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.