Help a budding modder

[timtom]

As far as I can tell, the vanilla Bangor/Bathurst MSW and its 1/43 upgrade are identical. the screenshots below are from scn.154, but scn.15 is the same.

Q1: Am I missing something?

Q2: If not, are there any reason I can't free up the upgrade slot and create a separate Bathurst class (for cosmetic reasons)?

Q3: Are there any RN/RAN experts out there who can tell whether there was in fact any difference between the the Bangor and the Bathurst?

Q4: And now for something entirely different: Is there any way of assigning squadrons with "reserve" aircraft as opposed to ready/damaged?

[timtom]

[&:]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: timtom

As far as I can tell, the vanilla Bangor/Bathurst MSW and its 1/43 upgrade are identical. the screenshots below are from scn.154, but scn.15 is the same.

Q1: Am I missing something?

No, looks like a problem.

Q2: If not, are there any reason I can't free up the upgrade slot and create a separate Bathurst class (for cosmetic reasons)?

You certainly can use the slot but I'd recommend keeping and correcting the upgrade. Use another slot.

Q3: Are there any RN/RAN experts out there who can tell whether there was in fact any difference between the the Bangor and the Bathurst?

Bangors were Royal Navy minesweepers with various types of propulsion (diesel, turbine, reciprocating). Some went to India and Canada.

Bathurst was an Australian variant of the Bangor, slightly enlarged for Pacific operations. Some were built for India but 20 ordered for the RN were used by the RAN during the war.

Q4: And now for something entirely different: Is there any way of assigning squadrons with "reserve" aircraft as opposed to ready/damaged?

No

[timtom]

Thanks Don - you're a gentleman, as ever.

[Aawulf]

Q4: And now for something entirely different: Is there any way of assigning squadrons with "reserve" aircraft as opposed to ready/damaged?

I haven't found an ideal way of doing it, but it can be done by assigning a greater number "Ready" aircraft than the "Max". On turn 2 you will have the excess in "reserve". The downside is that on turn 1 you have a larger than desired number of operational aircraft in the squadron and, likely more importantly, you have excess pilots in the squadron.

Regards,
Michael Fleshman

[Don Bowen]

Here's the problem in creating a "standard" Bathurst upgrade:

[Lemurs!]

I want to be captain of the 'Gympie'!

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I want to be captain of the 'Gympie'!

Mike

OK, but I get to command the Bowen

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: timtom

Q4: And now for something entirely different: Is there any way of assigning squadrons with "reserve" aircraft as opposed to ready/damaged?

No

IIRC the IJN operated their CAG's with a number of reserve aircraft - ie the no. of effectives at any one time were less than total onboard capacity, the balance being made up by reserve aircraft. Vaguely remember something about the RN doing the same.

So this can't be done in WitP? Seen it in UV, on the Victorious.

I take it this is why CHS credits KB with larger CAG's over the vanilla version? To credit the Japanese with the additional aircraft KB could/did actually carry sans pilots?

KB in CHS flies 606 aircraft, incl. the CVE's, or 88 more than scn.15, effectively granting the Japanese an extra fleet carrier.

[Lemurs!]

I thought about the KB capacity quite a bit before i made those decisions. It was not an easy decision.

What i have found is there was only one reason that these planes were partially assembled reserves; lack of pilots. Japan used Soryu and Hiryu extensivelly before the war in testing the feasibility of using a deck park. They found no major problems just the acceptance of higher attrition during storms or hurricanes to the aircraft parked on deck.

No here is the kicker... until 6/43 on the big 6 Japanese carriers Japan never, NEVER put a less than fully trained pilot in the air group. Guess which carriers i increased capacity on? The big 6.
Nothing else.

No, if you go back to Japan to refill your airgroups in say 4/42 and you need 60 pilots to fill the groups to max but as usual you only have 10 pilots in the navy pool you can follow navy practice and only put those 10 pilots on board. Of course then your air groups won't be as big but you would have great pilots....

Or you can put partially trained pilots on board and have big air groups. You cannot have both!
So i think it will work out.

Mike

[timtom]

Not to split hairs, but Hosho's cap's been upgraded from 11 to 21 [:)]

Hmm...and as the BigSix starts off with 432 of 477 aircraft possible, the Japanese player has to decide whether to dumb half his replacement pool into KB right away...interesting.

However isn't it a bit of a non-choice? If it's between 414 elite pilots or 414 elite pilots + 63 rookie pilots isn't the second option always better? I certainly know what I'd choose if I was sailing off to beat up the other guy's BigSix.

[Lemurs!]

The Hosho was just rated wrong from start. It was operating 19 aircraft on Dec 6th so i feel that 11 was a mite low.

Japan did not feel incompetent pilots had any business on carriers.
I agree with you, especially early in the game against weak allied opposition it is fine to put less experienced pilots on board.
Later i tend not to because it is bad having a fighter squadron be 1/3rd noobs and find out they were picked as your CAP that day the dauntlesses showed up.

Mike