ORIGINAL: michaelm
If that was only CV in the TF, and all other considerations (like ready planes compared to capacity, damaged CVs, etc) aside, then it would not close with enemy CVTF as it has more F groups than TB/DB ones. Regardless of the aggressiveness of the TF leader.
I am trying to stop CVs from closing with enemy CVTFs without resources. Thinking about it, I could have used type of aircraft rather group type as the limiting factor - was originally going to, but thought group would be sufficient.
However, based on the post, and the way normal CV groups (F/DB/TB) could be altered esp in mods, it might be a toss up as to which is better; F group(s) could have more planes than a DB and TB group together.[:D]
Plane numbers rather than group numbers is the way to go. Three basic reasons.
1. If you go with group numbers, it will be too easy to circumvent the closing the air gap game design move by adding carrier capable units. Many Allied players will ump with joy at that development but then will complain vociferously when they regularly become a victim of a Japanese strike which they cannot respond to because they are out of range.
2. There are also players who abuse the resizing issue. They will be kept in check if the test is plane numbers rather than air groups.
3. The closing the air gap move takes into account air hex range, not sea hex range, in determining the "reaction" path chosen. If you go down the plane number route, you can consider an additional check which involves the range of the aircraft. This is already factored in to a degree but you can tweak it so that attack planes with a range equal to or more than the of the escorting fighters (ie what is left after CAP) is taken into account. Means more coding effort and thus perhaps a non starter, but if the intention is to ensure assets exist to prosecute the attack after closing the gap ...[;)]
Whatever you do, there will be players, usually Allied, who will criticise the decision. They don't accept that there are opportunity costs wanting all the good benefits out of their decisions but wanting to avoid the adverse aspects of their decisions.
Alfred
