Aviation Support (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


michaelm75au -> Aviation Support (3/3/2012 5:11:39 AM)

Aviation Support at a base was capped at 250 in WITP as outlined in Air Supply section of that manual.

This cap was removed in AE and is not mentioned in the manual (except for the AI).
Somehow it has crept back into the code, and was obvious from the large-scale single raid air attacks (300AV supporting 2500 planes at a single base).

Don't expect this condition to always be so.




jwilkerson -> RE: Aviation Support (3/3/2012 5:39:31 AM)

[:D]




Puhis -> RE: Aviation Support (3/3/2012 5:55:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Aviation Support at a base was capped at 250 in WITP as outlined in Air Supply section of that manual.

This cap was removed in AE and is not mentioned in the manual (except for the AI).
Somehow it has crept back into the code, and was obvious from the large-scale single raid air attacks (300AV supporting 2500 planes at a single base).

Don't expect this condition to always be so.


If you really could remove this "feature", I would be very happy boy! [:)]




khyberbill -> RE: Aviation Support (3/3/2012 1:19:00 PM)

What change(s) are you considering? A higher cap? Please keep in mind that the Tinian Airfield at the end of WW2 was called by some the largest in the world but in AE it is restricted to a lvl 7. Changing the cap rules may adversely affect the use of the B-29 in the game.




oldman45 -> RE: Aviation Support (3/3/2012 4:09:05 PM)

I am glad you found that Michael. I think you should put the cap back in. The Tinian issue can be resolved with putting a HQ there if I remember correctly. If not, just edit the A/F to be built to a 9.




JWE -> RE: Aviation Support (3/3/2012 6:48:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Aviation Support at a base was capped at 250 in WITP as outlined in Air Supply section of that manual.

This cap was removed in AE and is not mentioned in the manual (except for the AI).
Somehow it has crept back into the code, and was obvious from the large-scale single raid air attacks (300AV supporting 2500 planes at a single base).

Don't expect this condition to always be so.

I do recall this from my old notes. Um, it sneaks in at two places. The main one comes from a place far, far away, from a time long, long ago. GG's original paradigm let the AI increase AvSup for units having Type=10 (Eng) with suffix 109=(Base Force) to acommodate all airgroups present in a hex with that BF. There was a growth cut-off at 250 AvSup.

Because of this, there was a support cut-off, where once you got to 250 AvSup, nothing more was needed, no matter how many planes you had, because nobody woulda thunk of 2500 planes at a base in the first place.

I would like to see a cut-off of 250 AvSup retained for the AI. That's what it's always been, and I accept that.

I would like to see all support cut-offs removed. If some person wants to put 2500 planes at a base, he better have 2500 AvSup to support them. I do not accept freebies for anyone. This is something that oozed through the cracks and needs to be caulked.

Actually, I kinda like the idea of a hard limit for AvSup no matter what the stinking base size is, but that is another discussion.




castor troy -> RE: Aviation Support (3/3/2012 7:05:05 PM)

aren't there more aircraft (engines) around than total av support? Speaking about mid 44 or so.




michaelm75au -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 12:33:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

What change(s) are you considering? A higher cap? Please keep in mind that the Tinian Airfield at the end of WW2 was called by some the largest in the world but in AE it is restricted to a lvl 7. Changing the cap rules may adversely affect the use of the B-29 in the game.

There should not be a cap. It was always intended to be removed.
You will need enough AV at a base to support the planes there.

Looking at Downfall, it currently has 650 AV at Tinian supporting 576 AV Required.
Don't get this confused with the stacking requirement which depend on AF size, HQ, missions, etc.




michaelm75au -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 12:35:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Aviation Support at a base was capped at 250 in WITP as outlined in Air Supply section of that manual.

This cap was removed in AE and is not mentioned in the manual (except for the AI).
Somehow it has crept back into the code, and was obvious from the large-scale single raid air attacks (300AV supporting 2500 planes at a single base).

Don't expect this condition to always be so.

I do recall this from my old notes. Um, it sneaks in at two places. The main one comes from a place far, far away, from a time long, long ago. GG's original paradigm let the AI increase AvSup for units having Type=10 (Eng) with suffix 109=(Base Force) to acommodate all airgroups present in a hex with that BF. There was a growth cut-off at 250 AvSup.

Because of this, there was a support cut-off, where once you got to 250 AvSup, nothing more was needed, no matter how many planes you had, because nobody woulda thunk of 2500 planes at a base in the first place.

I would like to see a cut-off of 250 AvSup retained for the AI. That's what it's always been, and I accept that.

I would like to see all support cut-offs removed. If some person wants to put 2500 planes at a base, he better have 2500 AvSup to support them. I do not accept freebies for anyone. This is something that oozed through the cracks and needs to be caulked.

Actually, I kinda like the idea of a hard limit for AvSup no matter what the stinking base size is, but that is another discussion.


The AI will still get is cap as it needs that in several places.




khyberbill -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 12:42:53 AM)

quote:

You will need enough AV at a base to support the planes there.

Great.




Mac Linehan -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 1:16:37 AM)

JWE -

Thank You for clarifying this thread. I misinterpreted Michael's post and had it backwards; but now clearly understand (or at least until I confuse myself again... probably in the not so distant future... <grin>).

I fully concur with your view and statements - the AI gets all the freebie help it can get; the Human Player needs to plan ahead and have the support assets in place before loading up with aircraft - or pay the price.

What an awesome game, and it only gets better...

Mac





michaelm75au -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 2:29:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

aren't there more aircraft (engines) around than total av support? Speaking about mid 44 or so.

AV required is based on the number of planes in a group, not engines.
Base value is roughly the #ready plus quarter of (#damaged and #maintenance).

Also being under supported does not stop planes from flying, but cuts back on the number that can launch per phase. Also affects the repair and service of the planes at the base during the Supply Phase.




michaelm75au -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 2:58:41 AM)

Looking at the Downfall, there are a number of HQ or BF that seem to have TOE upgrades that almost double the AV of those units. If these are done, then the main AF bases look to be able to support all planes at those bases. Trouble is you can't upgrade the TOE as no Command HQ near by.[:D]
I was initially tricked in to thinking that Tinian had ample AV, but the groups were under-strength and when the reserves became active, it pushed the AV over what was present.




oldman45 -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 3:05:40 AM)

Perhaps in real life, the number of support personal was sufficient and our number of squads is not up to par.




Blackhorse -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 8:11:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Aviation Support at a base was capped at 250 in WITP as outlined in Air Supply section of that manual.

This cap was removed in AE and is not mentioned in the manual (except for the AI).
Somehow it has crept back into the code, and was obvious from the large-scale single raid air attacks (300AV supporting 2500 planes at a single base).

Don't expect this condition to always be so.


Good news.

While you are at it, could you install the cap on the maximum number of engineer squads that can work on a base in a given turn? IIRC, we intended the cap in development, but it never quite made it past the finish line.




PaxMondo -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 12:41:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

...While you are at it, could you install the cap on the maximum number of engineer squads that can work on a base in a given turn? IIRC, we intended the cap in development, but it never quite made it past the finish line.


What number is the proposal here? It needs to be a reasonably high number for the allies to achieve an appropriate tempo.

EDIT PS: completely agree with the AV support proposal, both the no-cap for the HUM and the cap for the AI.




LoBaron -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 12:53:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Don't expect this condition to always be so.


[&o]
YEAH!!




witpqs -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 3:32:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

...While you are at it, could you install the cap on the maximum number of engineer squads that can work on a base in a given turn? IIRC, we intended the cap in development, but it never quite made it past the finish line.


What number is the proposal here? It needs to be a reasonably high number for the allies to achieve an appropriate tempo.

EDIT PS: completely agree with the AV support proposal, both the no-cap for the HUM and the cap for the AI.

+1 to what the man represented by the alluringly implied naked lady said.

Love the notion of air support being required without limit (but give the AI whatever it needs to be a good opponent).

Skeptical of the notion of a construction-engineer limit, insofar as it needs to be large and smartly balanced. A whole lotta working guys can work on a base at one time, and as the base gets bigger maybe even more can fit around the perimeter working on expansion.

PS: AV is now used throughout the game displays for "Assault Value" and AS for "Aviation Support".




Shark7 -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 4:16:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
Aviation Support at a base was capped at 250 in WITP as outlined in Air Supply section of that manual.

This cap was removed in AE and is not mentioned in the manual (except for the AI).
Somehow it has crept back into the code, and was obvious from the large-scale single raid air attacks (300AV supporting 2500 planes at a single base).

Don't expect this condition to always be so.

I do recall this from my old notes. Um, it sneaks in at two places. The main one comes from a place far, far away, from a time long, long ago. GG's original paradigm let the AI increase AvSup for units having Type=10 (Eng) with suffix 109=(Base Force) to acommodate all airgroups present in a hex with that BF. There was a growth cut-off at 250 AvSup.

Because of this, there was a support cut-off, where once you got to 250 AvSup, nothing more was needed, no matter how many planes you had, because nobody woulda thunk of 2500 planes at a base in the first place.

I would like to see a cut-off of 250 AvSup retained for the AI. That's what it's always been, and I accept that.

I would like to see all support cut-offs removed. If some person wants to put 2500 planes at a base, he better have 2500 AvSup to support them. I do not accept freebies for anyone. This is something that oozed through the cracks and needs to be caulked.

Actually, I kinda like the idea of a hard limit for AvSup no matter what the stinking base size is, but that is another discussion.


Something like a hard limit of AV support equal to the stack limit of the airfield? Sounds good to me. I thought that was the reason that those stack limits were put into place anyway...to prevent the massive 2500 plane raids.

Now then, why the LBA block out the sun raids happen is that you can stack as many carriers into 1 hex as you like and they can put up their en masse cap and massive raids with no penalties. I've seen plenty of examples posted with 600-700 Hellcats on cap. That needs to be fixed too IMHO.




Blackhorse -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 5:55:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
What number is the proposal here? It needs to be a reasonably high number for the allies to achieve an appropriate tempo.


Agreed -- but not so unlimited as to allow Level 9 airfields to be built from scratch in a week or two. It's not really an issue before 1943, when the trickle of Allied engineer units turns into a flow, then a flood in 1944 and a Tsunami in 1945.

Ideally, we would have a sliding scale, with each extra engineer unit providing less added benefit. That's probably not practical. If we used a hard cap, I'd suggest a limit in the 750-800 point range. Each engineer vehicle = 5 points, each squad = 1. The way the game engine values engineer points, that would still allow ports and airfields to be built much faster than IRL, but would somewhat limit the late-war fantasy one-level-per-day that we've seen in some AARs.

If a sliding cap were practical, I'd envision something along the lines of, the first 300 Engineer points = 100% benefit; 301-600 points = 50% benefit, 601-900 points = 25% benefit. 901+ = 10% benefit. With the actual #s subject to playtesting first, of course.

Large US Engineer Units:
Each Naval Construction Regiment (x3 Seabee Bns) has 174 engineer points. They arrive throughout 1943.
In early 1944, Engineer Aviation Brigades (x4 EAB Bns each) with 368 engineer points begin to arrive, one for each Air Force HQ in the Pacific.
Also in 1944 there are four Engineer Construction Brigades (x4 Bns) with 344 engineer points each.
And in 1945, one Combat Engineer Regiment (x4 Bns) arrives per Corps HQ. Each CER has 400 engineer points.




Blackhorse -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 6:01:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Skeptical of the notion of a construction-engineer limit, insofar as it needs to be large and smartly balanced. A whole lotta working guys can work on a base at one time, and as the base gets bigger maybe even more can fit around the perimeter working on expansion.


I am also skeptical that a limit can be 'smartly done'. If it was easy to do, it would have been in the original release. But michaelm and the Babes Dev team have each been pulling off other minor miracles, so I figure that there is no harm in asking.

I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.




JWE -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 6:45:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

I'm so sorry to hear that an honest cavalryman, such as yourself, would work for DOT. That's what the robots from the Corps of Engineers do. To be honest, I do feel like a slut everytime I get a check from DOD. What happened to us, bro? We were soldiers once, and young.

Game treats Eng units the same, but there lots of different ways of slicing and dicing Eng units. Babes has Japanese Eng units with tons of termite manpower, but squat for game construction purposes. There's units that can build and fight like hell but can't demo forts. There's units that can demo forts, but don't fight all that great. There's units that can build like army ants but can't fight. There's units that can play "stevedore" but not much else. The engine allows all these possibilities.

Modders make this happen. We know how to do it. Please, do not ask michael to tweak the Eng thing.




Blackhorse -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 8:23:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.

I'm so sorry to hear that an honest cavalryman, such as yourself, would work for DOT. That's what the robots from the Corps of Engineers do. To be honest, I do feel like a slut everytime I get a check from DOD. What happened to us, bro? We were soldiers once, and young.

Game treats Eng units the same, but there lots of different ways of slicing and dicing Eng units. Babes has Japanese Eng units with tons of termite manpower, but squat for game construction purposes. There's units that can build and fight like hell but can't demo forts. There's units that can demo forts, but don't fight all that great. There's units that can build like army ants but can't fight. There's units that can play "stevedore" but not much else. The engine allows all these possibilities.

Modders make this happen. We know how to do it. Please, do not ask michael to tweak the Eng thing.


Old? Not me. After nearly a quarter-century of being 29, I'm just starting to get good at it. Or in the words of the Great American Philosopher Satchel Page, "I'm still the same man I once was . . . just not as often." And when the day comes that I can't honestly tell myself that I am worth every dollar that the hard-working American taxpayer is coughing up to pay my salary, that's the day I leave federal service . . . and become a consultant, where I'm told one can make real money. [:'(]

I am mightly impressed with the various DaBabes mods, but I don't want to see the mother game stagnate. I'm hoping there will be some backward-compatibility; as players find major imbalances (e.g. Type E ASW) and modders find solutions, I'd like to see some of these fixes can find a way to migrate back into standard AE.

. . . my apologies to michaelm. I've hijacked his Aviation Support thread, where we all agree that it would be a good thing to require players to find AS equal to the number of birds that we want to see fly.





Kereguelen -> RE: Aviation Support (3/4/2012 9:42:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Skeptical of the notion of a construction-engineer limit, insofar as it needs to be large and smartly balanced. A whole lotta working guys can work on a base at one time, and as the base gets bigger maybe even more can fit around the perimeter working on expansion.


I am also skeptical that a limit can be 'smartly done'. If it was easy to do, it would have been in the original release. But michaelm and the Babes Dev team have each been pulling off other minor miracles, so I figure that there is no harm in asking.

I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.


I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, there was a coded cap on engineer construction in WITP. Don't know if there still is (and I may be wrong in first place). Michael could probably tell.




castor troy -> RE: Aviation Support (3/5/2012 7:27:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
What number is the proposal here? It needs to be a reasonably high number for the allies to achieve an appropriate tempo.


Agreed -- but not so unlimited as to allow Level 9 airfields to be built from scratch in a week or two. It's not really an issue before 1943, when the trickle of Allied engineer units turns into a flow, then a flood in 1944 and a Tsunami in 1945.

Ideally, we would have a sliding scale, with each extra engineer unit providing less added benefit. That's probably not practical. If we used a hard cap, I'd suggest a limit in the 750-800 point range. Each engineer vehicle = 5 points, each squad = 1. The way the game engine values engineer points, that would still allow ports and airfields to be built much faster than IRL, but would somewhat limit the late-war fantasy one-level-per-day that we've seen in some AARs.

If a sliding cap were practical, I'd envision something along the lines of, the first 300 Engineer points = 100% benefit; 301-600 points = 50% benefit, 601-900 points = 25% benefit. 901+ = 10% benefit. With the actual #s subject to playtesting first, of course.

Large US Engineer Units:
Each Naval Construction Regiment (x3 Seabee Bns) has 174 engineer points. They arrive throughout 1943.
In early 1944, Engineer Aviation Brigades (x4 EAB Bns each) with 368 engineer points begin to arrive, one for each Air Force HQ in the Pacific.
Also in 1944 there are four Engineer Construction Brigades (x4 Bns) with 344 engineer points each.
And in 1945, one Combat Engineer Regiment (x4 Bns) arrives per Corps HQ. Each CER has 400 engineer points.




that would be a great idea!




dwg -> RE: Aviation Support (3/5/2012 3:22:30 PM)

quote:

I work in the US Department of Transportation. As my highway engineer pals constantly remind me, you can triple the number of engineers working on a road or bridge project, but that will not get the bridge built three times faster in real life. In AE, it does.


I've seen enough aircraft development projects up close and personal to know that the Mythical Man-Month effect is real, that there is a point past which throwing people at a project actually slows it down rather than helping. (Of course the usual response to hitting that point is to throw more managers at a project, which is even more of a problem, but I digress <g>...)

OTOH there's a point that people seem to be forgetting in this discussion, which is that we have two separate issues: 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, at a single airbase?', and 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, in a complex of airbases stretching over a 40 mile hex'. I live in Kent, pretty much the whole county will fit in a WITP hex, and there are something like 70 active or historical strips in the county.

Here's just a quick list of what was active in WWII (ALG=Advanced Landing Ground, quickly constructed in 43-44 for use by USAAF groups at D-Day, some were back in agricultural use before the end of 44):
Ashford, ALG, 3 sqns
Biggin Hill, 3 Sqns
Brenzett, ALG, 3 Sqns
Detling, 3 sqns
Eastchurch, Coastal Command and training base
Gravesend, 3 sqns
Hawkinge, 3 sqns
Headcorn, ALG, 3 sqns
High Haldon, ALG, 3 Sqns
Kingsnorth, ALG, 3 sqns
Lashenden, ALG, 3 Sqns
Lympne, 4-6 sqns
Manston, 3 sqns. With 9000' by 750' emergency diversion strip for damaged bombers returning from the continent. Manston was also one of the bases for Operation Market Garden, with 2 squadrons, with at least 56 Albemarles, launching from Manston towing 98 Horsas over 2 lifts.
New Romney, ALG
Newchurch, ALG, 4 Sqns
Penshurst, 1 Sqn
Rochester, Short Brothers site with Stirling production line (and proof that 4-engined bomber runways need be neither paved, nor particularly flat, Rochester has a distinct dip in the middle!)
Rochester Esplanade - Short's seaplane works - Sunderland and Shetland
Staplehurst, ALG, 3 sqns
Swingfield, 1 Sqn
West Malling, 2 Sqns
Woodchurch, ALG, 3 Sqns

That's a minimum of 53 squadrons, primarily single-engined fighters (West Malling was a night fighter base with Beaufighters), potentially as many as 1000 aircraft. Not counting the waterfront site at Rochester Esplanade, that is 21 airfield sites available for simultaneous use, or development. All this within a single 40 mile hex. If I'd picked Lincolnshire or East Anglia, then you would see a similar pattern of intense development, but we would be talking about 4-engined bomber bases instead.

The point of this is the sheer number of airfields which can be incorporated in a single WITP hex. There is a tendency to think 1 hex = 1 airfield, but other than the smaller islands, where stacking limits may be the more effective limitation, we need to remember to think in terms of multiple airfields. Throwing 21 battalions worth of construction engineers at a single airfield would invoke the Mythical-Man Month effect in spades, but throwing 21 battalions at 21 separate airfields would be entirely reasonable. Similarly 1000 aircraft operating out of a single airfield is entirely unreasonable, but 75 aircraft, or even more, operating out of a single airfield was perfectly normal, multiply that 20 times over and you get not 1000 aircraft, but 1500.




JWE -> RE: Aviation Support (3/5/2012 4:40:28 PM)

Good point dwg. But a lot of the hexes in AE are islands or atolls. The algorithm has to somehow account for that hex feature as well. Even Tinian is only 5mi at its widest, and 10mi long, and one would have to contend with Marpo Heights and (the rather generously named) Mt Laso. Even so, North Field was gigantic. It's probably worth thinking of as 4 fields in one.

I do like diminishing returns, though. A possible way to model diminishing returns without doing violence to the engineer abstract might be to make it depend on airfield size. The algorithm adds up all the effective 'squad equivalents' anyway, so perhaps divide the total by the present size of the airfield (making sure to check, If Size=0, Then Size=1)?

If you put 30 Eng squads in a hex, and AF=0, or 1, then they work like 30, and one can get from 0 to 1 and then to 2 pretty quick. Once you hit AF=2, they work like 15, so getting to 3 is harder (slower), unless you add more. Once you hit AF=3, they work like 10, so more are needed to keep up the tempo.

So this way, one can put 600 Eng squads in a hex, and get to AF=4 pretty quick, but to get to 5, there's only 150 effectively working, and only 100 effectively working to get from 6 to 7. Recall that 600 Eng squads need 600 Sup squads, and that totals out to 18,000 troops. Not sustainable at places with troop caps. And then 300 AvSup is about 5,000 more troops, so things tend to get crowded. Makes the choice of AF build locations a skoosh more reasonable.

Maybe?

[ed] I did want to keep it simple, because these cavalry guys can't seem to deal with anything more complicated than "the feed bag goes in the front, the shovel goes in the back." [;)]




Blackhorse -> RE: Aviation Support (3/6/2012 10:56:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg


OTOH there's a point that people seem to be forgetting in this discussion, which is that we have two separate issues: 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, at a single airbase?', and 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, in a complex of airbases stretching over a 40 mile hex'. I live in Kent, pretty much the whole county will fit in a WITP hex, and there are something like 70 active or historical strips in the county.


I haven't forgotten that point.

I absolutely recognize that in most AE hexes, engineers could be working on multiple airfields, plus port improvements, plus forts. But even allowing for that, the game engine allows the player to "level up" much faster in game than in real life. The US put the better part of 100,000 engineers on Okinawa in 1945, but even they couldn't build out all the airfields on the island in less than a week. In AE, a player can.




Blackhorse -> RE: Aviation Support (3/6/2012 11:03:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I do like diminishing returns, though. A possible way to model diminishing returns without doing violence to the engineer abstract might be to make it depend on airfield size. The algorithm adds up all the effective 'squad equivalents' anyway, so perhaps divide the total by the present size of the airfield (making sure to check, If Size=0, Then Size=1)?

If you put 30 Eng squads in a hex, and AF=0, or 1, then they work like 30, and one can get from 0 to 1 and then to 2 pretty quick. Once you hit AF=2, they work like 15, so getting to 3 is harder (slower), unless you add more. Once you hit AF=3, they work like 10, so more are needed to keep up the tempo.


Mmmm . . . Mongo like.

quote:


So this way, one can put 600 Eng squads in a hex, and get to AF=4 pretty quick, but to get to 5, there's only 150 effectively working, and only 100 effectively working to get from 6 to 7. Recall that 600 Eng squads need 600 Sup squads, and that totals out to 18,000 troops. Not sustainable at places with troop caps. And then 300 AvSup is about 5,000 more troops, so things tend to get crowded. Makes the choice of AF build locations a skoosh more reasonable.


Oh . . . Mongo head hurt.

quote:


[ed] I did want to keep it simple, because these cavalry guys can't seem to deal with anything more complicated than "the feed bag goes in the front, the shovel goes in the back." [;)]


Hey, I resent that!

-- Do you deny it?

Well, no. But I resent it.





witpqs -> RE: Aviation Support (3/6/2012 2:07:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg


OTOH there's a point that people seem to be forgetting in this discussion, which is that we have two separate issues: 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, at a single airbase?', and 'how many people can you usefully put on aviation support, or airfield construction, in a complex of airbases stretching over a 40 mile hex'. I live in Kent, pretty much the whole county will fit in a WITP hex, and there are something like 70 active or historical strips in the county.


I haven't forgotten that point.

I absolutely recognize that in most AE hexes, engineers could be working on multiple airfields, plus port improvements, plus forts. But even allowing for that, the game engine allows the player to "level up" much faster in game than in real life. The US put the better part of 100,000 engineers on Okinawa in 1945, but even they couldn't build out all the airfields on the island in less than a week. In AE, a player can.


A week?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.492188E-02