Ability to divide Carrier fighter squadrons...

[DFalcon]

The state of the game must be pretty good if Ron is reduced to trolling with bait like this.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon



The state of the game must be pretty good if Ron is reduced to trolling with bait like this.

Teehee...[8D]

[Andrew Brown]

Ron, have you tried changing an Allied CV air unit to a group and then splitting it in the game? Could be worth testing...

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

[&:]

My sense of humour is weird today I guess. Is it the game you are bummed at or what?

I thought you were the one being dragged kicking and screaming back into court, not me. I'm not bummed over anything today. I'm really confused about what could have given you the impression I was.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Ron, have you tried changing an Allied CV air unit to a group and then splitting it in the game? Could be worth testing...

In the editor? No because I was not aware that VS units merge into VB units, freeing up a spot for a three way split of the VF unit. Probably just wreak havoc on the group size.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

[&:]

My sense of humour is weird today I guess. Is it the game you are bummed at or what?

I thought you were the one being dragged kicking and screaming back into court, not me. I'm not bummed over anything today. I'm really confused about what could have given you the impression I was.

You just sounded pessimistic. Must be my mojo.[:D]

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


In the editor? No because I was not aware that VS units merge into VB units, freeing up a spot for a three way split of the VF unit. Probably just wreak havoc on the group size.

You are right. As long as the US starts with a VF, VS, VB and a VT group, splitting the VF would create 6 groups on a carrier and they can only have 5. You would have to combine the VS and VB group into one.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker




My sense of humour is weird today I guess. Is it the game you are bummed at or what?

I thought you were the one being dragged kicking and screaming back into court, not me. I'm not bummed over anything today. I'm really confused about what could have given you the impression I was.

You just sounded pessimistic. Must be my mojo.[:D]

Okay, Ron, your drunk hallucinations are really starting to drive me up the wall. (Of course, that is most likely your evil scheme.) Just what exactly is it that you think I said to start all this?

[Zeta16]

All I know if you want 9 plane LRCAP it really does not help. I have noticed in my games that LRCAP with small amounts of planes is worthless. So I think we are making something out of nothing.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel




I thought you were the one being dragged kicking and screaming back into court, not me. I'm not bummed over anything today. I'm really confused about what could have given you the impression I was.

You just sounded pessimistic. Must be my mojo.[:D]

Okay, Ron, your drunk hallucinations are really starting to drive me up the wall. (Of course, that is most likely your evil scheme.) Just what exactly is it that you think I said to start all this?

I'm sober...maybe that's the problem. Don't worry about it...my mistake.[:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

All I know if you want 9 plane LRCAP it really does not help. I have noticed in my games that LRCAP with small amounts of planes is wothless. So I think we are making something out of nothing.

Look at it this way. You have 3 CVs and have to maintain a LR CAP over an invasion TF 60 miles away (think Aug 7th, 42 Guadalcanal landings). Currently, one would have to deprive at least one entire CV's strike group of any escort to provide CAP. If they could be split, the same amount of LR CAP could be put up over the transports and still allow escorts for each strike group and CAP for the CVs.

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

All I know if you want 9 plane LRCAP it really does not help. I have noticed in my games that LRCAP with small amounts of planes is wothless. So I think we are making something out of nothing.

Look at it this way. You have 3 CVs and have to maintain a LR CAP over an invasion TF 60 miles away (think Aug 7th, 42 Guadalcanal landings). Currently, one would have to deprive at least one entire CV's strike group of any escort to provide CAP. If they could be split, the same amount of LR CAP could be put up over the transports and still allow escorts for each strike group and CAP for the CVs.

It seems that unless the LRCAP group is a big group a bunch of smaller groups still have a problem intercepting. In my games it seems that less than a 3rd of the group is ever on LCAP and they hardly intercept even with a lot of planes. In playing this game way to much I have no clue how escort and CAP really work (this could be a good or bad thing [:)]) for carrier groups. So I usually put whole groups on missions and have never had problems at all with both sides. So ewally I have no clue and just play and drink more beer [;)] By the way it's nice to Oilers back in the Cup. if they can hold on.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

All I know if you want 9 plane LRCAP it really does not help. I have noticed in my games that LRCAP with small amounts of planes is wothless. So I think we are making something out of nothing.

Look at it this way. You have 3 CVs and have to maintain a LR CAP over an invasion TF 60 miles away (think Aug 7th, 42 Guadalcanal landings). Currently, one would have to deprive at least one entire CV's strike group of any escort to provide CAP. If they could be split, the same amount of LR CAP could be put up over the transports and still allow escorts for each strike group and CAP for the CVs.

It seems that unless the LRCAP group is a big group a bunch of smaller groups still have a problem intercepting. In my games it seems that less than a 3rd of the group is ever on LCAP and they hardly intercept even with a lot of planes. In playing this game way to much I have no clue how escort and CAP really work (this could be a good or bad thing [:)]) for carrier groups. So I usually put whole groups on missions and have never had problems at all with both sides. So ewally I have no clue and just play and drink more beer [;)] By the way it's nice to Oilers back in the Cup. if they can hold on.

I was really teed off when Ottawa pulled an Ottawa and found a way to play like an all women's team in the playoffs again but having a Canadian team back in the Stanley Cup final is great...does not matter where in Canada you are, all the bars are packed with cheering drunken fans.[;)]

[Nomad]

Doesn't the Stanley Cup belong in the USA? [:D]

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker




Look at it this way. You have 3 CVs and have to maintain a LR CAP over an invasion TF 60 miles away (think Aug 7th, 42 Guadalcanal landings). Currently, one would have to deprive at least one entire CV's strike group of any escort to provide CAP. If they could be split, the same amount of LR CAP could be put up over the transports and still allow escorts for each strike group and CAP for the CVs.

It seems that unless the LRCAP group is a big group a bunch of smaller groups still have a problem intercepting. In my games it seems that less than a 3rd of the group is ever on LCAP and they hardly intercept even with a lot of planes. In playing this game way to much I have no clue how escort and CAP really work (this could be a good or bad thing [:)]) for carrier groups. So I usually put whole groups on missions and have never had problems at all with both sides. So ewally I have no clue and just play and drink more beer [;)] By the way it's nice to Oilers back in the Cup. if they can hold on.

I was really teed off when Ottawa pulled an Ottawa and found a way to play like an all women's team in the playoffs again but having a Canadian team back in the Stanley Cup final is great...does not matter where in Canada you are, all the bars are packed with cheering drunken fans.[;)]

So that means more Money for you. I am a life long Blues fan and I am happy to see Pronger in the finals.

[dtravel]

Ron, c'mere a sec.



















[:'(]

[el cid again]

Being able to split IJN CV groups is because the group is a "Daitai", not because of the available slots on the CV.
In game terms, only groups of a certain size (group type) can split.

As to why historically, ...?
Michael

This may be linguistics. A Daitai is a squadron! Some Japanese translate this as "unit" - meaning "four three plane elements" - and from midwar it formally became "four four plane elements". That is certainly a squadron.
But the larger carriers typically carried two "fighter units" in their "fighter squadron" - and Hiryu and Soryu each had "one and a half units." To make this even more confusing, the Japanese had a concept (which may have been superior) of the entire formation formed up (regardless of what carrier a unit or flight came from) as an organization in its own right (with names that do not translate because we have no similar concepts).
Thus getting "one and a half units" from a carrier might not matter much - it was the total you got from all the carriers you led. It is not the squadron (Daitai) that is dividing - it is something larger - we might call it a "carrier fighter group." And there is something larger still conducting the operations - a "carrier formation combined air wing."

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Being able to split IJN CV groups is because the group is a "Daitai", not because of the available slots on the CV.
In game terms, only groups of a certain size (group type) can split.

As to why historically, ...?
Michael

This may be linguistics. A Daitai is a squadron! Some Japanese translate this as "unit" - meaning "four three plane elements" - and from midwar it formally became "four four plane elements". That is certainly a squadron.
But the larger carriers typically carried two "fighter units" in their "fighter squadron" - and Hiryu and Soryu each had "one and a half units." To make this even more confusing, the Japanese had a concept (which may have been superior) of the entire formation formed up (regardless of what carrier a unit or flight came from) as an organization in its own right (with names that do not translate because we have no similar concepts).
Thus getting "one and a half units" from a carrier might not matter much - it was the total you got from all the carriers you led. It is not the squadron (Daitai) that is dividing - it is something larger - we might call it a "carrier fighter group." And there is something larger still conducting the operations - a "carrier formation combined air wing."

In game terms, all nations should be able to split because this simply seems nomenclature driven and is the only way to achieve tactical flexibility, and it does enhance the ability of a CV, so the Japanese should not be the only side capable of employing this. Historically the USN and Allied fighter formations on CVs were called squadrons so get limited by a coding decision (squadrons can't split...groups can). Japanese were called something else so get labelled a group and get the split designed for massive 72 plane groups. This is obviously an early design oversight which was never addressed.

What would have been more useful is a more flexible mission menu, where one could employ their squadrons on multiple missions (ie...more than two selections) using a percentage/priority slider or something similar. This would have made this ability to split or not totally irrelevant.

More importantly however, the VB 8 squadron which absorbed VS 8 in my PBEM still shows a max size of 18 and has 36 pilots and 36 planes (18 in reserve). I'm assuming there might be a problem.

The float plane group fix seems to be working as my floatplane flights are filling out again.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

So Don, did you see the routine Mike put in to automatically make the dice roll worse if running on a machine with Ron's serial number? [;)]

So that is why you have to register your games. I always thought it was a copy protection thing.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
More importantly however, the VB 8 squadron which absorbed VS 8 in my PBEM still shows a max size of 18 and has 36 pilots and 36 planes (18 in reserve). I'm assuming there might be a problem.

 
The conditions for an increase in the max size of the VB group are exactly the same for the disband of the VS Group.  These involve game date, port, HQ, and supply.   If you feel you have done nothing to change these and the group is not expanding, send me your save.  Also include a cereal box top and 25 words or less.  
 
P.S.  We also need to adjust the bad-luck factor on your serial number.