Base Administration groups (again)

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
stretch
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am

Base Administration groups (again)

Post by stretch »

I've been over a couple of threads on this subject and I still am unable to find a definitive method of figuring out what counts for groups in Base Administration. Does anyone have the end-all be-all answer to how this is computed? I'm only asking about the number of groups given as present at the base (3). Not the limit of 8, which I think I understand (Airfield size 7 plus one, there is no air HQ present.)

In my example pic I have 3 of 8 groups.

According to multiple threads all the groups stood down or on training count as 1 group (In contrast to the manual which on page 214 sec 9.4 says "groups at rest or in training .... don’t count at all against the number of groups" but I accept that it is 1.) So in my pic below the 7 training groups count as 1.

I then have single groups 1 each on Escort, Port, Supply, and Search. Why are these not 4 more groups for a total of 5?

All floatplanes count as one I believe but none of these groups appear when only "FP" is selected (Both Catalina squadrons show up under Patrol, PA) Even if they were counted as 1 group together it looks like I should still have 4 groups, not 3.

I have other examples I don't understand but I thought I'd start there, perhaps the explanation here will help me figure out how to count this in general.







Image
Attachments
baseadmin.jpg
baseadmin.jpg (124.28 KiB) Viewed 80 times
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by Oberst_Klink »

It also puzzled me, about why there's a minimum count of 1. In my example all groups are on training and there's still an admin count of 1... perhaps a standard value or admin level.

Klink, Oberst

Image
Attachments
rabaulaf.jpg
rabaulaf.jpg (88.21 KiB) Viewed 79 times
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19692
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: stretch


All floatplanes count as one I believe but none of these groups appear when only "FP" is selected (Both Catalina squadrons show up under Patrol, PA) Even if they were counted as 1 group together it looks like I should still have 4 groups, not 3.


Image
Floatplanes is a term specific to aircraft with pontoons (or "floats" as some call them). PBYs, Dorniers and other patrol planes are flying boats, with a hull that floats the aircraft. The collective term for water-landing aircraft should be "seaplane", to avoid confusion with the specific term "float plane" .

As for administration, I have no suggestions - never pay attention to it other than stacking limits. I suspect it has some effect on strike coordination (same HQ issue) but not maintenance.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
dcpollay
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:58 am
Location: Upstate New York USA

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by dcpollay »

This base looks good to me. Your 3 Admin level is:

1) One squadron of P-39Ds, on escort;
2) One squadron of B-25Cs, on Port Attack; and
3) All of your training/rest squadrons.

Your Catalina squadrons do not count because they are based (administered) on the water and do not take up space on the airbase.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
stretch
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by stretch »

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

It also puzzled me, about why there's a minimum count of 1. In my example all groups are on training and there's still an admin count of 1... perhaps a standard value or admin level.

That is consistent with the forum consensus that all Training groups combined count as 1 group total.
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Floatplanes is a term specific to aircraft with pontoons (or "floats" as some call them). PBYs, Dorniers and other patrol planes are flying boats, with a hull that floats the aircraft. The collective term for water-landing aircraft should be "seaplane", to avoid confusion with the specific term "float plane" .

As for administration, I have no suggestions - never pay attention to it other than stacking limits. I suspect it has some effect on strike coordination (same HQ issue) but not maintenance.

gotcha, so the way I read my image now I should have

Group 1 - All training groups
Group 2 - All float planes, the 2 Catalina groups in this case
Group 3 - the P-39's on Escort
Group 4 - The Mitchell's on Port attack.

Yet is says 3.

User avatar
dcpollay
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:58 am
Location: Upstate New York USA

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by dcpollay »

The overall purpose of the Administration levels are to reflect the airfield's ability and limits on handling large numbers of aircraft, in terms of logistics, organizing maintenance, coordinating strikes and takeoff/landing slots, and that sort.

I think of it as the "business" counterpart to the stacking limits, which address how many aircraft can be physically handled by the base - hangar facilities, parking and dispersal ability, etc.

A larger base can handle larger amounts of aircraft. In addition, the Admin can be increased by the presence of Air HQ.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
stretch
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by stretch »

Yeah I embrace the concept; but I don't know how to definitively compute it. And I have yet to see a thread where it's stated exactly how it's derived, they all have some hand waving in them.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by Alfred »

There are definitive threads on the subject.  Colonel Mustard is on the money.
 
Here you have:
 
  • 7 units allocated the training mission = 1 group for Base Administration
  • 1 unit on escort = 1 group for Base Administration
  • 1 unit on port attack = 1 group for Base Administration
  • 2 Patrol Aircraft units = zero group for Base Administration in a coastal hex since patch 1, change #71
That totals 3 groups for Base Administration.
 
Alfred
stretch
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by stretch »

Thanks, Alfred... That clears that one up for me, the Catalinas are zero, not 1.

So if I may stick my stupid neck out there one more time, given the above calculation for Darwin, whats going on with this one at Noumea?

1 unit on Escort = 1 group for Base Administration
1 unit on Ground = 1 group for Base Administration
8 units on Training = 1 group for Base Administration
1 patrol unit = zero as Noumea is a coastal hex.

That should be 3, it shows 2. What's the exception to the above I am missing?

thanks as always



Image
Attachments
baseadmin2.jpg
baseadmin2.jpg (120.86 KiB) Viewed 79 times
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by dr.hal »

Do you have a target assigned to the 28th BS?
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

You have only 1 squadron doing training (patrol at 100), the rest are training at 0 => meaning stand down

I don't know if that is the cause
stretch
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by stretch »

With more playing around it appears that none of the 8 or 5 plane units are counted towards Base Administration.

Top Screenshot below shows all size 8 or less units with a non training mission assigned and still a total of only 2 groups for Base Administration.
Bottom screenshot shows only 2 units of 25 planes each on a non training mission, and Base Administration is 3 groups (these 2 units plus all training units as the 3rd)

I'll have to click around more to find the upper limit for not counting.


Image
Attachments
baseadmin3.jpg
baseadmin3.jpg (245.7 KiB) Viewed 80 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19692
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by BBfanboy »

Do you have an Air HQ at Noumea? Perhaps it is taking some of the administration?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
stretch
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by stretch »

There is no air HQ at Noumea nor one within command radius. And my understanding is that would raise the allowed # of groups, not prevent groups from counting.

Empirical evidence shows that it's definitely that the 8 plane (or less) groups are not counted in the total.

I've repeated it at other bases. Also, if the group is size 12 but has fewer planes it still counts, so it's the max size that is being looked at.
User avatar
dcpollay
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:58 am
Location: Upstate New York USA

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by dcpollay »

This is the "hand waving" you were talking about earlier.[:)]
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
GetAssista
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: Base Administration groups (again)

Post by GetAssista »

Interesting, thanks for the insight!
USA has a number of 8-size 4E groups which can be later resized to something a bit larger. Maybe this resize is not entirely desirable after all? There is shortage of airframes and large bases for them to operate from, not the shortage of airgroups. And if those groups not count towards base admin limit they seem rather valuable at size 8
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”