Matrix Games Forums

I was debating this one with myself but decided to post it anyhow for discussion. What about making carrier air groups independant of the carriers? That way I can post them to shore when the carrier is in port, or post them to other carriers.
Of course that may not be particularly realistic, and this is a strategic game and I guess we shouldn't be able to meddle in everyting (Hitler did though - but I find myself not particularly comforted by the notion of wanting to emulate him!). I don't have information on the actual way air groups were posted in Japan or the US during the war. Today in the US, air groups are independant entities.
My end aim is to be able to upgrade new carriers as they come out with surviving high caliber air groups! Another potential would be to "mix" good air groups with the green boys, maybe bring them up a notch and possibly increase their learning curve.

------------------
(.) (.)
...V...

This is not unrealistic. The Japanesse on several occasions detached their carrier airgroups to reinforce Island bases. Usually getting them mauled. That is one reason there were no carrier vs carrier battles in 1943. The US did it also around guadalcanal. The US Navy also had more Airgroups than carriers and their groups were not locked to a carrier take for example Air Group 6 (VF6,VB6,VT6) it was abourd the Enterprise for The Makins operations. The Intrepid hosted AG6 for the Marshalls, It sat out the Marianas.
This is a good idea, I was thinking of it also!

In response to your realism question, the USN had the habit of sending their air groups to a shore base when pulling into harbor. After all, a carrier in harbor is twice as useless as other warships since a/c are their main weapon and cannot be launched while the ships is at anchor. Of course in PW it's not really feasible since your airbases would become overloaded, but it could be simulated by allowing a CV airgroup in harbor to still function as if from a land base. A little side note: VF-17 was a Corsair unit that operated from shorebases in the Solomons and racked up more kills than VMF-214.

Ditto on it being realistic, was done by both sides as already documented.

it should be a feature of the new game.

In Pacwar carrier airgroups do not fly in port but they do seem to train ok. All carrier AG's have a landbase they come from in reality. What should be done is the parent command occupies a airbase and detaches ac to the carrier (letting the player decide what types and number of ac to put on his ships) Also at least one carrier deck would have to be set aside for the training of new carrier pilots with a TF mission of train pilots

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited September 17, 2000).]

You are right about carriers which were assigned the duty of pilot training. I know the Japanese had a couple of their small carriers which were nearly permanently stationed in the Inland Sea where they trained pilots.

To use these carriers for normal operations a penalty in carrier air group quality should be incurred. Or some other mechanism.

Norseman

The USN had carriers for pilot training too. The Sable and the Wolverine trained fighter pilots on the Great Lakes. They were converted sidewheelers steamers which served very well throughout the war - but would be absolutely useless in anthing bigger than one of the lakes.
God Bless;
Rev. Rick

------------------
tincanman