USS "Da Svedania"

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

USS "Da Svedania"

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> USS "Da Svedania"

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

USS "Da Svedania" - 3/9/2014 11:36:51 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Almost two years after launch and I'm still baffled by these air bases. They look a lot more like an aircraft carrier on wheels than a real air base - even one on a dirt strip.

Here's where I'm stuck at: Say you're in a nice little air base with 300 trucks at hand, then you want to move full distance out - 25 hexes or 250 miles (Soviet side). Other units that are on motorized movement also can only move 25 hexes/250 miles on a week, so just to drive there you've spent 7 days. But, you need to load 300 trucks with spare parts, engines, fuel, etc...; you have 5,000 men, so let's say 12 hours to load and 12 hours to unload - 1 day.

Now you arrive in a nice light wooded area. You can't still fly here, because you need to clear an area say 1000 yards deep by 30 yards wide -- you need to remove the rocks, clear the trees, remove their roots and clear all bushes. You can do this with your trucks, so say this takes 1 day. Then you need to fill in the dips and holes, because there's no way you can land a 30,000-lb aircraft on a strip full of holes. You can't do this with a truck - you need a few bulldozers for say 2 days, or do it much more slowly by hand.

I don't imagine a Soviet field base having a complement of bulldozers and bulldozer transporters ready at hand, but let's say you're lucky and there's a nearby commune with ready tractors that you can use.

Now you still cannot land any aircraft, because with few exceptions topsoil is too soft. So you need to harden it, and run rollers up and down for say 1-2 days (or do it much more slowly, manually). As far as I know you can't do this on trucks, but let's say you're lucky and there's a nearby construction battalion with heavy rollers ready for you.

So, if you have to drive the full distance, even if you're lucky and find construction equipment readily available nearby, you still spent 12 days before any aircraft can land -- probably 3-4 weeks if you're not that lucky, but nevermind that.

I don't think it's possible to move a 200-bombers air base to a 7-days driving distance unprepared location and still have it ready to fly the aircrafts without delay the very next week. That is ludicrous.

The way that I see to address this impossibility is to make air base relocations a 2-weeks deal: if an air base has aircrafts, then freeze it for one turn after it moves. If someone wants to move through multiple turns, just return the aircrafts to reserve to avoid the auto-freezing, and grab them back when finished moving.

< Message edited by fbs -- 3/10/2014 12:37:56 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/10/2014 12:08:06 AM

rmonical

Posts: 2474
Joined: 4/1/2011
From: United States
Status: offline

Your observations are so right target that the airbase system will be completely redesigned in WITE2. If they do not exist, they must be constructed. Once constructed, they are relatively permanent.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 2

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/10/2014 12:41:27 AM

GamesaurusRex

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline

If the unreality of the airbase simulation is the greatest thing on your list, then you are a much less critical soul than I.

I agree with your sentiments, but after all, it is just a "game".

< Message edited by GamesaurusRex -- 3/10/2014 1:42:53 AM >

(in reply to rmonical)

Post #: 3

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/10/2014 2:22:25 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

I guess my biggest peeve is not for some arbitrary behavior, but to the fact that people insisted, in the past, that was an accurate representation of air bases in the East Front.

If I think of the current "air base" as a sort of a 1st level HQ, with some not-in-map resources located around it (like a regular HQ with support units), then I'm much happier with the idea. I can even imagine that there must be some prepared positions somewhere in the countryside, and they are just using them -- that is, in the same way that we disregard roads, even if we know they are there, we also disregard airfields, even if we know they are somewhere.

< Message edited by fbs -- 3/10/2014 3:22:52 AM >

(in reply to GamesaurusRex)

Post #: 4

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/10/2014 1:40:05 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

@ the OP. Do you have any information about how airfields were set up in the East Front? Or are you just using your imagination?

< Message edited by Lobster -- 3/10/2014 2:41:17 PM >

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 5

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/10/2014 8:21:33 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

@ the OP. Do you have any information about how airfields were set up in the East Front? Or are you just using your imagination?

Well the Soviets had two basic types. A small number of hard airfields with all the trimmings. One was at Demyansk and allowed the German re-supply to work effectively. These ideally should be on map and permanent.

But they designed their aircraft to cope with far worse than most Western/German planes could manage. I'd agree that you need a bit more than a notionally flat space but most Soviet planes could operate well off a flattened field or compacted snow. One of the reasons why the LL stuff was good but not always useful.

So the in-game abstraction is not that awful or unrealistic.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 6

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/11/2014 12:33:07 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

@ the OP. Do you have any information about how airfields were set up in the East Front? Or are you just using your imagination?

I'm using two sources.

First one is that the country I'm from is quite large, has few roads, and has a vast central plains area which is pretty much devoid of hills, so small airfields pop everywhere. The one thing I notice from every single airfield I ever saw, which serve small single-engine aircrafts, is that they have a leveled, compressed soil strip with no trees or rocks, with sometimes some grass but most times not.

Such improvised landing strips are so popular that the drug smugglers have them by the dozens. They are not known for running particularly safe operations, but even these guys have their landing strips well-cleared (although many have trees crazingly near, to hide the strips), have their dips and holes filled, and have some degree of preparation.

So I don't buy the idea that just a guy points some area of more or less level stuff and land bombers in there. That may work for salt flats, and might work with a Storch in many terrains, but I don't see even the Soviets being able to land a 30,000-lbs TB-3 in an unprepared field.

The second source is common sense. It's just not possible that in 7 days someone is able to pack, load, drive for 7 days, unload, unpack, remove the rocks, remove trees, remove roots, remove bushes, fill in the dips, level the strip, compact the soil and bring in the bombers.

After all, driving alone took 7 days... I'm giving 5 days for these other activities in my calculations -- and even that is incredibly, incredibly optimistic.

You remember the scene in "Empire of the Sun" that showed thousands of Chinese building an airfield for the Japanese, by dragging the rollers with oxen or beating the soil manually, and carrying stones in their backs and handling the dirt with wooden spades? I think the Soviets were better off than that, but still the work to be done was probably similar.

< Message edited by fbs -- 3/11/2014 1:39:43 AM >

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 7

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/11/2014 2:22:55 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Here's another idea: just get away with the air base's ability to move.

If you want to get a new air base somewhere, build it (what takes 7 days), then get the aircrafts from reserve.

If you don't want the old air base, either keep it with no airplanes (and keep the man/weapons/CC costs associated with it), or disband it and return these resources to the pools.

Either make each of these two operations cost 0 admin point, or 1 admin point.

That has the extra benefit of stopping those ridiculous and unrealistic masses of air bases that move in group around the map as a huge blob of destruction.

After all, I never saw an air base walking around the whole countryside on wheels...

< Message edited by fbs -- 3/11/2014 3:26:37 AM >

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 8

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/11/2014 1:44:32 PM

Gabriel B.

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline

300 vehicles is something a fighter base has, the big bomber bases have 2.5 times as much , more if you overloaded them .
3 vehicles for each suport squad you need (as oposed to have )
AS for spare parts, engines, fuel, etc... , you never have those at hand during war, they get delivered to you ,if you can cut right
trough the red tape .
For instance D. Bader fist combat squadron returen from the battle of France with no repair tools whatsoever .

< Message edited by Gabriel B. -- 3/11/2014 3:00:08 PM >

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 9

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/11/2014 4:44:11 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

WitW will have fixed airbase locations. I can't remember if there is a capability to build new ones. Chances are good that most elements of WitW will be imported to WitE 2.0, so this issue will eventually be resolved.

(in reply to Gabriel B.)

Post #: 10

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/12/2014 4:06:02 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

Sounds like a coming issue, considering the ability of the Allies to construct crude airstrips for fighter units.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 11

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/12/2014 10:14:21 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

I never really understood why the designers felt they needed to move away from the model of War in Russia where air units were just assigned to the HQ counters directly.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 12

RE: USS "Da Svedania" - 3/13/2014 2:56:32 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
Chances are good that most elements of WitW will be imported to WitE 2.0, so this issue will eventually be resolved.

... or that WitE will have oddities and woes similar to WitW.

For example: naval movement. I thought that naval movement points were calculated from the active ports you have at a given moment - that seemed pretty straightforward.

But re-reading the manual I noticed that naval movement accumulates from one turn to the other, at a rate of 100 per port size per week, up to a limit of 2000 per port size -- that is, 20 weeks.

So once again I'm going down the spiral of fighting disbelief, of trying to understand how this is related to real life and is not a completely arbitrary rule chosen to force some particular playing style or sequence of events.

You see, that rule means that I have so many ships in port, and how many ships depends on port size -- what makes a lot of sense. Then if I don't use the ships one week, they accumulate their mileage and I can use the next week -- what makes no sense. Then I can accumulate 20 weeks worth of shipping, from where I have no idea.

So the less ships I use, the more shipping I have. That's absurd, it completely contradicts everything about transportation!

But chances are, this will just be incorporated into WitE as is. Another arbitrary and abstract rule intended to force some particular game style.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 13