Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

missing airfields in stock

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> missing airfields in stock Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
missing airfields in stock - 6/23/2011 11:56:35 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		After 2-3 weeks doing what I intended to be 2-3 days of database tweeks, in order to play a near stock
game (or it turns out several) to learn the AE system, I have some comments. First, I picked up a whole
team of modders, including Mifune who never did stop doing RHS. His apparently issued RHSAE uses
scenario 100. Without knowing that, I chose 101. I was able to get RHS aircraft values in AE from him,
along with much art he collected for the added types. I myself continue to add types, particularly for
China, and for Thailand. While AE does have a Thai army, it seems to have omitted the Navy and air
force. In order to avoid several issues, I delay all three until 411222, the day Thailand changes sides.
Prior to that it was resisting the Japanese - and I take the casualties out of its units. Also, all locations
not occupied by Japan in Indochina, and all locations in Thailand - are ALLIED to start - so the Japanese
don't get to benefit from the economy - or fly there - until they capture the places. This is similar to
the stock treatment of Kwangchowwan, which is French with no garrison.

Anyway - I have noted two significant missing airfields in the Visayas. The one at Bacolod was built in 1936,
and is the reason the area got a garrison by the Philippine Army - to delay the enemy rapid use of its facilities.
Similarly, Tacloban was the first city liberated. The stratetic reason it was chosen is that it had Tacloban City
Airfield. But again, stock shows it as 0. This is also why a detachment of PI defends the place at start.
The divisions shown in the Visayas in stock - 71st and 91st - are clearly shown in the US Army series Atlas
of World War II in Central Luzon - and also show on the list of units at Bataan. Instead, it is 41st and 61st in area.
These also show in the US Army atlas, but without unit identification - and you need to work it backwards - all the other
divisions are listed in other places.

Anyway - these two airfields figure in the strategic decisions of both sides to defend or take, both in 1941 and 1944.
Bacolod is slot 647. Tacloban is slot 679. Cebu, in slot 659, probably gets a higher rating than a 1. Cebu is the most
important place in the area (Tacloban is second) - and has a small shipyard. Both Cebu and Tacloban ports are probably
underrated. Again - these features help explain the strategic decisions of both sides where to defend or attack.
Post #: 1
RE: missing airfields in stock - 6/24/2011 1:17:09 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		From what I have read of the Leyte Campaign is that Tacloban was the first city liberated becase it was the IJA that expanded a simple basic grass strip that could barely handle a JN-4 into what we would interept as a size two field since it was being used with some fighters and IJAAF scout/bomber units. So the SWPAC HQ viewed it as a quick and expendient way to relieve the need of the USN carriers to stand off the beaches. So those units could be replaced by USAAF units. Remember the primary objective of any amphibious landing is going to be either a major port facility or major airfield, which is then going to lead to a further expansion of the military forces in the region.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: missing airfields in stock - 6/24/2011 5:10:18 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Base additions were halted in advance of release to enable the AI work to be undertaken.

Adding new bases in places like Malaya/PI/New Guinea or Burma are dangerous unless you are editing the AI scripts or planning on a PBEM only mod.

Andy

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 3
RE: missing airfields in stock - 6/25/2011 8:29:40 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Bacolod is slot 647. Tacloban is slot 679. Cebu, in slot 659, probably gets a higher rating than a 1. Cebu is the most
important place in the area (Tacloban is second) - and has a small shipyard. Both Cebu and Tacloban ports are probably
underrated. Again - these features help explain the strategic decisions of both sides where to defend or attack.

Remember, that by increasing initial size of airfields in Philippines, you only make Japan initial assault EASIER. Hardly anything they actually need.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Base additions were halted in advance of release to enable the AI work to be undertaken.

GOOD! Current number of possible bases is already PITA (there is probably not even enough land units to give garrisons to all), if anyone wants to add even more, it would be best to just RUN FOR THE HILLS!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: missing airfields in stock - 6/25/2011 10:49:57 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

From what I have read of the Leyte Campaign is that Tacloban was the first city liberated becase it was the IJA that expanded a simple basic grass strip that could barely handle a JN-4 into what we would interept as a size two field since it was being used with some fighters and IJAAF scout/bomber units. So the SWPAC HQ viewed it as a quick and expendient way to relieve the need of the USN carriers to stand off the beaches. So those units could be replaced by USAAF units. Remember the primary objective of any amphibious landing is going to be either a major port facility or major airfield, which is then going to lead to a further expansion of the military forces in the region.


Those details are not on the official Tacloban website! I see no reason not to believe both reports. Nevertheless it appears the airfield is present.
In that era lots of airfields were grass strips. The planes of the era were not so heavy as to make that as impractical as it sounds. Grass strips
are widely used in my part of the world ( as is water ) - and we have the largest collection of propeller transports and floatplanes on the planet.
And we did design the C-130 to operate from such a field - although USAF refuses to use it that way. [Come to mind, the C-5A was DESIGNED to use
a grass strip - and I doubt it ever will - due to maintenance risk reasons - but it could ]

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 5
RE: missing airfields in stock - 6/25/2011 10:55:41 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		If I understand you correctly cid you plan on playing v the AI - if you add bases in the PI/DEI or Malaya without amending the AI scripts (all 14 of them) the AI may not recognise,garrison or conquer the new bases.

Map tweaks in the central play area are to be avoided if you intend to play v the AI or have others do so UNLESS you modify the AI scripts

Re Thai changes again you are building compexity into the Japanese AI for minimal chrome impact - an allied Jap Thai Army just adds another complication to the AI at the time that the Jap AI is struggling to achieve its goals.

You can do it and if you are playing PBEM only fair enough but if you are planning on playing v AI be very carefull messing about with PI and malaya as it took a lot of AI testing to get them to work out on a quasi historic timetable and small tweaks can cause unbalances.

At the very least I would be running AI v AI games for 6 months at least 10 times on various difficulty levels before embedding some of the changes you are talking about


Andy

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: missing airfields in stock - 6/27/2011 7:57:00 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		El Cid,

As I said my reference was a couple of books that I was turned on to after reading some book by Edwin P. Hoyt that talked about the battle of Leyte Gulf and why that battle was important. I forget off the top of my head what the actual reference was. However, most of the other books that I have read about the aerial combat in the opening year of the war from Janurary of 1941 till December of 1942 talked about how in a large number of of the colonies had near some of the major plantaions an airfield of some sort. Where in most regions they would use an aircraft to help bring some supplies in, but really wasn't designed for constant support of aircraft. In that they had some basic passanger/cargo stations and a place to gas the aircraft, but no hangar spaces, no tarmac, and couldn't do any more major maintenance sort of changing a tire. Instead it was the captial locations that had the major airfields. However as the Europeans and Americans retreated either back to India or to Australia they would exploit those airfields as best they could or would by past them on the retreat and it would be either the IJN/IJAAF that would exploit some of those airfields to provide as much coverage of air power during thier advance across the Pacific.
I would also note that just because an aircraft could operate from a grass strip doesn't always mean it would be fully capable and it was a constant thing to see that aircraft successfully operating from said grass strips. For example I have seen pictures of both a C-130 and a U-2 taking off from and landing on a modern US aircraft carrier, both of which come from the Naval Historical Center or the US National Archives. That doesn't mean neither of those two aircraft could do so on a regular basis. Rather I would suggest for a situtation like this you try and research the history of these fields a little bit more then just the internet. Dig up some additional references and actually read the references yourself see if they support or disprove your postion. Provide both sides of the arguement and see if do that could help sway folks towards the input that you want. I am not saying your wrong, just to claim that the internet is your proof that these airfields should be a couple of sizes larger at the start of the game then normal because you read it on the internet, to me means about as much as hearsay does in a court of law. I would think that a few others that helped to develop the AE version of this game feel the same way, plus I am sure others who have been paying attention to your posts in the last few weeks or months might feel the same way.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> missing airfields in stock 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

1.578