Mobile Airfields?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Mobile Airfields?

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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Mobile Airfields?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Mobile Airfields? - 1/27/2008 6:11:07 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

I vaguely remember a thread involving a discussion of how to build "mobile" airfields using aircraft carriers as land units.

I've tried and tried but I can't seem to build "mobile" airfields. I must be missing something.

Would somebody link me to that thread please?

Thanks.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/27/2008 7:12:01 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

I vaguely remember a thread involving a discussion of how to build "mobile" airfields using aircraft carriers as land units.

I've tried and tried but I can't seem to build "mobile" airfields. I must be missing something.

Would somebody link me to that thread please?

Thanks.

I can't link you to the thread -- but I can tell you what to do. Let me know if you actually want the instructions. Short version is to modify the aircraft carrier weapon.

Note that you can't get 'perfect' mobile airfields. What you can get are fixed units that can appear at a given point and provide capacity for aircraft, or units that can move along rail lines. Maybe also units that will have to abandon their air capacity to move and wait for it to come back when they stop moving (not necessarily all that bad a pattern of behavior). The first two I've actually put to use -- the third is only theoretically possible. With it, you may have problems with the unit being able to sail off into the ocean once it's got its 'carrier.'

Anyway, let me know if you're interested, and I'll open up the bioeditor and see what I did in the two cases where I have successfully employed the units.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 2

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/27/2008 8:28:29 AM

Legun

Posts: 209
Joined: 4/22/2006
From: Cracow, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Maybe also units that will have to abandon their air capacity to move and wait for it to come back when they stop moving (not necessarily all that bad a pattern of behavior).

AFAIR it's not possible. Anyway, there is a possibility to create "airfield construction set" - you have an unit divided into subunits. The subunits can move as land units, but recombinated create fixed airfield. The created airfield can't be moved anymore.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 3

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/27/2008 8:55:18 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legun

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Maybe also units that will have to abandon their air capacity to move and wait for it to come back when they stop moving (not necessarily all that bad a pattern of behavior).

AFAIR it's not possible. Anyway, there is a possibility to create "airfield construction set" - you have an unit divided into subunits. The subunits can move as land units, but recombinated create fixed airfield. The created airfield can't be moved anymore.

I was hoping that the land carrier could be 'fixed equipment' but now that you mention it, I think you're right. I've had to have units that either can't move or that can move only by rail. Else one winds up with units with the naval movement rate -- and I suspect, the ability to move over water as well.

Anyway, with your 'airfield construction set' it occurs to me that while the following wouldn't work for all applications, it would work for others.

Set up several 'airfield construction sets.' Only one -- or only the first of each of several series appears at the start. When the player no longer has a use for the airfield he's established, he can disband the unit, and that can set off an event bringing on a replacement 'airfield construction set.' Useful for North Africa type scenarios. You set up your forward airfields, the front moves, and you're able to create some new forward airfields -- after moving the new units into place.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/27/2008 9:01:21 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Legun)

Post #: 4

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/27/2008 9:00:30 AM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

What is really needed are Engineer units that can construct things (bridges, supply points, ports, air fields, roads, rail roads, forts) and also improve upon existing infrastructure (bridges, supply points, ports, air fields, roads, rail roads, forts).

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Legun)

Post #: 5

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/28/2008 12:44:27 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

Okay, I've tried making my "airfields" rail-only movement (see attached screenshot) and I can't get the aircraft to land on the airfield. I've even gone into the BioEd and turned all my air units into 'carrier capable' and they still won't land on my rail-only "airfields".

Can you give me a step by step procedure? I actually prefer rail-only "airfields", so that isn't the problem. The problem is actually getting the air units to operate from my "airfields".

Also, how large can an air unit be to operate from an "aircraft carrier" posing as a rail-only "airfield"?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by vahauser -- 1/28/2008 12:46:52 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 6

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/28/2008 1:26:22 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

Okay, I've tried making my "airfields" rail-only movement (see attached screenshot) and I can't get the aircraft to land on the airfield. I've even gone into the BioEd and turned all my air units into 'carrier capable' and they still won't land on my rail-only "airfields".

Can you give me a step by step procedure? I actually prefer rail-only "airfields", so that isn't the problem. The problem is actually getting the air units to operate from my "airfields".

Also, how large can an air unit be to operate from an "aircraft carrier" posing as a rail-only "airfield"?

Here is my 'airstrip ground staff' from my 'Operation Orient' scenario .exe. Note that the values I assigned were those that worked for my purposes and for ACOW -- so you should obviously tinker with these.

Evidently, I took the 'aircraft carrier' weapon, copied it to another slot, and then modified it as follows:

P1: only the name changed. Other values kept the same. These flak values in OPART III would make it a real killer.

P2: no changes.

P3: 'fixed' and 'rail' checked. No other boxes checked.

P4: 'airborne allowed' checked. No other boxes checked. I probably had some idea about airlifting the thing -- but whether or not you want to do that, I'd check the box and first get it working as advertised, then improve upon it.

P5. 'carrier naval' checked. No other boxes checked. All artillery values set at zero.

P6. Icon id 275.

P7. Picture 181.

You should be able to operate an air unit of any size from a unit containing this weapon -- but only one per weapon, and the aircraft assigned to the unit will have to have be all 'naval aircraft.' However, you seem to have already figured that part out. The unit icon doesn't matter, as I recall. I'd probably start by using 'railroad artillery' or something.

Let me know if the unit doesn't work. I'll try to make it do so myself. Somewhat ominously, I don't seem to have deployed it in my actual scenario. However, I do distinctly remember it working.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/28/2008 1:39:50 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 7

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/28/2008 3:17:09 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

Alright. Don't check the fixed equipment box. That done, the unit will work -- I tested it.

Won't go out to sea or move off the rail line, either. However, it can steam away from underneath the assigned air unit. Not an overwhelming problem -- the air unit can just fly to the new location. However, it should be mentioned.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/28/2008 4:16:33 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 8

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/28/2008 4:59:03 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

I must have missed something. I still can't get any air units to operate from my mobile airfields. Can you attach some screenshots?

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 9

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/28/2008 5:46:27 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

I must have missed something. I still can't get any air units to operate from my mobile airfields. Can you attach some screenshots?

I'll do one better: give me an e-mail address and I'll send you the scenario and the modified .exe.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 10

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/30/2008 3:19:45 PM

cymloveselva

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

just wonder the importance of having a mobile airfields in scenario...

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 11

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 1/30/2008 8:58:30 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

just wonder the importance of having a mobile airfields in scenario...

It allows you to move fighters closer to the front, while at the same time avoiding turning every farm field into an effective Heathrow. You can have your large, permanent installations, and your smaller, ad hoc airstrips, used by a single unit of whatever aircraft you modify to be able to use them.

To cite one example, this would eliminate a major flaw in 'Fall Grau,' Jeremy MacDonald's scenario about Axis invasion of North America. As it stands, German fighters just can't support operations away from the major urban airfields.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 1/30/2008 9:02:04 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to cymloveselva)

Post #: 12

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 8:04:59 AM

a white rabbit

Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

..s'old toaw-acow thinking, and modelling..

..the naval carrier will walk- tick infantry, swim- tick naval, be a choo-choo, be fixed- tick fixed, or fly-tick air-move..

..i don't recall if it does mtrsed, riverine or helio, but probably. What you have to remember is that there is a priority sequence to the movement type, Naval excludes all others.

..the only two prblems are that it is always an aircraft carrier, where ever it is, ie once on the map it functions, and that all aircraft have to be ticked for naval. On the plus side how many do you want to stack in a hex ? max stack is 9 units of any type..

..oh, and if you want it to shoot, give it guns ie range/AA/AF/DF..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..be�n'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 13

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 8:08:52 AM

a white rabbit

Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

just wonder the importance of having a mobile airfields in scenario...

..stick 3 to appear on a captured hex, like Dien Ben Phu, and bingo, you build an airfield..

..with all the new events, 1000, you can afford to set them to appear on any of the possible French targets, and that campaign becomes suddenly a vaible scen..

..or redraw the 3D, and give them wings, and we got Luke Skwalker and such, or Starship Troopers...

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..be�n'tus all..?,

(in reply to cymloveselva)

Post #: 14

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 8:32:09 AM

cymloveselva

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

just wonder the importance of having a mobile airfields in scenario...

It allows you to move fighters closer to the front, while at the same time avoiding turning every farm field into an effective Heathrow. You can have your large, permanent installations, and your smaller, ad hoc airstrips, used by a single unit of whatever aircraft you modify to be able to use them.

To cite one example, this would eliminate a major flaw in 'Fall Grau,' Jeremy MacDonald's scenario about Axis invasion of North America. As it stands, German fighters just can't support operations away from the major urban airfields.

I see, I see...

Nonetheless, a "Mobile Airfields" are something which is unusual for me...

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 15

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 8:42:40 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..s'old toaw-acow thinking, and modelling..

..the naval carrier will walk- tick infantry, swim- tick naval, be a choo-choo, be fixed- tick fixed, or fly-tick air-move..

..i don't recall if it does mtrsed, riverine or helio, but probably. What you have to remember is that there is a priority sequence to the movement type, Naval excludes all others.

..the only two prblems are that it is always an aircraft carrier, where ever it is, ie once on the map it functions, and that all aircraft have to be ticked for naval. On the plus side how many do you want to stack in a hex ? max stack is 9 units of any type..

..oh, and if you want it to shoot, give it guns ie range/AA/AF/DF..

More from the White Rabbit journal of irreproducible results. I'd love to see one of these land carriers you claim will 'walk' -- unless you consider charging around at the naval movement rate and crossing over water when the urge hits you 'walking.'

You have my e-mail -- have had it for quite a few years now. You've also been making these claims about 'land carriers' for several years now. Send me the test scenario with 'land carriers' that can do anything realistically except ride the rails or sit still and I'll eat crow. About all I know of is Jarek's scheme for recombining divided units -- and he cautions that once the unit has recombined, it's fixed.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/1/2008 8:58:25 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to a white rabbit)

Post #: 16

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 8:47:44 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

just wonder the importance of having a mobile airfields in scenario...

It allows you to move fighters closer to the front, while at the same time avoiding turning every farm field into an effective Heathrow. You can have your large, permanent installations, and your smaller, ad hoc airstrips, used by a single unit of whatever aircraft you modify to be able to use them.

To cite one example, this would eliminate a major flaw in 'Fall Grau,' Jeremy MacDonald's scenario about Axis invasion of North America. As it stands, German fighters just can't support operations away from the major urban airfields.

I see, I see...
Nonetheless, a "Mobile Airfields" are something which is unusual for me...

Well, World War Two air forces commonly threw up strips wherever they were needed -- and quickly, too. Stukas were using islands in the Aegean as bases for bombing Crete within a few days of their being taken. One reason the Germans didn't bother with giving their fighters a long range is that it was expected that their airstrips would be moving right along behind the front anyway. US forces in the Pacific developed the ability to quickly get airstrips into operation into a fine art. Etc.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/1/2008 8:55:47 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to cymloveselva)

Post #: 17

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 8:56:27 AM

cymloveselva

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: cymloveselva

just wonder the importance of having a mobile airfields in scenario...

It allows you to move fighters closer to the front, while at the same time avoiding turning every farm field into an effective Heathrow. You can have your large, permanent installations, and your smaller, ad hoc airstrips, used by a single unit of whatever aircraft you modify to be able to use them.

To cite one example, this would eliminate a major flaw in 'Fall Grau,' Jeremy MacDonald's scenario about Axis invasion of North America. As it stands, German fighters just can't support operations away from the major urban airfields.

I see, I see...
Nonetheless, a "Mobile Airfields" are something which is unusual for me...

Well, World War Two air forces commonly threw up strips wherever they were needed -- and quickly, too. Stukas were using islands in the Aegean as bases for bombing Crete within a few days of their being taken.

Really, a lot of World War Two aircraft were designed to be used from crude grass strips. Furthermore, this has a lot to do with the military usefulness of such otherwise unimpressive types as the Hs-123. The ability to fly off of almost anything...

Sorry if delivered something mundane in my reply...
Actually, I'm not too understand about your answer, just because I rarely study military histories...
But I'm really impressed with your knowledge...
Anyway, I learn new things today

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 18

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 12:38:24 PM

a white rabbit

Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..s'old toaw-acow thinking, and modelling..

..the naval carrier will walk- tick infantry, swim- tick naval, be a choo-choo, be fixed- tick fixed, or fly-tick air-move..

..i don't recall if it does mtrsed, riverine or helio, but probably. What you have to remember is that there is a priority sequence to the movement type, Naval excludes all others.

..the only two prblems are that it is always an aircraft carrier, where ever it is, ie once on the map it functions, and that all aircraft have to be ticked for naval. On the plus side how many do you want to stack in a hex ? max stack is 9 units of any type..

..oh, and if you want it to shoot, give it guns ie range/AA/AF/DF..

More from the White Rabbit journal of irreproducible results. I'd love to see one of these land carriers you claim will 'walk' -- unless you consider charging around at the naval movement rate and crossing over water when the urge hits you 'walking.'

You have my e-mail -- have had it for quite a few years now. You've also been making these claims about 'land carriers' for several years now. Send me the test scenario with 'land carriers' that can do anything realistically except ride the rails or sit still and I'll eat crow. About all I know of is Jarek's scheme for recombining divided units -- and he cautions that once the unit has recombined, it's fixed.

..if i remember, you built the first walking/land carrier whilst i was still flying them around like swallows..

..but ok, if i get the time, i'm mostly in the hills soo you may have to wait..

..as to recombining the things, i never tried that so i've absolutely no idea..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..be�n'tus all..?,

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 19

RE: Mobile Airfields? - 2/1/2008 7:24:58 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..s'old toaw-acow thinking, and modelling..

..the naval carrier will walk- tick infantry, swim- tick naval, be a choo-choo, be fixed- tick fixed, or fly-tick air-move..

..i don't recall if it does mtrsed, riverine or helio, but probably. What you have to remember is that there is a priority sequence to the movement type, Naval excludes all others.

..the only two prblems are that it is always an aircraft carrier, where ever it is, ie once on the map it functions, and that all aircraft have to be ticked for naval. On the plus side how many do you want to stack in a hex ? max stack is 9 units of any type..

..oh, and if you want it to shoot, give it guns ie range/AA/AF/DF..

More from the White Rabbit journal of irreproducible results. I'd love to see one of these land carriers you claim will 'walk' -- unless you consider charging around at the naval movement rate and crossing over water when the urge hits you 'walking.'

You have my e-mail -- have had it for quite a few years now. You've also been making these claims about 'land carriers' for several years now. Send me the test scenario with 'land carriers' that can do anything realistically except ride the rails or sit still and I'll eat crow. About all I know of is Jarek's scheme for recombining divided units -- and he cautions that once the unit has recombined, it's fixed.

..if i remember, you built the first walking/land carrier whilst i was still flying them around like swallows..

..but ok, if i get the time, i'm mostly in the hills soo you may have to wait..

..as to recombining the things, i never tried that so i've absolutely no idea..

It's like the car that runs on water that Detroit won't let us have; no one ever seems to actually build the damned thing.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to a white rabbit)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Mobile Airfields?

Page: [1]