RE: Flying Carriers

RE: Flying Carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Essro -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/10/2008 8:28:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian quote: ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer On the other hand, can't carrier planes operate as regular aircraft? (That is to say, base on land just like other aircraft.) that is another important point. allowing them to fly regular missions when not on a carrier gives any country with convoys to protect a lot of nice convoy escorts, frex, further distorting the 'reality' of subs vs. convoys. a lot of people use cv planes but disallow them from doing anything except rebasing when not on a carrier. In RAW, this is an option within the Carrier Planes option : *********************** CVPiF option 56: Carrier planes may only ever fly rebase missions when not stacked on a CV. ********************* As is the one about the double stacking of CVP on carriers. ********************* CVPiF option 56: You may stack up to 2 carrier planes on each CV, provided that the sum of the size of all carrier planes stacked on a single CV is no more than that CV's air component. Each carrier plane may conduct missions separately from other carrier planes based on the same CV, and each carrier plane counts separately against air mission activity limits. *********************** Sorry to revisit an old thread but I was reading some of these older comments and want clarification on something. This option 56—which may or may not be an option in MWIF—allows 2 carrier planes to be stacked on a single CV. I can presume this is intended to allow for a fighter component and a torpedo/dive bomber component. However, I am confused when it says “provided that the sum of the size of all carrier planes stacked on a single CV is no more than that CV’s air component.” Can someone clarify this for me? For example, in 1939 the USA has CV Lexington which has an air component of 4. Yet, most of the allowable builds are also 4s (number 4 in blue box). It says sum of the size, sum meaning add the numbers together right? Most are 4s so 4+4 is greater than Lex’s 4, thus only one could stack. Therefore Lex, in most cases, would only get one CV fighter OR a CV dive-bomber/torp. I have a hard time grasping why it would be better or more accurate to portray a Carrier’s air component as being so unrealistically unbalanced. Does this mean old Lex might be stuck out in the middle of the Pacific with just some SBD-4s and no fighter cover? If this indeed the case, it doesn’t seem much better than the previous ‘flying carriers.’ Am I just misunderstanding this CV stacking rule?

Norman42 -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/10/2008 9:19:02 AM)
The carrier plane air componant (when using the seperate counter, not the intrinsic value) is not a dive bomber, or torpedo bomber, or fighter per se. It has a set of air-to-air, air-to-sea, and tactical factors that can be used in a multiple of ways. The aircraft type pictured is mostly eye candy. For example, a 5-4-3 carrier plane (5 Air to air rating, 4 naval combat rating, and 3 tactical rating), could chose to fly as a 5 factor fighter, or a 4 factor naval bomber, or a 3 factor ground attack bomber. It can choose which to be at the start of a combat turn. So, even though the counter itself might show a Dauntless dive bomber, that aircraft represents all the various aircraft the carrier might be carrying (with emphasis on the pictured type, hence the differing aircraft values), and it can fly as a fighter, or tac-air when required. As far as the question you asked regarding the Lexington, you are correct, you cannot carry more then 4 in 'air componant' value. It usually will carry one aircraft unit with a 4 componant rating. However, if you play the mentioned option you could carry two 2 rating aircraft instead of one 4 rating, or any combination adding up to 4. This is not usually done, since two lower air componant aircraft are often quite inferior to a single higher componant value aircraft.

Essro -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/10/2008 3:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 The carrier plane air componant (when using the seperate counter, not the intrinsic value) is not a dive bomber, or torpedo bomber, or fighter per se. It has a set of air-to-air, air-to-sea, and tactical factors that can be used in a multiple of ways. The aircraft type pictured is mostly eye candy. For example, a 5-4-3 carrier plane (5 Air to air rating, 4 naval combat rating, and 3 tactical rating), could chose to fly as a 5 factor fighter, or a 4 factor naval bomber, or a 3 factor ground attack bomber. It can choose which to be at the start of a combat turn. So, even though the counter itself might show a Dauntless dive bomber, that aircraft represents all the various aircraft the carrier might be carrying (with emphasis on the pictured type, hence the differing aircraft values), and it can fly as a fighter, or tac-air when required. As far as the question you asked regarding the Lexington, you are correct, you cannot carry more then 4 in 'air componant' value. It usually will carry one aircraft unit with a 4 componant rating. However, if you play the mentioned option you could carry two 2 rating aircraft instead of one 4 rating, or any combination adding up to 4. This is not usually done, since two lower air componant aircraft are often quite inferior to a single higher componant value aircraft. Thank you for your response. Okay, that makes sense. The counter represents the entire CV air wing. The icon is eye candy. I guess I was just getting hung up on seeing some counters with very low ratings in one area or another. I was looking at a F4F-4 with a rating of 4 air-- --1-- This disparity lead me to believe that it was meant to serve in one specific capacity, in this case almost solely a fighter. I suppose it makes sense for the CV air wings to be a true mix since both the fighters and torp/dive planes would most likely launch at the same time, conduct the mission together, and return together. (edit: I have no idea if that is true and may have based my understanding of carrier operations on the movie “Midway.”[:D]) However, if the unit used in the example above were based on Lexington, then Lex is pretty much a Fighter CV and little else. While the icon is eye candy and only suggests one type of dominant aircraft amongst other types, the stats suggest that the pilots of this unit are good at dog fighting but can’t hit ships with their bombs and torps. I should probably examine the CVP counters that are available later on to see if the counters are more rounded and thus able to realistically do the various missions a CVP should. Thank you for clearing up this 2 unit option. It works as I feared and results in what you suggest: “not usually done.” So, this option is pretty useless in many cases. I wonder if I was correct in assuming the intent was to provide the CV air component with more diversity. If this was the intent, it is not working as the ADG folks intended. So then, what is the preferred strategy when basing a CVP onto a CV? Do you pick a unit that has high stats in Naval Attack on one CV, and then a more fighter friendly one for another CV in the hopes that the two CVs do not get separated. Or do you hold out for a unit that is pretty well rounded like the 5-4-3 you mentioned?

Norman42 -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/10/2008 7:36:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: allsop So then, what is the preferred strategy when basing a CVP onto a CV? Do you pick a unit that has high stats in Naval Attack on one CV, and then a more fighter friendly one for another CV in the hopes that the two CVs do not get separated. Or do you hold out for a unit that is pretty well rounded like the 5-4-3 you mentioned? A little bit of both. I agree, the mechanic isn't really that great, with some aircraft having extremely low air-to-air and some having almost no naval attack factors. This is especially odd on the US/Jap large carriers where a diverse airwing was the normal loadout. On smaller carriers like the CVEs and small British carriers I can more readily accept a more one dimensional aircraft loadout tailored to the mission (ie fighters aren't much use on a ASW carrier). As the war progresses you will notice that in 41-45 the airwings do become better rounded out with every aircraft generally having a good mix of air/nav/tac combat factors. Its those early 37-39 ones that are more difficult to use, like a Swordfish with 1 (or 0) air to air rating, but 2-4 nav rating. It really is a single role aircraft. In these latter cases you do have to either pair them up with another carrier so that the combined airwings are more versitile; or place that specific airwing on a carrier with a limited function. For instance, I place the high-nav/low-air swordfish on a carrier that is patrolling the atlantic for raiders/subs. They wont meet fighters out there so the low ATA factors won't hurt you as much.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/10/2008 7:37:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: allsop quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 The carrier plane air componant (when using the seperate counter, not the intrinsic value) is not a dive bomber, or torpedo bomber, or fighter per se. It has a set of air-to-air, air-to-sea, and tactical factors that can be used in a multiple of ways. The aircraft type pictured is mostly eye candy. For example, a 5-4-3 carrier plane (5 Air to air rating, 4 naval combat rating, and 3 tactical rating), could chose to fly as a 5 factor fighter, or a 4 factor naval bomber, or a 3 factor ground attack bomber. It can choose which to be at the start of a combat turn. So, even though the counter itself might show a Dauntless dive bomber, that aircraft represents all the various aircraft the carrier might be carrying (with emphasis on the pictured type, hence the differing aircraft values), and it can fly as a fighter, or tac-air when required. As far as the question you asked regarding the Lexington, you are correct, you cannot carry more then 4 in 'air componant' value. It usually will carry one aircraft unit with a 4 componant rating. However, if you play the mentioned option you could carry two 2 rating aircraft instead of one 4 rating, or any combination adding up to 4. This is not usually done, since two lower air componant aircraft are often quite inferior to a single higher componant value aircraft. Thank you for your response. Okay, that makes sense. The counter represents the entire CV air wing. The icon is eye candy. I guess I was just getting hung up on seeing some counters with very low ratings in one area or another. I was looking at a F4F-4 with a rating of 4 air-- --1-- This disparity lead me to believe that it was meant to serve in one specific capacity, in this case almost solely a fighter. I suppose it makes sense for the CV air wings to be a true mix since both the fighters and torp/dive planes would most likely launch at the same time, conduct the mission together, and return together. (edit: I have no idea if that is true and may have based my understanding of carrier operations on the movie “Midway.”[:D]) However, if the unit used in the example above were based on Lexington, then Lex is pretty much a Fighter CV and little else. While the icon is eye candy and only suggests one type of dominant aircraft amongst other types, the stats suggest that the pilots of this unit are good at dog fighting but can’t hit ships with their bombs and torps. I should probably examine the CVP counters that are available later on to see if the counters are more rounded and thus able to realistically do the various missions a CVP should. Thank you for clearing up this 2 unit option. It works as I feared and results in what you suggest: “not usually done.” So, this option is pretty useless in many cases. I wonder if I was correct in assuming the intent was to provide the CV air component with more diversity. If this was the intent, it is not working as the ADG folks intended. So then, what is the preferred strategy when basing a CVP onto a CV? Do you pick a unit that has high stats in Naval Attack on one CV, and then a more fighter friendly one for another CV in the hopes that the two CVs do not get separated. Or do you hold out for a unit that is pretty well rounded like the 5-4-3 you mentioned? Sending a single CV off to do something useful is rarely done. Though I guess the same can be said for a battleship/cruiser. The Japanese at Pearl Harbor and Midway had multiple carriers and the US at Midway had a couple. Only in the Med are carriers likely to be operating individually, where they have a lot of land based air support. Even then it is rare, and by necessity, not preference. So you can select which carrier air units to place on your carriers and put together a balanced task force. In this regard it is no different than any other aspect of putting together a task force. If the task force is going to be supported by land based fighters, then fighter on the carriers isn't needed. And so on.

Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/10/2008 9:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: allsop This option 56—which may or may not be an option in MWIF—allows 2 carrier planes to be stacked on a single CV. I can presume this is intended to allow for a fighter component and a torpedo/dive bomber component. However, I am confused when it says “provided that the sum of the size of all carrier planes stacked on a single CV is no more than that CV’s air component.” Can someone clarify this for me? You can also have a class 2 F4F-4 (A2A strength 4) with a class 2 SBD-4 (A2S strength of 4) on that class 4 carrier, because classes drop with years. A CVP that is class 4 in 1939 (as for the F4F-4 & SBD-4 counters) will be class 2 in 1941, and class 1 in 1943, so by 1941 you can have both those planes on the Lexington. quote: For example, in 1939 the USA has CV Lexington which has an air component of 4. Yet, most of the allowable builds are also 4s (number 4 in blue box). It says sum of the size, sum meaning add the numbers together right? Most are 4s so 4+4 is greater than Lex’s 4, thus only one could stack. Therefore Lex, in most cases, would only get one CV fighter OR a CV dive-bomber/torp. I have a hard time grasping why it would be better or more accurate to portray a Carrier’s air component as being so unrealistically unbalanced. In 1939 you could have a F4F-3 (class 2 in 1939) and a a TBD or SBC-4 (both class 2 in 1939). quote: Does this mean old Lex might be stuck out in the middle of the Pacific with just some SBD-4s and no fighter cover? No, as I showed you.

composer99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/12/2008 5:42:55 PM)
Most of the planes the US (in particular) has from 39 on are decent enough to double-stack on the early CVs during the mid-game. The Essex class carriers can handle double-stacking some pretty nice CVPs, and by the late game the 'weight' of the CVPs will have decreased such that any CV that returns to port to stock up on new ones can almost certainly guarantee that it gets a quality complement. I would double-stack all the time - it vastly increases your CVP density which is often crucial for surviving the long, grueling a2a combats in the Pacific and coming out on top.

Taxman66 -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/14/2008 1:08:34 AM)
I'd consider keeping the best FTR based CVP as a single load out CV.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/14/2008 1:29:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Taxman66 I'd consider keeping the best FTR based CVP as a single load out CV. I do not know what you mean by "single load out".[&:] But you did make me think that sometimes there is a need to transport newly arrived carrier air units from the home country out to where the action is - and where there are carriers that can fit additional units (i.e., ones that have empty slots). To accomplish that, having an empty carrier in a home port ready to serve as a 'transport' is sometimes useful.

Norman42 -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/14/2008 2:46:59 AM)
With the front (best) fighter being such an important part of air to air combat, loading out a single high air to air factor cvp is better then loading two weaker ones.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/14/2008 3:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 With the front (best) fighter being such an important part of air to air combat, loading out a single high air to air factor cvp is better then loading two weaker ones. Ah. Thanks. Then I agree.

Sewerlobster -> RE: Flying Carriers (5/14/2008 5:22:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets To accomplish that, having an empty carrier in a home port ready to serve as a 'transport' is sometimes useful. A transport is of course cheaper, but the empty carrier acting as a transport also has the nifty option of using the planes en route to the front.

yvesp -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/9/2008 1:01:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets To accomplish that, having an empty carrier in a home port ready to serve as a 'transport' is sometimes useful. A transport is of course cheaper, but the empty carrier acting as a transport also has the nifty option of using the planes en route to the front. The empty carrier will also be able to transfer it's plane freely (without using air actions) to a depleted carrier provided there is some naval action going on in the final sea zone, as a result of the return to base phase. Yves

brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/9/2008 4:06:22 PM)
the latest rules addendum in the 2008 Annual let you manage your cvp forces however you want without really using air missions, as long as they are based in an in-supply major port during the reinforcement phase.

yvesp -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/9/2008 7:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian the latest rules addendum in the 2008 Annual let you manage your cvp forces however you want without really using air missions, as long as they are based in an in-supply major port during the reinforcement phase. Uh... I'm out of sync now, I'm afraid... Yves

paulderynck -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/9/2008 8:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yvesp quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian the latest rules addendum in the 2008 Annual let you manage your cvp forces however you want without really using air missions, as long as they are based in an in-supply major port during the reinforcement phase. Uh... I'm out of sync now, I'm afraid... Yves I don't think anything from the latest Annual will be in MWiF version 1.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/9/2008 8:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: yvesp quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian the latest rules addendum in the 2008 Annual let you manage your cvp forces however you want without really using air missions, as long as they are based in an in-supply major port during the reinforcement phase. Uh... I'm out of sync now, I'm afraid... Yves I don't think anything from the latest Annual will be in MWiF version 1. The corrections are but not new rules.

paulderynck -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/9/2008 11:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: yvesp quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian the latest rules addendum in the 2008 Annual let you manage your cvp forces however you want without really using air missions, as long as they are based in an in-supply major port during the reinforcement phase. Uh... I'm out of sync now, I'm afraid... Yves I don't think anything from the latest Annual will be in MWiF version 1. The corrections are but not new rules. Is that CVP thing a correction or a new rule?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/10/2008 12:11:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: yvesp quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian the latest rules addendum in the 2008 Annual let you manage your cvp forces however you want without really using air missions, as long as they are based in an in-supply major port during the reinforcement phase. Uh... I'm out of sync now, I'm afraid... Yves I don't think anything from the latest Annual will be in MWiF version 1. The corrections are but not new rules. Is that CVP thing a correction or a new rule? It depends on where it appears in the Annual. I took the section on corrections as things I needed to do, and I ignored the sections on 'improvements' and new optional rules.

brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/10/2008 1:37:24 AM)
sorry, "Aircraft and CVP Reinforcements" is a new optional.

morgil -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/19/2008 9:51:53 AM)
Since you cant put a SBD-5 on Cowpens you will have to use the Essex as a ferry for the rest of the fleet. And thats just plane wrong.. Also, you want to maximise youre potential, so you dont want to allways use 1 plane per CV or always use 2 planes, common sence will have to prevail here im afraid. For the US,you will generally doublestack most 4'er carriers, with the exception of the latest in 4'er fighters that will have to be single stacked, and then as you get the 5'er carriers these will be singlestacked.

Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/19/2008 10:51:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian sorry, "Aircraft and CVP Reinforcements" is a new optional. No it isn't, it is an errata, part of what Steve calls the corrections, so it will be part of MWiF 1 normaly. Quote from page 50 of the Annual, in the Errata chapter : ********************************* Aircraft rebasing (WiF 11.17) CVPiF & SiF option 56: During the aircraft rebase step, you may rebase CVPs within a hex (i.e. from one CV to another, and/or from a CV to land) for no action limit cost. *********************************

brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/19/2008 6:42:16 PM)
ahh, good catch. putting the new CV plane directly on to a CV in Pearl Harbor is part of the new reinforcement optional though.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/19/2008 8:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian ahh, good catch. putting the new CV plane directly on to a CV in Pearl Harbor is part of the new reinforcement optional though. Really? Hawaii is not part of the US in the game (it didn't become a state until the 1950's). That means reinforcements should have to arrive in the "lower 48".

Zorachus99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/19/2008 11:46:10 PM)
A rule really must be made where a damaged ship must abort to a port, (major port for ships more than 2 bp on the first cycle) and remain in that port until repaired. This will allow the allies to properly bomb the KG to the bottom in Norway. Ships that cost 1 bp in the first cycle should be repairable in any port, but cost against stacking limits. Imagine if the Bismark had arrived in Brest damaged; would it have been repairable? Wifzen might argue that it somehow gets to Kiel, but reality is that it should stay in Brest until repaired or bombed. Most would agree; and if so, it would have sailed out of Brest after repair.

brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/20/2008 12:30:19 AM)
Here is the rule that is a new optional and will have to wait for future computer editions: Aircraft and CVP reinforcements (WiF 14.6.1) During the Reinforcement step, you may place any in-supply land-based aircraft into the Reserve Pool (and increase your available pilots by one), even if the aircraft is not in your home country. Similarly, you may place 1 CVP per turn as a reinforcement from the reserve pool (decreasing your available pilots by one) in a major port outside your home country that you control (or directly onto a CV in such a port) provided you can trace a basic supply path of any length to that port. For on-map repair, Factories in Flames has the first such system in WiF. I can't recall the specifics right now, but it doesn't go 'all the way' towards a 100% on-map repair system, iirc. My Annual is many miles away right now.

micheljq -> RE: Flying Carriers (10/20/2008 2:06:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morgil Since you cant put a SBD-5 on Cowpens you will have to use the Essex as a ferry for the rest of the fleet. And thats just plane wrong.. Also, you want to maximise youre potential, so you dont want to allways use 1 plane per CV or always use 2 planes, common sence will have to prevail here im afraid. For the US,you will generally doublestack most 4'er carriers, with the exception of the latest in 4'er fighters that will have to be single stacked, and then as you get the 5'er carriers these will be singlestacked. Why plain wrong. Actually, the british had to "ferry" airplanes to Malta using their aircraft carriers in Mediterranean. Airplanes can also be transported using TRS's.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375