Matrix Games Forums

Hi,

I wonder for some time if airfields work as intended in the game. In one PBEM my adversary (he plays Japan) does a very good (maybe even excellent) job vs. me by simply concentrating his air assets. He hit me earlier at Dacca (Level 9 AF) quite regulary with strikes from Mandalay (4) that involved hundreds of planes (Zeros and Sallies). Now he has taken Trincomalee (4) and I was hit (for the second time day in a row; Thunderstorm conditions) the following strikes in the AM phase:

1) vs. Madras: 54 Zeros, 304 Sallies, 72 Helens, 9 Dinahs = 439 planes
2) vs. Colombo: 38 Zeros, 6 Marys, 17 Sonias, 102 Lilys, 8 Dinahs = 171 planes

That is: 610 planes launched from a level 4 AF in a single phase (needless to say that my Beauforts at Madras did not even bother to launch vs. a TF present at Madras the turn before that bombarded this turn causing more than 5,000 casualties...). And no, their morale was not down then (now it is).

My question is: Is this working as intended? Air strikes from small airfields with more planes that launched in the big attacks against strategic targets in the ETO (or later against Japan proper from Saipan).

K

Just take a look at the AAR between Freeboy and Zeta16, you'll see allies having size 6 airfields with more than 2000 planes on it, and flying from it without problems...
Of course there are penalties, but those apply only to number of planes that fly a mission, 25% reduction for base overcrowding when you have 2000 planes on the ground means that 1500 can still fly...
Perhaps some house rule is needed here, since I doubt it will ever be changed.

I think its working as designed, but maybe not as intended.

The problem with those huge strike groups is that they cause many planes to receive operational damage. If you have more than one airbase in the area you can then use your undamaged airbase to counter attack.

The defense against this kind of offensive is to have more than one airbase functional and in the same area. Lone airbases are very vunerable to being shut down, mutual supporting air bases cause attrition battles.

I think it was 25 % reduction whe a/c number is higher than 50*(airfield size)..and another 25 % when it's 100*(airfield size). With needs to repair planes it can be actually neneficial to have only 50 % of the planes to not to fly missions!![:D] But since any number of planes need only max 250 aviation support... And Air HQ helps with strikes too... So I think massed air units would need lot more aviation support than 250 !

Cheers,

M.S.

The issue with large strike is that airbase size is screwy.. no reason at all Allies cannot have large strikes.. think of the airbase size penelty as a repair penelty as 1000plus planes repair slowly, and the larger planes get damaged easily just by use! so It can be a real chore to keep a unit even at 50% planes capable in 44 unless you stand them down for long periods of time

I think at a minimum we should be required to have more than 250 Aviation Support to support a base with thousands of planes. The same number of mechanics can handle 2500 planes as 250? That seems, uh, counterintuitive. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I think at a minimum we should be required to have more than 250 Aviation Support to support a base with thousands of planes. The same number of mechanics can handle 2500 planes as 250? That seems, uh, counterintuitive. [8D]

Agree completly. Changing this should not be too hard to do and will change much PBEM, while doing little for the AI, that don't send thousands of planes on the same base.

I have never understood this rule, especially as land support is modelized 1 for 1 (10 000 squads require 10 000 support squads).

The limiting factor of the base size is also showing that take off and landings take time and so the number of planes able to operate from a given base (or base complex, but in WITP all are put together) should be limited. If someone decides to put 10 000 Allied aircraft in a size 4 base, 5 000 will fly every day (maybe two times if on naval attack). And they won't be more op loss percentage that if they flew from 100 bases.

Also WITP is not taking in account (except for CVs) the difficulty to gather raids in the air and to organize big ones, and the loss of time, so shortening the effective range of the big raids.

think at a minimum we should be required to have more than 250 Aviation Support to support a base with thousands of planes. The same number of mechanics can handle 2500 planes as 250? That seems, uh, counterintuitive

I do not think the engineers support the planes, if I put fewer planes, they get fixed, more planes just is that, a lot of very slow repairing junk on the ground

Hi,
Airfields are indeed hard to model. Island airfields with a low potential (i.e. built up to 3(1)) should limit the amount of airfields present and therefore, the number of planes able to operate on the island. But airfields at places such as Tricomalee and Mandalay should have high potentials because there is unlimited potential to build up. Back then, airfields were very different than today (because WWII aircraft were much lighter and did not need solid fields). Airfields could be built with ease, so long as the ground could be leveled. Airfield needed to be no longer than 1000 feet for fighters and 4000 feet for the largest bombers. Large numbers of planes could be based in the open on uneven grass or dirt near the airfield (unlike today). The limiting factor for lauching large strikes was really service personnel. Therefore, I would advocate a change from the 250 Aviation support cap. Less than adequate aviation support should (and does) result in more damaged planes, unable to be repaired. I think the penalty should be focused more on repairs because strikes could be readied over night (fuel in drums and ammo carts). Most planes have some malfunction every flight and need repaired (at least they do now).

I think lauching large strikes from Mandalay or Tricomalee is not so improbable because it is not just one airfield we are talking about (even though it is displayed that way in the game for obvious purposes). Each location could and did support numerous small outlying fields and a couple of large fields. Even with 1 large field and 3-4 small ones, a 600 plane strike is not too difficult to lauch (about 40 minutes to form up). The Japanese were able to operate hundreds of smaller planes in Malaysia at improved airfields right after capture in 41/42. And of course, the Americans operated over a thousand B-29s from several large fields in Saipan, Guam, and Tinian.

I think some change is needed. Stacking limits for small potential fields (size 0-2) and an increase in aviation support needed for over, say, 400 planes would be good starts.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I think at a minimum we should be required to have more than 250 Aviation Support to support a base with thousands of planes. The same number of mechanics can handle 2500 planes as 250? That seems, uh, counterintuitive. [8D]

Can this be changed in the editor???

The issue with large strike is that airbase size is screwy.. no reason at all Allies cannot have large strikes.. think of the airbase size penelty as a repair penelty as 1000plus planes repair slowly, and the larger planes get damaged easily just by use! so It can be a real chore to keep a unit even at 50% planes capable in 44 unless you stand them down for long periods of time

I disagree with this in the small base context. I think the larger bases often represent more than one airfield present in the hex. If we have a small base, there may be only one or two airstrips. It takes a while for everyone to take off and form up from one strip. Thus, I think the size of the base should limit the size of an individual strike. Now if we had multiple strikes coming from the overcrowded base, I may not have as much as a problem, but I think that only happens on Naval strikes.

I find that often I get several strike from a large base... my biggest issue is escorting and getting heavies on target together.. if you do not do either of these it will be a long war full of crying in your beer as the JAp planes will kill small groups of heavies attacking into the best bases..

Guys. You can fix this yourselves without help from Matrix/2X3 or from the editor.

• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than that base will support
• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than you have aviation support at that base
• Don't play PBEM with an opponent who will not agree to these restrictions

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Guys. You can fix this yourselves without help from Matrix/2X3 or from the editor.

• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than that base will support
• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than you have aviation support at that base
• Don't play PBEM with an opponent who will not agree to these restrictions

And will the AI do this, or are you just setting yourself up for doom by limiting yourself thusly?

ORIGINAL: foliveti

The issue with large strike is that airbase size is screwy.. no reason at all Allies cannot have large strikes.. think of the airbase size penelty as a repair penelty as 1000plus planes repair slowly, and the larger planes get damaged easily just by use! so It can be a real chore to keep a unit even at 50% planes capable in 44 unless you stand them down for long periods of time

I disagree with this in the small base context. I think the larger bases often represent more than one airfield present in the hex. If we have a small base, there may be only one or two airstrips. It takes a while for everyone to take off and form up from one strip. Thus, I think the size of the base should limit the size of an individual strike. Now if we had multiple strikes coming from the overcrowded base, I may not have as much as a problem, but I think that only happens on Naval strikes.

The problem is endemic to the system. 2by3 made a lousy choice when they based
air restrictions on BASE SIZE rather than AIRCRAFT SIZE. Had they used a simplier
formula which said that each level of base size could enable 50 Aircraft Points to operate
and 50 service personel to support them, they would have had a much better model.
Rate a single-engined A/C as one A/C point, a twin-engined as two A/c points, a four-
engined as 3 A/C points, and a B-29 as 4 A/C pts, and you have basic control of raid
sizes from turn one by simply puting the right size base on the map, and a realistic
assesment of how much growth the hex could handle. Do away with some of the
sillyness of having 3-4 hundred A/C on a dot atoll like Midway or Wake. Other areas could be almost unlimited in potential, but controlled by the growing costliness on in-
creasing the size. Thus Japan might build up to a level 5-6 on an island like Tinian, but
only the US would have the sheer number of Engineers and Supply to build it up to a
Level 20 to support 500 B-29's.

They made a lousy choice, and so we eill have to learn to live with compromise and
"House Rules" until the make the code available for others to try to repair, as they have
made it plain they don't intend to do so. If you don't like wildly ahistoric air strikes,
find someone who agrees with you and play them. If you play with a "gamer" be
prepared to deal with "gameyness".

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Guys. You can fix this yourselves without help from Matrix/2X3 or from the editor.

• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than that base will support
• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than you have aviation support at that base
• Don't play PBEM with an opponent who will not agree to these restrictions

And will the AI do this, or are you just setting yourself up for doom by limiting yourself thusly?

Doom, from the AI?[8|] Maybe for you, Charles....[;)]

On a less flippant note, I would be surprised to find that the AI was not programmed to follow the "rules", which we frail humans just can't quite seem to grasp....

Can this be changed in the editor???

-No, but I have an alternative. Must test it. We could decrease the number of aviation support for each unit in order to create a serious shortage of aircraft support crew for both sides. It still would be possible to base lots of planes in one airbase due to the 250 limit, but it could only be achieved by depleting other bases. It would also result in much more time to repair aircraft and reduce the speed of operations and the number of active aircraft in each unit. This is just a idea. I´m also working with the idea of limiting the maximum airfield size to 6 (máx SPS=3)

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Guys. You can fix this yourselves without help from Matrix/2X3 or from the editor.

• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than that base will support
• Don't base more a/c at an airbase than you have aviation support at that base
• Don't play PBEM with an opponent who will not agree to these restrictions

And will the AI do this, or are you just setting yourself up for doom by limiting yourself thusly?

Doom, from the AI?[8|] Maybe for you, Charles....[;)]

On a less flippant note, I would be surprised to find that the AI was not programmed to follow the "rules", which we frail humans just can't quite seem to grasp....

Oh, we can "grasp" the rules all right. It's just that sometimes they're too hot to handle, you know what I mean? [:)]

I´m also working with the idea of limiting the maximum airfield size to 6 (máx SPS=3)

You have to have a number of potential 7s within range of the Home Islands for the B29s....

Jagdflueger and Mike Scholl have done a pretty good job of explaining the issue. Its too bad that really tiny bases can be overfilled but the game does create a penalty for this, after a while you will have a lot of damaged planes.

In the ETO there really were thousands of planes operating out of one hex. I am not sure if this was true of Saipan or not, but there were certainly hundreds there.

This problem does not bother me that much and I am not really certain its a problem. 600 planes flying out of a fairly well developed area like Tricomalee is not impossible to imagine, the Japanese certainly flew 600 planes out of other areas as well, so the total numbers of aircraft are not unrealistic. The Japanese are going to be losing a lot of planes to damage and some to ops losses, I bet if you compare turn by turn you will see the bomber force shrink by 10% a day. That is a pretty good rate and creates opportunites for counter attack if you plan it correctly.