The point of some CVP dates?

[Frederyck]

Why are some CVPs unusable for the major power when they enter the force pool?

For example, the German CVP counter Me-109G from SiF enters the force pool in 1940. It is a green "3"-CVP when it comes into play, and it changes to an orange "2" CVP in 1942 and finally becomes a light blue "1" CVP in 1944. Thus, from 1940 to the end of 1941, there are no German CVs capable of holding this CVP. Graf Zeppelin is an orange "2" CV, as is Peter Strasser and Kleist. Elbe is but an light blue "1" CV.

Why is this? If a German player chooses to finish the Graf Zeppelin early on, the Me-109G is essentially a dud draw that is unusable for 8 turns or so.

[mlees]

The CW has this problem as well, with a ton more green size CVP that come out all at once. But if he advance builds some green-class CV's early, he'll have the flight decks available for a few of these CVP's.

There is also an option to restrict CVP's from operating on land bases (similar to a NAV). If you are not playing with this option selected, the 109G can be used as a NAV in the interim.

[Frederyck]

I know the CW can advance build some units to accomodate for this problem, but for Germany there is no such option (unless you play with the Patif Graf Zeppelin where it is a green "3", of course).

I just want to know if there is a designer reason for this (in my mind) discrepancy? Were the CVP builders that out of touch with the needs of their respective navies that they actually built planes that couldn't be used? In Germany's case it's obviously a hypothetical question, since the Graf Zeppelin wasn't ever finished and it never saw action in the war.

[mlees]

Well, historically, naval aircraft grew in size, weight, and speed during the war. The USN/RN CVE's could only operate the older model aircraft, for example. The Dauntlesses and Swordfish inventory's got transfered to CVE duty when the newer (and larger) aircraft came online.

On some of the older ships, like Hosho or Furious, the planes began to outgrow the aircraft handling capabilities of a ship that was just fine ten years earlier.

So yes, there wereplanes designed historically, where it was known that those aircraft could not operate from some of the flight decks available to that nations navy.

In the case of Germany's example specifically, I would, in my mind, assume that that first set of size-class 3 aircraft to be a prototype CAG, operating from land bases while the pilots learn everything they need to know about what makes CVP warfare different from regular airforce duty. (Over water navigation without land marks, finding, identifying, and attacking enemy ships with anitship weapons, coordination of different types of attacks on moving targets, from multiple vectors, landing back aboard a carrier, etc.) There is a lot of operational details that need to be worked out to make a carrier and it's CAG work well enough to survive.

[Froonp]

There is also an option to restrict CVP's from operating on land bases (similar to a NAV). If you are not playing with this option selected, the 109G can be used as a NAV in the interim.

I would recommend always using this option, as CVP can severly unbalance the naval part of the game if they can be used from land.

[Frederyck]

We use that option (CVPiF option 56: Carrier planes may only ever fly rebase missions when not stacked on a CV), but we also usually use a house rule that says that you can wait with adding CVPs to your force pool until you can actually use it.

[ezzler]

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

[Frederyck]

ORIGINAL: mleesThere is a lot of operational details that need to be worked out to make a carrier and it's CAG work well enough to survive.

Yes, but I thought part of that was already simulated in the *four* turns it takes to produce the aircraft.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Why are some CVPs unusable for the major power when they enter the force pool?

For example, the German CVP counter Me-109G from SiF enters the force pool in 1940. It is a green "3"-CVP when it comes into play, and it changes to an orange "2" CVP in 1942 and finally becomes a light blue "1" CVP in 1944. Thus, from 1940 to the end of 1941, there are no German CVs capable of holding this CVP. Graf Zeppelin is an orange "2" CV, as is Peter Strasser and Kleist. Elbe is but an light blue "1" CV.

Why is this? If a German player chooses to finish the Graf Zeppelin early on, the Me-109G is essentially a dud draw that is unusable for 8 turns or so.

The exact problem I have hit in my current game as Germany, with an extensive carrier fleet (three, including the captured Bearn) with not enough planes to kit out more than two of them at any one time.

One could interpret it as an added failure of the Luftwaffe to cooperate in the adaptation of planes for a rival service. Historically Goering ordered a go-slow on the instructions (from Hitler I think) to navalise the bf109 and so effectively scuppered any chance of the Kriegsmarine getting their air arm.

With Wif, in practice I suspect it may simply have been an oversight.

Jimm

[trees]

plan ahead ... build the German CV planes in 1939 before the 1940 force pool additions. Ideally you get the 3 air2air Me109 CV plane, and one in reserve. The CW has to do the same, building CV planes early and often, and not scrapping very many during set-up. The CW needs to empty their CV plane pool by Nov/Dec each year. It's just part of Administrator in Flames that you have to deal with.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

- Allowing aircraft units to be removed from the map to be placed into the reserve pool, outside of the House country.
- Having the CVP not count for stacking limits in hexes.
- Allowing a CVP to leave a CV and be based on CV another in the same port freely (without it counting as an air mission).
- Having the CVP have a "normal" build time (2 turns), and introduce "Carrier Pilots" who cost the same and take 4 turns to train instead of 3.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

- Allowing aircraft units to be removed from the map to be placed into the reserve pool, outside of the House country.
- Having the CVP not count for stacking limits in hexes.
- Allowing a CVP to leave a CV and be based on CV another in the same port freely (without it counting as an air mission).
- Having the CVP have a "normal" build time (2 turns), and introduce "Carrier Pilots" who cost the same and take 4 turns to train instead of 3.

in order of your suggestions:
1. yeah inclined to agree
2. depends if you are playing the resticted CVP options (eg rebase missions only) if so yes, if not, I'd say no
3. never occured to me to consuder this an air mission anyway. so agree!
4. interesting. Assumes PiF of course. On balance this might be quite cool- Top Gun and all that....

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: ezz
Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

- Allowing aircraft units to be removed from the map to be placed into the reserve pool, outside of the House country.
- Having the CVP not count for stacking limits in hexes.
- Allowing a CVP to leave a CV and be based on CV another in the same port freely (without it counting as an air mission).
- Having the CVP have a "normal" build time (2 turns), and introduce "Carrier Pilots" who cost the same and take 4 turns to train instead of 3.

in order of your suggestions:
1. yeah inclined to agree
2. depends if you are playing the resticted CVP options (eg rebase missions only) if so yes, if not, I'd say no
3. never occured to me to consuder this an air mission anyway. so agree!
4. interesting. Assumes PiF of course. On balance this might be quite cool- Top Gun and all that....

About 2. sure, it was with the restricted use of CVP to rebase missions if not on a CV.

Some groups play it that when a CV docks in a port, his carrier group (CVP) is rebased automatically to land (which is the real regular historical way of doing for CVs and their Carrier Group). When CV set sail to their missions, the CVP are affected to the CVs, all of this without using Rebase missions. For this to work, the CVP needs to not count for stacking limits. When one remember that a CVP unit is composed of 12-72 planes and that a regular air unit is composed of 250-500 planes, one can agree that CVP should not counf for stacking, and should not be usable from land.

[Jimm]

Some groups play it that when a CV docks in a port, his carrier group (CVP) is rebased automatically to land (which is the real regular historical way of doing for CVs and their Carrier Group). When CV set sail to their missions, the CVP are affected to the CVs, all of this without using Rebase missions. For this to work, the CVP needs to not count for stacking limits. When one remember that a CVP unit is composed of 12-72 planes and that a regular air unit is composed of 250-500 planes, one can agree that CVP should not counf for stacking, and should not be usable from land.
[/quote]

fair enough.

On that note I've never really subscribed to the sizes of air groups allegedly represented by a counter- simply too many to be realistic in my view but there you go.

[trees]

that just seems like trading in one set of administrative rules for another, and depends on your gaming tastes and areas of most historical interest. rebasing the CV planes on and off the carrier ... maybe historical (for every navy?) but is it worth the hassle while playing? Creating a second type of Pilot, obviously more realistic, but again how worthwhile? Allowing free rebasing of CV pilots is a common House Rule but can be done by remembering to do it after a Naval Air Combat or during an air impulse or Super-Combined (the US is the one power who can most easily afford to keep it's CV planes up to date and needs to shuffle them). Pulling planes off the map outside of Home Country depends on how much 'background' you feel should be in WiF; many wargamers want all background activities eliminated with no limits on what their combat pieces can do. WiF doesn't quite allow this, you as the Supreme Leader are also limited by your military bureaucracy, so you can't build only the very best aircraft designs for example, nor summon up the Commonwealth military forces exactly as you wish. I like the Carrier Planes as is, without allowing them to fly when not on a Carrier and without allowing double-stacking on a CV.

[Frederyck]

ORIGINAL: trees

plan ahead ... build the German CV planes in 1939 before the 1940 force pool additions. Ideally you get the 3 air2air Me109 CV plane, and one in reserve. The CW has to do the same, building CV planes early and often, and not scrapping very many during set-up. The CW needs to empty their CV plane pool by Nov/Dec each year. It's just part of Administrator in Flames that you have to deal with.

This remedies the symptoms but not the cause of the problem; that aircraft sometimes are too big for the carrier fleet when they arrive in force pool.

If the developers have a *reason* for the CVPs to behave like this in the game, I might accept it, but as it stands now it just feels like a Microsoft "feature" - ie a bug in the code.

[composer99]

Unfortunately, you are not likely to get a reply from the WiF developers on this forum - if you have not already done so you might wish to surf on over to ADG's website and see if you can ask them there.
 
It is unlikely that you are the first person to notice this issue (the current CVP kits in SiF/CVPiF date back at least to 2004, although I am not certain), so if it has not been altered I imagine it is because either the development team does have a reason (which I hope they divulge to you), or changing it is too expensive for the benefits provided. Or both.
 
Aside from Germany's historical lack of a carrier air arm operating off actual carriers, the only reason that springs to my mind at the moment is that it's simply a designer's check on Germany's capabilities. Germany is mighty enough in WiF as is.

[mlees]

Yes, but I thought part of that was already simulated in the *four* turns it takes to produce the aircraft.

No, the training I had in mind is more on an overall doctrinal level, not just the nuts and bolts of flying. In fact, it takes just as long to train a pilot in WiF at the beginning of the war as it does near the end, despite combat experienced instructors becoming available, gear up in production, instituting the draft, and so on. (I apologise for any miscommunication on my part.)

Note, it took the USN/RN/IJN many years to figure out how to operate aircraft from ships, how to move/store/service them onboard ship, how the carrier(s) is going to operate with the rest of the fleet (seperate strike force, or scouting force?), and so on. Once a doctrine that works is decided on, the bugs worked out, then that info gets promulgated to the follow on generation of sailors and pilots on a broader and faster scale.

Even though the luftwaffe had extensive experience with air to ground support, it was much weaker, doctrinally, in the antishipping role. (The cooperation between the Luftwaffe recon and uboats was adequate, but of the strike arm and fighter arm, for air cover of uboats in transit, was spotty at best.)

Despite the success in WW1 and WW2 of the uboat arm, the Luftwaffe and the Army still dominated the planning at the GHQ level, and the carrier force, if any, would have to put up with being used as an adjunct of the continental land campaigns until the service gained prestige.

For example, the Royal Navy's planes were actually part of the Royal Air Force until the late 30's, much to the disadvantage of the carrier and seaplane force. (Not due to lack of prestige in the RN in this case, but because of beaucratic cost saving ideas.) The RAF bomber and fighter force received most of the funding and R&D effort, leaving the RN aircraft to be mostly obsolete at the very start of the war (Swordfish, Gladiator), and with a small pilot pool and training program. The fact that the RN was able to achieve as much as it did with it's starting carrier air fleet is a testimate of the RN's leadership and the overall elan of the service.

[ezzler]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

Well I may be wrong but I think the rule is aircraft can be scrapped if they are 3 years old {4 years for neutral powers.}
Destroyed units may always be scrapped.

My problem was Aircraft that you might wish to return to the force pool in 1940 { Assuming they were destroyed } you might not draw until 1943.

Eg a spitfire MK1 is destroyed in 1940 and you return it to the force pool. Now you might not draw that plane before the end of the year.Then the 1941 types are added. There is a possibility of drawing this very outclassed fighter all the way up to 1944 before you could remove it.

Our group felt 3 years was too long a period to wait for aircraft to be scrapped. we had a 2 year rule.

another group had a 4 year rule PRE 1940.
2 years to 1942
and from 1944 1 year { so that the 1944 force pool might only contain 1943 / 1944 planes. }