Matrix Games Forums

I really hope that the beta team can add something in the game to STOP the OVERLOADING of AF's

A lvl 7 AF with 900 planes is just crazy !!

A level 7 airfield can only operate all of the a/c at full effectiveness if there is 350 or less. If there are more than 350, then there are penalties for overstacking. I think only 50% of your 900 a/c would be able to operate. Yes, thats more than the 350 that would normally operate but I would rather have them at other bases so everyone will fly.

ORIGINAL: Enforcer

I really hope that the beta team can add something in the game to STOP the OVERLOADING of AF's

A lvl 7 AF with 900 planes is just crazy !!

What,

I have Aviation Support for over 1100 aircraft on Manus, you mean I cant fly that many from a L4 airbase??

I actually have only 300ish based there and use it to ferry to the Bonin Is and my next conquest.

There really should be something that limits what you can base.

Equally 6 Jap Carriers in 1 Task Force is equally crazy!!

actually 6 cv in 1 tf is enough penalized by coordination rules

50 planes per AF point size. Size 3 = 150, size 4 =200. Anything over that and you are asking to get bombed and suffer ground losses since planes grounded by the penalty will not be flying.

ORIGINAL: Enforcer

I really hope that the beta team can add something in the game to STOP the OVERLOADING of AF's

A lvl 7 AF with 900 planes is just crazy !!

A stack of fast BBs is a good cure sometimes.

If (number of aircraft) > (AF size x 100) then
...strike size - 50%.

If (number of aircraft) > (AF size x 50) then
...strike size - 25%

And like the man said, over stacking an AF is just begging for a BB group.

-F-

Yep...overstacked airbases will suffer far greater losses to bomardment (air or sea)

yes, but just a little reminder for Japanese fanboys:

Do not try bombard overloaded AF with BBs in 1943/1944....[:'(]

Ah yes...[;)]

An ahistorical solution to an ahistorical problem.
Seems like a good work around to me.[;)]

Black,

you are mixing oranges and apples... Japanese did bombard enemy with old BB's. Japanese did sent BB's in the suicide missions (well, if they had luck we would not talk about Allied brillant victory at Leyte)... but i never heard that Allied placed 1000 B-29 on the 1 square mile atoll[;)]

Anyway, I'm strongly against overloading for both sides... i guess i don't like the game "My daddy is stronger than your's"....

Yeah OK.[;)]

Two or three times?[:D]
In support of ground operations, not as strategic assets.[:D]

Whatever.......

Abuse of the game mechanics goes both ways.[:D]

Well, lets see. I am probably missing some data (my memory isn't as good as some).

Lunga bombarded once by two BB's. (I think there was a bombardment that was unopposed by the US that did cause a lot of damage. It's possible that it was done by CA's and I'm confusing them with BB's)

Lunga attempted to be bombarded two other times by BB's, both times the IJN lost a BB and the bombardment did not happen (with heavy cost to the US in cruisers and DD's).

Leyte attempted bombardment (I think they really just wanted to shoot up transports, not the airfield). Regardless of what some think, the IJN did have some considerable luck in this battle. They came within a close margin of attacking the invasion forces. But, the southern force had zero chance of success. The center force could have proceeded further, but at severe cost and possible destruction of the whole force. The northern force did actually fully succeed in it's mission.

I think that's it. 4 attempts with one success in the entire war. (did the BB's bombard anything on the Maylayan peninsula in '41?)

The US had considerably more examples, but still significantly less than the normal WITP game.

Hi, In the early war period Japan had no need to risk capitol ships bombarding enemy targets. The IJN kept the heavy units safe for use in the major surface action they thought would decide the war.

Later Japan refrained from commiting heavy units in number because of fuel shortages. They only had enough fuel for a 2 BB TF to bombard Henderson Field (deja vu I think this is where I entered in UV development forum)

So it is true Japan made few bombardments. They considered the BB a ship for surface action in large battle against enemy fleet. They had no need in SRA. But what you do have is the FIRST Allied airfield viewed as obstacle (reinforcement of Guadalcanal) was a target of all the Japanese BB they could send. The IJN had consumed the bulk of it's fuel reserve in Midway Operation and what they sent was all they could send.

The IJN never had another target for airfield attacks. In WITP the Japanese tend to risk the BB more then any Japanese would have allowed on targets the Japanese simply used air power on.

even in WITP it is a bad idea to attempt bombardment of airfield that has long range bombers operating.

In WITP both sides tend to have many more exposed airfields then found in WWII

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Ah yes...[;)]

An ahistorical solution to an ahistorical problem.
Seems like a good work around to me.[;)]

An illogical approach to an irrational desire to remedy an ill-conceived and otherwise mainly dysfunctional system.

Also know as . . .

[center]
Copyright © 2005 Neatly Chiseled Features

I think it is a problem, I had a game where my opp. was putting 2000 planes on a level; 5 field. Did it matter to him that there was a pemalty no! He still destoried base after base from these fields. He would even put 1500 on size 5 and cause problems. you could not get in range of these fields as because of so many [lanes he would sink any thing with in 8 hexes bith 1000 b17's or b24's. As stated in other threads if you go over a certain amount there should be no flights possible.

Hi, I realize people blame that on the game. But really I don't want to even bother trying to play a game against someone who will place 2000 ac on 1 airfield and then defend the practice "because the game lets me do it"

Gaminess begets gaminess.

My rule of thumb is, "Play well with others." If I think it's gamey, then it probably is, and I won't do it. If I think what you're doing is gamey, you get a warning that I will escalate things.

If push comes to shove, I have no problem upping the number of 4e bombers at my base, until your pain threshold causes you to back off of whatever you're doing that's pissing me off. Once things have normalized, I will normalize.

-F-

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Gaminess begets gaminess.

My rule of thumb is, "Play well with others." If I think it's gamey, then it probably is, and I won't do it. If I think what you're doing is gamey, you get a warning that I will escalate things.

If push comes to shove, I have no problem upping the number of 4e bombers at my base, until your pain threshold causes you to back off of whatever you're doing that's pissing me off. Once things have normalized, I will normalize.

-F-

WiTP MAD?

Gaminess begets gaminess.

My rule of thumb is, "Play well with others." If I think it's gamey, then it probably is, and I won't do it. If I think what you're doing is gamey, you get a warning that I will escalate things.

If push comes to shove, I have no problem upping the number of 4e bombers at my base, until your pain threshold causes you to back off of whatever you're doing that's pissing me off. Once things have normalized, I will normalize.

-F-

Hi Feinder,

I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of your post.

The problem with the last part is that if it's the allied player using gamey tactics, the Japanese player has only two options: (1) Accept it and keep playing or (2) quit.

Each defines "gamey" in their own way. To me, the definition of gaminess is using a tactic or weapon in such a manner that either could not be duplicated IRL or exploits a flaw in the game with no basis in reality. Basing hundreds of aircraft (regardless of type or nationality) on a level 3 airfield is gamey, as is positioning large numbers of single-AK TFs to prevent bombardment by forcing the bombarder to use up his op points. One can name hundreds of gamey exploits in the game.

I don't believe that naval bombardments should be defined as gamey because it was an option that both sides had available (and used) in the war. To define it as gamey is to say that every WWII bombardment is then gamey, unless the intent is to apply the definition only to Japanese bombardments. Bombardments were used in support or opposition to troop landings, to suppress airfileds and for hit and run raids.

I wouldn't have a problem restricting battleship bombardments to the number conducted historically if the allied player is willing to limit his US heavy bomber raids to 16 aircraft or less, as was the case historically in WWII PTO until the B-29 came along.

Chez