KB airgroup resize

[PaxMondo]

So, maybe I'm a little slow. When did the re-size limit for the KB come in? Can't resize until July 42? And interesting, it is not in the editor? Hard coded?

[PaxMondo]

And the editor, nothing showing for resize ...

[Local Yokel]

An additional side effect is that you have a fleet carrier with an airgroup capacity of 81 a/c that you cannot fill except by recourse to embarkation of a fourth, chutai-sized unit - probably one that's only carrier capable rather than carrier trained.

Kaga is no doubt similarly affected. Don't know if her aircraft capacity is to be increased to 81 (as I believe it should), but merely increasing the capacity is going to be pointless if the player is not allowed some freedom to manage the size of the airgroup.

[PaxMondo]

I guess I'm surprised this is hard coded .... or at least I cannot find anything in the editor ...  suggestions?

[CV 2]

Ummm, I dont even use the editor, and I see a resize field. 2nd column (or 3rd if you count the airgroup display as the 1st), just above facing:

"Resize 1 YYMM-Sz"

[PaxMondo]

Well, but when I check it, they are set to "0".  I'm not seeing where they are being set to a July change ...  or am I missing something obvious?  Need new glasses?  Large telescope? [&:] 

[Local Yokel]

For comparison with the record for the Akagi kansen-tai, here is the one for the Chitose fighter group, with use of the 'resize' fields highlighted.

As PaxMondo says, the corresponding record for the Akagi fighter group contains nothing in those resize fields to account for the size change.

It may be noteworthy that Akagi's airgroup resizing is scheduled to occur in July 1942, and that this is the same date as Akagi's first ship upgrade - though I can't see anything in the Akagi ship or class record that would trigger the airgroup changes either.

The possibility that this is hardcoded makes me wonder whether the code would frustrate an increase in Kaga's airgroup capacity and increase to maximum of the number of aircraft embarked - 81 a/c loaded aboard being greater than the original 72 capacity + 15%. Would making such data changes lead to Kaga being treated as overloaded and incapable of flying operations?

[GaryChildress]

It looks like the resize must be hardcoded. Which is a little surprising to me since there is a field in the database for resizing airgroups and I thought one of the goals of the AE team was to reduce the amount of hardcoding in the game. Playing around with the editor a little, it appears, at least at first glance, that you can override the hardcoded resize by putting a value in the resize field in the editor.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

For comparison with the record for the Akagi kansen-tai, here is the one for the Chitose fighter group, with use of the 'resize' fields highlighted.

As PaxMondo says, the corresponding record for the Akagi fighter group contains nothing in those resize fields to account for the size change.

LY: Well one the one hand, at least my prescription appears to be working ok yet. On the other, dang. Doesn't quite fit my mod requirements. Oh well, I can get around it by adding some small CV trained units that could be added to each of the KB CV's in the editor. Not elegant, but it can work. Then ahve to add a house rule that these can't be expanded in size at some future point to be used as training groups as these will be only intended as a work around for this.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It looks like the resize must be hardcoded. Which is a little surprising to me since there is a field in the database for resizing airgroups and I thought one of the goals of the AE team was to reduce the amount of hardcoding in the game. Playing around with the editor a little, it appears, at least at first glance, that you can override the hardcoded resize by putting a value in the resize field in the editor.

Gary, thanks.

Did you make the change and then check it in game or is this just an observation needing testing yet?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It looks like the resize must be hardcoded. Which is a little surprising to me since there is a field in the database for resizing airgroups and I thought one of the goals of the AE team was to reduce the amount of hardcoding in the game. Playing around with the editor a little, it appears, at least at first glance, that you can override the hardcoded resize by putting a value in the resize field in the editor.

Gary, thanks.

Did you make the change and then check it in game or is this just an observation needing testing yet?

Hi Pax, basically I just changed the value in the editor and then went into the game to confirm that my change appeared on the air unit information screen. It did. However, I did not test to see if the change actually happened on the given date. So that is still a matter of testing.

[PaxMondo]

Gary,
 
Thanks.  I will some a report later.  Curious if you mod it to a date of say Jan 1, 42, what happens on July 42?  Does the hardcode still slam in while you're in the midst of a battle?  [&:]

[JSG]

I found an easy work-around against the hardcoded air wing resizing.

All you need to do is to add another squadron to the carrier (only the IJN and USN CVs are affected IIRC, no CVLs or CVEs). The mandated resizing disappears for F, DB and TB squadrons on that carrier. You may use a size 1, no aircraft, no pilots squadron.

(I am going to test whether the effect remains after the 4th squadron is moved to shore.)

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: JSG

I found an easy work-around against the hardcoded air wing resizing.

All you need to do is to add another squadron to the carrier (only the IJN and USN CVs are affected IIRC, no CVLs or CVEs). The mandated resizing disappears for F, DB and TB squadrons on that carrier. You may use a size 1, no aircraft, no pilots squadron.

(I am going to test whether the effect remains after the 4th squadron is moved to shore.)

That doesn't work for me... Maybe because it is a divided group... I thought this was hard coded anyway and thought I read reference to it in the manual but on checking can't find it. Wasn't this something that was in the original witp too?

As for resizing, it is normally controlled in the editor as Gary & CV2 suggest. And it does work.



Of course anything that goes on a CV can resize unless the resizing date has been set.

[Cpt Sherwood]

Here is a thread where michaelm discusses the exact sizing of air groups. It is from 2010, but I don't think anything has changed.

[Miller]

Hardcoded IIRC. No biggie, just split up a couple of the 36 plane land based Zero sqds and use them to fill the gaps until July.

[SqzMyLemon]

I personally don't like the fact it changed at all, whether hard coded or not. I understand maybe for a Scenario 1 game with PDU off, but not for any other situation. I believe it represent the historic lack of planes and pilots, I get that. What about a PDU on game or Scenario 2? They are meant to represent a more prepared Japan and since PDU on means you can build aircraft and train pilots to your hearts content you shouldn't be shackled by this. I can insure that I have pilots and aircraft available to fill out KB way before July. This change completely undermines the intent behind a PDU on game in my opinion.

In my latest PBEM, I've just received the CV Hiyo, yet I can only field 36 aircraft out of a total capacity of 53 aircraft. It's a PDU on game, I have the planes, I have the pilots and it just seems wrong that I have to split up naval LBA to max out my CV air capacity and can't resize my original groups. As far as I'm concerned, KB has been neutered until July 1942.

I can't comment on the Allied side of things. I know certain CV air units disband in 43 and the remaining groups then double in size to compensate. I don't know if this is historic or some function of the game.

[crsutton]

Not much of a problem for the allies as their squadrons are sized nicely from the get go to utilize the full capacity of the carriers. Only in the first few months are the fighter squadrons undersized but that does not last long.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

... This change completely undermines the intent behind a PDU on game in my opinion...

No, it was the other way around.

It was the introduction of PDU after the game design had been frozen in classical WITP which undermined the intent behind the carrier group size/resizing. Clearly this was not an area which was important enough to be scoped into the AE project.

Just another example where devs bow to pressure from the customers, and in the process slightly "unhinge" another game area. People who clamour for "improvements" often fail to note the unintended ramifications which will ensue elsewhere.

Alfred

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hardcoded IIRC. No biggie, just split up a couple of the 36 plane land based Zero sqds and use them to fill the gaps until July.

Yes. This.