Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well, since I'm getting 2 each that 2 + 2 = 4 (what a cliche!), so maybe the routine takes total # of the plane type into account?

It's almost like the routine thinks there is a fighter group onboard(.6) and whatever is left over is divided between the bomber groups .2 per group out of a truncated 10 or something.

This is exactly correct. How foolish of me to not have realized it. The routine does indeed consider the number of squadrons of fighter/non-fighter in it's calculation. Anything else would tend to over-stuff the carrier.

Once two non-fighter squadrons are detected the calculation is indeed: capacity * .4/2. And, since integers are used, all results will truncate.

If there are two groups, 60% of capacity is reserved for fighters (on British carriers). The remaining 40% is split between the two squadrons detected: (12 * .4)/2 = 2.

Returning Hermes to a single Swordfish squadron seems a very good idea.

And, in anticipation of the next question: no.

For those doing mods, here are the carrier air group compositions that can be properly handled by WITP:


Japanese CV: 3 squadrons - VF, VB, VT
Japanese CVL: 2 Squadrons - VF, VB or VT
British Carriers: 3 Squadrons - 1 or 2 VF, 2 or 1 VB/VT
US CVs: Basically 4 Squadrons - VF, VS, VB, VT but:
1. The VS and VB are combined in 1943 giving three squadrons.
2. A VBF is added in 1945, returning to four squadrons
US CVL/CVE: 2 squadrons - VF and VB/VT
Any carrier of any nation will work with a single squadron of any type.

Allocations between squadron types change over time, generally more VF, less VT - migrating to more VF, less non-VF.

This list seems to omit the case of a British CVE - of which there are many. Presumably they are the same as CVL?

This all seems very complicated - and re RN and IJN also very ahistoric. It is as if the people thinking about this are unaware that it was more common than not to have more than three squadrons on board one ship - and often more than three types of planes. USN believed in scout bombers, but RN believed in scout fighters, and IJN believed in true carrier recon planes. [Both the D4 and C6 series remained combat effective for the duration of the war in a technical sense]. It is impossible to model any late war IJN CV accurately without four different plane types - do you omit VF, VB, VT or VR? And IF we bother to outfit a ship with such planes properly - why then is the ship forbidden to operate with its historial group? [RN is even more complicated - and probably needs simplification to no more than four types - but they might be VF, VFB, VFR, VB or VT - in various combinations - but not usually all five at once].

I like the "any carrier will operate with one squadron" fine - just not the "90% resize" if only one squadron rule. Sort of like "you must waste 10% of the space" - which we may rationalize against the "you can overload by 10% or so" rule - and maybe compensate for artifically. At least we know. It permits some ships to be more historical (Hermes for example). I don't like all the thousand hours of work on carrier air groups being for naught - and I am not willing to undo it to go toward INACCURATE groups. If we cannot find a way to evade this rule - I am going to opt out of 1.8 and later versions of WITP. We have been able to evade resizing until now: is there no way to evade it now? In RHS - for example - we have an early war carrier recon plane (one developed but not produced) - in the form of a Recon Kate - and ALL our IJN CVs have four air groups. Many RN CVs do as well. I don't even want to think about how to redo the FAA - a nightmare to begin with.

But here is an idea: What if we just go to UV type basing? That is, DO NOT Keep air groups together? Mix and match as required when the groups resize? It is inefficient - it is going to be inconvenient for a small force at a critical time - but we might be able to live with it. I hear even land planes operate from carriers just fine - just with higher attrition - so maybe we can just do what we want? Problem is - apparently doing things historically is not allowed. Ugh.

[Note that in IJN what CVs had was a "Daitai" each of fighters, dive bombers or torpedo bombers. Each daitai was usually two - but it might be 1, 2 or 3 - "units" of 9 or 12 planes. Each "unit" had shotai of 3 planes - but later fighter units had shotai of 4 planes divided in to two "buntai" or elements of 2. Now in proper English - usually a unit composed of several flights is a "squadron" - but in many translations, a Daitai is a "squadron" - leading to confusion. In addition to these three daitai - by midwar IJN CVs also operated a unit of dedicated recon planes - and one carrier at Midway had an experimental precursor - with a single shotai of D4Y1-Cs on their operational debut. Each Japanese carrier in the Kiddo Butai technically had 7 to 9 squadrons on board if "units" are squadrons - and in WITP countless hundreds of squadrons exist of 8 or 9 or 10 or 12 planes. By the Battle of the Philippine Sea some planes were so big that usually only one unit of TB would be carried, but the fighter units were divided into "fighter" and "fighter bomber" functions - even if the same type of plane (e.g. A6M5) - and were wholly reorganized into "units" of 16.]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If we cannot find a way to evade this rule - I am going to opt out of 1.8 and later versions of WITP. We have been able to evade resizing until now: is there no way to evade it now?

Sid,

A couple of things. First, 1.8 is not the issue. They only made a change to mitigate some things in re-sizing and rebasing. The same thing I am seeing now would have happened prior to 1.8 had RHS with Hermes 2 squadrons been available then. Second, It just isn't practical to give up the many other fixes and changes. They are too important. Third, Don gave us a way to avoid re-sizing: Turn Off Replacements in the carriers' squadrons. It's a pain in the rear, because it means we would have to put the TF in port and them manually draw a/c from the replacement pool. I would much rather have either a fix or dummy up the groups somehow until the code is modified (we might have to lobby a bit for that).

But here is an idea: What if we just go to UV type basing? That is, DO NOT Keep air groups together? Mix and match as required when the groups resize? It is inefficient - it is going to be inconvenient for a small force at a critical time - but we might be able to live with it. I hear even land planes operate from carriers just fine - just with higher attrition - so maybe we can just do what we want? Problem is - apparently doing things historically is not allowed. Ugh.

I doubt that the re-size happens only one discreet time. I presume the procedure will just catch up to whatever is put on the carrier.

Working on the carrier problem, I discovered

1) Some single squadron carriers benefit from the revised system - including Hermes and IJA carriers (not a typo for IJN)

2) RHSRAO has some problems with Allied ship status (being appropriate for RAO)

3) RHSPPO has a very confusing offset of 3 between naval air groups and ships (still or again) which needs correction

4) Formal definition by Don of the carrier resize rules requires redefinition of some carrier air group sizes. This produces the strange effect that the data set must LIE about HISTORICAL air group sizes in order to get the TRUTH!
[Bizzarre given Joe says the concern is not having players do ahistorical air groups!] This only fixes one squadron carriers - but that is better than none - and great for HMS Hermes. I think I can make it work for some two squadron CVL/CVE and three squadron CV as well.

I recommend by-passing x.17 level altogether - although it will run well except with respect to carrier resize.


I hope to issue x.18 addressing these matters today.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If we cannot find a way to evade this rule - I am going to opt out of 1.8 and later versions of WITP. We have been able to evade resizing until now: is there no way to evade it now?

Sid,

A couple of things. First, 1.8 is not the issue. They only made a change to mitigate some things in re-sizing and rebasing. The same thing I am seeing now would have happened prior to 1.8 had RHS with Hermes 2 squadrons been available then. Second, It just isn't practical to give up the many other fixes and changes. They are too important. Third, Don gave us a way to avoid re-sizing: Turn Off Replacements in the carriers' squadrons. It's a pain in the rear, because it means we would have to put the TF in port and them manually draw a/c from the replacement pool.





Will that work? If so - OK. And I can use Don's data to fix many carriers - just not those CV with 4 squadrons. We also will gain slots - one for Hermes and about six for Japan air groups. Ironically I did Hermes as one squadron until Andrew wrote all ships had to have two! Same for the IJA merchant aircraft carriers. My impression is Andrew was right - it was based on some experience or tests - probably under a version older than 1.6.

Did you get all my data corrections ? The Yorktown class have an terminal upgrade to a Balao Modified Class Sub [X(]

So what? You don't like subs?

Submarines operating with F8F Bearcats ?

What a potent weapon [:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Submarines operating with F8F Bearcats ?

What a potent weapon [:D][:D]

I guess they'll fight over the torpedoes??(Six facing the rear??)

Imagine about a dozen of these "subs" patrolling in the South China Sea.[:D][:D]

That would be closed to all shipping in a big hurry. [X(][X(]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Will that work? If so - OK. And I can use Don's data to fix many carriers - just not those CV with 4 squadrons. We also will gain slots - one for Hermes and about six for Japan air groups. Ironically I did Hermes as one squadron until Andrew wrote all ships had to have two! Same for the IJA merchant aircraft carriers. My impression is Andrew was right - it was based on some experience or tests - probably under a version older than 1.6.

I don't know, and I wouldn't trust the results of a short-term test for an issue like this. So, I wouldn't be confident until much later. I prefer the solution you seem to be pursuing, namely change the airgroups to accommodate the code. It's unfortunate but I agree it's the best decision if/until the code gets modified and that would be quite a while.

I had to fight a bloody skirmish with the IJA in a Tag Team game

otherwise looks like we can make some things better with carriers -

and I have instructions for players who have problems with historical groups - if they ever resize.

TOMARROW

Going to work now.

"I had to fight a bloody skirmish with the IJA in a Tag Team game" The Cid and Nemo team might have bloodier confrontations than against the "Allies" [:D]

Uploading completed for all Level 5 and 6 scenarios at x.18 Level.

This is suitable for use, but there are a number of identified eratta not folded in. This is issued to get
a number of things out for use/testing - and to convert single squadron carriers in fact to single squadron
in game - in a way that won't be resized. [They will resize to the right size every time!]

When all eratta are in, and any other matters that arise are addressed, there will be an x.19 level release

UNLESS

Level 7 is completed first.

When that happens we will go to 5.20 for all scenarios. We will upload 6 one last time - and then convert all 6x files to Level 7. Level 5 will continue to be updated.

Level 5 uses the Andrew Brown compatable map system.

Level 6 uses the interim shipping track map system - to detect issues related to it.

Sid,

I've got a game in April '42 EOS 6.15.

- Do any Victory ships come in so early? I've got two already. Let me know if that's wrong and I'll get the names & slots.

No. The first Victory ship was launched 28 Feb 1944. She was the SS United Victory.

And just out of curiosity - what was the first Liberty ship?

The Liberty ship was invented by a British merchant shipping magnet - and prototypes were built long before we usually think of. However- the concept got coopted by the British formally - who then asked the US to implement it- for safety (in case Britain was overrun). It didn't get the name "Liberty" until the US took over the program - and modified it to US standards. It depends on what counts which ship is "first" - and I can't look it up for plus 10 hours. I do work sometimes!