Confirming Carrier Capable & IJN airgroup no. at start

[n01487477]

Just confirming something for WitpTracker ...
1.Carrier Capable.
There is no data point for this (that I have found)... for the Japanese ...

I did some testing and what makes a plane carrier capable is if it exists on a carrier, is IJN or can be upgraded/down to, from the initial grp.

[edit] but maybe there is more going on here ?

I put a grp of A6M3 (not carrier capable) onto a CV, then all A6M3's became carrier capable. So the switch is either in airgroups, or just calculated by WITP.

2.This is not a WItpTracker Q but ...Is there any reason, that many groups at the outbreak of war, had too few pilots and too few planes. It takes an hour to go through (if you are using varied set-up) and make them mostly full ... I understand that not everything was at 100% for the Japanese at the beginning ...

Anyway, thanks for any help sorting (1) it would be appreciated.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Just confirming something for WitpTracker ...
1.Carrier Capable.
There is no data point for this (that I have found)... for the Japanese ...

I did some testing and what makes a plane carrier capable is if it exists on a carrier, is IJN or can be upgraded/down to, from the initial grp.

[edit] but maybe there is more going on here ?

I put a grp of A6M3 (not carrier capable) onto a CV, then all A6M3's became carrier capable. So the switch is either in airgroups, or just calculated by WITP.

2.This is not a WItpTracker Q but ...Is there any reason, that many groups at the outbreak of war, had too few pilots and too few planes. It takes an hour to go through (if you are using varied set-up) and make them mostly full ... I understand that not everything was at 100% for the Japanese at the beginning ...

Anyway, thanks for any help sorting (1) it would be appreciated.

One of the idiosyncrasies of the game is the ability to 'instantly' fill up air groups when ever there are replacements in the pool. Reality of is that replacements did not instantly appear when and where you needed them as soon as they were produced. So the values at start represent real historical operational levels and replacements represent some level replacements available in the pipeline.

A better way would have been to allow the units to 'request replacements', then at a variable amount of time some, maybe not all, of the requested replacements would appear in the air units reserve section.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Just confirming something for WitpTracker ...
1.Carrier Capable.
There is no data point for this (that I have found)... for the Japanese ...

I did some testing and what makes a plane carrier capable is if it exists on a carrier, is IJN or can be upgraded/down to, from the initial grp.

[edit] but maybe there is more going on here ?

I put a grp of A6M3 (not carrier capable) onto a CV, then all A6M3's became carrier capable. So the switch is either in airgroups, or just calculated by WITP.

2.This is not a WItpTracker Q but ...Is there any reason, that many groups at the outbreak of war, had too few pilots and too few planes. It takes an hour to go through (if you are using varied set-up) and make them mostly full ... I understand that not everything was at 100% for the Japanese at the beginning ...

Anyway, thanks for any help sorting (1) it would be appreciated.

One of the idiosyncrasies of the game is the ability to 'instantly' fill up air groups when ever there are replacements in the pool. Reality of is that replacements did not instantly appear when and where you needed them as soon as they were produced. So the values at start represent real historical operational levels and replacements represent some level replacements available in the pipeline.

A better way would have been to allow the units to 'request replacements', then at a variable amount of time some, maybe not all, of the requested replacements would appear in the air units reserve section.

I agree that would have been a good solution, but taken that this little "cheat" is available, it's still a pain to fill them out first turn.

Nobody got a confirm for the first Q ?

Thanks Damian

[wdolson]

BTW, there is a difference between carrier capable and carrier trained.  Carrier capable just means that the unit flies planes that can operate from a carrier.  Carrier trained means the pilots are trained to fly carrier ops.  Using carrier capable units on a carrier will result in high op losses due to the poor carrier experience of the pilots.

Bill

[n01487477]

Thanks, I did understand that ... it is just a question as Floyd and I would like to add which models are Carrier Capable in WitpTracker. To show users where the CV airframe upgrade path is ... As you can see below we have the upgrade, I just want to confirm my initial thoughts, as it is not a DB entry.

[Uamaga]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Just confirming something for WitpTracker ...
1.Carrier Capable.
There is no data point for this (that I have found)... for the Japanese ...

I did some testing and what makes a plane carrier capable is if it exists on a carrier, is IJN or can be upgraded/down to, from the initial grp.

[edit] but maybe there is more going on here ?

I put a grp of A6M3 (not carrier capable) onto a CV, then all A6M3's became carrier capable. So the switch is either in airgroups, or just calculated by WITP.

Interesting test. So you mean that all land based groups also get reported as CV-capable?
It is not quite as I would expect after taking brief look at it (in a place where "Carrier Trained/Capable" text in airgroup panel is displayed). That apparently means that I must look again...
I would expect that group which start the scenario on the CV deck would be reported as CV-trained...? Only other criteria (besides beeing ship/land based) there seems to be the index (slot) of aircraft used by the group. All groups with ac in slots below 25 or between 76 a 101 or above 243 are reported as CV-Capable even if land based at the moment. Well, no surprise here as these ranges of slots (except last one) in stock indeed contain carrier capable airplanes.

[n01487477]

No, not all just IJN. Although you could put a G4m1 on a carrier, and it will show carrier capable & can't remember if it says carrier trained or not ??? , but not the other groups. But yes, anything that is naval, from my initial testing will ...

I don;t believe slot placement has anything to do with it, but it is worth a look ... cheers

[Uamaga]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

No, not all just IJN. Although you could put a G4m1 on a carrier, and it will show carrier capable & can't remember if it says carrier trained or not ??? , but not the other groups. But yes, anything that is naval, from my initial testing will ...

I don;t believe slot placement has anything to do with it, but it is worth a look ... cheers

OK got it now. Having some time I will try to look more at it.

I don;t believe slot placement has anything to do with it, but it is worth a look ... cheers

Yep. Good luck.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

No, not all just IJN. Although you could put a G4m1 on a carrier, and it will show carrier capable & can't remember if it says carrier trained or not ??? , but not the other groups. But yes, anything that is naval, from my initial testing will ...

I don;t believe slot placement has anything to do with it, but it is worth a look ... cheers

In current WitP carrier capable or not DOES have to do with slot placement.

[Nemo121]

n01497477,
 
It is all to do with slots actually. I think something like slots 3 to 6 and 15 to 23 are carrier-capable.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

n01497477,

It is all to do with slots actually. I think something like slots 3 to 6 and 15 to 23 are carrier-capable.

Ok I don't doubt your word, however if in the:-

Coral Sea scen & Stock 15
slot 4 = A6M3 Zero, so they are carrier capable, but not on the upgrade path ... so never used?

In BB A6M3 Zero = slot 8, but it shows CC too ...

Must be also slot 1: A5M4 Claude but not slot 2:A6M2-N Rufe

Ok, thanks I'll do more testing and see if I can make a definitive rule. It's good to learn something new every day

---Damian ---

[Uamaga]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Must be also slot 1: A5M4 Claude but not slot 2:A6M2-N Rufe
Ok, thanks I'll do more testing and see if I can make a definitive rule. It's good to learn something new every day

---Damian ---

Well, should mention it before: in the ranges I gave above there is an exception made for FF and FP classes of aircraft (of course [:)]).

[DuckofTindalos]

The Rufe isn't (and wasn't) carrier-capable. Those big floats would have gotten in the way.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

BTW, there is a difference between carrier capable and carrier trained.  Carrier capable just means that the unit flies planes that can operate from a carrier.  Carrier trained means the pilots are trained to fly carrier ops.  Using carrier capable units on a carrier will result in high op losses due to the poor carrier experience of the pilots.

Bill

I find they do not actually fly. They accept a mission but do not execute it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Rufe isn't (and wasn't) carrier-capable. Those big floats would have gotten in the way.

Except of course if it is a seaplane carrier - or at least one class of AV in the game (Kamakiwa Maru flies even at sea).

[Uamaga]

just a demonstration inspired by question raised by n01487477.

Using special carrier capable version of B-25 brave american pilots led by CPT Pawlak are going to repeat achievement of Col. Doolitle and are preparing to start from short and wobbling deck of CV Enterprise...

(I used slot 246 for that fantasy B-25Y model. in picture they are reported 'carrier trained' but it's only beacuse to save time I set them as CV based from the scenario start. If I would let them start in base and later move them on the CV they would be seen as 'carrier capable')

[DuckofTindalos]

That will be possible in AE with a lot less fuss.

[Uamaga]

And here they go! Fortunately they faced only a few Nates over Tokyo...

[Uamaga]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That will be possible in AE with a lot less fuss.

just a little bit of joke here, Terminus. Nothing more... [8|]

[DuckofTindalos]

I understand, don't worry. Just saying...