Transfer of Air units

[langley]

Will either or both of the games aloud you to transfer Squadrons or figther Groups from one command to another. If not could it be added at a future release.

MJT

[Hard Sarge]

Lots of debates on the pro and con of this

over all, it is too early to say if we willor won't be able to

[langley]

Thanks for the reply I will just have to keep my fingers crossed.

MJT

[Justascratch]

Would it be possible to consider something other than all or nothing? Perhaps 15% of your total air assets over a given period of time . . .

[jcjordan]

How about a min # to be left in command? IIRC from the old SSI Fighter Command there were min # of squadrons that had to be left in the command but you could transfer up to that min # out. There was many a time I only had a few badly beat up units left in 13 Group & let them have several days off with nothing to do with everthing else in 11 Group.

[harley]

so far, JCJ your suggestion is the only one that makes sense.

I mislike the whole idea of being able to move units willy-nilly, even at increased cost, but being forced to keep a minimum might make it workable.

Part of the problem/reason for not being in favour of it, is that we have seperate commands for varied reasons. Whether it's to assist in targetting and specialisation, or to represent the political constraints of the day, the commands perform an important part of the gameplay and historical accuracy.

Without the commands, we just get a whole lotta units in 2TAC so they can be on the continent, or a whole lotta units in Fighter Command so they can avoid 2TAC mandatory targetting...

[von Shagmeister]

Because the whole air war is not modelled then certain threats don't exist in the game. Because of this there are an abundance of units for the player to use against occupied Europe with out having to worry about countering a threat that doesn't exist in the game but did in real life.

For example in real life the majority of Allied Nightfighter units were on defensive duties to counter Luftwaffe intruders where as in BTR the player can use his nightfighter Sqns exclusively over Europe without worrying about defending his own territory. With the exception of a few dedicated intruder Sqns (141 Sqn, 418 RCAF Sqn) most nightfighter units didn't venture over Europe. Some had intruder flights set up the purpose. This was one of the reasons for JC cutting the size of some nightfighter Sqns down to a flight (and to save slots).

As JCJ suggests some minimum must be left in the various Groups/Commands in order to abstractly represent assets that must be deployed to counter a threat that existed, even though it doesn't in the game. Sarge and I had a discussion about this a couple of days ago (which units to include and which to exclude).

[harley]

So what you are saying is that it should be a free for all, but units that were never offensive should be taken out of the game? If the whole air war isn't modelled, it makes sense not to have the units involved in that part of the war in the game.

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: harley

So what you are saying is that it should be a free for all, but units that were never offensive should be taken out of the game? If the whole air war isn't modelled, it makes sense not to have the units involved in that part of the war in the game.

I'm not saying it should be a free for all, how do you get that from what I said? I'm saying the opposite, some method must be found to keep units to counter a threat that isn't in the game but was in real life. I would advocate removing units that aren't involved in the the parts of the air war modelled by the game. The problem lies in the fact had units regularly rotated into and out of active/passive areas, changed roles etc.

[harley]

Sorry, VS, I was baiting...

I'd rather take the rest of this discussion private, now, as what I want to say would go into NDA territory...

JCJ's idea is still the best I've heard...

[von Shagmeister]

JCJ's idea is still the best I've heard...

I agree

[fochinell]

ORIGINAL: harley
Part of the problem/reason for not being in favour of it, is that we have seperate commands for varied reasons. Whether it's to assist in targetting and specialisation, or to represent the political constraints of the day, the commands perform an important part of the gameplay and historical accuracy.

Without the commands, we just get a whole lotta units in 2TAC so they can be on the continent, or a whole lotta units in Fighter Command so they can avoid 2TAC mandatory targetting...

My tuppence-worth:

Fair point, but on the other hand the seperate forces impose an inflexibility that wasn't there historically, e.g. FC and 9th AF units being used to escort 8th AF raids. Allowing a filter for escorting bombing raids (including/excluding fighter units from other commands from the list of available escorts) would allow the historical use of escorts from different forces, while continuing mandatory targeting discipline on the bombing attacks from the different commands.

As for the movement between commands, either a minimum unit level or maybe a game controlled movement (like the 12th AF - 15th AF transfer) by unit, such as the first Mustang group in the 9th AF (354th FG) arriving in the 8th AF until transferring to the 9th AF the pre-D-Day period, and oddities like the Tempest and Spit XIV sqns remaining in FC until September 1944 and then transferring to 2 TAF. But that is hellishly complicated compared to a straight minimum.

[langley]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

How about a min # to be left in command? IIRC from the old SSI Fighter Command there were min # of squadrons that had to be left in the command but you could transfer up to that min # out. There was many a time I only had a few badly beat up units left in 13 Group & let them have several days off with nothing to do with everthing else in 11 Group.

I must admit I do like this idea! How about 12 Squadrons / or 4 US Fighter Groups as minimun.

MJT