www.navalism.org

The following is the advanced almost ready for inclusion in the ruleset draft of the forthcoming 1920 rules revisions. Please post questions and comments here.

Summary of Changes:

1. Submarine rules tweaked so that it is clearly understood that a submarine may carry any mix of mines and torpedoes at a 1-1 ratio. Ie, if the table says a sub may carry 20 torpedoes and 20 mines, that will mean that it could carry up to 40 torpedoes and no mines, or no torpedoes and 40 mines. This is to allow for more customization.

2. Current regime of buying individual aircraft and building aircraft tech specific bases is supplanted with a new system whereby aircraft are purchased in units similar to army units, and airfields/airbases persist similar to naval infrastructure. Full text of that is below.

The following would replace the aircraft rules found here: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=278.msg28842#msg28842

Aircraft

Aircraft may be purchased in units as small as a squadron. The approximate manpower of each unit size can be found in the table below. In general terms, "small" is a single engine aircraft, "medium" is a twin engine aircraft, and "large" has 4 or more engines. The Moderators will be empowered to rule where a specific design fits in these classifications. Note that the manpower of air units is counted against per-nation military manpower caps (see army rules for details of these):



Aircraft unit acquisition costs in $ and BP are dependent upon the tech level of that unit, as are their maintenance costs. Aircraft units may not be upgraded from one tech level to the next. Rather, they may be scrapped, and if desired, their scrap value used for the acquisitions of new units of a newer tech level. The scrap value of an aircraft unit is:  0.15 * unit's original dollar/BP cost. The player earns back this value in the half-year following completion of scrapping.

Cost to construct air units:


Upkeep of air units:

Because aircraft are fragile and temperamental machines, it is not possible to maintain them at anything but wartime footing.



The fighting value of air units may be considered using the army unit artillery rating value according to this table:

Fighting strength of air units (in units equivalent to army artillery ratings):


Airfields
The Most basic airfield is simply an improvised strip, which may be constructed by the aircraft unit planning to use it. This has no cost, but these improvised fields have no permanent support capability. Units operating from these fields must have support from a permanent airfield for doing things like engine and airframe overhauls. Or in other words, while an improvised field can be constructed anywhere, to support a unit of aircraft more than one half-year, a permanent field must be available.



Aircraft Unit/Airship Equivalency
Airships and aircraft may be based alongside one another. Airships still require additional fixed infrastructure (in the form of airship hangars). From 1920, airships must be based at a permanent airfield.

Airships are equivalent to aircraft unit size for the purpose of determining how many airships and aircraft may be supported by a given airfield according to this table:



Naval Aviation
Aircraft to be carried by or supported by ships are bought in units just as all other aircraft, and must be purchased separately from the ships they are planned to be operated from. Aircraft carried afloat do not require a shore base.

Transition from old Aircraft rules to new

Players for which it is convenient to reorganize their current aircraft into aircraft units according to these rules are encouraged to do so. Any new aircraft acquired in 1920 or after must be purchased according to these rules.

Existing airfields are all convertible to type 0 airfields under the new rules. Existing airship bases are also convertible to type 0 airfields. The Moderators believe there are no airship bases supporting more than 1 aircraft squadron's equivalent of airships. If the Mods are mistaken, please PM all three during the transition with your specific circumstance so we can work out what the resulting infrastructure should be.

Aircraft purchased previous to the transition may be scrapped as units in the future, according to their costs from the new rules.

QuoteExisting airfields are all convertible to type 0 airfields under the new rules.

What of the existing 1913 airfields? All those who have one have spent 0.5BP on it.

Some of that BP may be applicable to 1913 aircraft units theoretically purchased at the same time.

This is the thorny part of the transition. A new type 0 airfield has no BP cost of course, but before new aircraft had no BP cost. I think as I wrote about airship bases, if you have a specific circumstance such as this, pm the mods and we'll figure it out.

Current airfields should be at least Type 2s, at least the 1913 ones.

Considering the number of planes I have, I would most definitely have Type 3 fields. Same goes for RRC.

I have 600 planes, and 4 fields...I can't support what I have on Type 0's. Type 1's would do....

Quote from: TexanCowboy on June 03, 2010, 02:34:23 PM
I have 600 planes, and 4 fields...I can't support what I have on Type 0's. Type 1's would do....

This is useful data. If everyone else could post their current number of aircraft and current number of airfields, that would be very helpful.

If you have a large number of non-single engined aircraft and/or airships, please note that as well.

I have 12 1913 Airfields and 5800 airplanes.

Of them 1150 are multi-engined airplanes.
Of that 1150; 800 are double engined aircrafts and 350 are five-engined aircrafts.

Cool...I have 4 1910 airfields. Out of that, I have 600 planes, 200 multi-engined.

Quote from: Logi on June 03, 2010, 02:54:21 PM
I have 12 1913 Airfields and 5800 airplanes.

Of them 1150 are multi-engined airplanes.
Of that 1150; 800 are double engined aircrafts and 350 are five-engined aircrafts.

My initial reaction to this figure included water coming out of my nose. Having wiped that off the keyboard, I'll quote the Wikipedia article on the Royal Flying Corps:

Quote
by the start of 1919 the RAF had 4,000 combat aircraft and 114,000 personnel.

Using 28.5 men per plane (from the RAF figures, the basis from which the personnel estimates above came from), that would make the RRC's airforce 165,300 men strong. Where is the RRC in relation to it's total manpower cap?

Is mine too ridiculous?

The RRC has a 189,500,000 large national population that are, unlike the British, all Chinese ethnically and located in relative proximity.

So apparently the airforce is 0.087% of the total population of the RRC. Big whoop.

Quote from: Desertfox on June 03, 2010, 02:09:29 PM
Current airfields should be at least Type 2s, at least the 1913 ones.

Quote from: Walter on June 03, 2010, 02:24:43 PM
Considering the number of planes I have, I would most definitely have Type 3 fields. Same goes for RRC.

And for Orange.
According to the new rules I would have 18.75 Squadrons per airfield.

I have 4 newly upgraded 1913/16 airfields with 1200 single, 200 twin and 100 big aircrafts. (Thats a long-range a normal bomber-unit and 3 fighter groups for cover)

I also have 10 type 2 zeppelins and hangars, I don't understand yet what that means.

Well, talking manpower:

If Romania could fully mobilize, it could support 675,000 men in uniform (13.5 million *0.05). You have 8 corps, which equals 400,000 men. Your airforce would account for ~11,000 or 12,000 men. So depending on your navy*, you're at least under the conceivable manpower limit.

Still in 1920, not having fought a war which required the extended mobilization of huge airforces, 600 aircraft seems like a lot for a nation such as Romania. I don't suppose we can put that genie back in the bottle now.

* we should be tracking manpower limits of navies, but we haven't yet dreamed up a neat way to do that. If we do, it'll probably just be total tons of commissioned shipping multiplied by some constant, and not using SS's crew size figures at all.

And you havent seen the size of the Japanese Air Force yet...

New Switzerland:

3 -1913 Airfields

1,840 aircraft (~1,200 single, 500 twin, 200 heavy)


New Zion:

4 - 1910 Airfields
4 - 1913 Airfields

600 Single engined
55 twin engined


I saw the Swiss airfields as Type 3s while the Zionite ones as a mix of 0 (1910) and 1/2 (1913).


I do not like the Squadron/Wing/Group divisons. I would much prefere the cleaner method we have now, with everyone splitting up their planes as they see fit.

Interestingly enough if we count the manpower relative to pop size.

New Swiss is at 0.14% with their airforce.

Japan is at 0.22% with their airforce.

Romania is at 0.13% with their airforce.

Quote from: Guinness on June 03, 2010, 03:13:17 PM
Well, talking manpower:
[...]
* we should be tracking manpower limits of navies, but we haven't yet dreamed up a neat way to do that. If we do, it'll probably just be total tons of commissioned shipping multiplied by some constant, and not using SS's crew size figures at all.

Which would be essentially the same, because springssharp does that as well (although probably based on normal or maximum size).

By-the-way, how many corps of troops do you have DF? From your H1/1919 report, it appears 50 divisions so 25 corps.

Calculating your army into the equation, your manpower relative to national pop is 3.52%.

Ground-wise, the Maori have 27 corps, most of them obsolete. The Air Service operates sixteen Class Two airships, but the eight air stations they run out of are rated up to Class Five. There are, as yet, no airplane operations being undertaken.

Quote from: Guinness on June 03, 2010, 03:13:17 PM
Well, talking manpower:

If Romania could fully mobilize, it could support 675,000 men in uniform (13.5 million *0.05). You have 8 corps, which equals 400,000 men. Your airforce would account for ~11,000 or 12,000 men. So depending on your navy*, you're at least under the conceivable manpower limit.

Still in 1920, not having fought a war which required the extended mobilization of huge airforces, 600 aircraft seems like a lot for a nation such as Romania. I don't suppose we can put that genie back in the bottle now.

* we should be tracking manpower limits of navies, but we haven't yet dreamed up a neat way to do that. If we do, it'll probably just be total tons of commissioned shipping multiplied by some constant, and not using SS's crew size figures at all.

About 100 of those belong personnally to the queen.

Current RLM PLANNED air strength as of 2H1919

Fokker D-V (from Bavaria), 500 aircraft. (fighter)
Fokker J-1 500 aircraft. (fighter)
Fokker R-2 500 aircraft (recon aircraft)
Fokker W-1 500 aircraft.(naval seaplane)

RLM bases.                       D-V        J-1          R-2       W-1            Air Brigades
Amsterdam (1+3*)              72           72          72         72              1st
Flyssen  (1+3*)                    72           72          72         72              2nd
Jakarta  (1+3*)                     72           72          72         72              3rd    
Ullapool (1+2*)                   72           72          72         72               4th  
Singapore (1+2*)                 72           72          72         72               5th
Surabaya  (1+2*)                  72           72          72         72               6th

Totals                                  452 + 48 452+48  452+48 452+48  
* Each air force base can call on the services of near by civil flying fields as satellite airfields. These are built and maintained as part of the civil air ministry(, note in wartime would be taken into RLM base service. There are 15 such civil airfields      

The RLM organizes in air brigades attached to a corps or fleet regional command.    

There are currently six such air brigades.  

RLM bases		D-V	J-1	R-2	W-1	Air Brigades
Amsterdam (1+3*)		72	72	72	72	1st
Flyssen  (1+3*)		72	72	72	72	2nd
Jakarta  (1+3*)		72	72	72	72	3rd
Ullapool (1+2*)		72	72	72	72	4th
Singapore (1+2*)		72	72	72	72	5th
Surabaya  (1+2*)		72	72	72	72	6th
Totals		452 + 48	452+48	452+48	452+48

The six brigades are ~ wings under the 1920 rules. Planes are mostly single engine 1913/1916 types due for replacement. As of the moment, 1 type 1910 airship in service.

The airfield were built under the old rules at $1.5 per airfield and the aircraft purchased in bulk lots and I spent 13.8 BP on the air-force, The plan was to have 4 airfields per brigade when complete. I in effect to this point have spent $31.50 and 13.5 BP on my airforce.

21 Type 1 airfields.                   ($42.0 and 5.25BP)            ($21 spent)
17 air wings (2040 aircraft)      ($25.50 and 5.1BP)  ($10.5 spent)
totals                                       ($67.50 and 10.35BP)      

We can therefore allot that I have 21 airfields planned at 50% paid, with all BP needed accounted.  I have bought 5 of the 17 planned air wings.  

I need to spend  ($21 and $18 respectively in the next two reports to comply within the new rules)

Planned air force end strength will be ~ 60,000 men.

D.
 
D.  

Bavaria

7 x 1914 airfields
1 x 1914 seaplane base
1 x 1916 airfield

900 x 1914 single-engine aircraft
50 x 1914 medium seaplanes

100 x 1916 single-engine aircraft
50 x 1916 heavy aircraft.

Total :
1,000 singles,
50 mediums
50 heavies.

8 x Zeppelins
4 x hangers

My aircraft are roughly arranged 150/airstrip.  I have been presuming that was a central main strip and various auxiliaries as a major airbase. I'll note that at $4, Type 2 airship hangers cost as much as a type 3 group airfield, yet *are not* stand alone ? They need to both be sited at the airbase AND eat up space at that base?

I will note that old purchases were in batches of 100/50/25
While the new airfield limits means that basically my strips would need to be a type 2 strip at $3 & 0.5 BP for them to have been serving as they have.
 

First note that I entirely forgot a blurb on Naval Aviation which I've added above. I've also clarified what value one might derive by scrapping aircraft bought before the rule change.

Quote from: Desertfox on June 03, 2010, 03:16:41 PM
I do not like the Squadron/Wing/Group divisons. I would much prefere the cleaner method we have now, with everyone splitting up their planes as they see fit.

Here we have the eternal standardization vs. customization debate. As is the case with army units, some standardization is required to allow us to sim battles and when necessary compare apples to apples, etc.

For example: take the RRC and their 5800 aircraft. How are we to sim action including all those planes if we can't at least boil them down to operational formations.

At any rate, I don't believe the unit structure necessarily limits customization, especially storyline customization. If one wants to build a wing made up of 1 squadron of heavy bombers, 1 squadron of medium bombers, and 3 squadrons of fighters, one can do that. The Mods would still see that as a wing of certain capabilities whenever it enters into a hex to do battle.

Also, Squadron/Wing/Group are simply our standardized designator. They could easily be Air Battalion/Air Regiment/Air Division or what-have-you.

On the airfield issue: this has been helpful, and the mods have conferred, but right now I see two options:

1. Every airbase everywhere turns into one kind of airbase after the change (ie they all become type 0's as originally outlined, or whatnot).
2. Airbases are converted based on some simple equation based on number of aircraft fielded. So someone with a small number of bases and a large number of aircraft would end up with the same small number of large bases, while someone with lots of bases and less aircraft would end up with the same number of small airbases.

Both seem "fair" on their own merrits, so to a certain extent I don't care either way. I see the need to avoid forcing players to have to conjure up a number of new airbases to support all their aircraft.

QuoteHere we have the eternal standardization vs. customization debate. As is the case with army units, some standardization is required to allow us to sim battles and when necessary compare apples to apples, etc.

I understand what you mean. I would just like the numbers to be broken up in simpler divisions. The current system of 100/50/25 means easier math, and clear values (ie 1 heavy = 2 twins = 4 singles).

I would propose the following:

Squadron: 25 12 6 
Wing: 100 50 25 
Group: 500 250 125

Keeps the current systems numbers, keeps using mutiples of 5, and makes base estimations easier.

Ie:

Type 0 = 25 points
Type 1 = 100 points
Type 2 = 200 points
Type 3 = 500 points

1 point = 1 single engine plane (twins 2, heavies 4)

Type 0 Airship = 2 points
Type 1 Airship = 4 points
Type 2 Airship = 8 points
Type 3 Airship = 12 points

I do agree that airship hangars should NOT need an airfield and the argument could be made that they should count as an airfield already.

As of 1/20 DKB will have:

500 1910/1914 Single Engine planes
150 1910/1914 Twin Engine planes
32 Type 2 Zeppelins

2 1906/1910 Airfields
2 1910/1914 Airfields
16 Type 2 Zeppelin Hangers

I too do not like the:

QuoteFrom 1920, airships must be based at a permanent airfield.

Granted that's probably because I'd have to build 15 airfields to support my Zeppelin hangers since most of them are not at locations which currently have airfields.

I would be ok with offsetting this idea with adding BP in small amount (0.25, 0.50, etc..) to the cost of Zeppelin hangers starting with Type 3 and up to represent the infrastructure needed to support such large airships.

Quote
Existing airship bases are also convertible to type 0 airfields.

This means that anywhere one has an airship hanger or hangers automatically becomes a type 0 airfield.

Quote from: Guinness on June 03, 2010, 07:32:56 PM

Quote
Existing airship bases are also convertible to type 0 airfields.

This means that anywhere one has an airship hanger or hangers automatically becomes a type 0 airfield.

Ooops...

OK...

I figured this was going to happen sooner or latter so I didnt go building a huge number of Airfields and treated them all as Central Repair and Maintenance Depot and assumed the Type 0 Airstrips as forward operational locations.

I am completely shocked by the sheer number of Aircraft Deployed by some nations particulairly China RRC ????   I have been writting stories about my aircraft training program and at no point have I ever more then doubled the size of my pilot force in a Single Year.   There simply hasnt been an In game need or emphasis to do so.....  Until Recently I believe a posted a story about that as well.

What I was trying to do was avoid the 50% losses due to flying accident inherrent in simply throwing pilots with only 8 or 10 hours flying time into the air let alone into combat !  It appears some nations have done that anyway.

The Italian Airforce Consists of the Following Airbases
1916 Airfields are located at
Marsala Sicily
Spinea Italy
Aseb Eritrea
Dire Dawa Somalia
Kigali Burundi
Nacala Italian South Africa
Tunis North Africa
Type 2 Airship Hangers are also located at
Nacala Italian South Africa
Blantrye Italian South Africa
Dire Dawa Somalia
Rome Italy
Marsala Sicily
2 More Type 2 Hangers are Building Soon
Mogadishu
Tobruk

My Airforce has the following aircraft deployed into squadrons similar to Foxy' proposal among those airfields listed above.
600 1916 Single Engine Fighters and Scouts
100 1916 Twin Engined Light Bombers or Recon Aircraft
150 1916 Long Range Heavy Bombers mostly Maritime Reconisance
200 1914 Single Engine aircraft used at my training squadrons
100 1914 Twin Engined Aircraft also used as my training squadrons.

I dont have the problem RRC does but I didnt buy 5000+ Aircraft yet I will note that I did purchase around 1000 aircraft for HY2 1919 but I actually expect that if I actually end up in a war most of those will be replacement aircraft for those worn out under combat conditions or simply lost in combat or damaged.

The fact that most of these aircraft will very soon be obsolete is not a problem as the 1914 Aircraft have to be replaced no matter what by 1921 there 6 years are up.
Nacal

Well consider that of that 5800 planes, 1500 are trainers. And ~2800 are obsolete 1914 tech planes. Furthermore that size was built over 6 years. and the majority were built during war.

I have never doubled the size of my airforce, never felt the need to, just been slowly building it up.

I mean, you have a problem with the RRC, which spans a great area and has a large population, having bases for 5800 airplanes. I wonder what you think about Japan's 9100?

I thought my air force was too big at a 1,000, untill I saw the Japanese and Chinese ones... The Dutch one also appeared overnight.

I know the planes are cheap folks but comeon.... :-[

I think that the all of China historicaly by 1941 couldnt really find enough people qualified to train as pilots for the number of aircraft you are deploying currently.

But China is a more modern country in Navalism then in Histroy if it took you 6 years to build up your  5800 Aircraft then all the aircraft you build 6 years ago are about to become death traps.  Aircraft like Zepplins just cease to exist after 6 years.   Im getting rid of mine in 5 just to be safe and because 1916 aircraft will become my training aircraft in the very near future :)

Charles

Well the airforce size compared to my pop size is tinier than the Swiss or Japanese.

You forget, I'm in charge of 189.5 mil people, the Swiss just got 37 and the Japs only have ~120mil.

You misunderstand. They were not all build 6 years ago. They were build gradually, about 500 per half.

At most every half only 500 go to waste. Besides, the first aircraft were little more than kite-scouts. The 1500 trainer aircrafts were built in this past two years.

Besides, China by 1941 had nothing. Remember a little thing called the Chinese Civil War? You know... the once that last from the Opium Wars to 1955? Well Nverse China is more modern, South China is WAY more modern. And we don't have an active all-out war with warlords reigning over lands.

This South China is half-industrialized and unlike historically, did not suffer a century of constant warfare. Yea... I can get the people trained and unlike historical China, you'll notice almost 1/3 of my army are elite trained. Not the peasant militia mass that it was historically.

NVerse =/= OTL

The French airforce infrastructure is laughable compared to anybody elses.

2 mayor military airbases. Gravelines and Marseilles.  Of the 500 Italian planes France has bought, 420 are left over, and that's because 200 are in storage. And those are not the most modern ones either.
A potload of  airship and blimp bases.
One civilian airport at Paris and one at Marseilles, nothing more than a few maintenance sheds, a hotel/bar/restaurant doubling as reception and check in area along a runway, maybe even concreted.

But, Ir Dunne is finishing his prototype 5 engined air-domination aircraft. And that will change the equation.  ;)

Quote from: Logi on June 03, 2010, 10:32:41 PM
Well the airforce size compared to my pop size is tinier than the Swiss or Japanese.
You forget, I'm in charge of 189.5 mil people, the Swiss just got 37 and the Japs only have ~120mil.
You misunderstand. They were not all build 6 years ago. They were build gradually, about 500 per half.
At most every half only 500 go to waste. Besides, the first aircraft were little more than kite-scouts. The 1500 trainer aircrafts were built in this past two years.
Besides, China by 1941 had nothing. Remember a little thing called the Chinese Civil War? You know... the once that last from the Opium Wars to 1955? Well Nverse China is more modern, South China is WAY more modern. And we don't have an active all-out war with warlords reigning over lands.
This South China is half-industrialized and unlike historically, did not suffer a century of constant warfare. Yea... I can get the people trained and unlike historical China, you'll notice almost 1/3 of my army are elite trained. Not the peasant militia mass that it was historically.
NVerse =/= OTL

Its not about Population its about what percentage of the Population is conducting subsistance level agriculture.  Those Countries with less then or Equal to 1 IC per Pop are either subsistance level or developed agricultural extraction and mineral extraction economies.   Not alot of people familiar with car or tractor engines.  Pilots can be trained engine mechanics are more difficult.

As and Example Italy is just barely above the 1 IC per Population in Italy itself the North and Sicily grow Wheat the South grows Vegetables and Grapes and Olives.  Industry is located only in a few good locations and there are adequate roads and railway lines but not excessive amounts to move goods to markets.

As an opposite Example Metropolitan France and supprisingly a few of Pacific Island Nations have a huge amount of IC per Population sometime almost 3 to 1 or larger.  These are highly Industrialized locations with Heavy Industry supported by large amounts of Light Industry and support industry.

Anyway given that you Southern Border is the Himilayan Mountains and only an Idiot tries to fly any of our current aircraft anywhere near them, Your Western Border is Afginistan and More Mountains you really have a huge concentration of Airplanes along your coast and along your border with the MK.  ;)

Well I've made this point before and I guess I'll make it again. The Chinese Air Force is bigger than ALL the COMBINED Air Forces before and AFTER WWI. The numbers are around there somewhere buried in any of of several aircraft threads.

BTW After thinking it through, I do not think that airships should count towards airfield numbers. They already require hangars for operation.

QuoteBecause aircraft are fragile and temperamental machines, it is not possible to maintain them at anything but wartime footing.

While I can understand that operating aircrafts is supposed to be expensive, I think that making no difference between normal peacetime operation and war mobilization is wrong.
I furthermore think that we should stop putting a fixed constant between the purchase price and maintenance cost (especially for the army). Meaning operating a unit of single engined fighters should be more expansive and a unit of bombers with the same purchase cost.

.. & what about the Railways?

NUS built railways from north Peru to south Argentina.

I Sim 1BP & 2$ per HY.

Is that really useful or I am in a old rule dream...?


Jef  ;)

Railways rules were lost somewhere in one of the rule updates I have a copy of them somewhere.  I built a 1 Meter Railway from Bengahzi to Tobruk, and from Tobruk to the Egyptian Border so that in the event of a war this was back in 1912/13 when I first entered the game I could support an Army if necessary in that area.

Same with the railway from Massawa Eritrea to Aseb on the New Zion Border.  All told I built around 500 Km of 1 Meter Medium Gauge railway with the associated BP costs.

So Yes we are in Old School rules.  ;)

It is however extremely useful if you point out to the mods durring a war that you can run tons of supplies to Point A and your Enemy has to carry his supplies on his Back.   An Example is the China/Burma War its 300+ Km of Bamboo Jungle and Mountains between Kunming the Closest real railroad head in China and the Burmese border.  Its why the Burma road ran to Kunming !   Imagine trying to move even a 75mm Pack Gun and 100 Rounds of Ammo that distance.   It would take hundred maybe thousands of men to move the food and supplies just to feed 1 man at the front.

Questions are:
1 - Are Raylways rules useful ?
2 - Did they introduce bonus for the mobility of the Army ?


Jef

The actual current size of the RLM under the new roles is 5 air wings or 600 aircraft. We have 21 airfields established out of 24 planned of which 8 are operational and 16 are building or will be built.

I find the NS claim that WE are the reason that they have a huge aggressor air-force ludicrous. Our RLM came into existence as a direct response to their buildup. With nothing to fear from our European neighbors, we had not seen the need to build any but the minimum air service and that a mostly civil one. Not until we saw the NS act as they did, did we turn to military aviation, (Bavaria) and then we emphasized DEFENSIVE types. Is there a single BOMBER in our current force?

Even now our plans for European basing is just the minimum for training and a possible war reserve against overseas aggressors. I do not see the correlation to his chicken egg argument.

NvR.        

Ahoj!
The RR are not sop useful. I will build strategic RR nonetheless.
There is no bonus related to RR as such, it is moderators' discretion.
Borys

QuoteWell I've made this point before and I guess I'll make it again. The Chinese Air Force is bigger than ALL the COMBINED Air Forces before and AFTER WWI. The numbers are around there somewhere buried in any of of several aircraft threads.

We've been over this over and over again DF and you bring up the same point to be shoot down. yes, BEFORE AND AFTER WAR. But you fail to count the number built DURING the war and DESTROYED during the war.

This is buildup without the destruction of them due to war and is actually a relatively small number.

QuoteIts not about Population its about what percentage of the Population is conducting subsistance level agriculture.  Those Countries with less then or Equal to 1 IC per Pop are either subsistance level or developed agricultural extraction and mineral extraction economies.   Not alot of people familiar with car or tractor engines.  Pilots can be trained engine mechanics are more difficult.

Unlike Europe, China has more than enough food to feed it's populace. And then again, I mean during civil war that lasted a century in China, there were at one point over 5 factions and the total troop count (not even counting logistic supports) over 10 mil. And people were not starving.'

I think China can manage 163,500 people not being farmers. Especially a China with more tractors and what-not for farming.

QuoteAs and Example Italy is just barely above the 1 IC per Population in Italy itself the North and Sicily grow Wheat the South grows Vegetables and Grapes and Olives.  Industry is located only in a few good locations and there are adequate roads and railway lines but not excessive amounts to move goods to markets.

China's industry has always been around the coast, which is what most of South China is. Then again, Rice, which South China grows, yields 100~300 more calories per pound than wheat. China has ample road systems for travel by foot and horse. It's been shaped by centuries on centuries of the same routes. Add to that, paved roads and the extensive railroad networks that South China has built and it's no longer a  real problem.

QuoteAnyway given that you Southern Border is the Himilayan Mountains and only an Idiot tries to fly any of our current aircraft anywhere near them, Your Western Border is Afginistan and More Mountains you really have a huge concentration of Airplanes along your coast and along your border with the MK.

No..... My southern border is Southeast Asia with the traitorous Indochinese, the DKB, and Siam. My southwestern border is the Himalayan. My western border is Tibet and western Middle Kingdom.

Whilst I do have the majority of my airfields on the border with the MK (because it's long, try defending a over 2500 mile long border) they are less packed than my southern bases primarily because I haven't had the chance to build more southern ones.

QuoteWe have 21 airfields established out of 24 planned of which 8 are operational and 16 are building or will be built.

I think I have more of a problem with the number of airfields some people have.

Quote from: Logi on June 04, 2010, 10:13:28 AM

QuoteWell I've made this point before and I guess I'll make it again. The Chinese Air Force is bigger than ALL the COMBINED Air Forces before and AFTER WWI. The numbers are around there somewhere buried in any of of several aircraft threads.

We've been over this over and over again DF and you bring up the same point to be shoot down. yes, BEFORE AND AFTER WAR. But you fail to count the number built DURING the war and DESTROYED during the war.

Looks like it is necessary to bring up a few numbers again...
Breguet 14: 5500 during the war (1917-1918)
Avro 504: 8970 during the war (1914-1918)

That's just two plane types of many. It think that if the Breguet had appeared earlier and was built during the entire war at that rate, you'd be looking at a figure in excess of 10,000.

QuoteWe've been over this over and over again DF and you bring up the same point to be shoot down. yes, BEFORE AND AFTER WAR. But you fail to count the number built DURING the war and DESTROYED during the war.

This is buildup without the destruction of them due to war and is actually a relatively small number.

I know how many where built during the war. But you are not at war...

This is actually a very good illustration of why moving to aircraft units is a good idea. The accident rate in this era was quite high, so you have a lot of attritional replacement. The idea with the units is that they encapsulate the costs incurred in attritional replacement, etc. partially through maintenance costs. This should mean less bean counting, as instead of having to keep up with loss rates, etc., one only needs to pay to keep units operating.

Incidentally, operating costs and attritional replacement in peacetime was almost as high as in wartime. Many many more aircraft were lost during world war 1 to accidents than to enemy action. This is why the draft includes only wartime upkeep for aircraft units.

That is actually realistic. Most militaries have to plan their procurement and maintenance around their units base.

For example for an air force designed like the one I plan, the forces would be purchased and maintained around the group based on four wings. All I have to do is change the nomenclature. I leave to others to argue points and costs, not my particular concern. I just like the units basis since it allows me to use %s for planning.

D.         

Ahoj!
The Warsaw Military Cemetery has a densely packed section for 1921-39 aviators.
Very easy to find, as it was the fashion to fix the propeller to the cross ...
Borys

*looks at own figures*

Uhm...

... 8100 army planes, 1000 navy planes. 5200 are older types.

Of my bases, 6 are mixed navy/army aerodromes and 4 are army aerodromes for a total of 10. Considering that a group is 600 planes and a type 3 base can house a full group, that would mean that with the assumption that my 10 aerodromes are type 3, I can support 6000 planes. The remaining 3100 planes would be there for spares should a frontline plane become damaged or backup should a frontline plane be lost. One out of three planes reserve/spares does not seem too unrealistic. Would give me an air force personnel size of... 0 actually since the planes are either army personnel or navy personnel. :)
(more seriously, 171,000 men, 0.14% of the total population, about the same as the Swiss)

QuoteNaval Aviation
Aircraft to be carried by or supported by ships are bought in units just as all other aircraft, and must be purchased separately from the ships they are planned to be operated from. Aircraft carried afloat do not require a shore base.

If you want to stick to that, then the miscellaneous weights attached to a ship for the planes should be subtracted from the total of the ship's light displacement. Miscellaneous weights on a ship for planes always includes the planes themselves.

QuoteI know how many where built during the war. But you are not at war...

... Which means that, unlike OTL, there is nothing to slow down the increasing size of canon fodder an air force. As I see it, the threat is there (especially with the Swiss being around in the region), but whenever something broke out, it was either somewhere else or other nations dragged those involved into a peace conference and the war came to an end before any damage could be done.

Quote from: Walter on June 06, 2010, 02:17:02 AM
*looks at own figures*

Uhm...

... 8100 army planes, 1000 navy planes. 5200 are older types.

Of my bases, 6 are mixed navy/army aerodromes and 4 are army aerodromes for a total of 10. Considering that a group is 600 planes and a type 3 base can house a full group, that would mean that with the assumption that my 10 aerodromes are type 3, I can support 6000 planes. The remaining 3100 planes would be there for spares should a frontline plane become damaged or backup should a frontline plane be lost. One out of three planes reserve/spares does not seem too unrealistic. Would give me an air force personnel size of... 0 actually since the planes are either army personnel or navy personnel. :)
(more seriously, 171,000 men, 0.14% of the total population, about the same as the Swiss)

QuoteNaval Aviation
Aircraft to be carried by or supported by ships are bought in units just as all other aircraft, and must be purchased separately from the ships they are planned to be operated from. Aircraft carried afloat do not require a shore base.

If you want to stick to that, then the miscellaneous weights attached to a ship for the planes should be subtracted from the total of the ship's light displacement. Miscellaneous weights on a ship for planes always includes the planes themselves.

QuoteI know how many where built during the war. But you are not at war...

... Which means that, unlike OTL, there is nothing to slow down the increasing size of canon fodder an air force. As I see it, the threat is there (especially with the Swiss being around in the region), but whenever something broke out, it was either somewhere else or other nations dragged those involved into a peace conference and the war came to an end before any damage could be done.

May I respectfully disagree  to that item in red? There is not an aircraft operated from ship that does not at some point, when that ship is in homeport rotation, not operate from a naval air station or depot, if for no other reason for engine and airframe  work which is continuous and is often only possible at a depot or shofre station? Aircraft carriers have only so much capacity, as do ships that carry spotting aircraft. You also have to train.   

I would think that the planes you send to land for repairs and service are replaced on the ships with planes that are on land. So for example, you have a ship with 10 planes on it. You send those 10 planes to land. Sending 10 planes back to the ship will free up 10 spaces at that base which can be filled by those planes sent to land. Or at least I think that that's Guinness's logic behind it.

Quote from: Walter on June 06, 2010, 05:49:55 AM
I would think that the planes you send to land for repairs and service are replaced on the ships with planes that are on land. So for example, you have a ship with 10 planes on it. You send those 10 planes to land. Sending 10 planes back to the ship will free up 10 spaces at that base which can be filled by those planes sent to land. Or at least I think that that's Guinness's logic behind it.

Okay I agree with this, but I suggest you need the land bases and that reserve to support the ship-based air. I suggest that because of this actual logistics that you brought up it shows that you may need at least as many navy air bases to handle at least 1/2 of your ship based air force-certainly I could argue enough bases to handle ALL of your ship based air forces ashore. The attrition to 1920s 1930s naval aviation makes WW I accident loss rates look benign! You need that huge reserve or your brand new navy air force shrinks a good 10% a year from accidents alone. I expect that realistically that attrition will be a part of my budget, if and when I get naval aviation.

D.      

I do not support converting airstrips between rule sets based on how many aircraft a player has at each airstrip.  If I have ~100 aircraft per airbase, and another person has ~800 aircraft per airbase, we have both invested precisely the same amount of cash and BP into those airbases.  I just happen to have a more reasonable ratio of aircraft to airstrips.

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 don't think anybody has gotten round to building 1917/18 airstrips, but they'll count as Type 2 if they do exist.

Ok I was looking at the updates I was going to make with BP left over in my 1919 HY2 report.   Updating several airfields was definetly considered in the not yet completed HY Report.  Should I just use the 1920 Rules to build the new Airbases ??

Also what about Floatplanes ????  I know I have and will continue to deploy an ever larger increasing number of Float Planes at Naval Bases for Maritime Reconisance rolls.  I will assume we simply need to build an airfield at every single one of the Ports expensive but realistic.

But how about Aircraft deployed with Float Plane Tenders ???

Charles

2  1913 AIRFIELDS

Quote1910/14 tech airbases

:
(Berlin-Tempelhoff/Carlstad-Kastrup):
200 single-engine aircraft
100 multi-engine aircraft
all 1913.

QuoteMy 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 don't think anybody has gotten round to building 1917/18 airstrips, but they'll count as Type 2 if they do exist.

I disagree. If we are to go with converting airfields not based on airforce size, all 1913/16 Airstrips should be Type 2s rather than Type 1. All 1910/14 Airbases are Type 0.

As it stands, I have 12 913 airfields, which comes to a total of 6 BPs worth pounded in. If we went with the conversation to Type 1s, I would have wasted 3 BPs. 3 BPs is no small amount. And adding the cost for my airforce, I still lose about 1 whole BP's worth.

Sure, but if we make it Type 2, you're saving $1.50 on each airstrip.  Type 1's a better overall balance.

I'll pay back the money if need be. Cash is easy to find, BP, not so much (for the RRC).

I believe the point of this is to put some controls on the costs and sizes of Airforces...?????   This is to keep  people from deploying simply huge amounts of Aircraft with little or no cost.   The cost isnt so much the aircraft even with BP cost added to the aircraft which I actually agree with. 

The Cost of aircraft is the cost of the Equipment and manpower to maintain and repair them.  In an age where historically the majority of all Farms accept int he US are run by use of Horse Power and not a Diesel Tractor mechanics take time and effort to train.   Machinest take even more time and take directly away from you countires industiral capability.

A Single Aircraft single engines that does a 2 hour patrol along someones border probably used up 20 or more manhours of maintenance for that single flight.  Now multiply that to a single sortie by a 4 Engined Aircraft or even 1000 Single Engine Aircraft.

Manpower Usage is tracked because when you add up the manpower of your Army, Your Navy and your Airforces no matter where you assign them you are supposed to be under the 5%-7% of your Population.  If you remove more then that from you economy into the Military you really damage your economy.  Scarry as that is I havent seen to many Military forces that approach those levels..

As and Example Italia with 27 Legion/Corp deploys 1,350,000 Troops durring a total call up.   This is 3.5% of the Italian Population and 2.5% of the Empires population.   This Does not honestly represent the number of personal dedicated to maintaining the Italian Navy which while not as large as some is still not what I would call Small..   Add another 5 Groups and thats like adding another Corp to my Military.

QuoteCash is easy to find, BP, not so much (for the RRC).

I agree. It's easy for someone who controls a nation like GC or France or Rohan to say "Oh, a few BPs is not so bad. I can live with that."

I agree completly with Walter.

Medium countries must count each BP used.

I remember the hard work to used as better as possible the few Peruvian BPs dispo...



Jef

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.

Quote from: Guinness on June 07, 2010, 10:59:19 AM
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.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on June 06, 2010, 08:59:26 AM

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.

Fair enough - not an angle I had considered much.

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)

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.

Concentrating on the issue of airfields again:

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




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.

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.

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.     

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.

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?

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.

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.

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? 

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.

TC, you're probably right on the cost of maintaining a heavy bomber compared to a fighter.

But, as long there is/are a maintenance area, spare parts and qualified personel, even a B29 could get repairs "in the field".
Of course, that will reflect in the wear and tear of the aircraft.

Maybe an in between solution, without "heavy airfields", planes will need replacement each year.

Quote from: Guinness on June 11, 2010, 07:41:46 AM
Concentrating on the issue of airfields again:

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

Could I respectfully suggest. (in blue).

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.

Then adjust costs by 0.25$/0.1BP  per squadron based on an airfield. That way all we have to do is multiply the capacity to get the cost of an airfield.

In my case it would be $0.75 and 0.3BP for a Dutch aerodrome, or we could round it out to the nearest higher unit on which case it would be $1 and 0.4BP for a Dutch aerodrome with a 1910 airship costing a squadron, the next size airship costing 2 squadrons and so forth.

As for paved runways and permanent facilities, Double the cost of the grass fields?

That way no one gets away from having FREE airfields. I leave it to the mods to rule on highways used as runways and emergency grass strips.

By the way the British started paving their Malay aerodromes in the Mid 1920s. Too much rain turned the fields to mud.

Just a suggestion. I am content with some kind of costs.......              

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.

Too complicated. If you list and multiplu by the base unit(squadron equivalents per airfield, you can  simplify bookkeeping.

Until I had an unfortunate top of the box run in with a 6'4" 145lb Angolan a few years ago and broke my collarbone, I usually played two full games a week in net (one men's league team, one coed).

Naval aviation: my thought was that the minimum unit size (a squadron) would suffice. A nation with only shipboard floatplanes might have one naval aviation squadron to cover all of them (for instance).

On the H-P V/1500: we're attempting a one-size fits all solution here. I expect that one will always find outliers, like the V/1500, Russian K-7, what have you. The mods would reserve the right to torture a player fielding such outliers in too many numbers.

Damocles: you weren't around for the great paved runway controversy, but the conclusion was that paved runways weren't that important until right at the start of World War 2. So I'm happy to defer them. They might end up included in the future as something like a Type 2+ airfield upgrade.

Quote from: miketr on June 11, 2010, 07:37:45 AM
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". 

Well, I run 150 AC/airfield, and actually alot of my "planning" revolved around buying some aircraft every 6 months to keep my industry busy. Smallest unit was 100.  I slacked in HY21919, but have generally stuck to it.  

Quote from: Guinness on June 11, 2010, 09:35:38 AM
Until I had an unfortunate top of the box run in with a 6'4" 145lb Angolan a few years ago and broke my collarbone, I usually played two full games a week in net (one men's league team, one coed).

Naval aviation: my thought was that the minimum unit size (a squadron) would suffice. A nation with only shipboard floatplanes might have one naval aviation squadron to cover all of them (for instance).

On the H-P V/1500: we're attempting a one-size fits all solution here. I expect that one will always find outliers, like the V/1500, Russian K-7, what have you. The mods would reserve the right to torture a player fielding such outliers in too many numbers.

Damocles: you weren't around for the great paved runway controversy, but the conclusion was that paved runways weren't that important until right at the start of World War 2. So I'm happy to defer them. They might end up included in the future as something like a Type 2+ airfield upgrade.

Okay on that. Just so I don't get rained out when I start training on Java fields.

One question....How do you use a tables function on this board?   

*converts all aircraft to Handley Page V/1500*

AHH!!!! GET THAT CHAINSAW AWAY FROM ME!!!!  ;D ;D

Quote from: damocles on June 11, 2010, 09:48:31 AM
One question....How do you use a tables function on this board?   

With my magic moderator foo, I'm allowed to post html tables. :)

I have tinkered with an excel macro that barfs forth bbcode tables too. If you google for such things, there are a few.

One thought is the following.

Only 4 engine aircraft strictly speaking require an airfield.  Squadrons, Groups and Wings operating from rough fields have reduced availability, call it half strength or something.  This is to represent the lack of dedicate repair shops, hangers, fuel storage, etc.

What this means is that you need to consider costs to be balanced against the idea, of what if I don't want any air fields and just build twice as many aircraft on the cost saved of not building the airfields.

As to costs it looks like you have the $ to BP ratio of aircraft about 5 to 1.  I would have airfields cost the same for all levels.

Now lets look at the base costs.

1921 Aircraft
Squadron:$0.50 & 0.10 BP   
Wing: $2.50 & 0.50   BP
Group: $12.50   & 2.50 BP

The cost ratio for airfields
Squadron:$1
Wing:$2
Group:$4

So we have a two to one ratio for a squadron of aircraft and the field to support it.  Which means that you could build another two squadrons of aircraft. 

The wing  costs 25% more than the airfield to support it.  So you couldn't quiet buy another wing by neglecting the airfield.

The group costs is horribly in favor of building the airfield.

As aircraft costs go up the ratio's tilt as airfields costs are flat for all generations.

I think it might be worth while to decrease the costs of the base airfield a little to $0.25 or $0.375 depending on what type of cost ratio you want between the squadron and airfield.

Michael

Ok having sat down and taken a good hard look at the Aircraft rules... well about the only thing I have a problem with is that the Attack rate in Artillary rating is the same no matter what type of Aircraft.

A 1916 Single Engine Fighter or Observation plane has 1 to 3 Machine guns, and carries 1 or 2 crew and maybe upwards of 50 Kg of Bombs.

Some of the Early Twin Engines and 3 to 4 Engined Bombers could carry 500 to 1000 Kg of bombs or even 18" Torpedoes.

I would prefer to see some difference in attack strength between a set years Single Engined, Twin Engined, and Heavy Aircraft.  The Fighters are for shooting down enemy observation planes, the Single Engine Observations planes are for taking Photos behind the enemies lines.   The Heavy Bombers supprisingly in the early periods often outgunned the fighters and were extremely dangerous and able to obsorb damage.

Coming back to this.

First: Charles on relative aircraft capabilities: I hear what you are saying, and agree to a point, but for the purpose of the rules and keeping them as simple as possible, I've chosen an "average" artillery rating per unit. At the very small scale, ie a squadron, etc. the composition will likely matter. However, in formulating these rules, I was imagining units of greater scale, escorted bomber formations, etc. So I hope the average rating for larger units would suffice. For small unit actions, where a squadron of bombers is met by a squadron of fighters, I think we can be confident that whoever is simming that battle will award relative bonuses where appropriate.

On airfields: after collecting many comments on the subject, both public and private, I'll revise the previous posting as such:

Players may total up the amount of BP used in construction of airfields up to 1920. This amount of BP may then be reallocated into post-rule change airfields.

For instance, if a player spent 1.5 BP total on 3 1913 tech airfields (ie 0.5BP x 3), and then 3 BP total on 3 1917 tech airfields (ie 1BP x 3), they will have spent a total of 4.5BP on airfields up to 1920. They may then reallocate that into 4.5BP of new airfields at their convenience. This might be 4 type 3 airfields and 1 type 2, or it might be 9 type 2's, etc. I think most players will find this quite generous, and that only a few will still need to build more than a few more airfields to accommodate their existing air forces.

Also, when converting the existing pile-o-airplanes system to the new unit system, players will be allowed to round up on a squadron basis. So if you have 20 twin engine aircraft, congratulations, you now have 2 squadrons, not 1.25 squadrons. This is strictly to make the conversion easier and to prevent players having to account for half squadrons. To build wings and groups past that, add up the number of squadrons that result.

And if you spent no BP, but still have 7 airfields?

These would be 1910 tech? Earlier?

At any rate, the mods reserve the right to handle special cases... specially. So after the rule changes go official in 1920 pm us.

1910 level airfields, yes...

Lets give it some time and see how things shake out. How soon are you going to have a newer aircraft tech?

As soon as I finish digesting the 5-6 techs I've been given as gifts, and get around to researching it....not until 1922, at the earliest....unless I get gifted more....(designs ploy to get Capet to give Romania aircraft.... ;D)

Well I still think it's rather problematic that on 12/31/1919 I have 9 functional airfields costing $9.50 and 0.50 BP and serving 1100 airplanes... as most of my planes and fields are still the historical 1914 types... and 4x type 2 hangers costing $8

yet on 1/1/20 I'll have that hefty 0.50BP to spend on the new model airfields, which will count as a single $3 type 2 airfield capable of holding 240 aircraft.

This is where I want to point to the BP that went laying unused from 1908-1914 because Bavaria didn't have anywhere to really spend it (years behind the times, maxed Mil budget, Bory's storyline restriction on naval growth, lousy naval tech).  Had BP been required at the beginning, this would not be an issue. Heck in 1914 alone there was 17 BP left unused.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 19, 2010, 07:45:44 PM
This is where I want to point to the BP that went laying unused from 1908-1914 because Bavaria didn't have anywhere to really spend it (years behind the times, maxed Mil budget, Bory's storyline restriction on naval growth, lousy naval tech).  Had BP been required at the beginning, this would not be an issue. Heck in 1914 alone there was 17 BP left unused.

I've got to question this, solely because it's impossible to spend BP without also spending $. If we were using the new rules then, a Type 3 airfield would cost $4 and 1 BP. Are you saying that you didn't have money to spend to catch up to your available BP then, but you would have if you had to build airfields? Is it just that you are stuck with 1910 tech aircraft and their airfields then?

I see no reason why nations without "modern" aircraft can't persist with their old airfields bought under the old rules until they are required to upgrade, so this will be clarified in the updated rules when they appear after the calendar turns to 1920. Considering that large airfields under the new rules are much cheaper in terms of $ compared to the old ones, I don't anticipate this being a long-ranged problem. The idea is not to penalize any specific nations, but to transition to a workable system for the future.

Quote from: Guinness on August 19, 2010, 07:59:39 PM

I've got to question this, solely because it's impossible to spend BP without also spending $. If we were using the new rules then, a Type 3 airfield would cost $4 and 1 BP. Are you saying that you didn't have money to spend to catch up to your available BP then, but you would have if you had to build airfields? Is it just that you are stuck with 1910 tech aircraft and their airfields then?

I built both airfields and hangers in that "catchup" time period, however there was no need for BP expenditures for either in that time period, albeit it was available. - so I spent $, and could have spent BP as well...but it wasn't needed back then.



Also I was keeping far more troops active than I needed during the "catchup" period, which helped use up $- but could easily have been changed if more $ was needed.   Likewise I built up a stockpile, because the rules don't mention troops come with 6mo of ammo so I rather thought it was needed... I could have easily funded airfields from that instead

There really wasn't much I could *do* with the BP in that time. Even now I rent out a fair amount of industrial capacity.  I Couldn't sell it or trade for tech- everyone had moved on and was years down the line. While the naval tech was severely antiquated..and the storyline was the Bavarian navy was brand new and couldn't field many trained personal to man vessels anyhow.  

There is only so much you can spend on army and forts, had BP been needed for airfields, and more airfields needed, the resources were there at that time.
thus my objection to waking up in 1920..when my expenditures are a bit more constrained by longer term projects, and suddenly needing to spend more $ and BP

edits

I think this works prety much both ways for everyone Italy has 9 1916 Pattern Airfields and 4 Type 2 Air Ships Stations.   To Support about 960 Front Line Aircraft and 400 Training Aircraft.

Total Cost of this has been $1.5 and .5Bp per airfield.

I think we need to go with a set airfield type not if I build a huge number of planes I get a few huge Airfields that they didnt pay for.   The Type 1 Airfield is the closest cost to the the 1916 Airfield so 1916 Airfields become type 1,  1915 Airfields become Type 0's as well as airship hangers.

I know this is going to be costly to those who have really huge airforces but then again I believe the update included the ability for them to scrap some of their aricraft at the new Costs and they can use that to build some new airfields.   I  honestly think this change is necessary and my proposal is to try and make it hurt as equally as possible.

Japan and the RRC are the two nations with the largest airforces and its obvious that both either need more airfileds or less aircraft or a combination of the two.  What wouldnt be fair is to award them a huge number of the largest field types.  So my proposal is based on standardization we pick one system and go with it no deviding aircraft by the number of Airfields.

This is one of the reasons, I went over my own reports five times to try to conform with 1920 rules as proposed.

I still don't think I've got it exactly right, but I think I'm close. The upshot is that the Dutch are encircled by others who have twice or six times the airpower at half to one fourth the cost. 

The conversion factors are going to be severe for some players, I'm just saying....

<cough> 7000+ aircraft <cough>

D.

Eh, not really, about 1/5 of the whole airforce is obsolete planes, so ~ 5600 usable and modern planes. Alleviated somewhat by the fact the RRC has the most airfields of anyone and they are all 1916 techs.

If you think  the RRC is big.... wait till you see the closing 10,000 planes of Japan.

EDIT:

Counting things: I have 4000 small planes, 800 medium planes, 400 large planes. That's a total of 5200 planes. (Obsolete planes scrapped in this example).

400 small (6 group)
0 medium (2 group)
0 medium (2 group)

So I need 10 type 3 airfields. I have enough BP invested in my current twelve airfields to have 6 type 3 airfields. Gonna have a hell-lot of type 0 airfields until I can get upgrade.

Yes but I believe you had 12 1916 Airfields which means if they are converted to say Type 1 as I propose you can support... *does some math on insufficent caffinee dossage*
12 * 120 single engine planes = 1440 Planes.

Now if you  simply Scrap  2 groups of those Aircraft [1200 planes]  this would give you a $2.25 and .45 BP this is a profit on the aircraft and well on the way to paying to upgrade atleast 2 of those airfields so they could support Groups of 600 aircraft instead of wings of 120.

If you scarp all the 1910 Tech level aircraft at the same time I think you will find that you profited from the situation and with a small BP investment self fund an upgrade to atleast 4 Type 2 Airfields and 8 Type 1 Airfields, plus build a bunch of Type 0 Airfields as well.  This would allow you to support 3360 Aircraft plus what ever you put on the Type 0 Airfields.

This is an example of making the best of the situation.

Charles

Quote from: damocles on August 19, 2010, 09:42:09 PM
This is one of the reasons, I went over my own reports five times to try to conform with 1920 rules as proposed.

I still don't think I've got it exactly right, but I think I'm close. The upshot is that the Dutch are encircled by others who have twice or six times the airpower at half to one fourth the cost. 

The conversion factors are going to be severe for some players, I'm just saying....

<cough> 7000+ aircraft <cough>

D.

Hmmm Damocles you do realize that the ESC and Bavaria are supposed to be your ALLIES... as members of the Leipzig accords and the Rhine river trading association.   You are hardly surrounded in Europe as Frances Airforce is functional but uses Italian Aircraft at the New Prices I cant afford to keep building huge amounts of such aircraft. 

The Price of a Thousand Aircraft just went up to a reasonable rate of $ and BP

Charles

QuoteYes but I believe you had 12 1916 Airfields which means if they are converted to say Type 1

So I got somehow dicked out of 3 BP. That's 1/3 of my biannual output. I need that BP badly. Maybe not a big deal for those with a lot of BP, but the RRC has a very small amount of BP.

----

There are 900 small planes that are obsolete, 600 medium planes that are obsolete.

So that's approx: 1.5 Small Groups and 1.5 medium Groups.

Scrapping for 100%, I get:

$15 + 3 BP. Ok, so I make it up. But that's at 100% and I severely doubt it will be scrapped for 100% value.


But problem, I'm in the middle of a war where airpower is used very very often. How the hell will I adjust in the midst of a war. Scrapping would take time and upgrading the airfields would take time too. So basically we have during 1920, in the middle of a war, I lose a great deal of my air power.

That is the type of mythical occurrence that makes generals etc. go "wtf?".

In that case, I propose that we get instant builds for the transferring of airfields, scrapping, and upgrading for just 1920/H1. That way, for those of us in war, we don't have mysterious events happening and sudden cuts in the number of airfields usable.

EDIT: Btw, I just noticed but... Japan has only 10 airfields. Of those 6 are 1916 tech, and 4 are 1914 tech. And he has way more planes than me :-\

Quote from: Logi on August 19, 2010, 10:18:28 PM

QuoteYes but I believe you had 12 1916 Airfields which means if they are converted to say Type 1

So I got somehow dicked out of 3 BP. That's 1/3 of my biannual output. I need that BP badly. Maybe not a big deal for those with a lot of BP, but the RRC has a very small amount of BP.

----

There are 900 small planes that are obsolete, 600 medium planes that are obsolete.

So that's approx: 1.5 Small Groups and 1.5 medium Groups.

Scrapping for 100%, I get:

$15 + 3 BP. Ok, so I make it up. But that's at 100% and I severely doubt it will be scrapped for 100% value.


But problem, I'm in the middle of a war where airpower is used very very often. How the hell will I adjust in the midst of a war. Scrapping would take time and upgrading the airfields would take time too. So basically we have during 1920, in the middle of a war, I lose a great deal of my air power.

That is the type of mythical occurrence that makes generals etc. go "wtf?".

In that case, I propose that we get instant builds for the transferring of airfields, scrapping, and upgrading for just 1920/H1. That way, for those of us in war, we don't have mysterious events happening and sudden cuts in the number of airfields usable.

EDIT: Btw, I just noticed but... Japan has only 10 airfields. Of those 6 are 1916 tech, and 4 are 1914 tech. And he has way more planes than me :-\

Scraping is done at 15% not 100%.....

Yes Japan has as much of a problem if not more so then you or even I do....

Example Italy:
9 1913 Historic 1916 Tech Airfields can support a total a total of 1080 Aircraft Of Single Engine Planes
Also 6 Type 2 AirStations which become Type 0 Airfield and can support a single partial Squadron and some Zeppelins.

The Problem is simple I started with ~700 Single Engine Aircraft 1913 Tech, 300 1910 Tech, and in addition I had 150 LRE [Large Aircraft] 1913 tech, and 200 [Medium] Twin Engine Aircraft 1913 Tech and 100 1910 Tech.  So I need more airfields and I need them now.  In addition I have over 1000 more Combat Aircraft under construction at this time  mostly I viewed them as replacement aircraft.

I think you like me will find that Combat Attrition will have helped us fit more of our planes onto our airfields then we thought  :'(

I admit actively being involved in a war is going to complicate your situation but I am also at war and 3 BP is exactly 1/4 of Italys BP output so I agree it hurts alot.  I never promised it wasnt going to hurt just that my Proposal was going to hurt as equaly and as equitably as possible.

Nobody Gets Type 2 or Type 3 or Even Type 4 Airfields unless we give them to everyone equally..... :o
As an Example you paid $1.5 and .5 BP for airfields that under the new rules would cost you $2 and .25 BP.

The Alternative is we do a mixture of Type 2 and Type 1 Airfields but that is only going to help  out a little bit.  But the point is to make sure we make it as fair across the entire spectrum as possible.

I agree the original proposal of Type 0 Airfields really really hurts,  my proposal will take some of the sting out but nothing is going to completely take the pain away if we are to make this at all fair. :'(

Charles

Where am I fighting, now, Charles?

But as to Europe, you see that the actual Luchtmacht there in Europe is about 200 aircraft? Most of the rest of the force is either in the islands or in the NOI or elsewhere*. The last time I looked, there were six or so Dutch air complexes and about 1000 aircraft in the official RLM OOB.  

* Guess.

The point is that when I worked the KoN air power by the 1920 rules as I lept reading them tweaked, I kept wondering how I was supposed to afford a 1000 plane air-force? Then I had to ask how the RRC or Japan was able to field an air-force 8 times that size?

C'est la guerre. All I have to do is play the game and let the rules run themselves.  Things will even out somehow.  Remember WW I France never had more than 1500 or so combat machines, and never more than that many trainers because of an airfield and fuel shortage? I think that the new rules will reflect that limit nicely. Most of us middle rank guys will find 1000-1500 planes tough to do, and that is proper.    

As for adjusting in the middle of a war to the rules change? I went with the 1920 rules "as proposed" to avoid that "inflated air force" problem to be reconciled before the war and I'm paying for it now in massive generated casualties.

That was a CHOICE at the front end to keep the game fair and reasonable and to keep such bookkeeping nightmares for me at a minimum. So when "some" air forces have to shrink under the rules, post war or during a war? That was a player choice.

D.

 

QuoteI admit actively being involved in a war is going to complicate your situation but I am also at war and 3 BP is exactly 1/4 of Italys BP output so I agree it hurts alot.  I never promised it wasnt going to hurt just that my Proposal was going to hurt as equaly and as equitably as possible.

Your war will most likely be over by 1920. Mine won't. Which means, suddenly mysterious things happen during the war, whereas you wouldn't have such mysterious events during a war.

QuoteNobody Gets Type 2 or Type 3 or Even Type 4 Airfields unless we give them to everyone equally..... Shocked
As an Example you paid $1.5 and .5 BP for airfields that under the new rules would cost you $2 and .25 BP.

I believe I went over how losing a BP is a much larger problem than losing $$.

---Will reply to rest tomorrow----

QuoteThe point is that when I worked the KoN air power by the 1920 rules as I lept reading them tweaked, I kept wondering how I was supposed to afford a 1000 plane air-force? Then I had to ask how the RRC or Japan was able to field an air-force 8 times that size?

Did you build you airforce over 6+ years? I didn't think so. Also, take a look at your population size, then at the RRC. Of course, I have no comment about Japan.

QuoteC'est la guerre. All I have to do is play the game and let the rules run themselves.  Things will even out somehow.  Remember WW I France never had more than 1500 or so combat machines, and never more than that many trainers because of an airfield and fuel shortage? I think that the new rules will reflect that limit nicely. Most of us middle rank guys will find 1000-1500 planes tough to do, and that is proper.

1500 of my "modern planes" are trainers. I do not have many fuel shortages or airfield shortages. As I've stated before, I have the most number of airfields, and they are all modern airfields. And btw, there are numbers and staistics that were posted over and over a while ago that prove that statement wrong.


-----

I do not like nor favor being stuck with what I perceive as the blunt end of the stick. If I magically get 3 BP as consolation for the mysteriously lost 3 BP worth, I will reconsider. But regardless, the circumstances are different.

Italy has it's safe little haven and does not have to participate in the massive BP spending etc. that the RRC needs to survive. Therefore, the 11.5 BP Italy makes biannual is considerably more free to be used than the RRC 9. We can go over the math again CT, if you would like. I believe last time we went over this math, we concluded Italy had a good 3~5 BP more to freely spend than the RRC.*

I regret to say, that this whole deal and getting the blunt end of the stick does not stick well with me, and may cause unfortunate circumstances and my absence.

* I might be wrong and confusing with the discussion on $$ surpluses.

Quote from: damocles on August 19, 2010, 10:53:20 PM
Where am I fighting, now, Charles?

But as to Europe, you see that the actual Luchtmacht there in Europe is about 200 aircraft? Most of the rest of the force is either in the islands or in the NOI or elsewhere*. The last time I looked, there were six or so Dutch air complexes and about 1000 aircraft in the official RLM OOB.  

* Guess.

The point is that when I worked the KoN air power by the 1920 rules as I lept reading them tweaked, I kept wondering how I was supposed to afford a 1000 plane air-force? Then I had to ask how the RRC or Japan was able to field an air-force 8 times that size?

C'est la guerre. All I have to do is play the game and let the rules run themselves.  Things will even out somehow.  Remember WW I France never had more than 1500 or so combat machines, and never more than that many trainers because of an airfield and fuel shortage? I think that the new rules will reflect that limit nicely. Most of us middle rank guys will find 1000-1500 planes tough to do, and that is proper.    

As for adjusting in the middle of a war to the rules change? I went with the 1920 rules "as proposed" to avoid that "inflated air force" problem to be reconciled before the war and I'm paying for it now in massive generated casualties.

That was a CHOICE at the front end to keep the game fair and reasonable and to keep such bookkeeping nightmares for me at a minimum. So when "some" air forces have to shrink under the rules, post war or during a war? That was a player choice.

D.

;D  yes you are violating the rules of warfare and fighting a land war in Asia.   But I see your point.   Yes the Maintenance cost for these Airforces just went up expodentialy [sp?] anyway I know the mainteance cost on my 1200 to 1500 Airforce will  now be about what I paid for the planes to begin with so yes I have no intention of even trying to maintain a 3000+ aircraft airforce unless I am at war. 

Example of Italia Aeronautica in 1920
4 Wings of Long Range Recon/heavy Bombers [160 aircraft]
2 Wings of Twin Engined Ground/Naval Attack Bombers [160 Aircraft]
2 Groups of Single Engined Aircraft Scout/Recon/Ground attack [1200 Aircraft]
1 Wing of Single Engine training aircraft [120 aircraft]
1 Wing Twin Engined training aircraft [80 aircraft]
Total Aircrfat is 1720 Aircraft

This will cost $.15 for each wing and $.75 for each group total maintenance cost of
$2.70   this will go up to $3.60 as I transition to 1917 Historical 1918 Aircraft. 

So just a note my peace time army mainteance before the start of this war was only $9.54 so this airforce represents and increase of almost 33% of my Military budget expenditures those with 5000+ aircraft this has got to hurt?  ;)

Quote from: ctwaterman on August 19, 2010, 11:06:20 PM

Quote from: damocles on August 19, 2010, 10:53:20 PM
Where am I fighting, now, Charles?

But as to Europe, you see that the actual Luchtmacht there in Europe is about 200 aircraft? Most of the rest of the force is either in the islands or in the NOI or elsewhere*. The last time I looked, there were six or so Dutch air complexes and about 1000 aircraft in the official RLM OOB.  

* Guess.

The point is that when I worked the KoN air power by the 1920 rules as I kept reading them tweaked, I kept wondering how I was supposed to afford a 1000 plane air-force? Then I had to ask how the RRC or Japan was able to field an air-force 8 times that size?

C'est la guerre. All I have to do is play the game and let the rules run themselves.  Things will even out somehow.  Remember WW I France never had more than 1500 or so combat machines, and never more than that many trainers because of an airfield and fuel shortage? I think that the new rules will reflect that limit nicely. Most of us middle rank guys will find 1000-1500 planes tough to do, and that is proper.    

As for adjusting in the middle of a war to the rules change? I went with the 1920 rules "as proposed" to avoid that "inflated air force" problem to be reconciled before the war and I'm paying for it now in massive generated casualties.

That was a CHOICE at the front end to keep the game fair and reasonable and to keep such bookkeeping nightmares for me at a minimum. So when "some" air forces have to shrink under the rules, post war or during a war? That was a player choice.

D.

;D  yes you are violating the rules of warfare and fighting a land war in Asia.   But I see your point.   Yes the Maintenance cost for these Airforces just went up expodentialy [sp?] anyway I know the mainteance cost on my 1200 to 1500 Airforce will  now be about what I paid for the planes to begin with so yes I have no intention of even trying to maintain a 3000+ aircraft airforce unless I am at war.  

CT, I agree.

Logi, Many of those airfields you had were flooded. Many of your aircraft if not moved should have been destroyed.

Come on...*

There are reasons for MK strategic decisions.  

Where are you getting oil again? China doesn't have any. I know where the MK gets theirs... 8)

* That's a free bookkeeping gift I gave you to balance the books to the 3000 or so aircraft that you actually should be able to field.

As for 6 years of buildup, the KoN had 3 years when I took it on. Under the old rules I thought 1500 planes was pushing it. Under the 1920 rules 1000 planes is pushing it. Under the 1920 rules, the RRC should realistically have what? 3000 planes?

     

Well besides this being in the wrong discussion area lets see...

RRC gets his Oil from Romania and possibly from the CSA Californina and Mexico Oil Fields.... ;)

Flooding that is totaly up to Rocky who has the unenviable task of dealing with this massive war.

Charles

Well it is the wrong discussion area for the war, but not the bookkeeping revisions in the war that the 1920 rules force. I think that we have a good idea that aircraft are more tied to BP now than they used to be, and that it is less about population and more about BP that you can generate now.

So that is gonna shock some people with huge decaying plane parks. Maintenance will eat their huge AMARCS like nothing flat in war too.

I also agree that the mods have to break the toys. I just pointed out that MK thinking was that any airfield in the Yangtze Valley that was NOT weatherized for flooding should be toast.  ;D 

I find it very distasteful that what works on 12/31/19 will not work as well on 1/1/20.
I would much rather link the rule change to advancing technology requiring more technical support - i.e. all aircraft of a particular tech year- say 1921- or later.

I strongly think the default airfield size should be at least type 1s, if not type 2s.  If that means some magically gain more costly infrastructure than they would have if built after the rule change, so be it.  

Why? Because the former aircraft units were lots of 100, and a type 1 can hold 100 aircraft.  It's not a horrible leap that for each unit of aircraft purchased one needed to purchase an airfield...it also wasn't specified in anyway.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 19, 2010, 11:53:35 PM
I find it very distasteful that what works on 12/31/19 will not work as well on 1/1/20.
I would much rather link the rule change to advancing technology requiring more technical support - i.e. all aircraft of a particular tech year- say 1921- or later.

I strongly think the default airfield size should be at least type 1s, if not type 2s.  If that means some magically gain more costly infrastructure than they would have if built after the rule change, so be it.  

Why? Because the former aircraft units were lots of 100, and a type 1 can hold 100 aircraft.  It's not a horrible leap that for each unit of aircraft purchased one needed to purchase an airfield...it also wasn't specified in anyway.

I Liked Desert Foxes suggestion way back on page 2 or 3 where Aircraft are 100 Single Engine 50 Twin Engine or 25 Heavy Aircraft per Grouping So Wing and Group and Squadron number would all change ont he chart but thats not really a problem.
Its just a decision.....

I noticed I will need more airfields or fewer planes for Italy and I was conservative.   But I think a balance needs to be found somewhere in the middle.   Possibly as I said earlier a few Type 2 airfields as well.   I think this is going to cost everyone some amount of money and BP the question is how much ????

I personaly would not object to doing something where all 1910 tech Airfields become Type 0 with say 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 becoming a Type 1.   All 1913 tech Airfields become Type 1 and 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 become Type 2.....

But I dont see any reason to give out Type 3 and Type 4 to anyone this way everyone has to pay a little more and feels the pinch but nobody gets a huge reward.   

I already pointed out that if Japan were to say Scrap 3000 Aircraft they would defeinetly make a profit on the deal :) 

Is this more what you are looking for Im looking for a consensus of people effected by the transition.

Charles

I think the only way to make the transition between old and new rules go smoothly is to give everybody time for it, e.g. until 1922.

Honestly I think this is a yank the bandaid off moment and not slowly pull it off sort of moment.

Bite the bullet give it a yank and fix the problem and then we can all get on with our lives and sims.   Giving everyone 2 years to fix it just delays the problem 2 years.....

If its going to take 4 HY to fix the problem sell off some of the planes for Scrap use the $ and BP to fix the problem and its all over.   Or bite the bullet again delay that Battle Ship project a HY and fix the problem.   

Charles

Sell off the planes to customers, call it excess production and use the cash to fix the air force problem?

Sounds like a plan.

Quote from: damocles on August 20, 2010, 05:06:12 AM
Sell off the planes to customers, call it excess production and use the cash to fix the air force problem?

Sounds like a plan.

Well yes there are several buyers in Asia at the moment in need of an airforce ?????   Well one anyway but it looked to me the Japanese were already unloading gentley used surplus aircraft on that war.

The Zionists could use another Airforce  but I would check to make sure they are around to pay before you try delivering :)

To review:

Quote
Airfields
The Most basic airfield is simply an improvised strip, which may be constructed by the aircraft unit planning to use it. This has no cost, but these improvised fields have no permanent support capability. Units operating from these fields must have support from a permanent airfield for doing things like engine and airframe overhauls. Or in other words, while an improvised field can be constructed anywhere, to support a unit of aircraft more than one half-year, a permanent field must be available.

So that means that the extras can operate from improvised fields for a half. After that, maintenance headaches can be expected to set in. So even for Logi there should be no immediate emergency come Jan 1 1920.

A point of my personal philosophy: maybe it's having 2 little ones under 4, or maybe it's working in a high pressure high-tech field, but I'm more or less a rip-off-the-bandade kind of guy.

The vast majority of players will shrug off this change, especially the airfield change, with nary a complaint. Those who can't can PM the mods for specific remediation if necessary. We're not trying to "screw" anyone, but I'm afraid it is the case that if you thought you could support 500 aircraft with one airfield under the old rules, you were mistaken.

This is, to my mind, much like recent difficulties some have had with their IC-BP ratio. We didn't strip anyone of BP while that was getting fixed. We're not going to strip anyone of aircraft while aircraft to airfield ratios are getting fixed. We will need to discuss privately specific plans with the players who have the problem.

Also, a reminder that with 1920 will come bonuses for many. These may be used to offset some of the difficulties here.

Quote from: ctwaterman on August 19, 2010, 11:34:10 PM
Well besides this being in the wrong discussion area lets see...

RRC gets his Oil from Romania and possibly from the CSA Californina and Mexico Oil Fields.... ;)

Flooding that is totaly up to Rocky who has the unenviable task of dealing with this massive war.

Charles

I cut exports 75% in response to your little war, to fill up your fuel tanks at Dijibouti....you're welcome.

Sounds "Logi"cal, with France being a mayor user of Romanian oil.

Very Punny.  ;)

As an aside - as I'm gaming out the two wars, I've been playing with the "Attack factors" of aircraft.  I am not ready to provide a specific set of recommendations for what these should end up being, but will do so when I'm done with the Chinas.

Here's a few more options for airfields:

-Require them only for multi-engine aircraft, or only for four-engined aircraft.

-Don't require them at all.  Build the cost of supporting 1917/18 tech (and subsequent) aircraft into the cost of the aircraft units themselves.  Don't worry about increasing cost for early vintages of aircraft - they will be obsolete and out of service soon enough.  For those players who have built airstrips, and now find them worthless - allow those players to trade the airstrips for their cash and BP value at any time after 1/1/20.

-Require one "depot" of a certain size/cost per certain area.  This abstractly represents all the parts, gas, and ammo distribution required to put any number of aircraft in the air in that area.  Problem being, the area itself will have to be defined somehow.

-Or, since we seem to be down to two players with significant issues - waive the BP costs for Kirk to upgrade, and let Logi shell out some fixed ratio of cash instead of BP to undertake the necessary upgrades to his aerial infrastructure.

I think Rocky has a good idea. Up until really the advent of jets, most single engined fighters could take of from a long grassy field. (The arrangement of the landing gear can hinder these abilities, see the Bf 109 vs the FW 190) However, pathed runways are more usable in all weather conditions. So I think fixed bases should be a part of the rules. Maybe a good solution would be to break the airfield types up into single, twin, and four engined types as well. A base designed for fighers might not have the equipment to service big bombers effectively, the reverce would be true however so some sort of rules would need to cover that angle.

I might try to firm this idea up later tonight if not sooner or later.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 20, 2010, 06:34:22 PM
- waive the BP costs for Kirk to upgrade,

I'd like to clarify that my basic objection is to the implementation of the new rules as proposed.  Bavaria can upgrade, or I believe I have a simple case to go to the mods and say "See, if in 1908-1914 I just had kept these Corps as reserve instead of Active, I could have used the surplus BP I had back then to build the airfields to the new standards".

I really feel the goal should be to make this implementation as painless as possible and would much rather see people wind up with more infrastructure than they paid for, than have to upgrade the infrastructure that - up until now- they've been using just fine. 

One alternate that just bubbled up- HY1/20...scrap all current Aircraft and Airfields at 100% $ value, and allow purchase of the "new rule" units sans BP.   Looking at Japan's airforce of 8400, that's something like $16 expended on aircraft alone, why should he loose any of that value? Just let him translate it into $16 worth of 1920 value.

Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 20, 2010, 09:57:08 PM

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 20, 2010, 06:34:22 PM
- waive the BP costs for Kirk to upgrade,

I'd like to clarify that my basic objection is to the implementation of the new rules as proposed.  Bavaria can upgrade, or I believe I have a simple case to go to the mods and say "See, if in 1908-1914 I just had kept these Corps as reserve instead of Active, I could have used the surplus BP I had back then to build the airfields to the new standards".

I really feel the goal should be to make this implementation as painless as possible and would much rather see people wind up with more infrastructure than they paid for, than have to upgrade the infrastructure that - up until now- they've been using just fine. 

One alternate that just bubbled up- HY1/20...scrap all current Aircraft and Airfields at 100% $ value, and allow purchase of the "new rule" units sans BP.   Looking at Japan's airforce of 8400, that's something like $16 expended on aircraft alone, why should he loose any of that value? Just let him translate it into $16 worth of 1920 value.

Well he isnt loosing $16 in aircraft his aircraft are now worth a total of... lets see roughly 13 groups of Single Engined Aircraft as an low estimate means
$97.5 and 19.5 BP if he were to scrap them all he would get $ 14.62 and 2.95 BP honestly people planes just became extremely valuable.

I kind of like the current systems that has been proposed.   It seems to work the only problem is even people like myself with a bit over 1100 Aircraft only built a total of 9 Airfields for them.   As Guinness pointed out nobody is going to loose aircraft because of the change they will just have to spend some money in 1920 Hy1 and Hy2 to fix there lack of Aircraft infrastructure.

And while I agree grass strips are the norm even in WWII for single engined aircraft the repair buildings, barracks and such were not tents in most cases on the permanent airfields.

I should know I lived for 2 years out of a 1940's Era Barracks at RAF Bentwaters in the UK.   The Strip was paved in I think 1943 as a fighter strip and Auxilary landing strip for B-17.

1. A machine shop, bomb dump, and fuel dump is infrastructure. You can put men in tents, and you can use grass fields, you can even put tools and parts on trains or trucks, but you have to put the three items (for bombers), I named, into protected berm shelters (or you should) to keep the happy fighter pilots from the other side from Dawn Patrolling your sorry carcass.

2. Note that with (1) single engine fighters don't really require such a heavy investment, as the named items can be stored on trucks or railroad cars. That way you can use a simple cow pasture for the basic planes.

D.    

About all planes of "our era" can use grass strips to land and take off.

But after a few days of heavy operations and a tad of rain, the grass airstrip becomes a hogs heaven of mud.

Now, France is about the Nverse country with the least planes around, and only 2 military airbases (Gravelines and Marseilles).
But those are BIG, and yes, paved strips, especialy with the Dune D11's comming from the factory. (Gravelines has 2 UNK corps attached to the JAC base there, just to mention how big it is)

Quote from: ctwaterman on August 21, 2010, 01:11:07 AM
Well he isnt loosing $16 in aircraft his aircraft are now worth a total of... lets see roughly 13 groups of Single Engined Aircraft as an low estimate means
$97.5 and 19.5 BP if he were to scrap them all he would get $ 14.62 and 2.95 BP honestly people planes just became extremely valuable.

I still find flaw in the idea that folks who played by the extant rules are now expected to play catch up. In this case he looses ~$1.48 of value and gains ~2.95BP.  Hence why I'd rather see the full $16 granted and BP waived.
However I realize I'm starting to simply argue, so I'll shut up and just stew on this.

Sorry for not being around much but In trying to follow this I have gotten lost.

What are the current plans for 1920 rules for aircraft and airfields? Why is felt that a change is needed?

For what it is worth... I feel Russia has the longest and most consistant history of Aviation infrastructure. Currently(end of 1st half of 1919) Russia has 1100 Aeroplanes and 550 Seaplanes on 19 Airfields and 8 Seaplane Bases(at 3 different levels of ability). Builtup over a long period(1st a 1910 airfield level, then upgrade to 1914 then upgraded to 1916).

I viewed airfields as 1910= several grass strips in a localized area with a few shacks and a fuel truck; 1914= several grass strips in a localized area with some barracks and a tiny wood control tower plus a few hangers for repairs and a few vehicles for support(firetruck, fuel, fun); 1916= Aerodrome of somesort with many metal hangers, water towers, AA more and better buildings plus several grass strips in a localized area. Each individual airstrip holding a squadron of 12-20 single engined aircraft and each Aerodrome holding a Regiment(48 or so).

I had always considered that 1 unit of aircraft needed 1 unit of airfields. Unfortunately, this was not stated in the rules. But simple logic should have stated that you cant have aircraft fly without support(airfield). Perhaps a few could be stationed at a single location for brief periods but expecting more is too much.

Because aircraft will become so powerful in the years too come we MUST have airfields built and their locations known. It will only cause arguments if they are not.

the only way to be fair is that all past money and BP spent should be totaled up and respent on 'new' units. That would allow Walter and Logi to restructure their airforces in a more realistic manner.

Quote from: Blooded on September 08, 2010, 03:04:02 PM
What are the current plans for 1920 rules for aircraft and airfields? Why is felt that a change is needed?

You hit on some of these issues yourself. Here's the rationale:

1. Today's system of buying (essentially) individual aircraft is ponderous and leading to excessive beancounting as number of aircraft increases.
2. Today's system for maintenance is not consistent with the rest of our units, and indeed is largely ignored by many players
3. Today's system does not explicitly enumerate how many aircraft an airfield can support leading to huge number of aircraft being supported by small numbers of fields.
4. When simming an action, we're already banding aircraft into units for purpose of simulating many times, so this will codify and standardize that.

So the idea is to pull it in line with other units, and to map out the progression for the future for more ore less the rest of the era of the game. And yes, the decision has been to use BP equivalency for transitioning airfields, as detailed above. I'll be updating the rules for 1920 real soon now. I think to ease the transition, we'll allow either ruleset to be applied in 1920 so that people who've already done 1920 reports need not redo them, and those involved in wars aren't hit with this mid-war.

Converting to the 1920 Aircraft rules is relatively easy. I really think all nations could and should have this done for 1st half-1920. There is no reason to delay. I can help anyone you would like assistance.

From my news-altered a bit 'I redid The Aircraft into 1920 style. The decrease in Airfleet size is tremendous, it will be even moreso for those who did not invest in infrastructure. I had spent close to $75/7.5BP from 1907 to 1919 on my Airforce(including those spendy Dirigible Hangers), which now only consists of 1000 planes(was around 2000) and that required removing a few Airfields to raise the extra cash for another 400 or so of those planes.'

In the Chinese conflict. MK, Netherlands and now Russia(just joining in) have already converted.

An example RRC Airforce could be:

Had in 1919(approximately)
49x1914 Brigades/Regiments
26x1916 Brigades/Regiments  (some est. 7000 Aircraft)
12x1916 Airfields
The total spent on RRCs Airforce was $54.1675/6 BP (this includes an estimated upkeep of $6.6675) leaving $47.5/6BP

#1: Could have in 1920(straight conversion):

12x L-2 Aerodromes-10 Squadrons each($3/0.5BP)  $36.0/6.0BP  120 Squdrons max
50x 1914 Squadrons($0.2/0.04BP)                 $10.0/2.0BP
25x 1916 Squadrons($0.3/0.06BP)                 $ 7.5/1.5BP  est. 1500+ Aircraft

Total                                           $53.5/9.5BP         

#2: Could have in 1920(trying to reduce BP needed):

6x L-0 Aerodromes-1 Squadron each($1/0.0BP)     $ 6.0/0.0BP
3x L-1 Aerodromes-5 Squadrons each($2/0.25BP)   $ 6.0/0.75BP
6x L-2 Aerodromes-10 Squadrons each($3/0.5BP)   $18.0/3.0BP    81 Squadrons max
50x 1914 Squadrons($0.2/0.04BP)                 $10.0/2.0BP
25x 1916 Squadrons($0.3/0.06BP)                 $ 7.5/1.5BP    est. 1500+ Aircraft

Total                                           $47.5/7.25BP(only need 1.25BP to even it up)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main change is a 66-80% reduction in force levels. Instead of hundreds of aircraft being used it becomes dozens(just change Brigades to Squadrons in the storylines). This is much better realistically anyhow. RRC and Japanese force levels outstrip most WW2 combatants in 1940(Japan in 1941 had around 3500 frontline Aircraft-that is about the same in France 1918). RRC has spent only 5 Corps(2 Battleships-one sim half) worth of cash on building the worlds largest Airforce. As seen above he would still likely have the worlds largest(1500+ Aircraft). Losses would be taken as a % not straight across numbers(say 100 lost becomes 24).

There have been some issues with the Chinese Air theater that I need to address as well, but I need to visit the Dentists ATM.  :-X  :'(

Aircraft Examples and HP stats:
1914 types: Early War(1914-1915): 100HP; HP,Low Range,1 MG; Scouts-Fighters and Light Bomber Types
Fokker EI to EIII
Vickers GunBus
---------------
1916 Types: Mid War(1916-1917): 150HP; 1-2 MG; Various Main Types-most of the famous models come in this period
Nieuport 17
Albatros DII
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter
SPAD VII
--------------
1918 Types: Late War(1918-1920): 200HP; 2 MG; Specialist Types(Torpedo,Ground Attack,etc.), 1st use of all metal skin
Fokker DVII
Sopwith Cuckoo
---------------------
Engine HP:
Mid 1916-SPAD VI-150hp
Mid 1916-Albatros DII-160hp
Late 1916-Albatros DIII-170hp
Early 1917-Se5a-150hp
Mid 1917-Fokker Dr1-110hp
Mid 1917-Sopwith Camel-130hp
Mid 1918-Sopwith Cuckoo-200hp
early 1918 -Fokker DVII-170hp

Yes, I know bombers had some bigger engines, and there are always exceptions. I am just pointing out the framework we should be using.
And what is with the fascination with hindsight .50 cals and 20mm? They were not even developed until this time frame, yet Nverse has them universally distributed by now. 37mm and 40mm were small calibre AA as far as I can see through the 20s.
__________________________________
Proper Torpedo Bombers belong with the 1917 Tech -The 1918 Cuckoo had a range of 335miles(combat radius is approx. 1/4-1/3 of Range)ie. 100 miles. Only RRC Airfield on the coast is at Hong Kong. No TBs should be attacking in the Yellow Sea. Let alone with 18" Torps.

Fighters of the period also have about the same range(300 miles-And once again, combat radius is around 1/3 of range-so 100 Miles). MK does not have the range to defend frontlines except maybe Shantung province. RRC has many more close to the front, 3 or 4 of which could have been flooded out. 3 also seem to be in areas of ground combat, they likely would have been targets. Combat would be deep raids getting interceptions if lucky. Likely get some comparisons to China-Japan 1937+. Only with crappy aircraft.

Aircraft have only recently been an active part of the MK and KON military(1919). Much time should have been just in training. Fortunately their Airbases are far from the front. RRC should have air superiority throughout most of 1919. Unfortunately most of RRCs aircraft are old obsolescent 1914 types. Perhaps that is why the MK RR Guns have had little effect? November will see modern Russian Aircraft defending the Quingdao Area.

Possible developments?  ???  Lots of Barrage and Observation Ballons. Lots of AA Guns. AA volley rifle fire?  ;D Parasite Bombers? Very heavy defensive armament? Airwatchers(like Battle of Britain with telegraph)-sounds ineffective? Greater use of Air 'Horns' listening devices to detect approaching bombers?

Anyhow, I just wanted to point out some things I have noticed regarding Air Combat and stats in the Chinese War.

Quote from: Blooded on October 06, 2010, 03:44:42 PM
Aircraft Examples and HP stats:
1914 types: Early War(1914-1915): 100HP; HP,Low Range,1 MG; Scouts-Fighters and Light Bomber Types
Fokker EI to EIII
Vickers GunBus

---------------
More or less correct.

Quote1916 Types: Mid War(1916-1917): 150HP; 1-2 MG; Various Main Types-most of the famous models come in this period
Nieuport 17
Albatros DII
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter
SPAD VII

This is basically the cutoff, where the KoN Fokker top of the line are now.
--------------

Quote1918 Types: Late War(1918-1920): 200HP; 2 MG; Specialist Types(Torpedo,Ground Attack,etc.), 1st use of all metal skin
Fokker DVII
Sopwith Cuckoo

This is about where top of the line, in Japan and Russia is at.
---------------------

QuoteEngine HP:
Mid 1916-SPAD VI-150hp
Mid 1916-Albatros DII-160hp
Late 1916-Albatros DIII-170hp
Early 1917-Se5a-150hp
Mid 1917-Fokker Dr1-110hp
Mid 1917-Sopwith Camel-130hp
Mid 1918-Sopwith Cuckoo-200hp
early 1918 -Fokker DVII-170hp

(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/563/nverseriksluchmachaircr.th.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/nverseriksluchmachaircr.jpg/)

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/563/nverseriksluchmachaircr.th.jpg) (http://img88.imageshack.us/i/nverseriksluchmachaircr.jpg/)

The kwatt range of about 170 kW may seem excessive for 1914-1916 aircraft, but I justify on the basis in story, that right from the start the KoN had engine problems with their aero-engines and put more effort into their Fokker designs' engine plants to reduce the crashes.   

Quote
Yes, I know bombers had some bigger engines, and there are always exceptions. I am just pointing out the framework we should be using.

And what is with the fascination with hindsight .50 cals and 20mm? They were not even developed until this time frame, yet Nverse has them universally distributed by now. 37mm and 40mm were small calibre AA as far as I can see through the 20s.

I use 8 mm Brownings.
__________________________________

QuoteProper Torpedo Bombers belong with the 1917 Tech -The 1918 Cuckoo had a range of 335miles(combat radius is approx. 1/4-1/3 of Range)ie. 100 miles. Only RRC Airfield on the coast is at Hong Kong. No TBs should be attacking in the Yellow Sea. Let alone with 18" Torps.

AFAIK, I'm restricted to bombs.

QuoteFighters of the period also have about the same range(300 miles-And once again, combat radius is around 1/3 of range-so 100 Miles). MK does not have the range to defend frontlines except maybe Shantung province. RRC has many more [bases] close to the front, 3 or 4 of which could have been flooded out. 3 also seem to be in areas of ground combat, they likely would have been targets. Combat would be deep raids getting interceptions if lucky. Likely get some comparisons to China-Japan 1937+. Only with crappy aircraft.

Most MK types are fighters. Interception and CAS are the primary missions. The same goes for the DVK. At most the MK bases deployed are pastures and grass fields forward with the main air depots further back.

QuoteAircraft have only recently been an active part of the MK and KON military(1919). Much time should have been just in training. Fortunately their Airbases are far from the front. RRC should have air superiority throughout most of 1919. Unfortunately most of RRCs aircraft are old obsolescent 1914 types. Perhaps that is why the MK RR Guns have had little effect? November will see modern Russian Aircraft defending the Quingdao Area.

The KoN  have been building the Luchtmacht for about six of the half years. The MK has about three of the half years-most of that has been in training.

QuotePossible developments?  ???  Lots of Barrage and Observation Balloons. Lots of AA Guns. AA volley rifle fire?  ;D Parasite Bombers? Very heavy defensive armament? Airwatchers (like Battle of Britain with telegraph)-sounds ineffective? Greater use of Air 'Horns' listening devices to detect approaching bombers?

KoN Civil Defense Forces in effect since 1917. MK equivalent built after van Seik got there and organized it. No ear trumpets yet. (working on it).

QuoteAnyhow, I just wanted to point out some things I have noticed regarding Air Combat and stats in the Chinese War.

Noted. It has looked more like the French front WW I in the air than you would expect because of all the blasted RRC aircraft. Its a miracle that there is an MK air force left.

As for training, well I included a hefty wartime training base as part of the MK OOB.