building forts & airfields...

[unmerged(28147)]

No, not quite. Singapore was heavily fortified aganist naval attack, but had little or no fortifications aganist land attacks (mainly because land attack was considered impossible to carry out through the jungle).

Weaponry used in different type of fortications vary quite a lot. Coastal fortresses had huge guns that would have been of little worth aganist land targets...or atleast could be done with lighter guns. Weapon mounts, target areas, detection equipment and fire control systems are different.

AFAIK fortresses on french coast were not heavily fortified aganist land attacks and Tobruk had little in a way of coastal fortress (not sure though).

Your basic MG bunker is pretty much the same, but has little effect aganist battleships. And just the reminder of what the brits did aganist chinese in opium wars: Since their guns had longer range brits bombarded chinese fortresses to pieces (as well as their ships) and chinese could not return fire.

Ok, easy solution, if the sea province is touching a land province that is fortified then it continues the defensive line from the adjacent land province to the sea so there is no gap in the land defense line. The opium wars and WWII are a rather long time gap in technology.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

Its nice to fight micromanagment but not by such ahistorical things... It took only 12 (twelve) days to get the AAA batallions over Channel and set them up. With all equipment including SCR-584 radars... Guys, all those 45-120 days periods - its just impossible.

don't want to discuss if you need 12, 20 or 30 days for a level 1 airstrip...

it's an abstracted value like 360 days to improve IC or INFRA !

...and with the build-times suggested you will need less then two years for a level 10 airfield (abstracted for a fully functional province airport network, with several concrete airstrips, towers, hangars, barracks, hospitals, radar and AA installations, payload-, fuel- and spareparts-storage, road and rail access...

...think that's not to much !

...but if the majority says 10 or 15 days build-time for level 1 is realistic - I don't have any problems with this !


.

 

[unmerged(28147)]

don't want to discuss if you need 12, 20 or 30 days for a level 1 airstrip...

it's an abstracted value like 360 days to improve IC or INFRA !

...and with the build-times suggested you will need less then two years for a level 10 airfield (abstracted for a fully functional province airport network, with several concrete airstrips, towers, hangars, barracks, hospitals, radar and AA installations, payload-, fuel- and spareparts-storage, road and rail access...

...think that's not to much !

...but if the majority says 10 or 15 days build-time for level 1 is realistic - I don't have any problems with this !


.

Well back then they designed the planes to be landed on a barely improved runway, in other words a leveled field of some sort. So they could roll into a field with bulldozers and flatten the field, then start landing planes on it. So a short time span for level one is believable.

 

[winisle]

- install some equipment to refuel, repair, supply planes
Couple of trucks for a squadron of interceptors. One transport plane will be good.

- bring fuel, supplies, ammunition, spareparts to the airstrip
Another couple of trucks.

- bring in the ground-crews doing this
One truck. Or transportation inside the planes.

- build barracks for these crews
Not needed. Crews and technical personal will use civilian buildings or tents.

- bring in some command structure
Car with radio.

Agree! The brittish operated from grass fields, the swedish airforce is trained to operate from highways (airbases is VERY sexy targets!) Lowlevel operations doesn't require much, a somewhat level field to land on, some fuel and ammo.
For strategic operations or more advanced maintance a larger base is needed, but it won't take long for a trained airbase battalion or regiment to deploy to the area, pitch their tents and roll out the material used to harden to landing surface.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Jeez guys dont complicate things. Remember we want as LITTLE micromanagement as possible.

You could always solve the problem by adding "capacity" to the airfields. Just like with transport ships. So a 1 level airfield will have a capacity of 1. Whilst an interceptor will take up 1 cap a light bomber 1 and a tact bomber 2 - strat 3. This would reduce the amount of planes you could throw around. You would also have to plan ahead were you want to build the big airstrips... Time for enlarging an airstrip would be eg 15 - 20 days. You could also take over enemy airstrips with minor damage to them.

F

 

[unmerged(28147)]

Jeez guys dont complicate things. Remember we want as LITTLE micromanagement as possible.

You could always solve the problem by adding "capacity" to the airfields. Just like with transport ships. So a 1 level airfield will have a capacity of 1. Whilst an interceptor will take up 1 cap a light bomber 1 and a tact bomber 2 - strat 3. This would reduce the amount of planes you could throw around. You would also have to plan ahead were you want to build the big airstrips... Time for enlarging an airstrip would be eg 15 - 20 days. You could also take over enemy airstrips with minor damage to them.

F

I don't consider that micromanagement.

 

[unmerged(32053)]

You could always solve the problem by adding "capacity" to the airfields.
Agree...

 

[unmerged(12303)]

I don't consider that micromanagement.

I was refering to the fact that adding a lot of rules for each airport level was IMO a sort of micromanagement. The suggestion I gave is easy to implement as easy to comprehend for any player..

F

 

[unmerged(30686)]

Jeez guys dont complicate things. Remember we want as LITTLE micromanagement as possible.

You could always solve the problem by adding "capacity" to the airfields. Just like with transport ships. So a 1 level airfield will have a capacity of 1. Whilst an interceptor will take up 1 cap a light bomber 1 and a tact bomber 2 - strat 3. This would reduce the amount of planes you could throw around. You would also have to plan ahead were you want to build the big airstrips... Time for enlarging an airstrip would be eg 15 - 20 days. You could also take over enemy airstrips with minor damage to them.

F

Yes. It works for me. I like simple things

 

[Oscu]

Ok, easy solution, if the sea province is touching a land province that is fortified then it continues the defensive line from the adjacent land province to the sea so there is no gap in the land defense line. The opium wars and WWII are a rather long time gap in technology.

Well technology is a factor, but even today firing ranges are a factor (desert storm: M1A1 Abrams vs. T-72M1). Firing ranges of the ships are modelled, why not artillery (the weapons are not that different in principle). Especially if the otherside is immobile, the mobile side can choose the range [atleast after first couple of volleys])

And yes coastal fortresses should be able to return fire aganist ships in ground support role.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

Yes. It works for me. I like simple things

nice idea (btw. it's a really old HOI suggestion) - only problem is: the AI can't handle this !

- AI has to calculate the stack value

- then the AI has to check if the stack value is lower then the airfield moving to (already based planes have to get in the alculation also)

- if not the AI has to break up the stack or rebase to an other airfield


.

 

[unmerged(24708)]

air bases and AI

How is this? it doesn't calculate stacks in land or sea either?

it really should optimize the way the ai handles the navy, not just a stack of 55+ ships that moves around.

Whilst we're on the stack limiting, in the navy and logistics world, you can't stack 30 battleships and 10 carriers in a port like stockholm. The waters isn't deep and vast enough. Same thing in the pacific, Truk is the only major port in the south east pacific. Once again the americans used the bulldozer to be able to stack more ships. Minor ports are plentiful and can stack around 3-5 ships.

In conjunction with the stacking limitations on air "ports" (e.g. fields) the code could be reused. There really should be more "realistic" stacking limitations instead of just a stacking penalties. Its just a "cheap" workaround.

It's true that capturing cities like berlin with the tempelhof airport greatly aids the effectivness of the airforce. The german bombers in the battle of britain were based pretty far away, I don't remember if it was germany itself or eastern netherlands. ofcourse this limits fuel mostly.

cheers

 

[lordvagrant]

I like SilverDragon's airfield build times.
However, for the occasions when airfields have been built much quicker, it seems that most of these were pre-made and transported, and into invasion zones.
So perhaps have an event that fires after a province not connected to a friendly province is captured, allowing the controller to start building an airfield, which takes a reduced time and costs supplies (to show the premade equipment).