I have a little niggle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

ironduke1955 -> I have a little niggle (10/25/2013 2:01:03 AM)

Its airports metaled runway airports are I guess big investments but we all know that the vast majority of planes flew from a convenient field in the second world war. So why are airports such a big expenditure in PP Raw EP and supply. Temporary airports with some disadvantages are needed to fill the gap and allow for more historically accurate and realistic ground support and fighter coverage.



danlongman -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/25/2013 2:19:17 AM)

While it is quite true that early aircraft required little infrastructure, modern high performance aircraft require enormous amounts of fuel
and mechanical service, hangars, workshops, spare parts and all that good stuff together with electronic navigational aids and for some aircraft,
long, paved, lighted runways. All that fuel and munitions and materiel has to be hauled around and stored before it is finally delivered to the airfield.
Running an air force is an expensive proposition and that is before you factor in the golf courses, air conditioning, hair dressers, pedicuristes and
fashionable boutiques that a modern air force requires. Zoomies insist on the best.



ironduke1955 -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/25/2013 4:46:44 AM)

True enough but most of this equipment was transportable and that is how Luftwaffe airbases were set up on the eastern front to keep pace with the German advances. Most of the materials were motorized, ground crews would pack up and move on to the next location every thing required to construct a airbase had to be provided for as I don't think the Soviets would have left them anything usable. My point is that the cost in ATG is quite expensive and perhaps a lower cost would be more appropriate since its the cost of the ground crews and their transport that would constitute the real cost and not the building of airbases. Since in effect they are the Airbase.



Twotribes -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/25/2013 5:21:42 AM)

Not to mention the fact that in the Pacific the US made making quick airfields a science.



Stratos_MatrixForum -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/25/2013 10:03:00 AM)

I agree with that. Airfields should be cheaper to build.



ironduke1955 -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/25/2013 4:40:18 PM)

Maybe a solution would be Air Force Engineers that would build only airbases. They would represent ground crews and specialized engineers they would be more expensive to produce and have limited combat abilities. But would be able to build temporary airbases cheaply and quickly.

May even be possible to give these engineers the option to be upgraded into Luftwaffe infantry. As a one off option.



Veni -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/27/2013 8:13:52 PM)

I'd agree for human-human games (which I've yet to play), but I've viewed the costs as a (marginal) handicap versus the AI, which doesn't get to build airfields at all [sm=dizzy.gif]



GrumpyMel -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/29/2013 6:35:41 PM)

What you could probably due scenario wise is to create a new location type to serve as an airfield that represents such temporary fields and make an Event Card that is played on hexes containing one that would deconstruct the field and refund you the majority of PP's and Resources used to build it. You could also do a check event each turn and reduce the readiness of any air sft's in such a hex by a bit to represent the fact they weren't flying out of ideal facilities.

From a scenario designers standpoint, you really don't want every single hex on the map muddied up with an airfield. But I get what you are saying from a realism standpoint. The above would seem a reasonable compromise....and represent the fact that you still need some investment to improve the field...not to mention represent the support staff...so your main investment is the one time cost for the support staff to man the field....which you can essentialy "move" as needed, and lose a little bit (whatever you determine is reasonable) of the sunk in cost when doing so.

Actualy, the air-power aspect of ATG could use some remodeling in general to make it more realistic, IMO..... but it's still a fun aspect of the game.




Twotribes -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/29/2013 6:40:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veni

I'd agree for human-human games (which I've yet to play), but I've viewed the costs as a (marginal) handicap versus the AI, which doesn't get to build airfields at all [sm=dizzy.gif]


Ahh ya good point. The AI does not build them so we pay a little extra for the advantage.



kombrig -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/29/2013 9:34:38 PM)

I would like that all plain/field hexes could be "airfields" by default. More rough hexes (forest, mountain etc) would need engineering in order to build an airbase.



Twotribes -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/29/2013 10:12:20 PM)

Not all WW2 aircraft could land and take off from dirt run ways. In fact bombers were prone to wreck there.



kombrig -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/30/2013 7:31:41 AM)

It think it should depend on the time scale of the game. If one turn is one month, one can pretend that in the plain hex where you place your air unit(s), a slightly better airfield is prepared by engineers during one month than just dirt field. Of course if the time scale is for example one turn equals a few days then this is unrealistic.




kombrig -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/30/2013 8:06:45 AM)

Or simply the building of airbase on plain/field hexes by engineers could be much more cheaper. It should cost only engineering points - about 20 engineers should be able to build one base per turn.



ironduke1955 -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/30/2013 3:33:28 PM)

I was thinking along the lines of the Unit is the airbase so if the unit moves it does not leave a usable airbase on the map. This could be along the lines of engineers have Engineer points. Air force Engineers ground crews have the equivalent Air Base points. This could be that there would be two mode's for AF Engineers deployed or in transit/moving.

Just occurs to me that the higher the Air force points the more aircraft that can be based with the unit. Some Air Force points would be expended in changing modes.



GrumpyMel -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/31/2013 5:59:18 PM)

The reason why I suggested the Event Card to construct/deconstruct airfields is that it should actualy work with the current engine, not requiring any code change. I'm pretty sure the current engine is hard coded to expect Air units to be based out of a location type (with a property set that it is allowed to act as an airbase) - Vic can correct me if I'm wrong on that. Thus you'd need to account for that in a solution that didn't encorporate code changes to the base engine.

I also think that's probably a neater solution asteticaly then having every clear hex have an airfield location type on it... though maybe you could do an invisable graphic for it or something like that.





Twotribes -> RE: I have a little niggle (10/31/2013 8:13:11 PM)

Using the editor one can easily make a land unit that 'carries" air craft just like a carrier.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625