-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It will also be difficult for Russia and Germany to impliment this on such a late scale considering the vast distances involved in Russia and the small airbases there.
I can implement this for Afrcia and Western Europe but the Russian front would take alot longer time, as it requires alot more airfields and forward planning. I will implement it over time but it would take probalby a year to prepare properly with the required airfields needed to support a summer offensive. To delay another year without airsupport could mean the difference of victory or defeat for the axis on the Russian front, something im not prepared to delay at this stage. Russia will blead in 1944 with long laid plans that are difficult to change at this late stage.
I could organise this for 45 but not for 44 as fighting weather is only 5 months away. And to reorganise the airforce, redploy it and reorg would mean many lost months.
So I can implement it immidately in Africa/ Europe but Russian front will take a year (1945) to get enough airfields before im prepared to play like that.
I can implement this for Afrcia and Western Europe but the Russian front would take alot longer time, as it requires alot more airfields and forward planning. I will implement it over time but it would take probalby a year to prepare properly with the required airfields needed to support a summer offensive. To delay another year without airsupport could mean the difference of victory or defeat for the axis on the Russian front, something im not prepared to delay at this stage. Russia will blead in 1944 with long laid plans that are difficult to change at this late stage.
I could organise this for 45 but not for 44 as fighting weather is only 5 months away. And to reorganise the airforce, redploy it and reorg would mean many lost months.
So I can implement it immidately in Africa/ Europe but Russian front will take a year (1945) to get enough airfields before im prepared to play like that.
mike8472 said:
Well you can sort that out with the Russian player..Perhaps have 24 at any size base on the Russian front should be more than enough to fly in enough planes for an offensive.
Well I try never to blob aircraft. I also refuse to fly aircraft with no or next to no org. I know sometimes it gives my fellow Allies the shits when I choose realism over winning but then thats the way I play.
I think if you BAN THE BLOB the game will be much better
____________
I think if you BAN THE BLOB the game will be much better
____________
You guys getting tangled in the detail again :rofl:
Why dont we just say that from now on it is expected in the Oz group that air ops will be kept to a reasonable level. Now players will argue on whats reasonable and whats not but lets see some of our serial overstackers try.
_______________
Why dont we just say that from now on it is expected in the Oz group that air ops will be kept to a reasonable level. Now players will argue on whats reasonable and whats not but lets see some of our serial overstackers try.
_______________
I also suggest we go back to 4 air stack limit. It was only dumbed down to 8 for player like gunny.
_____________
_____________
Nolan said:You guys getting tangled in the detail again :rofl:
Why dont we just say that from now on it is expected in the Oz group that air ops will be kept to a reasonable level. Now players will argue on whats reasonable and whats not but lets see some of our serial overstackers try.
_______________
HAHAHA that will never work..If you go by the guidelines I posted I think you will find the super blob will dissappear. Air superiority in a lot of regions may be 8 or 16 aircraft more then your opponents rather than 50 or 60. At the moment the only one able to fly bombers at all is the player who has total domination. At least it will make it worthwhile to fly a stack of 8 bombers without them vanishing from being mugged by 70+ fighters.
I support the 8 Air Stack, 4 is to inefficient i think.
I have been building airfields in Russia since 1936. I can practically base wherever the hell i want except for deep into Central Russia where i havn't built any Airfields.... for obvious reasons.
The only place i would have a problem with this airstacking rule would be in Siberia as there is practically no where for me to put my planes of any value.
Ill give this ariplane thing you suggest a shot but i honestly dont see it working out, as soon as one side starts to loose the air battle more planes will have to be rushed in i cant honestly see someone starting an offensive and realising there out gunned in the air to just go "o well those troops are dead". I will make it 100% clear now that i have built well over 50 Airbases this game in Strategic locationing, im not going to dissolve my plans nor would i expect Germany to do the same. I have allready started production of Turbojets (and if i have i dare say the Krauts have allready done so as well). So the Germans will have to match 1:1 in Fighter power just to break even, then not to mention additional cover should they choose to Bring Bombers in. I guess what i mean is that ideally this is a good idea but im not going to make any promises.... If 150-200 Axis planes start bombing the shit out of me i will not hesitate to mass all i have to stop it.
The other thing you have to remember is that Most airfields built in the Second world war were not Airfields that took over 100 days to god damn well build. They were like land cleared field air bases built by engineers in a matter of hours to days.
You telling me i cant fly my turbojets from a cleared patch of Ground like they were designed too? I mean i can understand your inferior western Aircraft needing a heavily cleared runway to operate properly but my planes can launch from a runway scattered with debris,Such is Soviet Design quality.
I think the Airfield idea has alot of merit, but to me the Airfield itself means nothing but reorg time. I should be able to land them in a cleared paddock to refuel and rearm, no airbase required, just as designed.
I have been building airfields in Russia since 1936. I can practically base wherever the hell i want except for deep into Central Russia where i havn't built any Airfields.... for obvious reasons.
The only place i would have a problem with this airstacking rule would be in Siberia as there is practically no where for me to put my planes of any value.
Ill give this ariplane thing you suggest a shot but i honestly dont see it working out, as soon as one side starts to loose the air battle more planes will have to be rushed in i cant honestly see someone starting an offensive and realising there out gunned in the air to just go "o well those troops are dead". I will make it 100% clear now that i have built well over 50 Airbases this game in Strategic locationing, im not going to dissolve my plans nor would i expect Germany to do the same. I have allready started production of Turbojets (and if i have i dare say the Krauts have allready done so as well). So the Germans will have to match 1:1 in Fighter power just to break even, then not to mention additional cover should they choose to Bring Bombers in. I guess what i mean is that ideally this is a good idea but im not going to make any promises.... If 150-200 Axis planes start bombing the shit out of me i will not hesitate to mass all i have to stop it.
The other thing you have to remember is that Most airfields built in the Second world war were not Airfields that took over 100 days to god damn well build. They were like land cleared field air bases built by engineers in a matter of hours to days.
You telling me i cant fly my turbojets from a cleared patch of Ground like they were designed too? I mean i can understand your inferior western Aircraft needing a heavily cleared runway to operate properly but my planes can launch from a runway scattered with debris,Such is Soviet Design quality.
I think the Airfield idea has alot of merit, but to me the Airfield itself means nothing but reorg time. I should be able to land them in a cleared paddock to refuel and rearm, no airbase required, just as designed.
Mighty G said:
You can you just wont be able to land 100 divisions in the one paddock!! :rofl:
This game will be slightly different because no one has had the opportunity to plan for it. Thats why I said its up to each individual wether they do it.
The Japanese play will also have the same issues with airbases. There is nothing stopping you flying out low org planes and flying in fresh planes. Betetr then 70 odd planes smashing 16. You guys on the Russian front can continue to play like it is now but I think it is workable in other theatres. Although it probabaly favours the Axis if they are on the defensive.
major ball said:
hahahah too true.
Hopefully Turbojets should solve that problem anyway by being able to base further away..... come to think of it i didnt even check the range of them anyone know what it is off hand?
Mighty G said:
550 only 50 more then advanced fighters. However there speed and firepower is far greater. 15 air attack vs 22.
Yes ive started to build turbojets about 1 year ago, there is now not 1 fighter in the German airforce that is not a turbojet, only a few crummy interceptors. Japan also has the tech now and is upgrading.
I will play using the retrictions in Africa and Western Europe as best I can. But like I said due to the large amounts of land ive gained in russia it would require alot more airfields to cover such a vaste front. It is far different to the US building airfields in select areas or on an island, I had a 3-4000 mile front to cover. So until 1945 G I cannot play in that fashion as it will take that amount of time to build enough airfields without jeapardising builds already underway. So for 1944 I will play the same on the eastern front.
I do like the airfield retrictions and will bring a bit more strategy into the game rather then just air blobs. If anything it will favor the better planes even more without airblobs. Also means you probably need reinforcments near by to rotate in and out of battle.
I'm not a fan TBH. In the little post that you made with the link about the Jap/USA battles in the pacific I payed particular attention to the aircraft involved Major. The major battles, which is generally where we see the airforce 'BLOBS'. In the pacific most of the Major battles had 1000 odd planes involved and there was one that had 1600 Jap planes and 1700 USA planes (I think this was correct). So in conclusion, I think massing of airpower should be upto the individual. Generally I find that the more airpower my opponent has then generally I mass more airpower to counter him. So the less airpower my opponent masses the less I generally bring to the fight. SE.
Im not overly phaesd to be honest.
I can assure you i will do whatever is required to be done without hesitation. Dont go building hundreds of airfields on the premise that i will follow suit.
I have built for what i will need in this game in regaurds to airfields, though i have ordered the construction of more throughout Asia i am content to make do with what i have at hand in europe. Which is far more then enough.
So dont bust a a gut on my behalf.....
My Suggestion might be a more regional issue, Rather the saying Province X has 10 airfields blah blah blah, why not the actual region..
Example might be that i have Province A, B, C, D in a Region. Where only 2 of the Province have an Airfield at strength 5 Each. So thats 10Airfields in one region rather then one Province.
It makes no sense for Russia to have her Planes scattered about the Place (unless on the Aerial defensive and preparing to counter). If you cant get 36-48 Planes uptogether the Air war may as well not be fought in the East.
I guess this is something that limits the Agressor as opposed to the Defender, but had i been defeated in 42 under these guidlines i would have NO WAY to ever stop the Luftwaffe in Central Russia. And no idiot is going to build 40-50 Airfields where they are wasted...
I can assure you i will do whatever is required to be done without hesitation. Dont go building hundreds of airfields on the premise that i will follow suit.
I have built for what i will need in this game in regaurds to airfields, though i have ordered the construction of more throughout Asia i am content to make do with what i have at hand in europe. Which is far more then enough.
So dont bust a a gut on my behalf.....
My Suggestion might be a more regional issue, Rather the saying Province X has 10 airfields blah blah blah, why not the actual region..
Example might be that i have Province A, B, C, D in a Region. Where only 2 of the Province have an Airfield at strength 5 Each. So thats 10Airfields in one region rather then one Province.
It makes no sense for Russia to have her Planes scattered about the Place (unless on the Aerial defensive and preparing to counter). If you cant get 36-48 Planes uptogether the Air war may as well not be fought in the East.
I guess this is something that limits the Agressor as opposed to the Defender, but had i been defeated in 42 under these guidlines i would have NO WAY to ever stop the Luftwaffe in Central Russia. And no idiot is going to build 40-50 Airfields where they are wasted...
Axis Comrade said:
Yes I agree SE but the planes never flew from a single airfield. There is going to come a time in this game where the Allied air blobs will be bigger than the Axis air blobs. Then you might as well sell your planes and buy AA guns.
Axis Comrade said:
Id have to agree with you there SE, I seldom stack more then 48 Planes in one Region even when im the Agressor.
As i always say with this game, Escalation, The stakes are ALWAYS Raised and change. Escalations is what usually draws in the massive blobs. This could also be argued in Russia where in a sense Germany is forced to Panzer Blob to crack the front Open, (of course if i didnt have 60+ Divs in every damn province there would be no need for a Panzer Blob), So i could argue that the Escalation by Germany to Panzer blob was forced by myself stacking half a million Troops in every damn province.
Mighty G said:
In Russia you have so many provinces it is relatively cheap to build an airbase in a lot of provinces. Jeez you only need 8 single airbases in 8 adjcent provinces and you can base 64 aircraft. Better value then a level 10. The level 10 being reserved for isolated islands etc. I cant see what we have to lose by trying it out. Anyway like I said I will be doing it you guys can do what you like. There is more to this game then just winning.
Mighty G said:
Well you were able to use this to your advantage when the Axis blobbed in with their armour around Moscow. The blob was out blobbed by your great counter offensive so the player using the blob will have to think twice about his blobbing tactics hahaha :rofl:
All the aircraft basing limits will do is cause you to spread your aircraft around in more provinces. You can still have large numbers of aircraft in a region its just that they have to fly in from other regions rather then stacked at the one airfield. We will have a lot more 16 vs 16 or 24 vs 24 battles as planes enter from different sides and times. Rather than the big superblob of 70+ that all land and fly at the same time because a player pauses the game for a minute to fly his blob. So I can still see massive battles with 70 plus fighters but a lot smaller battles in the same region as some planes are intercepted by smaller groups on the way to and from the target zone.
Think about it we may even get some players actually trying to take an airbase for strategy purposes heaven forbid. No need at the moment you can stack your entire airforce at a level 1.
major ball said:
Well Major. If you are playing the game correctly then you should be doing strategical manuvres like trying to capture airfeilds. For example, I'll use Japan because I generally get stuck with them. I always make a set of economical goals and strategical goals that I want to capture. Dutch East Indies, Singapore are obviously economical goals. The capture of Diego Garcia Island and Colombo/Trincalomee, the Pacific Islands ect ect are all strategical goals. As Mighty said. It is the escalation factor that generally decides what the attacker and defender allocate to take/defend the objectice. But on another note to expand on the Jap/USA Pacific battles and airforce. What about Europe. The famous American 1000 bomber daylight raids over Essen and Cologne that literaly reduced the cities to permenant rubble. So in a sense, the air blob is semi historical. Maybe not in 39 when Danzig fires and we usually see it in our games. But in the later stages of the war which we are into know. SE.
If major reduces his airpower in africa opposite me then I will reduce mine. Although I have already nearly havled mine from 72 to 40 anyway, even though the US maintained 80+ in the region.
Although im not sure what I will do with all m airpower afterwards, the UK dares not fly over Europe, only buzzes around the channel now and again. Might have to send it all over to Russia and bash them.
I think major you also have to remeber that each airfield is not just ONE airfield. The airfield would represent many airfields in that province. There were not just 12 airfields from the atlantic to central germany, they would prepresent dozens perhaps hundreds of airfields. In the UK alone it was just one massive airfield. So although in simple terms it looks like one airfield it represents many more.
I will follow this ware I can but if its the difference between stopping the invasion of europe then I will do what is required to win and prevent it. As I have not had the time to plan for this from the begining of the game.
If major reduces his airpower to his said levels for airfields I will match it, and if the UK/US do the same in the UK I will do the same in Germany/France. In any event in these regions I can still assemble huge forces due to lots of airfields in range.
So major if you do what you say, I will match you.
P.S it was only your escalation in africa which forced me to send lots of air. Before you sent all your planes to cape verde I had 0 fighters in africa. Had you sent smaller numbers so would I.
Although im not sure what I will do with all m airpower afterwards, the UK dares not fly over Europe, only buzzes around the channel now and again. Might have to send it all over to Russia and bash them.
I think major you also have to remeber that each airfield is not just ONE airfield. The airfield would represent many airfields in that province. There were not just 12 airfields from the atlantic to central germany, they would prepresent dozens perhaps hundreds of airfields. In the UK alone it was just one massive airfield. So although in simple terms it looks like one airfield it represents many more.
I will follow this ware I can but if its the difference between stopping the invasion of europe then I will do what is required to win and prevent it. As I have not had the time to plan for this from the begining of the game.
If major reduces his airpower to his said levels for airfields I will match it, and if the UK/US do the same in the UK I will do the same in Germany/France. In any event in these regions I can still assemble huge forces due to lots of airfields in range.
So major if you do what you say, I will match you.
P.S it was only your escalation in africa which forced me to send lots of air. Before you sent all your planes to cape verde I had 0 fighters in africa. Had you sent smaller numbers so would I.
Axis Comrade said:
True. didnt the allies have some thing kile 13,000 planes massed for D-day of all types along with 5000 ships.
The only problem is with no airblobbing is if you have armies in one provine of 50-60 up to 100 divisions how do you bomb it with just 8 bombers that will get chewed to bits by so many divisions. You need to hit it with large numbers of bombers to have any effect.
Like if north africa at present, I dont think africa could really sustain 50+ US armour/mot or mech let alone my forces I have. So how would 8 bombers be effective against these numbers.
Its the same with the US CVs. Major has used them combined in large fleets of up to 18 CVs that ive seen. 8 bombers will get cut to shreds.
So if your going to limit air then you must also consider the consquences on land and sea. If I see huge fleets im not going to limit my air and get smashed. Like Stalin said in some of the huge air battles in the pacific with large fleets there were a combined 3000 aircraft or more.
So think about that major, land and sea forces also have an effect on airforces. It is about escalation. If you send 20 CVs of some where im going to deploy the needed aircraft to combat that, and you will need to provide the same to combat mine and so on. Where if you use smaller CV fleets there will be no need for so much air power.
If you follow how commanders fought there battles in WWII most of the time they didnt launch invasions unless they had or had a good odds of gaining air superioty, with out this they could not win. Hence why the US Airforce and RAF went so hard to destroy the luftwaffe other wise the invasion of Europe could be meet with thousands of planes.
So think about this. If I see you useing smaller forces in more groups around the place you will find I will also do this. I will naturaly have to spread out more to cover your forces as well. Action and reaction.