|
|
Post by blarglol on Apr 22, 2024 10:51:21 GMT -6
I don't believe there is any practical difference to these designations. From what I can gather, they are mostly named based on proximity to the coast. Further inland are just airbases, while more coastal airfields are naval air stations.
I'm curious if there is a little more we could do with this? For example - how does an inland base have floatplanes or flying boats? Ever since the update that adds auto floatplanes to each installation, this is essentially forcing planes that shouldn't physically be there to exist.
Is there a way we could designate certain airfields only for certain types of aircraft, perhaps specialize installations? I mean, installations are essentially "ships" mechanically. They can take "rudder" damage and whatnot, so perhaps we can "rebuild" them to better fit certain purposes once the appropriate techs are unlocked. More oil storage, more AA defenses, more repair facilities, floatplane docks...things that are modular and increase the base effectiveness in certain areas for certain types of aircraft. Airbases inland could become hubs for medium bombers, while coastal installations could specialize in flying boats.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 22, 2024 13:35:34 GMT -6
I don't believe there is any practical difference to these designations. From what I can gather, they are mostly named based on proximity to the coast. Further inland are just airbases, while more coastal airfields are naval air stations. I'm curious if there is a little more we could do with this? For example - how does an inland base have floatplanes or flying boats? Ever since the update that adds auto floatplanes to each installation, this is essentially forcing planes that shouldn't physically be there to exist. Is there a way we could designate certain airfields only for certain types of aircraft, perhaps specialize installations? I mean, installations are essentially "ships" mechanically. They can take "rudder" damage and whatnot, so perhaps we can "rebuild" them to better fit certain purposes once the appropriate techs are unlocked. More oil storage, more AA defenses, more repair facilities, floatplane docks...things that are modular and increase the base effectiveness in certain areas for certain types of aircraft. Airbases inland could become hubs for medium bombers, while coastal installations could specialize in flying boats. Well, there is Lemoore Naval Air Station, Fallon NAS and Yuma MCAS which are not anywhere near the ocean. Just some of the ones I've been to. |
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Apr 22, 2024 18:39:58 GMT -6
I don't believe there is any practical difference to these designations. From what I can gather, they are mostly named based on proximity to the coast. Further inland are just airbases, while more coastal airfields are naval air stations. I'm curious if there is a little more we could do with this? For example - how does an inland base have floatplanes or flying boats? Ever since the update that adds auto floatplanes to each installation, this is essentially forcing planes that shouldn't physically be there to exist. Is there a way we could designate certain airfields only for certain types of aircraft, perhaps specialize installations? I mean, installations are essentially "ships" mechanically. They can take "rudder" damage and whatnot, so perhaps we can "rebuild" them to better fit certain purposes once the appropriate techs are unlocked. More oil storage, more AA defenses, more repair facilities, floatplane docks...things that are modular and increase the base effectiveness in certain areas for certain types of aircraft. Airbases inland could become hubs for medium bombers, while coastal installations could specialize in flying boats. Well, there is Lemoore Naval Air Station, Fallon NAS and Yuma MCAS which are not anywhere near the ocean. Just some of the ones I've been to. Hmmm, well wouldn't they be more exceptions to the rule for special purposes? By my understanding they all serve very specific purposes for those services. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 23, 2024 6:33:03 GMT -6
Well, there is Lemoore Naval Air Station, Fallon NAS and Yuma MCAS which are not anywhere near the ocean. Just some of the ones I've been to. Hmmm, well wouldn't they be more exceptions to the rule for special purposes? By my understanding they all serve very specific purposes for those services. The Navy likes Naval Air Stations that are far enough away from population centers in order to conduct flight operations, so does the Marines. This is why they are located where they are and they still can access supply ports. Fallon is the home of Top Gun and there is lots and lots of room to fly and drop bombs in the bombing range where they plot the bombings of each aircraft. Also these locations can be expanded easier because they are sparsely populated. Lemoore is the home of Commander Strike Wing Pacific and it has all kinds of F-18's.
Fallon is the home of the Navy's tactical air warfare training center. I was stationed there during Vietnam in the USAF. The air wings used fly to Fallon and practice bombing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 23, 2024 19:16:44 GMT -6
I don't believe there is any practical difference to these designations. From what I can gather, they are mostly named based on proximity to the coast. Further inland are just airbases, while more coastal airfields are naval air stations. I'm curious if there is a little more we could do with this? For example - how does an inland base have floatplanes or flying boats? Ever since the update that adds auto floatplanes to each installation, this is essentially forcing planes that shouldn't physically be there to exist. Is there a way we could designate certain airfields only for certain types of aircraft, perhaps specialize installations? I mean, installations are essentially "ships" mechanically. They can take "rudder" damage and whatnot, so perhaps we can "rebuild" them to better fit certain purposes once the appropriate techs are unlocked. More oil storage, more AA defenses, more repair facilities, floatplane docks...things that are modular and increase the base effectiveness in certain areas for certain types of aircraft. Airbases inland could become hubs for medium bombers, while coastal installations could specialize in flying boats. I'm pretty sure the difference was that naval air stations are airfields in home provinces and airbases are airfields everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Apr 24, 2024 16:03:24 GMT -6
I don't believe there is any practical difference to these designations. From what I can gather, they are mostly named based on proximity to the coast. Further inland are just airbases, while more coastal airfields are naval air stations. I'm curious if there is a little more we could do with this? For example - how does an inland base have floatplanes or flying boats? Ever since the update that adds auto floatplanes to each installation, this is essentially forcing planes that shouldn't physically be there to exist. Is there a way we could designate certain airfields only for certain types of aircraft, perhaps specialize installations? I mean, installations are essentially "ships" mechanically. They can take "rudder" damage and whatnot, so perhaps we can "rebuild" them to better fit certain purposes once the appropriate techs are unlocked. More oil storage, more AA defenses, more repair facilities, floatplane docks...things that are modular and increase the base effectiveness in certain areas for certain types of aircraft. Airbases inland could become hubs for medium bombers, while coastal installations could specialize in flying boats. I'm pretty sure the difference was that naval air stations are airfields in home provinces and airbases are airfields everywhere else. Italy definitely has both in it's home provinces, US I believe as well. |
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 24, 2024 16:20:34 GMT -6
I like the idea of this, but I feel like having to manage what upgrades you are giving each airfield is a lot of work for the NWS team not a ton of gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 24, 2024 16:50:10 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure the difference was that naval air stations are airfields in home provinces and airbases are airfields everywhere else. That is my understanding as well. Some nations have more than one home area. >>> The floatplane thing AFAIK needs you to actually assign floatplanes to the airbase. You can have up to have 12 floatplanes with no affect on the remaining capacity. Thats what Im seeing in my game. My real question is why wasn't something like that done for the naval patrol planes, the flying boats. That might have had too much game benefits though. It was true though people would sail a merchant ship as a workshop and supply store with the flying boats using the bay to land. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 24, 2024 17:15:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 24, 2024 20:16:18 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure the difference was that naval air stations are airfields in home provinces and airbases are airfields everywhere else. Italy definitely has both in it's home provinces, US I believe as well. I don't know about Italy but I just opened my US game and all the locations in US home areas are called naval air stations. Maine (Portland) is not considered a home area.
Also this is taken right out of the RtW2 manual
Not sure why that would change for RtW3
|
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 24, 2024 20:29:31 GMT -6
Is this really the most important point of discussion here? I assumed NAS and Airfield were random name changes to reflect a variety of airfield names. The suggestion was about having modular expansions for airbases, why are we arguing about naming conventions?
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 24, 2024 20:38:12 GMT -6
Is this really the most important point of discussion here? I assumed NAS and Airfield were random name changes to reflect a variety of airfield names. The suggestion was about having modular expansions for airbases, why are we arguing about naming conventions? I mean the whole premise of the original suggestion was based on the idea that Airfields were more inland than NASs. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that that is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 25, 2024 9:29:22 GMT -6
Just some information about this issue of Naval Air Stations and airfields. Naval Air Stations have both O-level and I-level maintenance. O-level you work on aircraft to identify and replace components that are faulty. . I-level then fixes those components that O-level send to them for repair, without ever touching an aircraft. O-level sails with the air wing, I-level doesn't. Airfields generally don't have this level of maintenance, just squadron level.
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 25, 2024 9:42:46 GMT -6
Just some information about this issue of Naval Air Stations and airfields. Naval Air Stations have both O-level and I-level maintenance. O-level you work on aircraft to identify and replace components that are faulty. . I-level then fixes those components that O-level send to them for repair, without ever touching an aircraft. O-level sails with the air wing, I-level doesn't. Airfields generally don't have this level of maintenance, just squadron level. Cool tidbit |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 25, 2024 9:45:29 GMT -6
Just some information about this issue of Naval Air Stations and airfields. Naval Air Stations have both O-level and I-level maintenance. O-level you work on aircraft to identify and replace components that are faulty. . I-level then fixes those components that O-level send to them for repair, without ever touching an aircraft. O-level sails with the air wing, I-level doesn't. Airfields generally don't have this level of maintenance, just squadron level. Cool tidbit There are also two Naval Air Depots. One on North Island and the other in Jacksonville. This is the most extensive maintenance done on aircraft. |
|
