CV indicates more Aircraft on board than it really has

[Robert Murhpy]

Problem: CV, Yorktown indicates 122 planes on board; while it only has a capacity for 90. In reality there are only 67 AC on board:
VB-5 31 (4) SBD-5 Dauntless (36)
VT-5 14 (0) TBF-4 Avenger (18)
VMF-221 18 (0) Corsair (18)

System: Playing Campaign 7; Quiet China as this is my first game and playing versus AI. Standard game with no add-ons, version 1.06.1108r9

Background: Present game time August 1943. In June there was a major carrier battle north of Baker Island. In this battle the Yorktown suffered damage… about 20 system, 20 flooding, 2 Engine and her dedicated planes left for Baker Island (VB-5, VT-5, VF-42). The Yorktown headed for Pearl and VB-5, VT-5 headed for Pearl on other ships. VF-42 stayed as it was busy destroying Betty’s that made frequent visits.

By August repairs were completed on the Yorktown and she was made ready for service. VB-5, VT-5 returned to the Yorktown; but VF-42 is presently at Tarawa where she is still occupied versus the Bettys. To give the Yorktown fighters, I transferred VMF-221 to Yorktown as this Marine fighter unit is carrier trained.

I then ran into trouble. With only VT-5, VB-5 the Yorktown only registers about 50 AC on board. When I add VMF-221 the number suddenly jumps to 120. VMF-221 has only 18 AC. Even if the game software was counting VF-42 as being on board the number would only read 108. I have tried sending the Yorktown into action just to see if only the erroneous report of overstacking is in error; but the Yorktown does not fly any AC.

What is happening and how can I fix it?

[NormS3]

Robert,

The F4U-1 Corsair is not carrier capable. The other Corsairs are. You will need to remove VMF-221 or change her fighters to a carrier capable.

[Robert Murhpy]

Thanks Norm, but that would indicate another entirely different problem. VMF-221 flying corsairs definitely states it is carrier trained. That is why I attached it to the CV as other units only indicated carrier capable.

Yet, this should have no bearing as to why the CV indicates some 50 AC more on board than reality.

[Bearcat2]

F4U-1 cannot fly off of carriers, they can be transported only. It does not matter if the Sq is carrier trained. It basically turns your CV into a AKV. F4U -1A can be flown off of carriers.

[btd64]

If the Unit is not a aircraft type that is carrier capable, then the unit takes up 2 times the deck space. Not sure on the 2 times number, but it does eat up space. I think that is what your seeing... GP

[Robert Murhpy]

If the Unit is not a aircraft type that is carrier capable, then the unit takes up 2 times the deck space. Not sure on the 2 times number, but it does eat up space. I think that is what your seeing... GP

This seems likely the source of the problem. Now I wonder why the F4U-1 has it stated that the unit is Carrier Trained when such plane cannot fly from the carrier?

[btd64]

The pilots are carrier Trained. The F4U-1 has no tailhook. The next model does..GP

[Robert Murhpy]

Thanks GP. I should have remembered that the F4U-1 was not carrier capable. I did read it somewhere. Just when one is searching for an available fighter squadron and one finds a squadron that not only states carrier capable; but carrier trained it was all too easy to forget that the planes are not carrier capable even if the pilots are so trained.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: Robert Murhpy

Thanks Norm, but that would indicate another entirely different problem. VMF-221 flying corsairs definitely states it is carrier trained. That is why I attached it to the CV as other units only indicated carrier capable.

Yet, this should have no bearing as to why the CV indicates some 50 AC more on board than reality.

That is indeed confusing information, but it is completely correct. The squadron is "carrier trained", meaning the pilots know how to land on carriers. However, at the moment they do not have a plane that can do so. The other groups are "carrier capable", they have planes that can fly from carriers, but they do not have the training and will suffer higher losses from accidents as a result.

The carrier overload is because you loaded planes that clog up the deck and make flight operations impossible. It might have been more elegant if it gave the correct number of planes and said "but because you have non-carrier aircraft loaded, no flight operations are possible", but due to restricted place, this is the solution that is used. Non-carrier capable aircraft are counted more heavily so that you are over the plane limit.

[geofflambert]

No such thing as carrier trained pilots. The squadron is. You converted to a capable plane so they're landlubbers for a while. Once you get the next mark of Corsair, you may want to consider using them as trainers.

[geofflambert]

I did the exact same thing as you. As the Japanese I have also once (in error) put some Mavises on a carrier. [X(] I think I was overloaded by more than two times. [8|]

[Czert]

how did you put mavis on cv ?

[btd64]

Non-carrier aircraft don't have folding wings so they take up more deck space, and I believe they can't be moved below either. GP

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Non-carrier aircraft don't have folding wings so they take up more deck space, and I believe they can't be moved below either. GP

Well, lots of carrier aircraft don't have folding wings either, for example, F4F-3, SBD (all models), D3A Val, A6M2 Zero (the wingtips folded up, but that's all).

It's too bad the game doesn't model the space requirements for different planes. The performance of the F4F-4 was significantly inferior to the F4F-3, but its folding wings meant that carriers could carrier at least 50% more F4F-4s than F4F-3s. And larger late war aircraft meant that the surviving pre-war carriers (Enterprise and Saratoga) could not carry as large an airgroup as the Essex class.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: czert2

how did you put mavis on cv ?

The carrier was docked. It's still crazy.

[Czert]

well, i will LOVE to see mavis taking off from cv when mitchel can do it..