|
el cid again -> RE: 6.15 ERRORS (10/31/2006 8:15:40 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There are several things that you-all need to be aware of concerning carrier air groups:
A carrier air group is an entity - moving it around does not break that relationship.
The carrier air groups reconfigure at various times (with some random factor involved in when). These reconfigurations change the mix of fighters, bombers, torpedo planes in the carrier air group. Note that this is the CAG and not the aircraft on the carrier. If one moves a squadron off of the carrier, it will still resize as part of the CAG (as of 1.8). If one moves other squadrons onto the carrier they will not be considered in the calculation of the CAG size and the carrier may become overloaded.
In order for reconfiguration to occur the CV must be at a well-supplied port, not badly damaged, and the CAG squadrons must have Replacements allowed.
Calculation of carrier air group squadron size is based on a percentage of home carrier capacity. Formulas vary with time of war, size and type of carrier, and nationality.
The old problem of unexpected growth of carrier airgroups temporarily based ashore was addressed in 1.8. EVEN IF NOT ON THEIR HOME CARRIER THEIR SIZE IS CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE HOME CARRIER'S CAPACITY. Up side of this is the ability to move the squadron back to the carrier is not impeded. Down side is that the squadron will not grow, even if permanently detached (or the carrier is sunk).
As of 1.8.0.2, carrier squadrons of HUMAN players are not re-headquartered when moved ashore.
There are several other ways this could have been done, but this is the way it is.
So:
Keep you carrier air groups intact and on their original carriers.
Only move them ashore if the carrier is lost.
You can safely disband your carriers for repairs, upgrades.
You can prevent carrier squadron resize by leaving the replacement control in "No Replacements".
IF I understand this - and I am not sure I do understand it completely? = RHS is NOT compatable with 1.8 UNLESS we read the above like data lawyers and NEVER have "replacements allowed set" when a carrier might resize. Unless you know what will happen in this particular case is acceptable to you.
We CANNOT permit carrier squadron resizing because we are being historical. We do not have the regulation number of squadrons on a carrier - nor the names required for code to ID them (under the old system at least). We are putting four squadrons on most Japanese and some British CV - we would use 5 if we could - and the code simply is not geared for any number other than 3 squadrons per CV (except it did allow 4 on US CVs in some years and not in others under the old system). Did the combining of US carrier squadrons go away? While we do use 4 for US carriers - we don't change that to 3 and then back to 4 - and we don't use the names code needs to know which two squadrons to combine. [The service abbreviator USN kills the recognition of the unit]
This requires some analysis - and note I am not yet seeing this problem in 1.8 level tests.
We used to know what the resize rules were - and conditions (which is why WITPQS is writing about disbanding in a port with a command HQ). Can we know the new rules?
And - slight frustration here - what is wrong with letting us set the unit sizes correctly and leaving them alone? A recon flight need not resize as if it were a squadron, etc. It is much harder to write a general rule which is always true than to let the data entry people enter the right data - and leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
