Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Did you move all the air HQs to some place?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

If an Airfield has too many aircraft (physical space) or groups (administrative) present, then the airfield is deemed overstacked. And is indicated by an ‘*’ next to the airfield.
An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.

- Overstacked is not a curse word. It's a fact of life. Don't fixate on the "administrative" word. As designers we INTENDED for AFs to be overstacked. It was part of our effort to slow things down, and defang Air combat a bit.

A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

...

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as the best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Read section 9.4 of the manual. Which air HQ did you leave there?

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Tanaka,

An Air HQ will only add its full command rating to the notional level of an airbase if the base is assigned to that command (meaning the same command HQ chain).

It is possible to get a half rating (rounded down) bump from an air HQ in a different command chain.

Edit - Command HQs can also supply the bonuses.

With a 'physical' level 8 to start, any bonus will bump you to notional 9+.

According to a developer, that gives you the stacking advantages and admin advantages of a level 9 airbase, even though it doesn't look like it.

Note, however, to my observation you don't get the doubling bonus for AV unless you have a physical size 8 or 9 airbase; then again, maybe you do, and it simply doesn't report that on the base screen. The Elf did not say you don't get that effect in the aircraft repair/maintenance phase.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

If an Airfield has too many aircraft (physical space) or groups (administrative) present, then the airfield is deemed overstacked. And is indicated by an ‘*’ next to the airfield.
An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.

- Overstacked is not a curse word. It's a fact of life. Don't fixate on the "administrative" word. As designers we INTENDED for AFs to be overstacked. It was part of our effort to slow things down, and defang Air combat a bit.

A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

...

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as the best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... ey=�

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Tanaka, read this thread (sadly the pictures have been deleted)
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... ey=�

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Oh dang I thought I read that HQ assignments did not really matter. That any HQ would supply a bonus. Or was that WITP? The AF is size 8 and I do have one Air HQ there but still the issue?

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Yaab,

You don't have to do that - it's a level 8 airfield which is getting a 4 level HQ bonus on turn 1. Note it says Base Administration 13 of 12 groups in red on the air unit screen. It also has more than enough AV support.

As a result, it is nominally a level 9 and ignores the overstack effects - per the Elf in the post I linked above.

Incidentally, Takao is a based 'owned' by General Defence [R], and the HQs on base are all Southern Army (some via 11th Airfleet). While they are helping with AV support and strike coordination for groups in their command chain, the base is getting the admin bump from elsewhere. Chinese Expeditionary Army in Nanking - a command HQ with 9 rating, and less than 9x2 away is extending half its command rating to Takao, although it is not in its command chain, looks to be where it is coming from.

In order to test that, I did a quick edit of scenario 1, and moved Chinese Expeditionary Army to Moho on the Amur River/Siberian border. As expected, Takao base admin now shows 13 of 10 groups. It is now getting half the rating of the next best command or air HQ in range - in this case, that is 11th Air Fleet - rating 5 halved and round down =2. It is still 9+ though, which is all you need.

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Yaab,

You don't have to do that - it's a level 8 airfield which is getting a 4 level HQ bonus on turn 1. Note it says Base Administration 13 of 12 groups in red on the air unit screen. It also has more than enough AV support.

As a result, it is nominally a level 9 and ignores the overstack effects - per the Elf in the post I linked above.

Incidentally, Takao is a based 'owned' by General Defence [R], and the HQs on base are all Southern Army (some via 11th Airfleet). While they are helping with AV support and strike coordination for groups in their command chain, the base is getting the admin bump from elsewhere. Chinese Expeditionary Army in Nanking - a command HQ with 9 rating, and less than 9x2 away is extending half its command rating to Takao, although it is not in its command chain, looks to be where it is coming from.

In order to test that, I did a quick edit of scenario 1, and moved Chinese Expeditionary Army to Moho on the Amur River/Siberian border. As expected, Takao base admin now shows 13 of 10 groups. It is now getting half the rating of the next best command or air HQ in range - in this case, that is 11th Air Fleet - rating 5 halved and round down =2. It is still 9+ though, which is all you need.

So are you saying that the overstack we are seeing is being ignored? I'm having very few bombers flying naval attacks at all though? Sure seems like there are issues...

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Oh dang I thought I read that HQ assignments did not really matter. That any HQ would supply a bonus. Or was that WITP? The AF is size 8 and I do have one Air HQ there but still the issue?

See my response to Yaab - even air HQ in the wrong command chain will give you half its command bonus (rounded down) and there is a 5 rated there that would at least get you +2 nominal levels to 10. What you are getting is a 9/2 = 4 (drop the fraction ) bonus from the command HQ in Nanking.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Yaab,

You don't have to do that - it's a level 8 airfield which is getting a 4 level HQ bonus on turn 1. Note it says Base Administration 13 of 12 groups in red on the air unit screen. It also has more than enough AV support.

As a result, it is nominally a level 9 and ignores the overstack effects - per the Elf in the post I linked above.

Incidentally, Takao is a based 'owned' by General Defence [R], and the HQs on base are all Southern Army (some via 11th Airfleet). While they are helping with AV support and strike coordination for groups in their command chain, the base is getting the admin bump from elsewhere. Chinese Expeditionary Army in Nanking - a command HQ with 9 rating, and less than 9x2 away is extending half its command rating to Takao, although it is not in its command chain, looks to be where it is coming from.

In order to test that, I did a quick edit of scenario 1, and moved Chinese Expeditionary Army to Moho on the Amur River/Siberian border. As expected, Takao base admin now shows 13 of 10 groups. It is now getting half the rating of the next best command or air HQ in range - in this case, that is 11th Air Fleet - rating 5 halved and round down =2. It is still 9+ though, which is all you need.

So are you saying that the overstack we are seeing is being ignored? I'm having very few bombers flying naval attacks at all though? Sure seems like there are issues...

What the Elf said is:

If you can achieve [9 or more admin level] through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule...

The issue is not overstacking or admin, as long as you have at least one HQ adding to your physical '8'.

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Oh dang I thought I read that HQ assignments did not really matter. That any HQ would supply a bonus. Or was that WITP? The AF is size 8 and I do have one Air HQ there but still the issue?

See my response to Yaab - even air HQ in the wrong command chain will give you half its command bonus (rounded down) and there is a 5 rated there that would at least get you +2 nominal levels to 10. What you are getting is a 9/2 = 4 (drop the fraction ) bonus from the command HQ in Nanking.

I only have the 23rd Air still there. Is command bonus the radius which is 1? Is that the issue?

I don't understand why I seem to be having issues launching many planes...

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Ian R




See my response to Yaab - even air HQ in the wrong command chain will give you half its command bonus (rounded down) and there is a 5 rated there that would at least get you +2 nominal levels to 10. What you are getting is a 9/2 = 4 (drop the fraction ) bonus from the command HQ in Nanking.

I only have the 23rd Air still there. Is command bonus the radius which is 1? Is that the issue?

Is China Expeditionary Army still in Nanking? That is where the 4 level bump to 12 was coming from.

Open the air unit screen - if it says in red "Base Administration 13 of 12 groups" or any number of 12 groups, then you are not suffering overstacking penalties.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

It's not overstacking penalties then.