Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking!

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking! Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG ... - 8/10/2004 7:01:59 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

IMHO, in WitP (same as in UV) players can do various things that are ahistorical and/or were practically impossible to do in WWII...

One such thing that bothers me much is speed of building up the bases (airbase/port) and fortifications because players can stack enormous number of ENG units into one HEX and, practically, build overnight.


So... to counter that I thought of very simple but effective solution!


Leo's suggestion of how to slow building speed down by limiting ENG unit stacking

Every HEX has SPS (Standard Potential Size) limiters (for both port and airbase size).

So... let's use combined numbers of SPS (for port and airbase size) as variable to limit the number of ENG squads able to work at one HEX at same time (note that single ENG vehicle represents 5 squads)!

Since SPS anyway means size we can elegantly use it to depict room available for ENG units to work!

I am sure that proper and well balanced formula can be devised for this to reflect historical building times and capabilities.


Privisory Example

Let's say there is HEX with "dot" (i.e. it is currently undeveloped with both port and airbase size of 0).

That HEX has SPS for port of 0 (meaning that biggest port build can be 3) and SPS for airbase of 2 (meaning that biggest airbase build can be 5).

This means that our limiting variable is 0 + 2 = 2 for that HEX.

If we agree that formula (purely speculative at this point since proper formula must be thought of carefully) means 30 ENG squads per variable this means that MAX number of ENG squads able to work at that HEX is 2 x 30 = 60 and that any excess of ENG units would not speed up the building at all because there simple isn't room for them to work!



What do you think gentleman?

Matrix/2by3?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
Post #: 1
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:05:53 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		i suggested a stacking limit or "diminishing returns" rule long ago during UV days for engineers. At best it would make a nice wish list item. Worth a try though the list is already pretty weighty

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 2
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:09:08 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Great idea but as it constitutes effectively a "new feature" I would be extremely surprised if it ever happens.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 3
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:09:59 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

i suggested a stacking limit or "diminishing returns" rule long ago during UV days for engineers. At best it would make a nice wish list item. Worth a try though the list is already pretty weighty


Great minds think alike...


IMHO, this is really something to think hard about (i.e. _VERY_IMPORTANT_) because current possibility of "overnight" building is really a kind of gamey playing...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 4
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:10:54 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		That woudl be fine but I think you shoudl be able to continue moving in ENG units as teh base expands. If you start with a minimum of 2 (even for a SPS 0,0 dot) and allow one more eng. unit per increase. When the base goes 1/0 you can have 3 eng units. 1/1 woudl be 4 etc. This would allow players to get a bonus for building up a base. You already need to supply them with well supply. Once a base gets to size 3 Port or 4 airfield, it is now a serius base and should be able to support many engineers.

If you are going to make a rule limiting Engineers should you also limit the number of INF and other combat troops you can "Stack" as well. IF the base is to small for ENgineers that wodl build barracks and reclaim land then Infantry units woudl have more difficult. SO no stacking 100K in troops into a Size 2 base.

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 5
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:19:14 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

That woudl be fine but I think you shoudl be able to continue moving in ENG units as teh base expands. If you start with a minimum of 2 (even for a SPS 0,0 dot) and allow one more eng. unit per increase. When the base goes 1/0 you can have 3 eng units. 1/1 woudl be 4 etc. This would allow players to get a bonus for building up a base. You already need to supply them with well supply. Once a base gets to size 3 Port or 4 airfield, it is now a serius base and should be able to support many engineers.

If you are going to make a rule limiting Engineers should you also limit the number of INF and other combat troops you can "Stack" as well. IF the base is to small for ENgineers that wodl build barracks and reclaim land then Infantry units woudl have more difficult. SO no stacking 100K in troops into a Size 2 base.

UB


I think that there should not be limit on stacking ordinary units because our 60x60 nm HEX is huge.

The ENG stacking is only for building because in 60x60 nm HEX there is only so much useful place to build depicted by SPS...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 6
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:21:35 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		IMO, I don't think this is necessary to add to the game. Unfortunately, I can't tell you specific examples, but I know that there are places in the Pacific that the US engineers had a runway working for fighters (level 1) in about 24 hours.

As the game currently is, you can't get B-17's operating overnight. I say, let any player place all their eng units on a base and have it rapidly expand. I don't think it's gamey and I do believe it is historical.

Of course, I would like to see that you can't put 100,000 troops on Wake (because they won't fit on the real estate). But until that happens, let the players put LCU's where they want them.

My 2 cents.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 7
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:29:03 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

IMO, I don't think this is necessary to add to the game. Unfortunately, I can't tell you specific examples, but I know that there are places in the Pacific that the US engineers had a runway working for fighters (level 1) in about 24 hours.

As the game currently is, you can't get B-17's operating overnight. I say, let any player place all their eng units on a base and have it rapidly expand. I don't think it's gamey and I do believe it is historical.

Of course, I would like to see that you can't put 100,000 troops on Wake (because they won't fit on the real estate). But until that happens, let the players put LCU's where they want them.

My 2 cents.


Several months ago I asked how long it takes in WitP to build B-29 base at Tinian.

I posted historical info how long it took and what units were used in WWII.

WitP BETA testers (and Joel Billings) tested that and it was all OK (many weeks of labor).

NOTE: That thread was lost when hacker attacked Matrix but I am sure people here remember what I am talking about.


But that meant they employed just historical number of ENG units - if they stacked all they had this would be done much much quicker (i.e. "overnight").

That ahistorical and practically impossible situation is what I am worried about...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 8
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:30:21 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		One of my grandfathers was in the USAAF corps of engineers and he told me many stories of base building. He was not a man to exagerate. They move move their equipment in and litteraly within a week have the jungle torn down (several acres worth) have it leveled out and have buildings standing for an airfield, hospital, port and whatever else was needed.
I think build speeds are find as are.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 9
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:34:48 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

One of my grandfathers was in the USAAF corps of engineers and he told me many stories of base building. He was not a man to exagerate. They move move their equipment in and litteraly within a week have the jungle torn down (several acres worth) have it leveled out and have buildings standing for an airfield, hospital, port and whatever else was needed.
I think build speeds are find as are.


Nothing is wrong with building speeds if you use "proper" (i.e. historical) number of ENG units at one HEX.

But player can stack dozens and dozens of ENG units at one HEX!

Observe how speed of building is then - it is "overnight" miracle where you can have B-29 base ready in matter of days instead of weeks and months...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 10
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:43:14 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Ho about instead of limiting the stackign of Eng units you change teh load cost of Eng Vehicles. Now if you want to stack them you will need to have many more transports. As it is now, you can load any CB unit or on a single 7K AP. How about increasing teh vehicle load cost so it woudl take 2 or 3 AP's or a combination of AP and AK to move them.

I just don't see teh stackign issue. If you can have 100K Inf on the same real estate why not many Engineers? If you have say 10 Engineering units on the same small base, why woudln't they have room to work? 20 Bulldozers woudl be able to clear Jungle faster than 5, and that woudl not take up much room. If it is personel, I was in teh Gator Navy and let me tell you there is always somehting for them CB's to build. Even if it is just fortifications for themselves. Buildign an Airfield consists of more than a runway. they need barracks, docks hospitals offices and this all needs lumbar which was often milled in place. two or three Enginering units have fewer vehicles than an armored unit so how do they operate on a small island?

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 11
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:53:13 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

IMO, I don't think this is necessary to add to the game. Unfortunately, I can't tell you specific examples, but I know that there are places in the Pacific that the US engineers had a runway working for fighters (level 1) in about 24 hours.

As the game currently is, you can't get B-17's operating overnight. I say, let any player place all their eng units on a base and have it rapidly expand. I don't think it's gamey and I do believe it is historical.



Wait till all those Dutch ENG units get evac'd.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 12
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:53:23 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck
I just don't see teh stackign issue. If you can have 100K Inf on the same real estate why not many Engineers? If you have say 10 Engineering units on the same small base, why woudln't they have room to work? 20 Bulldozers woudl be able to clear Jungle faster than 5, and that woudl not take up much room. If it is personel, I was in teh Gator Navy and let me tell you there is always somehting for them CB's to build. Even if it is just fortifications for themselves. Buildign an Airfield consists of more than a runway. they need barracks, docks hospitals offices and this all needs lumbar which was often milled in place. two or three Enginering units have fewer vehicles than an armored unit so how do they operate on a small island?


What I meant is the following:

Our HEX is 60x60 nm which is huge area.

In that area any number of units can be spread (i.e. there is enough room).

But in buildable HEX there can be base with port/airbase big only as SPS allows for each HEX individually.

That means that buildable area in 60x60 nm HEX is not the same for every HEX.

So... there can be enough room to place 10 divisions (I am exaggerating of course) in HEX but buildable area for base can be as small as 1.

My idea for ENG unit stacking is only for building up of the small buildable area in HEX where building of port/airbase is possible...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 13
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:54:45 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		A stacking limit would probably be difficult to code since technically no such stack at all exists in the game. I suspect the "diminishing returns" rule would be easier to code though only the developers can answer such a question. That way you avoid the whole stacking problem. (Just as 'spoilage' was a tweak to the already existing supply system)

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 14
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 7:56:35 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

"Nikademus" do you think you can mention this thread to "Kid" in order for him to add it to his famous list?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
"Kid" did close the last public wish list yesterday BTW.

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:05:56 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline 		Nikademus,

I would think that the amout of supplies that engineers consume while doing there construction combined with the supply spoilage rule would limit how many units you could stack in a base. You can't do much with 5,000 supply at a 0,0 base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

A stacking limit would probably be difficult to code since technically no such stack at all exists in the game. I suspect the "diminishing returns" rule would be easier to code though only the developers can answer such a question. That way you avoid the whole stacking problem. (Just as 'spoilage' was a tweak to the already existing supply system)


_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:06:33 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

A stacking limit would probably be difficult to code since technically no such stack at all exists in the game. I suspect the "diminishing returns" rule would be easier to code though only the developers can answer such a question. That way you avoid the whole stacking problem. (Just as 'spoilage' was a tweak to the already existing supply system)


_GREAT_ idea "Nikademus"!


The simpler - the better (less code to change and less possiblity for something to go wrong).


Now... let's hope Matrix/By3 will learn of this and we will in mantime keep our collective fingers crossed for some of the future patches...


Leo

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 17
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:08:41 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Apollo,

Well, I tend to use no more than 3 or 4 eng units when I want to rapidly expand a base. I guess if there are folks who will put 10 or more, then I could see why you wouldn't like that.

I tend to think of invasions of how fast I can get local fighter support. Not how fast can I put massive numbers of level bombers there.

I would agree with you that some sort of diminishing returns is a good idea. It would be easy to get that level one fighter strip up and running, but it should take at least a few weeks to get a level 4 base (level bombers).

bc

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 18
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:16:50 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Leo, remember the effects of spoilage dictate just how much you can dump on a base to keep those engineers working. The limiter in dots is supply, not engineers

No supplies, no building so lots of idle engineers. The problem you are suggesting really is already fixed through a different rule.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 19
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:22:51 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I have found that due to the abstract nature of the supply points that "amount" is not much of an issue, especially for the Allied player.

_____________________________


(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 20
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:24:58 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Leo, remember the effects of spoilage dictate just how much you can dump on a base to keep those engineers working. The limiter in dots is supply, not engineers

No supplies, no building so lots of idle engineers. The problem you are suggesting really is already fixed through a different rule.


Raymond, partially maybe...

But idea that "Nikademus" have of diminishing is best and would fix that the problem entirely (and easiest to do apparently)!

It would be interesting to test the following situation: 20000 tons of supply is dumped at "dot" HEX (i.e. empty) but with SPS of 1,1 together with 10 big ENG units...


BTW your "different route" partial fix would not work in case of Tinian (and its build up to B-29 base).


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 21
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:25:32 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

"Nikademus" do you think you can mention this thread to "Kid" in order for him to add it to his famous list?


Leo "Apollo11"



I'll mention it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 22
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:29:10 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

I have found that due to the abstract nature of the supply points that "amount" is not much of an issue, especially for the Allied player.


But, this rule would really only hurt the Allies with their million SeaBee units. And when you think through the logic, they are the very units designed for the express purpose of building a base in record time in a completely unbuildable location like a SPS 0.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 23
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:31:43 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Another thing I'd like to mention. If Matrix does code some "diminishing returns" stuff into the game, that should only apply to expanding ports and airfields.

If I've got 500 engineers at Mandalay trying to fortify it for the 100,000 troops there, they should all be working efficiently. Those same 500 engineers couldn't all fit on the airfield, but they could all fit in the areas being fortified.

more of my 2 cents.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 24
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:39:24 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		I have a simple solution too. Just mandate Environmental Impact Reports prior to construction. Everything except Mt Suribachi would qualify as "wetland"...then you have the endangered species stuff. Imagine McArthur wants to build a B-17 base in the DEI. The whole deal is full speed ahead until the 4023rd Biology Bn finds a mating pair or Pink-Arsed Orange Tamarind monkeys right in the path of Runway 20R. Doh!

The Marines would have to **** in their helmets too as they would have to drill test wells before digging a latrine.

The Japanese would, of course, not be so encumbered..thereby greatly improving play balance.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 25
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:40:48 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I have found that due to the abstract nature of the supply points that "amount" is not much of an issue, especially for the Allied player.


But, this rule would really only hurt the Allies with their million SeaBee units. And when you think through the logic, they are the very units designed for the express purpose of building a base in record time in a completely unbuildable location like a SPS 0.


I don't think it would "hurt" allies at all.

Historically many many small bases were build and this is what you need all those SeeBee units for - not for "overnight" build up of Tinian into B-29 base while it took weeks and months in WWII...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 26
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:41:48 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

If Matrix does code some "diminishing returns" stuff into the game, that should only apply to expanding ports and airfields.


Don't even see that limit as being valid ... who's to say that the guys who can't fit on the port are not working the airfield extra hard then the remains are increasing the fortifications. Too many abstractions at play to stick in some arbitrary limit.

Airfields are exactly that, multiple runways in a area of 60 miles. There is also some abstraction here too as in most of these places, some of these smaller airfields are more then 60 miles away, but included for game purposes as being part of the base.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 27
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:43:54 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I have found that due to the abstract nature of the supply points that "amount" is not much of an issue, especially for the Allied player.


But, this rule would really only hurt the Allies with their million SeaBee units. And when you think through the logic, they are the very units designed for the express purpose of building a base in record time in a completely unbuildable location like a SPS 0.


I dont see it as hurting the Allies at all since they have unlimited supply. I see it as slowing the pace of a game that is already admittedly accelerated. The rule would also slow Japanese building as well.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 28
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:50:31 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Here is what history tells us about this:

http://www.npca.org/explore_the_parks/new_parks/marianas.asp


quote:


By the last year of World War II, North Field was the largest air base in the world. It was the primary staging point for the newly developed long-range B-29 Superfortresses that were capable of making the round trip between Tinian Island, the site of the air base in the Northern Marianas, and Japan. The Enola Gay and Boxcar aircraft took off from North Field to drop their atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The assembly sites for those bombs, located adjacent to North Field, are still intact.

Construction of the air base began shortly after Allied forces assaulted Japanese strongholds on Tinian Island in June 1944. The Marianas had been under the control of Japan since the end of World War I, and their position in the Pacific Ocean was of extreme strategic importance to the Allied war effort.

North Field was the largest construction project that U.S. Navy Seabees had undertaken up to that time, and it was a major engineering challenge. According to military historical cartographer William Stewart, the Seabees of the 6th and 107th Construction Brigades “dug, blasted, scraped, and moved 11 million cubic yards of earth and coral on Tinian. This quantity of material would fill a line of dump trucks 900 miles long.” Six huge bomber strips were built, each a mile and a half long and a block wide, and each was completed in 53 days or less.

North Field was put to immediate use by U.S. airmen of the 504th, 505th, 6th, and 9th B-29 Groups and the 509th Composite Group. It is said that if the Marianas had not been seized from the Japanese and if North Field and other air
bases on nearby islands had not been built, the war in the Pacific might have gone on for much longer.


This means that there were 2 (two) large ENG units there historically and that they needed 53 days (almost 2 months or 8+ weeks) for each of those 6 airstrips (i.e. to enlarge the existing airbase to accept B-29's).

BTW, I believe that this was top priority US project and yet just 2 ENG units were used.

Joel Billings (and some helpful WitP BETA's) tested that and they come with few months of work give-or-take in WitP time as well.


Unfortunately player in WitP can place as many ENG units he wishes to Tinian and he can significantly shorten that historic time...


This is what I am against and only because of this I started this thread (again - the old thread months ago was destroyed by hacker attack on Matrix)...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Sorry for being so passionate about this but this is my "pet" issue...

< Message edited by Apollo11 -- 8/10/2004 7:55:23 PM >

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 29
RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/10/2004 8:52:08 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Nik,

Well, I was thinking of airfields on atolls. Of course, tens of thousands of engineers could build the airfield at Mandalay, but not at Wake. The question is what is logical when trying to limit engineer stacking and what is possible with the development assets that Matrix has.

If I were playing you, MR. Frag, Mogami, etc etc in a PBEM game, I wouldn't think twice about engineer stacking (I'm guessing you guys would spread out your assets to get the best return overall). But if I'm playing Joe Schmoe (sorry Joe), and he's stacking all cent pac engineers on some empty atoll, then I'm playing the wrong player in a PBEM game.

The same would apply to stacking 200 PT's in one port. Or having your death star CV's patrolling to Karachi. Or moving massive assault points out of manchuria faster than reason. etc etc etc.

I view this problem as fairly minor on things I'd like to see (love to see replacements show up on the Ops report!!! Please please please)

But it's still fun to debate the issue, regardless of what's done about it.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking! Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.828