Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 04:58 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

I mentioned this in the 2P game section but I added this here to discuss this further.


Airfields with limited fuel was created in order to prevent players and the AI from abusing the rules and create an imbalance in game play.  In the Eastern Solomon, Santa Cruz and Guadalcanal games, players and the AI were moving as many planes to Kahili and Buka to allow a faster turnaround to increase the number of bombing runs.  This simply was too much for the US defenses.  In Midway, the US player was able to unload all CV planes on to Midway, thus keeping his CV out of harms way.

However, the way the current algorithm generate the amount of fuel that a airfield with limited fuel receive is not adequate.  Often  the airfield doesn’t not provide enough fuel to sustained the aircraft based there to fly for 3 day and often just enough fuel for 1 day of flying.   From my understanding the game randomly decides the number and type of planes at each airfield (within a set parameter) and then does the same thing for fuel.  This often generates a fuel supply that doesn’t support the aircraft assigned to the airfield at the beginning of the game.  


I suggest replacing the current system with this one. (Number of aircraft) x (2 sorties) x (3days) = barrels of fuel.
So an airfield with 14 planes flying an average of 2 airstrike a day for 3 days will receive 84 barrels of fuel.  This formula will work well for all Japanese airfields except Lae which should have more due to its close proximity to PM.  Guadalcanal has its own special conditions.


Your thoughts?


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 04:58 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 12:46 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

I fully agree with this but the problem is that the game has to coercive in order to prevent unhistorical situations.

However, i agree with your proposition to increase the capabilities of the airfields with limited fuel.
But the problem is that the number of planes based at a given airfield is going to change, typically increase, with time.
Considering the Revenge scenario, the B17s based in Australia will be transferred to PM; so do we have to count them altogether with the Hudsons initially based in PM or not?
The same with CS with a large number of planes initially based in Australia to be transfer in PM (B26, B17 and P39).
So i suggest to be prudent and rather increase slightly the fuel capacity by 20 to 50% maximum.

We may also consider other solutions:
- limiting the number of airplanes on the field
- prohibit some units to launch air raids from some bases, thus simulating the fact that air units are under some local/regional commands and cannot do anything/go anywhere. But this is another story since we will need first to have air units identified in the game (i mean VF-2, Tainan Kokutai, etc.).


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 19:28 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

What I suggest is fuel at a single airfield is based on the number of aircraft it has at the beginning of the game.  So in Guadalcanal, if the IJN airfield at Kahili starts with 16 planes, it would get 96 barrels of fuel.  The IJN could move more planes from Rabaul and Buka to Kahili but it would quickly run out of fuel.  This would prevent any long term abuse by the Japanese player.


Actually another idea I had was to add fuel ships to the game. Ships would bring in daily supplies.  I think this would regulate airfield abuse even better.  For the most part it’s only the Japanese that really have the ability to abuse the airfields.  Most of the scenarios are based on the US being able to resupply Guadalcanal.  Why not the Japanese.  The US for the most part still wouldn’t be able to really stop them but instead of Kahili starting the game with 75 barrels of fuel. She now gets resupplied with say 25 barrels a day.  This would even regulate over crowding airfield even more. Actually I would prefer this method the most but I thought my formula was the easiest to implement. 


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,011
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Wed 3 Jan - 01:00 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Good idea
Tanker ships could deliver huge amount of oil to remote airfields
There are simulating the necessary supply and may be intercepted by the enemy


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Wed 3 Jan - 05:50 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Good idea
Tanker ships could deliver huge amount of oil to remote airfields
There are simulating the necessary supply and may be intercepted by the enemy


Yes I would love to see all airfield with limited fuel be resupplied by tankers. 


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 644

PostPosted: Fri 5 Jan - 03:45 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

just when I have been thinking bombing/bombardments reducing fuel storage....

Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Fri 5 Jan - 03:58 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
just when I have been thinking bombing/bombardments reducing fuel storage....


Then you would have to increase fuel supply dramatically. Allowing to bomb fuel supply on an airfield with limited fuel would be crippling. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Fri 5 Jan - 11:32 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Good idea
Tanker ships could deliver huge amount of oil to remote airfields
There are simulating the necessary supply and may be intercepted by the enemy


I agree including resupply is a good idea but i see this rather for future campaign scenarios where getting men, equipment and supply at the right place and at the right moment is the key.
For short scenarios, i do not think it is a very good idea. And furthermore, it is not very historical... i mean i never heard about airfields receiving large amount of aviation gas during a major battle...

What would be more historical and interesting is to add oilers ... the game currently considers that ships have unlimited fuel autonomy which is very optimistic. When reading accounts of this period, one can realize that fuel supply for the ships played a very important role on the decision making both on US and Japanese sides.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 31
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Sat 6 Jan - 23:20 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Wholly agree with jp.
Tankers to tiny island airfields is micro managing.
Why not have historical limits on the airfields to prevent gamers ‘distorting’ the game by loading small airfields ahistorically.
Early versions of CB4G as shown on board game geek had small airfields with limits?


The paucity of strong airfields made attack and defence very difficult.....hence the importance of mobile carriers.
It’s an essential flavour of the game?


Like the idea of oilers to keep carriers for longer games such Coral Sea, where bothe sides traveled long distances over many days.


Less important in short direct battles eg Midway, E Solomons, S Cruz


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sun 7 Jan - 01:47 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Originally all airfields on the Japanese side had unlimited fuel.  However, once 2 player games were introduced in created a game imbalance. In the Eastern Solomon, Santa Cruz and Guadalcanal, player would redeploy all bomber from Rabaul To Kahili. This tactic essentially allowed the Japanese to double the rate of attacks on Guadalcanal.  So much so that the US simply did not have the planes or the fuel to keep up with the onslaught and were quickly overwhelmed.  On the flip side, in the battle of Midway the US player could unload all his planes on Midway and just fight from there and keep his CVs safe.


So limited fuel was introduced to restrict this abuse and restore balance and it has been very successful at doing this.  The problem is that there is often a lack of fuel.  The game usually gives only enough fuel on average to fly about 1 and a half airstrikes.  And if a player forgets to relocate his aircraft to an airfield with unlimited fuel his planes are stranded which frequently happens.


The reason this happens is that the game randomly determines the number and type of planes that are generated for and airfield  within a set parameter.  The game then does the same for fuel. Because the two action are independent you often get a fuel supply that doesn’t support the need of your originally assigned aircraft to operate for the 3 days of the game.


So what I’m trying to do is find a way where an airfield that is designated as having limited fuel (with the exception Of Guadalcanal) has at least enough fuel to support the original number of aircraft for at least one airstrike per day.


Option - 1. Essentially give the airfield the number of aircraft times 3 day equal fuel supply.  But even this can be potentially abused.


Option - 2.  Would be to have a daily resupply.  This would be ideal because it would force the player to restrict the number of aircraft that he can deploy at an airfield but still have enough fuel to operate at least one airstrike per day.  


Option - 3.  Restrict the number of aircraft at forward deployed airfields. For example a max of 8 aircraft per runway.  This would be somewhat historically accurate in the sense that squadron were assigned to a specific airfield. Squadrons and their aircraft were rarely moved to another airfield during a battle unless they were damage, low on fuel or their airfield or CV was destroyed.  But this rule can create other problems. 


Personally I like Option - 2.  Daily resupply during battle may not be the most realistic but it would create a more realistic flow of air airstrikes.  


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Sun 7 Jan - 15:09 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Archerfish,

Actually i understand your concern which is mainly finding a solution in order to prevent players to make unhistorical planes deployment.
And i fully agree with this.

However, i think that trying to find a solution by through fuel supply limitations is maybe not the best solution.

One very simple solution is to limit the capacity of accommodation of the airfields, much like the one of the carriers.
With of course large capacities for rear bases like Rabaul, Espiritu Santo, Australian bases etc.
And smaller capacity increasing with time (and scenarios) for airfields like Port-Moresby (actually a complex of several airfields in the same place, as you may know), Gualdalcanal, Kahili etc.
This would prevent the players to put all his planes on a single forward airfield.

Another solution (more complex) would be to introduce (very basically) the idea of command.
This would require first to introduce units in the game (and the planes/crew would pertain to units).
Then units would be affected to a given airfield/ship, possibly several regarding airfields (main airfield, rear airfield, advanced airfield).
And may not be able to change of base during the scenario (especially short scenario) or only partly.
This to simulate the fact that air units were under command of dedicated air staff and it was not so easy to move them from a given airbase to another.

First solution, i.e. limiting in a historical way, the number of planes on a given airfield, seems to me quite easy to implement and very efficient.
Second solution about command needs probably to think more about it.

But of course, i am also for limiting the quantity of fuel available on small airfields in order to limit the number of operations from the corresponding airfields.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Sun 7 Jan - 18:52 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Larsenjp


I absolutely agree with you on everything.  What I am trying to do is suggested a modification with in the game mechanics (while agreeing it’s not fully historically accurate) to create a historically accurate tactical environment while at the same time not place a heavy burden on Bladerunner.   I’m sure everyone is aware that he has done an enormous amount of work which I am truly grateful.  I don’t want to burn him out with too many difficult request.  I’m sure all of us wish we could do some coding to reduce his work load.


I do like the idea of putting a limit on how many aircraft can fly out of an airfield but I see this creating a host of other problems. If you accidentally land too many planes what happens?  They could be treated the same as a CV.  You simply get a warning ⚠️ like when a CV is at full capacity.  


Kahili is really the only airfield that can really be abused by allowing bombers faster turn around time.  Buka can also be abused to a lesser extent.  Limited fuel has pretty much corrected this abuse.  But now it has had somewhat the opposite affect.  Most of the time the game gives enough fuel on average for about 1-1/2 to 2 air strikes. After that your planes are done for the rest of the game because there’s no fuel left.  You can relocate the heavy bomber to Rabaul which helps a little bit but that’s about it.  It’s almost the same for Buka.  So I thought giving it a daily resupply would best control this situation.


Perhaps BR could give it 3 days supply of fuel times the number of aircraft and put a capacity limit like the CVs. Just a thought.


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Sun 7 Jan - 22:42 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Yes, if the capacity of an airfield is exceeded, i see two solutions:
- the planes in excess are just eliminated
- the planes in excess just stay there, waiting there are less planes in the airfield

I don't really know; i think first solution is understandable in the case of carriers since room on board is really limited, but it is less in the case of airfields since planes can always land...
So i think second solution would be better just reflecting the fact that small airfields have few facilities and crews to make the planes operational.

This plus limited amount of fuel available may prevent players to abuse with these forward airfields.

And, as you say, the fuel limit could be calculated by respect to the maximum number of planes the airfield may "operate": i think between 2 and 3 missions a day.

I think it should be a nice solution, quite easy to implement fo BR.

Then, we just have another problem: to define the maximum "operational" capacities of the airfields. Wink


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,011
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Wed 7 Feb - 23:59 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Let’s try to add +50% fuel supply on airfields for 2P games only
For the 1P game, the IJN being dumber, do you feel we could stick to the current supply ?


I don’t want to add too much
- to avoid the abuse
- to give an incentive on early TRS unload 


On the other hand we could also have oil loss on naval bombardment 


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Thu 8 Feb - 04:31 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Let’s try to add +50% fuel supply on airfields for 2P games only
For the 1P game, the IJN being dumber, do you feel we could stick to the current supply ?


I don’t want to add too much
- to avoid the abuse
- to give an incentive on early TRS unload 


On the other hand we could also have oil loss on naval bombardment 



I’m willing to give +50% fuel a try.


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 10:21 (2018)    Post subject: Airfields Will Limited Fuel Needs To Be Revised

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group