1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

vonSchnitter -> 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (6/30/2010 5:30:30 PM)

As a confirmed JFB, I cannot say I am opposed to keep things this way.
However, since we had the "training group" issue before - and this feature is getting close to similar issues - lets have a look:
Just the IJN (no clue on allied side)
Step 1 a: Send a CV TF (CVL/CVE) to port.
Step 1 b: Disband 1 CV (CVL/CVE) into the port (Keep in mind: It takes 1 CV/CVL/CVE in a TF to maintain Air Combat TF Status)
Step 1 c: Fly off any CV based Airgroups to a nearby airfield (at the same port/AF the AC arrive in a damaged state) Except the one to be resized
(For the sake of the argument I will go for CV based fighters)
Step 1 d: Cycle the remaining (fighter) group through the "resize" options till there is a numerical input option.
The numerical input option gives the maximum number of AC per CV. Take it For the large CVs it may show 72 AC.
Next turn.
Lo and behold. The Fighter group has now room for 72 Fighters and an approriate number of pilots.
Step 2 a: Cancel the rezize option
Step 2 b: Devide the large AG - usually into three chunks, with each chunk the size of the original airgroup
Step 2 c: Fly them off - to the same AF if possible.
Lets assume the AG Chunk "A" is supposed to reembark later:
Step 2 d: Fill out the AGs "B" and "C" with "replacement" pilots - or whatever you have.
Step 2 e: Set the "good" pilots in chunks "B" and "C" to "group reserve"
Step 2 f: Transfer the reserve pilots of "B" and "C" - the goood ones - to "A"
Step 2 g: Set chunks "B" and "C" to training

Repeat for each AG.

At the end each CV generates airgroups three times the size of its complement - without loss of pilot quality for the active third.
On the contrary. For each active AG chunk two more of equal size are probably set to training ...
You serious ?

Fine by me - as a JFB



Skacee -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (6/30/2010 8:15:55 PM)

Well, this is going to produce additional (2*6*108 just from KB, but there is mini KB) 1500+ pilots in training groups in 3/42 for Japan. I think this will be about house rules. As JFB I like it...



Halsey -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (6/30/2010 8:29:38 PM)

This needs to go to the tech support thread, so Michael can see this.

Also affects the Allies CV dased AC.



michaelm75au -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 10:34:42 AM)

I have given you the ability to resize groups to cater for changing out the carrier loads from what is expected to be there, like making fighter only CVs.

If players wish to abuse that ability, ....

Not sure what you want me about. No allowing splits would limit using the groups are as intended.



Halsey -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 9:28:35 PM)

How about, no resize if not a parent unit?

And or, reduce the max size to a max historical sized airgroupfor the nationality.



Walloc -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 10:41:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

How about, no resize if not a parent unit?

And or, reduce the max size to a max historical sized airgroup for the nationality.


Well since we are touching on side of abuse i dont think the top suggestion will help much.
Instead of the method in the above post, you max each of the 3 parent units on the carrier to 72 and move 2 of them on to land.
Making training units, using them operationally or what ever.
So if u have 3 carriers, 1 will field 72 zero, next 72 val and next 72 kate. Switch the kate to another carrier when u have expended torps. Thats way u will still have the same number of airplanes in the TF tho not as flexible, but you
gained 6 airgroups of 72 -the original 18/24 = 300'ish aircraft slots. Thats just for those 3 carriers. If u do the same for all IJN carrier capable airgroups the slots gained is well in excess of 1000.
Im sure there are other ways too that ppl brigther than me has figured out.

Point being that if ppl wana abuse the system i think its gona be very hard to set up some coding restrictions while still allowing for the resizing that is intended by designers.

I've pondering this a bit i see a few possible solutions tho non are very good. Maybe some one more clever than me will find a solution tho.

One could be that resized units are only allowed on cariers, coding it so as soon as a unit is not on a carrier it reverses to default size. Some thing gona happend to pilots and excess aircraft in that case tho.
This still allows for some aircraft slot gained, but only the 6 times 18 as per above example. Further abuse is certainly possible by using the 3 plane IJN units resizing to 72 while removing all native units to the carrier. Gaining 3 times 18 slots.

So all in all i've comed to the conclusion that HRs for this is only way to go, if playing vs an opponent where HR are needed.
Is that perfect no, but some times u gota do with what is possible.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



chesmart -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 10:53:17 PM)

Resizing works only on carriers.



Walloc -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 11:00:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Resizing works only on carriers.


Yes, but after u resized the airgroup. You can move it to land or another carrier where it keep its size. At leased when i tested it mine did. So the actual resizing will hafta be done on the carrier, but that doesnt stop any one from moving it from the carrier afterwards. Rinse and repeat. If looking at it purely from the what is possible atm point of view. Read abuse.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



chesmart -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 11:09:40 PM)

Than make a house rule but with all due respect i think this is an improvement that should stay as it increases flexibility of carriers as it should.Defensive carriers are good especially against Japan in 1945.



Walloc -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/1/2010 11:16:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Than make a house rule but with all due respect i think this is an improvement that should stay as it increases flexibility of carriers as it should.Defensive carriers are good especially against Japan in 1945.


Exactly why i suggest HRs, not removing the option. Just point out how the coding as is now, is open for abuse. In other ways than the OP suggests.
Supporting Michael in that how ever u make the coding. That its nearly always impossible to remove the possibilty of abuse.
So make HRs if u wana make sure the option doesnt get abused.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



SuluSea -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 2:11:11 AM)

I'm wondering if resizing options should take place after a certain late war date to prevent training abuse.



Djordje -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 8:38:28 AM)

There are rules in the game engine already that modify sizes of air squadrons over time. I'm not sure this change was needed that much considering the fact that it is open for player abuse.

g) if Allied and ship type is CV or CVB and year<44, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F and date is less than 7 months since Dec 1941, new size is 0.3 times CV capacity.
(ii) type is F, new size is 0.4 times CV capacity.
(iii) type is DB and year<43, new size is 0.2 times CV capacity.
(iv) type is DB and year=43 and one DB group present, new size is 0.4 times CV capacity.
(v) type is TB and year=42, new size is 0.17 times CV capacity.
(vi) any other type, new size is 0.2 times CV capacity.



rader -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 4:32:41 PM)

I think the best soluton is to just say max size is some "squadron" size typical of the sides. (I.e., maybe 27 for Japan and 24 or 36 for the allies?).




vonSchnitter -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 6:42:56 PM)

Thanks for your input gents.

I am not quite sure, but I have a feeling, the IJN had the option for a considerable increase of pilot slots pretty much from the beginning.
Just from recollection:
FP (SE) groups transferred to AVs or CS type ships would resize.
Shore based DB and TB units send to CVL/CVE types would resize. (Never tried CVs)

I never tried to resize CV based AGs, but I am quite sure, I read a posting or two mentioning the option/opportunity in the past.

If that is the case, the latest beta patch just adds a means to influence max expansion of an AG - to less than full ship capacity.

Even if my recollection of past possibilities is incorect. What does a JAP player gain by roughly (very roughly) tripling the AC/AG/pilot slots for the IJN ? (Well more like 2.5 times of innitial numbers)

In case the new strength is supposed to be used operationally:

Just Zeros: Without large increases somewhere between 90 and 120 AC per month are good enough till the middle of 42 - now you tripple the slots.
Triple Zero production plus engines ?

In case the slots are training only:
How many AC are neaded to keep a group at full training ? I have no clue.
Produce obsolete types - using up existing stocks of engines ?

Both cases:
Where to get the pilots from. AFAIK the number of replacement pilots is quite restricted ?

As an aside:
While I do appreciate the ongoing efforts to improve the game - and probabaly there are some personal pet peeves involved - cleaning up and coiling down should be the order of the day.
The torpedo ordnance per HQ thing (IJ) is a good one - less clicks.
Cleaning up scenarios wpuld be nice (IJN CS upgrades), IJ AG elegible for expansion etc.
And of course supply/fuel/resource distribution.
Just to make things a little more transperant and logical.
Just attribute the last line to me getting older ...






Walloc -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 7:21:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Thanks for your input gents.

I am not quite sure, but I have a feeling, the IJN had the option for a considerable increase of pilot slots pretty much from the beginning.


Yes they had but, they way i've seen it all along is based on comments from Joe Wilkinson very early on. When the discussion on the japanease ability to make aircraft possibly unbalancing vs the fixed allied replacements. Stated that the real hindrance for the japanease side what in its limited aircraft slots and listed them. Using numbers nothing being resized. I could be wrong but this gives me the clue that the intend from designers PoV was not to use the resize in the a way to gain additional aircraft slots, other than giving the possibilty filling up carriers. Not using them in any way to increase ur aircraft slot for other uses. Training and so on.
Again i could be wrong, but thats the impression i was left with by his remarks.

To me stated designer intend is more importand than what ability we are given by limits on coding. Other ppl might naturally view it differently.

So to me the guiding light on whether u should use ur ability to use the resize ability in what ever form it has had during the games development since relased has been that. To me Michaelm remarks seems to support that.

Would i have a problem with ppl filling carriers up with figthers, no. IMO on the other hand it would go against the percieved intend if u then uses the freed airgroups from those carrier to make training airgroups or other wise use them operationally. In effect gaining more slots. Or any other possible methode of optaining the same effect This ofc goes for both sides.

Any how thats my take on it,

Rasmus



vonSchnitter -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 7:53:23 PM)

Well Walloc,

if your impression of AV/CV rezising as intended by the devs is right - the chaps failed. Either based on coding or scenario design.

If the new "feature" benefits anyone - and to my lights it is no use (or rather limited) anyway - considering the pilot and airframe availability issues for IJN - it is the allies in say 44. AI wise.

If there is a large scale "rezising" option from the start for the IJN it may benefit an IJ player (PBM) if he is ready to go for broke in say late 42/early 43 - running short on HI etc in mid 43 because of factory expansion/production and of course pilots.

Or to put it more bluntly: As an IJ player sink CVs - more AC groups or better trained pilots aboard do not hurt to get there - and once an allied player gets the idea, allied CV usage may get curtailed - which may cause a win by victory points.

Gamey ? I think not. It may run against the ethos of some of the more "historical minded" plank owners - mostly allied KFC patrons [:D] - but it opens up the game.



Walloc -> RE: 1.06d PB CV Airgroup Resize: For the duration ? (7/2/2010 10:43:10 PM)

If i had given the impression, then I certainly dont see this as a outright japanease advantage. Usually the USN has issues training pilots cuz of the "lack" of land based USN aircraft slots. Right from the start of the game with "creative" use of USMC airgroups u can get all the pilots training that u "need". At leased many more than if u dont. So its some thing that can be abused by both sides. The lack of airframes limits the ailled side early on to use the possible "expansion" operationally, but as u say that alters with time.

Knd regards,

Rasmus



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.75