quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

At the risk of receiving more abuse and characterizations, I must report that the computer program is not following the game rules for air field overstacking. I am using an example from The Thousand Mile War scenario.

Adak has an airfield size of 2 and is not within the command radius of any HQ.

If I give all 4 squadrons a combat mission instead of “rest” or “training”, it should immediately trigger an asterisk in front of the name air field in the lower game window because the number of squadrons or “groups” is 4, which exceeds the allowable “groups” by 2. This does not happen. See the attached game screen.

If I transfer out all units and move in 3 squadrons of 12 B-24 bombers assigned to “training”, the excess “group” does not trigger an air field overstack asterisk on the lower menu and the aircraft engine count is 16 + 16 + 16 = 48 (due to 1/3 engine count for “Training”), which is less than the allowable air field size of 100. If I assign 2 squadrons to combat missions, the overstack asterisk is shown. This is because the aircraft engine count ( 48 + 48 + 16) exceeds the allowable 100 aircraft engines, based on air field size = 2. See the attached game screen Therefore, it seems that the overstack rules are not being implemented or at least displayed properly on screen in regard to overstack “group” rules. It appears to be functioning properly, at least for the on screen display relative to aircraft engine size. It is impossible to tell if this is just a display problem or if overstack penalties are invoked since the game overstack penalty rules are totally useless for computation, even in a general approximation. (Please don’t give me any BS about using B-24 bombers on a size 2 airfield. I understand the rules! I am only putting them there to illustrate the overstack computing problems. Also Aviation Support, “bean counting” and other issues have nothing to do with this problem!)

From testing the aircraft at Dutch Harbor, I have discovered that the seaplanes at Dutch Harbor, even though they may be in the water 39 miles away from the air field with their own AV ship support, do add to the airfield aircraft engine count. Understanding the philosophical reasons aside, this can have a huge and undeterminable effect on overstack penalties:
Let us assume a size 1 air field with no HQ combat radius support and 3 squadrons of 9 each of 2 engine seaplanes with their own AV ship support. If not in “Training” or “Rest” the rules state that the air field is already overstacked by 1 “group” and 3 X 9 X 2 = 54 aircraft engines versus the air field allowable 50 aircraft engines. Before an aircraft is even landed the commander is faced with possibly large and unidentifiable launch, air attack and repair penalties. The rules do not identify these penalties with other air field penalties such as “Aviation Support” or “bomber size” in any manner relative to any degree of magnitude or effect!

Well there it is! GO AHEAD – Accuse me of being determined (stubborn), “newbie”, bean counter, overly precise, disrespectful, inconsiderate of the need for “game mysteries”, etc………..


[image]local://upfiles/822/4CCCDB9B82C34136AAAB113F8ED28976.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

This is the 2nd missing game screen:

[image]local://upfiles/822/2B66A12BD851463B8052BAB5E749D296.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncdawg

Thanks guys! I had assumed that both the physical & administrative checks were performed in parallel & you had to pass both checks or the base would be overstacked. I didn't realize that the physical check occurs first. So the overstacking logic would be:

Pass Physical Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is overstacked

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncdawg

Thanks guys! I had assumed that both the physical & administrative checks were performed in parallel & you had to pass both checks or the base would be overstacked. I didn't realize that the physical check occurs first. So the overstacking logic would be:

Pass Physical Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not overstacked

Fail Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is overstacked

No quite

Fail Physical Check --> Base is over-stacked

Pass Physical Check/Pass Administrative Check --> Base is not over-stacked

Pass Physical Check/Fail Administrative Check --> Base is over-stacked

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Michaelm - Thanks for the helpful information and explanations. I did not know that:
" the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help." I did not see this in the section 9.4 Airfields rules. Where is this written - for future reference and understanding. I based my assumptions on the section 9.4 AIRFIELDS rules only. Adak falls within administrative control (group overstacking effect) of the North Pacific HQ which has a command radius of 5, since Adak is 10 hexes from Dutch Harbor. Therefore I now see that Adak has an allowable "group" overstack limit of 4. I was not aware of the help of the "nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius)" and I do not recall seeing this in writing.

I am still having a problem understanding your comments on seaplanes. Am I incorrect about this also?

I realize that Aviation Support has no correlation to overstacking in reference to penalties. I also realize that the developers want us to not overstack in any manner, so they will not give any idea of overstack penalties in terms of reduced overstack launching, additional air attack casualties and reduced repair capabilities .

Sorry that I got a little "testy". I think that I got caught in the middle of that Beta Team pissing match between ELF and YH and got a little frustrated with the sidetracking after I spent a lot of time trying to be accurate and complete in my previous posts on this subject.

quote:


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

Michael,

Thanks so much for the clarifications.

Elf stated

quote:


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.

Is this true that a "9" AF or AF+HQ command radius = "9" HAVE NO ADMIN check or penalty?

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.

Are Seaplanes/floatplanes counted towards engines and or administrative groups?

Still a little confused but getting there. Thanks.

quote:

The best and nearest Air HQ can be used to help increase the number of groups that can be 'administered'.
[Air HQ of same command as the base will use its full command radius value, or half it if of a different command.]

quote:

In addition, the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help.
[If base belongs to same Command or base is within radius, then it uses its full radius value, or half if not same.]

quote:

In addition, the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help.
[If base belongs to same Command or base is within radius, then it uses its full radius value, or half if not same.]

quote:

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.

quote:

Manual page 214: An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks
and aircraft repairs.

quote:

groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as
individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

quote:

Groups present at base is based on:
1. All groups at rest/training count as 1 group
2. Detachments are not counted if the parent group is in base and has same HQ as the detachment
3. All fragments and Chutai, Section or flight groups count as 1 group
4. The units of a split group in the same base count as 1 if all have same HQ
5. Any case counts as 1
(c) if counted groups larger than admin stacking limit, then over-stacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Lack of AV support is not directly tied to over-stacking.
The lack of support will be felt with slower repair/readiness of aircraft, and operational limits to launched aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

bump, please when time allows for answers to my questions above in post #22 of this thread.

Also there is confusion as follows:

Manual page 214 -

quote:

groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft
at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as
individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

From michaelm (from earlier in this thread) -

quote:

Groups present at base is based on:
1. All groups at rest/training count as 1 group
2. Detachments are not counted if the parent group is in base and has same HQ as the detachment
3. All fragments and Chutai, Section or flight groups count as 1 group
4. The units of a split group in the same base count as 1 if all have same HQ
5. Any other case counts as 1
(c) if counted groups larger than admin stacking limit, then over-stacked.

These statements seem to conflict. Can they be clarified or the correct case identified and explained better?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Al Boone

Overstacking by administration "groups" - from response by michaelm

quote:

The best and nearest Air HQ can be used to help increase the number of groups that can be 'administered'.
[Air HQ of same command as the base will use its full command radius value, or half it if of a different command.]

I assume that the base must still be within the combat radius of this best and nearest Air HQ? yes. Except for command hq where it can be twice the radius.
If not, what is the maximum range? (and see next question relative to similar situation)

quote:

In addition, the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help.
[If base belongs to same Command or base is within radius, then it uses its full radius value, or half if not same.]

If the base does not belong to the same command and is located between Combat Radius distance and 2 times combat radius distance, is the enhancement = ½ CR x ½ CR = ¼ Combat Radius, or does it become 0?
Only 1/2 applies once. The case is "not in same command" OR "more than normal radius".

quote:

In addition, the nearest Command HQ (within 2 times command radius) can also help.
[If base belongs to same Command or base is within radius, then it uses its full radius value, or half if not same.]

An effort should be made to more widely broadcast the above rule which was added after manual printing. It definitely should be added to future manual addenda for page 214.

quote:

The seaplanes affecting coastal AF is something that I had not originally set aside due to the problems of trying to split land base and sea planes when a base only had the one 'aircraft' counter.
This is not the problem it was as I now have to recalculate the numbers on the fly.

From this, do I assume that the inclusion of seaplanes is under review for possible future change relative to airfield overstacking? For now, is it handled as I have suggested above?
Seaplanes will be excluded from physical stacking if in a coastal hex from patch01.

quote:

Manual page 214: An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks
and aircraft repairs.

Is it unlikely that we will ever get any even vague idea of the degree of overstack penalties associated with launches, casualties and repairs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Lack of AV support is not directly tied to over-stacking.
The lack of support will be felt with slower repair/readiness of aircraft, and operational limits to launched aircraft.

Is the "operational limits to launched aircraft" a change from stock WITP? I don't remember right now if there used to be any effect on operational limits to launched aircraft in the earlier version.

quote:

Manual page 214: An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks
and aircraft repairs.