Shannon V. OKeets
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
The carrier plane air componant (when using the seperate counter, not the intrinsic value) is not a dive bomber, or torpedo bomber, or fighter per se. It has a set of air-to-air, air-to-sea, and tactical factors that can be used in a multiple of ways. The aircraft type pictured is mostly eye candy.
For example, a 5-4-3 carrier plane (5 Air to air rating, 4 naval combat rating, and 3 tactical rating), could chose to fly as a 5 factor fighter, or a 4 factor naval bomber, or a 3 factor ground attack bomber. It can choose which to be at the start of a combat turn. So, even though the counter itself might show a Dauntless dive bomber, that aircraft represents all the various aircraft the carrier might be carrying (with emphasis on the pictured type, hence the differing aircraft values), and it can fly as a fighter, or tac-air when required.
As far as the question you asked regarding the Lexington, you are correct, you cannot carry more then 4 in 'air componant' value. It usually will carry one aircraft unit with a 4 componant rating. However, if you play the mentioned option you *could* carry two *2* rating aircraft instead of one *4* rating, or any combination adding up to 4. This is not usually done, since two lower air componant aircraft are often quite inferior to a single higher componant value aircraft.
Thank you for your response.
Okay, that makes sense. The counter represents the entire CV air wing. The icon is eye candy. I guess I was just getting hung up on seeing some counters with very low ratings in one area or another.
I was looking at a F4F-4 with a rating of 4 air-- *--1--* This disparity lead me to believe that it was meant to serve in one specific capacity, in this case almost solely a fighter. I suppose it makes sense for the CV air wings to be a true mix since both the fighters and torp/dive planes would most likely launch at the same time, conduct the mission together, and return together. (edit: I have no idea if that is true and may have based my understanding of carrier operations on the movie “Midway.”)
However, if the unit used in the example above were based on Lexington, then Lex is pretty much a Fighter CV and little else. While the icon is eye candy and only suggests one type of dominant aircraft amongst other types, the stats suggest that the pilots of this unit are good at dog fighting but can’t hit ships with their bombs and torps. I should probably examine the CVP counters that are available later on to see if the counters are more rounded and thus able to realistically do the various missions a CVP should.
Thank you for clearing up this 2 unit option. It works as I feared and results in what you suggest: “not usually done.” So, this option is pretty useless in many cases. I wonder if I was correct in assuming the intent was to provide the CV air component with more diversity. If this was the intent, it is not working as the ADG folks intended.
So then, what is the preferred strategy when basing a CVP onto a CV? Do you pick a unit that has high stats in Naval Attack on one CV, and then a more fighter friendly one for another CV in the hopes that the two CVs do not get separated. Or do you hold out for a unit that is pretty well rounded like the 5-4-3 you mentioned?
Sending a single CV off to do something useful is rarely done. Though I guess the same can be said for a battleship/cruiser.
The Japanese at Pearl Harbor and Midway had multiple carriers and the US at Midway had a couple. Only in the Med are carriers likely to be operating individually, where they have a lot of land based air support. Even then it is rare, and by necessity, not preference.
So you can select which carrier air units to place on your carriers and put together a balanced task force. In this regard it is no different than any other aspect of putting together a task force. If the task force is going to be supported by land based fighters, then fighter on the carriers isn't needed. And so on.
Perfection is an elusive goal.