|
Post by dizzy on Oct 8, 2019 7:40:14 GMT -6
... There is a penalty for trying to operate more than 100 aircraft on a CV. Is this penalty applied based on the design airgroup size or the embarked airgroup size? ... Does anyone have an answer to my original question? Interesting question. What does it matter? If the game kept track of planes in between missions, it'd help to have a carrier that could carry more than 100 for purposes of replenishment and resupply. But the game doesn't do that. So you're dealing with a tactical penalty with no strategic benefit. I just cap my carriers at 100 so I don't get some esoteric penalty of x% that affects all my squadrons.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 8, 2019 8:48:22 GMT -6
Issue is that the usual length of scenario is not so long for practical use of spares.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 8, 2019 16:04:11 GMT -6
Does anyone have an answer to my original question? Interesting question. What does it matter? If the game kept track of planes in between missions, it'd help to have a carrier that could carry more than 100 for purposes of replenishment and resupply. But the game doesn't do that. So you're dealing with a tactical penalty with no strategic benefit. I just cap my carriers at 100 so I don't get some esoteric penalty of x% that affects all my squadrons. I'm not sure why you think the game does not track planes between missions. I just had two back to back battles in which one of my carriers that had taken heavy losses in the first battle entered the second battle with its squadrons at about 50% of capacity.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2019 16:11:09 GMT -6
... There is a penalty for trying to operate more than 100 aircraft on a CV. Is this penalty applied based on the design airgroup size or the embarked airgroup size? ... Does anyone have an answer to my original question? Here is my current design of the Kaga. The only restriction was speed and displacement which I did not try to fix, but I will build another using this design specification.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2019 16:19:30 GMT -6
I just opened the Kaga design, increased the displacement to 40000 ton and was able to increase the air wing size to 120 aircraft. So, it appears to be a matter of displacement, speed and then you can put the size of your air wing. I might try 50,000 tons later. I suspect the air wing size will be increased to about 130 aircraft. Currently, there are 62 aircraft in the deck park.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2019 16:34:10 GMT -6
My latest design.... Wow.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 8, 2019 20:39:04 GMT -6
My latest design.... Wow. You drew that? Nice job!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 8, 2019 20:41:50 GMT -6
Interesting question. What does it matter? If the game kept track of planes in between missions, it'd help to have a carrier that could carry more than 100 for purposes of replenishment and resupply. But the game doesn't do that. So you're dealing with a tactical penalty with no strategic benefit. I just cap my carriers at 100 so I don't get some esoteric penalty of x% that affects all my squadrons. I'm not sure why you think the game does not track planes between missions. I just had two back to back battles in which one of my carriers that had taken heavy losses in the first battle entered the second battle with its squadrons at about 50% of capacity. Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was the Shinano was an aircraft carrier that was more replenishment ship than aircraft carrier. And if the game let us do things like Deck Park and transport planes, we'd have a better way to keep our airwings up to capacity while keeping an aircraft carrier that has 150 plane capacity, while only using an airwing of 100 without getting a penalty. I should have explained it better.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2019 21:03:11 GMT -6
I'm not sure why you think the game does not track planes between missions. I just had two back to back battles in which one of my carriers that had taken heavy losses in the first battle entered the second battle with its squadrons at about 50% of capacity. Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was the Shinano was an aircraft carrier that was more replenishment ship than aircraft carrier. And if the game let us do things like Deck Park and transport planes, we'd have a better way to keep our airwings up to capacity while keeping an aircraft carrier that has 150 plane capacity, while only using an airwing of 100 without getting a penalty. I should have explained it better. If you examine my ship design of the Kaga, the carrier has deck edge lifts and a deck park. The carrier has an air wing of 101 aircraft with 52 aircraft spot value meaning you can spot 52 aircraft on the deck. My Soryu design has an airwing of 166 aircraft. I think the spot value was about 92. Game is over now.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2019 21:07:24 GMT -6
My latest design.... Wow. You drew that? Nice job! I did not draw it, on the "ships under construction" just right click and highlight the "View Data" and click on it and you get this drawing. You might enjoy this.... CV Shoho
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 8, 2019 21:39:02 GMT -6
Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was the Shinano was an aircraft carrier that was more replenishment ship than aircraft carrier. And if the game let us do things like Deck Park and transport planes, we'd have a better way to keep our airwings up to capacity while keeping an aircraft carrier that has 150 plane capacity, while only using an airwing of 100 without getting a penalty. I should have explained it better. If you examine my ship design of the Kaga, the carrier has deck edge lifts and a deck park. The carrier has an air wing of 101 aircraft with 52 aircraft spot value meaning you can spot 52 aircraft on the deck. My Soryu design has an airwing of 166 aircraft. I think the spot value was about 92. Game is over now. If you go ONE plane over 100, the carrier gets slapped with some esoteric time penalty for readying aircraft. This has not been explained in detail. We only know there is some sort of penalty. Also, Deck Park is broken. Deck Edge Lifts check and uncheck themselves inexplicably when cycling through designs. Who knows if they work correctly. And finally, it is not known if the aforementioned penalty is for carrier design exceeding 100 or embarked squadron size exceeding 100. It matters.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2019 21:54:58 GMT -6
If you examine my ship design of the Kaga, the carrier has deck edge lifts and a deck park. The carrier has an air wing of 101 aircraft with 52 aircraft spot value meaning you can spot 52 aircraft on the deck. My Soryu design has an airwing of 166 aircraft. I think the spot value was about 92. Game is over now. If you go ONE plane over 100, the carrier gets slapped with some esoteric time penalty for readying aircraft. This has not been explained in detail. We only know there is some sort of penalty. Also, Deck Park is broken. Deck Edge Lifts check and uncheck themselves inexplicably when cycling through designs. Who knows if they work correctly. And finally, it is not known if the aforementioned penalty is for carrier design exceeding 100 or embarked squadron size exceeding 100. It matters. Well, there probably should be a penalty. if the carrier only has two lifts, then you would use the forward lift to bring the aircraft up to the deck and use the GSE to move them into place. This would be torpedo bombers first, then dive bombers, then fighters. You can't use the stern lift as you place the aircraft in the deck park. This was why side lifts were developed. The penalty does not matter how big the air wing is and how many aircraft are in the strike. You don't launch the whole air wing generally. The first lift would be the combat air patrols. Then the first strike. After those two were launched, then you would either clear the decks, or bring up the second strike or wait for the CAP aircraft to land, refuel etc. Generally the first strike takes about two to four hours to launch, assemble, fly to the target, attack, assemble and the attack and fly back to the ship. Hope that helps to understand how the whole thing is supposed to work.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 8, 2019 22:57:59 GMT -6
I'm not talking about R/L. I'm not happy with how the mechanics of the game are not understood. For example, it was generally learned by the Americans that once you get a certain size airwing on a carrier, the efficiency of that airwing drops when you add more planes. So that's why they have the penalty in RTW2 when going over 100 aircraft. But how does it work? Does it scale up going beyond 100 per plane or is it a flat penalty? What is it precisely, a time penalty to ready an airwing? Based on what? What factors go into deciding how that works? See? I'm interested in the mechanics of how it works in game. Also, RTW2 just leaves us guessing when it comes to too many things. I dislike that. I'm not asking to see under the hood, as you sometimes can't unsee pulling back the curtain of the Wizard of Oz.
I just want some basic common questions answered. They can start with these two: What penalty is incurred from going over 100 aircraft and does it scale with planes or is it a flat penalty, and what is the penalty? Is this invoked upon a carrier capable of carrying more than 100 aircraft or just those with more than 100 embarked aircraft?
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Oct 9, 2019 3:13:19 GMT -6
... There is a penalty for trying to operate more than 100 aircraft on a CV. Is this penalty applied based on the design airgroup size or the embarked airgroup size? ... Does anyone have an answer to my original question? manual pg17
Carriers with aircraft capacity larger than 100 aircraft will have reduced aircraft operations efficiency as well as slightly increased cost
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Oct 9, 2019 4:44:29 GMT -6
It would still be nice to know if the penalty is flat or per-plane. Will a 101 plane carrier have the same efficiency as 150 plane carrier?
|
|