Air and naval bases

[Shadow Master]

I was going to just reply to a post on another thread, but this stuff I think deserves it's own.

1. Air units should only be able to base on airfields of sufficient sizes. eg. INT, FTR and CAS can base on any airfield, TAC, NAV on an airfield size 3 or more, and TRA and HVY bombers can only base on an airfield size 6 or more. This makes the capture and holding of airfields much more important. A similar system exists in Pacific War by Matrix games.

I do not like this idea.

2. As above but for ships with port sizes. Battleships and Carriers should only be able to base/repair in larger ports, whereas destroyers can base on any port etc.

I do not like this idea, either.

3. Aircraft should have the ability to attack other aircraft on the ground and cause damage or destroy them. Germany and Japan made good use of this in their invasions of Poland, Russia and the Philippine's/Pearl Harbour etc.

I love that one!

I like some of this and don't like other stuff. Mostly good things here, though. I believe that what is needed is actually having two or three different types of air and naval bases, with each type being capable of doing different things. We already have harbors and naval bases, so this would just be a logical extension of the already existing system.

For aircraft, the smallest, quickest to build, and least capable base would be an airstrip, which serves as just an emergency landing/refueling point that lacks even the most rudimentary repair facilities.

An airfield, which serves as a temporary, limited base with full fueling & arming center, but only limited repair and base facilities. An airfield would have the ability for aircraft to be repaired enough to reach the nearest Airbase.

And then have the Airbase, which does everything that we are accustomed to in HoI.

For the ships, (I need some help here with terminology), lets say we go with harbor, anchorage, port, shipyard, or naval base (pick three).

The smallest one, whatever it gets called, would have no repair facilities at all, but would allow for docking of smaller ships and anchoring of larger ones.

The medium sized ones should be able to dock any ship, and make repairs (in a dry-dock for the smaller ships, and at the dockside for the bigger ones) so the ships can reach the nearest naval base/shipyard. Dry-docks should make repairs much easier and faster than ships being repaired without.

The naval base would be capable of handling all the vessels in the fleet, for any needs they might have and would be just what we are used to in HoI.

I would like to see no limit to the size of an air or naval base, as having such a limit is not only unrealistic, but slows the game down forcing units to sit idle waiting for a size 10 base to be able to repair them. Keep in mind that we are actually talking about an entire province, and any province should be able to have as many separate air or naval bases as a player wants to put there and putting an arbitrary limit cannot be a good thing.

If a player wants to put 50 or 100 bases in one province, so what? They will not be an asset when the front moves away, but at least a player could count on having the ability to get his planes back in the air and ships back out to sea as quickly as possible this way.

Any thoughts?

 

[unmerged(87984)]

While I like the first idea in principle, it may be unreal, I assume a Me-262 (which would classify as an INT/FTR) would need a larger airfield/better built runway (no grass-strips) than a He-111 (which would classify as a TAC) or a Ju-52 (TRA), for example. I do not know for sure, though.


I think large/heavy ships should only be able to be repaired in large ports.
You cannot fit the Bismarck into a drydock that is normally used for ships the size of a trawler. Small ports don't have the facilities/know-how. In germany, there were only three ports with shipyards large enough for such repairs, Kiel, Wilhelmshaven and Hamburg.
But then again, after the Tirpitz was bombed, engineers were transported to Trondheim from Kiel to repair the ship, but I don't know how successful they were.

I also think, that you should be able to attack aircraft on the ground if you catch your enemy unawares.


Your Idea with three different types of air/naval bases is good, I think.

 

[Elecwaves]

I think to keep things simple, the most differentiation that should be made is 2 types of airfields or 2 ports. One cheap version that can do all that a normal airbase can do, except at a slower pace (ex. repairs take twice as long or 4 times as long), and a normal one that can handle it all normal.

For ports it would be similar, except maybe the cheap port would be able to repair small ships also, but not the big ships.

I also support the idea that you should be able to have alot of airbases in a province. I realize that historically many areas didn't usually have morew than 10 air wings kept there, but to me the level referred to both A) The number of airbases, and B) The size of the airbase(s). You could think of your 5 in airbases as representing one large airfield, or 5 smaller ones. it's up to you

 

[Shadow Master]

I also think, that you should be able to attack aircraft on the ground if you catch your enemy unawares.
Your Idea with three different types of air/naval bases is good, I think.

Thanks. I agree with the idea of hitting parked aircraft, along with fuel, ammo, and ordnance dumps. Cratering runways, bombing the control tower, and smashing the aircraft hangers are all essential elements of base striking.

I would like to see a full fledged airbase giving a better chance for aircraft to survive these attacks than just an airstrip. I would assume that parked aircraft would have artificial berms (sandbag horseshoe shaped positions to reduce strafing effectiveness, and camouflage netting overhead to disguise the aircraft altogether) to hide in, while airstrips would basically just have the aircraft out in the open. Any thoughts about some modifiers here?

I also think that repairs to ships in distant waters should not really be allowed. HoI doesn't allow for this at present and I think that this is probably a good thing. I remember reading about the Tirpitz being repeatedly bombed successfully by the allies before they were finally able to sink her outright.

 

[Shadow Master]

I also support the idea that you should be able to have allot of airbases in a province. I realize that historically many areas didn't usually have more than 10 air wings kept there, but to me the level referred to both A) The number of airbases, and B) The size of the airbase(s). You could think of your 5 in airbases as representing one large airfield, or 5 smaller ones. it's up to you

But do you support the ability to have as many as you want in a province?

To me that is a key flaw, the arbitrary limit imposed. For instance, If I am playing as an unhistorical Germany and want to conquer China myself, the lack of airbases has been a problem for me in the past. If I could have a level 30 airbase in the first province over there, this would greatly aid my air war in that theater.

 

[Elecwaves]

But do you support the ability to have as many as you want in a province?

To me that is a key flaw, the arbitrary limit imposed. For instance, If I am playing as an unhistorical Germany and want to conquer China myself, the lack of airbases has been a problem for me in the past. If I could have a level 30 airbase in the first province over there, this would greatly aid my air war in that theater.

Yes I do support being able to have more than 10 in a province, although I think having 100 in some of the 10000 provinces in the game would ahve the territory made out of asphalt

 

[TheCrimsonMajor]

I like all of these ideas, it makes port control and range much more important, and it means that even if your fleet proper can't reach the enemy, perhaps your small raiding forces (subs) can. As Far as airbases, i'm not so sure.

 

[lodgers]

Bases

Airfield's/Naval bases:
I agree with this thread. Having categories of bases and near unlimited size would be good.

AIRPOWER:
There are other things that are pressing as well, like escort fighters, why can't we have our fighter wings "escort" our bomber wings. Very rarely were entire units only able to do one mission, like escort. There needs to be more control over aspects of planes like range, the only long range fighters/escorts where the P51 and the A6M Zero.

Strategic bombing isn't worth much here either. Bomber wings need to be abler to attack certain targets like Oil production which was the controlling issue for Germany, Ploesti crippled them, Stalingrad was about Oil near Baku. Again having fighter wings given the "escort" command would make this more realistic, that command could also be modified to loose escort or tight escort etc.

It would also be good if we could assign air units to give CAS to certain attacks and fighters to escort these attacks.


NAVIES:
There are also issues with Fleets being way to limited, CV's in the current game are very weak vs Naval bombers of the time, in reality Naval Bombers didn't become a real threat to CV's until the Backfire bomber(Soviet) with the guided long range Kitchen missile came out. Then the US had the Phoenix missile to defeat the Backfire bomber b4 it got into range. They were good against the transport ships etc. but the Germans didn't have them in large quantities and the escort fighters from CVL's shot many down. Subs are weak in the current game as well. But then I would like to see more detailed Naval combat, even maybe CV air cycles. That's how the US won Midway. Not to mention what actually killed off the U-boat threat was Naval bombers and escort CVL's. It would be nice to have the ability for larger air wings or at least send them on the same mission like US long range escorted bomber raids vs the Germans and Japanese.

GENERAL:
Maybe we should be able to setup supply depots where we want. After invading Portugal, FARO continues to be my supply depot even though I have multiple large ports and all of Portugal annexed.

Another big issue I have is not being able to change the route that your convoys take. I had one German player continually wipe out my convoys from Portsmouth with Naval bombers in 1940. I couldn't change the departure port that my convoys took so they all died. We should be able to alter these convoy/supply routes when we find they are being patrolled heavily by nmy units.

I still have yet to get a supply convoy to a certain destination. I'd like to be able to run large convoys to certain destinations w/o having to deal with the entire world. Kinda like assault supply for land units.

All for now,
Les

 

[el alamein]

Whichever airfield/port system is used the main crux of my post (1 & 2) is to force a player to make more strategic use of airfields and ports. As it is now, planes of any type can fly from any airfield and the same with ships. In reality, airfields had to be constructed or extended by engineers, sometimes from nothing but jungle. This is especially crucial in the Pacific, where islands were strategic for their ability to provide air cover for the next island invasion etc. A player does not need to pay much attention to these details, and I think its a level of realism which forces the player to make tougher strategic decisions. As mentioned earlier by Maedric, many of the capital ships could only dock at a major port, and only a few had the proper repair facilities. IIRC most of the battleships damaged at Pearl Harbour sailed to the West Coast of the US for major repairs in drydock.
This all then also flows on for strategy, making major ports more crucial to hold/capture for their benefits. The same goes for airfields. In Guadalcanal, once the Americans were aware of an airfield being constructed there, they knew they had to invade or else the Japanese would threaten the sea lanes to Australia. The whole island hopping campaign by Macarthur was based on invasions covered by air power, then on to the next island after new airfields were constructed etc.
As it is now, I never need to construct new ports/airfields in my games, and I think having these limitations/benefits on them makes them more important in the context of the game.

 

[el alamein]

Another point is that I find in unrealistic for large bombers to be flying from small airfields from the get-go. Engineers were brought in to extend the runways to enable them to take off and land, and to create new facilities for controlling all this new air traffic, including dispersal and shelter areas. My point for only allowing larger airfields to accept bombers and transports is that the sheer size of the airbase needed and the facilities mean that it is well nigh impossible to base a full heavy bomber squadron/air wing on a small strip except in emergency landing cases. A player would have to construct airfields in areas that they want to base larger aircraft over fighters, interceptors, close air support, etc. as was the real case, especially in North Africa and the Pacific.

 

[el alamein]

I like your ideas as well Shadow Master but I can see problems arising from having more than one airfield per province, such as which airfield does each squadron/wing land at? How do you target enemy airfields if there are hundreds of them? What if there are different sized bases in each province? Your idea different levels of airstrip/airfield/airbase is good especially if you can upgrade from one to the next higher, but I don't think having more than one airstrip/port per province will work. Having one airfield to represent the infrastructure and facilities of that province would be the easiest to manage whilst avoiding micromanagement.

 

[Shadow Master]

Whichever airfield/port system is used the main crux of my post (1 & 2) is to force a player to make more strategic use of airfields and ports. As it is now, planes of any type can fly from any airfield and the same with ships.

I agree, see below. I don't agree for the ships, and will explain below as well.

Another point is that I find it unrealistic for large bombers to be flying from small airfields from the get-go. My point for only allowing larger airfields to accept bombers and transports is that the sheer size of the airbase needed and the facilities mean that it is well nigh impossible to base a full heavy bomber squadron/air wing on a small strip except in emergency landing cases.

We can obviously base fighters and other smaller aircraft in any base that can handle a bomber or transport. This being the case, my take of HoI2's abstraction is that they simply didn't allow airbases that couldn't handle the bombers, and that thus, every airbase was if fact bomber-capable.

So how about this,
Airstrips are for emergency/forced landings, from which only 1-2 engined aircraft can get back into the sky.

Airfields serve all the needs of the 1-2 engined aircraft, and can allow emergency landing/takeoffs by larger aircraft (you cannot leave the heavies there, so no org/st regain on the ground there).

Airbases are the HoI ones, and do it all for any type of aircraft.

I think that this does it all for both of us, as fighter/CAS will be based much closer to the front this way than the heavies.

In reality, airfields had to be constructed or extended by engineers, sometimes from nothing but jungle.

Engineers were brought in to extend the runways to enable them to take off and land, and to create new facilities for controlling all this new air traffic, including dispersal and shelter areas.

These two quotes allow me to introduce the idea of building specialized engineering divisions. Engineers as a Bde attachment are cool, but the Germans felt the lack of an army corps of engineers sorely in N Africa. I remember reading that they were using 5 gallons of gasoline to ship one gallon to the front, because they lacked the ability to clear a port captured from the allies, and had no units that could construct an underground pipeline from the supply port to the front. :rofl:

I won't touch on these units in this thread other than to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly el alamein.

For the ships, there is the little matter of replenishment vessels (which HoI ignores completely), and solve all the basing problems in the game for a fleet. On a side note, I find it ironic that Australian bombers have no difficulty rebasing to the UK directly even after I have taken India, Africa and the middle east, but the German navy is helpless to reach port in Maco when Portugal is allied.

I like your ideas as well Shadow Master but I can see problems arising from having more than one airfield per province, such as which airfield does each squadron/wing land at? How do you target enemy airfields if there are hundreds of them? What if there are different sized bases in each province? Your idea different levels of airstrip/airfield/airbase is good especially if you can upgrade from one to the next higher, but I don't think having more than one airstrip/port per province will work. Having one airfield to represent the infrastructure and facilities of that province would be the easiest to manage whilst avoiding micromanagement.

I would just use HoI's abstraction, in that no matter how many airbases I had, the map would just show the one Icon. I wouldn't want to have to try to assign different wings to different bases, just send them to that province and not worry which base they used.

Defensively, I would like to see some bonuses for having many smaller, dispersed airbases, as this makes it harder for an enemy to catch to many of your planes on the ground in one place.

Any thoughts?

 

[el alamein]

@ Shadow Master - I agree with most of the ideas in your last post
I have read that there will be a new naval combat system in HOI3, and also a new naval unit, so hopefully it will be an oiler/tanker which will then allow fleets to refuel whilst at sea (*see Pacific War by Matrix Games for a similar situation).
I'm not sure exactly how Paradox would work the various bases in each province as you suggest, but hey that's their job

 

[Shadow Master]

Good deal. Just out of curiousity, what countries do you usually play? I just play as Germany in all my games so far, and I always need new air and naval based over in S.E.A.

 

[el alamein]

I am a sucker for playing the UK. I like the fact that you are behind the 8-ball from the start and have to manage units and resources right across the globe. Since the UK is a naval power you can decide when and where to project your forces and invade or occupy, but you also need a decent air force and army as well. Being an Aussie I am keen for an improved system for airbases and ports to reflect the difficult issues faced by the Allies and Japan in the Pacific region. The logistics faced, by the US and Japan especially, to hold so many islands and the strategic value of airfields and ports means that every island is vital to hold and then use to jump off to the next chain of islands. Airbases and ports need to be expanded in order to have enough air cover for your fleets. This is what happened in real life and I hope the game system can be improved to reflect that. I think we are both on the same wavelength in wanting that replicated in more detail for HOI3.
Another historical example would be in North Africa, where the Allies struggled to project enough air power after the initial landings, due to poor airfields in Algeria and Tunisia, while the Germans were able to fly air transport missions and air superiority missions from concrete runways in Tunis. The Allies planes were stuck in the mud on extremely poor airfields and were unable to give enough air support to the Allied ground troops advancing east into Tunisia, at least in the initial stages. I might be a sucker for punishment, but I think that the player should have to be confronted with these kind of issues - making the capture/construction of airbases a much higher priority in the game.

 

[Elecwaves]

I have read that there will be ... a new naval unit

Maybe the new unit will be a submarine aircraft carrier

 

[unmerged(72564)]

The idea of a carrier that can submerge is right out of science fiction.

Of course, Japan really did do it....

Might be cool if you could have a sub capable of launching limited infrastructure or logistical attacks. Similar to a heavy bomber but with more limited capabilities. The Japanese carrier subs couldn't carry more than 3 planes I don't think.

If they end the abstracted "Stargate style" redeployments and make players use rails and highways on the actual map....these subs could bring a very nasty surprise.

They might have been very effective for patrol, spotting, and commerce raiding. With those planes acting as long range spotters.

 

[Elecwaves]

I wonder for real though what naval unit they could add that isn't represented in the game already?

Also I was never able to strategically deploy my troops anywhere in HoI2, which I heard is valuable, especially in low infra areas.

 

[WRusco]

"Originally Posted by Shadow Master"
"These two quotes allow me to introduce the idea of building specialized engineering divisions. Engineers as a Bde attachment are cool, but the Germans felt the lack of an army corps of engineers sorely in N Africa. I remember reading that they were using 5 gallons of gasoline to ship one gallon to the front, because they lacked the ability to clear a port captured from the allies, and had no units that could construct an underground pipeline from the supply port to the front."

I Like this idea. Consider the ability to build two types of Engineers. Combat Engineer Bde to be attached to Regiments and Divisions. These can have influence on River and shore attacks. + Bonus for ESE (representing repair of roads, bridges, mine clearing, ect.

Construction Engineer Regiments that could be independent, Division level or attached to Corps or Army level HQ. These can assist in the above and also be used to speed up Port repair and clean up and building airfields.

Just some thoughts as Engineer units are not properly used in HoI.

Also, the ability to build airfields and ports in enemy provinces nust be allowed.

 

[el alamein]

@W. Rusco - a great idea! The Construction Engineer regiments would represent the 'Seabee' units that traveled the Pacific, or Engineer units in Europe that helped to construct/expand airfields. This also reflects my ideas that more thought and value should be put into ports and airfields in the game. The player must think more strategically in choosing what provinces/islands to capture or use as a base. If the province/island has a decent port or airfield (or both) then it becomes strategically important to control that base. It can then be improved to handle larger aircraft/ships which then projects power into other provinces/sea regions etc. If there are no ports/airfields available in an area, then engineers must be brought in to construct one (Guadalcanal). This would then give a decisive advantage in that region, as the bases would allow longer range aircraft (eg. TAC of HVY bombers), or larger fleet types with capital ships.