Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel

[Lowpe]

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

...

That's what I thought but in my intiial test they did not as I only checked ships already disbanded. Easy to check just goto the CS in Hiroshima and set its FP to search then look next turn at pilot mission. There artn't any.

I had to unload, disband etc other CS/AV to get them to do it.

From the test you don't need it to fly search from ships???

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I can't recall every using CS as a disbanded seaplane tender, but they obviously have that capability.

This from stock game 1.

I've never used them disbanded either, but it looks like the excess "Seaplane Support" is added to the Aviation Support +# even if they are in a task force in the hex.

The original topic got me wondering whether the “Aircraft Capacity” of CS and AV means they can support that many aircraft aboard, plus the number of “Seaplane Support” ashore. This shows that they can’t, as only the [Seaplane Support] – [Aircraft Capacity Used] gets added to the Aviation Support +# at the base.
This is from way back in Feb 1942 in my ongoing PBEM game, with three ships involved at Cagayan.
1. AV Sanuki Marus had 9 Aircraft Capacity/0 Used so all 21 Seaplane Support was added to the base.
2. CS Chiyoda was in TF145 at sea, not docked. Sagara Maru-1 was aboard about to resize to 24, with 8 aircraft. CS Chiyoda contributes +16 Seaplane Support to the base.
3. CS Mizuho was also in TF145 at sea. Mizuho-1 is aboard with 13 of 20 capacity, so contributes +7 to Seaplane Support at Cagayan.
That meant that 21+16+7=44 which was the number shown on the Cagayan base information.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I believe the ones onboard might operate while it is disbanded in port (or they might not).

The Seaplane Support means they support planes that are at the base that the CS is disbanded at.

Did a little test or I though it was going to be.

Active groups set to 100 search max range. Used pilot missions to indicate flying. At no time did any AV or CS have supply on board.

Intial tests catagorically showed no sorties ever flew form ships disbanded in port. Then comes Babeldaob!

I had disbanded two CS in Babeldaob each had one group set to search, the other rest. The search groups flew? I had another CS in Hiroshima, similar set up but the search groups did NOT fly??

I started put them into TF with various movement instructions, disbanding once they reach they destination. It seems that if you move the AV/CS that won't fly to a different port they will, sometimes! For instance I moved one CS to Nagaski from Hiroshima and it would not, then moved it to Amami Oshima and it did. Likewise I moved a AV in and out of Truk no joy. Once I sent it to Saipan it did??

I also moved one CS back to Hiroshima from Saipan and again no FP would fly???

If you put the ship into a TF and move it somewhere else then when FP will fly when the ship is disbanded, sometimes?

Now am I missing something or is this a bug?

Supply
AV TF with two groups sent to Japanese dot base Torishima with no supply at base or on AV. One group I based there the other remained on board, docked. Both flew sorties. The one on board with 3+1 a/c fles an average of 6 a day. The one at the base with 6+2 a/c flew 10 on average. The shore based on also fly when the AV was disbanned.

Another AV at Amani Oshima with no supply at base or onboard also flew sorties while in a TF.

Pilots
One thing unassociated with this test, pilots with the lowest exp seem to take preference for patrol.

I'd say you are missing something.

Step 1 - what was the weather? Where any hexes overcast or stormy? Also, water launched air won't fly in unsuitable sea states.

Step 2- Read the part of the manual which describes how air sorties flown from ships expend endurance, not supply.

Step 3 - review and reassess your results.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I'd say you are missing something.

Step 1 - what was the weather? Where any hexes overcast or stormy? Also, water launched air won't fly in unsuitable sea states.

Step 2- Read the part of the manual which describes how air sorties flown from ships expend endurance, not supply.

Step 3 - review and reassess your results.

1 Weather is irrelevant, I did not just run this for one day.

Tried it again, picked any full campaign head to head. Turn off all air ops for both sides.

For any ship with FP that starts the game disbanded. Set them to max search run for 2/3 turn and they don't appear to fly. Put them in a TF docked or not, they do. Disband them again, they don't. I used 2xCL in Saigon, 1 CS and 1 CL in Hiroshima and AV in Ominato.

Then the opposite using ships in TF. Separate, unload and disband if necessary. Once disbanded repeat above. I did it for 1 BB/1 CA in Singora, 1 AV in Takao, 2 CS in Babeldoab and 1 AV in Chichi Jima. Those in SIngora and Takao did not fly, those in Babel and Chichi did.

Example of flying 13 Dec below.

2. Yes I know. Just confirmed it was the case for anyone thinking the did require it and was the cause.

3. Try it youself. If you don't get the same results then it's me or my install.

[Chris21wen]

Here's one that isn't. Again 13 Dec.

[BananaConvention]

What are you using to validate whether or not the aircraft flew?

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: BananaConvention

What are you using to validate whether or not the aircraft flew?

Pilot mission. I said that in an earlier post. When the scenario starts they are all zero.

[LargeSlowTarget]

I have run a test with islands without any land-based AV support, with and without supplies, and a float plane unit and a flying boat unit present, and an AV respectivement an CS en route.

My findings:

* on the island without supplies, no sorties launched
* on the island with supplies, the planes fly until all are damaged
* CS and AV pilots flew missions while at sea - yes, even the AV pilots
* CS and AV supported and repaired their onboard float planes as well as land-based float planes and flying boats, both while undocked and disbanded in port, and with or without supplies loaded - just their presence at a base suffices to potentially provide AV support to the base
* "potentially" because the AV support for the base is "seaplane support minus total number of onboard planes including reserve planes" - e.g. an AV with 21 seplane support and a nine-plane squadron plus two reserve planes provides 10 AV support for the base - 21-(9+2). Without the reserve planes base AV is 12 - 21-9. A CS with seaplane support = 24 and two 12-plane squadrons onboard provides no AV support to the base, if one squadron is transferred offboard, 12 AV are being provided to the land base
* neither sorties nor onboard supplies are being consumed (for search missions)

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen



1 Weather is irrelevant, I did not just run this for one day [snip]

Oh dear, you seem upset that I have questioned your claim that you have found a bug, one that has apparently eluded detection for 13 years. I tried to point you in the right direction, but that was unsuccessful.

So, let's do this in very clinical, emotionless fashion, starting with the above statement, and working downwards over the next few days.

First, weather affects every air mission. They are all subject to weather effects on mission launch rolls, direct, and indirectly affected by weather.

7.2.1.4 paraphrased - weather effects add to the chance of mission aborts due to leadership/morale fails

7.2.1.12 WEATHER AND ABORTED MISSIONS
Offensive Missions can be aborted after all preparations have been made, but prior to take-off,
due to bad weather over the air unit’s base or over the intended target. Hexes affected by bad
weather blocks any air units from launching an airstrike from the hex, and it blocks any target
in the hex from being attacked.
A line of bad weather will not stop an airstrike flying through the hex from a good weather hex
to a good weather hex. A no-fly symbol (a cloud) will appear on the tactical map if the Show
Clouds preference option is selected.

Note that a search mission is an airstrike, or to use the language in 7.4, an "attack mission" - and they carry an extended range bombload and can attack ships they find them {7.1} on page 151. See also the table on page 157. Search is a patrol mission launched in phase 2, but it is still capable of making a strike; it is an offensive mission.

Finally, as to your assertion that running it for a few days somehow makes weather irrelevant - that is incorrect. Every hex is subject to a die roll, and every base a die roll each phase, and might get the cloud cover or worse, that stops any air activity. See 12.1, page 224:

"Each of these weather quadrants will generate a different weather forecast for all hexes
in their quadrant.Offensive Missions can be aborted after all preparations have been made,
but prior to take-off, due to bad weather over the air unit’s base or over the intended target. A
message will display if this occurs.The aircraft will not fly another Mission during that Air Strike
phase. The weather at each base or target is determined each air phase, and is not linked to
prior weather at that location."

Messages pop up hundreds, if not thousands of times, in any game that float plane ops from cruisers "at sea" (which includes sitting in a TF, undocked) have been canceled due to weather.

Incidentally, even if you have the weather option switched off, you get partly cloudy everywhere, and whilst that is not so bad for ground bases, it still plays havoc with floatplane ops.

So unless you are somehow controlling the weather die-rolls each time you re-run the turns, yes weather is relevant.

Edit: And in other news, as I type, Rafa has broken the Russian Robot in set 4 and is strengthening shot by shot on the way to taking the #1 ranking away from the deportee.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen



1 Weather is irrelevant, I did not just run this for one day [snip]

Oh dear, you seem upset that I have questioned your claim that you have found a bug, one that has apparently eluded detection for 13 years. I tried to point you in the right direction, but that was unsuccessful.

So, let's do this in very clinical, emotionless fashion, starting with the above statement, and working downwards over the next few days.

I said 'Now am I missing something or is this a bug?'. I think this is a reasonable question considering what I found. You answered with 'maybe its weather'. This is not the case and I repeat what I said before, I've repeated it four or five time with different scenarios and they all come up with the same, ships that start disbanded in do no appear to fly search mission with their FP or if they do they are registoring as missions with the pilots.

Now before having a go at me over some precieved slight (lot of that going on on this forum lately) I politely suggest you try it yourself, only takes 5-10 min.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

I said 'Now am I missing something or is this a bug?'. I think this is a reasonable question considering what I found. You answered with 'maybe its weather'. This is not the case

Post script to part 1:

Every other variable in your "test" could be exactly the same, and different weather rolls could produce different fly/no-fly results in different hexes, with advanced weather either on or off. It is interesting that your no-flies (from groups on TF ships) seem to be happening up north near the JHI, in the middle of winter, whereas down at sunny Babeldaob they are flying around no problem. "I moved a AV in and out of Truk no joy. Once I sent it to Saipan it did??" This sounds WAD if the weather is different over Truk hex than it is over Saipan.

I don't actually understand why you maintain weather is irrelevant, because it essentially means you can never set up a test in which you control all the variables to test your hypothesis. But moving on ...

Part 2:

I was suggesting you set up a sandbox that uses endurance expenditure as the metric to detect search ops by shipboard groups on ships not in TF.

In the second part of your post you found that float-plane carrying ships disbanded in port, not in a TF, did not generate air missions by the embarked squadrons - except possibly Babeldaob. See manual 6.2.13.

For every three planes launched on a Search or CAP Mission, the ships in the TF expend one Endurance.

That means all ships in the TF, not just the airgroup carrying ships, because everyone has to speed up (carriers going flank speed into the wind) or slow down (float plane recovery) etc. So even if only one cruiser launches its search planes, everyone takes an endurance hit, including the cruisers who for whatever reason, don't launch. It also at least inferentially suggests that only ships in TF's will generate air ops. Anyway, ships in TFs is WAD - after you account for the weather variable, and maybe some other uncontrollable die rolls that are being failed by no-fly groups.

So on to testing anchored ships in Babeldaob.

If anchored ships, not in TF, are launching air missions, then they too should lose endurance. If there is fuel in the base they might top up and expend some ops points, however that is dependent on ship op points and base ops limits permitting the refuel (more variables to eliminate), so to create a 'pure' test environment you need to sandbox that by emptying Babeldaob of supply and fuel. You also need to remove any other possible sources of a refuel, i.e. other TFs, parked tankers or AOs and any other possibility anyone can think of that provide fuel replenishment.

Once your test sandbox is fuel isolated, run the turn repeatedly and check the endurance levels. It is to be expected that your results will show all ships have no endurance loss.

Edit: One thing was unclear from your original posting - you mentioned sending a TF with floatplane carrying ships to a port with a disband order, and seeing later that search ops were flown. Did you mean they flew them while at sea in transit?

I politely suggest you try it yourself, only takes 5-10 min.

No thanks, to edit up the sandbox to actually create a proper test environment will like take at least a couple of hours of work. It's your hypothesis that there is a bug - and if it survives the rigorous testing process I have outlined for stage 2 above, maybe it is - subject to weather rolls.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]

I'm fairly certain there is a bug where it doesn't actually consume the supply, either.

I seem to remember in my game against Bullwinkle I had disbanded AVs in port, with Mavis unit(s) flying search, and never had to resupply the base. The supply on the AVs never budged but I know they were flying because I was getting search hits and seeing his TFs on the map.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I politely suggest you try it yourself, only takes 5-10 min.

No thanks, to edit up the sandbox to actually create a proper test environment will like take at least a couple of hours of work. It's your hypothesis that there is a bug - and if it survives the rigorous testing process I have outlined for stage 2 above, maybe it is - subject to weather rolls.

You don't need to do that, just run the game normally but if you cannot be bothered that's OK I'll leave it there.

I'll change the wording to 'No it is not the weather causing it'.

[Ian R]

Well, in that case your hypothesis remains unproven.


I can set up an equally unconvincing non-rigorous test and claim it disproves your hypothesis. I parked the HMNZS Leander in Lord Howe island. With Wing Commander Morrison, I.G, appointed CO of its float plane group Sqn 700-10 FAA (1 x Walrus II), with air, aggression and leadership ratings above 50.


Lord Howe island is totally isolated, and has zero fuel (and 10 supply, but not relevant). On arrival and after disbanding into port, the cruiser has 10458 endurance after parking (it dropped out of its SAG adjacent to Lord Howe). Quadrant weather is clear skies. Show clouds is "on". If I see clouds over the base, that turn's result will be discarded.


First day - Sqn grounded so that fatigue etc come back to zero. Also to double check ship endurance stays the same.
Second day. Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 3. Third day Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 1. Fourth day Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 0.

Day 5 then repeated multiple times with Sqn700-10 on 100% search at 6k ft, max normal range 4.

Results: Leander Endurance 10458. 700 Sqn fatigue 0. Turn after turn after turn.


Conclusion: There is no bug and everything is WAD.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]

I'm fairly certain there is a bug where it doesn't actually consume the supply, either.

I seem to remember in my game against Bullwinkle I had disbanded AVs in port, with Mavis unit(s) flying search, and never had to resupply the base. The supply on the AVs never budged but I know they were flying because I was getting search hits and seeing his TFs on the map.

If onboard groups, no bug, WAD.

Shipboard groups sorties cost TF wide endurance, and if appropriate to mission, an onboard sortie. They do not cost supply or fuel.

Eventually, endurance is replenished by refueling, and sorties costs supplies on rearming from a base with sufficient rearm capacity... but onboard planes don't use it directly.

If you are saying that they were groups on base being serviced by the AVs, then it requires rigorous sand box testing before claiming that is somehow a breach of coding - one that has miraculously avoided detection for 13 years.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have noticed by Japanese AVs fly routinely when disbanded in a port, and I always make sure they have supply on them.

Never noticed the lowest exp guys flying first...hazing, I guess![:)]

I'm fairly certain there is a bug where it doesn't actually consume the supply, either.

I seem to remember in my game against Bullwinkle I had disbanded AVs in port, with Mavis unit(s) flying search, and never had to resupply the base. The supply on the AVs never budged but I know they were flying because I was getting search hits and seeing his TFs on the map.

If onboard groups, no bug, WAD.

Shipboard groups sorties cost TF wide endurance, and if appropriate to mission, an onboard sortie. They do not cost supply or fuel.

Eventually, endurance is replenished by refueling, and sorties costs supplies on rearming from a base with sufficient rearm capacity... but onboard planes don't use it directly.

If you are saying that they were groups on base being serviced by the AVs, then it requires rigorous sand box testing before claiming that is somehow a breach of coding - one that has miraculously avoided detection for 13 years.

Well like I said, it's been a while. A number of years. I'm not usually one to mis-recollect, but it happens. If I have time, I'll check it out, because that's exactly what I'm saying: Mavis, based at the base (which was Baker or Canton Island), being serviced by an AV, without using any of the supply either at the base (which essentially had none) or onboard the AV.

[LargeSlowTarget]

My experience as well. In my current PBEM I have disbanded two AVDs at Raoul Island, a dot base without fuel and supplies, and moved-in a squadron of PBYs to fly naval search. They did fly - they found KB heading for Auckland - but the 160 supplies on each of the AVDs remained untouched.

[Ian R]

Have you tracked ship endurance? It should not reduce if the groups are not on board,or if less than 3 aircraft fly on search or CAP.

Also, what happens if you change the mission to naval attack, although leave them on the same search/rest percentages (even if that is 100%)?

I just recreated your situation at Kandavu Is, using the AV Albamarle, and a PBY squadron. On attack but at 100%search, supplies were consumed.

[Lokasenna]

It's supposed to burn the supply, though. And considering the ships never ran out of fuel as I was able to sail them away months later... I just wasn't paying attention to the endurance. I do know that the AVPs/AVDs have low enough endurance that I'd notice.

In another recent game of mine where I was the Allies (opponent now on indefinite/permanent hiatus), I had many AVP/AVD forays in the South Pacific with Catalinas. I was finding that unless I had some supplies at the base, they didn't want to fly or they wouldn't be maintained. But as long as I had some supply there, they would fly - and not burn any of the supplies either at the base or on the AVP/AVD.

I'm still intending to do a test, with a video, to show it happening in real time and what the conditions are. Should be simple enough to do a start as Japan and quickly move one of the magic movement TFs with an AV to a tiny island, fly in a Mavis unit, and just run turns with Enterprise/Lexington nearby to get spotted. And keep track of the supplies.