Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Airfield Penalties

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Airfield Penalties Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Airfield Penalties - 8/25/2009 11:00:25 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
Airfield Penalties
I have done some experiments using the TTMW scenario. The rules on manual page 213 indicate that there are 3 distinct possible conditions which affect Airfield operations:
1) Airfield size relative to bomber size (including bomb load).
2) Aviation Support relative to total number of aircraft.
3) AF overstacking:
a) Physical aircraft overstacking (by number of aircraft engines).
b) Administrative overstacking by numbers of groups (units).

Each condition has specific effects according to manual page 213-214:
1) Condition 1 has 3 possible bomber performance penalties.
2) Condition 2 has only one penalty – 25% reduction in bomber missions.
3) Condition 3 penalizes aircraft launches, increases ground aircraft losses and delays aircraft repairs, unfortunately with no insight into any penalty magnitudes.

The single Condition 2 penalty surprised me, but I think that we tend to confuse Condition 2 and 3 penalties. I am still surprised at the minimal effect of Condition 2 deficiencies. If I am correctly interpreting the rules, a level 8 Airfield will support 8 squadrons of 24 single engine fighters with little or no Aviation Support and incur no Airfield penalties in any manner. Add an Air HQ with a combat radius of 8 and 16 squadrons of 24 single engine fighters are possible without penalty or Aviation Support?

I also wonder how seaplanes, which may or may not have their own AV ship support, are treated relative to overstacking group count, assuming, maybe incorrectly, that engine count does not matter, since seaplanes are not physically on an Airfield? With inadequate AV ship support, do seaplanes add to the overstack group count or are they ignored for overstack group counting and engine count?

Using the initial Dutch Harbor setup from the TTMW scene, Dutch Harbor is a level 4 airfield with an Air HQ (combat radius = 5) present, which should allow 200 engines and 9 groups without overstacking, before rest/training adjustments . The pure aircraft engine count and group count seem to be 320(284) and 11(9) respectively (seaplane deductions, if appropriate, are shown in parentheses). With all aircraft in Training/stand down general training with 0% patrol, an asterisk appears in front of the airfield info on the bottom screen info display with an apparent rules indicated 107(95) division by 3 engine count and 0 group count (since PBYs have different HQ, they could count as 2 against the group count if this is not negated by their separate AV ship support or the fact that they are resting). If I place 118 squadron in Training 100%, the asterisk disappears. This would seem to indicate that the group number went from 10 to 9, which removes the overstack? This seems to indicate that PBYs are included in overstack calculations in spite of logic. It also seems to indicate that groups only qualify to not be counted for overstack if they are in 100% training, not just rest or in training. Unfortunately, the group count before I changed the 118 squadron status to 100% training seems to have been 10 which I can not follow since the 2 PBY groups are attached to a different HQ if they are counted at all which yields an initial group count of either 11 or 9.

I can find no other mitigating “circumcisions” and I do not think that the other HQ contributes? WHAT A CAN OF WORMS!








Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/25/2009 11:07:40 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
Condition 3 doesnt make any sense to me and never has, and I will never tire of pointing that out.

I can see av support being allocated by numbers of engines, but not base size being affected by numbers of engines (as I have pointed out time and again the potential B-29 stacking in the Marianas).

And admin stacking has no place at all (after Henderson opened, within 2 weeks there were 6 different squadrons operating from there, with no HQ units present, yet there were no administrative difficulties inflicting the penalties that a player experiences in the game).

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 2
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/25/2009 11:15:51 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
I respect your opinion on the philosophy of the rules as written, but I would like to stay focused on clarifying the mechanics of these rules. Many times people make great efforts to ask reasonable questions only to find that their posts are highjacked by philosophical questions which leave the original inquirer screwed. Could someone in a knowledgable position please answer the actual and implied questions asked here?

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 3
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/25/2009 11:26:12 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

I respect your opinion on the philosophy of the rules as written, but I would like to stay focused on clarifying the mechanics of these rules. Many times people make great efforts to ask reasonable questions only to find that their posts are highjacked by philosophical questions which leave the original inquirer screwed. Could someone in a knowledgable position please answer the actual and implied questions asked here?


quote:

3) Condition 3 penalizes aircraft launches, increases ground aircraft losses and delays aircraft repairs, unfortunately with no insight into any penalty magnitudes.


I was addressing part of the "implied question".


< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 8/25/2009 11:28:45 PM >

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 4
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 9:22:21 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Airfield Penalties
I have done some experiments using the TTMW scenario. The rules on manual page 213 indicate that there are 3 distinct possible conditions which affect Airfield operations:
1) Airfield size relative to bomber size (including bomb load).
2) Aviation Support relative to total number of aircraft.
3) AF overstacking:
a) Physical aircraft overstacking (by number of aircraft engines).
b) Administrative overstacking by numbers of groups (units).

Each condition has specific effects according to manual page 213-214:
1) Condition 1 has 3 possible bomber performance penalties.
2) Condition 2 has only one penalty – 25% reduction in bomber missions.
3) Condition 3 penalizes aircraft launches, increases ground aircraft losses and delays aircraft repairs, unfortunately with no insight into any penalty magnitudes.



I have experience with air traffic control systems, both military and civilian, so here's a go:

1) Airfield size--this probably reflects field length and condition, which would affect takeoff and landing of heavies.
2) Aviation support--this appears to be ground crew and hangar resources, which would affect the number of sorties generated. I believe the number of aviation squads also affects repair.
3) AF overstacking--ATC resources. Too many aircraft means that you overload the available runways. Too many groups makes strike co-ordination and the scheduling of takeoffs and landings much more difficult.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 5
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 1:37:42 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
Herwin, I am aware of all that you state. It actually should be fairly intuitive to all. My questions relate to game mechanics rather than your statements.

1) Are seaplanes at bases with airfields included in computations for overstacking.

2) If they are included in computation of overstacking, does having partial or full AV ship support mean that some administrative support is furnished at the AV ship, negating some inclusion in overstacking "group" count? I would find it dificult to believe that seaplanes have any effect on engine count since they occupy space in water, not on the airfield..........

3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?

4) Using the example which I cited at the beginning of this topic, the manner of calculating overstack or the implimentation of the "*" appears to be incorrect as programmed compared to rules page 214. Initially Dutch Harbor has an an "*" on the airfield on the bottom scene. If I change one of the single engine fighter squadrons from from "Training" with a"Patrol Level" of 0% to "Training" with a "Patrol Level" of 100%, the "*" immediately disappears. Since all "groups" are initially set on "Training" at some "Patrol Level" percentage (even some @ 0%), it seems that the "*" should not be triggered at all when the scene begins. There definitely seems to be a programming/rules problem here.

5) Can someone quantify the effects of overstacking which nebulously state "An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.". The lack of any precise penalty information negates any strategy decisions in dealing with intentional or unintentional use of overstack. This is very frustrating and should not occur in gaming rules writing, in my opinion.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 6
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 1:47:20 PM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3354
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I can see av support being allocated by numbers of engines, but not base size being affected by numbers of engines (as I have pointed out time and again the potential B-29 stacking in the Marianas).



Wasn't until I ready this thread that I realised the number of engines made a difference. Thinking about it it seems the ideal way of determining the physical size of an aircraft thus restricting how many you can have at an a/f. Now I've not sat down and worked out the number in the Marianas mind you so I might change my view on it.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 7
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 1:52:16 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Herwin, I am aware of all that you state. It actually should be fairly intuitive to all. My questions relate to game mechanics rather than your statements.

1) Are seaplanes at bases with airfields included in computations for overstacking.

2) If they are included in computation of overstacking, does having partial or full AV ship support mean that some administrative support is furnished at the AV ship, negating some inclusion in overstacking "group" count? I would find it dificult to believe that seaplanes have any effect on engine count since they occupy space in water, not on the airfield..........

3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?

4) Using the example which I cited at the beginning of this topic, the manner of calculating overstack or the implimentation of the "*" appears to be incorrect as programmed compared to rules page 214. Initially Dutch Harbor has an an "*" on the airfield on the bottom scene. If I change one of the single engine fighter squadrons from from "Training" with a"Patrol Level" of 0% to "Training" with a "Patrol Level" of 100%, the "*" immediately disappears. Since all "groups" are initially set on "Training" at some "Patrol Level" percentage (even some @ 0%), it seems that the "*" should not be triggered at all when the scene begins. There definitely seems to be a programming/rules problem here.

5) Can someone quantify the effects of overstacking which nebulously state "An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.". The lack of any precise penalty information negates any strategy decisions in dealing with intentional or unintentional use of overstack. This is very frustrating and should not occur in gaming rules writing, in my opinion.



1) Yes.

2) No.

3) Yes, however, no aircraft will be repaired if you have no AV support there.

4) Quirky things happen before an actual turn resolution. As you see, as soon as you do something that forces the game to recalculate, it corrects itself. Just because the "*" is there at the start of a scenario doesnt mean thats the case.

5) Penalty is the same as WitP. You fail a check. Failing a check means 25% of your planes do nothing. Failing 2 checks means 43.75% of your planes do nothing (25% of the first fail = 75% and 25% of that for the 2nd fail = 56.25%). 3rd failed check means only 42.1875% of your planes are available, ect.



< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 8/26/2009 1:56:29 PM >

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 8
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 1:55:22 PM   
Graymane


Posts: 499
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone
3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?


I'm not sure what you would consider a penalty, but since you have to have 1 aviation support per 1 aircraft, have 5 aviation support on a field with 20 planes means that next turn, you only have 5 operational planes.

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 9
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 2:07:06 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
Yamato Hugger -
1) How many aircraft repaired if I have some partial AV support? Is there an intermediate criteria?
2) If you try the scene as I have stated, the "*" mode does not seem to be working properly. I can change "Patrol Level" % to some % less than 100% without "*" effect, but "Patrol Level" at 100% removes the "*".

Greymane -
Where is this stated anywhere? What is your basis for saying this?

(in reply to Graymane)
Post #: 10
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 2:12:06 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
YH- What about casualties and repairs due to overstack?

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 11
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 2:17:34 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone
3) Is it true that no aircraft recieve penalties due to deficiencies in aviation support except bombers on level bombing missions as per rules page 214, overstack penalties aside?


I'm not sure what you would consider a penalty, but since you have to have 1 aviation support per 1 aircraft, have 5 aviation support on a field with 20 planes means that next turn, you only have 5 operational planes.



No clue where you came up with this, but it isnt even a little bit true. This unit has flown 3 strikes from this completely unoccupied base:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Graymane)
Post #: 12
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 2:19:20 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

YH- What about casualties and repairs due to overstack?


I have no idea what the exact formula is. I doubt any of the air guys are going to say either.

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 13
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 2:20:21 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
Guess the pilots themselves reload the planes

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 14
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 2:45:25 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
This is starting to get very frustrating. This game is very precise and complex on some issues and is very incomplete on other more significant issues. I appreciate Yamato Hugger's insight and help, but even his vast experience seems to not compensate for some serious rules/programming problems. There are still significant questions from my original post (not that I have any particular entitlement). There is also an issue of judging the credibility of replies by other people. How do we deal with incorrect info in replies? Do we just hope that "luminaries" correct mistakes?

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 15
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 3:19:36 PM   
Graymane


Posts: 499
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline
Page 252-253. I just read the fine print again and tested it on the Alaska scenario and I'm wrong. "One Aviation Support point is required for each aircraft operating at an airbase for those aircraft to function at maximum efficiency". I guess I ignored the part in bold and assumed it meant you needed 1 point per plane to fly a mission.

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 16
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 3:49:46 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 950
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Page 252-253. I just read the fine print again and tested it on the Alaska scenario and I'm wrong. "One Aviation Support point is required for each aircraft operating at an airbase for those aircraft to function at maximum efficiency". I guess I ignored the part in bold and assumed it meant you needed 1 point per plane to fly a mission.


However, without air support, your A/Cs will not be repaired, so the air squadron will lose efficiency very fast if used in missions.

Bye

_____________________________

Small Ship, Big War - the Voyages of the Hibiki
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Best AAR I've ever seen!!!

(in reply to Graymane)
Post #: 17
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 3:53:08 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2653
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
I was able to transfer 25 P-40's to an Australian base with only 8 Aviation support points, and the next day fly them off to another base.  Port Moresby has 84 aviation support points but I can only support 4 squadrons thanks to the size of the base (mostly fighters); had to transfer a medium bomber squadron to the mainland to get adequate #'s of fighters in the air when I exceeded 4 squadrons.

(in reply to Graymane)
Post #: 18
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 4:14:01 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14117
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Can one of the developers who put in the administrative penalty (# of squadrons limitation) please explain a real-life example of it from WWII?

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 19
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 10:51:25 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline
With out getting bogged down in specifics or philosophical debates with differing opinons, the "administrative" penalty, isn't meant to replicate "famous clerical errors" that caused regular inefficiencies in sortie generation. It isn't even an administrative penalty.

It's a capacity issue. At some point you have to draw a reasonable line that dictates what a Size X Airfield is capable of doing.

If you ask Person A he'll say this. If you ask person B he'll say that.

In this case I am person A and I say this...:

There is no definition in the game or the manual as to what an Size 1, 2, 10 AF is. Have a look. It was never provided in WitP and we didn't add it in AE. I thought about it, drafted it, but it was outside the scope of the project. Sorry.

However we did realize that SOME limitations needed to be instituted to blunt the effects of Uber Air Combat. Remember that? Anyone here need a reminder? See 90% of the posts in the old WitP forum...

Someone asked about reality. How's this..?:

I have a size 5 AF. I have 2000 aircraft spread between 150 units there. How many should fly in a given phase? All of them? I'll let you ponder the reality of that.

In short we concluded (correctly) that in a six hour AM phase not ALL of the aircraft, above a certain reasonable number, should fly. The way we drive this is with the overstacking rule. How do we implement that? It's in the rulebook. Will we ever divulge the secret formula? Not likely.

Bottom line. AF X cannot launch and recover all it's ready aircraft above a certain point and have them airborne every 6 hours. If they did, what sense would AF attack make, you'd never catch anything on the ground, then what would be the lamentation? Aircraft from any one base are NEVER ALL Airborne at the same time. Even today at a Navy Master Jet base, the VAST majority are on deck.

THIS is the ABSTRACT dynamic we are trying to replicate. It's not that they won't fly, it's that they won't ALL fly at the same time.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 8/26/2009 10:56:18 PM >


_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 20
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 11:07:03 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14117
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Ian,

Thanks for taking a stab at it but you've missed the point of my question. I fully understand and agree with limitations on airfields. To name just one (there are others), limits on numbers of aircraft make sense. The squadron thing is making little sense right now because a squadron of 4 or 6 counts the same as a squadron of 25. So, for example, 4 + 4 +6 = 14 aircraft is counted the same as 25 + 25 + 25 = 75 aircraft. I'm seeing airfields way below the 'stacking limit' in terms of numbers of aircraft, yet noted as way over the limit in terms of squadrons. Doesn't make sense to me.

Now, if it is actually realistic then I am fine with it, but I would like to understand it.

That's the part I'm having difficulty with. Would you comment on that please?

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 21
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/26/2009 11:25:27 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ian,

Thanks for taking a stab at it but you've missed the point of my question. I fully understand and agree with limitations on airfields. To name just one (there are others), limits on numbers of aircraft make sense. The squadron thing is making little sense right now because a squadron of 4 or 6 counts the same as a squadron of 25. So, for example, 4 + 4 +6 = 14 aircraft is counted the same as 25 + 25 + 25 = 75 aircraft. I'm seeing airfields way below the 'stacking limit' in terms of numbers of aircraft, yet noted as way over the limit in terms of squadrons. Doesn't make sense to me.

Now, if it is actually realistic then I am fine with it, but I would like to understand it.

That's the part I'm having difficulty with. Would you comment on that please?


Suppose you have 10 squadrons and nobody in charge--air HQs give you someone in charge--who merges the flight plans? The usual drill is to allocate a runway to a squadron or group for long enough to get their planes up or down. Meanwhile, everyone else waits, and if you're short on runways, not everyone gets their turn. And you need to allocate a runway or two to CAP and ground-alert, etc. It's not like a commercial airport where the controllers are adept at allocating landing and take-off slots in near-real-time.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 12:25:16 AM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2445
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
It makes perfect sense to me...there were 6 operational and 1 training squadron at the first base I was stationed at...any more squadrons with their inherent officers, and there would have been no way to schedule all the tee times...not to mention the O Club would have been severely strained to keep enough liquor around...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 23
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 12:25:55 AM   
medicff

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

With out getting bogged down in specifics or philosophical debates with differing opinons, the "administrative" penalty, isn't meant to replicate "famous clerical errors" that caused regular inefficiencies in sortie generation. It isn't even an administrative penalty.

It's a capacity issue. At some point you have to draw a reasonable line that dictates what a Size X Airfield is capable of doing.

If you ask Person A he'll say this. If you ask person B he'll say that.

In this case I am person A and I say this...:

There is no definition in the game or the manual as to what an Size 1, 2, 10 AF is. Have a look. It was never provided in WitP and we didn't add it in AE. I thought about it, drafted it, but it was outside the scope of the project. Sorry.

However we did realize that SOME limitations needed to be instituted to blunt the effects of Uber Air Combat. Remember that? Anyone here need a reminder? See 90% of the posts in the old WitP forum...

Someone asked about reality. How's this..?:

I have a size 5 AF. I have 2000 aircraft spread between 150 units there. How many should fly in a given phase? All of them? I'll let you ponder the reality of that.

In short we concluded (correctly) that in a six hour AM phase not ALL of the aircraft, above a certain reasonable number, should fly. The way we drive this is with the overstacking rule. How do we implement that? It's in the rulebook. Will we ever divulge the secret formula? Not likely.

Bottom line. AF X cannot launch and recover all it's ready aircraft above a certain point and have them airborne every 6 hours. If they did, what sense would AF attack make, you'd never catch anything on the ground, then what would be the lamentation? Aircraft from any one base are NEVER ALL Airborne at the same time. Even today at a Navy Master Jet base, the VAST majority are on deck.

THIS is the ABSTRACT dynamic we are trying to replicate. It's not that they won't fly, it's that they won't ALL fly at the same time.


Thanks for you reply and I for one really appreciate how you have accomplished limiting aircraft effects in the game to make it so much more playable.

I dont need the exact formula but as a player would like to understand the rules and effects (even described abstractly) so that I may maximize my airgroups and minimize my penalties or at least understand if I need to overstack it is worth the penalty.

Apparently the program isn't calculating the overstacking of admin groups constantly and not accounting for groups not on 100% training (not those on combat and training) but on rest and training.

1) Has this calculation on admin overstacking and viewing (the *) been fixed?

2) Does this program calculate and inform player when group is overstacked via engines? I have never seen this occur.

Thanks and appreciate all you done
Pat

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 24
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 1:29:57 AM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16039
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

It makes perfect sense to me...there were 6 operational and 1 training squadron at the first base I was stationed at...any more squadrons with their inherent officers, and there would have been no way to schedule all the tee times...not to mention the O Club would have been severely strained to keep enough liquor around...


Yes...and the motor on the margarita blender might burn up

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 25
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 1:30:11 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ian,

Thanks for taking a stab at it but you've missed the point of my question. I fully understand and agree with limitations on airfields. To name just one (there are others), limits on numbers of aircraft make sense. The squadron thing is making little sense right now because a squadron of 4 or 6 counts the same as a squadron of 25. So, for example, 4 + 4 +6 = 14 aircraft is counted the same as 25 + 25 + 25 = 75 aircraft. I'm seeing airfields way below the 'stacking limit' in terms of numbers of aircraft, yet noted as way over the limit in terms of squadrons. Doesn't make sense to me.

Now, if it is actually realistic then I am fine with it, but I would like to understand it.

That's the part I'm having difficulty with. Would you comment on that please?


This is a valid point that was brought up in testing and is still being looked at. There are many ways to skin this cat. Simple code that can be implemented to flesh this out to the point where 4 Squads of 1 A/C each does not invoke the penalty.

The challenge to this sort of change is insuring any modification to the current code does not open a new rabbit hole or cause the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction.

Quite simply, while the group thing may not make sense, the Machiavellian would say...

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 26
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 1:36:31 AM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
People keep trying to explain what the developers are trying to do with the airfield rules! I understand and agree! Others keep trying to divert my questions about implimentation and consequences by questioning the philosophy of the rules or delivering cutesy comments! I am only stating that the airfield rules are not sufficiently clear to allow a player to use them properly. I can not rationally follow the "*" phenomenon related to overstacking. Yamato Hugger says that seaplanes count against overstack, which does not seem to relate to Elf's arguments. But I can accept this if I know that it is correct. There is absolutely no clue about the overstack degree of penalty on launches, casualties from attacks and effects on aircraft repairs. The rules on page 214 seem to say that only one HQ can assist in avoiding overstack? I think that various combinations of "Training", "Patrol Level" and "Stand Down" are not allowing cancellation of overstack penalties, at least as far as the bottom screen "*" appearing before the "airfield" name, and we can not identify the consequences amount anyway. Using game v1083c, the TTMW scene has Adak with 4 operational "groups" in combat mode for 2 turns without a "*".

I respectfully disagree with ELF that we do not need to know the degree of consequence for overstacking. As an example, suppose I want to assess the consequences of leaving 2 "groups" of PBYs and their AV ships at a potential overstack airfield base versus moving them to a nearby "dot" base with it's attendant greater danger of surface and air attack. Without knowing the degree of consequence I can not make a rational decision.

The same argument applies to deficient aviation support. Maybe I can live with very deficient aviation support on an air field for a few turns when aviation support is needed elsewhere if I have some idea of the consequences other than the 25% reduction in level bombing flights. Currently a commander has insufficient information to decide.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 27
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 1:40:19 AM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16039
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I like the uncertainty. Consider the real world. No base commander could possibly know every source of friction that will pop up on day X. He may simply discover there aren't enough fuel trucks when a bunch of P-39's arrive or that hanger space is now inadequate because it takes 10 hrs to pull a B-17 engine....etc. etc.

This is one of the most sublime aspects of the game.


Now that waterboarding is off the table we may never know the mathematical formulae.

I would suggest you make inferences from the performance of the squadrons and availability of airframes.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 8/27/2009 1:42:27 AM >

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 28
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 1:44:40 AM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
I don't want to know to the 6th decimal place, but as a game player I deserve some rational clues as to consequences of my decisions!

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 29
RE: Airfield Penalties - 8/27/2009 2:29:05 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
Frankly, I have been on this bandwagon from the start. There is no logic to it what so ever, just something he wants. Frankly, the only way its going to get changed is if enough of you complain about it. So, if you want it changed, its up to YOU to make your wishes heard. My 1 voice isnt enough. Ive tried for months.

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Airfield Penalties Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.102