Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CV Aircraft diversion probably a little too easy...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> CV Aircraft diversion probably a little too easy... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CV Aircraft diversion probably a little too easy... - 3/2/2003 7:31:53 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		Actually just benefited greatly from this in a recent PBEM CV battle, but it really struck me as odd.

The BIG problem I have is aircraft diverting to a land base and then instantly launching a strike.

In the battle (near Luganville where the Japanese are attempting to invade, I'm US), Our CVs exchanged strikes in the morning. Yorktown was too badly damaged to land aircraft, so its aircraft scattered to Luganville, Efate, and Noumea.

In the AFTERNOON, these diverted AC then launched strikes; including Devastators with Torps....while I overall won the battle, with the strikes from my two other carriers, the strikes from the diverted Yorktown aircraft really made the damage a lot worse for the Japanese.

I'm a bit mystified how Efate and Luganville, which have never had any naval aircraft based there, managed to magically scrounge up Mk-13 Torpedoes and ground crew to arm the Devastators an hour after they suddenly arrive out of nowhere with no warning :-).

While this may never make it to a UV patch, I strongly recommend the following:

Aircraft which divert from damaged CVs cannot launch a strike that same day.

It just gives a bit TOO much advantage to people fighting a "defensive" CV battle near their own bases. Realistically, any airgroup diverting would likely take extra time to do it, would arrive in a confused condition, etc.


The other problem is that I really think the program is letting aircraft fly a LITTLE too far when diverting. It seems that if you count the distance from CV to a target, and then to a diversion base, that a lot of aircraft are really flying farther than their normal range at times.
Post #: 1
Re: CV Aircraft diversion probably a little too easy... - 3/2/2003 9:03:10 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]The other problem is that I really think the program is letting aircraft fly a LITTLE too far when diverting. It seems that if you count the distance from CV to a target, and then to a diversion base, that a lot of aircraft are really flying farther than their normal range at times. [/B][/QUOTE]

Check again. I am fairly certain the program takes into account the range from where the aircraft were when their carrier went down. This is most notable with the shorter range US aircraft. For instance, I had a US carrier go down and the F4Fs that were flying CAP were able to successfully divert. But the one's flying escort were lost. During the same strike the SBDs managed to divert, but the TBDs were all lost.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 2
- 3/2/2003 9:05:01 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Excellent post. I concur.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 3
- 3/2/2003 10:19:49 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Thats one of those little gotcha's that rewards people who plan well. One always tries to kneecap the CV's out far enough from a base that the aircraft all go down with the ship having no base in range to divert to.

I do agree about the divert range being a bit long (it's probably using transfer range instead of normal range etc). Normal range would make more sense to a certain extent, more emulating that the planes return to land and don't have a deck to land on and DIVERT elsewhere :D

Hmm, thinking ahead to the patch, they have toned down aircraft loss rates so this wil play and even more important factor in cv battles as you will be able to save a fair chunk of planes now ...

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 4
- 3/2/2003 11:10:06 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I can live with the extended aircraft transfer range (it isn't egregious). It's the "instant airstrike" thing that pickles my cucumber.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 5
- 3/2/2003 11:25:39 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Understand that they are diverting from the CV loaded and you will not have a issue with the returning attack ... thats WHY I have the problem with range.

You can't have it both ways ... either transfer at transfer range and not fly or transfer at normal range with weapons ...

You can't do both :D

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 6
Other possible solutions... - 3/2/2003 11:45:06 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		Well, would have to sit down and do a lot of re-runs to figure out diversion ranges...


But in regards to the "instant strike" problem....

AC emergency diverting to a land base because of a damaged CV could:

1) Take an extra-massive fatigue hit (confusion, etc.)

2) Take an extra-massive morale hit (basically their "home" has been severely damaged or sunk)

3) All become damaged when arriving at the new land base (I really like this one) So some Devastators arrive at Luganville totally unplanned because a CV is destroyed or damaged. All of their trained groundcrew are back on the CV (or lost with a sunken CV). All of their spare parts are back on the CV. All of their torpedoes and specialized ordnance are back on the CV.

Having them all become damaged strikes me as pretty realistic; it would take time to get mechanics used to that aircraft there, necessary parts, and their ordnance.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 7
My thoughts... - 3/2/2003 3:05:40 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

This got me thinking...

When you transfer aircraft from one base (or ship) to another you also can fly
them immediately.

But you get fatigue when you do that.

I wonder if CVs diversion cause fatigue on crews when they divers (i.e.
effectively transfer to another base)...


BTW, I would like that air units can't fly the same turn they are transferred
(or diverted) in UV at all. This is, IMHO, unrealistic and can lead to
"exploits"/"cheats"...


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 8
- 3/2/2003 4:10:54 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]air units can't fly the same turn they are transferred[/QUOTE]

I think the fatigue level penalty is already good enough at dealing with this as if you DO let them take a mission on the following day, you are going to loose planes and pilots due to them right up there in the suicidal fatigue levels. This is especially brutal if it is a fighter unit as when in the 40+ range, they provide no cap value and simply let the enemy pilots gain quick skill shooting them down :D

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 9
- 3/2/2003 4:20:11 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I think the fatigue level penalty is already good enough at dealing with this as if you DO let them take a mission on the following day, you are going to loose planes and pilots due to them right up there in the suicidal fatigue levels. This is especially brutal if it is a fighter unit as when in the 40+ range, they provide no cap value and simply let the enemy pilots gain quick skill shooting them down :D [/B][/QUOTE]

But they can fly the very same day you transfer them. You move
them and they can fly immediately.

This is IMHO possibility of "explots"/"cheats"...


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 10
- 3/2/2003 11:03:48 PM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline 		RAAF Tomahawks of 75 squadron were in action within one hour of flying in to Port Moresby for the first time, shooting down a reconnaissance aircraft.

The problem is one that is due to a balance between playability and realism. In UV, players can decide at the start of a day whether to move aircraft to a new base, whether to create a task force and send it on a mission, or even select a destination for an amphibious assault and conduct it there and then, etc. Historically, all these operations usually took time and planning (especially the latter). But also there are example of them all being done within the space of a few hours if the need was great.

Consider moving a squadron of G4M torpedo-bombers. During the war these often deployed before their full complement of stores were made available, so that, for example, no torpedoes were to hand for the attack on the USS Lexington in early 1942 during its aborted raid on Rabaul and the G4Ms flew with bombs. In UV you always have the most effective weapon available as the alternative would be to have different types of supply, which you would then have to ensure were available at each base when you needed them. Accurate, but hardly much fun!

The use of a hefty fatigue hit due to transferring bases seems a good compromise. You can fly with tired pilots in aircraft which could do with a thorough overhaul, but given the choice you would prefer to stand them down. I don’t think I have ever looked at the fatigue taken by aircraft automatically diverting, but it should be at least as high as that for aircraft making a normal transfer of the same distance.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 11
- 3/2/2003 11:35:08 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Not to nitpick, but unless you assign them a night mission, they are not flying until tomorrow ;)

The transfer actually happens instantly, during the previous turn's move for all intensive purposes.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 12
Are you 100% sure? - 3/3/2003 1:05:43 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Not to nitpick, but unless you assign them a night mission, they are not flying until tomorrow ;)

The transfer actually happens instantly, during the previous turn's move for all intensive purposes. [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you 100% sure about this?

I think the transferred squadron(s) can fly imediately (i.e. even
first day air phase)...


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 13
- 3/3/2003 2:03:30 AM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		Transfered Squads do fly missions. I often have to stand them down otherwise there fatigue goes sky high.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 14
- 3/3/2003 4:41:21 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Are you 100% sure about this?[/QUOTE]

yep, 100%

when you click execute, the night phase happens then the 2 day phases ... following that logic, since the plane have already arrived before you hit execute turn, they get a nights sleep unless you happen to be cruel enough to have them fly the night shift :D

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 15
- 3/3/2003 6:42:54 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Apollo,

I really don't see what your issue is. Howard Mitchell had an excelent point. And as for myself, I NEVER fly my planes right after a transfer. I always stand them down. Many times for 2 days. I can't think of a surer way of having ineffective or dead pilots than to fly them right after a transfer. What do you see that is "gamey" or an "exploit"?

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 16
- 3/3/2003 7:25:19 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I think what he's observing is this:

-CVs on both sides launch strikes in the first day air ops phase
-CV on one side damaged too badly to handle aircraft
-Aircraft from that CV divert to land base within range
-These aircraft launch a naval strike on the same day in the second air ops phase

I have seen this, too, and it is silly. Note that the aircraft are the same ones that participated in the initial CV-CV battle. There is no intervening player phase. It would be one thing if this was a conscious ship-to-shore transfer, but it is not. These aircraft are making an emergency landing after dropping their ordnance, rearming and refueling, and taking off to attack again in the second air operations phase of the day.

It makes sense within the current design conditions, as the squadrons are still assigned to naval strike and are at a base with sufficient supply (being generic and including everything from saki to aerial torpedoes) and support, but I think that it allows aircraft (and pilots) in these circumstances to accomplish way too much.

The problem, I think, is the lack of supply type differentiation. I realize that it is far too late in the day to start suggesting "ammo supply" and "ration supply" or anything like that, but I would like to see an adjustment to correct oddities like this (of course, I know that PT boats still run on bunker oil and probably always will, so I'm just attacking another windmill, but, you know, as long as Sancho's not laughing at me ...)

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 17
- 3/3/2003 7:53:33 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]Apollo,

I really don't see what your issue is. Howard Mitchell had an excelent point. And as for myself, I NEVER fly my planes right after a transfer. I always stand them down. Many times for 2 days. I can't think of a surer way of having ineffective or dead pilots than to fly them right after a transfer. What do you see that is "gamey" or an "exploit"? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi All,

If I may add my $0.02 here ...

As currently modeled in UV aircraft transfer is essentially eqivalent to a Star Trek Teleport :). In any turn's execution phase a squadron can conduct flying ops, then during the plotting phase transfer to another base and be assigned to conduct air ops essentially executing 3 days worth of activity in 2 days. I believe that is the gist of Apollo 11's argument.

It would be more realistic IMO if the transfer actually occurred during one of the 3 phases during turn execution. For example, if I have a squadron of B-17's stationed at Noumea and I want to transfer them to Wunpuko I assign them a transfer mission mission, select a target base and click on day or night mission to determine which phase the transfer occurs. The transfer does not occur immediately as it does now but executes in a similar fashion to how air transport supply or reinforcement missions work.

I understand that the current transfer system is trying to model forward staging ops where an aircraft would be;

1) originally based in a rear area,
2) transfer forward early in the day to a staging base where it would refuel and rearm,
3) conduct some offensive air op and
4) then return to some destination base that may or may not be it's base of origin.

but I don't think it truly models how difficult these operation were to conduct both from a logistical or an administrative perspective.

If you don't believe that the current transfer system is a bit out of whack, think about how easy it is to counter any significant IJN air combat TF thrust into the Coral Sea or the New Hebrides with Allied medium bomber transfers!

The bottom line is that air transfer must come with not only a fatigue but also a time penalty and in case of naval air wing diversions a significant morale and damage penalty to prevent them from attacking immediately once they arrive at their 'new' base.

Cheers

Gus

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 18
- 3/3/2003 9:03:10 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Gus,

I can't believe you actually do what you say can be done.

Try the following: Take a squadron of B-17s based at Cooktown and port attack Gili-Gili (assuming the japs have taken it). Now the very next day, while their fatigue is around 50, transfer them to PM. How many planes did you just lose? Now instantly set them to port attack Rabaul. Don't let them rest. Now how many planes did you lose? Doing this may end up costing you half your squadron. How in the world is this an exploit?

This is my procedure for making a transfer:
1) Have the squadron to be transfered stand down until the most fatigued pilot has a fatigue of less than 10. This usually takes 2 days.
2) Transfer the squadron and have them stand down.
3) Do not assign any missions to the squadron until the fatigue is once again below 10. Again, this will take 2 days.

If you do any more your op losses are going to be phenomenal.

I just can't see that there is a problem here. Quite frankly, if your solution were adopted, then I would have to say that pilots should accumulate almost NO fatigue for transfering base. The fact that squadrons which transfered their base accumulated massive amounts of fatigue, more so than squadrons involved in heavy CAP combat, at first left me somewhat mystified. But when you consider the penalty this places on having the squadron right back in the air the next day, it makes sense. It would not make any sense at all, however, if there were some delay involved before they could again be committed to combat.

And again, I would refer you back to Howard Mitchel's post concerning sqdr 75.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 19
- 3/3/2003 10:09:50 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		You're not listening, guys.

This thread asked a question about CV aircraft diverting to land bases after a CV becomes too damaged to land them.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 20
- 3/3/2003 10:24:59 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		Hey C&G

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]I can't believe you actually do what you say can be done.[/B][/QUOTE]

Just because its allowed does not mean I use it. The transfer routine needs to be tightened up and whatever restictions are imposed they should be enforced by the UV engine and not by the user as it is now.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]And again, I would refer you back to Howard Mitchel's post concerning sqdr 75. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am sure you will agree that we can all come up with anecdotes similar to sqdr 75's. However I hope you will agree that stating this was Standard Operating Procedure for the air and ground crews in the Pacific is wildly extropolative.

Cheers

Gus

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 21
- 3/3/2003 10:54:37 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gus
[B]
I am sure you will agree that we can all come up with anecdotes similar to sqdr 75's. However I hope you will agree that stating this was Standard Operating Procedure for the air and ground crews in the Pacific is wildly extropolative.
[/B][/QUOTE]

So, isn't that the point? If it could have been done in real life, then it should be doable in the game and not arbitrarily ruled out.

And the point of my entire post was that this is not "extropolative" (which I assume means exploitative). :p

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 22
- 3/3/2003 11:06:31 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Sorry, JohnK, I tried.

I should note that I have seen this happen in both AI and PBEM games (once even when I was the beneficiary, not the victim). The only "saving grace" is that the gratuitous strike is generally uncoordinated (the ones that I have seen, anyway) and tends not to be well escorted (although your CAP is usually so chewed up as to be pretty ineffective in stopping or disrupting the strike anyway).

I think that the "100 percent damaged" solution is the correct one. It should apply in only this limited context, that is, aircraft forced to divert from their base CV due to ship damage.

Maybe Matrix will pick this up and make that little adjustment.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 23
- 3/3/2003 11:29:21 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		Hey C&G,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]So, isn't that the point? If it could have been done in real life, then it should be doable in the game and not arbitrarily ruled out.[/B][/QUOTE]

The Hornet flew B-25's in the Doolittle raid, since this happened IRL shouldn't I be able to do the same routinely in UV?

I am not advocating that we arbitrarily rule out anything that could possibly occur IRL what I am advocating is that the UV engine model these real world operations and activities properly without resorting to magic.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]And the point of my entire post was that this is not "extropolative" (which I assume means exploitative). :p [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, I misspelled extrapolate :)

To extrapolate is to predict what a curve will look like outside of a known set of data, "to think outside the box" if you will. Conversly, to interpolate is to predict what a curve will look like inside of a known set of data. Extrapolation is how the news networks predict election results with extreme accuracy having only a small percentage of the votes reported. As long as they have a representative sample of the general voting population the results will be amazingly accurate.

So what I was trying to say is that to infer that the transfer model in UV is accurate based on sqdr 79's one data point is to extrapolate wildly, i.e. we do not have enough data yet to make that claim. How accurate do you think the networks would be if they only sampled the first voter they met and made their predictions based on that one vote, I would estiamte about 50% + or - 10% :)

Cheers

Gus

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 24
- 3/3/2003 11:34:33 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		To add fuel to the fire...

In the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, a late afternoon airstrike sent by the Enterprise on August 24 diverted to Henderson Field after they failed to find the Japanese carriers. First thing the following morning, they launched from Henderson Field and attacked a transport convoy coming down the slot.

I'm going to have to pay more attention to my crews fatigue after transfers. I rarely transfer any squadron that has high fatigue, and have watched the operational losses skyrocket when I have. I have, however, given immediate orders for offensive missions, and I want to start checking the fatigue level on transferring a/c before I continue to do so. There should be a fatigue penalty for transferring a/c, more so the longer distance the transfer covers.

I am against any ruling that prevents any operations after transfer.

I understand the problem with a morning strike diverting and then being able to launch again in the afternoon. I don't think it happens often enough to make such a drastic change as to prevent any possibility of a strike being launched after any transfer.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 25
- 3/3/2003 11:42:31 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gus
[B]Hey C&G,

The Hornet flew B-25's in the Doolittle raid, since this happened IRL shouldn't I be able to do the same routinely in UV?
[/B][/QUOTE]

My answer would be yes if you don't mind having a defenseless carrier and the B-25's have to land at freindly airbase and the pilot experience was above 70.

Savo Island was one data point. Midway was one data point. They were way outside the box, so to speak. Does that mean the game should rule out these results?

You say this was not SOP. Fine. It is not in the game either. If you make it your SOP, you are going to pay a high price. So the game works.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 26
- 3/3/2003 12:28:58 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I just freakin' give up on this thread.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 27
- 3/3/2003 2:11:21 PM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]Does that mean the game should rule out these results?[/B][/QUOTE]

I do not want you to think that I only see only the black and white of this issue for that is not true. I don't want strikes as you have described due to CV diversions to be prohibited I simply want them to be more in accordance with real life. The chances of a full strike from one or more CV's being diverted to another base and then in the very next phase that same land base launches a full strike against in-range enemy TF's should be absurdly low. So what I would like to see in UV and WitP is that only part of the original strike be able to get off the ground but on average it should be between 0 - 50% of the original strike's complement.

This is a time, logistics and administrative issue as well as the morale, damage and fatigue issues already in the game, all of which should determine the strike's composition and strength. It all boils down to the ability we currently have in UV to transfer a/c without enough of a penalty being assessed to severely curtail the squadrons performance in its next operational phase.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]You say this was not SOP. Fine. It is not in the game either. If you make it your SOP, you are going to pay a high price. So the game works. [/B][/QUOTE]

The point I am trying to make is that the price is not high enough and that a/c transfer should be an explicit operation that occurs during the execution of each turn not the teleport phenomenon that exists in UV today. Think of the following situation;

1) I assign some squadrons to transfer to PM which takes place during the first day air ops phase. The Japanese have LRCAP over PM so the incoming planes are intercepted in a similar manner to air transport ops and so a dog fight occurs. My proposal in this instance appears to model both SOP and the outlying data point that sqdr 79 cited. So i think everyone shold be happy on this one. once they are on the ground what ever their default orders are would take effect, i.e stand down, CAP etc.

2) I have a situation similar to the Eastern Solomons where a/c from the Enterprise diverted to Guadalcanal and the next day engaged in air ops. This is actually in line with my proposal as they do not immediately launch a counterstrike on the turn of the diversion. IIRC 11 SBD's from Enterprise diverted to GC and 7-8 participated in the next day's strike against Tanaka's transport convoy, but I could be mistaken as I am too lazy to check my references tonight :)

Cheers

Gus

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 28
Thanks Gus - this is exactly what I meant! - 3/3/2003 2:34:01 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by gus
[B]Hi All,

If I may add my $0.02 here ...

As currently modeled in UV aircraft transfer is essentially eqivalent to a Star Trek Teleport :). In any turn's execution phase a squadron can conduct flying ops, then during the plotting phase transfer to another base and be assigned to conduct air ops essentially executing 3 days worth of activity in 2 days. I believe that is the gist of Apollo 11's argument.

It would be more realistic IMO if the transfer actually occurred during one of the 3 phases during turn execution. For example, if I have a squadron of B-17's stationed at Noumea and I want to transfer them to Wunpuko I assign them a transfer mission mission, select a target base and click on day or night mission to determine which phase the transfer occurs. The transfer does not occur immediately as it does now but executes in a similar fashion to how air transport supply or reinforcement missions work.

I understand that the current transfer system is trying to model forward staging ops where an aircraft would be;

1) originally based in a rear area,
2) transfer forward early in the day to a staging base where it would refuel and rearm,
3) conduct some offensive air op and
4) then return to some destination base that may or may not be it's base of origin.

but I don't think it truly models how difficult these operation were to conduct both from a logistical or an administrative perspective.

If you don't believe that the current transfer system is a bit out of whack, think about how easy it is to counter any significant IJN air combat TF thrust into the Coral Sea or the New Hebrides with Allied medium bomber transfers!

The bottom line is that air transfer must come with not only a fatigue but also a time penalty and in case of naval air wing diversions a significant morale and damage penalty to prevent them from attacking immediately once they arrive at their 'new' base.

Cheers

Gus [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks Gus - this is exactly what I meant!

You must have read my mind... :-)


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 29
- 3/3/2003 3:20:05 PM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]To add fuel to the fire...

In the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, a late afternoon airstrike sent by the Enterprise on August 24 diverted to Henderson Field after they failed to find the Japanese carriers. First thing the following morning, they launched from Henderson Field and attacked a transport convoy coming down the slot.

[/B][/QUOTE]

First thing the following morning is no problem. Keep it on topic guys: this is about planes diverting and launching strikes in the same DAY!

That aside:
UV is the only game I know in which you give orders the previous evening of the turn instead of the morning.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> CV Aircraft diversion probably a little too easy... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.453