Air Field Size

[dpstafford]

OK, someone remind what the downside is to putting hundreds of planes on a tiny, say level 2, airfield is?
I remember from PacWar days the the air field size rating was also the limit to the number of air groups that could be stationed there. Now players are literally move every air group in SWPAC to Port Moresby creating a super fortress on a level 3 airfield.
Doesn't seem right.............

[Spooky]

Originally posted by dpstafford
OK, someone remind what the downside is to putting hundreds of planes on a tiny, say level 2, airfield is?
I remember from PacWar days the the air field size rating was also the limit to the number of air groups that could be stationed there. Now players are literally move every air group in SWPAC to Port Moresby creating a super fortress on a level 3 airfield.
Doesn't seem right.............

RTFM !!!!!:D p.104 & 105

To sum up :
* reduced efficiency (25% less aircrafts launched) if number of aircraft > 50 x airport size
* If size < 4 then lot of penalties for Level bombers (less bombs, more operationnal losses, reduced range)
* higher vulnerability to bombing (air & naval)

[AlvinS]

Page 104 paragraph 17.3 talks about the impact of airfield size. The smaller the airfield the less dispersion of aircraft, and therefore the greater chance of being hit in an attack. Also you can suffer more operational losses at a small airfield.

Level bombers that operate from an airfield of less than size 4 suffer three penalties.

1. Operational losses on takeoff

2. A reduction in their range

3. Diminished extended range bomb load.

If the number of aircraft at a base is greater than the airfield size X 50 then the number of planes launched on any given mission is reduced by 25%.

If the number of aircraft at a base is greater than the airfield size X 100 then the number of planes launched on any given mission is reduced again by 25%.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Spooky


RTFM !!!!!:D p.104 & 105

To sum up :
* reduced efficiency (25% less aircrafts launched) if number of aircraft > 50 x airport size
* If size < 4 then lot of penalties for Level bombers (less bombs, more operationnal losses, reduced range)
* higher vulnerability to bombing (air & naval)

I've read the freakin' manual. Several times. The penalties don't seem to come close to offsetting the advantages to overloading airfields. The "higher vulnerability" is a dubious penalty since the overloaded airfiled can put up so much more CAP and naval attack that bombing and bombardment are less viable.

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by dpstafford
I've read the freakin' manual. Several times.

He was teasing you.

The penalties don't seem to come close to offsetting the advantages to overloading airfields. The "higher vulnerability" is a dubious penalty since the overloaded airfiled can put up so much more CAP and naval attack that bombing and bombardment are less viable.

That's 25% per squadron for each "overstacked" field.

The other possible reductions are as follows:

Failed morale check -25%
Failed leadership check -25%
Insufficient aviation support -25%

I'm sure there are more, I just didn't think of them. So, in effect you have five potential 25% reductions in flying aircraft. Also, the only positive bonus to flight numbers is a Air HQ.

I don't know about you, but with the amount of damaged aircraft I usually have at a forward base, I'll take any easy elimination of one of the above penalties over the extra a/c any day.

[Scouters]

Originally posted by dpstafford
The penalties don't seem to come close to offsetting the advantages to overloading airfields. The "higher vulnerability" is a dubious penalty since the overloaded airfiled can put up so much more CAP and naval attack that bombing and bombardment are less viable.

I think you have a valid point. If you have a level 2 airfield with 100 aircraft you can perform operations at normal efficiency. If you add between 1 and 33 aircraft you will wind up with a net loss of operations due to the 25% penalty. But, once you surpass 133 aircraft you will see a net gain in operations as you offset the penalty with sheer numbers.

Here are the actual numbers

A/C Operations Allowed
50 50
75 75
100 100
125 93
150 112
175 131
200 150

Once above 200, the 50% penalty makes the return even more dimished, but still allows you to compensate by sheer numbers. At least theoretically you could have 400 aircraft at a level 1 field with net operations of 200. At least this raises the possibility that, in addition to the 25%/50% penalties, some type of absolute limit to either aircraft or sorties should be imposed for each airfield size.

-Scouters

[worr]

Originally posted by dpstafford
I've read the freakin' manual. Several times. The penalties don't seem to come close to offsetting the advantages to overloading airfields. The "higher vulnerability" is a dubious penalty since the overloaded airfiled can put up so much more CAP and naval attack that bombing and bombardment are less viable.

Good point.

Also, notice, that since 1.11 if you transfer squadrons they tire out...and need to rest. That wasn't true before...so letting them just stay put and rest seems the better option more so now.

Worr, out

[NorthStar]

Originally posted by Scouters


I think you have a valid point. If you have a level 2 airfield with 100 aircraft you can perform operations at normal efficiency. If you add between 1 and 33 aircraft you will wind up with a net loss of operations due to the 25% penalty. But, once you surpass 133 aircraft you will see a net gain in operations as you offset the penalty with sheer numbers.

Here are the actual numbers

A/C Operations Allowed
50 50
75 75
100 100
125 93
150 112
175 131
200 150

Once above 200, the 50% penalty makes the return even more dimished, but still allows you to compensate by sheer numbers. At least theoretically you could have 400 aircraft at a level 1 field with net operations of 200. At least this raises the possibility that, in addition to the 25%/50% penalties, some type of absolute limit to either aircraft or sorties should be imposed for each airfield size.

-Scouters

OK, Scouters. It doesn't bother you that fully 1/4 of you aircraft are unavailable at any given time due to overloading? And this is before you add in the normal checks that decrease strike size? And the operational penalties for level bombers on the small field (if any are level bombers)? Considering the range of level bombers, doesn't it make sense to move the extra planes to a nearby base with overlapping ragnge, to get full use out of all of them?

[Erik Rutins]

Personally, I don't mind when folks do this. The great equalizer for me is the increased losses. Bombardment TFs and Airfield Attack missions will get through. If you have trouble during the day, send them during the night. Either way, the losses will be remarkably high at such small, crowded fields. Easy VPs and then an airfield full of wrecks won't be nearly as useful to the enemy.

Regards,

- Erik

[Scouters]

Originally posted by NorthStar


OK, Scouters. It doesn't bother you that fully 1/4 of you aircraft are unavailable at any given time due to overloading? And this is before you add in the normal checks that decrease strike size? And the operational penalties for level bombers on the small field (if any are level bombers)? Considering the range of level bombers, doesn't it make sense to move the extra planes to a nearby base with overlapping ragnge, to get full use out of all of them?

It would depend on the situation. It's not uncommon to have one or two small bases within range of a crucial target area, whether that be enemy shipping lanes or an enemy base. In that case, a player with a relative abundance of aircraft (i.e. the Allies) could stack the base with aircraft and produce more sorties than theoretically should be possible. Looking at the ratio of aircraft to sorties this would definitely seem inefficient, but if all this effort meant that an extra squadron of bombers was over the critical target then it make sense (even if it isn't realistic.) Let's say you have a level 2 airfield at Lunga and 100 aircraft stationed there. If you have another 100 fighters/dive bombers available in the theatre you could put them in Efate where they will have full operational efficiency, but what do you gain if there are no enemy targets for them to engage?

-Scouters

[Fred98]

This is a computer game. The statistics make it sound like we are playing a board game. I REFUSE TO KEEP RECORDS MANUALLY. As this is a computer game the base screen should show the following:

1. The size of the airfield
2. The recommended number of aircraft for that size airfield
3. The current number of aircraft



The following points come from the above posts:

- Reduced efficiency (25% less aircrafts launched) if number of aircraft > 50 x airport size

- If the number of aircraft at a base is greater than the airfield size X 50 then the number of planes launched on any given mission is reduced by 25%.

- If the number of aircraft at a base is greater than the airfield size X 100 then the number of planes launched on any given mission is reduced again by 25%.

These are examples of points which I completely and utterly ignore. I REFUSE TO MANUALLY CALCULATE “airfield size x 50”. It is so preposterous to expect a player to do so.

Instead the date should be provided as I suggest above.

The responses to this post will determine whether I bother to buy War in the Pacific.

[juliet7bravo]

I agree completely! Take Gilli Gilli for example...a level 4 airfield. That's 4 x 50 = max AC!!! I can spend hours agonizing over that. Waste reams of paper! Worse, my 8 YO daughter goes to bed at 9:00, just when I'm settling down to play UV, so I can't get her to help crunch the numbers. Brisbane, my Gawd...a level 9 airfield. It hurts my head just to think about it!

Somethings gotta be done! I think we should all boycott Matrix until this offense against all of us "mathmatically challenged" players is rectified. It's unfair, UN-AMERICAN, and a clear-cut violation of the "Americans with Disabilities Act"!!! We're people too!!! I could be, like, the poster child for this issue, ya know?

signed;

Jethro "J7B" Bodine

[Sonny]

Or at least Matrix can provide a calculator with each game. That would cost them less than printing a manual!:D

[Fred98]

My whole intention is to use the power of computers to improve wargaming.

If I succeed, wargaming will grow. If I fail, wargaming dies.

Computers by their nature make calculations.

I do not want any “handy game inserts” on my desk.

I do not want a calculator on my desk.

I do not want pencil and paper on my desk.

This game requires loads of information to be available to the player so he can make decisions. The information should be available with one click of the mouse. Its all about information.

I shall now direct you all to the page 36 of the manual. In the screen shot at the very bottom of the page, a mouse has been waved over Dobadura and the pop up screen shows certain information including the size of the airfield and a great list of aircraft based at that airfield.

But how many aircraft? I don’t want to sit there and add them up. The computer knows how many there are. The info should be in a handy place so I can glance at a screen and obtain the critical info.

The grog always has the option to drill down and obtain further info.

My whole intention is to use the power of computers to improve wargaming.

[bradfordkay]

Joe, if you bring up the base information screen (click on the base symbol itself), it will tell you how many air support points you have as well as how many aircraft are located on the base. It also tells you what size the airbase is. They did make the calculation for max a/c at a base as absolutely simple as possible (50 a/c per unit of base size). I do not think that it is "preposterous" to expect a player to be able to perform that simple of a calculation. It takes a person willing to put in a little mental effort to enjoy a Grigsby wargame, and that will always be the case.

I am sorry that you find it so taxing as to preclude the continued enjoyance of the genre. My dad was in the same boat. Back inn 1969 we discovered Avalon Hill's boardgames. He played Afrika Korps, Gettysburg and D-Day with me before giving up, saying that you needed a calculator to play the games (he was seriously lazy when it came to math). I lost a worthy opponent and I think that he lost a lot of fun... A little effort goes a long way with this game...

[Fred98]

I suspect that your dad was not intimidated by the mathematics. Instead, the sheer number of calculations made the game tedious for him.

I too started out with Avalon Hill games. I started with Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. I probably would have played others but I got older and ran out of time.

Those games had a number of bad points:
The set up time
Maps get bumped and counters move around
Impossible to Save Game
Combat Results Table, Dice Roll Modifiers table and various charts spread all over the table.
Takes hours to play one single turn
Arguments over the interpretation of rules.

When home computers became common all wargamers hoped that the classic games would be ported to home computers. My dream was to automate all the items above but otherwise leave the games unchanged.

Instead, developers made games such as Atomic’s World at War series. The attempt was to marry board games and computers. It succeeded in automating the items above but also added a large number of variables. Fortunately it had an automation option otherwise it would have been dreary to play.

I would still be playing that series if it had just one extra feature: Group Move. And at the end of the move the units are intelligent enough to set themselves in a good defensive formation at the end of the move. That remains my dream.

And on to Uncommon Valour. It is the most detailed wargame ever made. And I am enjoying it immensely. But it takes a bloody long time to play a turn because the info I need is not readily available.

For example:

I want to move a ship from A to B and return. How do I know if I have enough fuel? The radius onscreen is the distance the ship can cruise in one day. The radius is not a measure of fuel. The faster ships can cross the whole map in 2 or 3 days. But do they have the fuel to do it? I have no idea.

Is there a short cut way to find out whether all units have enough fuel and supplies? I need to glance at the screen to find out. I don’t wish to check every base or unit individually.

The real point is that games need to have detail to satisfy the grogs and they also need to be elegant to satisfy the occasional gamers.

[Erik Rutins]

Joe,

Have you noticed the new TF fuel indicator in v1.11?

Regards,

- Erik

[Fred98]

I read in the read me that there was such an indicator.

I looked for this indicator but I can't find it.

Perhaps you could post a screen shot and point to this fuel indicator.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Joe 98
I read in the read me that there was such an indicator.

I looked for this indicator but I can't find it.

Perhaps you could post a screen shot and point to this fuel indicator.

On the TF screen (when you click on a TF). On the upper left part of the screen, you get :
Mission : xxx (ie : Transport)
Moves (m/c) : a/b Fuel - xxx (where xxx is a number - if green then you have enough fuel to go to your destination and back)

[Sonny]

I think what he means is an on-map indicator of TF fuel. Like maybe the MISSION indicator when you hold the cursor over the TF should be green or red. Or some such indicator.

Of course the green and red does no good for the red-green color blind folks playing the game.