The "Insta-base" problem....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The "Insta-base" problem....

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The "Insta-base" problem....

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The "Insta-base" problem.... - 4/30/2003 2:57:50 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but the amazing speed with which an airbase can go from 0 to 1 is a little odd.

I know people have complained about airbase speedbuilding in general (especially in regard to the US) but overall it doesn't strike me as being all that bad, OTHER than that 0 to 1 jump.

The problem is that the "graph" of basebuilding speed seems to be perfectly linear from 0 to 9.

From my reading, it really should probably be as slow going from 0 to one as 8 to 9, but then 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, etc. should be just as fast as it is now.

Going from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to a usable airstrip was quite a project, even for American engineers in quantity (and keep in mind they were not as fast in 42-43 as they were in 44-45).

At Guadalcanal, The 0 to 1 work had basically been pretty much done by the Japanese over months before the US arrived (of course, the Marines didn't have their own earthmoving equipment landed either.) And it was still several weeks before the base became operational (barely.)

As it stands, even with only 1-2 engineer groups, the US can land somewhere, build up to 1 in a few days, and IMMEDIATELY start flying CAP.

In real world terms the difference between 0 and 1 is HUGE. A 1 to a 2, or a 2 to a 3 airbase, is much less work.

The graph should not be linear, but be slow from 0 to 1, and then have the fastest being from 1 to 2, then slightly slower size 2 to size 3, etc. etc.

Perhaps something, as usual, for WITP. Basebuilding is one of the key aspects of this system.

Post #: 1

Re: The "Insta-base" problem.... - 4/30/2003 3:56:18 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]I'm sure this has been mentioned before but the amazing speed with which an airbase can go from 0 to 1 is a little odd.

I know people have complained about airbase speedbuilding in general (especially in regard to the US) but overall it doesn't strike me as being all that bad, OTHER than that 0 to 1 jump.

The problem is that the "graph" of basebuilding speed seems to be perfectly linear from 0 to 9.

From my reading, it really should probably be as slow going from 0 to one as 8 to 9, but then 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, etc. should be just as fast as it is now.

Going from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to a usable airstrip was quite a project, even for American engineers in quantity (and keep in mind they were not as fast in 42-43 as they were in 44-45).

At Guadalcanal, The 0 to 1 work had basically been pretty much done by the Japanese over months before the US arrived (of course, the Marines didn't have their own earthmoving equipment landed either.) And it was still several weeks before the base became operational (barely.)

As it stands, even with only 1-2 engineer groups, the US can land somewhere, build up to 1 in a few days, and IMMEDIATELY start flying CAP.

In real world terms the difference between 0 and 1 is HUGE. A 1 to a 2, or a 2 to a 3 airbase, is much less work.

The graph should not be linear, but be slow from 0 to 1, and then have the fastest being from 1 to 2, then slightly slower size 2 to size 3, etc. etc.

Perhaps something, as usual, for WITP. Basebuilding is one of the key aspects of this system. [/B][/QUOTE]

I quite agree here!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 2

- 4/30/2003 6:53:34 AM

Mr.Frag

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

I very in opinion with where the hump level should be...

To stomp out a flat spot of ground big enough to land a small plane on takes very little effort. Improving that stomped out field with facilities and aprons and hangars and hardened runways and fuel storage and all the other goodies required to have a REAL airfield takes some doing.

I think the slowdown you talk of should be between a size 3 and a size 4 where you can actually start flying real planes without bonus operational losses incured. Since the US side had the proper equipment, they get the nice speed bonus at getting over the hump.

From 4 onwards is just extra space, up to 3 is just better grass and mud, but 3 ->4 is upgrading the mud to pavement and installing real stuff.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 3

- 4/30/2003 6:56:34 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

I also believe there should be a limit on the number of useful engineers at a base - kinda like the increase in AA as more ships are added. I know building some of that stuff took a lot but with 180 or so U.S. engineers you can really get things going fast. There has to be a point where they get in each others way and efficiency drops compared to # of engineers. :)

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 4

- 4/30/2003 7:13:22 AM

Mr.Frag

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]I also believe there should be a limit on the number of useful engineers at a base - kinda like the increase in AA as more ships are added. I know building some of that stuff took a lot but with 180 or so U.S. engineers you can really get things going fast. There has to be a point where they get in each others way and efficiency drops compared to # of engineers. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Great point, perhaps only 1 group of bulldozers count towards building. ie: it's a on/off flag as to if they are there, sort of like the way base radar works.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 5

- 4/30/2003 8:46:17 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Guys your suggestions are fine, but they all go to further enlarge the gap between IJN and USN engineering capabilities :)

If you're going to introduce rule "harder to get to 1 then it is now" this will affect poor IJN players more than ENG-rich USN :) IJN already have to concentrate ENG resources to get things done, what you suggest will make them concentrate them even more.

O.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 6

- 4/30/2003 9:16:39 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Cannot agree that "more engineers get in each other's way." They are building an airstrip, erecting a control tower, barracks, hangars, revetments, and other structures, fortifying the beaches, and emplacing docks, fuel storage, and ship servicing facilities, all the while polishing up the mess hall where the Duke can have coffee.

Give the Allied engineers a break. Many who have studied the conflict say that they, more than any other arm, won the Pacific war. Why shouldn't this game (and WITP, for that matter) model their outstanding achievements? If you want play balance above all else, go play checkers. Otherwise, leave history alone and allow it to play through these games and simulate realistically the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

I'm already POed enough at many of the "adjustments" that went into UV v. 2.30 for the sake of "play balance." It's like taking what once was hot biscuits and turning it back into cold dough.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 7

- 4/30/2003 10:52:04 AM

Mr.Frag

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

Thats why I said put the hump point between 3 and 4, Japan can get bases up to 3 to fly their smaller planes out of (and it suits their base unit sizes nicely) but only the USA with their bulldozers can make the serious commitment to build a city.

My problem with the engineers (bulldozer type) is not so much the build speed (I can live with that) but their should be a extra supply hit for RUSHING the job with the turbo squads (ie: dumping 4-5 of these guys on one base and zooming it to size 4 in 1 turn). The concrete has to dry ya know. We all know that SeaBee's won the war in the Pacific with their insta bases, they just seem a little TOO insta to me.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 8

Hump Points... - 4/30/2003 11:05:48 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

I'd buy a big "hump point" at both 0 to 1 AND at 3-4.

1-2 and 2-3 should be the quickest.

And going from ABSOLUTELY nothing (Even in a fairly favorable flat field) to a base for 50 aircraft that can fly CAP effectively (which is what a size 1 AF is in game tersm) IS a big deal and a major project that normally should take more than 3-4 days in most cases.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 9

- 4/30/2003 11:06:16 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Thats why I said put the hump point between 3 and 4, Japan can get bases up to 3 to fly their smaller planes out of (and it suits their base unit sizes nicely) but only the USA with their bulldozers can make the serious commitment to build a city.

My problem with the engineers (bulldozer type) is not so much the build speed (I can live with that) but their should be a extra supply hit for RUSHING the job with the turbo squads (ie: dumping 4-5 of these guys on one base and zooming it to size 4 in 1 turn). The concrete has to dry ya know. We all know that SeaBee's won the war in the Pacific with their insta bases, they just seem a little TOO insta to me. [/B][/QUOTE]

Concur. Mr.Frag, I think you got it in the bag!

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 10

- 4/30/2003 4:24:06 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

Mr Frag,

the concrete has not to dry on size 1 airfield because there is no concrete. Most fighter fields in Pacific were only flattened earth. All you need is a flat piece of land with no water. Burn the high grasses and flatten the earth is enough. Only heavy bombers needed concrete fields.

I have no problem with the engineer performance in UV on either side. Pretty realistic to me.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 11

- 4/30/2003 11:09:43 PM

Nikademus

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

Some good suggestions in the past have highlighted the difference between "building" a base, and "repairing" a base. Unfortunately in UV, no distinction is really made, hence you can pile on the engineers and incur a 'insta' base effect.

The bigger culprit in my opinion is the ability in the game to overbuild a base up to 4x it's alleged "maximum" value obtainable (based on terrain)

Kind of negates the signifigance of high value, suitable port and airfield sites such as PM, Rabual and Lunga. This is especially advantagious for the US player who starting in mid-to-late 42 gets engineer units in droves. He or she can take any "dot" hex, even a max size (0), or more commonly a max size (1) base and turn it into a size 3 or 4 airbase in an amazingly short period of time. I've done it many times myself

While Seebees could preform miraculous feats, even they could not always turn unsuitable terrain into serious airbases and/or ports at all times. Bergerud and Clay Blair have documented a couple cases where even Seebees could not turn an unsuitable location into a decent working base in the short run.

My thinking is that the limit on build size in comparison to it's max value should be tightened up more given the effect that cumulative stackings of engineers produces....which IMO makes mince meat out of the "time penalty" incured when you try to overbuild a base past it's max value. This ability also largely negates the purpose of simulating (even if somewhat abstractly) the differing terrain types in the game as represented by max build values.

Cappy just did it to me in our current game. Lunga defended? no problem.....stack 3-4 seebee units on a nearby beach site and in three weeks time give or take a few days.....size 3 airbase ....complete with large #'s of fighters on CAP, some SBD's and even a B-26 squadron. Who needs Lunga?

WitP will temper this insta-base thing somewhat simply by there not being such a high level of "Dot" bases due to the increased scale of the hexes....but i'd still like to see a tighter cap on maximum base size, my thought being an overbuild limit of 2x the max value. So for example a max size (0) base can build to 1 (a 50 plane strip with no penalty), a max size (1) airbase can overbuild to 2 (a 100 plane strip, i.e. Henderson field size more or less) US leapfroging tactics tended to make a series of small but decent airstrips capable of housing single engined fighters and bombers, while bigger airbases farther back held the bigger bombers. In UV....you can quickly overbuild almost any dot base to size 3 or 4 and house your heavy hitters at the front.

Either the former suggestion or overbuild times need to be increased dramatically, say by triple or quadruple might solve things. Yes that would hurt the Japanese more but in reality their ability to produce airbases from scratch was very limited. All the best Japanese airbases outside Japan proper were pre-built. (Rabaul......Clark field etc) The advantage of the latter suggestion is that players wont be shackled by what may be percieved as artificial restrictions, but build times and supply usage would balance this tactic in the face of supply needs and demands for engineering projects elsewhere. Under this system you can still build that size 3 airbase out of litterally nothing, but instead of a couple weeks, it could take a couple of months.

supply usage for such overbuild projects should probably be expanded as well. Turning say a "swamp" into a working well drained airfield will be costly.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 12

- 5/1/2003 1:15:38 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Thats why I said put the hump point between 3 and 4, Japan can get bases up to 3 to fly their smaller planes out of (and it suits their base unit sizes nicely) but only the USA with their bulldozers can make the serious commitment to build a city.

My problem with the engineers (bulldozer type) is not so much the build speed (I can live with that) but their should be a extra supply hit for RUSHING the job with the turbo squads (ie: dumping 4-5 of these guys on one base and zooming it to size 4 in 1 turn). The concrete has to dry ya know. We all know that SeaBee's won the war in the Pacific with their insta bases, they just seem a little TOO insta to me. [/B][/QUOTE] I believe the engineers used a steel perforated mat for the runways ans this stuff could be slapped down pretty darn fast after the ground was compacted. Concrete runways and other permanent accourtrements wouldn't appear until size 6-7( the numbering system is too vague and needs more specific definition from level to level.)

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 13

- 5/1/2003 2:20:44 AM

Gamara

Posts: 12
Joined: 4/1/2003
Status: offline

The U.S. did use steel mats called marsten actually a Brittish invention. However this speeded the finish of a base but the building of a base in the Pacific was far differnt than in europe where the "burn teh High grass, level it out and go" was the norm for a forward field. In teh Pacific you do not have the same types of soil. A coral Atoll or othe pacific island is usually mad eof coral, you have to clear all the dirt off of it, since that wouldbe unstable and hide any nasty sink holes that are common in Calium based bedrock. Limestone, Coral etc. You would then have to crush the stone and they used this to make a form of conrete. Once this was done and all of the littel holes and such were leveled out, they layed the marsten mat. this was great and could be done fairly quickly. Well as the weather in the South pacific is rather moist, you had to construct the fields with excellent Drainage or for days after major thunderstorms you would have lakes on the landin gfield, also destroying your runway through erosion. I have seen fields in Saipan and on neighboring Tinian. as well as some of the smaller islands in the Marianas and Marshalls. The Famous strips on Tinian are huge, and Long and made of Concrete. the heavy bombers had to have them. They coudl make emergency landings or ferry missions fromteh less developed fields but constant use of Large heavy planes from these less advanced fields caused big troubles. the Bouncing on the runway acted like a big tamping machin and would dent and cause dips in teh runway itself. Just look at the runways at your local airport, I would bet that if you went out there and looked the aera where the planes land regularly are patched from the repeated use. Anyway, The SeaBees were great and contimue to be but they still had to work to standards. a Dot with a 0 (1) designation should be able to get a size 1 field up pretty quick , I would look at that as maybe it already had some work doen at one time but was abandoned or has a natural airfield on it, that just needs to be brought out of the meadow. It shold go up very fast, however startign at size 2 it should slow down, it wasn't ideal to be bigger than a 1 or it would have had a higher value. I play as IJN almost exclusively and i realize that this really hurts IJN but if you want to look at it in a realistic manner that is how it was. the Japanese had three types of fields from what I have seen and read about. they had lovely wide and well designed nd maintained Concrete runways , they had Dirt airfields and they had places that they captured. The Japanese did not use marsten or anything similar. Infact on Saipan they had many small fields and a couple large ones that were Concrete but they also had Aux fields that were just dirt. I thikn the game gives the U.S. engineering units with Vehicles to much ability. Or atleast the allowance to place more than say two units with Vehicles on teh same base should be looked at. Maybe simply making a ruel that if you have more than one engineering unit with vehicles on a Base you must build more than one type of structure. example you have two CB units and a EAB on Irau. The unit with the fewest Vehicles would be idle (the vehicles) or placedin teh repair pool if all units were tasked with building the runway. If however you used the Eng units to build both the Field and the Port all teh vehicles would be used. Make a maximum of 6 Eng units active withthier vehicles per base. That would allow each portion to have 2 Eng units with thier vehicles on the same project. Great game even if it is a short one.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 14

History.... - 5/1/2003 10:31:32 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

Well, one problem I think is the number of AC you can use effectively for a given base size...like I said, at a 1 base you can toss two 24 plane squadrons in there and have a reasonably-effective CAP (especially if you rotate the squadrons in and out effectively.)

48 aircraft is a LOT, and 48 aircraft flying 50%+ CAP is a LOT of activity.

In the UV time period the two main "from scratch" bases built by the US after invasions were on the Russell Islands and Bougainville....

I need to do some more detailed reading on PRECISE dates of first aircraft operating from each base and how many, but so far I VERY much have the impression that it was WELL OVER A MONTH from the time of base construction beginning at each location before either base operated actual combat squadrons.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 15

Missing the Point - 5/1/2003 10:36:39 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I very in opinion with where the hump level should be...

To stomp out a flat spot of ground big enough to land a small plane on takes very little effort. [/B][/QUOTE]

A UV Size one airfield isn't just a bit of ground flat enough that you can land a fighter on more or less safely; it's a base where 50 fighters can fly reasonably effective CAP (as long as the squadrons are rotated).

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 16

- 5/1/2003 11:02:54 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

The marines invade 8-8-42 and Morrison reports fighters from Henderson Field on 8-24-42. don't forget the airstrip was basically built and the Japanese even left their equipment.

(in reply to JohnK)

Post #: 17