Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Airfields Options · View
The Professor
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 4:00:17 AM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
For Dano.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
jodokus
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:47:28 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
why can has dano airfields and I notSad

King of Men
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:06:43 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
To recap: There is a rule against building airfields using the production queue; it should be done using the province interface. It is true that a better job might have been done of writing up a proper house-rules post in which this sort of thing was listed, but we definitely did adopt that rule.

Now, it turns out that one cannot use the province mechanism to build airfields in the provinces of allies. What, if anything, ought to be done about this?

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
Gollevainen
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:43:14 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,234
Location: "I need zoo love!"
IMO we should allow building airstrips in production queue but be able only to deploy them on provinces at the same rate as it would take if you build them in one serials in the province. That way you wont be mass deploying them but could still build them on your allies soil.





Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
jodokus
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:56:44 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
I say, allow them. If enemy spams level 10 airfield rigth next to you, be ready to spam your own, or build airforces good enough that it doesen't matter. level 10 airfield deployed straigth from the que takes little bit over week to actually get to the strength it is... building similar good level Airfield in real life can be achieved in same time (10 airfields means 20 IC), it just needs good builders and military dicipline.

All I need is that everyone knows what is allowed and what not and would accept the outcome of the things the game allows you to do, even if they have not anticipated such moves by themselves. Only thing IMO should be banned are the empty Capital encirclement, Para exploid and the single HQ exploit.

BlitzMartinDK
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:43:15 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/13/2011
Posts: 628
Location: Denmark
Gollevainen wrote:
IMO we should allow building airstrips in production queue but be able only to deploy them on provinces at the same rate as it would take if you build them in one serials in the province. That way you wont be mass deploying them but could still build them on your allies soil.



not controllable in praxis.

Why SHOULD you be able to build airstrips in allied territory?

Can you build arírfields on occupied territory?

Can you deploy airfields in allied territory? -that seems strange somehow!

...those finished airstrips in que : Don't they eat a lot of TC?
Gollevainen
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52:06 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,234
Location: "I need zoo love!"
You can build airfields on occupied territory and yes it all logical to build them on your allied lands. Imagine punch of sturdy american engineers building stuff somewhere in like Belgium or Netherlands...



Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
danomite
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:12:46 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Outright banning the placement of airfields, in hindsight might have been an overly excessive.
The main purpose of the rules is to prevent instant really high level airfields.

Some, not entirely aware of the rules or who forgot about the rules, have produced airfields and are now eating into TC, and are a waste.
Thus I propose something something a tad more reasonable.

- You have the option to deploy the first level of an airfield from your deployment que, everything past the level 1 should be built by the province interface.

This would cover hastily built airfields in combat situations, but it also wouldn't be an instant international airport.
This allows allies to deploy the first airfield and let the nation owning/occupying the land improve it via the province interface later on as they see fit.

Thoughts?

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
Gollevainen
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:16:32 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,234
Location: "I need zoo love!"
Could work but what if your ally is low IC nation that simply cannot build airfields on its own and has to rely on his stronger allies to send help?




Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
jodokus
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:30:16 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
don't change the rules midgame but deem the insigth of these thoughts for the next one.

oddman
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:33:02 PM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,830
Location: Netherlands
Possible exploit: instantly blanketing an area in lvl-1 airfields.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:50:34 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Kinda does the person doing it no good, level 1 airfields can't sustain large scale air operations.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
danomite
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:10:25 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Blanketing the area like blayne says does little good if you actually want your planes to ever be in the air.
And on changing the rules, I have no problem changing the rules to make things better as we go and realize that things can be better.

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:23:10 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Make it so that airfields need to be deployed right away?

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
danomite
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:23:38 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
The Professor wrote:
Make it so that airfields need to be deployed right away?
and what if Germany decides to build 10 airfields in parallel, we get back to the original problem were trying to avoid.

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:13:15 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Make it so only one series.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
danomite
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:21:53 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Making sure only 1 is placed is alot easier for the otherside in that it is something that can be done within the constraints of the rules. Checking someones build que on other hand is not...

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
Irsh Faq
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:03:37 PM
 Primus pilus
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/29/2009
Posts: 1,640
Location: Ipswich, Massachusetts
Well there are basically two possible exploits or semi-exploits with the airfield thing (or at least, two that we had in mind when we made the houserule).

First is supplying amphibious forces. AOD added some mechanics to simulate the supply needs of amphibious invasions; in order to supply a beachhead long-term, either a deep water port or an airfield is needed. Without this, you get ESE 10% for your landing forces so they will eventually have to operate at a low supply once they run down their initial stockpiles. Instadeploying a port/airfield on a landing beach avoids the need to capture a deep water port as even an unrepaired port/airfield will instantly shoot up your units' ESE.

The second exploity thing is constructing an instant lv 10 base on the front lines.

There are a couple alternate forms of the houserule that might be able to address the exploits without preventing one from building in allied territory; for example, it could be made illegal to deploy from the queue in provinces that border any enemy-held province (avoids front-line instabases) or in lands that are occupied but not owned (avoids insta-deepwater ports). However, I suspect it really doesn't matter that much; nobody can't afford to build an airfield serial.

Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Pharaoh of Alexandria, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, Bhatara of Java and Sumatra, Archduke of Australia, Captain of the Cape of Storms, Autocrat of Carthage, Sea Lord of the East Pacific, Caliph of Baghdad, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant.
danomite
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:27:14 AM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Right forgot about the landing issue.

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
Mighty G
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:39:22 AM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 12/3/2007
Posts: 2,218
Location: Land of the Bunyip
As the outsider looking in, and as a member of a group of players who also struck problems with deployment of airfields ill say this:

Plopping 1 airfield or navalbase, shouldnt really be an issue. The allies had premade port barges and engineers could build sizeable airfields quite fast (case and point japan v usa at guadalcanal).

However having also seen the ugly side (germans landing somewhere and plopping 10 airfield for insta air dominance), very game breaking.

I would suggest this. Deploying 1 airfield or naval base in home territories (those allready owned and core) shouldnt be an issue. Deploying in such a fasion to occupied enemy or friendly territories should. They should be built up.

This way you are forced to fight for airbases and ports (just like it should be). But at least there is some flexibility for deploying in home provinces.

Flexibility in the rules is key to keeping a game fluid and with consequence/reaction.




Just my thoughts.



EDIT* also having players with some common sense on warfighting and logistics you wont have this problem, fight it likes a real war, and always ask your allies advise followed by the GM if your unsure................



If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

danomite
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:06:11 AM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I am adjusting the rule to this:

-In Peace, you can deploy up to lvl 1 airfield on your owned provinces. (aka not occupied)
In War add that the province being deployed to does not border the enemy or are blockaded in the case of islands.
To build beyond lvl1 do it through the province interface.


This allows one to setup makeshift airfields in their own home nations that are not on the immediate front-lines.



It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
BlitzMartinDK
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:47:43 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/13/2011
Posts: 628
Location: Denmark
danomite wrote:
I am adjusting the rule to this:

-In Peace, you can deploy up to lvl 1 airfield on your owned provinces. (aka not occupied)
In War add that the province being deployed to does not border the enemy or are blockaded in the case of islands.
To build beyond lvl1 do it through the province interface.


This allows one to setup makeshift airfields in their own home nations that are not on the immediate front-lines.



..so in home country you can deploy a level 1 airbase somewhere that is cutoff from capital? or does game still prevent this?
Mighty G
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:13:45 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 12/3/2007
Posts: 2,218
Location: Land of the Bunyip
Youve always been able to deploy to non capital linked cores. The province just needs to have supplies in it to do it.

eg, USA deploying an airbase in samoa. As long as samoa has at least 1 supply in the province it will allow you to plonk it (same for navalbases).


Having said that. Im talking of hoi2 and not aod. Aod might be different.



If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

Mighty G
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:17:36 PM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 12/3/2007
Posts: 2,218
Location: Land of the Bunyip
By the way what was the japanese players name here on ederons?

I would like to aprise them of the current situation for Japan, and of the circumstances to how they have arrived at there current situation (lost ships, changed build cue, future build suggestions). This way he can make a better decision on what to do as he sees fit.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.