N1K1 George

[PaxMondo]

With PDU on, Patch 2, there are still only a few groups that can upgrade to the George. Inspecting the groups in the editor, I can't seem to see the difference between those that can and thsoe that can't.

Anyone give me some insight?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

With PDU on, Patch 2, there are still only a few groups that can upgrade to the George. Inspecting the groups in the editor, I can't seem to see the difference between those that can and thsoe that can't.

Anyone give me some insight?

The George is limited to squadrons that are not ticked 'carrier capable' in the editor. The N1K1 is land based only, so it can only be assigned to squadrons that can never possibly end up on a carrier.

[Nemo121]

This seems an unnecessarily limiting way of doing things.
 
WHy not just include a little code check so that carrier-capability is linked to both squadron type ( ie. has to be full of naval, carrier-trained aviatiors ) AND plane type.
 
That way if you really want to scupper the ability to put the squadron on CVs by putting Georges into it then you, as the commander, have that choice.
 
 
Currently you COULD end up with a situation in which Japan loses all its CVs but still is prevented from filling out its naval squadrons with far superior non-CV capable planes just so that the option of basing them on non-existent carriers remains.
 
 
This is another example of unnecessarily limiting the player's choice. Give them the option and if they overuse it and lose out then they'll learn the lesson for next time.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

This seems an unnecessarily limiting way of doing things.

WHy not just include a little code check so that carrier-capability is linked to both squadron type ( ie. has to be full of naval, carrier-trained aviatiors ) AND plane type.

That way if you really want to scupper the ability to put the squadron on CVs by putting Georges into it then you, as the commander, have that choice.


Currently you COULD end up with a situation in which Japan loses all its CVs but still is prevented from filling out its naval squadrons with far superior non-CV capable planes just so that the option of basing them on non-existent carriers remains.


This is another example of unnecessarily limiting the player's choice. Give them the option and if they overuse it and lose out then they'll learn the lesson for next time.

I agree with you, problem is I'm not on the Dev Team, I was just relaying the information I figured out by using the editor vs the GE.

[oldman45]

The thing is would the Army give up their planes to the Navy?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Currently you COULD end up with a situation in which Japan loses all its CVs but still is prevented from filling out its naval squadrons with far superior non-CV capable planes just so that the option of basing them on non-existent carriers remains.


This is another example of unnecessarily limiting the player's choice. Give them the option and if they overuse it and lose out then they'll learn the lesson for next time.

THis is pretty much my thought process. I'm just looking to give the player more options. But, using the editor to enable the carrier field and then just a house rule of no N1K1 on CV's is easy.

[Nemo121]

PaxMondo,

Agreed. I just posted because, to my mind, this is another example of the design team, unnecessarily, preventing the game from being played "in a way we don't play it". They often prevent various choices which aren't quite within the meanstream of play but which, if allowed, would, I think, allow for a much more varied and interesting strategic game.
 
Sure I can see why they disallow these things but I just think its a pity that they come down on the "don't allow stuff" side of the fence more often than not.
 
As you say though it can be worked around - I just regret it has to be worked around.