Combined Historical Scenario - Air Groups

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Don,

I like your suggestions. I prefer to use planes in the squadron level as opposed to the group level anyway.

One suggestion on the naming convention. When naming groups that have one digit, use 01, 02, 03, etc. That way, they show up in alpha/numeric order when looking at lists.

I'm an anal accountant and nothing drives me more nuts than seeing:

1st group
10th group
11th group
...
2nd group
20th group
21st group
22nd group
...
3rd group
30th group
31st group
etc.

They should show up as 01, 02, 03,...., 10, 11, 12, etc etc.

bc

Hardly my idea Sir - I am following the path blazed by Pry and Mike Kraemer. As to number format, the "official" squadron names include the "..th", etc: 420th Fighter, 330th Bombardment and I am a fan of tradition.

Don

[Bradley7735]

Hi Don,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'd like to see:

001st Fighter, 002nd Fighter, 420th Fighter, etc.

That way, they show up in alpha order on the lists. However, I do understand that adding in the zero's is not historic and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that my idea sucks. (I don't expect you to implement my idea, I just wanted to put it out there.)

Thanks, Brad

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
(I don't expect you to implement my idea...

I guess we agree - I am bound by historical terms. I've heard and read them for over 50 years and I've kind-of grown attached to them.

Don

[eMonticello]

Don,

Is there any discussion about adding Air Group HQ Land Units? For instance, MAG-11 HQ, 22nd Bombardment Group HQ, or PatWing 1 (aka FAW-1). For most, this would be chrome, but it would be useful for managing squadron rotation if the squadrons are "attached" to a "physical" HQ. Rather than attempting to manage the rotation by individual squadron, you rotate the HQ and the squadrons follow. Naturally, the relationship between the Group HQ and squadrons would need to be kept in a notebook since it's only possible for units to be attached to the Theater HQ.

Fortunately, most of the higher-level commands are already in the game or are subsumed by the Theater HQ.

Gary

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We are currently in the middle of a re-work of the air OOB that will eliminate groups and present all air units as squadrons. This will relieve a possible constraint caused by a limit (circa 200) of available “Divide” slots and will increase historical accuracy.

Since all US Army air units are now squadrons, we could consider dropping the “Sqdn” and using more historical names:
nnnth Bombardment(H)
nnnth Bombardment(M)
nnnth Bombardment(L)
nnnth Fighter
nth Fighter Commando (all single digit numbers!)
nnnth Troop Carrier
nnnth Cargo Carrier
nnnth Photo-Recon

Opinions??

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

Don,

Is there any discussion about adding Air Group HQ Land Units? For instance, MAG-11 HQ, 22nd Bombardment Group HQ, or PatWing 1 (aka FAW-1). For most, this would be chrome, but it would be useful for managing squadron rotation if the squadrons are "attached" to a "physical" HQ. Rather than attempting to manage the rotation by individual squadron, you rotate the HQ and the squadrons follow. Naturally, the relationship between the Group HQ and squadrons would need to be kept in a notebook since it's only possible for units to be attached to the Theater HQ.

Fortunately, most of the higher-level commands are already in the game or are subsumed by the Theater HQ.

Gary

There are only a couple of blank HQ slots and air groups can not be linked to a standard "aviation support" engineering unit. This would require a game modification and we are just doing OOB - so I guess the answer is no.

Don

[eMonticello]

Actually, I wasn't thinking that it would be HQ slots since they are at a premium, but the regular, run-of-the-mill slots used by other LCUs. I'll test it using AI vs. AI to see if there is a negative impact on the game.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
(I don't expect you to implement my idea...

I guess we agree - I am bound by historical terms. I've heard and read them for over 50 years and I've kind-of grown attached to them.

Don

I can see the advantage of the '001', '002' type numbering also, but I agree with Ron that the historical terms seem better.

[Lemurs!]

One last attempt to stem the tide.

Be carefull adding any allied squadrons. I know people are finding "X sqdrn flew in 45 for the Allies! Lets add them!".

The problem is that we have no way of removing units in this game and there will be dozens of allied squadrons available that had either not been reformed after being destroyed in early fighting or had been sent to Europe/North Africa which we cannot represent.
We are also finding out that Groups included in the game have some of the same squadrons that are included seperately in the game.

I know you all want MORE! but sometimes that is not historically accurate.

Mike

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

One last attempt to stem the tide.

Be carefull adding any allied squadrons. I know people are finding "X sqdrn flew in 45 for the Allies! Lets add them!".

The problem is that we have no way of removing units in this game and there will be dozens of allied squadrons available that had either not been reformed after being destroyed in early fighting or had been sent to Europe/North Africa which we cannot represent.
We are also finding out that Groups included in the game have some of the same squadrons that are included seperately in the game.

I know you all want MORE! but sometimes that is not historically accurate.

Mike

Agreed. I womder how hard it would have been to add air and land units to withdrawl feature? This would have solved a ton of OOB issues.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

One last attempt to stem the tide.

Be carefull adding any allied squadrons. I know people are finding "X sqdrn flew in 45 for the Allies! Lets add them!".

The problem is that we have no way of removing units in this game and there will be dozens of allied squadrons available that had either not been reformed after being destroyed in early fighting or had been sent to Europe/North Africa which we cannot represent.
We are also finding out that Groups included in the game have some of the same squadrons that are included seperately in the game.

I know you all want MORE! but sometimes that is not historically accurate.

Mike

More! gimme More! But seriously Mike - This is why I postponed the Group-to-Squadron changes. Many (many, many) squadrons would be duplicated if the OOB for each Group was directly implemented. I will walk through every single squadron and check it's duty stations.

Several squadrons that were overrun in the Philippines were not directly rebuilt. In addition, a number of squadrons in the OOB that were "guarding" the west coast on (or immediately after) Dec 7th were subsequently withdrawn and sent to Europe. At least a dozen squadrons. I will attempt to compensate for this by omitting a like number of similar squadrons in the mid-to-late war period (1944 on).

I must admit that I have a passionate obsession with a completely accurate Dec 7, 1941 OOB and with the units added during the “desperate” period through 1942. I am willing to reduce the later massive reinforcements to compensate.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

One last attempt to stem the tide.

Be carefull adding any allied squadrons. I know people are finding "X sqdrn flew in 45 for the Allies! Lets add them!".

The problem is that we have no way of removing units in this game and there will be dozens of allied squadrons available that had either not been reformed after being destroyed in early fighting or had been sent to Europe/North Africa which we cannot represent.
We are also finding out that Groups included in the game have some of the same squadrons that are included seperately in the game.

I know you all want MORE! but sometimes that is not historically accurate.

Mike

More! gimme More! But seriously Mike - This is why I postponed the Group-to-Squadron changes. Many (many, many) squadrons would be duplicated if the OOB for each Group was directly implemented. I will walk through every single squadron and check it's duty stations.

Several squadrons that were overrun in the Philippines were not directly rebuilt. In addition, a number of squadrons in the OOB that were "guarding" the west coast on (or immediately after) Dec 7th were subsequently withdrawn and sent to Europe. At least a dozen squadrons. I will attempt to compensate for this by omitting a like number of similar squadrons in the mid-to-late war period (1944 on).

I must admit that I have a passionate obsession with a completely accurate Dec 7, 1941 OOB and with the units added during the “desperate” period through 1942. I am willing to reduce the later massive reinforcements to compensate.

That is the way to go Don. No other choice really. I'd rather have the units which were present early (but disbanded historically) for the duration of game and leave out later reinforcements. Comes out in the wash.

[Lemurs!]

Completely agree Don, The '41-'42 period is most important.
After that there is no way to make it 100% accurate due to changes we have caused by playing the game. And the lack of any withdraw system other than RN ships.

Mike

[tanjman]

You don't need to used zeros for this you can use spaces instead of/inplace of the zeros. This would also work for LCU's.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Don,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'd like to see:

001st Fighter, 002nd Fighter, 420th Fighter, etc.

That way, they show up in alpha order on the lists. However, I do understand that adding in the zero's is not historic and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that my idea sucks. (I don't expect you to implement my idea, I just wanted to put it out there.)

Thanks, Brad

[Herrbear]

I would not change the AVG into squadrons. The Zero effectiveness rule doesn't impact them.

[Don Bowen]

As I dig through all the US Army Air Force squadrons and prepare to break the groups into squadrons I am struck by the high quality of the original air OOB. There are a few items that pop out due to breaking up the groups into their composite squadrons but mainly it was right on the money.

I am also working on "normalizing" the air groups stationed on the US West Coast. Groups were constantly arriving and leaving - many to Europe - and it is virtually impossible to find any that were not withdrawn. Those that remained were mostly classified as Operational Training units - a combination of training and local air defense functions. Some air defense on the West Coast is obviously required.

With no actual withdrawal function in the game, one must just select a proportion of them and leave them in all-game. As I review these groups I find myself coming right back to the decisions made by the original OOB team - modified slightly for squadrons instead of groups.

Great job guys - who ever your were!

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I would not change the AVG into squadrons. The Zero effectiveness rule doesn't impact them.

A good many people on this board feel it shouldn't, after all it is very doubtful the AVG actually fought any Zeros.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I would not change the AVG into squadrons. The Zero effectiveness rule doesn't impact them.

We are actually breaking up the groups for historical accuracy and due to a limitation in the game. Only air group slots 2300 and up are available for divided group "squadrons". That range is shared by all players (Japan, Russia, USAAC have groups) so one can quickly reach a point where groups can not be divided due to "no slots".

I am breaking all US Army Groups into their component squadrons - including the AVG. I'd welcome a volunteer to break up the Japanese and Russians ........

[Don Bowen]

I am about to implement a revision of the US Army Air Corps order of battle in which all groups will be eliminated and replaced with squadron-sized units.

How would everyone like the squadrons to be named?? The maximum name size is 20 characters, and there are 8 types of squadrons:

Fighter
Night Fighter
Commando-Fighter
Bombardment
Photo-Recon
Tactical Recon
Combat Cargo
Troop Carrier

Bomber, Night Fighter, Fighter, Tactical Recon and Troop Carrier squadrons have up to three digits in their numbers, Commando Fighters only 1 digit, and all the rest 2 digits.

Name Options #1 (Matrix Style)
nnnth FS
nnnth NFS
nth CFS
nnnth BS
nnth PRS
nnnth TRS
nnth CCS
nnnth TCS

Name Options #2 (Squadron Assumed)
nnnth Fighter
nnnth Night Fighter
nth Commando Fighter
nnnth Bombardment
nnth Photo-Recon
nnnth Tactical Recon
nnth Combat Cargo
nnnth Troop Carrier

Name Options #3 (Squadron Specified)
nnnth Fighter Sqdn
nnnth Night Ftr Sqdn
nth Cmdo Ftr Sqdn
nnnth Bomb Sqdn
nnnth Recon Sqdn (both photo and tactical)
nnth cargo Sqdn
nnnth Troop car.Sqdn

Name Options #4 (Type Omitted)
nnnth USAAC Squadron

Opinions, other options???

[Tankerace]

Well, I can say we stay clear of Option 4, 1) its unrealistic, and 2 there are sometimes a XX Fighter and an XX Bombardment Squadron.

Also, I will add this option.

I vote for either oprion 2 or 3, but also early war squadrons should be Pursuit Sqdrns, not Fighter Squadrons. (If memory serves correctly).

[Bradley7735]

Hi Don,

I like option 2 the best, followed by 3. Option 1 would be the next best and I think option 4 is bad. I think a little help in the wording on some of these items is good for those players who didn't work in the military. I used to think I was top notch on WWII pacific knowledge, but I'm not (compared to most of you regular forum readers). Until you posted this data, I didn't know that CFS stood for Commando Fighter Squadron. I think that the real hard core enthusiasts would prefer 1 or 2, but if you spell it out better (like 2 or 3), those of us who are ignorant will still get a lot from the game.

My 2 cents. Keep up the good work and I literally can't wait for the finished product.