Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The point of some CVP dates?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> The point of some CVP dates? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 3:08:58 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Why are some CVPs unusable for the major power when they enter the force pool?

For example, the German CVP counter Me-109G from SiF enters the force pool in 1940. It is a green "3"-CVP when it comes into play, and it changes to an orange "2" CVP in 1942 and finally becomes a light blue "1" CVP in 1944. Thus, from 1940 to the end of 1941, there are no German CVs capable of holding this CVP. Graf Zeppelin is an orange "2" CV, as is Peter Strasser and Kleist. Elbe is but an light blue "1" CV.

Why is this? If a German player chooses to finish the Graf Zeppelin early on, the Me-109G is essentially a dud draw that is unusable for 8 turns or so.
Post #: 1
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 5:30:47 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		The CW has this problem as well, with a ton more green size CVP that come out all at once. But if he advance builds some green-class CV's early, he'll have the flight decks available for a few of these CVP's.

There is also an option to restrict CVP's from operating on land bases (similar to a NAV). If you are not playing with this option selected, the 109G can be used as a NAV in the interim.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 2
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 6:07:51 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		I know the CW can advance build some units to accomodate for this problem, but for Germany there is no such option (unless you play with the Patif Graf Zeppelin where it is a green "3", of course).

I just want to know if there is a designer reason for this (in my mind) discrepancy? Were the CVP builders that out of touch with the needs of their respective navies that they actually built planes that couldn't be used? In Germany's case it's obviously a hypothetical question, since the Graf Zeppelin wasn't ever finished and it never saw action in the war.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 3
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 6:39:12 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Well, historically, naval aircraft grew in size, weight, and speed during the war. The USN/RN CVE's could only operate the older model aircraft, for example. The Dauntlesses and Swordfish inventory's got transfered to CVE duty when the newer (and larger) aircraft came online.

On some of the older ships, like Hosho or Furious, the planes began to outgrow the aircraft handling capabilities of a ship that was just fine ten years earlier.

So yes, there wereplanes designed historically, where it was known that those aircraft could not operate from some of the flight decks available to that nations navy.

In the case of Germany's example specifically, I would, in my mind, assume that that first set of size-class 3 aircraft to be a prototype CAG, operating from land bases while the pilots learn everything they need to know about what makes CVP warfare different from regular airforce duty. (Over water navigation without land marks, finding, identifying, and attacking enemy ships with anitship weapons, coordination of different types of attacks on moving targets, from multiple vectors, landing back aboard a carrier, etc.) There is a lot of operational details that need to be worked out to make a carrier and it's CAG work well enough to survive.

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 4
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 7:31:10 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

There is also an option to restrict CVP's from operating on land bases (similar to a NAV). If you are not playing with this option selected, the 109G can be used as a NAV in the interim.

I would recommend always using this option, as CVP can severly unbalance the naval part of the game if they can be used from land.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 5
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 8:13:59 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		We use that option (CVPiF option 56: Carrier planes may only ever fly rebase missions when not stacked on a CV), but we also usually use a house rule that says that you can wait with adding CVPs to your force pool until you can actually use it.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 6
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 10:45:52 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 7
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 11:08:55 PM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mleesThere is a lot of operational details that need to be worked out to make a carrier and it's CAG work well enough to survive.


Yes, but I thought part of that was already simulated in the *four* turns it takes to produce the aircraft.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 8
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 11:20:10 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?


What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 9
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 11:44:55 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

Why are some CVPs unusable for the major power when they enter the force pool?

For example, the German CVP counter Me-109G from SiF enters the force pool in 1940. It is a green "3"-CVP when it comes into play, and it changes to an orange "2" CVP in 1942 and finally becomes a light blue "1" CVP in 1944. Thus, from 1940 to the end of 1941, there are no German CVs capable of holding this CVP. Graf Zeppelin is an orange "2" CV, as is Peter Strasser and Kleist. Elbe is but an light blue "1" CV.

Why is this? If a German player chooses to finish the Graf Zeppelin early on, the Me-109G is essentially a dud draw that is unusable for 8 turns or so.


The exact problem I have hit in my current game as Germany, with an extensive carrier fleet (three, including the captured Bearn) with not enough planes to kit out more than two of them at any one time.

One could interpret it as an added failure of the Luftwaffe to cooperate in the adaptation of planes for a rival service. Historically Goering ordered a go-slow on the instructions (from Hitler I think) to navalise the bf109 and so effectively scuppered any chance of the Kriegsmarine getting their air arm.

With Wif, in practice I suspect it may simply have been an oversight.

Jimm

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 10
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/15/2007 11:53:27 PM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline 		plan ahead ... build the German CV planes in 1939 before the 1940 force pool additions. Ideally you get the 3 air2air Me109 CV plane, and one in reserve. The CW has to do the same, building CV planes early and often, and not scrapping very many during set-up. The CW needs to empty their CV plane pool by Nov/Dec each year. It's just part of Administrator in Flames that you have to deal with.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 11
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 12:00:04 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?


What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

- Allowing aircraft units to be removed from the map to be placed into the reserve pool, outside of the House country.
- Having the CVP not count for stacking limits in hexes.
- Allowing a CVP to leave a CV and be based on CV another in the same port freely (without it counting as an air mission).
- Having the CVP have a "normal" build time (2 turns), and introduce "Carrier Pilots" who cost the same and take 4 turns to train instead of 3.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 12
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 12:24:09 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?


What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

- Allowing aircraft units to be removed from the map to be placed into the reserve pool, outside of the House country.
- Having the CVP not count for stacking limits in hexes.
- Allowing a CVP to leave a CV and be based on CV another in the same port freely (without it counting as an air mission).
- Having the CVP have a "normal" build time (2 turns), and introduce "Carrier Pilots" who cost the same and take 4 turns to train instead of 3.

in order of your suggestions:
1. yeah inclined to agree
2. depends if you are playing the resticted CVP options (eg rebase missions only) if so yes, if not, I'd say no
3. never occured to me to consuder this an air mission anyway. so agree!
4. interesting. Assumes PiF of course. On balance this might be quite cool- Top Gun and all that....


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 13
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 12:34:54 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz
Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

- Allowing aircraft units to be removed from the map to be placed into the reserve pool, outside of the House country.
- Having the CVP not count for stacking limits in hexes.
- Allowing a CVP to leave a CV and be based on CV another in the same port freely (without it counting as an air mission).
- Having the CVP have a "normal" build time (2 turns), and introduce "Carrier Pilots" who cost the same and take 4 turns to train instead of 3.

in order of your suggestions:
1. yeah inclined to agree
2. depends if you are playing the resticted CVP options (eg rebase missions only) if so yes, if not, I'd say no
3. never occured to me to consuder this an air mission anyway. so agree!
4. interesting. Assumes PiF of course. On balance this might be quite cool- Top Gun and all that....

About 2. sure, it was with the restricted use of CVP to rebase missions if not on a CV.

Some groups play it that when a CV docks in a port, his carrier group (CVP) is rebased automatically to land (which is the real regular historical way of doing for CVs and their Carrier Group). When CV set sail to their missions, the CVP are affected to the CVs, all of this without using Rebase missions. For this to work, the CVP needs to not count for stacking limits. When one remember that a CVP unit is composed of 12-72 planes and that a regular air unit is composed of 250-500 planes, one can agree that CVP should not counf for stacking, and should not be usable from land.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 14
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 12:49:59 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 607
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

Some groups play it that when a CV docks in a port, his carrier group (CVP) is rebased automatically to land (which is the real regular historical way of doing for CVs and their Carrier Group). When CV set sail to their missions, the CVP are affected to the CVs, all of this without using Rebase missions. For this to work, the CVP needs to not count for stacking limits. When one remember that a CVP unit is composed of 12-72 planes and that a regular air unit is composed of 250-500 planes, one can agree that CVP should not counf for stacking, and should not be usable from land.
[/quote]

fair enough.

On that note I've never really subscribed to the sizes of air groups allegedly represented by a counter- simply too many to be realistic in my view but there you go.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 15
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 12:58:55 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline 		that just seems like trading in one set of administrative rules for another, and depends on your gaming tastes and areas of most historical interest. rebasing the CV planes on and off the carrier ... maybe historical (for every navy?) but is it worth the hassle while playing? Creating a second type of Pilot, obviously more realistic, but again how worthwhile? Allowing free rebasing of CV pilots is a common House Rule but can be done by remembering to do it after a Naval Air Combat or during an air impulse or Super-Combined (the US is the one power who can most easily afford to keep it's CV planes up to date and needs to shuffle them). Pulling planes off the map outside of Home Country depends on how much 'background' you feel should be in WiF; many wargamers want all background activities eliminated with no limits on what their combat pieces can do. WiF doesn't quite allow this, you as the Supreme Leader are also limited by your military bureaucracy, so you can't build only the very best aircraft designs for example, nor summon up the Commonwealth military forces exactly as you wish. I like the Carrier Planes as is, without allowing them to fly when not on a Carrier and without allowing double-stacking on a CV.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 16
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 10:59:29 AM   
Frederyck


Posts: 427
Joined: 12/7/2005
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: trees

plan ahead ... build the German CV planes in 1939 before the 1940 force pool additions. Ideally you get the 3 air2air Me109 CV plane, and one in reserve. The CW has to do the same, building CV planes early and often, and not scrapping very many during set-up. The CW needs to empty their CV plane pool by Nov/Dec each year. It's just part of Administrator in Flames that you have to deal with.


This remedies the symptoms but not the cause of the problem; that aircraft sometimes are too big for the carrier fleet when they arrive in force pool.

If the developers have a *reason* for the CVPs to behave like this in the game, I might accept it, but as it stands now it just feels like a Microsoft "feature" - ie a bug in the code.

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 17
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 6:37:38 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Unfortunately, you are not likely to get a reply from the WiF developers on this forum - if you have not already done so you might wish to surf on over to ADG's website and see if you can ask them there.

It is unlikely that you are the first person to notice this issue (the current CVP kits in SiF/CVPiF date back at least to 2004, although I am not certain), so if it has not been altered I imagine it is because either the development team does have a reason (which I hope they divulge to you), or changing it is too expensive for the benefits provided. Or both.

Aside from Germany's historical lack of a carrier air arm operating off actual carriers, the only reason that springs to my mind at the moment is that it's simply a designer's check on Germany's capabilities. Germany is mighty enough in WiF as is.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 18
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 7:08:29 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

Yes, but I thought part of that was already simulated in the *four* turns it takes to produce the aircraft.


No, the training I had in mind is more on an overall doctrinal level, not just the nuts and bolts of flying. In fact, it takes just as long to train a pilot in WiF at the beginning of the war as it does near the end, despite combat experienced instructors becoming available, gear up in production, instituting the draft, and so on. (I apologise for any miscommunication on my part.)

Note, it took the USN/RN/IJN many years to figure out how to operate aircraft from ships, how to move/store/service them onboard ship, how the carrier(s) is going to operate with the rest of the fleet (seperate strike force, or scouting force?), and so on. Once a doctrine that works is decided on, the bugs worked out, then that info gets promulgated to the follow on generation of sailors and pilots on a broader and faster scale.

Even though the luftwaffe had extensive experience with air to ground support, it was much weaker, doctrinally, in the antishipping role. (The cooperation between the Luftwaffe recon and uboats was adequate, but of the strike arm and fighter arm, for air cover of uboats in transit, was spotty at best.)

Despite the success in WW1 and WW2 of the uboat arm, the Luftwaffe and the Army still dominated the planning at the GHQ level, and the carrier force, if any, would have to put up with being used as an adjunct of the continental land campaigns until the service gained prestige.

For example, the Royal Navy's planes were actually part of the Royal Air Force until the late 30's, much to the disadvantage of the carrier and seaplane force. (Not due to lack of prestige in the RN in this case, but because of beaucratic cost saving ideas.) The RAF bomber and fighter force received most of the funding and R&D effort, leaving the RN aircraft to be mostly obsolete at the very start of the war (Swordfish, Gladiator), and with a small pilot pool and training program. The fact that the RN was able to achieve as much as it did with it's starting carrier air fleet is a testimate of the RN's leadership and the overall elan of the service.

< Message edited by mlees -- 3/16/2007 7:13:58 PM >

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 19
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 7:48:00 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?


What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?



Well I may be wrong but I think the rule is aircraft can be scrapped if they are 3 years old {4 years for neutral powers.}
Destroyed units may always be scrapped.

My problem was Aircraft that you might wish to return to the force pool in 1940 { Assuming they were destroyed } you might not draw until 1943.

Eg a spitfire MK1 is destroyed in 1940 and you return it to the force pool. Now you might not draw that plane before the end of the year.Then the 1941 types are added. There is a possibility of drawing this very outclassed fighter all the way up to 1944 before you could remove it.

Our group felt 3 years was too long a period to wait for aircraft to be scrapped. we had a 2 year rule.

another group had a 4 year rule PRE 1940.
2 years to 1942
and from 1944 1 year { so that the 1944 force pool might only contain 1943 / 1944 planes. }


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 20
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 9:38:01 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz
Anyone else have any good house rules for dealing with this problem?
Also a better scrapping obselete rule?

What do you think needs to be improved with the scrapping rule?

Well I may be wrong but I think the rule is aircraft can be scrapped if they are 3 years old {4 years for neutral powers.}
Destroyed units may always be scrapped.

My problem was Aircraft that you might wish to return to the force pool in 1940 { Assuming they were destroyed } you might not draw until 1943.

Eg a spitfire MK1 is destroyed in 1940 and you return it to the force pool. Now you might not draw that plane before the end of the year.Then the 1941 types are added. There is a possibility of drawing this very outclassed fighter all the way up to 1944 before you could remove it.

Our group felt 3 years was too long a period to wait for aircraft to be scrapped. we had a 2 year rule.

another group had a 4 year rule PRE 1940.
2 years to 1942
and from 1944 1 year { so that the 1944 force pool might only contain 1943 / 1944 planes. }

Thanks for the information. Presently, this is outside of what I am doing, since I am 'merely' implementing WIF FE rules. But knowing the concerns players have is always of interest to me.

Simply restating your point (to make sure I understand it correctly). While an air unit destroyed in 1940 might be one of the best you have at that time (and therefore you do not scrap it), as the years go by, it becomes one of the worst in the force pool, yet you are unable to scrap it until late in the war.

Playing with pilots mitigates this somewhat, since the 'lost' build points (and time) are only for the air unit itself.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 21
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/16/2007 11:58:00 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Unfortunately, you are not likely to get a reply from the WiF developers on this forum - if you have not already done so you might wish to surf on over to ADG's website and see if you can ask them there.

Yes. Or write Harry directly.

quote:

It is unlikely that you are the first person to notice this issue (the current CVP kits in SiF/CVPiF date back at least to 2004, although I am not certain), so if it has not been altered I imagine it is because either the development team does have a reason (which I hope they divulge to you), or changing it is too expensive for the benefits provided. Or both.

The first CVP date back to 1995, from the PiF kit, that is, before WiF FE even existed.
These countersheets were modified in 1997, 2000 and 2007, and this issue (if this is one) was always there.

My own opinion is that it is there so that you are never certain that your aeronautic industry will come up with the design that you really need on your Carriers. Sometimes in the aeronautic industry a plane was designed for Carrier operations, but went to real carrier operations only later (F4U for example). Also, sometimes land based designs were transformed to operate from Carriers, with more or less success (Seafires). The sizes, that may be too big for your Carriers, mean that this design that you produced is not designed correctly, and that some more time is needed for it to operate from Carriers. Until then, it stays in the reserve pool, engineers working to improve the design.

quote:

Aside from Germany's historical lack of a carrier air arm operating off actual carriers, the only reason that springs to my mind at the moment is that it's simply a designer's check on Germany's capabilities. Germany is mighty enough in WiF as is.

I think that the reason is that, if the US, Japanese and British, had difficulties designing planes for their carriers, the Germans would have far more, as they did not have any experience in flying planes from Carriers, and designing them.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 22
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 12:07:51 AM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		Precisely.

I know that you are implementing WIF Rules an not modifying them so i would not expect any rule changes.

Just wondered if any of the other Board gamers out there had had this problem {and any solutions}

Thanks for your reply


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 23
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 12:10:12 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz
Eg a spitfire MK1 is destroyed in 1940 and you return it to the force pool. Now you might not draw that plane before the end of the year.Then the 1941 types are added. There is a possibility of drawing this very outclassed fighter all the way up to 1944 before you could remove it.

No, you can remove it from the Force pool in the production step of J/F 1941, because Spitfire I is a model who enter the Force Pool in 1938 at the latest. It can be scrapped if the year is its entering year +3.

But also, that is your responsability as the head of the state, to decide that a design will be abandonned to another. By not scrapping the Spitfire I in 1939, you're saying the design bureau of Vickers-Supermarine that this design fits your needs, and that you need nothing more. Maybe they will make privately funded research & developpement and propose the improved designs to you (means that you pick a 1940 Spitfire II to be built for example), maybe they will keep on producing more of that Spitfire I design that you wished to keep, and the sum of this production that you authorised leads to a Fighter Wing of mainly Spitfire I to be created in late 1940.

You're the boss, you're making the choices, so do not blame the system on wrong choices from the boss.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 24
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 2:33:17 AM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		Well that is partially true.

But what design bureau would produce the spitfire MK V  and THEN decide to go back to the MK 1 ?
The ME 109E is too good to give up if destroyed in summer 1940, plus there may be another counter deployed on the map that would need to be scraped too. You must destroy your current best aircraft now to ensure better ones in the future...


Most games { especially computer games} operate an upgrade system so that equipment is improved over time.
The MK 2 follows the MK 1. The BF 109 F follows the E etc

WIF does this but due to the luck of the draw it can work backwards with an obsolete design following a revolutionary one.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 25
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 2:54:50 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

Well that is partially true.

But what design bureau would produce the spitfire MK V  and THEN decide to go back to the MK 1 ?

It can't happen, as the Spit I can be scrapped in 1941, and the Spit V only enter the Force pool in 1941. So if you build Spit I in 1941, it is not the Design bureau who chose it, it is you, as you could have scrapped it in J/F 41 before building. If you do not scrap it, it means that you (as the governement) orders the industry to still build this mark.

quote:

The ME 109E is too good to give up if destroyed in summer 1940, plus there may be another counter deployed on the map that would need to be scraped too. You must destroy your current best aircraft now to ensure better ones in the future...


Most games { especially computer games} operate an upgrade system so that equipment is improved over time.
The MK 2 follows the MK 1. The BF 109 F follows the E etc

WIF does this but due to the luck of the draw it can work backwards with an obsolete design following a revolutionary one.

This goes with real life too. Particulary with the US aeronautic industry, who produced bad planes in the same time that they were producing good planes. P-39 & F2A for example, being produced at the same time as P-40 & F4F, which were superior. But due to bureaucracy, time taken for some designs to get to fly, maybe also a little corruption or accointances dealings, and you get something produced that is not optimal, while something better can be produced on private funds that you did not even ask for (P-51 was IIRC).

If you scrap well (as I described for the Spit I / Spit V case) you can't have very old planes built at the same time as new planes.
What you can have, is very old planes still on the map while newer planes arrive, and then again, it is your choice to keep them on the map, or put them back in the reserve pool to make their crew fly something better. Having them kept on the map was something that happened during WW2, with old Hurricanes for instance being sent to North Africa when better Spitfires were available for the new Circus missions.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 26
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 3:55:50 PM   
Caranorn


Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline 		Patrice you forgot about historic "gearing limits" (setting up the production lines etc.), that is you cannot simply switch production from one plane to another without temporary loss of productivity. Essentially you'd decide to stop production of the P-39 and order the factories to start production of the P-40, from lets say 100 P-39 per month (pulling a number here, too lazy to look up actual production numbers) you go to 5 P-40 the first month, second 10 P-40, third 20 P-40 and gradually climbing. That raises the question, do I need a lot of planes operational right away or can I plan ahead and start that slow switch from P-39 to P-40.

For the rest, I always saw the possibility of building an obsolete model after an excellent model as a possible design error that only became apparent in mass production. It might be an evolution of the same machine but with far worse capacities. Or just different requirements that in the end prove inadequate (mistake in doctrine). I first noticed and accepted this with the navies in WiF rather then aircraft, but in the end it works. There are many factors that could lead to a poor design entering service after a great design.

_____________________________

Marc aka Caran... ministerialis

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 27
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 4:13:42 PM   
flailen

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/17/2007
From: Poulsbo, WA
Status: offline
quote:

The first CVP date back to 1995, from the PiF kit, that is, before WiF FE even existed.
These countersheets were modified in 1997, 2000 and 2007, and this issue (if this is one) was always there.


Whaaaaaa? What CS did they update in 2007? According to most resources (xcel spreadsheet from ADG and your own website, the latest CS for PIF is 2000, and CVPiF is 1998. As a newb I have a hard enough time buying and organizing the FE edition, and dealing with the Cyberboard issues of the old Companion CD sheets I really getting lost. Did you mean MWIF when you typed 2007? And is that some insider information on the real release date?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 28
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/17/2007 7:23:12 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The first CVP date back to 1995, from the PiF kit, that is, before WiF FE even existed.
These countersheets were modified in 1997, 2000 and 2007, and this issue (if this is one) was always there.



Surely you ment 2004.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 29
RE: The point of some CVP dates? - 3/18/2007 12:17:56 AM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		One house rule is to sort the Cv planes by SIZE rather than year.
Units can be built ahead as usual..

I have never tried it but it might be intersting

1. light blue 1939 and pre war
2. orange 1940
3. green 1941
4. royal blue 1942
5. red 1943
6. violet 1944
7. black 1945+

(in reply to Frederyck)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> The point of some CVP dates? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.938