Moving Aircraft via ship
Moderator: Tankerace
Moving Aircraft via ship
Alright I know how to move aircraft from base to base but how do I move them via ship for long range transport?
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
Alright I figured it out but for some reason I couldn't get it to work earlier and I had enough AK's to do it maybe just a hiccupp [:)]
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
One thing I've noticed, is that unless I've missed something you can only move one airgroup, or subgroup, per ship. So sometimes I'll use the remaining space for supplies.
Another thing is airgroups can fit on either a 2500 or 5000 load AK. While it may make a little more sense to give the 2500 load AKs something to do, the smaller AKs tend to move 2-3 knots slower then the big ones. This becomes a big factor when you're transporting airgroups across the Pacific like from San Diego to Manila - especially if it slowing down a convoy containing vital troops, fuel, or supplies.
I now tend to keep a few AKs on standby in ports where I commonly move airgroup replacements out of (like Darwin, via South Pacific HQ in Brisbane), so I can get them into theatre when they pop up ASAP.
Another thing is airgroups can fit on either a 2500 or 5000 load AK. While it may make a little more sense to give the 2500 load AKs something to do, the smaller AKs tend to move 2-3 knots slower then the big ones. This becomes a big factor when you're transporting airgroups across the Pacific like from San Diego to Manila - especially if it slowing down a convoy containing vital troops, fuel, or supplies.
I now tend to keep a few AKs on standby in ports where I commonly move airgroup replacements out of (like Darwin, via South Pacific HQ in Brisbane), so I can get them into theatre when they pop up ASAP.
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
Kind of a related question relative to this thread...
I'm in January 1925, playing Allies vs. the computer in the 1922 scenerio. CV Yorktown finally arrived, but I was a bit disappointed to find it is only carrying a single fighter group.
At this point, I have some very experienced VT groups (torpedo planes), one of which I'd love to embark on Yorktown. But while they're carrier capable, they are not carrier trained. And looking at the reinforcement schedule it looks like it will be a long while, if ever, before I get carrier trained aircraft with offensive capability.
My question is this - will a carrier capable VT's high experience allow me to operate them as a carrier group, without suffering an unacceptable attrition rate? Or will I just waste my good pilots on landing crashes? Is there any way to make existing carrier capable units carrier trained?
I'm in January 1925, playing Allies vs. the computer in the 1922 scenerio. CV Yorktown finally arrived, but I was a bit disappointed to find it is only carrying a single fighter group.
At this point, I have some very experienced VT groups (torpedo planes), one of which I'd love to embark on Yorktown. But while they're carrier capable, they are not carrier trained. And looking at the reinforcement schedule it looks like it will be a long while, if ever, before I get carrier trained aircraft with offensive capability.
My question is this - will a carrier capable VT's high experience allow me to operate them as a carrier group, without suffering an unacceptable attrition rate? Or will I just waste my good pilots on landing crashes? Is there any way to make existing carrier capable units carrier trained?
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
Nope. Just get them a good leader and hope for the best 
It's amazing that you made it to 1925 - I'm yet to witness any game breaking past 1923. Can you share some screenshots?
It's amazing that you made it to 1925 - I'm yet to witness any game breaking past 1923. Can you share some screenshots?
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
Thanks for the reply - I forgot about assigning a good air leader.
Sadly, no screenshots as of this time. However, I am nearing the endgame for this campaign, seeing as how I'm fighting on Kyushu - I may not have to worry about Yorktown's air groups as she may not even reach the combat area before the war ends. But I've taken meticulous notes on every turn I made, and I plan on putting out an AAR after the game is done, but in more of a storytelling format rather then turn-by-turn, much like Engineer did years ago.
As my picture implies, I'm a career firefighter. I'm a bit of a night owl, so on the overnight shift, between responding to calls, I often find myself playing WPO to pass the time - hence the long campaign.
Another reason why it took so long was until fall of 1924 I handicapped myself by playing strictly USA vs. Japan, with no allies.
Sadly, no screenshots as of this time. However, I am nearing the endgame for this campaign, seeing as how I'm fighting on Kyushu - I may not have to worry about Yorktown's air groups as she may not even reach the combat area before the war ends. But I've taken meticulous notes on every turn I made, and I plan on putting out an AAR after the game is done, but in more of a storytelling format rather then turn-by-turn, much like Engineer did years ago.
As my picture implies, I'm a career firefighter. I'm a bit of a night owl, so on the overnight shift, between responding to calls, I often find myself playing WPO to pass the time - hence the long campaign.
Another reason why it took so long was until fall of 1924 I handicapped myself by playing strictly USA vs. Japan, with no allies.
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
I'm looking forward to your AAR Connfire [:)]
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
P.S. Connfire, have you considered giving a 1926 campaign a try? Or even modifying a 1926-1930 game to take place in a, say, 1929-1933 timeframe to maximize on carrier aircraft potential?
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
I'll probably take on the 1926 campaign once I wrap up the 1922 one, now that the end is in sight. The first-generation carriers are cool, but I still like the battleship being the queen of the seas in WPO, with air power taking a secondary role.
At one point I was on the verge of abandoning the 1922 campaign because I wasn't getting much response from the AI - I was going to work it into the AAR storyline I was developing by saying there was a truce or armistice in early 1924, only to have the war restart in 1926, but then the AI came to life again and what ended up happening was much more enjoyable (and made a better story).
I'm also willing to consider trying a PBEM (I just worry that my crazy schedule would be a hinderance), or playing the Japanese side against an Allied AI in the not to distant future.
At one point I was on the verge of abandoning the 1922 campaign because I wasn't getting much response from the AI - I was going to work it into the AAR storyline I was developing by saying there was a truce or armistice in early 1924, only to have the war restart in 1926, but then the AI came to life again and what ended up happening was much more enjoyable (and made a better story).
I'm also willing to consider trying a PBEM (I just worry that my crazy schedule would be a hinderance), or playing the Japanese side against an Allied AI in the not to distant future.
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
It seems to react to certain triggers, some relative to time, others to actions taken. You just have to find out what those are, kind of like poking it with a stick. I have had a love/hate thing going with it - every time I get frustrated and about ready to throw in the towel, the AAR pulls something unexpected which gets me back into it.
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
> That's kind of what I'm afraid of - you make a bad decision on Day 1 and get slaughtered for 2 more days before you can react. I can also see how it can make an AAR more action-packed and overall more playable, however.
Exactly! This is also more realistic. Radio communications were very poor those days in those areas (Amelia Earhart, anyone?) - so being able to reroute your troops daily is a luxury that 1920s commanders did not have.
> I routinely assign commanders to my TFs, but I do so less with air and ground units. Since your last post I've begun playing around with that and do see a difference. I may have some questions down the road re air and ground commanders, but I'll do it in the other thread so as not to distract from your AAR.
Do not neglect *ANY* commanders. A good choice may mean that your landing divisions will take upon themselves the initiative to attack the enemy-held beach and take it on day 1, sparing you day 2 and day 3 disembarkation casualties. A bad choice may mean that your shiny new airplanes will fly right into the enemy machine guns and get wasted. Possibilities are endless - know what you want and be picky: sometimes the right commander is 200 names down the list.
> I applaud you guys for handicapping the Allies by keeping the UK/Commonwealth/Euros out of it at the start, and taking the fight into mainland China - give those ground combat rules a good workout.
I am curious to see how it will work out. It takes Japanese player 100% troop commitment and 6 months to clear China. Remember, Chinese respawn - and once they do, they are no longer static...
Rysyonok - I'm moving our conversation on leaders to this thread as I don't want to distract from your AAR with Aces8.
Some questions regarding chosing leaders, since the manual is kind of vague on this subject:
According to the manual, high Leadership and Inspiration ratings = more efficient troops, aircraft, or ships in combat. But as far as the game is concerned, what is the difference between the two? Would Inspiration perhaps result in faster recovery from damage or disruption, or staying in combat longer?
I assume the Administration Skill makes for more effective HQ units leaders? Does it do anything else, like speed up replacements?
Aggression is pretty much self-explanatory. I also get how air, land, and naval skills translate into good mission-specific TF commanders. I also assume that for combat ground units, obviously land skill is key.
But air leaders confuse me. Obviously high agression is key particulary for fighters and torpedo bombers, and air skill is important for all of them. I assume a good torpedo squadron leader will have higher naval skills. But what criteria, if any, is the game using when the leader selection box says "He is best qualified to command a fighter formation" or "He is best qualified to command a bomber formation"?
Here's an example as to why I' confused: In the US Army Air Corps, Col. D. D. Terry has Leadership 74, Inspiration 54, Air Skill 70, Land Skill 39, and Agression 67. The game says he's best qualified to command a fighter formation. OK, that's fine, but then you have Col. K. Truesdell Jr., with leadership 73, Inspiration 57, Air Skill 75, Land Skill 34, and Agression 57. Yet, despite having higher air skill and lower land skill then Col. Terry, the game says he's best qualified to command a bomber formaion. Why is that? Is it because of Col. Truesdell's lower agression rating? Is there some in-game, hidden variable which ensures that you get highly qualifed officers for both fighter and bomb formations? Or should we just ignore the type of formation the game recommends for the leader, and simply stick to what his stats say?
Thanks for your help - I really see how selecting leaders can be an asset, I just want to make sure I'm selecting the right guys for the right jobs.
PS - you make a very compelling case for 3-day turns!
RE: Moving Aircraft via ship
> According to the manual, high Leadership and Inspiration ratings = more efficient troops, aircraft, or ships in combat. But as far as the game is concerned, what is the difference between the two? Would Inspiration perhaps result in faster recovery from damage or disruption, or staying in combat longer?
Good question. I've never paid much attention to that. I go for skill / aggressiveness combo.
> I assume the Administration Skill makes for more effective HQ units leaders? Does it do anything else, like speed up replacements?
Administration helps recovery of disabled units.
> Aggression is pretty much self-explanatory. I also get how air, land, and naval skills translate into good mission-specific TF commanders. I also assume that for combat ground units, obviously land skill is key.
It is - but choose aggressiveness wisely. Some days you need a hero and some days you need a survivor.
> But air leaders confuse me. Obviously high agression is key particulary for fighters and torpedo bombers, and air skill is important for all of them. I assume a good torpedo squadron leader will have higher naval skills. But what criteria, if any, is the game using when the leader selection box says "He is best qualified to command a fighter formation" or "He is best qualified to command a bomber formation"? Here's an example as to why I' confused: In the US Army Air Corps, Col. D. D. Terry has Leadership 74, Inspiration 54, Air Skill 70, Land Skill 39, and Agression 67. The game says he's best qualified to command a fighter formation. OK, that's fine, but then you have Col. K. Truesdell Jr., with leadership 73, Inspiration 57, Air Skill 75, Land Skill 34, and Agression 57. Yet, despite having higher air skill and lower land skill then Col. Terry, the game says he's best qualified to command a bomber formaion. Why is that? Is it because of Col. Truesdell's lower agression rating? Is there some in-game, hidden variable which ensures that you get highly qualifed officers for both fighter and bomb formations? Or should we just ignore the type of formation the game recommends for the leader, and simply stick to what his stats say?
I assume there is a hidden stat value there someplace, as the game attempts to 'upgrade' leaders 'historically'. However, it's 1920s, and there is only so much data available... so you get a lot of generic stats.
I always choose high aggressiveness and fighter leaders for everything. Air units are weak in 1922 and have poor range. I'd rather my planes crash and burn yet spot enemy rather than fly circles aimlessly. There are better pilots and planes in the queue (check the leader's file for activation dates ), so why bother saving up?
> PS - you make a very compelling case for 3-day turns!
Only in 3-day turns will you see truly bloody battles. Of course, some days you're the hammer and some days...
Good question. I've never paid much attention to that. I go for skill / aggressiveness combo.
> I assume the Administration Skill makes for more effective HQ units leaders? Does it do anything else, like speed up replacements?
Administration helps recovery of disabled units.
> Aggression is pretty much self-explanatory. I also get how air, land, and naval skills translate into good mission-specific TF commanders. I also assume that for combat ground units, obviously land skill is key.
It is - but choose aggressiveness wisely. Some days you need a hero and some days you need a survivor.
> But air leaders confuse me. Obviously high agression is key particulary for fighters and torpedo bombers, and air skill is important for all of them. I assume a good torpedo squadron leader will have higher naval skills. But what criteria, if any, is the game using when the leader selection box says "He is best qualified to command a fighter formation" or "He is best qualified to command a bomber formation"? Here's an example as to why I' confused: In the US Army Air Corps, Col. D. D. Terry has Leadership 74, Inspiration 54, Air Skill 70, Land Skill 39, and Agression 67. The game says he's best qualified to command a fighter formation. OK, that's fine, but then you have Col. K. Truesdell Jr., with leadership 73, Inspiration 57, Air Skill 75, Land Skill 34, and Agression 57. Yet, despite having higher air skill and lower land skill then Col. Terry, the game says he's best qualified to command a bomber formaion. Why is that? Is it because of Col. Truesdell's lower agression rating? Is there some in-game, hidden variable which ensures that you get highly qualifed officers for both fighter and bomb formations? Or should we just ignore the type of formation the game recommends for the leader, and simply stick to what his stats say?
I assume there is a hidden stat value there someplace, as the game attempts to 'upgrade' leaders 'historically'. However, it's 1920s, and there is only so much data available... so you get a lot of generic stats.
I always choose high aggressiveness and fighter leaders for everything. Air units are weak in 1922 and have poor range. I'd rather my planes crash and burn yet spot enemy rather than fly circles aimlessly. There are better pilots and planes in the queue (check the leader's file for activation dates
), so why bother saving up?> PS - you make a very compelling case for 3-day turns!
Only in 3-day turns will you see truly bloody battles.
Of course, some days you're the hammer and some days...