RE: Aviation Support

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Aviation Support

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aviation Support

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aviation Support - 11/5/2006 9:24:54 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You really should replace that unit with a fresh one and send it back to a non-malarial base. You've got soldiers dying in that rathole...

I had another 270 base unit en route from San Francisco when the Japanese up and surrendered.

Bill

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 31

RE: Aviation Support - 11/5/2006 9:28:57 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
My dad spent about 2 1/2 years at Port Moresby during the war and I never recall him mentioning a malaria problem.

Another question that's to late to ask him.

Fortunately my father is still around. He bounced around the whole theater from the end of 1943 to the end of the war. He said DDT was liberally used on all those islands to control mosquitos. They were spraying constantly.

Most places he went, sleeping under mosquito netting was still required.

Bill

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 32

RE: Aviation Support - 11/5/2006 10:58:53 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

There is no doubt that as the war progressed, the allies were able to reduce the malaria problem at most of the bases. That is why the game reduces the mealaria effect for bases with a combined value of at least 10, or so we've been told. However, I don't think that it gets rid of the malaria effect altogether, which is why I'll always recommend sending units that are having troops die off back to a non-malarial base (as the game has them coded - whether or not the base was malarial in real life is of no concern when playing the game).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 33

RE: Aviation Support - 11/6/2006 2:15:03 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

My grandfather was with 4th USMC Def Btn, landed at Guadalcanal on D+2. Contracted malaria in about Nov (as I recall, don't have my notes easily accessible). He indicated that the anti-malaria drugs (iodine(?) and quinine(?)), were in short supply. Lots of guys had it, to where they littearlly couldn't send guys back, because it would deplete the unit too much.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 34

RE: Aviation Support - 11/7/2006 11:11:14 AM

ATCSMike

Posts: 142
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: North Pole, Alaska
Status: offline

Is the base support increased the same way as aviation support? So would putting an ENG unit at a base increase it's support value? If this is so, then it's silly to put several at a base to increase base support. Guess it's time to experiment again.

Mike

< Message edited by ATCSMike -- 11/7/2006 11:16:41 AM >

_____________________________

'Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati'
("When all else fails, play DEAD")

United States Navy 1979-1982
Retired Aviation Machinists Mate 2nd Class
VT-23, HS-1, USS Carl Vinson CVN70 (Plank Owner)
Retired Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS)

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 35

RE: Aviation Support - 11/7/2006 11:24:27 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ATCSMike

Is the base support increased the same way as aviation support? So would putting an ENG unit at a base increase it's support value? If this is so, then it's silly to put several at a base to increase base support. Guess it's time to experiment again.

Mike

I don't completely understand what you're getting at. Are you talking about being short of support at a base and adding an engineer unit to increase the support? That only works if the engineering unit has extra support squads. Some do and some don't.

Bill

(in reply to ATCSMike)

Post #: 36

RE: Aviation Support - 11/7/2006 11:56:32 AM

ATCSMike

Posts: 142
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: North Pole, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ATCSMike

Is the base support increased the same way as aviation support? So would putting an ENG unit at a base increase it's support value? If this is so, then it's silly to put several at a base to increase base support. Guess it's time to experiment again.

Mike

I don't completely understand what you're getting at. Are you talking about being short of support at a base and adding an engineer unit to increase the support? That only works if the engineering unit has extra support squads. Some do and some don't.

Bill

Yes. I was playing around with bases and it looks like I just need to add an INF unit or 2 to bring up the support level instead of overloading the base with ENG.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 37

RE: Aviation Support - 11/7/2006 2:38:26 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

Yes. I was playing around with bases and it looks like I just need to add an INF unit or 2 to bring up the support level instead of overloading the base with ENG.

Be advised that most INF/ARM/CD/ART units are actually -short- of support points by about 20%. If you pull up the LCU info screen, and it says they're over (and one of the above types), it's likely because they're stacked with an HQ unit which gives the excess support points.

Some ENG units do have extra support (like conventional base forces), most "engineer" units (EAB, SeaBees, ConstBtn, EngRgts) do -not- have excess support (and are in fact, short themselves).

Easiest way to make up support deficit at a base, is to dump an HQ unit there. Doesn't matter if it's a air, naval, or land HQ. You just want the support points (HQ are nothing but support points). you can also load an HQ onto 3 transports, and "spread the love" around a little bit (but the HQ bonuses are given to the stack with the primary (not /2, /3, /4) unit.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to ATCSMike)

Post #: 38

RE: Aviation Support - 11/8/2006 6:25:56 AM

ATCSMike

Posts: 142
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: North Pole, Alaska
Status: offline

I'll remember that. Does anyone know how the support points including aviation are calculated? Just curious because I have this one base that has a support requirement of 49 but has 45 due to the ENG unit there. If it's in the manual I can't find it.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 39

RE: Aviation Support - 11/8/2006 7:42:17 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Neither support or aviation support squads require any support themselves. All other squads (vehicles or artillery tubes) require support on a one for one basis.

As an example, a contruction engineering battalion that has only 30 engineer squads and twenty engineering vehicles will need to find 50 extra support squads in other units to make up for its lack of integral support. If that same unit had thirty support squads it would only need to make up twenty from the other units in the base.

Most base forces have more support squads in them than all other units, and so have a surplus to help other units at that location. If you start building up the other forces there, adding an HQ unit, which is comprised soley of support squads, is the best way to mitigate the shortfall.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ATCSMike)

Post #: 40