Matrix Games Forums

Join the Matrix Team at Historicon!Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!Ageod takes you back to the Civil War Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AARConflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!Pandora Beta Playthrough VideosGermany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

KB airgroup resize

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> KB airgroup resize Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
KB airgroup resize - 4/11/2011 6:09:23 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		So, maybe I'm a little slow. When did the re-size limit for the KB come in? Can't resize until July 42? And interesting, it is not in the editor? Hard coded?









Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Pax
Post #: 1
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/11/2011 6:09:53 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		And the editor, nothing showing for resize ...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 4/11/2011 6:10:19 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 12:49:39 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline 		An additional side effect is that you have a fleet carrier with an airgroup capacity of 81 a/c that you cannot fill except by recourse to embarkation of a fourth, chutai-sized unit - probably one that's only carrier capable rather than carrier trained.

Kaga is no doubt similarly affected. Don't know if her aircraft capacity is to be increased to 81 (as I believe it should), but merely increasing the capacity is going to be pointless if the player is not allowed some freedom to manage the size of the airgroup.

_____________________________




(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 3:08:38 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		I guess I'm surprised this is hard coded .... or at least I cannot find anything in the editor ...  suggestions?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 4
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 6:19:03 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline 		Ummm, I dont even use the editor, and I see a resize field. 2nd column (or 3rd if you count the airgroup display as the 1st), just above facing:

"Resize 1 YYMM-Sz"

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 5
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 6:42:26 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Well, but when I check it, they are set to "0".  I'm not seeing where they are being set to a July change ...  or am I missing something obvious?  Need new glasses?  Large telescope?  

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 6
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 8:34:13 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline 		For comparison with the record for the Akagi kansen-tai, here is the one for the Chitose fighter group, with use of the 'resize' fields highlighted.

As PaxMondo says, the corresponding record for the Akagi fighter group contains nothing in those resize fields to account for the size change.

It may be noteworthy that Akagi's airgroup resizing is scheduled to occur in July 1942, and that this is the same date as Akagi's first ship upgrade - though I can't see anything in the Akagi ship or class record that would trigger the airgroup changes either.

The possibility that this is hardcoded makes me wonder whether the code would frustrate an increase in Kaga's airgroup capacity and increase to maximum of the number of aircraft embarked - 81 a/c loaded aboard being greater than the original 72 capacity + 15%. Would making such data changes lead to Kaga being treated as overloaded and incapable of flying operations?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 7
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 11:43:31 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 4895
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline 		It looks like the resize must be hardcoded. Which is a little surprising to me since there is a field in the database for resizing airgroups and I thought one of the goals of the AE team was to reduce the amount of hardcoding in the game. Playing around with the editor a little, it appears, at least at first glance, that you can override the hardcoded resize by putting a value in the resize field in the editor.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 4/19/2011 1:49:31 PM >

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 8
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 2:17:56 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

For comparison with the record for the Akagi kansen-tai, here is the one for the Chitose fighter group, with use of the 'resize' fields highlighted.

As PaxMondo says, the corresponding record for the Akagi fighter group contains nothing in those resize fields to account for the size change.



LY: Well one the one hand, at least my prescription appears to be working ok yet. On the other, dang. Doesn't quite fit my mod requirements. Oh well, I can get around it by adding some small CV trained units that could be added to each of the KB CV's in the editor. Not elegant, but it can work. Then ahve to add a house rule that these can't be expanded in size at some future point to be used as training groups as these will be only intended as a work around for this.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 9
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 2:19:00 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It looks like the resize must be hardcoded. Which is a little surprising to me since there is a field in the database for resizing airgroups and I thought one of the goals of the AE team was to reduce the amount of hardcoding in the game. Playing around with the editor a little, it appears, at least at first glance, that you can override the hardcoded resize by putting a value in the resize field in the editor.

Gary, thanks.

Did you make the change and then check it in game or is this just an observation needing testing yet?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 10
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/19/2011 2:29:21 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 4895
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It looks like the resize must be hardcoded. Which is a little surprising to me since there is a field in the database for resizing airgroups and I thought one of the goals of the AE team was to reduce the amount of hardcoding in the game. Playing around with the editor a little, it appears, at least at first glance, that you can override the hardcoded resize by putting a value in the resize field in the editor.

Gary, thanks.

Did you make the change and then check it in game or is this just an observation needing testing yet?


Hi Pax, basically I just changed the value in the editor and then went into the game to confirm that my change appeared on the air unit information screen. It did. However, I did not test to see if the change actually happened on the given date. So that is still a matter of testing.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 11
RE: KB airgroup resize - 4/20/2011 12:13:33 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Gary,

Thanks.  I will some a report later.  Curious if you mod it to a date of say Jan 1, 42, what happens on July 42?  Does the hardcode still slam in while you're in the midst of a battle? 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 12
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/26/2013 9:18:20 PM   
JSG


Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2012
Status: offline 		I found an easy work-around against the hardcoded air wing resizing.

All you need to do is to add another squadron to the carrier (only the IJN and USN CVs are affected IIRC, no CVLs or CVEs). The mandated resizing disappears for F, DB and TB squadrons on that carrier. You may use a size 1, no aircraft, no pilots squadron.

(I am going to test whether the effect remains after the 4th squadron is moved to shore.)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 13
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/27/2013 3:33:49 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4573
Joined: 2/21/2006
From: AE:96,160 @ 103,55
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JSG

I found an easy work-around against the hardcoded air wing resizing.

All you need to do is to add another squadron to the carrier (only the IJN and USN CVs are affected IIRC, no CVLs or CVEs). The mandated resizing disappears for F, DB and TB squadrons on that carrier. You may use a size 1, no aircraft, no pilots squadron.

(I am going to test whether the effect remains after the 4th squadron is moved to shore.)

That doesn't work for me... Maybe because it is a divided group... I thought this was hard coded anyway and thought I read reference to it in the manual but on checking can't find it. Wasn't this something that was in the original witp too?

As for resizing, it is normally controlled in the editor as Gary & CV2 suggest. And it does work.




Of course anything that goes on a CV can resize unless the resizing date has been set.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 1/27/2013 3:34:19 AM >

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes

(in reply to JSG)
Post #: 14
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/27/2013 3:39:39 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 607
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline 		Here is a thread where michaelm discusses the exact sizing of air groups. It is from 2010, but I don't think anything has changed.

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 15
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/27/2013 2:33:06 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1485
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		Hardcoded IIRC. No biggie, just split up a couple of the 36 plane land based Zero sqds and use them to fill the gaps until July.

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 16
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/30/2013 10:33:27 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2148
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		I personally don't like the fact it changed at all, whether hard coded or not. I understand maybe for a Scenario 1 game with PDU off, but not for any other situation. I believe it represent the historic lack of planes and pilots, I get that. What about a PDU on game or Scenario 2? They are meant to represent a more prepared Japan and since PDU on means you can build aircraft and train pilots to your hearts content you shouldn't be shackled by this. I can insure that I have pilots and aircraft available to fill out KB way before July. This change completely undermines the intent behind a PDU on game in my opinion.

In my latest PBEM, I've just received the CV Hiyo, yet I can only field 36 aircraft out of a total capacity of 53 aircraft. It's a PDU on game, I have the planes, I have the pilots and it just seems wrong that I have to split up naval LBA to max out my CV air capacity and can't resize my original groups. As far as I'm concerned, KB has been neutered until July 1942.

I can't comment on the Allied side of things. I know certain CV air units disband in 43 and the remaining groups then double in size to compensate. I don't know if this is historic or some function of the game.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 17
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/31/2013 1:32:13 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 6270
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Not much of a problem for the allies as their squadrons are sized nicely from the get go to utilize the full capacity of the carriers. Only in the first few months are the fighter squadrons undersized but that does not last long.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 18
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/31/2013 2:25:25 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3291
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

... This change completely undermines the intent behind a PDU on game in my opinion...



No, it was the other way around.

It was the introduction of PDU after the game design had been frozen in classical WITP which undermined the intent behind the carrier group size/resizing. Clearly this was not an area which was important enough to be scoped into the AE project.

Just another example where devs bow to pressure from the customers, and in the process slightly "unhinge" another game area. People who clamour for "improvements" often fail to note the unintended ramifications which will ensue elsewhere.

Alfred

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 19
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/31/2013 2:54:53 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 15252
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hardcoded IIRC. No biggie, just split up a couple of the 36 plane land based Zero sqds and use them to fill the gaps until July.


Yes. This.

_____________________________


(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 20
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/31/2013 4:24:51 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2148
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, it was the other way around.

It was the introduction of PDU after the game design had been frozen in classical WITP which undermined the intent behind the carrier group size/resizing. Clearly this was not an area which was important enough to be scoped into the AE project.

Just another example where devs bow to pressure from the customers, and in the process slightly "unhinge" another game area. People who clamour for "improvements" often fail to note the unintended ramifications which will ensue elsewhere.

Alfred


Ah, I never played WITP, but I see what your point. I can't speak for the masses who clamoured for change, but I still think it sucks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Hardcoded IIRC. No biggie, just split up a couple of the 36 plane land based Zero sqds and use them to fill the gaps until July.


Yes. This.




_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 21
RE: KB airgroup resize - 1/31/2013 11:02:47 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4513
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

... This change completely undermines the intent behind a PDU on game in my opinion...



No, it was the other way around.

It was the introduction of PDU after the game design had been frozen in classical WITP which undermined the intent behind the carrier group size/resizing. Clearly this was not an area which was important enough to be scoped into the AE project.

Just another example where devs bow to pressure from the customers, and in the process slightly "unhinge" another game area. People who clamour for "improvements" often fail to note the unintended ramifications which will ensue elsewhere.

Alfred

Good point. I'd forgotten about this. Thanks for the reminder.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> KB airgroup resize Page: [1]
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

0.086