vveedd Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I think that air fleets and strategic bombers shouldn’t be enable to land on mountains, swamps and forest. They should be enable to land only on clear terrain and cities. What do you thinks guys (Hubert)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I agree on mountains and swamps, but forests should be allowed terrain. Finland is full of forests and they were extensively used for air bases; it wasn't hard to accomplish and they provided good cover. So in fact having your fleets stationed in forests should increase their defence rating and/or make detecting them harder. Strategic bombers however shouldn't be able to operate from forests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I concur with Exel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Why is it so hard to believe that in a 50sq mile area, you couldn't find an area large enough to build an airbase? These are wartime, WWII bases. They didn't take alot of room. Of more importance was the ability to transport fuel in. It would have been more difficult in bad terrain to establish those initial roads, but once established, the supplies would have flowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 But Shaka, fitting one airbase into a 50sq mile area is not the problem. The problem is fitting enough air bases for a whole airfleet of hundreds of aircraft, along with thousands of personnel and all their logistical support. Some terrain will fit this role better than others, and I think it is reasonable to question whether some terrain hexes should be able to support an air fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I agree, forests not the end of the world, but mountains? Nope that stretches my ability to believe to far. I vote ruling out mountains. I would allow an air unit of strength 3 or less, but I am not interested in asking HC how to code that into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vveedd Posted April 17, 2004 Author Share Posted April 17, 2004 Ok I agree with forests also but no to mountains AND swamps. In WWII large swamps in Russia Germany tanks couldn't across, so I don't have to tell you then about impossibility for landing air fleets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 How about you have the Engineer Corps build runways like in the Civ3 expansions. Just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Bill101 How many airbases do you think it requires to operate our SC unit that has 1000 aircraft? As a ballpark number (since its dependent on the type of aircraft), you need roughly 10 ground personnel per aircraft as a minumum. Its alot better if you had 20, since you can do proper maint on the aircraft (assuming no night time operations). So you have roughly 1000 aircraft and 15,000 to 20,000 maint personnel. You need to add another 40% for the people who support the maint personnel... so you have 21,000 to 28,000 people. I don't feel like looking up the "average" size for a WWII airfield, but from what I remember, its only a few square miles. If you can, look at the size of those smaller airports in todays world. The ones that support the small prop planes. Even with multiple airfields, disbursed so you reduce your losses if attacked, you are not talking alot of airfields. other responses Mountains: The problem in the mountains, isn't that you can't find enough flat terrain. Its that the surrounding mountains require greater skill in your pilots for take off and landing. So you're going lose alot more guys in accidents. Marshes: Tanks weigh a bit more than aircraft. Even with the difference between the tank threads and the aircraft tires, the tanks exerted more ground pressure per square inch. The constraint here, is that it would take engineer resources to drain enough of an area for the runway and lay down temporary materials (if they didn't do it full blown with concrete/asphalt). As time permitted, you would drain the other areas where people worked and lived. So let air units be placed in difficult terrain. Just don't let them become avaialble for a certain time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Originally posted by Some_God: How about you have the Engineer Corps build runways like in the Civ3 expansions. Just an idea. I think this is realistic-considering Iwo Jima, Henderson, and the improvised Pacific theatre airfields built under the most difficult circumstances. I think all terrain can be made to support a single airfleet or bomber base. The determining factor should be- Can this 50 mile terrain support an air group of sufficient size to influence battles on the scale of SC2? I believe the answer is yes when looking at the impact of firepower supplied by aircraft in the Pacific theatre island battles, Coral Sea, Midway, the Battle of the Bulge. The air bases were not large in some of these, but controlling those land tiles allowed aircraft to be based which influenced the battles. D-Day, the Allied advances in Europe, and the German invasions of Poland, Belgium, Holland, France, and the USSR shows airpower on a grand scale, but decisive air power can come from small bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Are the planes actually landing?? I didn't realize that they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vveedd Posted April 18, 2004 Author Share Posted April 18, 2004 Originally posted by Member # 4691: Are the planes actually landing?? I didn't realize that they were. In SC2 there will be option <Ground> so they will landing for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Shaka, I think you have a point. In one way, SC1 already discourages us from putting airfleets in mountains and swamps, because their supply (and therefore their readiness) will be lower. If I am in a big air battle, I try as much as possible to avoid putting my airfleets in such terrain, so maybe the status quo isn't as bad after all. It is at least simple to use. [ April 18, 2004, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Bill101 In one way, SC1 already discourages us from putting airfleets in mountains and swamps, because their supply (and therefore their readiness) will be lower. If I am in a big air battle, I try as much as possible to avoid putting my airfleets in such terrain, so maybe the status quo isn't as bad after all. It is at least simple to use. Exactly. The above is one of the reasons I get irritated when people call SC a "beer & pretzels" wargame. SC is anything but. Its easy to learn, like A&A, Risk, Attack!, etc, but it goes way beyond those games in its treatment of supply, strength points, etc. The effect that terrain has on the readiness percentage of units is another example of those subtle differences that make it more than a "beer & pretzels" game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japinard Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 I think this idea is hitting a level of complexity that may the inumerous "fun factor". However, making it so aircraft cannot land in newly aquired tiles would be good. However there are ALWAYS exceptions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holyman Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 in High command there were hexes suitable for airports and then you cound build new airports along the way. Perfect solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 For the love of god (which ever of the many you believe in), do NOT make manual airfield construction. That'd be a major pain in the butt. We should cherish the easy playability of SC1 and that means no micromanagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 As originally posted by Exel: For the love of god (which ever of the many you believe in), do NOT make manual airfield construction. So, We can ask the Atheist Engineers To forget the airfields. They can... what? Dig all the fox-holes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts