Airfield Penalties

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

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26302
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by 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?
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by herwin »

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
User avatar
Kwik E Mart
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:42 pm

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by 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...
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.

Image
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by medicff »

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
User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20737
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Cap Mandrake »

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...

[:D] Yes...and the motor on the margarita blender might burn up
Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

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...[;)]
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

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.
User avatar
Cap Mandrake
Posts: 20737
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:37 am
Location: Southern California

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Cap Mandrake »

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.
Image
Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

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!
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Yamato hugger »

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.
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

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.

Al,
Quite simply, don't overstack, and there will be no restrictions. Conversely when you see your AFs are overstacked, just realize that your AF is not operating as efficiently as it might. That is a perfectly natural state for an AF.

If you are new to the game, these rules are not entirely new. Some of them existed in WitP before AE. We've just enhanced them a bit to temper Uber Air Operations. If you attempt to streamline ALL your AFs to maximum efficiency other AFs will likely become overstacked as a result.

There are some benefits to these restrictions. Units will not fly all their A/C (read pilots) all the time and their Fatigue will not suffer as a result. A more normal pace of ops will result than if unchecked.

From the manual:
If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are reduced by 25%.

- Aviation support isn't just the wrench-turners. It is an abstraction of all things needed to support a plane. Armorers, plane captains, crew drivers, fuel bowsers, ground support equipment, the list goes on and on. Of all types, Level bombers were the most support intensive. This is why this restriction exists. Support your Bombers properly(nothing new here) and it won't be an issue.

If an Airfield has too many aircraft (physical space) or groups (administrative) present, then the airfield is deemed overstacked. And is indicated by an ‘*’ next to the airfield.
An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.


- Overstacked is not a curse word. It's a fact of life. Don't fixate on the "administrative" word. As designers we INTENDED for AFs to be overstacked. It was part of our effort to slow things down, and defang Air combat a bit.

A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as the best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.

An airfield can operate 50 single engine (or 25 two engine, or 12 four engine) planes per AF size or 1 group per AF size.


- It can also operate more than 50 per AF size or more than the number of groups = or greater than the AF size, but at a penalty. But as I have been trying to say the penalty is intended...

In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

Here is how you mitigate the overstacking. Without juggling groups. Station 6 groups at a size 4 AF. Set 3 to rest and voila! ( 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 on training + 3 groups on ops), you have four groups, but you haven't moved any groups out. Alternatively you could set them all to CAP or Naval attack and suffer a penalty, but all groups would fly some, most, but not ALL of their complement each phase. It might just be that even with the penalty you'll get more A/c airborne than standing down half your force! Think about it.

Remember if you are seeing something other than what you expect there are OTHER ways to restrict operations.


Level Bombers have to pass 3 checks to fly all their non-overstacked complements. They are:
An experience test»»
A leadership test»»
A morale test in order to fly all of their planes»»

For each test failed, the number of bombers that fly the Mission will be reduced by 25%.


So, don't fly a 40 EXP Bomber unit with a crappy 25 Air Rating LDR, with Morale in the can, and you'll avoid these penalties.

Then there is this:
-If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are reduced by 25%.

So just because you are expecting to see one thing from your units when you solve the overstacking issue, doesn't necessarily mean you'll get all your LBA into the fight.

"Why are level bombers so roughly treated?" you might ask. Because they didn't operate from forward AFs that were just captured. Generally they operated from rear area bases that had natural or man-made buffers between them and the enemy. Generally. We are trying to limit the pace of Air operations. Somewhat restrictive rules for LBA was a key ingredient.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

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.

As fair and balanced as ever YH. Bravo. [:'(]
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I like the uncertainty.

This is precisely why we were a bit vague on the actual formula.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Al Boone
I respectfully disagree with ELF that we do not need to know the degree of consequence for overstacking.

You absolutely positively do not HAVE to agree with me. Just ask YH! [:D]
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 38308
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Erik Rutins »

Thanks Elf, some great commentary, you should post #31 up there in a separate post in the War Room as well if you get a chance. [8D]
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

humm . maybe this game isn't for rules lawyers who want every minutea explained and then can exploit loop-holes (im sure we all know some board/miniature wargames with this attribute [;)])

IMO use common sense and not a rules based solution.
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
Jzanes
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:55 am

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Jzanes »

IMHO.

Penalties based solely on total # of engines/airframes seems to be sufficient and works better as it is easy to follow and isn't biased by the wide range of squadron sizes. Unless the "administrative overstacking" rule adds something significantly beyond what the "total engines" rule adds, I'd say strike it. Law of Parsimony, simple is better, etc.

Al Boone
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cobleskill, New York, USA

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by Al Boone »

ELF: I am not being sarcastic when I say that you just gave a very useful series of comments, but they do not address my comments and questions about the way things are implemented.

Philisophically, I only disagree about seaplanes being included in overstack counts, but that may be a programming problem for you and I can accept this even though it can not be justified by your air field capacity arguments.

The means of counting conditions for assessing overstack do not seem to be working properly! How many different ways can I say this? It doesn't take a save. Just boot up v1083c TTMW and play with Adak and Dutch Harbor for a couple of quick turns, moving "groups" in and out of various "Training" possibilities.

Some penalties are explicitly and well expressed as you have well stated, but others are very nebulus. If you do not want us to enjoy making rational judgements then keep telling us that we don't need suitable information. I don't need precision and chance always has some perverse effects, but it is no fun to think that we can't at least attempt to make some informed decisions.

To at least salvage something, is it possible for ELF to confirm:
Seaplanes count against overstack in either manner?
Only 1 best qualifying HQ can assist against overstack?

By the way, though I have not said much on this forum, I have been working/playing at this stuff since I worked on War In The South Pacific for SSI.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26302
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by witpqs »

Ian - very helpful commentary! Thanks, dude. Very happy with it the way you lay it out. [8D]
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26302
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Airfield Penalties

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

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 that Milo has emptied the fuel trucks when a bunch of P-39's arrive or that hanger space is now inadequate because Milo has sold a B-17 engine....etc. etc.

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

Fixed your post for you, Cap.

Now that waterboarding is off the table we may never know the mathematical formulae. [:)]

Only for the CIA, not for Matrix. [X(]
Post Reply

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