Planes forced to land elsewhere

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Planes forced to land elsewhere

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] >> Carriers At War >> Planes forced to land elsewhere

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Planes forced to land elsewhere - 6/22/2007 7:50:18 PM

pcelt

Posts: 143
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

As a task group commander am I right in assuming that "planes forced to land elsewhere" because of carrrier flight deck damage are of no further use to you in the scenario?
Thanks for any info

Post #: 1

RE: Planes forced to land elsewhere - 6/23/2007 1:59:05 AM

Gregor_SSG

Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pcelt

As a task group commander am I right in assuming that "planes forced to land elsewhere" because of carrrier flight deck damage are of no further use to you in the scenario?
Thanks for any info

Not quite. If a squadron at the base that they land at has the same plane type, then the planes are added to that squadron's reserve planes, and if the squadron has more pilots than planes, then the reserve planes will fly again.

Also, if planes divert to another base then they don't count as lost, and so therefore don't cost you VPs, even if they never fly again.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 2

RE: Planes forced to land elsewhere - 6/23/2007 5:48:50 AM

Triarii

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/2/2003
Status: offline

Gregor

I assume this applies to 'forced to land elsewhere' when it is a second carrier.
I have a couple of questions though.

I have just finished a play through of the historic Wake Island scenario. It was a tremendous game - Thank you again.

Saratoga was sunk while a full strike was returning. Enterprise was two hexes away from the site of the sinking.
It seems that 3xF4F (CAP) 16xSBD of VB-3, 29xSBD of VS3 and 6xTBD1 of VT-3 diverted to the Enterprise - These are a/c listed as 'forced to land elsewhere' (ftle) for the Saratoga in the game end 'Squadrons' report.

Looking at the Enterprise at game end I see operational/destroyed/reserve a/c listed as below in the air operations screen
VT-6 18/5/1
VS-6 12/6/0
VB-6 15/5/28

The F4F had been transferred to Wake (needs explaining in an AAR) and were showing
VS-6 18/1/2

Questions

1 Was it a random effect that put all the ftle SBD-2 landing on the Enterprise in the reserve for VB-6 despite majority being from Saratoga's search squadron VS-3?

2 If not is the assignation of all a/c of one type to one squadron reserve an abstraction that potentially gives, as in this case, an understrength squadron (VS-6) despite an enormous reserve (28) of the same a/c type in the second squadron.

Perhaps this is a possible slight tweak for the future. Even if abstraction of logistics (fuel/armament) means the use of all ftle a/c should be restricted a protocol resulting in unused a/c when a carrier or base is below its original (supplied) launch capacity seems, given the exigencies of combat, an unrealistic penalty.

Final slightly related question :-
1 Have I picked up correctly somewhere else that ftle is restricted to within 6 hexes of original carrier/base position? Iseem to recollect having read this but cannot (re)find it in the manual.

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)

Post #: 3

RE: Planes forced to land elsewhere - 6/24/2007 12:15:15 AM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

I don't know how this detail was handled historically, but shouldn't a TG commander (since that's the player's role) have the right to decide about the distribution of a a given a/c strike-group in case its home base has been damaged/sunk?

Example, diverting a group of dive bombers to a carrier that has a low amount of (escort/CAP) fighters, but plenty of dive bombers, wouldn't make sense, right?

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Triarii)

Post #: 4

RE: Planes forced to land elsewhere - 6/24/2007 5:57:36 AM

Gregor_SSG

Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mick15

Gregor

I assume this applies to 'forced to land elsewhere' when it is a second carrier.
I have a couple of questions though.

I have just finished a play through of the historic Wake Island scenario. It was a tremendous game - Thank you again.

Saratoga was sunk while a full strike was returning. Enterprise was two hexes away from the site of the sinking.
It seems that 3xF4F (CAP) 16xSBD of VB-3, 29xSBD of VS3 and 6xTBD1 of VT-3 diverted to the Enterprise - These are a/c listed as 'forced to land elsewhere' (ftle) for the Saratoga in the game end 'Squadrons' report.

Looking at the Enterprise at game end I see operational/destroyed/reserve a/c listed as below in the air operations screen
VT-6 18/5/1
VS-6 12/6/0
VB-6 15/5/28

The F4F had been transferred to Wake (needs explaining in an AAR) and were showing
VS-6 18/1/2

Questions

1 Was it a random effect that put all the ftle SBD-2 landing on the Enterprise in the reserve for VB-6 despite majority being from Saratoga's search squadron VS-3?

2 If not is the assignation of all a/c of one type to one squadron reserve an abstraction that potentially gives, as in this case, an understrength squadron (VS-6) despite an enormous reserve (28) of the same a/c type in the second squadron.

Perhaps this is a possible slight tweak for the future. Even if abstraction of logistics (fuel/armament) means the use of all ftle a/c should be restricted a protocol resulting in unused a/c when a carrier or base is below its original (supplied) launch capacity seems, given the exigencies of combat, an unrealistic penalty.

Final slightly related question :-
1 Have I picked up correctly somewhere else that ftle is restricted to within 6 hexes of original carrier/base position? Iseem to recollect having read this but cannot (re)find it in the manual.

There's been a lot of interest in the fate of these aircraft forced to land elsewhere, and to be honest it's not an area that we gave a lot of thought to, since there's not much chance that the aircraft can take a very meaningful part in future battles. We might need to loot at this further.

In answer to your questions, I'm not sure how the system allocates these aircraft, maybe Alex can supply more detail.

The six hex restriction is in the game, but I left it out of the manual. I'm putting it in the FAQ.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to Triarii)

Post #: 5

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Planes forced to land elsewhere

Page: [1]

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

0.656

Slitherine

Planes forced to land elsewhere