Corsair and CV Space Available Behavior

[Crackaces]

This is a reproducible Software behavior. Game zip to follow -- description of failure only in this posting.

Create a Air combat TF at Pearl Harbor with the Wasp. The Wasp is devoid of any aircraft. Transfer any Marine Corsair fighter groups and the Aircraft occupancy goes up not to 18 as expected. but 72! See picture below. This behavior reproduces not only with VMF-111 but any of the Corsair airgroups on PH. Transfering other fighter types does not replicate the result. I am surprised that this behavior was not seen before? [&:] What is so special about this situation?

[Crackaces]

Enclosed is the game file before the attempt to transfer aircraft for reproducibility.

[Dan Nichols]

The F4U-1 is NOT CV capable and uses 4x the space as one that is.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

The F4U-1 is NOT CV capable and uses 4x the space as one that is.

Ok .. got it! A Carrier trained unit upgrades into a non-carrier capable aircraft .. Got to love this!! [8D] Thanks for the rapid response Dan! At least the game moves forward!!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

The F4U-1 is NOT CV capable and uses 4x the space as one that is.

Ok .. got it! A Carrier trained unit upgrades into a non-carrier capable aircraft .. Got to love this!! [8D] Thanks for the rapid response Dan! At least the game moves forward!!

From the looks of things you got that unit carrier trained by putting it on a carrier for several months, it didn't start that way. If you want to continue using it on carriers all along then you have to make sure to skip the non-carrier capable upgrade and wait for the later upgrade to a carrier capable version. The game code won't make those decisions for you.

[wdolson]

The only non-carrier capable single engine plane in the USN/USMC inventory is the F4U-1. If you want USMC fighters on carriers, you will need to stick with F4F-4s until the F4U-1a is available.

In the real world the F4U-1 was carrier capable. The British used them on carriers and VF-17 perfected their use on carriers, but the F4U-1 was eventually not given carrier qualification for use on USN ships. The F4U-1a was not used on carriers either (except one time when VF-17 was transferred to the Bunker Hill for extra fighter support during a raid on Rabaul). It was the F4U-1d that was the common late war carrier Corsair.

Bill

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

The F4U-1 is NOT CV capable and uses 4x the space as one that is.

Ok .. got it! A Carrier trained unit upgrades into a non-carrier capable aircraft .. Got to love this!! [8D] Thanks for the rapid response Dan! At least the game moves forward!!

From the looks of things you got that unit carrier trained by putting it on a carrier for several months, it didn't start that way. If you want to continue using it on carriers all along then you have to make sure to skip the non-carrier capable upgrade and wait for the later upgrade to a carrier capable version. The game code won't make those decisions for you.

Yep a look in WitPTracker tells me that the game does not allow the Corsair to be CV capable. The only problem I have is that nothing in the group placard changes so I do not know that anything has changed. A RED "NOT CV Capable" would tell me that something has changed with the upgrade. Then I am surprised on learn a lesson . now almost all the units are upgraded and I am am pretty frustrated. Games should be challanging not frustrating IMHO ...

Witpqs and I come from two completely different schools of thought in terms of "User Error" and thus I will not rant here .. my AAR rants enought!

Thanks to everyone here for clarifying this software behavior for me! [&o] [&o] [&o]

[castor troy]

I am sure it is frustrating for you to find that out and of course it would have been great if there would be a message that warns you like "not carrier capable" when you have a squadron on a carrier and try to upgrade it to a non carrier capable aircraft. I see you have not been around for years so my comment that carrier/non carrier capable has been discussed on the forum to death won't help you either unfortunately and you are not the only one as there were several threads about this recently.

For the future I am sure you will always check aircraft types on carrier capable or not when you want to put them onto carriers.

[Capt Cliff]

The F4U-1 was carrier capable, see picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F4U-1_NACA_1943.jpeg see the hook, but it was a beast to land on a CV. It took the Brits to figure out how to do it. The long nose meant a different curving/crab approach and the stiff landing gear, that created a bounce, had to be changed. With kid gloves you could do it. But the game represents US Naval doctrine. So no F4U-1's on a CV. An yes there should be a warning.

[wdolson]

The Navy did not certify the F4U-1 for carrier use. There was extensive testing of them on carriers, especially by VF-17. The Hellcat was coming off the production lines in large numbers (Grumman's production rate was close to 2X Vought's for the fighters). And the Hellcat had a lot of advantages for use on a carrier. It had better low speed characteristics, was much gentler in a stall and gave more warning, it was more reliable, and it had 95% of the performance of the Corsair. With the decline in Japanese pilot quality, the advantages of the Hellcat made it the top Navy fighter.

By the time VF-17 had worked out the problems with the Corsair and figured out how to operate them from a carrier, the CV supply chain was full of spares for Hellcats and the Navy deemed that logistics was more important. The FAA, which was in dire straights for good fighters did adapt the Corsair I (F4U-1) for carrier use and used them.

Even through the Korean War when later versions of F4Us operated from carriers, landing accidents and landing failures with the Corsair were much higher than they were with the F6F. The only reason the F4Us came aboard the carriers in the last year of the war was the dire need for more fighters to deal with the kamikazes.

BTW, in game, the only USN/USMC Corsair versions that are not carrier capable are the F4U-1 and the F2G. The F4U-1a and 1d are carrier capable as is the -4 and the -2. You can see this when looking at the possible aircraft upgrades from the unit screen. Looking at the list of possible upgrades, click on the yellow plane type and you will get characteristics for that plane. If a plane is carrier capable, it will say so in the upper left corner.

In the plane database (from the button on the top menu bar), if you are looking at all the stats for a given aircraft it will say Carrier Capable below the name of the plane in the upper left.

On the air unit screen, whether that unit is carrier capable, carrier trained, or nothing will appear on the 4th line in the upper left.

Bill

[witpqs]

AFAIK the main impetus to bring Corsairs on board versus the kamikazes was the Corsair's speed, which allowed it to better intercept the kami's.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Navy did not certify the F4U-1 for carrier use. There was extensive testing of them on carriers, especially by VF-17. The Hellcat was coming off the production lines in large numbers (Grumman's production rate was close to 2X Vought's for the fighters). And the Hellcat had a lot of advantages for use on a carrier. It had better low speed characteristics, was much gentler in a stall and gave more warning, it was more reliable, and it had 95% of the performance of the Corsair. With the decline in Japanese pilot quality, the advantages of the Hellcat made it the top Navy fighter.

By the time VF-17 had worked out the problems with the Corsair and figured out how to operate them from a carrier, the CV supply chain was full of spares for Hellcats and the Navy deemed that logistics was more important. The FAA, which was in dire straights for good fighters did adapt the Corsair I (F4U-1) for carrier use and used them.

Even through the Korean War when later versions of F4Us operated from carriers, landing accidents and landing failures with the Corsair were much higher than they were with the F6F. The only reason the F4Us came aboard the carriers in the last year of the war was the dire need for more fighters to deal with the kamikazes.

BTW, in game, the only USN/USMC Corsair versions that are not carrier capable are the F4U-1 and the F2G. The F4U-1a and 1d are carrier capable as is the -4 and the -2. You can see this when looking at the possible aircraft upgrades from the unit screen. Looking at the list of possible upgrades, click on the yellow plane type and you will get characteristics for that plane. If a plane is carrier capable, it will say so in the upper left corner.

In the plane database (from the button on the top menu bar), if you are looking at all the stats for a given aircraft it will say Carrier Capable below the name of the plane in the upper left.

On the air unit screen, whether that unit is carrier capable, carrier trained, or nothing will appear on the 4th line in the upper left.

Bill

I look at the picture of a Corsair below .. "Carrier Trained" but no information that it cannot actually operate from a CV ... [;)]

[wdolson]

That looks like a bug.

Bill

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

That looks like a bug.

Bill

I do not have access to the functional spec to determine if this is in fact the specified behavior .. but I can say it was frustrating to this user until Dan set me straight .. the intent might be to create frustration if you do not know your history as well as your opponent [:'(]

[JeffroK]

It looks like the sceenie shows the Squadron as being Carrier trained but has aircraft that cant operate from a CV.

I would assume a VF would never upgrade to a no-carrier aircraft but VMF are a different fish.

Did many VMF operate from a CV?

If there is a time period where this started to happen, can the squadron get an upgrade and change from non-carrier to carrier capable??

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It looks like the sceenie shows the Squadron as being Carrier trained but has aircraft that cant operate from a CV.

I would assume a VF would never upgrade to a no-carrier aircraft but VMF are a different fish.

Did many VMF operate from a CV?

If there is a time period where this started to happen, can the squadron get an upgrade and change from non-carrier to carrier capable??

They got carrier trained and operated from Carriers .. I did not set teh no-upgrade soooo they upgraded unbeknownst to me to a non-CV capable aircraft. There is no indication like Carrier trained in red or a message to that effect. I spent some time trying to undersstand this .. == frustrated user .. simple solution have a flag that says "NOT CV CAPABLE" or something like that .. just my .02 ..

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It looks like the sceenie shows the Squadron as being Carrier trained but has aircraft that cant operate from a CV.

I would assume a VF would never upgrade to a no-carrier aircraft but VMF are a different fish.

Did many VMF operate from a CV?

If there is a time period where this started to happen, can the squadron get an upgrade and change from non-carrier to carrier capable??

Pre-war many VMF squadrons were carrier trained, but the practice ended right around the beginning of the war. The Navy did not use any Marines on carriers again until late 1944. There was no need for them. There were enough USN pilots and planes to meet demand up to that point.

Bill

[PaxMondo]

So to me this isn't a bug, it a user choice.  You transferred a carrier trained squadron into a non-carrier capable aircraft.  Perfectly possible, and might even desirable under certain circumstances.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

So to me this isn't a bug, it a user choice.  You transferred a carrier trained squadron into a non-carrier capable aircraft.  Perfectly possible, and might even desirable under certain circumstances.

+1

[wdolson]

I'm just saying the notification is a bug, not the capability.

Bill