Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Expert comment please

 
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 >> Expert comment please Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 12:52:16 PM   
ool


Posts: 470
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Was just reading a thread from WITP about the defense of Wake. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080877

Now I looked up Wake Island dimensions and the site refers to Wake as 11 times the area of the Washington mall. It is a U shaped atoll with airfield at one end being the dominant use of land.

I've always wondered how much is too much in terms of the numbers of troops that you can stick onto a small atoll? When do you cross the "gamey" line?

I look at the forces the above noted thread states are on Wake and the number of planes and I wonder is this at all realistic? I mean total area of Wake is 6.5 KM. That many planes and troops on 6.5KM? Not all 6.5 KM would be usable I would think, too low and flooded at high tide etc.

I remember reading some time ago in the AE forum about AE having new size limits to garrisons that aren't in the stock WITP.

Would appreciate an informed evaluation of this example to give me an idea of what is realistic as far as defensive deployment on a atoll.

Thanks in advance.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:04:47 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
You can put 6000 defenders on Wake.

_____________________________


(in reply to ool)
Post #: 2
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:18:06 PM   
ool


Posts: 470
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Ok so 6,000 troops. However looking at the thread link I posted how many planes realistically can you park overnight on 6.5 KM taking into consideration support buildings and supply dumps? I mean I look at the list of planes and wonder have they paved the entire island?



_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 3
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:32:23 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4938
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

Ok so 6,000 troops. However looking at the thread link I posted how many planes realistically can you park overnight on 6.5 KM taking into consideration support buildings and supply dumps? I mean I look at the list of planes and wonder have they paved the entire island?




The aircraft capacity of a base is dependent upon airfield size. An airfield can be built up to the bases airfield SPS value + 3, just as in stock WitP. The very small islands, like Wake, generally have airfield SPS values of 0, meaning that the maximum airfield size will be 3 (which is also the size that Wake starts with). This equates to a stacking limit of 150 single engine aircraft.

Andrew

(in reply to ool)
Post #: 4
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:33:15 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

Was just reading a thread from WITP about the defense of Wake. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080877

Now I looked up Wake Island dimensions and the site refers to Wake as 11 times the area of the Washington mall. It is a U shaped atoll with airfield at one end being the dominant use of land.

I've always wondered how much is too much in terms of the numbers of troops that you can stick onto a small atoll? When do you cross the "gamey" line?

I look at the forces the above noted thread states are on Wake and the number of planes and I wonder is this at all realistic? I mean total area of Wake is 6.5 KM. That many planes and troops on 6.5KM? Not all 6.5 KM would be usable I would think, too low and flooded at high tide etc.

I remember reading some time ago in the AE forum about AE having new size limits to garrisons that aren't in the stock WITP.

Would appreciate an informed evaluation of this example to give me an idea of what is realistic as far as defensive deployment on a atoll.

Thanks in advance.


Crowded and lacking the tactical depth for a regiment. About right or a little large for a coastal defence battalion.

_____________________________

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 ool)
Post #: 5
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:33:45 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15159
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
We have 4 levels

6,000
30,000
60,000

and unlimited

Wake and most atolls are 6,000.

The depend on Air and Sea power for their defence

(in reply to ool)
Post #: 6
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:42:21 PM   
ool


Posts: 470
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Thanks for the response.

Just looking at that thread the idea of all those four engined planes on Wake seemed illogical. Also that the total number of troops for what is listed there making a rather crowded place. Unless of course you start to make Wake into the Vimy Ridge of the Pacific. Tunnel down 60 feet to build living quarters and storage facilities.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 7
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 1:54:13 PM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
...
The very small islands, like Wake, generally have airfield SPS values of 0, meaning that the maximum airfield size will be 3 (which is also the size that Wake starts with). This equates to a stacking limit of 150 single engine aircraft.

Andrew



From your last sentence this sounds the stacking limit will depend on the number of engines rather than the number of aircraft as in WitP. Is this correct?

If so, this sounds rather reasonable to me. And thinking of the P-38, something the japanese players will definately like.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 8
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 2:23:33 PM   
ool


Posts: 470
Joined: 12/25/2007
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
It seem too much. However apart form the number of troops how do you properly disperse 150 planes on such a small atoll? Jap bombardment force comes up to Wake with that many planes I would think the damage would be horrific due more than anything else to lack of proper dispersal of the parked crates. My 2 cents.

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 9
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 6:09:03 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
How many troops does it take to get 150 Aviation Support in AE?  It's possible that the base forces alone would overstack the atoll, let alone combat troops/CDs.  Also, I think they said that in AE it is much tougher to get from SPS to SPS+3.  So it could be considered that getting Wake to a Airbase 3 would include dredging the inner lagoon of material and bulldozing highpoints to be used to increase overall land area at the atoll and/or creating long taxiways from other parts of the atoll to move planes about. 

So it seems like more of a "yeah, you could do it" but why would you want to?  Especially if it leads to an undefended or overstacked atoll just to get the necessary aviation support.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to ool)
Post #: 10
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 6:19:26 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How many troops does it take to get 150 Aviation Support in AE?  It's possible that the base forces alone would overstack the atoll, let alone combat troops/CDs.  Also, I think they said that in AE it is much tougher to get from SPS to SPS+3.  So it could be considered that getting Wake to a Airbase 3 would include dredging the inner lagoon of material and bulldozing highpoints to be used to increase overall land area at the atoll and/or creating long taxiways from other parts of the atoll to move planes about. 

So it seems like more of a "yeah, you could do it" but why would you want to?  Especially if it leads to an undefended or overstacked atoll just to get the necessary aviation support.


There's currently a 9800 foot runway on the island. It's longer than the runways at NAS North Island, which I have personally seen Air Force One use a couple times.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 11
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 7:36:21 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7209
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

The aircraft capacity of a base is dependent upon airfield size. An airfield can be built up to the bases airfield SPS value + 3, just as in stock WitP. The very small islands, like Wake, generally have airfield SPS values of 0, meaning that the maximum airfield size will be 3 (which is also the size that Wake starts with). This equates to a stacking limit of 150 single engine aircraft.

Andrew


Interesting. Can 4E be operated off Wake then at all? Or 2E? And if they do, will same penalties as WITP apply?

If 3 is max ever airbase size, that also limits the strategic value of Wake; the airbase isn't big enough to hold enough of the kind of long-range aircraft that allow you to use it offensively. Wake becomes nothing more than a seaplane base, and sub refueling station, which is about what it was IRL.

Am I off base, so to speak?


_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 12
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 9:02:23 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
...
The very small islands, like Wake, generally have airfield SPS values of 0, meaning that the maximum airfield size will be 3 (which is also the size that Wake starts with). This equates to a stacking limit of 150 single engine aircraft.

Andrew



From your last sentence this sounds the stacking limit will depend on the number of engines rather than the number of aircraft as in WitP. Is this correct?

If so, this sounds rather reasonable to me. And thinking of the P-38, something the japanese players will definately like.


This is correct, it counts engines. However none of the displays shows numbers of engines so you will have to manually count them currently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How many troops does it take to get 150 Aviation Support in AE? It's possible that the base forces alone would overstack the atoll, let alone combat troops/CDs. Also, I think they said that in AE it is much tougher to get from SPS to SPS+3. So it could be considered that getting Wake to a Airbase 3 would include dredging the inner lagoon of material and bulldozing highpoints to be used to increase overall land area at the atoll and/or creating long taxiways from other parts of the atoll to move planes about.

So it seems like more of a "yeah, you could do it" but why would you want to? Especially if it leads to an undefended or overstacked atoll just to get the necessary aviation support.


A Jap airfield unit is around 1000 troops (the number of troops a ground unit takes up on an atoll isnt listed anywhere so the only current way to find out the space it takes is to put in on a base by itself and see how much room it takes up) and has 24 av support in it. A Jap airfield co (8 av support) has around 200.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

The aircraft capacity of a base is dependent upon airfield size. An airfield can be built up to the bases airfield SPS value + 3, just as in stock WitP. The very small islands, like Wake, generally have airfield SPS values of 0, meaning that the maximum airfield size will be 3 (which is also the size that Wake starts with). This equates to a stacking limit of 150 single engine aircraft.

Andrew


Interesting. Can 4E be operated off Wake then at all? Or 2E? And if they do, will same penalties as WITP apply?

If 3 is max ever airbase size, that also limits the strategic value of Wake; the airbase isn't big enough to hold enough of the kind of long-range aircraft that allow you to use it offensively. Wake becomes nothing more than a seaplane base, and sub refueling station, which is about what it was IRL.

Am I off base, so to speak?



Any bomber (including B-29s) can use a size 2+ airfield out to its maximum extended range just like WitP.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 4/6/2009 9:03:00 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 13
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 10:54:13 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7209
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
YH, thanks for the reply, 4Es can use it, but with the stacking limits, if I follow you:

The most 4E, unescorted that could base there would be 37 (150/4). That would assume no other planes of any kind. If you wanted those planes to actually have an escort, you could do maybe 24 B-24s, 16 P-38s, and still have a little room for a few PBYs (up to 16 to be exact). Unless PBY's dont' count, because they sit in the lagoon, not on the strip. And the 4Es fly at reduced bombloads.

Am I following the logic?

If so, that would severely restrict the use of Wake as an offensive platform, certainly for the Allies. I suppose the Japs could still get 2 Daitai of Bettys (108), a Daitai of Zero (27), plus a handful of Jakes.

What happens if you overstack an airbase: Nothing flies?


_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 14
RE: Expert comment please - 4/6/2009 11:01:36 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3907
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Forget Wake, makes Saipan, Tinian and Guam relatively useless. Hope they can be built up to 9s.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 15
RE: Expert comment please - 4/7/2009 2:55:15 AM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Since Saipan, Tinian and Guam were used as B29 bases, they really should too in AE.
Am I wrong?


_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 16
RE: Expert comment please - 4/7/2009 4:07:02 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

YH, thanks for the reply, 4Es can use it, but with the stacking limits, if I follow you:

The most 4E, unescorted that could base there would be 37 (150/4). That would assume no other planes of any kind. If you wanted those planes to actually have an escort, you could do maybe 24 B-24s, 16 P-38s, and still have a little room for a few PBYs (up to 16 to be exact). Unless PBY's dont' count, because they sit in the lagoon, not on the strip. And the 4Es fly at reduced bombloads.

Am I following the logic?

If so, that would severely restrict the use of Wake as an offensive platform, certainly for the Allies. I suppose the Japs could still get 2 Daitai of Bettys (108), a Daitai of Zero (27), plus a handful of Jakes.

What happens if you overstack an airbase: Nothing flies?



No, same as WitP. overstack to 2 times is 1 failed check, over 2 times is 2 failed checks and double losses if hit on the ground. So nothing really preventing you from operating 700 B-29s off Wake if you want to other than they fly (to maximum extended range) with reduced bombloads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Forget Wake, makes Saipan, Tinian and Guam relatively useless. Hope they can be built up to 9s.


Saipan and Tinian can be built to level 7 (which is what a B-29 needs to operate without penalty). Guam to level 8. The thing is about Siapan/Tinian can only be built up to a level 4 port and Guam a level 5. Makes me wonder if you can offload enough supplies to feed the air support units and fly the bombers with such small port sizes. And if they ARE big enough, you may be just as well off flying off Wake or Marcus. The only real effect is to halve your bombload (from 40 x 500 lbers to 20). 200 x 500 lbs will still do significant damage and the islands wont be near as well guarded because of their size limiting the numbers of defenders you can put there. Havent been able to test this all the way through however.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Since Saipan, Tinian and Guam were used as B29 bases, they really should too in AE.
Am I wrong?



They can be yes. But there again, there are islands in the Aleutians that can be built up to level 7 airfields also. So taking Saipan/Guam/Tinian isnt as big a deal either in that regard. Just build them up and hit Japan from there and use smaller atolls for the rest. You cant get all of Honshu from the Aleutians but everything east and north of Sendai is within range.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 17
RE: Expert comment please - 4/7/2009 7:27:48 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Since Saipan, Tinian and Guam were used as B29 bases, they really should too in AE.
Am I wrong?



They can be yes. But there again, there are islands in the Aleutians that can be built up to level 7 airfields also. So taking Saipan/Guam/Tinian isnt as big a deal either in that regard. Just build them up and hit Japan from there and use smaller atolls for the rest. You cant get all of Honshu from the Aleutians but everything east and north of Sendai is within range.


Yes, and the US Army Air Force historically did build up several of the Aleutian bases to support a B-29 offensive before pulling the plug on the idea in the Spring of 1945, once LeMay's Marianas air offensive started to roll. Besides, keeping Saipan/Guam/Tinian supplied is enormously easier than trying to get enough supplies into Shemya (!) to sustain an air offensive.




< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 4/7/2009 7:28:12 AM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 18
RE: Expert comment please - 4/7/2009 1:06:49 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3614
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I just am having a problem with jiving these numbers with reality. Saipain and Tinian each had one B-29 Bomber Wing which equals four 48 plane BG. That is 192 B-29's by my math. Guam had two Bomb Wings based there - 384. This is just counting the bombers - no patrol planes, fighters, recon, etc. According to the AE math, Tinian and Saipain will be over 2x stacking and Guam will approach 4x stacking just by putting the historical numbers on the bases. Could some one explain to me where this came from?

I understand that WITP often yields massively stacked bases. I understand that we often see tiny atolls with hundreds of 4E bombers flying from them. I understand the AE team wanted to fix this. This seams a little harsh to me.

Oh and BTW, only one side had 4E bombers in WWII; ergo only one side suffers from this penalty.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 19
RE: Expert comment please - 4/7/2009 1:55:33 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
Since the planes will still fly if the base is overstacked what is the problem?  Sure they won't fly as often, i.e. every day.  But I doubt like hell that any 4E bomber unit in WWII sustained the kind of operational tempo that the typical WitP player does day in and day out (same goes for 2E bombers for that matter).  So if forced overstacking cuts the 4E sortie rate down to something more approaching reality, I don't have a problem with that.

Regarding the increased damage that comes from overstacking during a bombardment/enemy bombing attack, you reap what you sow.  If you don't have control sea and air control around the airbase don't overstack it.  If you do, fill it up to the gills. 

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 20
RE: Expert comment please - 4/7/2009 2:08:01 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4938
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I just am having a problem with jiving these numbers with reality. Saipain and Tinian each had one B-29 Bomber Wing which equals four 48 plane BG. That is 192 B-29's by my math. Guam had two Bomb Wings based there - 384. This is just counting the bombers - no patrol planes, fighters, recon, etc. According to the AE math, Tinian and Saipain will be over 2x stacking and Guam will approach 4x stacking just by putting the historical numbers on the bases. Could some one explain to me where this came from?

I understand that WITP often yields massively stacked bases. I understand that we often see tiny atolls with hundreds of 4E bombers flying from them. I understand the AE team wanted to fix this. This seams a little harsh to me.

Oh and BTW, only one side had 4E bombers in WWII; ergo only one side suffers from this penalty.


Those on the air team are better qualified to answer, but it is my understanding that units that are resting or training do not count against the stacking limits. So large numbers of B-29s can be based at these bases. Just don't expect to be using all of the aircraft every day.

Andrew

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 21
RE: Expert comment please - 4/17/2009 5:48:56 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5379
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Am wondering about the airbase size limits, and Tinian always comes to mind, as mentioned earlier it was big but this site claims:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/tinian.htm

"As soon as air service groups prepared the bases for occupancy, hundreds of B-29s began arriving in October and November, ready to undertake strategic bombing operations against the Japanese home islands. An airfield was ready for the first B-29 strike on 24 November. Camps on Tinian were constructed to house 50,000 U.S. troops and 1.2 million pounds of crops were produced, all of which were consumed on the island. By August 1945, a year after construction started, Tinian was the largest airbase in the world at the time, and accommodated nearly 1000 B-29s."

And when you look at the photos, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/279834/Tinian-Island you can see just how huge the base was.

Granted that near total air and sea control had been achieved so the threat of any form of attack was low, a good thing considering the density of the aircraft there.

Just wondering if the ability to build and stack to this level remains is AE? Fully understand the desire to limit stacking, particularly early in the war or on historicaly unlikely places, perhaps the capacity goes up significantly after certain base levels are achieved?

B

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 22
RE: Expert comment please - 4/17/2009 8:14:30 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8698
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
How big were the bombing raids they flew out of the Marianas? It seems to me that if you can't fly the same size raids in AE, then something is a little off...  

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 23
RE: Expert comment please - 4/17/2009 8:24:33 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

How big were the bombing raids they flew out of the Marianas? It seems to me that if you can't fly the same size raids in AE, then something is a little off...  


In reality, air units were and are sortie generators. You're asking about the steady-state and surge capability. Surge capability was generally about 3x steady state, which was one of the advantages of a carrier air-group (CAG). (Because their base could move out of range afterwards, CAGs could generate about three times the number of sorties as a land-based air group of the same size for a short period.)

_____________________________

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 bradfordkay)
Post #: 24
RE: Expert comment please - 4/18/2009 3:35:28 PM   
MkXIV


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/4/2005
From: North Georgia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


And when you look at the photos, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/279834/Tinian-Island you can see just how huge the base was.

B



Also amazing that the invasion beaches allowed two divisions to land over two beaches less then 200 feet wide!

_____________________________

F4U Corsair; When you Absolutely, Positively need to kill every freaking Zero in a 40 mile hex....

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 25
RE: Expert comment please - 4/26/2009 6:30:53 PM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
Astounding what those engineers could do out in the middle of the pacific !

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to MkXIV)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Expert comment please Page: [1]
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

0.250