrate on the example quoted of Darwin, although a location such as Wau (in New Guinea) or Lord Howe Island, would be better.
 
Darwin can be built up to a size 9 airbase.  In terms of suitable available land for laying of concrete tarmacs, construction of aircraft hangars and fuel tanks, there is no doubt that a size 9 airbase in the Darwin hex (remember it is 46 statute miles squared) was and is realistic.  The problem, as you identified, is the transportation of supply to Darwin to support constant air operations.  That is a factor of the map and transport links, something which, if I understand your proposal, would remain untouched.  As long as the SLOC to Darwin remain secure, then neither air operational tempo nor spoilage factors (brought about by reducing the size of the built up port/airfield) will mirror your intentions.
 
On the other hand, you have locations such as Wau (basically a mountain, IRL a landing field gouged out of the mountain side) and Lord Howe Island (a "few" hectares on top of an underwater mountain) where the idea of physically having 50 single engined planes (let alone up to the potential 150 if the airbase is built up to the minimum size of 3) is purely laughable.  Some of the coral atoll locations have less continguous, uninhabited flat land available for aircraft frames than is found on a Midway class CV.
 
IMHO, two things are necessary to properly implement your idea - and I doubt that the game engine/your mod would allow/reflect them.
 
(1)  It should be possible to have base locations with a negative SPS (applicable to port/airfield as appropriate).  Some locations should never be allowed to reach an airfield (or port) absolute size greater than 1.
 
(2)  Cost of supply usuage for air operations should be considerably higher, partly to reflect that Avgas is not a separate line item in the game engine.
 
Alfred

[topeverest]

Good points,

we also have to think about the minimum size to fly a LB at normal effectiveness.

Another solution could be a system where most / all SPS's are small, and each side can only be actively building a certain number or have a certain number in the game. This allows for the 'Huge' base to be built at player discretion, but it limits its application. Alas, I dont think the system will allow.

I am one of the players who have not seen this problem of over active AF's, so I am taking it on some faith that it is occuring. Taht said, if there are no-brainer SPS changes that should occur outside the effectiveness issues, I see no problem in correcting.