Matrix Games Forums

Building a precise scenario means that, for a single airbase, we have to add, runway (maybe 2), a lot of hangars, taxiway, access points, tarmacs, control tower, fuel and ammo bumps, radars, sams, etc.

At the end, a normal airbase could have up to 40-50 units. If we have a scenario with 3-4 airbases and two fighting sides, we'll have 200 units on each sides only for airbases. And we have to add airplanes...
If we create a Cold War scenario, Central Europe, maybe 20 airbases on each side with up to 1'000 units.
What kind of pc we should have to handle all this? [&:]
Seriously, I didn't try yet, but a scenario like this one could be wonderful but very heavy to handle for the pc. [:(]
Or not? Someone has already tried?

I have a fairly middle grade PC- Win 8 64bit 4GB RAM dual core.
I am creating a rather large scenario involving piracy in its initial phase, then a full on Iran/NATO clash in its middle stages, with neutral sides (3 of them) including various merchant shipping, neutral navies, and (minimal) neutral air bases in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. I am still in the creating phase, but have run it for several hours of game time several times, and have had no issues, other than running a little slow when there were probably 50 planes in the air. The new build seems to have even lowered those instances. I think that a middle grade cpu could handle the scenario you are describing based then upon my own experiences. Maybe they would want to turn off non essential background programs (I always do this as well).

ORIGINAL: George Patton

Building a precise scenario means that, for a single airbase, we have to add, runway (maybe 2), a lot of hangars, taxiway, access points, tarmacs, control tower, fuel and ammo bumps, radars, sams, etc.

At the end, a normal airbase could have up to 40-50 units. If we have a scenario with 3-4 airbases and two fighting sides, we'll have 200 units on each sides only for airbases. And we have to add airplanes...
If we create a Cold War scenario, Central Europe, maybe 20 airbases on each side with up to 1'000 units.
What kind of pc we should have to handle all this? [&:]
Seriously, I didn't try yet, but a scenario like this one could be wonderful but very heavy to handle for the pc. [:(]
Or not? Someone has already tried?

If they are all intended to be targets, then yes you need to be precise and (btw) you will likely found (as I did) that the actual number of installations per airbase will be high tens - low hundred (75 - 140 in my experience). Load some of the pre-made ones and you will see what I mean.
If some are just the bases for a sides aeroplanes, then the single unit generic airfields are the way to go. You cannot use them as targets, but then you probably don't intend that they should be, but they will function as airbases without the overhead of a custom made one.

I have looked at the single unit ones, but they seem lacking in ammo dumps, etc. Can a/c still loadout there?

ORIGINAL: bsq

ORIGINAL: George Patton

Building a precise scenario means that, for a single airbase, we have to add, runway (maybe 2), a lot of hangars, taxiway, access points, tarmacs, control tower, fuel and ammo bumps, radars, sams, etc.

At the end, a normal airbase could have up to 40-50 units. If we have a scenario with 3-4 airbases and two fighting sides, we'll have 200 units on each sides only for airbases. And we have to add airplanes...
If we create a Cold War scenario, Central Europe, maybe 20 airbases on each side with up to 1'000 units.
What kind of pc we should have to handle all this? [&:]
Seriously, I didn't try yet, but a scenario like this one could be wonderful but very heavy to handle for the pc. [:(]
Or not? Someone has already tried?

If they are all intended to be targets, then yes you need to be precise and (btw) you will likely found (as I did) that the actual number of installations per airbase will be high tens - low hundred (75 - 140 in my experience). Load some of the pre-made ones and you will see what I mean.
If some are just the bases for a sides aeroplanes, then the single unit generic airfields are the way to go. You cannot use them as targets, but then you probably don't intend that they should be, but they will function as airbases without the overhead of a custom made one.

Building a large Syrian based scenario and have Akrotiri, Souda Bay and Fairford as single unit bases and yes A/C can load out at these locations.

ORIGINAL: George Patton

Building a precise scenario means that, for a single airbase, we have to add, runway (maybe 2), a lot of hangars, taxiway, access points, tarmacs, control tower, fuel and ammo bumps, radars, sams, etc.

At the end, a normal airbase could have up to 40-50 units. If we have a scenario with 3-4 airbases and two fighting sides, we'll have 200 units on each sides only for airbases. And we have to add airplanes...
If we create a Cold War scenario, Central Europe, maybe 20 airbases on each side with up to 1'000 units.
What kind of pc we should have to handle all this? [&:]
Seriously, I didn't try yet, but a scenario like this one could be wonderful but very heavy to handle for the pc. [:(]
Or not? Someone has already tried?

I'm building a full Cold War 1962 scenario covering East, West Germany, Czech,Poland air and ground war. Haven't triggered a run yet. Still placing units. We'll see what happens. My airbases are single unit structures.

ORIGINAL: navwarcol
I have looked at the single unit ones, but they seem lacking in ammo dumps, etc. Can a/c still loadout there?

Yes you can access the Magazine window in those air bases.

Thanks guys. The single unit idea seems great then for mine. I am thinking there always is a trade however, and wonder what the trade is? Is it only "you cannot attack/destroy this airbase".. I can live with that one. I just am thinking this is way too easy if that is the only trade [:)]