Hmm... why is Airfield Size used to calculate Fuel limit?

[fbs]

This point was first raised by Marty A.

It makes sense to use airfield size to calculate supplies capacity, as aircrafts use and move supplies, ergo airfield size reflects built up areas used for storage and transfer of supplies.

Now, fuel is used by ships only, not by aircrafts, and aircrafts do not move fuel. When you build an airport, you don't build an oil farm nearby, so I fail to see the relationship between airfield size and fuel capacity.

It makes no sense that a very small size 1 port with a size 6 airfield can store more fuel than a size 5 port. Fuel capacity should be defined by port size only, nothing else... what do you guys think?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

[Fallschirmjager]

No
What about the bases that have no ports? I know you don't want fuel there. But fuel has to flow through some of them in order to reach bases with ports. If there is a massive built up base like say the Eastern US I don't want fuel spoiling there simply because it has no port. That would not make much sense. A base that built up would have ample fuel storage facilities.

[P.Hausser]

See this: tm.asp?m=2231859

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
No

What about the bases that have no ports? I know you don't want fuel there. But fuel has to flow through some of them in order to reach bases with ports. If there is a massive built up base like say the Eastern US I don't want fuel spoiling there simply because it has no port. That would not make much sense. A base that built up would have ample fuel storage facilities.

That's a good point, but airfield size is still not a good indicator. Fuel is transported inlnad by railroad and pipelines, and these do not have a relationship with airfield size. The most realistic approach would be to disable fuel spoilage for inland bases, because there is no way to realistically model that with the current game.


Cheers! [:D]
fbs

[donkey_roxor]

Airfield and port size are the only two parameters that relate directly to the logistical capabilities of a base. One might reasonably expect that an inland base (zero port size) capable of supporting a lot of aircraft (large airfield size) would be a large base with facilities enough to store a lot of fuel. So, I think it's a reasonably realistic way to model fuel storage.

Plus, how would it be more realistic to disable fuel spoilage for inland bases rather than linking it to airfield size?

ORIGINAL: fbs

That's a good point, but airfield size is still not a good indicator. Fuel is transported inlnad by railroad and pipelines, and these do not have a relationship with airfield size. The most realistic approach would be to disable fuel spoilage for inland bases, because there is no way to realistically model that with the current game.


Cheers! [:D]
fbs

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: donkey_roxor
Airfield and port size are the only two parameters that relate directly to the logistical capabilities of a base. One might reasonably expect that an inland base (zero port size) capable of supporting a lot of aircraft (large airfield size) would be a large base with facilities enough to store a lot of fuel. So, I think it's a reasonably realistic way to model fuel storage.

Why would an inland base with a lot of aircrafts have a large tank farm to store ship fuel? Fuel is not used by aircrafts, transported by them or stored in airports.

Its true that airfield and port size indicate logistics capacity, but they are not the only ones. Heavy industry, refineries and oil wells also indicate logistics capacity, and these plus port size are a better indicator for fuel capacity than airfields.

Consider this: my engineers build a size 7 airfield out of nothing in the middle of Australia. Why would it have an associated ship fuel capacity? The engineers only built a large airfield, not an entire industrial infra-structure.

ORIGINAL: donkey_roxor
Plus, how would it be more realistic to disable fuel spoilage for inland bases rather than linking it to airfield size?

That's because inland bases do not store fuel - they are just transfer fuel from one place to another. The losses due to transfer are already calculated during the transfer itself, so you don't need to add spoilage. The fact that inland bases end up with ship fuel is just temporary and incidental to the transfer routine. The purpose of disabling spoilage of fuel for inland places is just to allow the transfer routine to resolve itself without penalizing the player with spoilage losses caused by the computer storing ship fuel in a place that should have stored no ship fuel at all.

Cheers [:D]
fbs

[donkey_roxor]

ORIGINAL: fbs

Why would an inland base with a lot of aircrafts have a large tank farm to store ship fuel? Fuel is not used by aircrafts, transported by them or stored in airports.

But fuel is used by industry, right? So fuel is not simply just ship fuel. That being said, you are right that aircraft don't use fuel. Maybe airfield rating could be thought of as representative of an overall infrastructure capability?

Its true that airfield and port size indicate logistics capacity, but they are not the only ones. Heavy industry, refineries and oil wells also indicate logistics capacity, and these plus port size are a better indicator for fuel capacity than airfields.

I agree, especially re the heavy industry, refineries, and oil wells.

That's because inland bases do not store fuel - they are just transfer fuel from one place to another. The losses due to transfer are already calculated during the transfer itself, so you don't need to add spoilage. The fact that inland bases end up with ship fuel is just temporary and incidental to the transfer routine. The purpose of disabling spoilage of fuel for inland places is just to allow the transfer routine to resolve itself without penalizing the player with spoilage losses caused by the computer storing ship fuel in a place that should have stored no ship fuel at all.

Why wouldn't inland bases store fuel? I believe there were inland fuel storage facilities, to prevent possible seaborne attacks.

I guess my interpretation is that the port/airfield ratings are indicative of the overall infrastructure at a particular base, and it's reasonable to link the overall base infrastructure to storage. It would certainly be more realistic to have a distinct network for fuel transfer, such as fuel storage depots, fuel transfer pipelines, etc, but given that these are abstracted, why not tie it to base size?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: donkey_roxor

ORIGINAL: fbs

Why would an inland base with a lot of aircrafts have a large tank farm to store ship fuel? Fuel is not used by aircrafts, transported by them or stored in airports.

But fuel is used by industry, right? So fuel is not simply just ship fuel. That being said, you are right that aircraft don't use fuel. Maybe airfield rating could be thought of as representative of an overall infrastructure capability?

That's basically it. Fuel is also used by HI, and the port+airfield sizes are used as a crude indicator of how developed a base is. This is basically a hangover from old WitP.

Although airfield size is used as an indicator for spoilage purposes, only the presence of a port or HI should "draw" fuel to a base.

Andrew

[pad152]

Also some land bases don't have ports!

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Although airfield size is used as an indicator for spoilage purposes, only the presence of a port or HI should "draw" fuel to a base.

Andrew

Very good; so, is there such thing as fuel being transferred to a base with no port or HI? Fallschirmajer said that this indicates fuel on its way to somewhere else. I just took that as granted, but now that I look for bases with no port or HI that received some fuel, I don't find any.

I don't have anything against using airfields for spoilage limit per se; after all, we'll game around whatever the game uses. It's just that while everything is very accurate and precise (like exactly how many engines are built and which ships are docked), the concept of fuel, supplies and spoilage are very abstract.


Cheers [:D]
fbs

[pmelheck1]

I have always thought about base/air field size for fuel supply as how developed the hex is.  As far as air field vs. port I have always thought of cross support.  Size 10 field will require quite a bit to support so base would expand to help support shipments to the air field.  Capabilities would be the same but the base would have an increase in both direct or indirect supplies for the added convoys ect for the base.  Tinnian must have required more than a little supply to keep them flying.