Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
Hello,
is there any reason to assign an air group specifically to the air HQ which is at the same base as the air group? I´ve read that this makes no sense for LCUs (to assign them to the HQ at their hex/base), but what about air groups?
is there any reason to assign an air group specifically to the air HQ which is at the same base as the air group? I´ve read that this makes no sense for LCUs (to assign them to the HQ at their hex/base), but what about air groups?
Cheers
Martin
Martin
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
air hq works for any air unit in his rangem, it doenst need to be thier superior/subordinate unit. Bur some take it for roleplay/house rule.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
Air HQs have a role in coordinating air strikes. If air units are from the same air hq and within range they have a better chance to attack together rather than piece meal.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
Coordination of an airstrike is the only advantage that I am aware of.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
And I have to admit that I have yet to see any evidence that this is indeed the case. A lot of folks believe it is so but in my experience it does not seem to matter. Any HQ will suffice. Coordination seems to be a matter of leadership and experience more than anything else. My bent on it anyways.[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
I thought there was reference to this characteristic in the manual.... but not sure... I'll give it a review.
-
- Posts: 6949
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Cottesmore, Rutland
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
ORIGINAL: crsutton
And I have to admit that I have yet to see any evidence that this is indeed the case. A lot of folks believe it is so but in my experience it does not seem to matter. Any HQ will suffice. Coordination seems to be a matter of leadership and experience more than anything else. My bent on it anyways.[;)]
I disagree to some extent. In my current game I was losing a lot of LB in raids through lack of cover. I looked up air coordination and it was suggest that escorts fly at the same height, have the same target and the same HQ. Doing this works. What I have not done is test each of the three separately over an extended period.
I there is also this page 255 of the manual
» The air unit is located at a base and the HQ that the group is
assigned to is within transfer range of the air unit’s aircraft type,
and the HQ is located at a base with an airfield size of 1+ and has
over 20,000 supplies. Supplies will be expended at the HQ base
and the unit will receive damaged planes from the pool.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
ORIGINAL: Chris H
ORIGINAL: crsutton
And I have to admit that I have yet to see any evidence that this is indeed the case. A lot of folks believe it is so but in my experience it does not seem to matter. Any HQ will suffice. Coordination seems to be a matter of leadership and experience more than anything else. My bent on it anyways.[;)]
I disagree to some extent. In my current game I was losing a lot of LB in raids through lack of cover. I looked up air coordination and it was suggest that escorts fly at the same height, have the same target and the same HQ. Doing this works. What I have not done is test each of the three separately over an extended period.
I there is also this page 255 of the manual
» The air unit is located at a base and the HQ that the group is
assigned to is within transfer range of the air unit’s aircraft type,
and the HQ is located at a base with an airfield size of 1+ and has
over 20,000 supplies. Supplies will be expended at the HQ base
and the unit will receive damaged planes from the pool.
The same height and target work for sure.
Having the same HQ for all will cost a LOT of points over time. I'd rather have a few more divisions, even if it does help.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
I have read that changing the base-hex's 'attached to' formation to match the parent formation of the airgroups present will increase 'aircraft availability' (the %age of planes that will fly on a mission). Or one could change the airgroups' formation to one that is subordinate to the base-hex's HQ. Either option will require PP expense.
In my current game, I was able to withdraw many KNIL[R] airgroups to bases in north Australia, by changing those bases to ABDA command. Now that I'm on the offensive, I can't advance those groups to newly-recaptured bases, unless I spend PP to change those bases to ABDA, & that option isn't always available.
In my current game, I was able to withdraw many KNIL[R] airgroups to bases in north Australia, by changing those bases to ABDA command. Now that I'm on the offensive, I can't advance those groups to newly-recaptured bases, unless I spend PP to change those bases to ABDA, & that option isn't always available.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
If you want them to carry torpedoes I believe they have to be the same as the local HQ and the HQ has to have torpedoes in stock.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
ORIGINAL: Xargun
If you want them to carry torpedoes I believe they have to be the same as the local HQ and the HQ has to have torpedoes in stock.
The HQ should provide torpedoes to all aircraft eligible to carry them regardless of the groups HQ.
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Chris H
ORIGINAL: crsutton
And I have to admit that I have yet to see any evidence that this is indeed the case. A lot of folks believe it is so but in my experience it does not seem to matter. Any HQ will suffice. Coordination seems to be a matter of leadership and experience more than anything else. My bent on it anyways.[;)]
I disagree to some extent. In my current game I was losing a lot of LB in raids through lack of cover. I looked up air coordination and it was suggest that escorts fly at the same height, have the same target and the same HQ. Doing this works. What I have not done is test each of the three separately over an extended period.
I there is also this page 255 of the manual
» The air unit is located at a base and the HQ that the group is
assigned to is within transfer range of the air unit’s aircraft type,
and the HQ is located at a base with an airfield size of 1+ and has
over 20,000 supplies. Supplies will be expended at the HQ base
and the unit will receive damaged planes from the pool.
The same height and target work for sure.
Having the same HQ for all will cost a LOT of points over time. I'd rather have a few more divisions, even if it does help.
Yes, this is probably the case. I mostly use LRCAP instead of escort so do not see the effects as much.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
ORIGINAL: Skyros
ORIGINAL: Xargun
If you want them to carry torpedoes I believe they have to be the same as the local HQ and the HQ has to have torpedoes in stock.
The HQ should provide torpedoes to all aircraft eligible to carry them regardless of the groups HQ.
I can confirm this. Torps are supplied to all groups requesting them. I think this even works within the command range of the HQ.
BTW, many thanks to all contributors so far. There has been a wealth of good information posted regarding the subject!
Cheers
Martin
Martin
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: Air groups and the HQs they are assigned to
ORIGINAL: crsutton
And I have to admit that I have yet to see any evidence that this is indeed the case. A lot of folks believe it is so but in my experience it does not seem to matter. Any HQ will suffice. Coordination seems to be a matter of leadership and experience more than anything else. My bent on it anyways.[;)]
+1
That is my experience too.