Matrix Games Forums

I've spent most of today checking out "carrier air groups not restructuring" problems. They all have the same difficulty.

In order for a carrier air group to be considered for restructuring it must be in a port with sufficient supply AND A COMMAND HQ PRESENT. And the port must be under the command of that Command HQ. Only a command HQ will do. Not fleet HQs, not Air HQs, not Armies, Corps, nor USO troops. Command HQs are the ones that show up when you try and change an HQ assignment: Home Defense Force, Central Pacific, etc.

Damn, that's a lot of hoops to jump through.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I've spent most of today checking out "carrier air groups not restructuring" problems. They all have the same difficulty.

In order for a carrier air group to be considered for restructuring it must be in a port with sufficient supply AND A COMMAND HQ PRESENT. And the port must be under the command of that Command HQ. Only a command HQ will do. Not fleet HQs, not Air HQs, not Armies, Corps, nor USO troops. Command HQs are the ones that show up when you try and change an HQ assignment: Home Defense Force, Central Pacific, etc.

So it DOES work ?, only the parameters needed for this feature to kick in, where a "bit" complicated [:D][:D][:D]

So.... San Francisco? (assuming you leave/put West Coast HQ there.)

That would make logical sense. In real life when most US carriers withdrew to either Pearl, San Deigo, San Fransico, or Bremerton is when the air group would recieve an overhaul and re-fitting. At all of those places were here major command HQ's are based out of in the game.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I've spent most of today checking out "carrier air groups not restructuring" problems. They all have the same difficulty.

The problem, of course, is that most of those who post these "problems" on the forums either have not read the rules or have tried to play the game in accordance with "first person shooter" or "Wah wah wah, I wanna do whatever I wanna whenever I wanna do it" principles.

Nothing better than seeing a poster say something like, "This is a bug because I can't make the game act like I think it should."

There are a lot of players out there who have a lot of experience playing the game the wrong way. Self-absorption is no substitute for analysis. Wanting something other than what you're actually going to get is a sure road to disappointment. As Burgess Meredith said to Rocky, "Wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which is filled first."

That said, I wish the designers and those now responsible for the game would create a fully developed manual that covers not only the basic design, but the difficulties encountered by players over the course of 2+ years of experience, as reflected in these forums (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - anyone ready for the second coming of "The Ring Trilogy"?).

Well, pasternakski, if they had put anything at all in the manual about having to meet some restrictions or conditions it might have helped. But, alas, they did not mention one single thing about having to meet some requirements. I certainly do not play the game as a "first person shooter" but I still had problems and when I asked on the forum, I got a bunch of possiblities but MichaelM is the one who had all the pieces on the requirements needed. It is not so much a bug as one of those items that 2x3 deemed to be not worthy of passing out any information about at all.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
That said, I wish the designers and those now responsible for the game would create a fully developed manual that covers not only the basic design, but the difficulties encountered by players over the course of 2+ years of experience, as reflected in these forums (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - anyone ready for the second coming of "The Ring Trilogy"?).

Do I detect a volunteer to spend the next 2+ years working on an updated manual?

Well, pasternakski, if they had put anything at all in the manual about having to meet some restrictions or conditions it might have helped. But, alas, they did not mention one single thing about having to meet some requirements. I certainly do not play the game as a "first person shooter" but I still had problems and when I asked on the forum, I got a bunch of possiblities but MichaelM is the one who had all the pieces on the requirements needed. It is not so much a bug as one of those items that 2x3 deemed to be not worthy of passing out any information about at all.

I would have to agree with Nomad on this. Also, how many days do you have to leave a CV in port
for the airgroups to 'adjust' to a usable level? The SHANGRI-LA arrived in San Fran about 6 turns ago with 128 AC. After a day or 2 it dropped down to 114 AC. It now sits at 121 AC.

My understanding is that 10% (or is it 15%?)over the AC limit(90), and NO AIR OPS from that particular
CV. On CV's with 4 squadrons what is the 'proper' # of AC(total and per squadron)?








Joe D.

Excuse me but why is everyone (bar Nomad) acting like this has never been posted.
 
I personally have posted that requirement (plus a few other needs) on almost every thread regarding problems with CV group restructuring.
Granted I found it out by experimentation and not from the manual, but it was not kept a secret.
 

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Well, pasternakski, if they had put anything at all in the manual about having to meet some restrictions or conditions it might have helped. But, alas, they did not mention one single thing about having to meet some requirements. I certainly do not play the game as a "first person shooter" but I still had problems and when I asked on the forum, I got a bunch of possiblities but MichaelM is the one who had all the pieces on the requirements needed. It is not so much a bug as one of those items that 2x3 deemed to be not worthy of passing out any information about at all.

Exactly. Thank you, sir.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Do I detect a volunteer to spend the next 2+ years working on an updated manual?

The only time I ever spent more than six months producing a manuscript, it cost the customer $300,000.

Interested? I can start tomorrow...

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

I know for sure that the 7/42 change from 27 to 36 does NOT require the squadrons be assigned to the major command hq. [8D]

No the groups do not need to be assigned to a command HQ.
It is the base's HQ [command Hq] that needs to be in the same base.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

Yes

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

No

Hi, It IS in the manual.  And it has been pointed out (by me) in many threads that Air units form replacements based on proximity to assigned HQ.  (Ron experianced great problems by leaving groups outside HQ range set to receive replacements and fragments appearing AT THE HQ dispite the fact the HQ was thousands of miles from the parent.

Excuse me but why is everyone (bar Nomad) acting like this has never been posted.
I personally have posted that requirement (plus a few other needs) on almost every thread regarding problems with CV group restructuring.
Granted I found it out by experimentation and not from the manual, but it was not kept a secret.

No offence michaelm but......
Not all of us like to spend time searching the forums looking for solutions to problems that should not
be occurring in the first place. I doubt if Admiral Nimitz had this problem in the real world:

Nimitz: 'Welcome to Pearl Harbor Captain, we need to send you to Ulithi right away'

Shangri-La captain: 'Sorry Admiral, we can't leave until our airgroups adjust to a usable level'

Nimitz: ' How long will that take?'

Shangri-La Captain: ' I'm not sure Sir, I'll have to consult the WITP forums for advice'

Nimitz: ' Oh sh*t !#@$%@#%@%@%!%!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'


I'd rather not sound like a Griper Fanboy(sorry Ron),but having to keep important ships tied
up in rear area ports for God knows how long is no way to play a game. Sure, there are work arounds,
like off loading a squadron, but the solutions others have suggested do not seem to work in my game.







Joe D.

Hi, WO it is only because you know a group will upgrade on a certain date that you tie them to rear areas. Knowing this what is the problem with meeting all the other requirments for upgrade?

CPT: sir I need a HQ
Nimitz: well Cen Pac is a HQ
CPT: Yes sir but my ship is located in Noumea a South Pacific HQ but that base is assigned to another HQ because we have not spent the PP to change it.

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0

... but having to keep important ships tied up in rear area ports for God knows how long is no way to play a game. Sure, there are work arounds, like off loading a squadron, but the solutions others have suggested do not seem to work in my game.

Joe D.

But - ships really did spend time tied up while airgroups reorganized, planes were delivered, etc. Nimitz knew this, and was able to decide if he wanted to wait for the reorganization or send them out "as is".

Also, God knows how long is one day with the proper conditions: Supply and HQ - with supply standing in for planes and equipment and HQ for people to handle the reorganization. Tad faster than it could happen in real life.

And the reorganizations represent changes in the composition of the airgroups. They were not at unusable levels before reorganization. Having 27 fighters instead of 36 does not render the carrier useless. Indeed, it is the circumstance in which it had been operating for some time.

To what are you objecting??