USSPC617 -> Possible new problem with US carrier air group reorg (1/28/2010 5:45:31 AM)
|
Thanks for taking a look at this. This is my first post on the forums. I am playing Scenario 1, solitaire, Japanese Computer. Game date is now 11 Jan 43. As of 1 Jan, all six available USN carriers were at Pearl and under refit and repair. On 1 Jan 43 the air groups of four of the CVs converted correctly with the VS scout bomber squadrons automatically disbanding and the max size of the associated VB dive-bomber squadrons changing from 18 to 36 aircraft. This did not happen correctly for the air groups on Hornet and Yorktown: squadrons VS-5 and VS-8 are still around and VB-5 and VB-8 still show a max of 18 planes. The problem is that the two scout bomber squadrons are listing as overdue for withdrawal and are costing 36 political points per turn (18 each). When the two impacted carriers finished refit I placed them in a task force then disbanded it. No effect. As carrier-based squadrons cannot be disbanded, I then attempted to move the groups ashore and withdraw them manually. When I hit the 'withdraw' button, the game provides a message that the groups are withdrawing, but they do not actually go away. They stay put and continue to soak up political points. The carriers, squadrons, and base (Pearl Harbor) are all under Pacific Ocean Area command and the command HQ ground unit is located at Pearl. There are no fragments of the squadrons located anywhere else. No other bugs noted in this game. I think that the problem might be related to my installing the "WarinthePacificAdmiralsEdition-UpdateComp-v1095DR" patch while the scenario was in progress. I installed the patch when the game date was 01 Jan 43 and I wonder if that might have thrown off the automatic air group reorg scheduled for that date. Does anyone have an idea of (1) what caused this problem, and (2) how I might fix it? I have looked at a number of other threads related to US air group reorganization, including Sardaukar's thread from earlier this week, but none of them appear to address this specific problem. If this issue has already been worked out, please help me locate the earlier discussion. Thank you. PC617
|
|
|
|