Matrix Games Forums

Yes. 98 or 99.

you can test it by running your modified scenario and checking Shinano's airgroup. Go to each squadron's detail screen and look for the # in () at the upper left corner...that indicates the max size of the squadron (or other airgroup type) If your over the limit it wll display (9)

That means that all aircraft over that number in the airgroup will go into reserve status by the next turn.

Is 99 aircraft an upper limit. I too have moded Shinano (and Midway) to 120 and 137 (Midway). I've also adjusted item 20 under weapons to increase sortie rates. However, after one game-day, both ships air wings place approximately 80% of the available aircraft in reserve.

I (and Nik above) have tried to explain this. If you EITHER have too many planes OR 5 squadrons, code FORCES you to have only 9 planes active per squadron. I think the plane limit is 96 or 98 - but it might be 99 - I don't remember - as I use 96 I can say that works. I know the squadron limit is 4. IF you assign 5, you get that 9 planes active after one day. If you assign 6 or more you get NO planes active.

It is wrong to assign more than 96 planes anyway - because the extra planes are disassembled (or would be) and could not fly on the same day as the operation. There is not room - even if you take out the workshops - to have more than 96 planes assembled - in the Japanese system. There isn't on Midway either - but American's "cheated" - and use a deck park. This is unfair in the game - the planes do not wash overboard in a storm. ONLY in a game where this happens can you assign more planes than can be in the hanger to American carriers and not be "cheating." IMHO.

Thank you for the info regarding a/c capacity.

I was thinking of trying a "work-around". Does anyone know if the following will work, or will the "hard coding" override what I'm about to suggest? I don't mind tinkering, but I don't want to waste time either.

Suggested work-around:

I've noticed in the Database Editor that under the Airgroups section, you can adjust the squadron size by changine the "Max" box to the desired squadron size. In the case of the Shinano, 45 fighters, 45 dive bombers, and 30 torpedo bombers. With the Midway its four squadrons of 36 fighters (F4Us or F6Fs), 36 fighters (F8Fs or F2Hs), 36 attack (AD1s), and 29 fighter bombers (F7Fs).

When I enter a game and go to the Task Force, Ship, Squadron dialogue box, the number of aircraft (in the upper left corner of the display) indicates the maximum that I entered. In previous attempts (leaving the "Max" box at zero), the number displayed reverted to 9.

I have yet to run the game for a "game day", or two, so I haven't discovered if my attempt will be overrode by the hard coding.

Am I wasting my time here?

Thanks

Yes. the carrier hardcoding routine will override the value you put in the max box via the editor. next turn it will change back to (9)

Yes. the carrier hardcoding routine will override the value you put in the max box via the editor. next turn it will change back to (9)

I confirm this. Independently I did testing. I have a problem - Unryu really has 5 squadrons per ship - but I cannot put them on the ship - so I had to combine two into one squadron to make it work right. IF you exceed EITHER plane count OR squadron count limits, hard code FORCES ALL squadrons to 9 ready planes. And above a higher limit, it FORCES all squadrons to 0 planes ready.

Thanks for the imput on A/C capacity.

However, I'm pig headed. I had already modified the Shinano and Midway per my previous post. So I decided to go ahead toy with will fixing dinner last night. I started the game and ignored everything except the TF that I had placed the Shinano in (heading for Pearl, aka "The Seventh Carrier" thing). The ship's airgroups took part in the attack, etc., etc.

December 8th rolls around and I check the Shinano's air groups. They had not reverted to 9. They were still at 45, 45, and 30. Only three A/C had been lost through combat and operational losses. I decided to stick around Pearl and see what happened.

The game is no at the December 12th turn, the Shinano and its TF have engaged in several strikes on Pearl, Midway, and Wake. The TF was attacked twice by the Enterprises air groups and now the Shinano and company are headed back to Japan. I've checked the air groups each day. The only change is from combat and operation mishaps. In all other respects the Shinano and its a/c are acting like a normal CV.

I'm using the v1.60 game, the v5.0 map (not extended), and the converted campaign scenario (115 I believe).

So...

What did I do wrong, or right?

I haven't tested the Midway or placed five air groups on a CV yet. Maybe that will cause it to revert. Don't know.

Thanks again.

ORIGINAL: TR Shrum

Thanks for the imput on A/C capacity.

However, I'm pig headed. I had already modified the Shinano and Midway per my previous post. So I decided to go ahead toy with will fixing dinner last night. I started the game and ignored everything except the TF that I had placed the Shinano in (heading for Pearl, aka "The Seventh Carrier" thing). The ship's airgroups took part in the attack, etc., etc.

December 8th rolls around and I check the Shinano's air groups. They had not reverted to 9. They were still at 45, 45, and 30. Only three A/C had been lost through combat and operational losses. I decided to stick around Pearl and see what happened.

The game is no at the December 12th turn, the Shinano and its TF have engaged in several strikes on Pearl, Midway, and Wake. The TF was attacked twice by the Enterprises air groups and now the Shinano and company are headed back to Japan. I've checked the air groups each day. The only change is from combat and operation mishaps. In all other respects the Shinano and its a/c are acting like a normal CV.

I'm using the v1.60 game, the v5.0 map (not extended), and the converted campaign scenario (115 I believe).

So...

What did I do wrong, or right?

I haven't tested the Midway or placed five air groups on a CV yet. Maybe that will cause it to revert. Don't know.

Thanks again.

Interesting - would be interesting to watch what happens when you disband the Shinano TF in port. It seems that this triggers any carrier airgroup changes in the game (code-wise). Just a guess!

K

Again, thanks.

I'll try the disbanding trick tonight and see if that causes the airgroups to revert.

What did I do wrong, or right?

You are on the wrong side of the hard code change of carrier groups.
Shinano is not a 1941 ship! After a certain date, ALL carrier groups are forced to change size, and Shinano is after that date, so the rules apply when you can have Shinano. You are playing science fiction to put her in 1941.

I've now tried the disbanding trick several times. I've also tried splitting TFs, recombing, etc. I even moved to one of the later war scenarios and tried the same things. In short, both the Shinano(s) and Midway(s) all are able to operate more than 99 a/c and operate four air groups without any problems. Both units have taken damage and begun repairs. Air groups have suffered losses, placed a/c in the repair slot, and have received replacements. So far both units are acting just like normal CVs within the game.

I've now tried the disbanding trick several times. I've also tried splitting TFs, recombing, etc. I even moved to one of the later war scenarios and tried the same things. In short, both the Shinano(s) and Midway(s) all are able to operate more than 99 a/c and operate four air groups without any problems. Both units have taken damage and begun repairs. Air groups have suffered losses, placed a/c in the repair slot, and have received replacements. So far both units are acting just like normal CVs within the game.

OK - this may be correct. I focused on the number of squadrons - since Unryu needs five - and it does not work well. I heard about the number limit - and I never tried to break it. Because to operate more than about 96 planes on these ships IS science fiction. You can only do it with a deck park - and that is grossly misleading. A storm comes along, you lose ALL those planes on deck. I only allow deck parks in games where you must pay the price for your choice to use it. A normal air group - that can strike below - is not going to be big enough to make this an issue. Remember - these are late ships - they are not flying the smaller earlier planes - but big ones.

interesting.

no. you didn't do anything wrong. It works. (just ran a few tests) funny that it does though because it doesn't work for UK carriers for example (modifying the max aircraft variable was one of the first things i tried during a scrub of UK CV squadrons) The UK carrier hardcoding overrode the values. Here, it didn't.

You might still run into a problem though since your scenario starts early in the war. In addition to the prior mentioned variables, US and IJN carrier squadron sizes are governed by the date. They change after certain date triggers. You might try running the game in head to head mode with everything stood down and let it run for a few months and see if any changes occur.

Yes. i suggest you change the scenario-date to 1945... make some runs and look.
I bet it will be after a few days 9 planes...

I tried the shinano with 99, the midways, all the same. you have beautiful useless carriers and your groups will be 9er...
so, 96 is the number... and this is true enough

Another thing i mentioned... i tried a CVL with 48 planes... for the allies and the japanese... but put on it 2x27 Planes... so 54 ist more then 48*110%... but the planes still fly and do as they should not. Is this a bug or had i overlooked something ? Just asking, cause it is not important, But still differs from the informations (110% Overload ist possible, more shut down the carrier)

But this was with carrier capable planes and fixed sized groups

with carrier trained groups and no limitations, it is 28 fighters and 19 bombers... so i miss 1 plane. Why ? for the allies it is 87 instead of 90... (so i need 3 extra planes)
Just asking...

I've now tried the disbanding trick several times. I've also tried splitting TFs, recombing, etc. I even moved to one of the later war scenarios and tried the same things. In short, both the Shinano(s) and Midway(s) all are able to operate more than 99 a/c and operate four air groups without any problems. Both units have taken damage and begun repairs. Air groups have suffered losses, placed a/c in the repair slot, and have received replacements. So far both units are acting just like normal CVs within the game.

I cannot explain this. Exhaustive testing indicates you should experience a squadron limitation of 9 planes per squadron after one day. In any case, I don't rate any carrier as having more aircraft than it can strike below into the hanger, NOT counting disassembled spares. This is because:

1) If there is foul weather, planes in deck park are lost. Our game does not simulate this, so I do not allow either side to "cheat" and run around with planes on deck without risk;

2) The disassembled planes cannot be sent off in a strike. Our code would treat extra planes as available and allow too large air strikes.

Since the air combat code is not good when air groups are too large, limiting air group size makes this issue less severe.

Note that the new version of CHS has a Shinano in this form (true carrier) for the same reason RHS does (these ships both have a capacity rating of 96, although one was done by Andrew and the other by me). The reason is that there is no way to simulate a support carrier in game mechanics. IF the aircraft workshops were torn out, they could have operated about that many planes in the Japanese style: all can strike below. USN (and late war RN) carriers often operated "too many planes" by using a deck park - but IJN didn't do this in any case. For one thing, they didn't really have as many crewed planes - at Leyte Gulf the "carrier force" was almost a total bluff - it had few planes and little experience in the crews. The idea that Shinano could have operated MORE than her hanger capacity by the time she could have finished is more or less one from the Twilight Zone. In fact, Shinano is a very horrible waste of steel, and completing her comes at the expense of the earlier completion of many smaller ships: Japanese players should never consider completing her either as a battleship or as a carrier. In CHS next release, you get her BOTH ways: you should either disable one or the other - but if you do not - you get both (and you will really slow down completions of other ships). In RHS, you can have EITHER - pick CVO for the carrier and BBO for the battleship.

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
Another thing i mentioned... i tried a CVL with 48 planes... for the allies and the japanese... but put on it 2x27 Planes... so 54 ist more then 48*110%... but the planes still fly and do as they should not.

54 is still less than 48*115%=55. Your groups will fly from CVs unless you park 56 planes at them.

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

I have moded Shinano slightly by increasing her group to 99 planes ala nick's mod, although i am concirned about the max sorties.

Does anyone know how many sorties she can launch or how you can check/modify this.

Thanks

She was to operate a small airgroup, but that was due to aircraft availability. She had plenty of hanger and stores space--she was the size of the Forrestal. She could have operated 8 squadrons of 18 aircraft each like the Midways were designed for, with a deckload strike of 108 and a CAP of 36.

She was to operate a small airgroup, but that was due to aircraft availability. She had plenty of hanger and stores space--she was the size of the Forrestal. She could have operated 8 squadrons of 18 aircraft each like the Midways were designed for, with a deckload strike of 108 and a CAP of 36.

Sorry - this is not correct. She was not designed to be a carrier - and was finished to the armored deck - lots of inefficiencies -her main gun magazines were still in place! Further, she was built with many workshops in what you expect to be hanger space - and the hanger was not very large for her size for several reasons. There was no shortage of planes either - she was part of a division of three supported by an entire wing - they could assign ANY number of planes. This was a DESIGN decision. In the event they had no pilots, not a plane shortage. But the intent was to use her in a role we didn't have - rearm planes - repair planes - refuel planes - from her vast stocks. See the book Shinano.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

She was to operate a small airgroup, but that was due to aircraft availability. She had plenty of hanger and stores space--she was the size of the Forrestal. She could have operated 8 squadrons of 18 aircraft each like the Midways were designed for, with a deckload strike of 108 and a CAP of 36.

Sorry - this is not correct. She was not designed to be a carrier - and was finished to the armored deck - lots of inefficiencies -her main gun magazines were still in place! Further, she was built with many workshops in what you expect to be hanger space - and the hanger was not very large for her size for several reasons. There was no shortage of planes either - she was part of a division of three supported by an entire wing - they could assign ANY number of planes. This was a DESIGN decision. In the event they had no pilots, not a plane shortage. But the intent was to use her in a role we didn't have - rearm planes - repair planes - refuel planes - from her vast stocks. See the book Shinano.

I've seen both opinions, and you're not that far different from what I indicated. My point is that she could have been fixed up to operate a Midway-sized air group. A Forrestal-sized air group would have been out of reach.

I've seen both opinions, and you're not that far different from what I indicated. My point is that she could have been fixed up to operate a Midway-sized air group. A Forrestal-sized air group would have been out of reach.

While Andrew and I agreed that she could have operated a larger air group if the workshops were torn out and used as hanger deck, this is not a "Japanese Midway." She is not going to be able to operate an air group proportional to her tonnage (essentially the largest carrier afloat in the period) because she was too far along as a battleship by the time the decision to convert her was made. Her internal arrangements are inefficient and changing them would have involved tearing out major structural members (e.g. the main gun magazines and foundations).
That would have made her unavailable during WWII - or at least unavailable unless WWII lasted longer.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I've seen both opinions, and you're not that far different from what I indicated. My point is that she could have been fixed up to operate a Midway-sized air group. A Forrestal-sized air group would have been out of reach.

While Andrew and I agreed that she could have operated a larger air group if the workshops were torn out and used as hanger deck, this is not a "Japanese Midway." She is not going to be able to operate an air group proportional to her tonnage (essentially the largest carrier afloat in the period) because she was too far along as a battleship by the time the decision to convert her was made. Her internal arrangements are inefficient and changing them would have involved tearing out major structural members (e.g. the main gun magazines and foundations).
That would have made her unavailable during WWII - or at least unavailable unless WWII lasted longer.

My old book on her design history is back in America, but I remember seeing an opinion that she could have been converted (without tearing out the magazines) to operate an air group of somewhere between 110 and 140 aircraft. I did an analysis of the flight deck space and hanger space as built, and agree with the reported capacity, but it also looked to me like her hanger space could have been at least doubled.