Matrix Games Forums

Well actually Corsairs equipped Bunker Hill's VF at the beginning but they were replaced later on with Hellcats just for supply reasons. So it is not that irrealsitic to have F4Us on CVs in1943.

I like to stick to the original CV's squadrons. Not because I think it's gamey, just because ... well ... I don't know exactly why! [8|]

But I do put Corsair's (well, I did once [:D]) on the Jeep CVEs because I dont' care for the VR squadrons.

They could fly from carriers, they actually did, so why not? (Please don't get strated [:D])

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Well actually Corsairs equipped Bunker Hill's VF at the beginning but they were replaced later on with Hellcats just for supply reasons. So it is not that irrealsitic to have F4Us on CVs in1943.

Correct, but there were many threads in this forum about using the Marine Corsair Squadrons on carriers being gamey. Thus I had to ask...

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The key issue here is between capabilities and actual usage. Were they used on carriers during the war? No. Could they have been? Yes ( albeit with some minor changes which fall well within the range of variants which each in-game aircraft model represents).

If you want to only do what was done during the war then don't operate them off carriers. If you are comfortable conforming to CAPABILITIES and not being bound by the historical decisions made at the time then it is reasonable to base them on your carriers. If you do this they will suffer higher ops losses in order to represent that they are extempore conversions to carrier duty and not purpose-designed for it like the Zero. This seems like a reasonable modelling to their capability to me. YMMV.

Thus you would not mind your (Allied) opponent to use Corsairs on his carriers in early 1943?

Same issue. They could have been used, but it was felt that their operational losses would have been too great.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The key issue here is between capabilities and actual usage. Were they used on carriers during the war? No. Could they have been? Yes ( albeit with some minor changes which fall well within the range of variants which each in-game aircraft model represents).

If you want to only do what was done during the war then don't operate them off carriers. If you are comfortable conforming to CAPABILITIES and not being bound by the historical decisions made at the time then it is reasonable to base them on your carriers. If you do this they will suffer higher ops losses in order to represent that they are extempore conversions to carrier duty and not purpose-designed for it like the Zero. This seems like a reasonable modelling to their capability to me. YMMV.

Thus you would not mind your (Allied) opponent to use Corsairs on his carriers in early 1943?

Same issue. They could have been used, but it was felt that their operational losses would have been too great.

Actually they were used on carriers (hey, you're from the UK, the RN was spearheading the use of Corsairs on carriers...).

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Actually they were used on carriers (hey, you're from the UK, the RN was spearheading the use of Corsairs on carriers...).

Actually, I'm an American exile. I do happen to have a background as a military analyst.

Well since PDU changes a WHOLE LOT OF THINGS, for the IJN I dont minde Corsairs on CVs after their historical debut. Of course no swimming fighter screens (more than 2 -ie historical VF/VMFs- on one carrier).

No way! I will overwhelm you with the Divine Wind,

 
I overwhelm my wife The Divine Wind all the time.  That's why she keeps a comforter on the bed, even in June.  It's "containment" of sorts.
 
-F-

ORIGINAL: Feinder

No way! I will overwhelm you with the Divine Wind,

I overwhelm my wife The Divine Wind all the time.  That's why she keeps a comforter on the bed, even in June.  It's "containment" of sorts.
-F-

I dunno what a comforter is, and why is it more effetive in June, but but if I let the divind wind go no fan is big enough to contain. [:D][;)]

Comforter = Super-sized blanket.

We've got a ceiling fan that is always on too.

[;)]

I am so in an unproductive mood today. Was a he11ish on-call. And now I'm done. I think I might have to dig up a couple Mystery Ships for y'all today...

-F-

Uh-oh... Something wicked this way comes...

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Their were plans for a carrier version of the 'George' but it was dropped because all the big carriers capable of using it had been sunk, so perhaps there should be an option for a carrier capable 'george' if the big carriers are still around in 1944.

I'm an Allied Fanboy, but I wouldn't mind my opponents to experiment with realistic possibilities.
It sounds like it could have happened. Hence,as an Allied player, I'd be ok with it.
If I wanted to replay history I would just watch Discovery channel

THX for the answers. Yes I want historial options, neither fantasy, nor history channel.

Since I still have Sho, Zui and Taiho, if they lose enough Zeros (no question) I will use georges on them.

I think there is some confusion here. Perhaps it is just me though [:D] Between talking about real life possibilities and game possibilities.

If you put Georges on CVs they will not function [X(] They will only be able to fly rebase missions. Not CAP, not escort, not sweep, not anything else.

There appears to be a mix up in the thread between squadrons saying they are Carrier Trained / Carrier Capable and the 'nationality' of the aircraft. All Georges should have a 'nationality' of Japanese Naval aircraft. So no Japanese Army squadrons should be able to fly them. Even with PDU. In the same way that the US Marine squadrons get different upgrade choices than the US Army ones. You can't fly Warhawks for the Navy or Marines [:)]

Now in the US case I believe all Marine and Navy fighters are in CV slots. So whether they have Buffalos, Wildcats, Hellcats or Corsairs they can all operate from CVs.

But the same is not true of the Japanese. Their naval air should be able (with PDUs) to use Jacks and Georges when available. But these planes cannot operate from CVs. Just as with US Army Warhawk squadrons you can transport those types by CV and have them fly a rebase mission off them but not operate them from CVs in any other way.

I dimly remember an OOB problem in an earlier version upgrade when they added the A3M zero into stock but not in a CV capable slot. Kind of nerfed KB as the A2Ms upgraded to it [:D] Now in stock I think there are two types of A3Ms, one CV capable for carrier upgrades and one not for land based ones.

The Carrier Capable (fully CV compatible) and Carrier Trained (can operate fully from a CV but with extra opps losses) flag on the squadron won't make the plane operate from a CV unless in the editor it is in a CV compatible slot.

The Japanese Navy Airforce has a lot of extra land based squadrons. Many, if not all, will say they are at least Carrier Trained. When they are flying Zeroes or Claudes that’s true. Once you start upgrading them to Jacks etc I suspect you are in for a sorry surprise [:(]

As far as I am aware you will need to change the position of the plane in the editor to make a George operate from a CV. So while I don't doubt Herwin's info here on Georges being prepared for CV operational use I really don't think it will work like that in the game. As I suggested earlier upgrading a land based Zero squadrons to Jacks or Georges will free up the replacement Zeros for your CV squadrons.

I see, thanks.

Thus you would not mind your (Allied) opponent to use Corsairs on his carriers in early 1943? 

 
No problem whatsoever. He would suffer increased operational losses in doing so. If he is willing to accept those losses then let him fly Corsairs from his carriers.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Thus you would not mind your (Allied) opponent to use Corsairs on his carriers in early 1943? 

No problem whatsoever. He would suffer increased operational losses in doing so. If he is willing to accept those losses then let him fly Corsairs from his carriers.

Why? Is it coded?