high altitude fields

[wantok]

hi all

i'm planning a terrain, to eventually be a candidate for the MA, which includes a number of high altitude fields.  i had planned to have a number of fields at 19-21k altitude, but after doing a bit of sanity testing, i think this alt is not practical for an MA airfield.

i figure each field needs to be low enough to allow a C-47 to take off, at a minimum, and preferably to allow all planes at least a few thousand feet of operating altitude above the field (the IL-2's ceiling is around 20k).  given the overall layout, it's not totally essential that heavy bombers be able to take off from the high altitude fields.

i noticed that, in the current MA terrains, it's rare for a field to be over 5k alt, and the highest field is 6.7k.

any ideas on this?  my latest thought is to have the highest fields at around 14-15k...

[NUTTZ]

Wantok, Not to Discourage you, But HiTech said in a previous post when asked what the basics are for a MA map, to submit a drawn out map with field placements strats etc, and send it off to them Before you waste your time building it.  HTC is very particular about the MA maps.

NUTTZ

[wantok]

thanks NUTTZ, i have actually submitted it to HTC and i'm awaiting feedback.

for terrain-heads' interest, my current plan is below.

it's called "gr8lakes", and it's based on a combination of two real-world geographic areas: the US/Canada Great Lakes region (the lake outlines), and a section of the Himalaya where it rises from the Indian plains (the elevations).

the three countries are divided by huge mountain ranges, except for the point in the centre where the lakes meet.

[NUTTZ]

Looks good sofar, But I'm not the one you have to please:)

One  thing I have noticed, and I really don't want to come off like a know it all. Something HiTech said to me recently has stuck, "if theres a flaw or bug, people WILL find it AND exploit it."
 Trust me on this one, If one side seams unbalanced from another, the WHINES will flow and flow they will! At the initial glance at this map I think it's pretty well balanced. I like the absence of fields farther back at each side, it looks like it will FORCE the 3 sides to fight in the center more and less fronts. BUT is this what is really wanted, or to spread out the fighting? Second whoever gets the lower part is FUBAR'D at the start with thier forward fields less than 5k with the other 2 enemies fields at 15k, "I" surely wouldn't want to be stuck down south. Also not sure if i Like the majority of the fields at 10K plus to start out.

Just my Take, Hope I don't offend, like i said it's not me you need to please.

NUTTZ

[wantok]

thanks for the feedback NUTTZ, much appreciated.

i should mention that the three mountain ranges have large, relatively flat plateaus (hence the existance of a vehicle base on each) at around 15k alt.

i guess the intention i have strategically is to encourage countries to spread their efforts across their borders, both in defending the central point (which i imagine would be a hellhole most of the time) and in campaigning to push forward on each mountain plateau.  for the very reasons you've mentioned, it will be much more effective to push forward across the mountain ranges on a wide front, to capture the high fields before taking the coastal areas.

another aspect is carrier ops.... i've placed almost all strategic targets so they're vulnerable to task groups.

[wantok]

i've created a web page for the gr8lakes terrain, with a bit of information on the techniques used to build it, and some further discussion of strategy aspects:

http://xomerang.com/ah/

i'll be updating the page as the plan changes, and eventually i should have a version available for download.

thanks again for taking the time to comment, NUTTZ.  and congrats on Tunisia - a beautiful piece of work.

[steely07]

Just wanted to welcome a fellow aussie to the game and board,the terrain looks like fun,as Nuttz as said though,it is very hard to get a terrain accepted by HTC,but i reckon you should build it anyway,it looks well thought out and also a lot of fun to fight in
 Keep up the good work
Steely

[Roscoroo]

your map here looks very playable ,one thing though is i noticed that you dont have very many large fields behind the front lines ,for the buffs.  i admit large fields are harder to take ...also take into effect that wind is gonna be added to any terrain used for a main . so the feild alts need to be stagered evenly for each side .(thats one place for a major advantage) im not really shure about fields above 7-8k  for a main map   I think u should ask befor u get carried away setting fields at 14k

Bring your map into the h2h rooms or set up a link to down load it from your site and I will host it and test it for you . if its that far along yet .

[wantok]

steely07 - cheers mate, good to see another aussie around, and thanks for the encouraging words.  i reckon it's gonna be a blast too... flying up and down these mountain valleys - and getting in and out of the fields -  is something else - looking forward to some dogfighting up there YSSY YSCB out

Roscoroo - thanks for the feedback, appreciate it, and i agree that the next thing that needs revising is the more gradual staggering of the field altitudes.  i really would like to keep some field alts up high if at all practical - though i might have to reduce the proportion of the highest fields.  

and thanks for the offer to test... it's not ready for that yet, but i'll be keeping the page updated, and as soon as it's playable i'll have it available for download for anyone that wants to play with it offline/h2h.

[hitech]

wanton:

The main arenas are changing shortly to a much larger maps including zones.

Very high fields do not work very well for takeoffs. Try take a loaded 17 or lanc up from that alt.

[Roscoroo]

I was sort of thinking a feild at 14 k  would be like taking off from the top of mount Rainier .Are we getting the Ski option for a planes soon ??? heres a link with a cool picture of mt Rainier and Saint Helens (befor it blew its top) it give's you a good idea whats up above 10k on mountian tops for the reality aspect.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/img_rainier.html

[wantok]

Roscoroo - i take your point though not all terrain at that altitude is quite like that.  for instance, the capital of Bolivia, La Paz, has its international airport at 13,313 feet.

here are a couple of pics of the city:
city and road to airport
view of the city

(though i believe that's the highest international airport in the world).

[wantok]

hitech,

thanks for taking the time to respond.

i assume the new, larger MA maps will be 512x512 miles?

i thought i'd do some testing of takeoffs from fields at various altitudes - here are the results.

all tests were done with full load (100% fuel, max loadout weight, airfield supplies for the goon).

i created fields at many different altitudes.  i checked both small and large fields due to their differing runway lengths.

i tested the Lancaster, B-17 and C-47 to find the max altitude at which they could take off, either in auto-takeoff mode or manually.  i fully raised flaps to gain max speed on the runway (without doing this, the Lanc and B-17 max alt using auto-takeoff is 1k at a large field, and they can't take off at sea level from a small field).

here are the highest altitudes (to the nearest thousand feet) at which takeoff is successful:

--- Lancaster ---
auto: 9k at large fields, 1k at small fields
manual: 9k at large fields, 1k at small fields

--- B-17 ---
auto: 9k at large fields, 4k at small fields
manual: 14k at large fields, 8k at small fields

--- C-47 ---
auto: 10k at large fields, 8k at small fields
manual: not sure, but very high... i took off successfully at a small field at 30k alt!

i conclude from this that large fields should be at 9k altitude max, and that small fields can be up to 8k (if we assume that planes should be able to auto-takeoff) to support a C-47 but not supporting bombers.

hmmm i should have done this in the first place.  guess i'll be modifying my terrain

[Roscoroo]

I thought of Peru after i posted .... too  I forgot that the southern hemisphere isnt as glaciered up as the northern is at and above 14k .
    how about vehicle hangars way up there guarding the passes ??? it would be a change from the low ones that are in the valleys in most of the maps we use now .