Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers

[Don Bowen]

Let me repeat that:
Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers.

The game considers a carrier air group to be an entity and has logic to alter its composition over time. This reflects the historical changes that were made to airgroup composition.

In order for this logic to work, the carrier air group MUST be intact and MUST be on it's home carrier. This routine works well if you do not alter the parameters that it uses. If you move a squadron to a different carrier you risk upsetting these calculations and having rather unusual sizes calculated as a result.

I understand that it is perfectly historical for squadrons to move between carriers. But the game logic will simply not support it and if you do it you are just beating your head against the wall.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Let me repeat that:
Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers.

The game considers a carrier air group to be an entity and has logic to alter its composition over time. This reflects the historical changes that were made to airgroup composition.

In order for this logic to work, the carrier air group MUST be intact and MUST be on it's home carrier. This routine works well if you do not alter the parameters that it uses. If you move a squadron to a different carrier you risk upsetting these calculations and having rather unusual sizes calculated as a result.

I understand that it is perfectly historical for squadrons to move between carriers. But the game logic will simply not support it and if you do it you are just beating your head against the wall.

Hi Don,

So @ the beginning of the full war scenarios Japan has a small carrier (I can't remember which one) that has no aircraft on it. I'm free to put any zeroes and TBs on her - right?

Also, is the "Do Not Move" order just for allies?

[witpqs]

Don, in an RHS scenario there is a Brit carrier that has room for about 12-14 more a/c. There are FAA units (that begin ashore) that I can move aboard. Is it okay to move one on board?

And I have the same question as 1eyedjacks: what about empty carriers like the Long Island? Can we move planes on board?

[Akos Gergely]

Well it is Ok to do not intentionally move CV squads over to ther CVs, but what if the computer does it for me when for exampla a CV is damaged and it's planes are diverting to other CVs....

BTW I hate this routine because it very frequently overloads undamaged carriers and deprives them their attack capability in the afternoon phase...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Let me repeat that:
Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers.

The game considers a carrier air group to be an entity and has logic to alter its composition over time. This reflects the historical changes that were made to airgroup composition.

In order for this logic to work, the carrier air group MUST be intact and MUST be on it's home carrier. This routine works well if you do not alter the parameters that it uses. If you move a squadron to a different carrier you risk upsetting these calculations and having rather unusual sizes calculated as a result.

I understand that it is perfectly historical for squadrons to move between carriers. But the game logic will simply not support it and if you do it you are just beating your head against the wall.

This means for the Japanese that after one bigger CV battle they never ever have operational CVs because they can´t train their pilots again. Though I must admit that I never had problems with moving them to an airbase (hoping this stays so).

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Let me repeat that:
Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers.

The game considers a carrier air group to be an entity and has logic to alter its composition over time. This reflects the historical changes that were made to airgroup composition.

In order for this logic to work, the carrier air group MUST be intact and MUST be on it's home carrier. This routine works well if you do not alter the parameters that it uses. If you move a squadron to a different carrier you risk upsetting these calculations and having rather unusual sizes calculated as a result.

I understand that it is perfectly historical for squadrons to move between carriers. But the game logic will simply not support it and if you do it you are just beating your head against the wall.

This means for the Japanese that after one bigger CV battle they never ever have operational CVs because they can´t train their pilots again.

The training function works aboard carriers. And you can disband trained chutais or fragments into carrier air groups if they use the same plane-type.

[JeffroK]

Don,
 
To confirm, Is it OK to move your squadrons to a shore base and then back to the original CV?  This would cover rebasing due to damage.   My understanding is that you shouldnt change the CV they are based on??

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Let me repeat that:
Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers.

The game considers a carrier air group to be an entity and has logic to alter its composition over time. This reflects the historical changes that were made to airgroup composition.

In order for this logic to work, the carrier air group MUST be intact and MUST be on it's home carrier. This routine works well if you do not alter the parameters that it uses. If you move a squadron to a different carrier you risk upsetting these calculations and having rather unusual sizes calculated as a result.

I understand that it is perfectly historical for squadrons to move between carriers. But the game logic will simply not support it and if you do it you are just beating your head against the wall.

This means for the Japanese that after one bigger CV battle they never ever have operational CVs because they can´t train their pilots again.

The training function works aboard carriers. And you can disband trained chutais or fragments into carrier air groups if they use the same plane-type.

I know the training function works also on carriers. Problem is the training function is for "§!"§$***%" in the game. I know how long it takes to train a pilot in real life but with the aircombat in the game the training function is just....

And I don´t use the disband fragments into other daitais at all. If I should use that why aren´t there training daitais??

Just look at Andy Macs game against PzB! Even as the Allied Andy runs out of Navy pilots! If he uses the training mission he has to stop his offensive supported by carriers for a year if he still loses the same amount of Navy pilots.

PBEMs aren´t fun for me if one side has no pilots left (well, they have pilots in the 30s and 40s). As the Allied player I don´t need to train my pilots (I´ve got enough of them). As the Japanese player I need to train them because there aren´t any left in mid 42....

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi Don,

So @ the beginning of the full war scenarios Japan has a small carrier (I can't remember which one) that has no aircraft on it. I'm free to put any zeroes and TBs on her - right?

Also, is the "Do Not Move" order just for allies?

Yes, If a carrier has no air group you can place squadrons aboard it IF THE SQUADRONS DO NOT COME FROM ANOTHER CARRIER. If the squadrons do come from another carrier they will resize strangely. You may be able to live with this.

The same functions are used for both Japanese and Allied. However, Japanese carrier air groups are less complex and the resizing difficulties less dramatic.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Don, in an RHS scenario there is a Brit carrier that has room for about 12-14 more a/c. There are FAA units (that begin ashore) that I can move aboard. Is it okay to move one on board?

...

Maybe. One can probably get away with moving an additional squadron aboard a British carrier that originally has only one or two squadrons. Again, if the squadron comes from another carrier the resizing routine will get confused.

Don't know RHS all that well but I would assume that the resizing routines would adjust the carrier's air group to/near capacity without moving extra aircraft aboard.

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Well it is Ok to do not intentionally move CV squads over to ther CVs, but what if the computer does it for me when for exampla a CV is damaged and it's planes are diverting to other CVs....

BTW I hate this routine because it very frequently overloads undamaged carriers and deprives them their attack capability in the afternoon phase...

I'm not too fond of this routine myself. But that is a separate issue.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

This means for the Japanese that after one bigger CV battle they never ever have operational CVs because they can´t train their pilots again. Though I must admit that I never had problems with moving them to an airbase (hoping this stays so).

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

The training function works aboard carriers. And you can disband trained chutais or fragments into carrier air groups if they use the same plane-type.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Don,

To confirm, Is it OK to move your squadrons to a shore base and then back to the original CV? This would cover rebasing due to damage. My understanding is that you shouldnt change the CV they are based on??

You can indeed move squadrons ashore for training and they will "remember" that they are part of the carrier's airgroup. They will not grow excessively and can be placed back on the carrier. This used to be a problem but was addressed sometime in the 1.8 update cycle. The same "home carrier link" that is a problem in resizing is what makes this work.

[castor troy]

[/quote]

You can indeed move squadrons ashore for training and they will "remember" that they are part of the carrier's airgroup. They will not grow excessively and can be placed back on the carrier. This used to be a problem but was addressed sometime in the 1.8 update cycle. The same "home carrier link" that is a problem in resizing is what makes this work.




[/quote]


pfffuhhh! That makes my day!
THX [&o]

[Andy Mac]

I take the risk I pay the price if a carrier sqn goes gaga so be it I cannot restrict my flexibility that way.
 
Apart from anything else the respawn routine seems to dislike respawing fighter sunk carriers fighter sqns so I will transfer them about and pay the price by doing so.
 
Anyway its amazing the new cursewords you can come up with when it happens to your only carrier trained Corsair Sqn in mid 43 !!!!
 
Andy

[Honda]

Here's two questions from a JFB? Both cases understand that the '42 airgroup resizing has taken place.
1. Is it viable to transfer airgroups among CVs of the same class? Let's say Hiryu is sunk and airgroups survive. The airgroups are then transfered to Soryu after it has had its airgroups depleted in battle?
2. Is it viable to transfer the airgroups to another CV of a different class that has the same airgroup size "setting". Eg. Hiryu is still sunk. The airgroups survive and are transfered to Unryu?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Honda

Here's two questions from a JFB? Both cases understand that the '42 airgroup resizing has taken place.
1. Is it viable to transfer airgroups among CVs of the same class? Let's say Hiryu is sunk and airgroups survive. The airgroups are then transfered to Soryu after it has had its airgroups depleted in battle?
2. Is it viable to transfer the airgroups to another CV of a different class that has the same airgroup size "setting". Eg. Hiryu is still sunk. The airgroups survive and are transfered to Unryu?

YES!

A carrier air group is an entity. If it is intact, it can be on any carrier (and will resize to fit on the carrier).

In fact, you make a good point. I should have labeled this thread "Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers unless you transfer the entire airgroup to completely replace the airgroup of another, same type carrier of the same nation". Same type being CV, CVL, CVE.

You can also usually get away with trading squadrons of the same type between same carriers. That is, taking the VB squadron off of Carrier X and replacing the VB squadron from Carrier Y.

Where you get in trouble is mixing the types or adding additional squadrons. Many people want to "up-fighter" by adding a second fighter squadron to one carrier - usually taking it from another carrier that has been damaged or lost. This just does not work - the routines will get confused by the "extra" squadron and adjust squadron sizes incorrectly.

There are a number of things about this process that are "right". It correctly processes changes in carrier group composition over time, prevents overly "gamey" restructuring of carrier air groups (every player wants a 100% fighter carrier by January, 1942), and adjusts the carrier air group to properly fit on it's carrier (even if the carrier's capacity changes by upgrade).

[Honda]

Thanks Dan! This is a very wellcomed piece of info.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


every player wants a 100% fighter carrier by January, 1942)'

Not true, I just want...say a half dozen F-14s and another half dozen F/A-18s.

Flipper

P.S. And an armored flight deck.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Honda

Thanks Dan! This is a very wellcomed piece of info.

You're welcome, Handa.

[ctangus]

Thanks for the info Don! [:)] I have two questions:

1. From what I've read, ferry flights should be safe. Specifically in one game both Enterprise and Hornet are floating, but are burned-out hulks. Their entire airgroups are safely ashore. I want to, squadron by squadron, fly them onto Long Island, sail a few days, and then fly them to (confidential location). Is this safe, as long as I never disband Long Island in port?

2. I've read Michaelm's testing results, but is there any more insight you can give on when and under what circumstances airgroups will re-size? Does damage to a carrier matter? Again a specific - in the same game - mid-June '42 - Lexington's limping a little bit (32 sys) - will she need to be repaired before her squadrons undergo the mid-'42 re-size? Or will they do so as soon as they're in a large repair port, with HQ, etc.

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Not true, I just want...say a half dozen F-14s and another half dozen F/A-18s.

Flipper

P.S. And an armored flight deck.

An Aegis-class cruiser or 2 for AA protection...

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: ctangus


An Aegis-class cruiser or 2 for AA protection...

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

We can skip the the cruisers, if something gets by the F-14s so be it. That is life.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

I have two questions:

1. From what I've read, ferry flights should be safe. Specifically in one game both Enterprise and Hornet are floating, but are burned-out hulks. Their entire airgroups are safely ashore. I want to, squadron by squadron, fly them onto Long Island, sail a few days, and then fly them to (confidential location). Is this safe, as long as I never disband Long Island in port?

To protect against resizing while on the Long Island, set the squadrons to "No Replacements".

2. I've read Michaelm's testing results, but is there any more insight you can give on when and under what circumstances airgroups will re-size? Does damage to a carrier matter? Again a specific - in the same game - mid-June '42 - Lexington's limping a little bit (32 sys) - will she need to be repaired before her squadrons undergo the mid-'42 re-size? Or will they do so as soon as they're in a large repair port, with HQ, etc.

Special rules come in when the carrier exceeds 50% damage. Other than that, resizings happen at mid 42, early and late 43, late 44 and early 45. Exactly when is varied with random numbers.

[ctangus]

Thanks!

One final question, hope you don't mind. My two 99 sys-damaged CVs won't be less than 50 in a looong time. Early '43 if I'm lucky. They, and their groups, are going to miss the mid-'42 re-sizing. Will they be borked or is it more similiar to ship upgrades, where you can skip one upgrade & still get the next?