CHS Re-request

[Ron Saueracker]

Any chance we can get the rather redundant/useless differentation of the Scouting and Bombing Squadrons removed? If the SBDs are grouped into one 36 plane unit then that will free up a vital slot allowing the Allied player to divide the VF squadron into three (like the Japanese player can do) and can therefore perform Long Range and Normal CAP simultaneously.

I suggested this before but I believe the accuracy of the units and OOB was more an issue than working within the limits of the air missions menu.

[bstarr]

Won't the computer just change the units into three equal-sized squadrons like they often do with the japs? Or is there a way to prevent this from happening?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Won't the computer just change the units into three equal-sized squadrons like they often do with the japs? Or is there a way to prevent this from happening?

Eh? All I'd like to be able to do is divede the VF fighter squadrons on CVs into three elements but one needs two of the five slots available on CVs to do this. Having two squadrons of 18 SBDs as opposed to one of 36 SBDs limits the number of free slots to just one, effectively denying the Allies the same flexibility with CV based fighters that the Japanese enjoy, simply because of the slot count. Seeing as there is no real difference between scout and bombing squadrons in WITP aside from nomenclature I would suggest that grouping the SBDs into one squadron is the way to go.

[bstarr]

I was talking about how the jap carriers tend to migrate toward equal units after a few weeks of gameplay - like 24ftr, 24db, 24tb on the Akagi, etc. If US carriers change to 3 squadrons you might lose the 36ftr, 36bd, 15tb setup and end up with 30ftr, 30db, 30tb. It's a big if, but it sure would be a pain to lose 6 fighters per carrier.

[michaelm75au]

If you put 3 "elements" of fighters on the USN CV, the USN CV group re-structure will turn each of them into the size appropriate for the time period.

Just tried creating 3 VF groups of max size 12 as sections on a USN CV, starting scenario in late 44.
Left CV in port and the max size of each fighter group changed to 42, and started gaining replacements.
CV soon ended up with too many planes to fly operations.
The USN CV group restructure is based on type of planes a group is flying. So all "fighter" groups get changed to the fighter size for the time period.

Michael

[Ron Saueracker]

Crap...there is nothing we can do with this game it seems. Unless of course keeping reinforcements off until returning from deployment and recombining the VFs triplets before allowing reinforcements when in port. Might that work or does the game ignore the toggle no reinforcements?

[michaelm75au]

From my experimentation, the CV group restructure requires that replacements be ON.

Doing the test again with replacements OFF, the groups did not change size.
Turned on replacements for one of the VF elements and it changed size to 42.

The problem is still that the replacement option can't be turned of for the air groups in the scenario file. When ship arrives, it will be up to the player to turn them off.

Michael

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

From my experimentation, the CV group restructure requires that replacements be ON.

Doing the test again with replacements OFF, the groups did not change size.
Turned on replacements for one of the VF elements and it changed size to 42.

The problem is still that the replacement option can't be turned of for the air groups in the scenario file. When ship arrives, it will be up to the player to turn them off.

Michael

So it works if they are turned off. Cool. Thanks.

[Black Mamba 1942]

This "restructuring" will also suck up the limited 18 group split that this game has.
Just something else to think about.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

The USN CV group restructure is based on type of planes a group is flying. So all "fighter" groups get changed to the fighter size for the time period.

If this is true why can USN CVs equipped with F4F-3s expand the VF count to 27 then 36, something which the folding wings of the F4F-4 helped to accomodate? Is it aircraft type or simply some date the designer picked, like the earliest refit availabilty date, which governs air unit size?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

This "restructuring" will also suck up the limited 18 group split that this game has.
Just something else to think about.[;)]

[:(]???? Eh?

[Black Mamba 1942]

I thought everyone knew that there is an 18 group limitation on splitting air groups.[:D]
This is the max that can be split in the game.
In PBEM, that comes to 9 per side.

[michaelm75au]

There is no hard and fast limit of 18, it all depends on the scenario.

The available space is as such:

A split group (either side) will go in to slots 2200-2399 (ie 200 slots). There is room for 200 A/B/C groups.
This means that a TOTAL of 66 (200 /3) full size groups can be split.

Now the issue is that theses slots (2200-2399) have been used in most of the scenarios. This then cuts down the number of full size groups that can be split.

For example:
if 100 slots (of the 200) are used to define groups in the game, only 100 can support split groups. Thus only a TOTAL of 33 full size groups can be split.

The concept of 18 group limit came about as a "house rule", the idea being to limit each side to 9 during a PBEM. There were games around where the Japanese player had basically split all his groups and the Allied player couldn't because all the available slots were used up.

BTW, I think what Ron is suggesting is that the American VF group be split at the start, ie define a /A,/B,/C in the scenario file. I don't think a squadron size air group can be divided in the game.
Michael

[Black Mamba 1942]

So if the VF's are created with seperate slots they won't require breakdowm?

Or can more empty slots be created to add to the number of groups that can be split?

In the campaign scenarios I've only seen the 18 maximum.
I don't bother playing the smaller scenarios.[:D]

[michaelm75au]

The CV group re-structure appears to be base on time frames.
Once a CV meets the conditions of the group re-structure, then the group changes take affect for that time frame as per section 19.4.2.

The type of fighter does not seem to come into play.

I tested a CV group of 40xF4-F3 in 28/Jun/44 and played until 1/Jul/44. The group size changed to 42xF4-F3.
Michael

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

The USN CV group restructure is based on type of planes a group is flying. So all "fighter" groups get changed to the fighter size for the time period.

If this is true why can USN CVs equipped with F4F-3s expand the VF count to 27 then 36, something which the folding wings of the F4F-4 helped to accomodate? Is it aircraft type or simply some date the designer picked, like the earliest refit availabilty date, which governs air unit size?

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

So if the VF's are created with seperate slots they won't require breakdowm?

Correct. There were some mods out there where the Allied AF groups has been broken down by squadron so as to eliminate the breakdown of groups.

Or can more empty slots be created to add to the number of groups that can be split?

I don't believe so. At least not continuous slots.
Fragment slots start where split slots finish.

In hindsight, the split slots (2200-2399) should not really have been available to the editor.

Michael

[el cid again]

Any chance we can get the rather redundant/useless differentation of the Scouting and Bombing Squadrons removed? If the SBDs are grouped into one 36 plane unit then that will free up a vital slot allowing the Allied player to divide the VF squadron into three (like the Japanese player can do) and can therefore perform Long Range and Normal CAP simultaneously.

As far as I know, no one is doing a total rework of Allied air units. I did one for Japan and I detect issues that should be addressed for the Allies - but they won't make this cut. Except a few planes seem to have been added by someone, and I redid the ranges for Allied heavy bombers - all of them - because almost all were wrong - as requested by the CHS management team.

[bstarr]

I just reached 1943 in my current game and noticed that the VS-6 was missing. At first I thought this was a new squadron-eating glitch, then I noticed that VB-6 had been increased to 36 planes. Then I checked on Hornet, which was undergoing major repairs at San Fran, and, sure enough, Hornet also had a three air unit structure. Apparently the problem you mentioned has been fixed within the game - it just waits until 43 to kick in. Perhaps this came along in the newest patch. I downloaded the test patch and have been playing with it.
bs

ps. Saratoga is currently at Aukland and still has 4 groups. Wasp, Yorktown and Lexington are resting on the bottom.

[Ron Saueracker]

BTW, I think what Ron is suggesting is that the American VF group be split at the start, ie define a /A,/B,/C in the scenario file. I don't think a squadron size air group can be divided in the game.
Michael

I was suggesting that the USN dive bomber squadrons be grouped together into a squadron of 36 (since the scout and bombing roles are not modelled as unique ) so that a "vacancy"can be opened up on USN CVs to allow the player to split his 1 VF unit into three as the Japanese player can (because the Japanese player has only one dive bomber and one torpedo group per CV generally. The problem is the 5 vacancies available on any CV for air units. And of course, the hard coding of squadron sizes.

[Nikademus]

wont work. If you try to have one VB of 36, the game will reduce it to 18.