quote:

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

quote:

-Level Bombers have to pass 3 checks to fly all their non-overstacked complements. They are:

An experience test»»
A leadership test»»
A morale test in order to fly all of their planes»»

For each test failed, the number of bombers that fly the Mission will be reduced by 25%.

So, don't fly a 40 EXP Bomber unit with a crappy 25 Air Rating LDR, with Morale in the can, and you'll avoid these penalties.

Never understood the logic behind these penalties....and probably never will.

If a group is ordered to fly a mission, by God they better do as ordered or court martials will be issued.....or heads will roll in the Japanese case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
Here is your out. If you can achieve this through any combination of AF building, and HQ manipulation you can be free of the overstacking rule and have a most efficient AF.

An example:

Saipan: Built to Size 4 AF with a 20th Bomber Command radius of 5 will give you a Size 9 AF. Overstack to your hearts content. No penalty. As long as the best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, otherwise if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. At which point you will NOT have a 9 AF and suffer restrictions.

I don't understand this bit from reading the manual. This is what it actually says "...best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated...". From that, how do I infer that it adds to the size of the AF? I read that rule to say I can have 9 groups on the size 4 field in your example above, not that it is a size 9 AF with unlimited stacking. Does it act as a size 9 AF for other purposes or just for stacking?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane
Still hoping to get this answered amid the brouhaha.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

From the manual:

--------------------------------
7.2.1.5 AIR HQS AND AIR MISSIONS
Air HQ’s will help air operations within their Operational Radius. Level bombers not located
within an air HQ’s Command Radius will have their number of planes flying reduced by 25% for
Offensive Missions. All other air strike Missions by units outside an air HQ’s command radius
will have the flying planes reduced by 10%.
The Command Radius of an HQ is displayed on its Ground Unit Information screen in the top
left corner.
--------------------------------

I didn't find this paragraph mentioned in the initial posting and wanted to put it in here as reference and also make sure I understand things correctly...

So, as I understand it a level bomber group that is not within command radius of _ANY_ air HQ will never operate more than 75% of its planes. Which means air HQs actually don't 'help' but they reduce limitations. Can someone please confirm or correct that statement?

Btw if the statement is true I find the wording 'help' irritating but english is not my mother tongue so this might explain my confusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Not really [;)]
If you want peace, prepare for war

quote:

ORIGINAL: dasboot

2 cents here --------- when the asterisk arrives shouldn't really trump conciousness of what one is ordering durin the turn in my opinion, and I thank the developers from loosening the players' grip on total control. Everybody wants to make a good move, but even what gets written up as 'perfection' in history book very seldom actually went down that way.
As to the 'admin' (or any of the three explained above) check - I say why not, it's one more chance for Mr. Murphy to play.................

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Agree 100%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

quote:

ORIGINAL: dasboot

2 cents here --------- when the asterisk arrives shouldn't really trump conciousness of what one is ordering durin the turn in my opinion, and I thank the developers from loosening the players' grip on total control. Everybody wants to make a good move, but even what gets written up as 'perfection' in history book very seldom actually went down that way.
As to the 'admin' (or any of the three explained above) check - I say why not, it's one more chance for Mr. Murphy to play.................

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I hope the devs aren't swayed by the many comments on the forums from folks who need to see an * everytime they plan on doing something dumb but need Mom to tell them not to, need to have lines included for them in the ops reports like "Your industry doesn't produce anything because you are out of oil", or need to have the game give them pointers whether their LCU should be in strat or combat mode.

Good grief! Please don't dumb the game down because there's this vocal minority on the forums who prefers to post complaints rather than read the manual. And yes, the manual is incomplete, and the * could probably be made to show up on the turn you move your planes to some island and get close to the limits. But hey, IRL, once you dispatched those squadrons, you would never know what might hit you. Maybe the runways were to sandy and everyone would get stuck in the dunes, maybe there were some big ol' ugly rocks (and no dynamite) which no one had thought about before, but now they jut out into the approach path, so you gotta shut down one rwy while you vector someone to the other, etc. So many things were NOT planned. By not having an * there immediately, or not knowing to the decimal all those variables that make up the gaming algorithms gives me the chance to get frustrated, vent, try again, and possibly triumph against adversity. It's good NOT to have an * sometimes. It's good if the game sometimes doesn't 'play by the rules'. That's LIFE! Don't take that away from me!

quote:

By romanovich:
I hope the devs aren't swayed by the many comments on the forums from folks who need to see an * everytime they plan on doing something dumb but need Mom to tell them not to ....

Please don't dumb the game down because there's this vocal minority on the forums who prefers to post complaints rather than read the manual.

quote:


But hey, IRL, once you dispatched those squadrons, you would never know what might hit you. Maybe the runways were to sandy and everyone would get stuck in the dunes, maybe there were some big ol' ugly rocks (and no dynamite) which no one had thought about before, but now they jut out into the approach path, so you gotta shut down one rwy while you vector someone to the other, etc. So many things were NOT planned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Woos

quote:

By romanovich:
I hope the devs aren't swayed by the many comments on the forums from folks who need to see an * everytime they plan on doing something dumb but need Mom to tell them not to ....

Please don't dumb the game down because there's this vocal minority on the forums who prefers to post complaints rather than read the manual.

Nice to know that the "No immediate *" guys feel their position is so weak that they have to switch to putting up strawmen and conducting ad hominem attacks.

quote:


But hey, IRL, once you dispatched those squadrons, you would never know what might hit you. Maybe the runways were to sandy and everyone would get stuck in the dunes, maybe there were some big ol' ugly rocks (and no dynamite) which no one had thought about before, but now they jut out into the approach path, so you gotta shut down one rwy while you vector someone to the other, etc. So many things were NOT planned.

Minor problem of this argument is that it required the formulas to be not known. But they are known, mostly even documented. They are just not calculated by the game on the fly. Everybody can know the formulas, calculate them in his head/paper/spreadsheet and, if e.g. playing a PBEM against you, getting an advantage over you by doing so. So you have to calculate them by hand, too (or accept to be at a disadvantage). This IMHO just adds to the tediousness of the tasks to be done every turn and not to the "athmosphere". For that base overstacking had to be random.

Anyone who is not sufficiently challenged by the game, I suggest playing the Japanese without making use of WitpStaff and WitpTracker instead of praising things like "no immediate indication of AF overstacking".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Interesting. Thanks for showing that! I assumed that was the case, but the text of his reply seemed to be saying that once you hit 9+, there would be no more overstacking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Interesting. Thanks for showing that! I assumed that was the case, but the text of his reply seemed to be saying that once you hit 9+, there would be no more overstacking.

Hi Graymane,

Michaelm cleared up elf's scenario of the '9' overstacking rule. Only if you have a 9 AF (no HQ applied) do you have unlimited stacking without penalty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


Yes, there are two ways to be overstacked.

1) Physical space. (ie. AF size vs number of engines)

2) Administrative. (ie. AF size vs too many groups)

The HQ only adds to the Administrative overstacking penalty. It won't magically increase the size of the AF. However we will likely look at this as a possible change in patch 2.