CV Fighter Squadrons

[Ron Saueracker]

Would it be possible for CV Fighter Squadrons to be split into two elements? We could use more flexibility here. I've always been extremely leary about using LR CAP from CVs as this strips the home CV of CAP and strike escort.

[Zigfreid]

Maybe I'm not understanding you here. Are you asking for some additional elementing because the 'percentage of cap vs. other fighter misssions' selector does not work well enough?

[MadmanRick]

ORIGINAL: Zigfreid

Maybe I'm not understanding you here. Are you asking for some additional elementing because the 'percentage of cap vs. other fighter misssions' selector does not work well enough?

When you task your fighter units with LRCAP, the default is 100% and you cannot select any other level. Therefore, if you task a CV based fighter squadron with LRCAP it can perform no other mission, leaving your CV without air cover (unless other CVs are present in the TF, with missions selected other than LRCAP).

Rick

[Ron Saueracker]

Vital request. Devs,. betas?

[pasternakski]

I say leave it alone. The CAP/escort balance is an important decision for you to make. Whether to commit squadrons to LRCAP instead is another. If you don't have enough assets to cover both, you probably are not in a position to defend effectively on any level.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I say leave it alone. The CAP/escort balance is an important decision for you to make. Whether to commit squadrons to LRCAP instead is another. If you don't have enough assets to cover both, you probably are not in a position to defend effectively on any level.

That's a silly comment because this was not the case historically. (Fletcher would have provided noLR CAP for invasion of Guadalcanal if he had to operate as we do now. Dividing them gives the player more flexibility, as the RL commanders did. For example, right now we must chose between LR CAP or not. This is clunky and too restrictive. Leaves one entire CV without CAP and strike escort. Having a split squadron(and this was historically the way the squadron was run) would allow each CV to place LR CAP over an Amphib TF for example and split the other section between CAP and Escort assignments. Makes too much sense.[8|]

[erstad]

I thought you could divide the fighter squadrons on CVs. In fact, I'm sure I've done it in my current PBEM. Am I missing something (or are only some of the squadrons dividable?)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: erstad

I thought you could divide the fighter squadrons on CVs. In fact, I'm sure I've done it in my current PBEM. Am I missing something (or are only some of the squadrons dividable?)

I tried a few days ago and could not. No toggle.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I say leave it alone. The CAP/escort balance is an important decision for you to make. Whether to commit squadrons to LRCAP instead is another. If you don't have enough assets to cover both, you probably are not in a position to defend effectively on any level.

That's a silly comment because this was not the case historically. (Fletcher would have provided noLR CAP for invasion of Guadalcanal if he had to operate as we do now. Dividing them gives the player more flexibility, as the RL commanders did. For example, right now we must chose between LR CAP or not. This is clunky and too restrictive. Leaves one entire CV without CAP and strike escort. Having a split squadron(and this was historically the way the squadron was run) would allow each CV to place LR CAP over an Amphib TF for example and split the other section between CAP and Escort assignments. Makes too much sense.[8|]

I agree 100%. More flexibility in the Air model is always a good thing. The notion that you have 36 fighters and can only CAP them over other tgts ALL TOGETHER is ludicrous. A simple fix would be to allow the 3 group split, all of which can be further divided by setting the CAP % for that sub-group.


I have always disliked that functionality, including with Land -based air in UV. Glad to see we are on the right track there at least.

Since we are on the subject, I would go one step further. The basic Naval unit is the Division (2 x sections). The 36 plane squadrons when sub-divided would then be three sub-groups made up of 3 divisions (12/3=4). Rather that making the percentage of CAP toggle work in increments of 10%, make it increments of 33% or 1/3 however you want to see it.

Thus one 12 plane group can be set to ESCORT with CAP-> 1/3
RESULT: two divisions fly the ESCORT mission while one hangs on the blades over head

[pasternakski]

Notwithstanding whether you regard my remarks as silly, you'd better wake up to the fact that you're not likely to get much, if anything at all, in redesigned features for WitP.

As far as the substance of Ron's comment, I stand behind what I said. If you've only got one CV, you have extremely limited capabilities. If you've got two, then put one ship's fighters on a mix of CAP and escort and the other's on LRCAP.

I don't think there's a problem here.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Notwithstanding whether you regard my remarks as silly, you'd better wake up to the fact that you're not likely to get much, if anything at all, in redesigned features for WitP.

As far as the substance of Ron's comment, I stand behind what I said. If you've only got one CV, you have extremely limited capabilities. If you've got two, then put one ship's fighters on a mix of CAP and escort and the other's on LRCAP.

I don't think there's a problem here.

Silly was a poor choice of words, sorry. [&o] It's also not a new feature. Are you saying that the fighter contingent/CAG on a CV was less able than the/his landbased counterparts in deploying assets. Let's deal with REAL capabilities, not those which are limited by design choices. One CV has limited capabilitiesfor sure no arguement, but not this limited.

[TheElf]

I didn't say anything was silly. Let's try not to get our panties in a wad[;)]

I just agreed with Ron's sentiments regarding the ISSUE at hand. If I had to put a word on it, it would be ricoculous. [X(]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Notwithstanding whether you regard my remarks as silly, you'd better wake up to the fact that you're not likely to get much, if anything at all, in redesigned features for WitP.

Patches 1.1 thru 1.3 notwithstanding I think that we could get this feature implemented. That seems to be the point of patch's thus far. Seem to recall many new "user requested" features. Now I don't write code for a living, but if the Landbased units can be subdivided, so can the CV units. Frankly I always thought they could. Didn't realize this was an issue til now.

And if the CAP levels can be set at 10% increments I don't see why you can't simply use 33% increments. Pretty simple right?

ORIGINAL: pasternakski As far as the substance of Ron's comment, I stand behind what I said. If you've only got one CV, you have extremely limited capabilities. If you've got two, then put one ship's fighters on a mix of CAP and escort and the other's on LRCAP.

Hey that's great Past...are you a Navy man? If I had to guess I'd say probably not, but I could be wrong. You could be a bubblehead. They aren't very flexible either. Kind of stiff and fearful of change really. [;)]

Aircraft carriers are perhaps the most flexible weapons systems known to man. They can do almost anything. Including...and I might be stretching the truth here, including send 12 fighters to fly CAP over some Amhib Force AND Escort a strike package, AND Fly CAP over Mom. I know this is a lot to take in so....breath...[:D]

Don't take this personally, just well intended sarcasm and fun. After all this is just a game and it DOES work fine for that for now I suppose.

[Cmdrcain]

One point overlooking is that the CVE's are what you might wish to use to provide the LRcap for like transport TF's with or without also CVL's while using your main CV's for strike and escort and Main CV CAP.

You might try forming an CVE/CVL LR cap force, set it back from the amphib, and locate the Main CV force in same hex as the CVE/CVL, the Main force would provide the CAP in the Hex for both fleets, the CVL/CVE fleet the LRcap over the transport/surface fleet and the Main CV force also provide strike escorts

[MadmanRick]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

One point overlooking is that the CVE's are what you might wish to use to provide the LRcap for like transport TF's with or without also CVL's while using your main CV's for strike and escort and Main CV CAP.

You might try forming an CVE/CVL LR cap force, set it back from the amphib, and locate the Main CV force in same hex as the CVE/CVL, the Main force would provide the CAP in the Hex for both fleets, the CVL/CVE fleet the LRcap over the transport/surface fleet and the Main CV force also provide strike escorts

While that may provide a viable workaround, one is still limited as the Allies until sufficient numbers of CVE/CVL units become available. What to do in the meantime, when you don't have those numbers? I prefer the Carrier Strike method of assigning aircraft to missions myself. In that example, one could assign individual aircraft to say LRCAP, Escort, CAP (iirc) missions. That provided flexibility to the utmost. However barring that feature, I would prefer a more flexible assignment method than say the entire squadron is X. I like the idea of perhaps assigning in thirds, that would work for me.

Rick

[WhoCares]

I am sure, I did exactly that in my game, splitting a Daitai in KB to LRCAP landings in Lae and Rabaul. And meanwhile i rejoined them again. However, the split happened pre-1.3, hope they didn't kaputt-fix something [:'(]

[steveh11Matrix]

Seems to be an option for Japanese fighter squadrons only, for some reason.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Seems to be an option for Japanese fighter squadrons only, for some reason.

Jap fanboys have infiltrated Fort Grigsby!!! Joel!!! Come to the Dark Side, man. Please don't leave our Allied CVs hamstrung like this.[:D]