mikemike
Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Panther Bait
Unfortunately the ground echelon is a lot more than just men and a few toolbags. While there were mechanics associated with the individual planes/squadrons, there are also machine shops, engine shops, semi-heavy equipment, spare parts, etc. that are all part of the aviation support numbers as well. Much of that other equipment would not be transferable in even the largest bombers, because the bombers don't have the right fittings (tie-downs, strapping, floor space) necessary.
While it would be nice to have organic mechanic support in the air units, you'd still always have GE units that would require transport (air, ship or land), and having that many fragments all over the place would be a nightmare. The only good thing is that it would slow down the pace of moving air units around on a whim.
I'd be happy with stricter AvSupport rules that break base forces into type, i.e. "fighter" base forces for fighters, night fighters, fighter-bombers; "light bomber" base forces for DBs, TBs, etc.; and "bomber" base forces for LBs, but even that might be too much to handle.
Mike
P.S. One other problem might be representing "staging" aircraft, particularly bombers, from another base. It was not uncommon to fly bombers from their home base further in the rear to a more forward base to either rest or refuel (and maybe arm), before flying a combat mission later in the day or the next day. This might typically be done when you needed a larger strike to start an offensive than could be comfortably staged at the forward bases long-term. It is the one area where the ease of relocating air units in WitP actually fits well. Implenting intergral av.support would complicate that or require an only-send-the-planes type toggle.
Okay, you're right concerning bulky support equipment (for British planes, this would mean at least starter carts). So then, only transport aircraft can carry GE squads and that maximally to extended range. Would cut down on code modification.
Aircraft on a staged mission would have to use available AV support at the staging point or just bear operational casualties, i.e. be prepared that maybe just two-thirds of the planes sent will be able to fly the combat part of the mission and maybe half the planes left after combat will be able to return to home base next turn, the rest littering the staging point and waiting for repairs.
As AV support is pretty generic, I don't think it would enhance realism much to differentiate it by type. Most of the maintenance would be pretty much the same independent of type ( a Twin Wasp is a Twin Wasp, whether in a B-24, a C-47 , a Wildcat or a Catalina) and only a small proportion would be type-specific (more for night fighters, less for day fighters). There is no representation of depot-level maintenance, either. It might, however, enhance realism to vary the proportion of AV support to aircraft (12 AV support squads might maintain 24 P-40 or 12 B-25 or 8 B-24 or 6 B-29, for instance. A crude approximation might be half an AV squad per engine, rounded up).
Barb:
I'm aware that one could associate GE and ACU manually. Just a matter of defining appropriate AV support LCUs (which largely don't exist now in the game, at least not for the Japanese side. Try maintaining a twelve-aircraft squadron with an eight AV squad Aviation Company). Associating them by code would just make ACU transfers more realistic and prevent gamey exploits. It would also keep most of the AV support with the ACUs and leave the base forces with base defence and engineering, general support and some generic AV support.
_____________________________
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
|
Printable Version
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 
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