Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Carrier training - CV in port?

 
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 >> Carrier training - CV in port? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/3/2020 6:28:15 PM   
Professor Chaos

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline
A few questions on what happens when carriers are not at sea in a TF:

Do carrier-capable air units based on a CV get credit towards becoming "carrier-trained" when a CV is disbanded in port? What about if the CV is stood down for pierside repairs?

Similarly, do air units based on a CV fly training missions if the CV is in port? If it is stood down?

Thanks!
Post #: 1
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/3/2020 6:45:20 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 8070
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
IIRC, they train normally. That simulates that when CV was in port, air groups were flown ashore to conduct training from land-based fields.

And IIRC, it does count to carrier capable -> carrier tained too.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Professor Chaos)
Post #: 2
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/3/2020 8:55:00 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
I think if you're forgetful enough to leave a squadron aboard when going into drydock, that still counts towards "carrier-trained".

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 3
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/4/2020 4:51:14 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15471
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

IIRC, they train normally. That simulates that when CV was in port, air groups were flown ashore to conduct training from land-based fields.

And IIRC, it does count to carrier capable -> carrier tained too.

I've been monitoring air group training on a carrier upgrading and another doing repairs. The training goes on, but very slowly. So does repair of airframe fatigue. This is not like sending the air group to a good (5+) air base with lots of air support where training progression is like normal LBA and repair of fatigue is very fast.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 4
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/4/2020 5:41:09 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think if you're forgetful enough to leave a squadron aboard when going into drydock, that still counts towards "carrier-trained".


Yes it does. Once I get some 'real' CVEs I park the Long Island at Stockton and use it to carrier-train VMs. If you don't fill out newly arrived squadrons you can sqeeze 5 on at once.

You could also sail the Long Island down to Melbourne, and use it to resize, then carrier train a few RAAF/RNZF squadrons* (you can crane them on, then resize, then change to a carrier capable CTH airframe). Which is actually more useful because the Brits could do with some help from highly trained CV air units.

*In tier 3 ironman, there are about a half dozen or so that can be resized. You can actually carrier train any group you want that can be equipped with carrier capable aircraft, but they won't necessarily be able to re-size.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 1/4/2020 5:42:00 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 5
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/4/2020 6:24:03 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15471
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think if you're forgetful enough to leave a squadron aboard when going into drydock, that still counts towards "carrier-trained".


Yes it does. Once I get some 'real' CVEs I park the Long Island at Stockton and use it to carrier-train VMs. If you don't fill out newly arrived squadrons you can sqeeze 5 on at once.

You could also sail the Long Island down to Melbourne, and use it to resize, then carrier train a few RAAF/RNZF squadrons* (you can crane them on, then resize, then change to a carrier capable CTH airframe). Which is actually more useful because the Brits could do with some help from highly trained CV air units.

*In tier 3 ironman, there are about a half dozen or so that can be resized. You can actually carrier train any group you want that can be equipped with carrier capable aircraft, but they won't necessarily be able to re-size.

But if you create more and larger squadrons using carrier-capable airframes, is there enough actual aircraft to go around?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 6
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/4/2020 6:55:59 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9131
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
The "carrier-trained" bit only has to do with how long the unit sits on the carrier, and has nothing to do with pilot training. You can plop a unit with zero planes and zero pilots in it onto a carrier, sit it in drydock, and in 90 days it will be "carrier-trained."

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 7
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/5/2020 1:34:57 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The "carrier-trained" bit only has to do with how long the unit sits on the carrier, and has nothing to do with pilot training. You can plop a unit with zero planes and zero pilots in it onto a carrier, sit it in drydock, and in 90 days it will be "carrier-trained."

Sad as it flies (pun intended) in the face of reality. This is one area where the game's attempt to emulate "realism" falls way short.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 8
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/5/2020 7:41:48 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6252
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The "carrier-trained" bit only has to do with how long the unit sits on the carrier, and has nothing to do with pilot training. You can plop a unit with zero planes and zero pilots in it onto a carrier, sit it in drydock, and in 90 days it will be "carrier-trained."

Sad as it flies (pun intended) in the face of reality. This is one area where the game's attempt to emulate "realism" falls way short.


dr.hal,

It is not so much the game fault, although there are issues with the game engine for this "feature" to be more representative of real world practicalities, but rather player abuse of the feature. Without the abuse the abstraction works to a satisfactory level.

A very serious code rewrite would be necessary to make the player abuse impossible to achieve. Things which would need to be considered in any rewrite would be:

1. Making individual pilot accreditation for carrier operation, as well as the current unit and aircraft model, mandatory. This could be as "simple" as having a pilot toggle or as detailed as creating a new pilot skill. Either option opens up a Pandora box of additional coding.

(a) to be consistent with the existing pilot training which serves as a simplistic accreditation abstract, the toggle/skill must be obtainable by training a rookie pilot. However having gone down this path of "realism", to be consistent this training would have to be limited to onboard carrier training only. Allowing an accredited air unit to be moved to land for training just opens it up to abuse too easily

(b) to be consistent why wouldn't float plane pilots embarked (and their respective air units) not also be required to adhere to the same standard of being accredited to conduct ship operations. That then leads to issues with float plane units/pilots which were never qualified for such operation.

2. Out in the real world, pilot accreditation is not a once obtained and forget process, it requires regular exercise of the skill to maintain that accreditation. Thus AE would need code to make it possible for both the air unit itself and each indivi8dual pilot to lose carrier accreditation if they fail to operate off a carrier for any extended period. As it currently takes a continuous 90 days to get a "Carrier Capable" air unit upgraded to "Carrier Trained" status, a starting position would be 90 days off sees reversion back to only "Carrier Capable" status. Something similar for pilots. However coding this (which requires new tracking), without opening up several obvious "cheats" is difficult. Still, a successful coding effort would stop absolutely the current player abuse.

3. Once we start down this road of pilot accreditation in an attempt to make the game more realistic, the coders would have to look at aircraft crew size. Those concerned about the existing abstraction, never seem concerned that a B-29 has a game crew of only 1 (aka a sole pilot). Surely to be consistent it (the same applies to the 4E Japanese patrol planes) should use up to 10 "pilots" as it's crew. Fortunately the code already has a hook in place to accommodate different size crews to operate the different aircraft models. Still, even with this hook, a lot of coding would still be necessary and integrating it with the current skill training system as well as the current pilot replacement quantums is tricky.

4. Operational and training accident rates would have to be substantially increased. Overall training mishaps were very deliberately toned, and quite significantly at that too, in AE because player protests were too strong in classical WITP (and they were much less there than out in the real world). It is a common feature of this series of games that those who most criticise the gap between the abstraction and the real world praxis are the first to complain when their wishes are met. Imagine the outcry if there was a 20% training mishap rate (not necessarily resulting in pilot death or a total airframe writeoff) whilst the air unit/pilot was getting their carrier operation accreditation. Another issue here would be the effect of leader stats and how it would modify these operational and training mishaps. Also would different aircraft models impact on the accident rates. As always, once you start tinkering with the code, it is always a much bigger exercise than the punters are prepared to acknowledge.



It really would be much easier if players just didn't abuse the feature.


Alfred

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 9
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/5/2020 1:10:00 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It really would be much easier if players just didn't abuse the feature.



+1 (great post Alfred!)

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a very large number of things that players don't like. Especially since the code is NOT going to be rewritten.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/5/2020 8:01:09 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It really would be much easier if players just didn't abuse the feature.


Alfred

Of course the simple answer is for self governance. However what you postulate as a fix more approaches reality than I think the game would warrant. I was thinking more along the lines of "quick" (admittedly a relative word) fix such as not allowing Marine pilots to go on CVXs unless initially assigned (as one could NOT get the required training for such complex operations as CV landings/takeoffs oversea) or restricting certain Marine only aircraft (the first Corsair would be an example, much like the Army's "Dauntless" can't operate from a carrier). What you suggest as needed is indeed an extensive rework and I've interacted with you and others on this site long enough to know that such a rework is not in the cards (or on the table, what ever analogy you want to use). Of course many of these "concerns" in relation to "realism" can be overcome with a LONG list of dos and don'ts (remember there is a long list of CV capable aircraft that CAN'T operate from most CVs, etc.) but most of us don't want such a laundry list, we are lazy (ok, I'M lazy!) and want the game to do it for us.... Oh well. Just a thought. Thanks for the detailed response.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 11
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/5/2020 11:40:36 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think if you're forgetful enough to leave a squadron aboard when going into drydock, that still counts towards "carrier-trained".


Yes it does. Once I get some 'real' CVEs I park the Long Island at Stockton and use it to carrier-train VMs. If you don't fill out newly arrived squadrons you can sqeeze 5 on at once.

You could also sail the Long Island down to Melbourne, and use it to resize, then carrier train a few RAAF/RNZF squadrons* (you can crane them on, then resize, then change to a carrier capable CTH airframe). Which is actually more useful because the Brits could do with some help from highly trained CV air units.

*In tier 3 ironman, there are about a half dozen or so that can be resized. You can actually carrier train any group you want that can be equipped with carrier capable aircraft, but they won't necessarily be able to re-size.

But if you create more and larger squadrons using carrier-capable airframes, is there enough actual aircraft to go around?


No, but juggling FAA airframes is one of the joys of playing the allies.

I stick to the about 6 or so that can be resized - they are the few groups that have size changes on map, but do not subsequently withdraw. Most are fighter squadrons*, and with high skill and experience get the good planes when they go shipboard. [*There is an NZ Avenger sqn, but the specific NZ TBFs are not carrier capable, so it bites into the FAA pool to go shipboard].

Even so, that means some RN CVEs are spotting Martlets and Albacores in 1946. Which is OK in an air superiority environment. One 250kg bomb is as good as any other. Never seen an Albacore lift a torpedo off an RN CVE, though. Not enough in storage, by the look of it.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 1/9/2020 6:01:47 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 12
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/5/2020 11:52:18 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It really would be much easier if players just didn't abuse the feature.



+1 (great post Alfred!)

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a very large number of things that players don't like. Especially since the code is NOT going to be rewritten.


I play ironman 3 against the computer. The concept of "abusing" a feature doesn't really apply.





_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 13
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/7/2020 12:55:38 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9131
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Honestly, considering that carrier-trained vs. simply carrier-capable appears to be a negligible difference anyway (if there even is any difference)... I don't think it's even capable of being "abused."

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 14
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/7/2020 1:03:33 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14464
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Being a flight deck crewman is far more complicated than being a pilot landing or taking off of the thing.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 10/20 it is 3/45.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 15
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/8/2020 10:41:50 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3877
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It really would be much easier if players just didn't abuse the feature.



+1 (great post Alfred!)

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a very large number of things that players don't like. Especially since the code is NOT going to be rewritten.


"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a lot of things in life.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 16
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/8/2020 10:55:19 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8209
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a lot of things in life.


But it is so much fun to do some of them.

Remember, everybody makes mistakes. Some people name them . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 17
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/8/2020 11:17:16 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15471
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a lot of things in life.


But it is so much fun to do some of them.

Remember, everybody makes mistakes. Some people name them . . .

Yes - Murphy has a lot of the mistakes covered!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 18
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/8/2020 11:23:16 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It really would be much easier if players just didn't abuse the feature.



+1 (great post Alfred!)

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a very large number of things that players don't like. Especially since the code is NOT going to be rewritten.


"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a lot of things in life.


So true, so true!

_____________________________


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 19
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/9/2020 8:02:53 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6460
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

"Don't do that" is the simple solution to a lot of things in life.


But it is so much fun to do some of them.

Remember, everybody makes mistakes. Some people name them . . .

Yes - Murphy has a lot of the mistakes covered!


Love Murphy, he's so wise.


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 20
RE: Carrier training - CV in port? - 1/10/2020 1:15:24 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 8209
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

Yes - Murphy has a lot of the mistakes covered!


quote:

Love Murphy, he's so wise.


O'Reilly's Law: Murphy was an optimist!

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Carrier training - CV in port? 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

0.383