CAP LEVEL: Is it wrong or is it me?

iancollins · Post by **iancollins** » Sun May 26, 2002 8:36 pm

I've seen this oddity mentioned by others but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation. Here's my example:

It's June 13, 1942 in my #17 game against the AI. I have 5 fighter squadrons at Port Moresby....... a total of 86 operational fighters.

The AI on the previous day raided Port Moresby with a combined attack from Kavieng and Rabaul, coming in with 8 Betty escorted by 65 Zero and, because of this, I raised my CAP LEVEL to 80 with the primary mission as Escort. All 5 fighter squadrons were given these orders.

Now as I read the manual, a CAP LEVEL of 80 means that 80% (about 68 aircraft) will be kept for CAP and remaining 20% (about 17 aircraft) will be available for escort duty...... Right.......? Not so.........

My Port Moresby bombers raid Lea and 51 (59%) of my fighters escort them there. And when the combined Japanese airaid on Port Moresby occurs only 29 (34%) of my fighters are up as CAP.

So..... what's going on...... is there something in the manual I've missed.....?

Ian

Dirtweasle · Post by **Dirtweasle** » Sun May 26, 2002 10:33 pm

I've seen the same thing, and wonder as well. Guessing that if the airstrip is damaged, supply and support is not 100% then less planes get of the ground.

iancollins · Post by **iancollins** » Sun May 26, 2002 10:43 pm

Thanks for the reply Dirtweasel.

There is no damage to the airbase and supply is more than adequate. One of the fighter squadrons has a morale under 50, which would explain a reduction in CAP from the maximum possible......... but what puzzles me most is the 59% that escorted the bombing mission. Doesn't seem right.........

legio · Post by **legio** » Sun May 26, 2002 10:52 pm

Not had a problem with this.

I managed CAP of 60+ fighters and some on escourt.

check:

airfield damage
air support - is there enough
supply
moral

FAdmiral · Post by **FAdmiral** » Sun May 26, 2002 11:03 pm

I think the "Escort" setting and 80% means that 80% of the
aircraft are saved for escort missions. If you set to "Long Range
Cap" and 80%, it gives 80% to the cap & 20% for escort duty. Of
course there are other factors entering into the equation too,
like weather, sighting distance, radar. avail planes, avail pilots
etc. I could be wrong on this, anybody know for sure !!!!

JIM BERG, SR.

iancollins · Post by **iancollins** » Sun May 26, 2002 11:24 pm

Jim,

The manual's quite specific about Cap Level. It says (quote)

CAP and Naval Search Levels dictate the percentage of the aircraft that will either fly CAP or Naval Search while the rest of the unit attempts to carry out its selected mission(s).

When you choose Long-Range CAP the level is automatically set at 100.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon May 27, 2002 1:42 am

Ian are you sure there were not other planes from another base contributing into the Escort mission?

Also remember that the game cycles your CAP out and back, so you won't ever see (number of aircraft)*(80%) as the number in a combat. The game is cycling them out and back to keep a constant presence. Depending on when in the "cycle" you get hit, you could well only have 1/3 of the fighters working the CAP mission actually in the air able to intercept, at that the particular momnet.

iancollins · Post by **iancollins** » Mon May 27, 2002 1:50 am

Paul.......thanks for that.

I'm certain that fighters from other bases aren't involved.

With morale checks, etc I can readily accept that I can be unlucky and get a low turnout of fighters even with Cap Level set to 80. But what puzzles me most is how did I get the 59% turnout for the bombing escort mission......?

All I can think of is that my fighter squadrons looked at the 80 Cap Level order........ remembered that 65 zeros had hit them the day before....... and said "stuff this for a game of soldiers.....I'm off to help the Marauders bomb Lea".......where the previous day's CAP was 4 Zeros..........

rough44 · Post by **rough44** » Mon May 27, 2002 2:00 am

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon May 27, 2002 3:34 am

I'm not sure where teh Escort numbers came from either, could be they happened to be landed and ready to go from CAP duty and were pressed into service? As Joel as stated the depth of the considerations and (complexity) of the game are simply incredible!

It can be a no win situation. If you communicate every detail that goes on, then the player is overwhelmed. If you don't then the player is left wondering if something that doesn;t happen exactly as ordered is a "bug" or his subordinates "doing the right thing" in their eyes at the time.

Unfortunately you can't get on the horn and call over and get a report from the squadron or wing commander. OR call a Court's Martial

iancollins · Post by **iancollins** » Mon May 27, 2002 12:57 pm

Thanks Paul,

The unusually large number of fighter escorts that accompanied the Lea raid has turned out to be a one-off. In the following days, as the Japanese continued to send a large escort of Zeros to Port Morseby, my CAP and escort numbers have seemed reasonable......

So I can accept that, maybe, I just had a day when my orders didn't filter down the line, or got misinterpreted, or whatever. Just as happened historically. In war........nothing's certain. I like that.

FAdmiral · Post by **FAdmiral** » Mon May 27, 2002 10:08 pm

As it stands now, I have the cap set fairly high & the escort duty
fairly low because I'm only bombing the troops & supply ships at
Gili-Gili and Buna. When I get a carrier sighting nearby, I reset the %. This seems to work quite well.....

JIM BERG, SR.

Mike Wood · Post by **Mike Wood** » Tue May 28, 2002 9:21 am

Hello...

Paul explained the CAP percentage situation, and well. As far as the increased number of planes sent as cover for your bombers, that was one of your squadron leaders fault.

He made a couple really agressive die rolls and figured the Japanese would be standing down for the day and reallocated a few of the planes to the more aggressive cover mission, thinking the attack mission would increase morale for the squadron.

He was wrong.

Hope this helps...

Michael Wood

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Tue May 28, 2002 12:57 pm

I like the variability and the leadership aspect. Where's my **** copy...I've been using my experiences with older games in my posts and I feel as though I'm trapped in a bubble or something.:p

IChristie · Post by **IChristie** » Tue May 28, 2002 6:38 pm

Yes, I think I said back in the long ago that UV will drive control freaks nuts (it already is judging by some of the threads on this forum).

Part of the addiction is that you just CANNOT guarantee the results you will get from any given tactic or strategy. You just HAVE to run the combat results to see what's going to happen!

At first this drove me nuts. I would construct an artful and insightful strategy, plan in advance, line up all the elements and then poof! the CV's would launch strikes at TF's half a board away or the enemy would sail around my blocking TF's and end up in the harbour with all my tpt's (remember THAT one!).

The bottom line is that the game will challenge your assumption that you could have done better or differently than your historical counterparts - even with godlike omniscience you can't always make it go the way you want to. This is one of the best things about the game in my view. It makes you deal with aspects of command that few other games make you think about - supply, leaders, training, morale, resting your troops.

These aren't the most exciting aspects of running a war, but they make the game great as far as I'm concerned. The really tricky thing is that if you don't master them, you won't even know why your getting beat :rolleyes:

FAdmiral · Post by **FAdmiral** » Tue May 28, 2002 10:42 pm

If it was my Squadron Leaders fault, then how do I replace him???

JIM BERG, SR.

dgaad · Post by **dgaad** » Tue May 28, 2002 11:39 pm

In a word : You.

CAP LEVEL: Is it wrong or is it me?

CAP LEVEL: Is it wrong or is it me?

Ooooooooh.....