Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

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

User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Don Bowen »

I've spent most of today checking out "carrier air groups not restructuring" problems. They all have the same difficulty.

In order for a carrier air group to be considered for restructuring it must be in a port with sufficient supply AND A COMMAND HQ PRESENT. And the port must be under the command of that Command HQ. Only a command HQ will do. Not fleet HQs, not Air HQs, not Armies, Corps, nor USO troops. Command HQs are the ones that show up when you try and change an HQ assignment: Home Defense Force, Central Pacific, etc.




User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Terminus »

Damn, that's a lot of hoops to jump through.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by wild_Willie2 »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I've spent most of today checking out "carrier air groups not restructuring" problems. They all have the same difficulty.

In order for a carrier air group to be considered for restructuring it must be in a port with sufficient supply AND A COMMAND HQ PRESENT. And the port must be under the command of that Command HQ. Only a command HQ will do. Not fleet HQs, not Air HQs, not Armies, Corps, nor USO troops. Command HQs are the ones that show up when you try and change an HQ assignment: Home Defense Force, Central Pacific, etc.

So it DOES work ?, only the parameters needed for this feature to kick in, where a "bit" complicated [:D][:D][:D]
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
User avatar
Kadrin
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Orange, California

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Kadrin »

So.... San Francisco? (assuming you leave/put West Coast HQ there.)
Image
User avatar
YankeeAirRat
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by YankeeAirRat »

That would make logical sense. In real life when most US carriers withdrew to either Pearl, San Deigo, San Fransico, or Bremerton is when the air group would recieve an overhaul and re-fitting. At all of those places were here major command HQ's are based out of in the game.
Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I've spent most of today checking out "carrier air groups not restructuring" problems. They all have the same difficulty.
The problem, of course, is that most of those who post these "problems" on the forums either have not read the rules or have tried to play the game in accordance with "first person shooter" or "Wah wah wah, I wanna do whatever I wanna whenever I wanna do it" principles.

Nothing better than seeing a poster say something like, "This is a bug because I can't make the game act like I think it should."

There are a lot of players out there who have a lot of experience playing the game the wrong way. Self-absorption is no substitute for analysis. Wanting something other than what you're actually going to get is a sure road to disappointment. As Burgess Meredith said to Rocky, "Wish in one hand, and crap in the other, and see which is filled first."

That said, I wish the designers and those now responsible for the game would create a fully developed manual that covers not only the basic design, but the difficulties encountered by players over the course of 2+ years of experience, as reflected in these forums (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - anyone ready for the second coming of "The Ring Trilogy"?).
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Nomad »

Well, pasternakski, if they had put anything at all in the manual about having to meet some restrictions or conditions it might have helped. But, alas, they did not mention one single thing about having to meet some requirements. I certainly do not play the game as a "first person shooter" but I still had problems and when I asked on the forum, I got a bunch of possiblities but MichaelM is the one who had all the pieces on the requirements needed. It is not so much a bug as one of those items that 2x3 deemed to be not worthy of passing out any information about at all.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
That said, I wish the designers and those now responsible for the game would create a fully developed manual that covers not only the basic design, but the difficulties encountered by players over the course of 2+ years of experience, as reflected in these forums (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - anyone ready for the second coming of "The Ring Trilogy"?).

Do I detect a volunteer to spend the next 2+ years working on an updated manual?

Stvitus2002
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:13 am

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Stvitus2002 »

Well, pasternakski, if they had put anything at all in the manual about having to meet some restrictions or conditions it might have helped. But, alas, they did not mention one single thing about having to meet some requirements. I certainly do not play the game as a "first person shooter" but I still had problems and when I asked on the forum, I got a bunch of possiblities but MichaelM is the one who had all the pieces on the requirements needed. It is not so much a bug as one of those items that 2x3 deemed to be not worthy of passing out any information about at all.



I would have to agree with Nomad on this. Also, how many days do you have to leave a CV in port
for the airgroups to 'adjust' to a usable level? The SHANGRI-LA arrived in San Fran about 6 turns ago with 128 AC. After a day or 2 it dropped down to 114 AC. It now sits at 121 AC.

My understanding is that 10% (or is it 15%?)over the AC limit(90), and NO AIR OPS from that particular
CV. On CV's with 4 squadrons what is the 'proper' # of AC(total and per squadron)?








Joe D.
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by michaelm75au »

Excuse me but why is everyone (bar Nomad) acting like this has never been posted.
 
I personally have posted that requirement (plus a few other needs) on almost every thread regarding problems with CV group restructuring.
Granted I found it out by experimentation and not from the manual, but it was not kept a secret.
 
Michael
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Well, pasternakski, if they had put anything at all in the manual about having to meet some restrictions or conditions it might have helped. But, alas, they did not mention one single thing about having to meet some requirements. I certainly do not play the game as a "first person shooter" but I still had problems and when I asked on the forum, I got a bunch of possiblities but MichaelM is the one who had all the pieces on the requirements needed. It is not so much a bug as one of those items that 2x3 deemed to be not worthy of passing out any information about at all.
Exactly. Thank you, sir.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Do I detect a volunteer to spend the next 2+ years working on an updated manual?

The only time I ever spent more than six months producing a manuscript, it cost the customer $300,000.

Interested? I can start tomorrow...
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by ny59giants »

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Nomad »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"


I know for sure that the 7/42 change from 27 to 36 does NOT require the squadrons be assigned to the major command hq. [8D]
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12455
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by michaelm75au »

No the groups do not need to be assigned to a command HQ.
It is the base's HQ [command Hq] that needs to be in the same base.
ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

Michael
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When you say "restructuring" do you mean the US VF's going from 27 to 36 planes in 7/42 and the VS and VB combining in '43??

Yes

If so, do the airgroups need to be assigned to that  particular "Command HQ?"

No
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by mogami »

Hi, It IS in the manual.  And it has been pointed out (by me) in many threads that Air units form replacements based on proximity to assigned HQ.  (Ron experianced great problems by leaving groups outside HQ range set to receive replacements and fragments appearing AT THE HQ dispite the fact the HQ was thousands of miles from the parent.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Stvitus2002
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:13 am

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Stvitus2002 »

Excuse me but why is everyone (bar Nomad) acting like this has never been posted.
I personally have posted that requirement (plus a few other needs) on almost every thread regarding problems with CV group restructuring.
Granted I found it out by experimentation and not from the manual, but it was not kept a secret.


No offence michaelm but......
Not all of us like to spend time searching the forums looking for solutions to problems that should not
be occurring in the first place. I doubt if Admiral Nimitz had this problem in the real world:

Nimitz: 'Welcome to Pearl Harbor Captain, we need to send you to Ulithi right away'

Shangri-La captain: 'Sorry Admiral, we can't leave until our airgroups adjust to a usable level'

Nimitz: ' How long will that take?'

Shangri-La Captain: ' I'm not sure Sir, I'll have to consult the WITP forums for advice'

Nimitz: ' Oh sh*t !#@$%@#%@%@%!%!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'


I'd rather not sound like a Griper Fanboy(sorry Ron),but having to keep important ships tied
up in rear area ports for God knows how long is no way to play a game. Sure, there are work arounds,
like off loading a squadron, but the solutions others have suggested do not seem to work in my game.







Joe D.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by mogami »

Hi, WO it is only because you know a group will upgrade on a certain date that you tie them to rear areas. Knowing this what is the problem with meeting all the other requirments for upgrade?

CPT: sir I need a HQ
Nimitz: well Cen Pac is a HQ
CPT: Yes sir but my ship is located in Noumea a South Pacific HQ but that base is assigned to another HQ because we have not spent the PP to change it.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Carrier Air Group Restructing Problems

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0

... but having to keep important ships tied up in rear area ports for God knows how long is no way to play a game. Sure, there are work arounds, like off loading a squadron, but the solutions others have suggested do not seem to work in my game.

Joe D.

But - ships really did spend time tied up while airgroups reorganized, planes were delivered, etc. Nimitz knew this, and was able to decide if he wanted to wait for the reorganization or send them out "as is".

Also, God knows how long is one day with the proper conditions: Supply and HQ - with supply standing in for planes and equipment and HQ for people to handle the reorganization. Tad faster than it could happen in real life.

And the reorganizations represent changes in the composition of the airgroups. They were not at unusable levels before reorganization. Having 27 fighters instead of 36 does not render the carrier useless. Indeed, it is the circumstance in which it had been operating for some time.

To what are you objecting??



Post Reply

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