Repairing Bases

[Chris21wen]

I want to turn off repairing airfield at a base so the base concentrates on repairing the port. Can I do this, doesn't appear so.

[HansBolter]

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports. Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

[bk19@mweb.co.za]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports.

I agree there are many times when one prefers to fix the port before the airfield. An addition of this facility would be a welcome enrichment to the game.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

This 'standard game tactic' to which you refer is best described as Strategic Warfare.

The way I see this game is that it is a human endeavour which pitches competing mental facilities to employ a variety of facilites/resources/assets to achieve a victory.
Since this is a game about warfare in the 20th century, and given the teachings of Sun Tzu and more modern authors on this subject, this the kind of thing every player should be doing.

I humbly suggest your observation that this kind of operation is lame; is nothing more than an admission that your opponent(s) is/are winning the Hearts and Mind component of the Strategic War!

[RogerJNeilson]

I agree with the previous comments.

The game is an abstraction. One of the best things you can do in 2WW is to bomb the comms of the enemy - look at what happened in France prior to and after D-Day. The game has no way of targeting comms - you can hit airfields, ports, and various types of industry etc etc. I see the bombing of airfields and or ports and having a similar effect as choke point bombing to slow and halt supply flow. theer's no other way to do this....

Roger

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports.

I agree there are many times when one prefers to fix the port before the airfield. An addition of this facility would be a welcome enrichment to the game.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

This 'standard game tactic' to which you refer is best described as Strategic Warfare.

The way I see this game is that it is a human endeavour which pitches competing mental facilities to employ a variety of facilites/resources/assets to achieve a victory.
Since this is a game about warfare in the 20th century, and given the teachings of Sun Tzu and more modern authors on this subject, this the kind of thing every player should be doing.

I humbly suggest your observation that this kind of operation is lame; is nothing more than an admission that your opponent(s) is/are winning the Hearts and Mind component of the Strategic War!

Nothing humble about your "suggestion". Since my opponent is the AI I find your not so humble suggestion rather comical.

Bombing an airfield that isn't being used, has no air units deployed at it, has no avaition support units deployed at it, wasn't used to bring in the supply that is stockpiled in field supply depots for ground units defending the front line potentially 40 miles or more from the location of the airfield in order to eliminate said supply is LAME, plain and simply. Sorry for your apparent inability to comprehend such as plain and simple fact. The oversimplification of the supply rules and structure facilitates it as a game tactic that is a valid tactic, but that makes it no less lame.

[LoBaron]

I hear a long wooden stick repeatedly impacting on a dead horses corpse...

WitP always required the ability to abstract certain game features. Funny that even after years some people still seem unwilling or unable to do so...

[bk19@mweb.co.za]

No matter....


Reminds me of Moby Dick... Forget the bait... swallow the whole fishing boat instead......



[font="Tahoma"]YAAARRRRR[/font]

[geofflambert]

I pretty much agree with Hans, but I can't imagine how you would word a house rule on it.  However I did recall something relevant historically, and I just googled it.  This is from Wiki.

Sorry, going to try again.

Air battles over Henderson Field and strengthening of the Lunga defenses

Further information: Cactus Air Force





U.S. Marine F4F Wildcat fighters ascend from Henderson Field to attack incoming Japanese aircraft in late August or early September 1942.
Throughout August, small numbers of U.S. aircraft and their crews continued to arrive at Guadalcanal. By the end of August, 64 aircraft of various types were stationed at Henderson Field.[51] On September 3, the commander of 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, U.S. Marine Brigadier General Roy S. Geiger, arrived with his staff and took command of all air operations at Henderson Field.[52] Air battles between the Allied aircraft at Henderson and Japanese bombers and fighters from Rabaul continued almost daily. Between August 26 and September 5, the U.S. lost about 15 aircraft while the Japanese lost approximately 19 aircraft. More than half of the downed U.S. aircrews were rescued while most of the Japanese aircrews were never recovered. The eight-hour round trip flight from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, about 1,120 miles (1,800 km) total, seriously hampered Japanese efforts to establish air superiority over Henderson Field. Australian coastwatchers on Bougainville and New Georgia islands were often able to provide Allied forces on Guadalcanal with advance notice of inbound Japanese air strikes, allowing the U.S. fighters time to take off and position themselves to attack the Japanese bombers and fighters as they approached the island. Thus, the Japanese air forces were slowly losing a war of attrition in the skies above Guadalcanal.[53]

[Thayne]

I would like the option to attack enemy supply directly - interdicting supply (reducing the amount that can be pulled into a hex) and attecking depots (reducing the supply in a hex). I do not. Therefore, i use the next best option as an abstraction. The game may say that my bombers are making an attack on the airfield. In fact, they are heading for a set of warehouses two blocks from the railroad depot. How they managed to accidentally hit the runway on the airfield, i will never understand.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports. Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

I used to feel this way until another forum member (I forget who it was) suggested viewing these airfield and port attacks as attacks on the fortifications being built instead. Since the game doesn't allow the bombing of fortifications directly (which it probably should), this seems like a reasonable way to think about these airfield and port attacks.

As for the second point, I don't have a problem about bombing a base to destroy supplies. Even if the supplies aren't being used by the airfield, there still is a base there with supply dumps. Just think of the air attack as an attack on these supply dumps.

Much bigger failures of the game are related to the way the game engine assigns naval airstrikes. (My CV TF launches 100 Vals and Kates at a single xAKL while sending only 5 at an equidistant enemy CV.) This shortcoming of the game opens up the absolute lamest/gamiest tactic out there - using single-ship TFs to absorb enemy airstrikes and thereby keep your juicier targets safe. Lame to the greatest degree in my opinion.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

I would like the option to attack enemy supply directly - interdicting supply (reducing the amount that can be pulled into a hex) and attecking depots (reducing the supply in a hex). I do not. Therefore, i use the next best option as an abstraction. The game may say that my bombers are making an attack on the airfield. In fact, they are heading for a set of warehouses two blocks from the railroad depot. How they managed to accidentally hit the runway on the airfield, i will never understand.

Well, in my current PBEM Bataan has burnt through its supplies in amazingly short order. I've done differently than historical by splitting my forces between Manila and Bataan. Manila is doing ok for now. So can this compare to the historical results? I don't know. Corregidor didn't fall til deep into May. Under this game system it seems to me impossible under constant bombing whether airfield, port or whatever. Nonetheless, we have to remember that what we're doing in the game is always trying new things in order to perform better than historical, and how is this any different? Historically, both sides made hundreds of significant mistakes, if not thousands, and usually we're trying to be perfect or learn what perfect is. Bomb away.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports. Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

I used to feel this way until another forum member (I forget who it was) suggested viewing these airfield and port attacks as attacks on the fortifications being built instead. Since the game doesn't allow the bombing of fortifications directly (which it probably should), this seems like a reasonable way to think about these airfield and port attacks.

As for the second point, I don't have a problem about bombing a base to destroy supplies. Even if the supplies aren't being used by the airfield, there still is a base there with supply dumps. Just think of the air attack as an attack on these supply dumps.

Much bigger failures of the game are related to the way the game engine assigns naval airstrikes. (My CV TF launches 100 Vals and Kates at a single xAKL while sending only 5 at an equidistant enemy CV.) This shortcoming of the game opens up the absolute lamest/gamiest tactic out there - using single-ship TFs to absorb enemy airstrikes and thereby keep your juicier targets safe. Lame to the greatest degree in my opinion.

I'm willing to agree with you to at least some extent on the lameness factor, but I think this sort of thing (scattering xAKs etc.) did happen historically. I of course use this tactic in part because the other side has similarly lame stuff they can do and always do. If you try to apply this to large formations, though, I would have to strenuosly disagree. For instance the battle of the Eastern Solomons featured the Enterprise in a separate TF from the others and it avoided being found and struck even though in our game terms it would be considered to be in the same hex as the others. Of course, something similar happened with the Yorktown at Midway vis a vie the other carriers. So there are too many instances where this is perfectly legit to prohibit, I think. (Not that you suggested any prohibition).

Talking about prohibition, have you guys seen the stuff about Bloomberg banning large sugary drink containers? I'm thinking we'll have to bring back Elliot Ness to deal with this.

[PizzaMan]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports. Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

Talking about prohibition, have you guys seen the stuff about Bloomberg banning large sugary drink containers? I'm thinking we'll have to bring back Elliot Ness to deal with this.

I pitty the fool who gets thrown in jail for this crime against humanity.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports. Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

I used to feel this way until another forum member (I forget who it was) suggested viewing these airfield and port attacks as attacks on the fortifications being built instead. Since the game doesn't allow the bombing of fortifications directly (which it probably should), this seems like a reasonable way to think about these airfield and port attacks.

As for the second point, I don't have a problem about bombing a base to destroy supplies. Even if the supplies aren't being used by the airfield, there still is a base there with supply dumps. Just think of the air attack as an attack on these supply dumps.

Much bigger failures of the game are related to the way the game engine assigns naval airstrikes. (My CV TF launches 100 Vals and Kates at a single xAKL while sending only 5 at an equidistant enemy CV.) This shortcoming of the game opens up the absolute lamest/gamiest tactic out there - using single-ship TFs to absorb enemy airstrikes and thereby keep your juicier targets safe. Lame to the greatest degree in my opinion.

Very good reply. Very good argument presentation. Thanks for the civil reply rather than the disparaging I recieve from the usual suspects above. I can buy into the argument on forts, but the supply one still leaves a bit to be desired. The place where this mechanism gets exploited the worst is in China where Japanese players bomb unused airfields to entirely eliminated China's meager supply.

The devs gave China a meager supply level so that Allied players couldn't exploit their large army to ahistorically mount large offensives that were just impossible with an Army consisting mostly of the personal armies of warlords with dubious loyalties to the national cause. This does a good job of historically limiting China, but it unwittingly handed the Japanese player a tailor made mechanism for exploitation.

If the game had a realistic mechansim for attacking supply directly it would by nature be far less effective than bombing airbases. Supply dumps in the field camoflaged in wooded or jungle terrain are far less easy to find, fix and direct effective attacks against than airfields. Especially when dealing with the supply dumps and lines of an army nearly devoid of large weaponry and motorization. Just think of the attempts of the US to interdict supply along the Ho Chi Min trail in Vietnam and then imagine how far less effective a similar effort on the part of a technologically inferior Japan of the 1940s would have been.

This particular aspect of the simplification of supply mechanisms provides for an ahistorically exploitable assault on China that often skews many games.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nope. One of the great failures of the game is the inability to turn off repair of airbases and ports. Its a standard game tactic, and one of the lamest at that, to bomb airfields and ports to prevent the building of forts. It's also another lame tactic to bomb airfields that aren't being used at all to destroy supplies bing used by units in the field that have no interest whatsoever in using the airfield [8|]

I used to feel this way until another forum member (I forget who it was) suggested viewing these airfield and port attacks as attacks on the fortifications being built instead. Since the game doesn't allow the bombing of fortifications directly (which it probably should), this seems like a reasonable way to think about these airfield and port attacks.

As for the second point, I don't have a problem about bombing a base to destroy supplies. Even if the supplies aren't being used by the airfield, there still is a base there with supply dumps. Just think of the air attack as an attack on these supply dumps.

Much bigger failures of the game are related to the way the game engine assigns naval airstrikes. (My CV TF launches 100 Vals and Kates at a single xAKL while sending only 5 at an equidistant enemy CV.) This shortcoming of the game opens up the absolute lamest/gamiest tactic out there - using single-ship TFs to absorb enemy airstrikes and thereby keep your juicier targets safe. Lame to the greatest degree in my opinion.

I'm willing to agree with you to at least some extent on the lameness factor, but I think this sort of thing (scattering xAKs etc.) did happen historically. I of course use this tactic in part because the other side has similarly lame stuff they can do and always do. If you try to apply this to large formations, though, I would have to strenuosly disagree. For instance the battle of the Eastern Solomons featured the Enterprise in a separate TF from the others and it avoided being found and struck even though in our game terms it would be considered to be in the same hex as the others. Of course, something similar happened with the Yorktown at Midway vis a vie the other carriers. So there are too many instances where this is perfectly legit to prohibit, I think. (Not that you suggested any prohibition).

Talking about prohibition, have you guys seen the stuff about Bloomberg banning large sugary drink containers? I'm thinking we'll have to bring back Elliot Ness to deal with this.

I have no problem with scattering for the purpose of escape - like at the start of the game sending all of those ships in the Philippines off by themselves hoping that at least some of them make it out. But using them for the single purpose of absorbing airstrikes/sucking up sorties from carriers, that's what annoys me.

You can try to make the case that the US used DD pickets toward the end of the war, but the picket ships were more for advanced notice of incoming attacks. At times, these DDs were attacked, but not by 100s of planes - dozen or two, yes, but not the entire strike. The Japanese pilots were smart enough to not waste their resources on the DDs when they knew carriers and other capital ships were nearby. The game engine isn't that smart, it pummels the single-ship TFs and barely sends anything after the more significant targets.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If the game had a realistic mechansim for attacking supply directly it would by nature be far less effective than bombing airbases. Supply dumps in the field camoflaged in wooded or jungle terrain are far less easy to find, fix and direct effective attacks against than airfields. Especially when dealing with the supply dumps and lines of an army nearly devoid of large weaponry and motorization. Just think of the attempts of the US to interdict supply along the Ho Chi Min trail in Vietnam and then imagine how far less effective a similar effort on the part of a technologically inferior Japan of the 1940s would have been.

This particular aspect of the simplification of supply mechanisms provides for an ahistorically exploitable assault on China that often skews many games.

It doesn't and never will without a rewrite and I doubt that will ever happen. To limit the flow of supply you have to hit a base with or without anything there and I see no problems in doing so.

[pharmy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Very good reply. Very good argument presentation. Thanks for the civil reply rather than the disparaging I recieve from the usual suspects above. I can buy into the argument on forts, but the supply one still leaves a bit to be desired. The place where this mechanism gets exploited the worst is in China where Japanese players bomb unused airfields to entirely eliminated China's meager supply.

The devs gave China a meager supply level so that Allied players couldn't exploit their large army to ahistorically mount large offensives that were just impossible with an Army consisting mostly of the personal armies of warlords with dubious loyalties to the national cause. This does a good job of historically limiting China, but it unwittingly handed the Japanese player a tailor made mechanism for exploitation.

If the game had a realistic mechansim for attacking supply directly it would by nature be far less effective than bombing airbases. Supply dumps in the field camoflaged in wooded or jungle terrain are far less easy to find, fix and direct effective attacks against than airfields.

Now I understand why so many AARs mention using the IJAAF in China, other then building up experience by bombing ground units, and sometimes disrupting a major stack, the whole thing seemed pointless to me. It was just to train up my flyers for the Burma theater to really hit units on the move that are a bit more dangerous then toothless Chinese Corps. You are right about it not being realistic (will abstain from it even against the AI). Bombing the ports in Bataan/Manila or indeed anywhere else does seem fair though, that's were supplies were stacked historically. I just thought I was bombing supplies directly, not by having repair soak them up.

Stopping fortifications from being built on purpose does sound ahistorical to me, air power was pretty useless (other then the Lancaster's Tallboys and even those only marginally useful)in denting fortifications. I just wish that (heavy)artillery counted as engineers in an assault on a fort or could reduce fortifications over time by themselves (could combat engineers be added to the TOE of large caliber units?). Artillery should be the means to soak up points for repairs. And to prevent a fort being built, haul ground force ass to get there.

As a 100% JFB never understood the xAKL single ship tf need. No Japanese player should us xAKLs as pickets. There are plenty of PB conversions and submarines to do that. On the other hand for small isolated outposts xAKLs are the only solution for a CS convoy that doesn't suck away the mainland supplies to below the magic 10k repair level. I always have asw patrol PBs running in the gap Kuriles-Marcus, but that historically mimics Japanese fishing trawlers with radios handed out to them.

By the way in IRL, the Indian coastguard figured out a way to protect their coastline better and it wasn't buying more Ilyushins and Tupolevs. They simple gave radios to the fisherman and asked them to report any vessel that isn't local

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: icepharmy
Bombing the ports in Bataan/Manila or indeed anywhere else does seem fair though, that's were supplies were stacked historically. I just thought I was bombing supplies directly, not by having repair soak them up.

Just to clarify this point, repairs to AF's or Ports do NOT use any supplies. Bombing the AF or Port can/will also result in "supply hits" which you can see in the combat report. This is where supplies are destroyed. The damage to the AF or Port from "non-supply" hits is unrelated to supply use/destruction.

Think of the entire abstraction in these terms: You are attacking a "base". You may specify your planes to focus on the AF or Port, but you're hitting the base, which includes supply depots, vehicle maintenance shops, latrines, etc. Attacking a base with the sole purpose of destroying supplies is a very valid tactic in those terms. Bases with no troops, or no player increased supply needs, will have very few supplies available to hit, so they are relatively useless targets.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Bombing an airfield that isn't being used, has no air units deployed at it, has no avaition support units deployed at it, wasn't used to bring in the supply that is stockpiled in field supply depots for ground units defending the front line potentially 40 miles or more from the location of the airfield in order to eliminate said supply is LAME, plain and simply. Sorry for your apparent inability to comprehend such as plain and simple fact. The oversimplification of the supply rules and structure facilitates it as a game tactic that is a valid tactic, but that makes it no less lame.

WitPZen....since there is no way to attack the field supply depots to which you refer ... we attack the airfield to destroy the unrepresented field supply depots. "Sorry for your apparent inability to comprehend such as plain and simple fact."

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: treespider
WitPZen....

Woof !!! Zen and The Art of AE Maintenance !!! Spidey, you are brilliant !!!

You and Mike are exactly on point. The game algorithm only has a few buttons to push and a few screen messages to access. But there's a lot more going on inside. Whiners that piss and moan about "messages" that are "displayed", and think that's how the game is working, instead of looking at the more detailed picture, deserve all they get. Ciao. [;)]