1920 Rules Changes (advanced draft)

[Guinness]

We seem to be beating the issue of airfield convertibility to death well without me. :) I'll only add that it seems like a lot of players have glossed over the new idea of more or less unlimited improvised strips...

On Naval Aviation, there seem to be two major complaints:
1. The idea that one has to assign misc weight to a ship for aircraft, then has to buy the aircraft too.
2. The idea that aircraft based afloat don't need shore bases

One idea of moving to units instead of individual aircraft purposes is to better capture the cost and effort required to keep combat aircraft in the air, while also at the same time reducing beancounting in the short and long-term, and bringing them more in-line with other game mechanics entities in the nverse.

Naval aviation presents a number of complications to this scheme. For one thing, to sim an aviation capable ship, you have to use a ton of misc weight, and even then the exercise with SS isn't perfect (because aviation dedicated ships are generally speaking volume-critical, not weight critical). When drafting this, the idea that we'd continue to buy aircraft with the ship was considered, but then how do you account for the cost and effort required to maintain them, keep them flying, and then replace them when the next generation of aircraft comes along?

We could simply stipulate that the weight in the misc weight required for aircraft be subtracted from price, but we worry this could have unintended consequences (think floating tanker with flight deck for free or nearly free). It would also mean more rules and exclusions that aren't really necessary.

For instance: if we already have 5000+ aircraft air forces running around, even if a nation with such resources could build an aircraft carrier today capable of shipping 100 aircraft, that's a drop in the bucket. Why have a rule exception and the added complexity to keep track of, when such a player can simply stipulate that 100 of those aircraft comprise the afloat airwing of that ship? Aircraft carriers were expensive, and we want them to be at least somewhat expensive in the nverse as well.

Land bases for aircraft: what I really meant there was that an aircraft unit afloat doesn't count against the support capability of any shore bases. This doesn't mean that one doesn't need shore bases for training, unit rotation, etc. It just means that we assume that a unit afloat switches places with a unit on land when necessary. It would be simpler to omit that clause for sure, and I'm happy to do so if that's the overall feeling of the group.

[damocles]

We seem to be beating the issue of airfield convertibility to death well without me. :) I'll only add that it seems like a lot of players have glossed over the new idea of more or less unlimited improvised strips...

The improvised strip still is a satellite field to a main base, isn't it?

On Naval Aviation, there seem to be two major complaints:
1. The idea that one has to assign misc weight to a ship for aircraft, then has to buy the aircraft too.
2. The idea that aircraft based afloat don't need shore bases.

1. This is only proper. The ship lasts twenty years, the aircraft only lasts about five years. I expect carriers will go through at least four generations of aircraft. The purchases should be separate.
2. But they do need a shore base structure, a huge one. The airbase structure for navies is a bit different from land based air. Has to be. Naval planes are highly specialized-even the carrier borne ones. The rules should show this in the differentiation, if not in the costs.  

One idea of moving to units instead of individual aircraft purposes is to better capture the cost and effort required to keep combat aircraft in the air, while also at the same time reducing beancounting in the short and long-term, and bringing them more in-line with other game mechanics entities in the nverse.

I agree with this. It allows us to use %s and multiply to calculate attrition which is a lot easier than trying to count up all the planes and add and subtract!

Naval aviation presents a number of complications to this scheme. For one thing, to sim an aviation capable ship, you have to use a ton of misc weight, and even then the exercise with SS isn't perfect (because aviation dedicated ships are generally speaking volume-critical, not weight critical). When drafting this, the idea that we'd continue to buy aircraft with the ship was considered, but then how do you account for the cost and effort required to maintain them, keep them flying, and then replace them when the next generation of aircraft comes along?

1. By listing the air wing independent of the ship
2. As for carriage for a carrier, you could take this formula

L(wl) x B divided by 1000 sq ft

Example 700 feet x 100 feet/1000 sq feet(average for a 1920s biplane) = 70 aircraft MAXIMUM.  

For 1930s aircraft you would use 1300 sq feet or 53 planes. Its fairly close to US and Japanese historic values.    

We could simply stipulate that the weight in the misc weight required for aircraft be subtracted from price, but we worry this could have unintended consequences (think floating tanker with flight deck for free or nearly free). It would also mean more rules and exclusions that aren't really necessary.

I respectfully disagree. Carriers without planes cost about as much as large protected cruisers. They were warships. With their planes added they were more expensive than battleships. By treating planes as a separate expense in the naval budget to ADD to the cost of buying the ship we reflect true costs. We have to buy replacement planes, so why not list it as a carrier expense in addition to the ship right from the start?      

For instance: if we already have 5000+ aircraft air forces running around, even if a nation with such resources could build an aircraft carrier today capable of shipping 100 aircraft, that's a drop in the bucket. Why have a rule exception and the added complexity to keep track of, when such a player can simply stipulate that 100 of those aircraft comprise the afloat airwing of that ship? Aircraft carriers were expensive, and we want them to be at least somewhat expensive in the nverse as well.

Handle the carrier exactly the same way as the land airbase rule. The base itself has to have planes right? You cannot just pave runways and claim you have an air force? Then add a land base for the naval aviation to reflect the true costs of naval airpower. That will show why only the richest nations fielded carrier fleets. Its very very expensive.      

Land bases for aircraft: what I really meant there was that an aircraft unit afloat doesn't count against the support capability of any shore bases. This doesn't mean that one doesn't need shore bases for training, unit rotation, etc. It just means that we assume that a unit afloat switches places with a unit on land when necessary. It would be simpler to omit that clause for sure, and I'm happy to do so if that's the overall feeling of the group.

I prefer that at least stand as written. I would respectfully suggest  a 100% reserve rule, but 50% is fine as long as those are designated as special naval bases only dedicated to naval aircraft.

D.

[Kaiser Kirk]

My suggestion is to consider the 1910/14 tech airbases as Type 0 airstrips, and 1913/16 airstrips as Type 1.  This makes up part of the BP expenditure on 1913/16 airstrips - the rest can be considered to have gone towards the aircraft themselves.

I will respectfully disagree.

Previously, we bought aircraft in units of 100. 

It was not an unreasonable presumption that the default airstrip type would be capable of housing at least the smallest unit of aircraft available for purchase.

The real question used to be how many units could we reasonably house at that one airstrip, not how many airstrips for that one unit.

now, we find that the 100 aircraft we bought actually require 5 airfields (4x 24 leave 4 planes left over, so 5) to house.

I think the minimum airstrip conversion should be the equivalent of a type 1, but more likely a type 2 airstrip.

As for some "saving money" that way....well the massive increase in airfields required in 1920 imposes a rather high cost for something that in 1919 wasn't an issue.

Alternately, introduce the airfield requirements with advancing technology- once you get to higher level planes, then your strips require more infrastructure and these new rules apply.


As for seaplanes and carrier planes, I have been presuming naval airstations and seaplane bases were required.

[The Rock Doctor]

Fair enough - not an angle I had considered much.

[miketr]

This is my attempt at converting my airforce to the 1920 standard.

I have the following
100 of 1906/10-Single Engine bought 1916
100 of 1910/14-Single Engine bought 1917
100 of 1910/14-Multi Engine bought 1917
100 of 1910/14-Single Engine bought 1919

Air Fields (All Type 0)

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil(*)
   3rd (T) 1906/10 (single engine)
   1st (P) 1910/14 (single engine)
   1st (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)

Bom Liete, berian Chagos(*)
   2nd (P) 1910/14 (single engine)
   2nd (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)

Manila, Philippines(*)
   2nd (T) 1906/10 (single engine)
   3rd (P) 1910/14 (single engine)
   3rd (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)

San Juan, Puerto Rico(*)
   4th (T) 1906/10 (single engine)
   3rd (P) 1910/14 (single engine)

Ponce, Puerto Rico
   4th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)

Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
   4th (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)

Madrid   , Spain(*)
   1st (T) 1906/10 (single engine)
   5th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)

Gibraltar, Spain
   5th (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)

Barcelona, Spain
   6th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)

Bilbao, Spain
   7th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)

Pamplona, Spain
   <EMPTY>

Heraklion (Candia), Crete(*)
   8th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)
   6th (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)

(*) Need to be upgraded to type 1 Airfield

Aircraft Units

Training Squadrons
1st (T) 1906/10 (single engine)(Bought 1916)
2nd (T) 1906/10 (single engine)(Bought 1916)
3rd (T) 1906/10 (single engine)(Bought 1916)
4th (T) 1906/10 (single engine)(Bought 1916)

Pursuit Squadrons
1st (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1917)
2nd (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1917)
3rd (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1917)
4th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1917)
5th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1919)
6th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1919)
7th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1919)
8th (P) 1910/14 (single engine)(Bought 1919)

Reconnaissance – Scouting
1st (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)(Bought 1917)
2nd (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)(Bought 1917)
3rd (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)(Bought 1917)
4th (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)(Bought 1917)
5th (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)(Bought 1917)
6th (R) 1910/14 (twin engine)(Bought 1917)

[miketr]

Mikes comments on the players with HUGE numbers of aircraft compared to airfields.

Its very obvious that people wanted large air-forces because they are "cool".  Also because the aircraft themselves were dirt cheap.  At the same time its fairly clear that people decided that little things like the airfields weren't very important and were very expensive compared to the aircraft themselves.  Normally the cost was about 5 to 1 between airfield and 100 single engine aircraft.

If people know find themselves with having hundreds of aircraft parked on a single airfield my response is life sucks.  Maybe you should have spent less cash on building your massive air forces and more on the support structure for them?   

Now for people that did invest into the more expensive airfields I suggest the following.  People get to re-spend any cash spent on old style airfields on new style airfields.  1910/14 Airfields costing $1 will convert neatly to the type 0 airfields.  1913/16 Airfields costing $1.5 and 0.5 BP would be short $0.5 but over 0.25 BP for a type 1 airfield.  And so on.  Allow people to chuck some more money and if need be BP's at the new style airfields in 1920.

I would say that this is largely a self correcting problem as aircraft only last 5 years.  So I would say people have a 2 or 3 year grace period but by 1922 or 1923 any aircraft above airfield capacity get to rot as they are without support.   

I am NOT in favor of people getting larger airfields out of thin air.  I say give people time to bring their support structure in line but you need to spend the cash and BP.

[Guinness]

Concentrating on the issue of airfields again:

First, I'd like comment on this alternate structure:

Airfields: Constr. Cost Type $ BP Permanent Support Capacity 0 0.25 0 Squadron 1 0.5 0.25 2 Squadrons 2 1 0.5 Wing 3 2 1 2 Wings 4 3 1.5 Group

My immediate concern is having an installation with no BP requirement that is permanent will encourage players to build lots and lots of type 0 airfields and nothing bigger. However, to build the equivalent of 1 Type 2 airfield in type 0's, it would also be more expensive.

If we implement this, we might advance transferability of existing airfields to Type 2's. Or maybe we total up the BP spent on airfields per player so far, and you can spread that around. Ie, if you've spent 6BP on airfields, you might end up with six type 3 airfields, or 12 type 2, or 24 type 1, etc. similar to Mike's idea above.

[miketr]

Guinness if you are worried about people not spending BP on airfields then I suggest that all airfields no matter how small cost BP. 

I liked the old ratio better where it was $4 to 1 BP but if you want to use this $2 to 1 BP ratio then have the type 0 airfield cost $0.25 and 0.125 BP.

Just have people in 1920 re-spend all their cash on new airfields plus whatever additional cash that they want to chuck at them.  I am willing to spend BP in 1920 for my current fields as all of mine cost no BP under the old rules.

[damocles]

Okay does that mean that an airfield is excessively large at 72 single engine aircraft?

I mean that is what was common for a Circus in WW I. I also have a lot of heartburn with the type 0 field as a convenient parking lot for four engine Gothas. Could we attach runway lengths to these airfields the way we do to docks and the size of ships that can handle them?

That would make some sense as some of the 1920s bombers had takeoff runs that make an A-330 appear like a fighter!    

As for the cash/BP suggestion, I have my cash figured out for the 1920 rules that I need listed in a previous post. The BP needed are already spent, so I should be 1920 compliant 2H1021 at the latest when I spend the money to make up the cash shortfall.     

[miketr]

Being realistic up through WW2 many airfields were nothing more than a covenant grass field with some near by houses that could be taken over for housing.  This said we are playing a game, pick some rules and please stick with them.  Just have the squadron sized airfields fairly inexpensive.

[Guinness]

BP for airfields in general is problematic. We need to spend... some, but the relative figures are difficult to derive.

As far as aircraft type, gross weight, runway length, etc. etc.: Fields in this era were almost all grass. Last time I was in DC, I picked up a great book on airfield and airport design at the NASM. In the early 20's there were a number of standardized designs which included weights. Almost all of them were simply squares of open grass with some hangars around them. One place one can still see this vestigial design is Chicago-Midway airport. Paved runways didn't come until much later, either as aircraft got heavier, or more often as the difficulty of maintaining the grass fields increased as the number of flights grew.

So the BP is going into a relatively small amount of stuff, especially compared to ports with all their concrete and steel fixtures. In fact, it's been my conclusion that we were already paying too much in BP for airfields. Cost in $ was mostly acquisition of land, a highly variable cost we're not modeling here much at all.

So the idea was we'd band aircraft in units, and have units be the foundation of support. For our Gothas, we are partially covered here by the proviso that a squadron of them would only include 8 aircraft. So to really concentrate them, you'll need to spend on a bigger airfield anyway.

So all that said: Shipyards have a cost to BP ratio of roughly 10 to 1 (averaging here). Airfields would either have to be really expensive, or we'd have to deal with terribly small fractions of BP to capture that. Maybe we just ditch BP cost entirely? Or even ditch airfields entirely?

[maddox]

Ditching airfields could be a solution, as most WW I  and even WW II airfields weren't much more than a level field and some housing, even tents were common. (I like henderson Field on Guadacanal for that reason....  mud so icky that aircraft tyres were sucked from the hubs.)

But that should be reflected in the cost maintaining the aircraft.

On the other hand, without any permanent infrastructure maintaining aircraft will be a nightmare on logistics.

[Guinness]

In theory, if we get aircraft unit costs right, those costs would include their airfields, etc.

However, since we're not allowing upgrades of aircraft units, players would essentially be building airfields over and over again. That's a negative. I also like the idea of having some incentive for well-known permanent bases, so we can avoid the problem of having entire air groups magically transported from one place to another overnight.

[Darman]

I agree about needing some sort of permanent base for aircraft.  Yes you had airfields like Henderson Field, and then you had fields like on Tinian with miles of paving. 

My real question was with regards to naval aviation: Do you intend to differentiate between naval air units and ground-based units?  A naval bomber is necessarily going to be limited in size.  And will the size of naval air units remain the same?  24 single-engine planes per squadron, etc.  Because how would you spread out spotter seaplanes from warships when it is only one or two aircraft assigned to the vessel? 

[TexanCowboy]

Mhm....For example, the Handley Page V/1500. That was a an aircraft that, although it only had 4 engines, probebly had the maintance costs of 10 single engined craft. I have a hard time believing that a Type 0 field could even support 4 of those.

On a completely unrelated tangent, it seems Guinness has fallen down into the pit of soccer, err....futball.