CV packing

[geofflambert]

We have a lot of new players and I haven't seen this covered in a while so I thought I'd bring it up. First, Allied players, do not put the first model of Corsairs on one of your carriers. They are not carrier capable and will turn your carrier into a floating parking lot.

Second, you can actually fit 115% of capacity on your carrier and still operate, but that is the absolute tippy top maximum. Figure it out like you would a 15% tip at a restaurant (cheapskates!). Let's say you have a CVL with a capacity of 27 planes. Take 10% of that (2.7), add 5% (1.3, do not round that up) to the capacity. You can safely operate 31 planes on that carrier.

Third, you must count reserve aircraft into that number, and the carrier capacity used field may not show that, so do it in your head and don't trust what the computer says, if you have any reserves on board. The reason for this is that even though the game engine is happy (for now) and your carrier will operate just fine, if any aircraft get damaged or go into maintenance some of those reserves may become active and if the number of active planes plus damaged/in maintenance planes exceeds your capacity your whole carrier will shut down. Once reserve planes become active the engine will not put planes back in reserve and you cannot do it manually either.

Fourth, some will counsel that you leave some room on your carriers to account for lost capacity due to sunk friendly (or on fire and inoperable) carriers so your returning from mission aircraft have a flat top to land on. In my view that's all a crapshoot and don't do it. If you get into a carrier battle you are going to lose some planes and probably a lot of planes anyway. If at worst part of each returning squadron is able to land you won't have lost the entire squadron and will have a cadre to rebuild from. There are two other ways to play it safe on this: keep a couple of empty CVEs at a safe distance back (but in range) for those orphans to land on, or, and better still, keep your carrier battles within range of friendly airbases. You can lose battles in at least two ways: get out in front of your land based search planes (so the enemy sees you first) or too far away from air base support.

[Zorch]

I thought this was about loading your Curriculum Vitae with buzzwords! [X(]

[geofflambert]

Another thing. Turn replacements off on all squadrons aboard. I once had something bad happen. The Americans have the option of having replacement squadrons at nearby land bases, that will send replacement planes with pilots to a carrier at sea. The Japanese can't do that. So I was unaware of that and it happened to me. Somehow a training squadron I had nearby was flagged to be a replacement squadron and sent unwanted planes with untrained crews in the middle of a fight. Also, I frequently put understrength squadrons on carriers instead of using reserves to fill up carriers, so I always, if it can be arranged have understrength squadrons around for this purpose with replacements turned off so that I can fit them aboard a carrier and then if capacity allows, order replacements one at a time til I have what I want.

[geofflambert]

Sometimes squadron sizing works like this: I have a carrier that carries 18 torpedoes. It makes sense to me to then have a squadron of 9 torpedo bombers and fill the rest of the bomber capacity with dive bombers. The TBs will potentially get two torpedo runs and then switch to bombs.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

I thought this was about loading your Curriculum Vitae with buzzwords! [X(]

Speak English please.


p.s.

I most certainly would never have known what a "Curriculum Vitae" was if I hadn't learned it from Joel and Lia on youtube recently. On the west side of the pond it's called a Resume.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Another thing. Turn replacements off on all squadrons aboard. I once had something bad happen. The Americans have the option of having replacement squadrons at nearby land bases, that will send replacement planes with pilots to a carrier at sea. The Japanese can't do that. So I was unaware of that and it happened to me. Somehow a training squadron I had nearby was flagged to be a replacement squadron and sent unwanted planes with untrained crews in the middle of a fight. Also, I frequently put understrength squadrons on carriers instead of using reserves to fill up carriers, so I always, if it can be arranged have understrength squadrons around for this purpose with replacements turned off so that I can fit them aboard a carrier and then if capacity allows, order replacements one at a time til I have what I want.

They actually have the OPTION of leaving those clearly labeled Replenishment squadrons on the carriers they enter on and using those Replenishment Carriers in the manner they were intended.

Only when you mess with things do you get unintended results like you did.

[Encircled]

Good blue sky thinking there

We need a lot more thinking outside the box with this kind of game.

[btd64]

And the Gorn hits it out of the park. Good stuff....GP

[ITAKLinus]

As far as I remember additional (reserve) planes aren't counted fully. I might be wrong because I never go above ~105-110% as a precautionary measure.
Also, as Japanese you have the possibility to load those nice recon judy and I tend to rotate them on various CVs, always needing few spare slots

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: btd64

And the Gorn hits it out of the park. Good stuff....GP

+2
Good advice from the school of hard knocks (from rocks fired by a bamboo cannon using home-made gunpowder!)

I would add that going over the stated aircraft capacity on the CV has the unfortunate effect of overloading the repair mechanics so you end up with a lot of high fatigue aircraft and aircraft in maintenance of inordinate amounts of time. In the former situation, the high fatigue aircraft are more likely to become Ops losses along with their pilots. In the latter situation, you cannot conduct a sustained carrier offensive because too many aircraft are unserviceable.
You also get a lot of stragglers if you try and launch a full strike from an overloaded carrier. IME, these stragglers are more likely to be shot down with their pilots than score any late-strike hits.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

As far as I remember additional (reserve) planes aren't counted fully. I might be wrong because I never go above ~105-110% as a precautionary measure.
Also, as Japanese you have the possibility to load those nice recon judy and I tend to rotate them on various CVs, always needing few spare slots

That was the point. They aren't counted (until they are).

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: btd64

And the Gorn hits it out of the park. Good stuff....GP

+2
Good advice from the school of hard knocks (from rocks fired by a bamboo cannon using home-made gunpowder!)

I would add that going over the stated aircraft capacity on the CV has the unfortunate effect of overloading the repair mechanics so you end up with a lot of high fatigue aircraft and aircraft in maintenance of inordinate amounts of time. In the former situation, the high fatigue aircraft are more likely to become Ops losses along with their pilots. In the latter situation, you cannot conduct a sustained carrier offensive because too many aircraft are unserviceable.
You also get a lot of stragglers if you try and launch a full strike from an overloaded carrier. IME, these stragglers are more likely to be shot down with their pilots than score any late-strike hits.

Those "rocks" were diamonds, an important point. Must've been the only planet where you could find refined sulphur just lying around.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

As far as I remember additional (reserve) planes aren't counted fully. I might be wrong because I never go above ~105-110% as a precautionary measure.
Also, as Japanese you have the possibility to load those nice recon judy and I tend to rotate them on various CVs, always needing few spare slots

That was the point. They aren't counted (until they are).

I wasn't considering the reserve ones, but overloading by bringing on extra squadrons (up to 5 total) that raise your active aircraft count over official capacity but still below 116%. For a one-day battle this may be doable, but over several days the maintenance issue makes it not worth doing.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: btd64

And the Gorn hits it out of the park. Good stuff....GP

+2
Good advice from the school of hard knocks (from rocks fired by a bamboo cannon using home-made gunpowder!)
...

Those "rocks" were diamonds, an important point. Must've been the only planet where you could find refined sulphur just lying around.

Diamonds, the only natural substance harder than a Gorn's skull (and only slightly less intelligent).

[fcooke]

One of the great many benefits of having lived on both sides of the pond is that you pick up on some of the differences in the 'same' language. CV is the same as resume. elevators are lifts. hoods are bonnets. cigarettes are fags (I kid you not). And so on. I find myself substituting words depending on what geography I am in. And then you have the subtle spelling differences between US and UK, which tends to drive spell checkers nuts - and then the not so subtle ones - jail is gaol.

And I took a bunch of Latin in high school - not a language guy so that almost flunked me out,as did French. But I can now read stained glass windows in churches and cathedrals, for what that is worth. Curriculum Vitae is Latin.

Early morning musings.

[basilstaghare]

Sort of related: I was watching a youtube vid and there was a discussion between two veteran players on early war US Carrier stacking....ie., is it bad to put all 3 of your CV's into one TF at campaign start? Thanks.

[Anachro]

No, 3 USN CVs in one TF is perfectly fine. The penalties of overstacking and having too many A/C per TF aren't too severe.

[Ian R]

On the other hand, if the KB comes by and puts strikes in contact, all your carriers are at risk in one TF. Keeping them in separate TFs can pay dividends, as one might escape attack.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

No, 3 USN CVs in one TF is perfectly fine.

I wouldn't say "perfectly fine" as there are penalties (in coordination especially) in the early part of the war. Although one might consider the penalties slight, they could make the difference in an attack's effectiveness. Just a thought!

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

On the other hand, if the KB comes by and puts strikes in contact, all your carriers are at risk in one TF. Keeping them in separate TFs can pay dividends, as one might escape attack.

According to Alfred (IIRC), an air strike can attack ships in all the TFs in a hex, so it makes no real difference to split your CVs into various TFs and keep them in the same hex. In a larger TF you might get better AAA support (depending on AAA range and enemy altitude during approach and departure.)