Carrier Air Group Re-Size - Major Bug

[witpqs]

In a game (versus the AI) at 1/6/43 I just noticed that on all six US fleet carriers the air groups have re-sized to inoperable levels. For example, on the Lex & Sara the air group is now 32-32-32-16. On the Yorktown's and Wasp the groups are a bit smaller, but still so large as to be inoperable.

I have a save of the way it is now, but not a 'before' save.

FYI, this is an RHS EOS scenario, but the air groups on the carriers are all 'WITP normal' (four squadrons with normal names) because I modified them to normal configuration before starting this game.

[Yamato hugger]

No such thing as this kind of bug in a modded game. They wont even look at it. Its a mod bug.

[jumper]

It is happening also in stock. In my game two of the Hornets squadrons resized themselves to 4 planes each. It happened when I had Hornet in drydocks and its planes was operating from Attu and Omnetokan AF. Devastator squadron resized aboard CVE Long Island during ferry form Attu to Omnetokan Jima. I´m not sure when was resized SBD squadron, but I thing it was also aboard CVE Long Island..
I used to live with that bug (I´m lying - nearly thrown the comp out of the window when I saw it [;)]). That is the risk for using CV planes as LBA.
Maybe it is more common in MODS, but it definively strikes in stock too..

[jwilkerson]

The re-size logic assumes the squadrons are aboard their assigned carriers, if they are not, then you get the types of results you are seeing. This is why Don Bowen's first rule of resize problem avoidance is "do not take the planes off the carriers" (at least not voluntarily - or if you do so - accept the risks).

I'd be happy just to take the whole resize thing out - but some like its "historical" flavor. But it comes with the caveat that putting the planes aboard smaller carriers can result in resizing for the smaller carrier as happened to you (and it has happened to me as well!)

[Cpt Sherwood]

I think Don said you could move them to a base, but never, never put them on any other CV/CVL/CVE but the one they came with. Transporting them using a CVE will cause problems, almost a guarantee. I think you can fly them ashore and use them with no ill affects but put them back on the carrier they started on or [:@]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

I think you can fly them ashore and use them with no ill affects but put them back on the carrier they started on or [:@]

No - if you take them off their original carrier and put them on shore, bad things can (not necessarily will, but can) start to happen soon after moving them... take it from one who found out the hard way... [:(]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

I think Don said you could move them to a base, but never, never put them on any other CV/CVL/CVE but the one they came with. Transporting them using a CVE will cause problems, almost a guarantee. I think you can fly them ashore and use them with no ill affects but put them back on the carrier they started on or [:@]

I've been one of the biggest "Challengers" of "Don's Rules" on this - since from my first playing, even in UV days I loved to swap carrier air units around and make big messes. I have not (knock knock) had any problems with air groups ashore and I do it all the time for training. But I did have a problem recently when I ferried the Hiyo air group down to Truk aboard the Unyo. Now all the Hiyo groups have 10 max planes and 17 pilots. Now that the air group is "properly" aboard the Hiyo I'm hoping one day they will convert back. Otherwise I guess it was the new installation of the Lemonade plant that caused the hanger to lose 40% of its space!! [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The re-size logic assumes the squadrons are aboard their assigned carriers, if they are not, then you get the types of results you are seeing. This is why Don Bowen's first rule of resize problem avoidance is "do not take the planes off the carriers" (at least not voluntarily - or if you do so - accept the risks).

Joe,

You are mistakenly assuming I screwed this up somehow. I didn't.

I have saved (in a separate directory) the exact scenario files that I used to start this game. I will give them to you along with the save game. Some points:

- At no time whatsoever during the entire game were any of the squadrons removed from the carriers.

- Each carrier has four squadrons (F-DB-DB-TB).

- Each squadron has the standard names (VF-VB-VS-VT). [Maybe I got the order wrong, it could be (VF-VS-VB-VT).]

- This is an AI-runs-Japan game in which the AI has been mightily anemic. As such, the carriers have not even left Pearl Harbor for months. I have done nothing that could even be remotely interpreted as causing this or aiding it in any way.

I'd be happy just to take the whole resize thing out - but some like its "historical" flavor. But it comes with the caveat that putting the planes aboard smaller carriers can result in resizing for the smaller carrier as happened to you (and it has happened to me as well!)

As far as this goes, I am unsure how a re-size could still occur on a smaller carrier if you take out the whole re-size thing. Could you explain that a little more?

I too was happy with the re-size thing - when it worked! I have had these catastrophic re-size issues in the past too, and I have never been taking squadrons off of carriers.

I have seen catastrophic re-sizes where some days or weeks later, another re-size took place that fixed the air groups. This is still terrible, because it wrecks the carrier air groups for several weeks.

If you are looking for suggestions on replacing the current re-sizing routine, then I suggest a manual re-size routine. Place a button (active only for air units on a carrier) on the air unit screen that brings up an 'Adjust Max Unit Size' screen. The screen has two buttons, one to increase Max Size by 1, the other to reduce Max Size by 1.

In addition, a button is needed on the air unit screen that will be active for all air groups (including land-based) to 'Return Excess Planes' to the pool. There are still one or more bugs in the transfer-to-base routines that result in a squadron having aircraft above and beyond the Max. Having such a button will allow players to fix this when it happens (and to complete a 'manual re-sizing' as outlined above).

Yes, I know one objection is that players will be able to cheat. Players can cheat in plenty of ways already. Players can cheat in plenty of ways anyway, this won't really change any of that.

As far as historical play goes, there can be house rules about when and how things get re-sized. That would actually allow much more historical accuracy than is possible under the current, generic routines. Number, mix, and size of squadrons could be done as they really were.

One last thing. Because the British carriers do not historically have the same number and type of squadrons as the American carriers, the generic re-size routine works very poorly for them and usually penalizes them.

Thanks for your reply. Please consider this and trust me, I did not screw this up. I'll send you that email.

[wdolson]

US carrier groups should change in January 1943.  They standard mix of VF, VB, VS, and VT should change to VF, VB, and VT.  I believe the new mix should be 36 fighters, 36 dive bombers, and 18 torpedo planes on the Lexington and Yorktown class.  The Wasp has a lightly smaller air group.  It sounds like the game didn't eliminate the VS squadron for some reason and things got screwed up. 

As an experiment, you could try taking the VS squadron off the carrier and see what happens.

Bill

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The re-size logic assumes the squadrons are aboard their assigned carriers, if they are not, then you get the types of results you are seeing. This is why Don Bowen's first rule of resize problem avoidance is "do not take the planes off the carriers" (at least not voluntarily - or if you do so - accept the risks).

Joe,

You are mistakenly assuming I screwed this up somehow. I didn't.

I have saved (in a separate directory) the exact scenario files that I used to start this game. I will give them to you along with the save game. Some points:

- At no time whatsoever during the entire game were any of the squadrons removed from the carriers.

- Each carrier has four squadrons (F-DB-DB-TB).

- Each squadron has the standard names (VF-VB-VS-VT). [Maybe I got the order wrong, it could be (VF-VS-VB-VT).]

- This is an AI-runs-Japan game in which the AI has been mightily anemic. As such, the carriers have not even left Pearl Harbor for months. I have done nothing that could even be remotely interpreted as causing this or aiding it in any way.

I'd be happy just to take the whole resize thing out - but some like its "historical" flavor. But it comes with the caveat that putting the planes aboard smaller carriers can result in resizing for the smaller carrier as happened to you (and it has happened to me as well!)

As far as this goes, I am unsure how a re-size could still occur on a smaller carrier if you take out the whole re-size thing. Could you explain that a little more?

I too was happy with the re-size thing - when it worked! I have had these catastrophic re-size issues in the past too, and I have never been taking squadrons off of carriers.

I have seen catastrophic re-sizes where some days or weeks later, another re-size took place that fixed the air groups. This is still terrible, because it wrecks the carrier air groups for several weeks.

If you are looking for suggestions on replacing the current re-sizing routine, then I suggest a manual re-size routine. Place a button (active only for air units on a carrier) on the air unit screen that brings up an 'Adjust Max Unit Size' screen. The screen has two buttons, one to increase Max Size by 1, the other to reduce Max Size by 1.

In addition, a button is needed on the air unit screen that will be active for all air groups (including land-based) to 'Return Excess Planes' to the pool. There are still one or more bugs in the transfer-to-base routines that result in a squadron having aircraft above and beyond the Max. Having such a button will allow players to fix this when it happens (and to complete a 'manual re-sizing' as outlined above).

Yes, I know one objection is that players will be able to cheat. Players can cheat in plenty of ways already. Players can cheat in plenty of ways anyway, this won't really change any of that.

As far as historical play goes, there can be house rules about when and how things get re-sized. That would actually allow much more historical accuracy than is possible under the current, generic routines. Number, mix, and size of squadrons could be done as they really were.

One last thing. Because the British carriers do not historically have the same number and type of squadrons as the American carriers, the generic re-size routine works very poorly for them and usually penalizes them.

Thanks for your reply. Please consider this and trust me, I did not screw this up. I'll send you that email.

Actually I was responding to jumper! I did not assume you screwed anything up. Don't think he did either, he just suffered from the same re-size issue that many of us have.

===

If we take out the re-size then it would not happen. But I'm speaking hypothetically here - I doubt we will. I'm the only one I know advocating for that.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Actually I was responding to jumper! I did not assume you screwed anything up. Don't think he did either, he just suffered from the same re-size issue that many of us have.

Oops - sorry. [&o]

If we take out the re-size then it would not happen. But I'm speaking hypothetically here - I doubt we will. I'm the only one I know advocating for that.

Count me in - take out the auto re-size and put a manual one in its place. I've seen others on the forum say so too. I know el cid wants the auto re-size out. I'm sure there are others.

Say the word and we'll rise up with torches in hand ... eh, you get the idea.

Maybe if you post a poll of players on the forum: Describe the proposition for manual, and ask Auto (current) vs. Manual (proposed)?

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Actually I was responding to jumper! I did not assume you screwed anything up. Don't think he did either, he just suffered from the same re-size issue that many of us have.

Oops - sorry. [&o]

If we take out the re-size then it would not happen. But I'm speaking hypothetically here - I doubt we will. I'm the only one I know advocating for that.

Count me in - take out the auto re-size and put a manual one in its place. I've seen others on the forum say so too. I know el cid wants the auto re-size out. I'm sure there are others.

Say the word and we'll rise up with torches in hand ... eh, you get the idea.

Maybe if you post a poll of players on the forum: Describe the proposition for manual, and ask Auto (current) vs. Manual (proposed)?

I would vote to leave it in. But polls discount too many players who are not active on the forums.

Be well,

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been one of the biggest "Challengers" of "Don's Rules" on this - since from my first playing, even in UV days I loved to swap carrier air units around and make big messes. I have not (knock knock) had any problems with air groups ashore and I do it all the time for training. But I did have a problem recently when I ferried the Hiyo air group down to Truk aboard the Unyo. Now all the Hiyo groups have 10 max planes and 17 pilots. Now that the air group is "properly" aboard the Hiyo I'm hoping one day they will convert back. Otherwise I guess it was the new installation of the Lemonade plant that caused the hanger to lose 40% of its space!! [:D]

I´m afraid they will not. This resize seems pretty pernament to me. I have tried all possible "tricks" I could come out - disband, withraw, put them back to their original carrier and then back to CVE Long Island or some other carrier in a hope the bug will strike again and THIS time will make them larger.. [;)] Nothing worked. It is not the first time it happened to me and they never "repaired".. The only think which could help is the historical resize which is planned for both sides at some date..

btw have anyone experienced the to have one unit resized twice?

I´m usually messing my CV/CVL airgroups a lot on both sides and must admit, that it is a rare occasion, when some of the unit is resized.. Never had a problem when a CV air unit was aboard other CV. Only when I transfered it to CVE and CVL. The same for CVL (or CVE). When I have transfered Hosho air groups aboard Kaga, they were resized to 1 plane each nearly immedietly (at least found an answer to a question if those Hosho airgroups can be more useless then they are.. [;)])..
Still I´m placing my groups on ground, I place them on other carriers and I´m ferrying them, becouse from hundreds of such transports I have experienced the resize bug only 3-4 times. That is acceptable ratio for better operational flexibility..

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jumper
btw have anyone experienced the to have one unit resized twice?

Yes, several times. The first time the air groups get so big that the carrier is unusable. The second time they get smaller so the carrier is usable.

And, I never mess around with the carrier air groups the way you described - and it still happens to me.

[witpqs]

Joe,

Here's an update. Two additional re-sizes have taken place.

- One of the squadrons of DB's on each carrier got smaller, but the carriers were still all out of commission.

- Later, that squadron of DB's on each carrier went back to being (just about) double-size. The carriers are still shut down (there's no such thing as 'more dead', right?).

Do you want the save games from these?

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

And, I never mess around with the carrier air groups the way you described - and it still happens to me.

Oh, that must be bad karma.. No patch is going to fix THAT I´m afraid..[:)]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yes, several times. The first time the air groups get so big that the carrier is unusable. The second time they get smaller so the carrier is usable.

Interesting. So there is a hope that my groups will be enlarged one day..

BTW when think about it, everytime it happened to me, the groups got only smaller and never bigger.

[witpqs]

BTW when think about it, everytime it happened to me, the groups got only smaller and never bigger.

I only saw that once when a carrier had five squadrons on it - they all went to size 9, which sorta weakened the carrier. Since the code was stated to not be able to handle that condition (5 squadrons), I filed it under the 'doctor says don't do that' category.

[Just for clarity - in this thread I am only complaining about re-sizes that are both wrong and being done when the carrier air group is exactly what the code is expecting.]

[witpqs]

Folks,

I have a question for you support guys (especially Don Bowen and Mike Wood, who might be able to confirm how the code works).

I've been doing some testing. Is it true that a squadron re-size will only take place if the squadron is set to Accept Replacements?

Is it true that a re-size will not take place if the squadron is set to No Replacements?

If this is true it makes a plenty good enough work-around. Please comment.

[witpqs]

Okay, I found a bunch of bits and pieces in some old threads.

#1 is what Joe quoted Don as saying. There was more said also, but I've kind of condensed things down to what should work for RHS (knowing some of what is in that database). Here's what I'm going to post on in one of the RHS threads.
__________________________________

Here are the "rules" to follow for RHS - all have been verified by various sources as being important to work with the code to achieve the desired results:

1) Always leave all squadrons on board their carrier.

2) Set carrier squadrons to 'No Replacements'. This will prevent a re-size from taking place.

3) If a carrier gets to more than 115%, then move some planes off before it gets into port. Otherwise an emergency re-size might take place (regardless of squadrons being set to 'no replacements').

4) Those 'Carrier Trained' squadrons that are on land - set them to 'No Replacements' or else they might re-size so big they never fit on a carrier. This is because in the database they are really assigned to a carrier that does not appear before the scenario is over.