m10bob
Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: el cid again
USS Copahee is probably the second US CVE to appear in all 1941 RHS scenarios. It indeed does appear
with an air group of 18 F4F's and 9 SBD's. It is not possible to resize these squadrons to 21 and 21.
One reason is that the ship's capacity is formally 33 - 21 plus 21 = 42. Another reason is that RHS
uses actual US air squadron organization at the time a ship appears.
Note that in RHS there is NO allowance for use of a "deck park." This is for two unrelated reasons.
First of all, code does permit flight operations up to 7/6 of the rated air group size (formally up
to 115% I think). Somewhere around 37 or 38, the group will refuse to fly at all (although it can be
transported). Resizing too big to fly seems poor mod design. Second, a deck park is essentially
"cheating" in game terms - because there is no provision for loss of the deck park in bad weather - nor
any requirement the carrier EVADE bad weather. Code will have the ship close enemy targets anyway,
and it will never lose any to bad weather, even when it is present. For this reason, since WITP days,
RHS has never rated carries with deck storage - only with hanger storage. And this is strictly determined
by the hanger capacity using the aircraft assigned AT THE TIME of the game - not (in the case of Kaga, Akagi,
Saratoga or Lexington) using smaller aircraft in the 1920s. The effect of rating a carrier for a deck part,
and then permitting flight operations with up to 15% more than that (when deck parks in fact maximized the
plane count already) is not historical simulation in my view. I regard that as gamey. I also don't like
different standards for different sides - just because Japan did not use deck parks does not mean they could not
have done so. Letting the Allies use them (because they did) but the Japanese not (because they didn't) is
not really simulating what COULD HAVE BEEN DONE - and it also is not my cup of tea. Commanders should be
able to do whatever they could do - the operational and tactical choices are theirs. If I did allow a deck
park (because the weather problem was addressed) I would do so for both sides. Not insisting they use them,
either - still starting with actual historical squadron sizes.
Squadron size is tricky and modders have a problem. Our ability to change that size is limited. The data research
needed to identify actual squadron sizes for every squadron in the war is also daunting - perhaps a man year or two
of work. I didn't do that. Instead, I use standard or typical sizes and apply them uniformly unless some specific
reason exists to change it. Even that is somewhat subjective: a nominal squadron of 18 planes IRL in USN averaged
19; code allows you to add a few more, so you can go oversize if you want - above the average oversize of only 1.
But I like the code solution - I think its 'reserve' aircraft limits are reasonable - and see no reason to mess with that
by giving actual sizes greater than nominal TO&E.
So in this case, the limits you ran into are my fault. For cause. It - and all matters - are up for discussion.
But I see little chance Copahee should (or even could) be rated to fly 42 machines in game terms. [That is, 49 in
game terms = 42/6 x7 = 49] In fact the ship can carry that many or more - but not operationally as a carrier.
Note that in RHS most carriers - and all CVE's - may rapidly convert to (and back from) AKV status - permitting transporting
of any type of aircraft with wings attached - so they unload ready for use. In code terms, an AKV does not care what
the squadron size is - but only allows for one squadron regardless of type or plane count. It isn't the best way
to model an AKV, but that is how AE does it - and it is somewhat justifiable given it might be heavy bombers. AKV's
are in RHS, however, not because they can carry airplanes - but because they are superb transports for troops, cargo
and units. ALL carriers actually are - but code does NOT allow carriers to be used in that form. So convert the
ship and get a rather fabulous fast transport. IRL when a carrier is used as a transport, it is stripped of aviation
support equipment and people, and certain extra things are installed for troops. That is why the short 'conversion'
process - both directions. To use it as a carrier again means re-equipping for aircraft support.
quote:
ORIGINAL: m10bob
quote:
ORIGINAL: el cid again
No idea. The first CVE should be Long Island. It has a capacity of 16. It should have two squadrons of
8 aircraft - VC(F)-42 and VC(T)-42.
quote:
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello Sid...In scenario 122, roughly spring of 1942 I got my first American CVE with replenishment groups on deck, (marked as such), but they have the normal complement of 21 fighters and 9 DB's....I tried to re-size them, but every turn, it has reverted back to saying 21 fighters, 9 DB's...(I have NOT exhausted the limitation in game of squadrons which may be re-sized)...Any ideas on how this has occurred?...I have never experienced this issue in maybe 20 games?
Hello Sid...Specifically the ship is the USS Copahee....In some of my games I have used those replenishment CVE's as regular escorts by altering the size of airgroups to 21 and 9 but this ship appears with 18 and 9 (IIRC) and as replenishment should be 21/21, IIRC).
I'm wit ya' 100% on your comments, but since dedicated to RHS, let me relate some "stock WITP-AE things to you.
"Replenishment CVE's do carry more planes than the plane quota, so as you call them "plane parks", that is just what they seem to be.
The replenishment CVE's have no designation as such outwardly, and can only be detected by looking at the plane complement when examining each of those ships.
(This could be an appreciated improvement, simply renaming those ships to say something like "Copahee(R)", or such.)
Please look at your RHS scenario 122 and when you see the complement, you may note the words "replenishment group" do appear behind the title of the squadrons on the ship.
On a separate issue...Some islands (like Baker Island near Howland) have zero port size, and cannot be built to accept any port size whatsoever.
How do you feel about giving such atolls even an ability to have a size one port to represent perhaps an anchored ship to off load supplies from, similar to the "Mulberries"..I know I going abstract here, but the concept was common.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: RHS Level II Comprehensive Update 2.01 - 
) but the wikipedia says (
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