Reading the UV AARs, and reflecting upon my old experiences with PW, one phenomenon that I have noticed is that players can maintain some dreadfully large numbers of a/c at airbases. A level 8 AF can maintain up to 400 a/c (not including patrol and supply a/c) in PW for example. Although this makes sense if one thinks of a PW hex like Dacca as representing a suite of airfield complexes within a radius of, say, 25 km, it makes no sense for a location like Port Moresby, Rabaul, or Truk. Historically, really *huge* airbases were only maintained in the Japanese home areas, Hawaii, the Philippines, and (after much effort) at Guam and Saipan. Even then, it was a rare island airbase that was home to more than 200 a/c.
Comments?
Air Base "stacking limits"
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Air Base "stacking limits"
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Posted by Mdiehl
As far as I know, plane stacking in UV is effectively infinite. The penalties incurred for overstacking are -25% reduction in a/c that can fly operationaly when you exceed 50 times the air base size and another -25% when you exceed 100 times the air base size. So long as an airbase is size 5 (or over), has 250 aviation support points and required supply, you can operate hundreds of aircraft with ease.
I've never thought it to be very realistic. How many aircraft were operating out of Guam and Iwo Jima (US) at their peak?
Reading the UV AARs, and reflecting upon my old experiences with PW, one phenomenon that I have noticed is that players can maintain some dreadfully large numbers of a/c at airbases.
As far as I know, plane stacking in UV is effectively infinite. The penalties incurred for overstacking are -25% reduction in a/c that can fly operationaly when you exceed 50 times the air base size and another -25% when you exceed 100 times the air base size. So long as an airbase is size 5 (or over), has 250 aviation support points and required supply, you can operate hundreds of aircraft with ease.
I've never thought it to be very realistic. How many aircraft were operating out of Guam and Iwo Jima (US) at their peak?
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
drink more beer.
I'll do some fact checking. Not too many at Iwo. IIRC it was home to a couple of late-war fighter groups. Quite a number at Guam, Saipan and Tinian, judging by the rows of 29s, but any low-angle shot could make a hundred a/c look like many more.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Playing as the Japanese I am usually limited by the amount of aircraft support crews rather than the size of the airfield. The Allies dont have this problem so much.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Posted by Snigbert
Matrix indicated that the limited Jap airbase support units in UV was a deliberate decision to reflect the historical restrictions on the IJNF/IJAF.
The best I've ever done in UV is 3 maximum operational Jap airbases using the 250 rule (no airbase ever needs more than 250 aviation support points). Even that can't be maintained for much more than 3 months before attrition starts to affect you.
The allies...well, they're the allies.
Playing as the Japanese I am usually limited by the amount of aircraft support crews rather than the size of the airfield. The Allies dont have this problem so much.
Matrix indicated that the limited Jap airbase support units in UV was a deliberate decision to reflect the historical restrictions on the IJNF/IJAF.
The best I've ever done in UV is 3 maximum operational Jap airbases using the 250 rule (no airbase ever needs more than 250 aviation support points). Even that can't be maintained for much more than 3 months before attrition starts to affect you.
The allies...well, they're the allies.
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
drink more beer.
The principle reason why Port Morosby is such a tough nut to crack is because the first thing players do on Turn 1 is stuff every available FG and BG sitting in Australia over to PM, along with a healthy serving of LCU's, limited only by the availability of air support points contained in ENG units.
Though a perfectly legal action within the game, this has always left me with a bit of sense of disatisfaction. The first question that comes to my mind is...."why didn't the Allies do this historically?"
I know that a large part of the answer involves Hindsight. The Allied player is far more in the know about IJN strength levels at that time, the historical objectives and the limitations in troop and shipping levels that they had Another part of the puzzle was the logistics situation which was far graver 'at that time' than UV stipulates (which also contributed to the early B-17 rampage issue) Before the arrival of Gen Kenny i believe, the air support infrastruture in the SWPAC was a mess, with critical shortages of spare parts, and mercurial morale and organizational issues that kept more planes on the ground than OOB's would indicate. Lastly...in a 'real world situation' where politics, and lack of forknowledge abound....you would not see commanders leaving Austrailian bases completely denuded of airpower due to the risk of potential attack, however remote.
Still.....that situation was soon resolved, and now i'm in more developed territory time-wise...(late 42, approaching 43) and just as described in the thread....i have nearly 400 aircraft......all at PM which has been developed into a size 8 airbase, slowly overbuilding to size 9 courtasy of plenty of engineers .
Realistic? Perhaps......except that i feel that this intones two problems, one i have brought up in a seperate thread
1) There seems to be not enough penalty for such concentration on the logistics side, not just the supply issue either......This "may" be solved in WitP via the modified supply rules that will be in place. Currently in UV, Truk, Brisbane and Normura enjoy unlimited supply....a situation that was not the case historically but for game purposes was necessary given the limited scope of the game. With WitP, i assume the only points of "uber" supply will orig in Japan, and the US coast.....this alone may address the issue as the players will have to more carefully ration out their supplies to forward bases....especially bases that support such huge #'s of aircraft.
Another possible cure might be to eliminate the 250 air support point cap. According the rulebook, you need 1 air support point per aircraft (roughly) up to 250 at which point you can support infinate #'s. Eliminating this cap might address the issue. Also, making twin engined bombers require more air support points per plane (four engined even more) might also address (an exception should prob be patrol planes since they often had to operate from primitive facilities and such a rule might hamstring this ability)
Finally there is the engineer problem. I have suggested in another thread that players should not be able to simply stack engineer units in (at times) ridiculous amounts at one base in order to super-develop a base in only a couple weeks time (building fortifcations, expanding ports and of course, expanding airfields) A similar system like the AA stack limit in TF's (decreasing returns as more resources are committed aka "conjestion") would solve this issue and slow base development prematurely. Also perhaps the supply cost of such works should be increased to force players to plan better when and where to commit his resources.
2) Air Retaliation.
I have grave concerns over the airfield attack rules....rules similar to those in place since PacWar, and even before that. Simply put, airfield attack rarely does any serious damage to grounded air assets...even when such assets are fielded in numbers such as those I currently have at Port Morsoby. I submitted to Matrix a proposal that this be looked at seriously...esp as "Plane raids" were such a vital component of future US carrier/amphibious strategy to cut off targeted bases. Coupled with weekly turns this was impossible in PacWar......Under the current air rules, even with preferable daily turns.....i dont see this happening in UV or WitP. The rule book says that the bigger the airbase, the harder to damage. That sounds logical, however i've seen little difference between an air attack against a size 1 base and a size 8. Occasionally one can score a half dozen planes damaged or destroyed....but its rare. It does not appear that the # of planes present effects this calculation much. There also appears to be little to no difference in damage tallies for an airbase that has radar and one that does not.
I have often mussed on the real world possibilities if say "Rabaul" which is still very strong in fighters in my current game, were to stage a few well placed raids on my huge collection of Allied air power. Radar of course and revernets would help reduce the damage but still....such a concentration of airpower makes for an inviting and potentially vulnerable target, but under the current air rules....I'm not worried enough to disperse my forces. Only shore bombardments make me pay for such potentially dangerous overconcentrations of aircraft, esp bombers....i got spanked by the AI for prematurely moving four B-17 squadrons to Lunga (yep....B-17's because once again, i was able to quickly turn it into a size 5+ base via stacked engineer units in zero time flat) Before i could even stage my first raid on the tempting assets concentrated at the Shortlands, a CA group bombarded and put 75% of the aircraft out of action. (EEK) It would be nice if a well staged and numerically sufficient air attack could do the same thing more often than once in a blue moon, especially given that airfields are almost impossible to knock out solely from the air alone.
So i guess my standpoint is that "yes" its possible and legal to stuff a base developed with aircraft should the player choose but just as with the low altitude attack strategy (before the patch) there seems to be not enough of a balance/risk factor to make a player "not" do so.
The only game-situation that might stay my hand from continuing this strategy would be against a human player in a PBEM who might punish me for my overconcentration by staging a few well chosen raids on the mainland of Australia.....which is stripped of airpower to make Port Morsoby an early powerhouse. Same for the Normura, Luganville, Lunga pipeline. The AI actually did this to me a couple of times, but not with carriers but with long ranged bombers......had a couple AK's damaged by torp wielding G3M's because i had zero fighters at the Aussie base. (they were all at Port Morosby
)
On a tongue in cheek note.....I just remembered that players massively complained about not having enough transports and merchants to conduct their ops. Matrix gave in on this, and whereas before i was dubious about the increase....now i'm thinking it was definately not a good move, since coupled with unlimited supply, players can more easily keep double-stuffed airbases in supply with massive relief convoys. The new auto supply via paved roads in Austrailia (and now Normura) further esasberated this as now the Allied player doesn't have to worry about replenishing any Aussie cities/airbases and can send all Merchants to New Guneau. (I suggested this should be reduced from a massive 5000 points per day down to say more like 500! via ground transport)
Though a perfectly legal action within the game, this has always left me with a bit of sense of disatisfaction. The first question that comes to my mind is...."why didn't the Allies do this historically?"
I know that a large part of the answer involves Hindsight. The Allied player is far more in the know about IJN strength levels at that time, the historical objectives and the limitations in troop and shipping levels that they had Another part of the puzzle was the logistics situation which was far graver 'at that time' than UV stipulates (which also contributed to the early B-17 rampage issue) Before the arrival of Gen Kenny i believe, the air support infrastruture in the SWPAC was a mess, with critical shortages of spare parts, and mercurial morale and organizational issues that kept more planes on the ground than OOB's would indicate. Lastly...in a 'real world situation' where politics, and lack of forknowledge abound....you would not see commanders leaving Austrailian bases completely denuded of airpower due to the risk of potential attack, however remote.
Still.....that situation was soon resolved, and now i'm in more developed territory time-wise...(late 42, approaching 43) and just as described in the thread....i have nearly 400 aircraft......all at PM which has been developed into a size 8 airbase, slowly overbuilding to size 9 courtasy of plenty of engineers .
Realistic? Perhaps......except that i feel that this intones two problems, one i have brought up in a seperate thread
1) There seems to be not enough penalty for such concentration on the logistics side, not just the supply issue either......This "may" be solved in WitP via the modified supply rules that will be in place. Currently in UV, Truk, Brisbane and Normura enjoy unlimited supply....a situation that was not the case historically but for game purposes was necessary given the limited scope of the game. With WitP, i assume the only points of "uber" supply will orig in Japan, and the US coast.....this alone may address the issue as the players will have to more carefully ration out their supplies to forward bases....especially bases that support such huge #'s of aircraft.
Another possible cure might be to eliminate the 250 air support point cap. According the rulebook, you need 1 air support point per aircraft (roughly) up to 250 at which point you can support infinate #'s. Eliminating this cap might address the issue. Also, making twin engined bombers require more air support points per plane (four engined even more) might also address (an exception should prob be patrol planes since they often had to operate from primitive facilities and such a rule might hamstring this ability)
Finally there is the engineer problem. I have suggested in another thread that players should not be able to simply stack engineer units in (at times) ridiculous amounts at one base in order to super-develop a base in only a couple weeks time (building fortifcations, expanding ports and of course, expanding airfields) A similar system like the AA stack limit in TF's (decreasing returns as more resources are committed aka "conjestion") would solve this issue and slow base development prematurely. Also perhaps the supply cost of such works should be increased to force players to plan better when and where to commit his resources.
2) Air Retaliation.
I have grave concerns over the airfield attack rules....rules similar to those in place since PacWar, and even before that. Simply put, airfield attack rarely does any serious damage to grounded air assets...even when such assets are fielded in numbers such as those I currently have at Port Morsoby. I submitted to Matrix a proposal that this be looked at seriously...esp as "Plane raids" were such a vital component of future US carrier/amphibious strategy to cut off targeted bases. Coupled with weekly turns this was impossible in PacWar......Under the current air rules, even with preferable daily turns.....i dont see this happening in UV or WitP. The rule book says that the bigger the airbase, the harder to damage. That sounds logical, however i've seen little difference between an air attack against a size 1 base and a size 8. Occasionally one can score a half dozen planes damaged or destroyed....but its rare. It does not appear that the # of planes present effects this calculation much. There also appears to be little to no difference in damage tallies for an airbase that has radar and one that does not.
I have often mussed on the real world possibilities if say "Rabaul" which is still very strong in fighters in my current game, were to stage a few well placed raids on my huge collection of Allied air power. Radar of course and revernets would help reduce the damage but still....such a concentration of airpower makes for an inviting and potentially vulnerable target, but under the current air rules....I'm not worried enough to disperse my forces. Only shore bombardments make me pay for such potentially dangerous overconcentrations of aircraft, esp bombers....i got spanked by the AI for prematurely moving four B-17 squadrons to Lunga (yep....B-17's because once again, i was able to quickly turn it into a size 5+ base via stacked engineer units in zero time flat) Before i could even stage my first raid on the tempting assets concentrated at the Shortlands, a CA group bombarded and put 75% of the aircraft out of action. (EEK) It would be nice if a well staged and numerically sufficient air attack could do the same thing more often than once in a blue moon, especially given that airfields are almost impossible to knock out solely from the air alone.
So i guess my standpoint is that "yes" its possible and legal to stuff a base developed with aircraft should the player choose but just as with the low altitude attack strategy (before the patch) there seems to be not enough of a balance/risk factor to make a player "not" do so.
The only game-situation that might stay my hand from continuing this strategy would be against a human player in a PBEM who might punish me for my overconcentration by staging a few well chosen raids on the mainland of Australia.....which is stripped of airpower to make Port Morsoby an early powerhouse. Same for the Normura, Luganville, Lunga pipeline. The AI actually did this to me a couple of times, but not with carriers but with long ranged bombers......had a couple AK's damaged by torp wielding G3M's because i had zero fighters at the Aussie base. (they were all at Port Morosby
)On a tongue in cheek note.....I just remembered that players massively complained about not having enough transports and merchants to conduct their ops. Matrix gave in on this, and whereas before i was dubious about the increase....now i'm thinking it was definately not a good move, since coupled with unlimited supply, players can more easily keep double-stuffed airbases in supply with massive relief convoys. The new auto supply via paved roads in Austrailia (and now Normura) further esasberated this as now the Allied player doesn't have to worry about replenishing any Aussie cities/airbases and can send all Merchants to New Guneau. (I suggested this should be reduced from a massive 5000 points per day down to say more like 500! via ground transport)
The problem with PM isn't the stuffing. It is that there is an airbase there that can support *that* many a/c. PM eventually operated something like, IIRC, seven airfields, each with a rather small complement of a/c, so that no single a/f could be suppressed by one raid. It also had the useful effect of dispersal, but it came with a certain complexity of operations.
The motive for the stuffing is of course the ahistorical ease with which the Japanese (and, for that matter, Allied) player can pick an objective and throw *everything* at it. This has at least two subphenom.
1. Preparation. In PW I have always felt that an HQ should not be able to attack a location that is not set as the HQ objective or within a few grid locations. If there was such a thing as an HQ objective and one or two secondary objectives, then no invasion of a target other than an objective/secondary objective should be allowed. Changing an objective should really eat up preparation, so that at least a month of prep time is expectable when a new objective is determined.
2. Assets. The problem with places like Rabaul, PM etc in 1942 was that neither combatant higher echelon HQ was particularly willing to *let* local HQ commandeer huge fleets of a/c, or let one branch service determine objectives without considering limits on available resources. Rabaul *historically* rarely saw more than 30 operational Betties at once, for example. US groups in the PM/Solomons in 1942 were often a mixed lot, with fewer than 20 operational a/c per group.
On another note, Australia should be a good supply source. It should also be possible to create many and multiple AFs rather quickly in Australia, since there was no particularly extreme shortage of heavy equipment and plenty of civilian infrastructure available. It always bugged me about PW that in Aus, Japan, India, or the HI, that AFs and ports did not simply grow on their own. One doesn't need CBs in Brisbane, for example, to find sufficient labor/supply to build plenty of AF in the area.
The motive for the stuffing is of course the ahistorical ease with which the Japanese (and, for that matter, Allied) player can pick an objective and throw *everything* at it. This has at least two subphenom.
1. Preparation. In PW I have always felt that an HQ should not be able to attack a location that is not set as the HQ objective or within a few grid locations. If there was such a thing as an HQ objective and one or two secondary objectives, then no invasion of a target other than an objective/secondary objective should be allowed. Changing an objective should really eat up preparation, so that at least a month of prep time is expectable when a new objective is determined.
2. Assets. The problem with places like Rabaul, PM etc in 1942 was that neither combatant higher echelon HQ was particularly willing to *let* local HQ commandeer huge fleets of a/c, or let one branch service determine objectives without considering limits on available resources. Rabaul *historically* rarely saw more than 30 operational Betties at once, for example. US groups in the PM/Solomons in 1942 were often a mixed lot, with fewer than 20 operational a/c per group.
On another note, Australia should be a good supply source. It should also be possible to create many and multiple AFs rather quickly in Australia, since there was no particularly extreme shortage of heavy equipment and plenty of civilian infrastructure available. It always bugged me about PW that in Aus, Japan, India, or the HI, that AFs and ports did not simply grow on their own. One doesn't need CBs in Brisbane, for example, to find sufficient labor/supply to build plenty of AF in the area.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Regarding PM
While its true that an Allied player can load up PM early in the long campaigns, this doesn't bother me.
Since it was certainly possible, I don't find it "antihistorical"
Playing as the Japanese, taking PM is always one of my early priorities. When the base has 150+ A/C it does become more of a danger for your shipping but the Allied player pays a price as well.
1. Operating those A/G's will tear through his supplies. You need to create a supply deficit at PM to aid in the assault.
2. Your bombardment groups will destroy/damage many of these planes thus trapping them there. Once you take the base, they are destroyed.
Consider too, that stripping Australia of A/C leaves it vulnerable to raids at the very least.
PM starts out as a size 4 airbase I believe, while this can theorectically operate 200 A/C with no penalty, we all know the Allied player must increase the size of the airfields, and the port as well. He may also wish to build fortifications. All these will consume his supplies.
Another point to note is that PM starts with a barely adequate aviation support unit with no radar. To fill the base up, the Allied player will need to send in at least one more base force. Denying PM any reinforcements or supplies is a top priority. I patrol PM's harbor with subs and try and use my CV's to menace the Coral Sea.
As many others have stated, logistics are the key to the game. Make sure you have plenty while your opponent starves.
Since it was certainly possible, I don't find it "antihistorical"
Playing as the Japanese, taking PM is always one of my early priorities. When the base has 150+ A/C it does become more of a danger for your shipping but the Allied player pays a price as well.
1. Operating those A/G's will tear through his supplies. You need to create a supply deficit at PM to aid in the assault.
2. Your bombardment groups will destroy/damage many of these planes thus trapping them there. Once you take the base, they are destroyed.
Consider too, that stripping Australia of A/C leaves it vulnerable to raids at the very least.
PM starts out as a size 4 airbase I believe, while this can theorectically operate 200 A/C with no penalty, we all know the Allied player must increase the size of the airfields, and the port as well. He may also wish to build fortifications. All these will consume his supplies.
Another point to note is that PM starts with a barely adequate aviation support unit with no radar. To fill the base up, the Allied player will need to send in at least one more base force. Denying PM any reinforcements or supplies is a top priority. I patrol PM's harbor with subs and try and use my CV's to menace the Coral Sea.
As many others have stated, logistics are the key to the game. Make sure you have plenty while your opponent starves.
"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson
Air Support, Supply & Air Base Limits
I have a modest suggestion to make 
some of which I remember (I think) seeing in either this forum or the UV forum.
Aviation Support
Get rid of the maximum 250 aviation support requirement. Change aviation support requirements to reflect the aircraft type as follows.
1 Unit (squad) per aircraft: Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Float Planes, Float Fighters & the PBY Catalina (because it was not unusual for it to operate with bare bones support).
2 Units (squad) per aircraft: Night Fighters (radar), Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers, Level (Medium) Bombers, Reconnaissance Planes (cameras & photo interpitation) Transports (who's going to unload them) and IJN Flying Boats.
4 Units (squad) per aircraft: Level (Heavy) Bombers, probabely more for the B-29.
Supply
Create a aviation supply category (should also be a naval supply to limit sorties) that would include ammo, avgas & spare parts. This would limit attack sorties.
Maybe not a good ideal seeing as how it would complicate logistics even more.
Air Base/Field Capacity
50 x air base/field size is good for fighter sized aircraft but the ratio should be 2 to 1 for Level (Medium) Bombers size aircraft and 4 to 1 for Level (Heavy) Bombers.
A typical size 8 (allied) air base/field would have the following:
AC Type AC QTY AV Sup. Space Used
Fighters, FB, Recon 120 120 120
Dive Bombers 32 64 32
Torpedo Bombers 16 32 16
Medium Bombers 48 96 96
Heavy Bombers 36 108 144
Total 252 420 408
The above would be the equivlant of a Fighter Group with Night Fighter & Reconnaisance Flights, a Marine Air Group (MAG) a Bombardment (Medium) Group and a Bombardment (Heavy) Group. Which is alot of firepower
Well thats my $0.02 US
some of which I remember (I think) seeing in either this forum or the UV forum.Aviation Support
Get rid of the maximum 250 aviation support requirement. Change aviation support requirements to reflect the aircraft type as follows.
1 Unit (squad) per aircraft: Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Float Planes, Float Fighters & the PBY Catalina (because it was not unusual for it to operate with bare bones support).
2 Units (squad) per aircraft: Night Fighters (radar), Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers, Level (Medium) Bombers, Reconnaissance Planes (cameras & photo interpitation) Transports (who's going to unload them) and IJN Flying Boats.
4 Units (squad) per aircraft: Level (Heavy) Bombers, probabely more for the B-29.
Supply
Create a aviation supply category (should also be a naval supply to limit sorties) that would include ammo, avgas & spare parts. This would limit attack sorties.
Maybe not a good ideal seeing as how it would complicate logistics even more.Air Base/Field Capacity
50 x air base/field size is good for fighter sized aircraft but the ratio should be 2 to 1 for Level (Medium) Bombers size aircraft and 4 to 1 for Level (Heavy) Bombers.
A typical size 8 (allied) air base/field would have the following:
AC Type AC QTY AV Sup. Space Used
Fighters, FB, Recon 120 120 120
Dive Bombers 32 64 32
Torpedo Bombers 16 32 16
Medium Bombers 48 96 96
Heavy Bombers 36 108 144
Total 252 420 408
The above would be the equivlant of a Fighter Group with Night Fighter & Reconnaisance Flights, a Marine Air Group (MAG) a Bombardment (Medium) Group and a Bombardment (Heavy) Group. Which is alot of firepower
Well thats my $0.02 US
Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.