Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
RocketMan
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:56 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by RocketMan »

Checking the Aircraft Replacement Pool I noticed that I had used -2 (minus two) Sea Gladiators. Is this a bug, or a feature I don't know about?

Note: Using Stock, Scenario 15 with latest patch.

Image
Attachments
Negative_A..lacement.jpg
Negative_A..lacement.jpg (192.23 KiB) Viewed 45 times
User avatar
TheTomDude
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:35 am
Location: Switzerland

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by TheTomDude »

Might be wrong (my last game is way back) but I'm pretty sure that means you had them at start but switched the planes in that squadron t to an other typ of plane. Hence those 2 went back to the pool without having a production line for Sea Gladiators and without a squadron receiving this type of plane. You had 0 in the pool and now with "used -2" you have them there.

Image
User avatar
RocketMan
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:56 am
Location: Washington State, USA

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by RocketMan »

That makes sense, although I didn't disband any squadrons myself. The computer must have disbanded one though, I'll have to check.

Thanks for the reply.
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by erstad »

Wouldn't be disbanding, it would be upgrading
User avatar
RocketMan
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:56 am
Location: Washington State, USA

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by RocketMan »

ORIGINAL: erstad

Wouldn't be disbanding, it would be upgrading
Interesting. Since I am only on December 9th, 1941 and the manual states that "British aircraft may not upgrade until May 1, 1942," I must be missing something.
User avatar
RevRick
Posts: 2615
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Thomasville, GA

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by RevRick »

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
ORIGINAL: erstad

Wouldn't be disbanding, it would be upgrading
Interesting. Since I am only on December 9th, 1941 and the manual states that "British aircraft may not upgrade until May 1, 1942," I must be missing something.

Now THAT is one rule I'd like to see suspendable, or just plain S^*T-canned.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by Yamato hugger »

Well its gone in AE, but I for one agree with the rule as is in WitP. Historically this area was THE very bottom of the British priority list. The Caribbean was (seriously) given a higher priority than the far east until mid-42. And frankly that was probably only because Australia and New Zealand were threatening to pull their troops out of North Africa.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by JeffroK »

The rule should be replaced by the non availability/limited availability of aircraft types to be replaced. If you only have a few Hurricanes in the pool you cant rearm many Buffalo Sqns.  If you have bolted out of Malaya & Burma and have a spare 20ish Hurris, why cant you change them?
 
Plus by mid42 6th & 7th Aust had returned to Australia and the NZ Govt never really considered bringing 2 NZ home.
 
Where would you get the idea that the Caribbean was high in priority to the Brits than the Far East, look at the stream of aircraft from the mid east which crippled CRUSADER and its aftermath, the movement of 3 quality Divisions (2,5 & 78th) to India plus an experienced Armd Bde (7th)
 
I cant see any similar movement into the WI by the Brits, whereas the USA put significant forces into this backwater (except for the ASW war which was "hot" for a short time.)
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by Barb »

that -2 could be from squadron fragment left behind and some of the planes were involuntarily returned to the pool ...
Image
jcjordan
Posts: 1900
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by jcjordan »

It could be from a CW or OZ unit that upgraded as they can upgrade early on but I don't know of a unit offhand that has 2 a/c in it at start but going from memory, bad as it is.
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: RocketMan

Checking the Aircraft Replacement Pool I noticed that I had used -2 (minus two) Sea Gladiators. Is this a bug, or a feature I don't know about?

Note: Using Stock, Scenario 15 with latest patch.

Image
Checking the Aircraft Replacement Pool I noticed that I had used -2 (minus two) Sea Gladiators. Is this a bug, or a feature I don't know about?

The unit is based on the Hermes and has 14 a/c at the start. Its full compliment is 12 so the game has returned 2 to the pool. Why this should happen to ship based a/c I don't know as it doesn't happen to land based a/c or I'v never seen it happen.
User avatar
RocketMan
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:56 am
Location: Washington State, USA

RE: Negative Aircraft Used So Far

Post by RocketMan »

ORIGINAL: Chris H

The unit is based on the Hermes and has 14 a/c at the start. Its full compliment is 12 so the game has returned 2 to the pool. Why this should happen to ship based a/c I don't know as it doesn't happen to land based a/c or I'v never seen it happen.

Thanks for the reply Chris!
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”