|
Post by dohboy on Oct 9, 2019 8:18:42 GMT -6
How exactly the penalty works would be nice to know. The penalty should also apply based on the embarked airwing, not the capacity. A carrier with 100/150 aircraft should be more efficient as far as ready and launch times than one with 100/100, not less. Not that I would consider spending that much tonnage on empty parking spots, even if it did give a bonus besides spot value.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 9, 2019 8:42:15 GMT -6
In my opinion, even with my limited experience with the game, the game has to group carriers in either two carriers to a task force or more. I don't know how it does it, but when I play my next game, I will focus on finding out. Now, if an aircraft carrier has 100 planes or any value, in theory, each squadron should have about two to four aircraft in storage either in the second hangar deck or up in the overhead of the hangar. I don't now how the game does that. I would like to know. If it does this, then a 100 plane air wing will have only about 86 aircraft that are assembled and ready to fly. With a deck part of about 52, can I launch all 52 from that deck park. Generally you don't in real history, but this is not real history. So, how many planes can I launch at once. Do I launch my CAP, then my alpha strike which is everything goes at once. I would like to know that. I would not launch all my strike aircraft at once, I need a second strike in case of the discovery of another group of enemy ships. I don't see the game doing this but I need to try to focus on seeing how it performs.
|
|
|
Post by matnjord on Oct 9, 2019 11:47:21 GMT -6
With a deck part of about 52, can I launch all 52 from that deck park. Generally you don't in real history, but this is not real history. So, how many planes can I launch at once. Do I launch my CAP, then my alpha strike which is everything goes at once. I would like to know that. I would not launch all my strike aircraft at once, I need a second strike in case of the discovery of another group of enemy ships. I don't see the game doing this but I need to try to focus on seeing how it performs. That value of 52 isn't the 'deck park', but rather the spot value, how many airplanes you can spot and launch on the deck at any time. Or at least I'm assuming that's the same one we're talking about, the one below the aircraft capacity value in the design screen. From testing with a 1955 save this value depends on your total aircraft capacity (seems to be at 50% plus 2) AND your tonnage although only for crazy high tonnage values. For example with 100 aircraft it starts at 52 but only goes up once the tonnage goes above 52000 tons, anything below that stays at 52. To be quite honest I haven't found the Deck Park option to actually do anything when selected, same for the Angled Flight Deck technology. If someone could illuminate that point I'd appreciate it. This means that only half of your total strike aircraft can go up at once, so you can't but have a second strike waiting to be spotted and launched itself. When starting a battle it pays to ready a strike before unpausing the game, this means that your readied squadrons won't be depleted doing rountine duties like CAP or scouting. As far as I'm aware the Aircraft Capacity value represents only the number of planes ready to fly at anytime, it abstracts away reserve ones. And as far as I remember it would take anywhere up to a couple of days to assemble one of those reserve aircraft, so the game is probably right in not bothering with them since the longest scenarios are never more than two days long.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 9, 2019 12:56:29 GMT -6
With a deck part of about 52, can I launch all 52 from that deck park. Generally you don't in real history, but this is not real history. So, how many planes can I launch at once. Do I launch my CAP, then my alpha strike which is everything goes at once. I would like to know that. I would not launch all my strike aircraft at once, I need a second strike in case of the discovery of another group of enemy ships. I don't see the game doing this but I need to try to focus on seeing how it performs. That value of 52 isn't the 'deck park', but rather the spot value, how many airplanes you can spot and launch on the deck at any time. Or at least I'm assuming that's the same one we're talking about, the one below the aircraft capacity value in the design screen. From testing with a 1955 save this value depends on your total aircraft capacity (seems to be at 50% plus 2) AND your tonnage although only for crazy high tonnage values. For example with 100 aircraft it starts at 52 but only goes up once the tonnage goes above 52000 tons, anything below that stays at 52. To be quite honest I haven't found the Deck Park option to actually do anything when selected, same for the Angled Flight Deck technology. If someone could illuminate that point I'd appreciate it. This means that only half of your total strike aircraft can go up at once, so you can't but have a second strike waiting to be spotted and launched itself. When starting a battle it pays to ready a strike before unpausing the game, this means that your readied squadrons won't be depleted doing rountine duties like CAP or scouting. As far as I'm aware the Aircraft Capacity value represents only the number of planes ready to fly at anytime, it abstracts away reserve ones. And as far as I remember it would take anywhere up to a couple of days to assemble one of those reserve aircraft, so the game is probably right in not bothering with them since the longest scenarios are never more than two days long. The manual specifically states When a squadron is assigned to a strike its status will change from Ready to Spotting. Spotting represents the process of bringing each plane from the hangar up to the flight deck and positioning it on the deck in preparation for a takeoff. This is the point at which the aircrews will board the planes. As part of the spotting process, engines are started and warmed up for some time before the planes can take off. Note that sometimes aircraft will have to wait for a previous strike to take off before they can begin spotting. If a strike ordered to take off remains in ready state, this is probably the cause... If you examine the ship design, flight installations, it does say spot value. So in fact, that is the value that can be brought up on deck for a strike. The manual never states anything about how many aircraft can be spotted on the deck for storage, which is the deck park. So it is a little confusing.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 9, 2019 13:33:43 GMT -6
I have some information about deck parks and such. It is the real history but maybe we can use it to determine the games procedures. The Essex class carriers are ships that the information refers to. The deck had room for 22 rows of 5 planes each, while the hangar deck had room for 13 rows of four planes each. But that is not realistic, too close and no one could move around. The actual number was 60 on the deck, and 40 to 50 in the hangar. The deck parks were used to permanently store aircraft on the deck, so refueling and rearming had to be developed for the decks.
So, for the game, the spot figure must be the maximum aircraft that can be spotted on the deck. However, that might not mean all of those aircraft will be launched in a deck-load strike. The rest might be moved forward, re-potted, so the CAP and the strike can be recovered.
This is what I believe the game means.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Oct 9, 2019 14:14:14 GMT -6
As far as I know currently the deck park checkbox does nothing. The spotting value is the maximum amount of planes that can be launched at a time, but more than that can be kept in the air. You can launch more planes that the spotting value but it will take more time because you need to do two (or more) launching cycles.
|
|
rdfox
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by rdfox on Oct 10, 2019 9:26:42 GMT -6
One of my sources is US Aircraft Carriers by Norman Friedman. The Appendix E is a little confusing to me. (Tonnage is in long tons - 2240) Under the Weights they show Hull at 12,467 tons. Now with fittings, protection, machinery(dry), Armament, Equipment and Outfit, Aeronautics(includes aircraft) with two empty categories the light ship weight is 19,036 tons. That's ok. Now, a new category is aircraft. Ammunition is 670 tons, Machinery liq. is 123 tons, complement is 243.8 tons, stores and PW are 495.8 tons, Lube Oil: ship and Aviation is 75.2 tons. Now, the std. displacement is 19576 tons. Those figures above add up to 1606 tons. If I add that to the light ships, I get 20,642 tons. Ok. Now last category before the totals is RFW(real fluid weight?) is 310 tons, fuel oil is 2682.5 tons, diesel fuel is 71.5 tons, Avgas is 544.2 tons, Seawater Pro. is 23.8 tons. They don't add those but the subtotal is 3631.5 tons. Now, if I add the last category subtotal to the second total, the answer is 24273.5 tons. But their displacement is 23,507. What did I miss? Ok. Let's add up the aviation weight. Aeronautics - 238.4 tons Aviation Ordnance - 387.2 tons Avgas -544.2 tons Complement - 243.8 tons - I assume that this is referring to the pilots and aircraft maintenance crews, not certain. Lube Oils - 75.2 tons - as I said above this includes ship and aviation, no breakdown. Ok, let's add this up. The aviation total is 1488 tons. Well, that's what I have come up with, if I've interpreted the data correctly. If anyone has that book, please check out what I am doing. I am going to go through the book again for possible explanations. Just checked your numbers, and I get about the same discrepancy as you do. What's more, working backwards from the reported displacement gives a light displacement of 18762.7 tons, which is about halfway between the design light weight you quoted, and the one determined from an inclining experiment on the completed CV-6 (in parenthesis, below it). However, the reported light displacement is 18267.2 tons, which looks similar enough to my calculated one that I wonder if perhaps there was a transcription error somewhere, possibly due to sloppy handwriting by whoever recorded the number in the books for the USN--if his handwriting is such that one can swap 2 and 7, then you've cleared everything up.
The big thing is to note that Friedman reports what the official USN records stated, without trying to check their math. The possibility of an error in the official records exists; there's also the possibility of an editorial error in Friedman's book (there's at least one place in US Battleships where figures were transposed from one row to the next).
Oh, and "RFW", in the weight tables, refers to Reserve Feed Water, extra treated non-potable water for topping off the boilers at sea (to make up for any boiler water lost to a steam leak). Since boiler tubes--particularly the small tubes in use by then--will rapidly clog up with "scale" if certain mineral impurities exist in the water fed into them, they require chemically treated water that has had those minerals broken up into chemical compounds that won't deposit on the walls of the tubes. You could put the output of the ship's desalinization plant into the boiler in an emergency, but woe be unto you when the Sovereign Nation of Engineering's E-4 Mafia finds out they're going to have to de-scale the tubes (a process that involves wire brushes and lots of swearing)... As a side note, you can actually see "scale" in your own home, if you keep a plastic cup in the bathroom for washing out your mouth after brushing, taking medicine, etc.; the whitish deposits that build up on the sides of the cup over time are the same stuff that I'm referring to. (Unless, of course, you've got a water softener feeding into your bathroom, in which case, you won't get much "scale" since that does a similar job...)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 10, 2019 10:04:39 GMT -6
One of my sources is US Aircraft Carriers by Norman Friedman. The Appendix E is a little confusing to me. (Tonnage is in long tons - 2240) Under the Weights they show Hull at 12,467 tons. Now with fittings, protection, machinery(dry), Armament, Equipment and Outfit, Aeronautics(includes aircraft) with two empty categories the light ship weight is 19,036 tons. That's ok. Now, a new category is aircraft. Ammunition is 670 tons, Machinery liq. is 123 tons, complement is 243.8 tons, stores and PW are 495.8 tons, Lube Oil: ship and Aviation is 75.2 tons. Now, the std. displacement is 19576 tons. Those figures above add up to 1606 tons. If I add that to the light ships, I get 20,642 tons. Ok. Now last category before the totals is RFW(real fluid weight?) is 310 tons, fuel oil is 2682.5 tons, diesel fuel is 71.5 tons, Avgas is 544.2 tons, Seawater Pro. is 23.8 tons. They don't add those but the subtotal is 3631.5 tons. Now, if I add the last category subtotal to the second total, the answer is 24273.5 tons. But their displacement is 23,507. What did I miss? Ok. Let's add up the aviation weight. Aeronautics - 238.4 tons Aviation Ordnance - 387.2 tons Avgas -544.2 tons Complement - 243.8 tons - I assume that this is referring to the pilots and aircraft maintenance crews, not certain. Lube Oils - 75.2 tons - as I said above this includes ship and aviation, no breakdown. Ok, let's add this up. The aviation total is 1488 tons. Well, that's what I have come up with, if I've interpreted the data correctly. If anyone has that book, please check out what I am doing. I am going to go through the book again for possible explanations. Just checked your numbers, and I get about the same discrepancy as you do. What's more, working backwards from the reported displacement gives a light displacement of 18762.7 tons, which is about halfway between the design light weight you quoted, and the one determined from an inclining experiment on the completed CV-6 (in parenthesis, below it). However, the reported light displacement is 18267.2 tons, which looks similar enough to my calculated one that I wonder if perhaps there was a transcription error somewhere, possibly due to sloppy handwriting by whoever recorded the number in the books for the USN--if his handwriting is such that one can swap 2 and 7, then you've cleared everything up.
The big thing is to note that Friedman reports what the official USN records stated, without trying to check their math. The possibility of an error in the official records exists; there's also the possibility of an editorial error in Friedman's book (there's at least one place in US Battleships where figures were transposed from one row to the next).
Oh, and "RFW", in the weight tables, refers to Reserve Feed Water, extra treated non-potable water for topping off the boilers at sea (to make up for any boiler water lost to a steam leak). Since boiler tubes--particularly the small tubes in use by then--will rapidly clog up with "scale" if certain mineral impurities exist in the water fed into them, they require chemically treated water that has had those minerals broken up into chemical compounds that won't deposit on the walls of the tubes. You could put the output of the ship's desalinization plant into the boiler in an emergency, but woe be unto you when the Sovereign Nation of Engineering's E-4 Mafia finds out they're going to have to de-scale the tubes (a process that involves wire brushes and lots of swearing)... As a side note, you can actually see "scale" in your own home, if you keep a plastic cup in the bathroom for washing out your mouth after brushing, taking medicine, etc.; the whitish deposits that build up on the sides of the cup over time are the same stuff that I'm referring to. (Unless, of course, you've got a water softener feeding into your bathroom, in which case, you won't get much "scale" since that does a similar job...)
Excellent and thanks for confirming what I believed to be true. I am not casting dispersions on the author, but it is good to do our homework. Thanks for the RFW definition, I remembered it as soon as I read it but good that you put it up here. As to scale in our home, that is why we buy and use bottled water, the water locally is.... how would you say it nicely. You are correct about using "official Naval Records", you have to check their work. After a lifetime around the Navy and its birds, trust me its true. They try, but don't always hit the mark.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Oct 15, 2019 2:31:16 GMT -6
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
That is what the manual says, and it may very well be applied to the design airgroup, but I think that if you look at it logically it should be the size of the embarked airgroup, not the designed airgroup, that determines if the penalty is applied.
From the sources I have read it is not very clear exactly where the inefficiency was in real life. Was it because the available command and control systems weren't capable of keeping track of so many aircraft in the air? Was it because there were too many aircraft in the hangers to be able to move them around efficiently? Was it simply that with a larger hanger the planes had to be moved further to get them to the lifts? All questions for the walking encyclopedias we are lucky to have here with us
Also, in the real world there was very little opportunity to fix the inefficiencies - it didn't crop up until after WW2 and at the same time that we saw the first carriers with 100+ planes we were in the dawn of the jet age and size of the aircraft was growing enormously. Before there was any real opportunity to identify and resolve the inefficiencies the airgroup size dropped below 100 anyway.
In RTW2 terms a carrier with a higher designed airgroup size has a higher spot value so is able to launch larger strikes, and provides spare capacity for when planes get bigger. Embarking an airgroup smaller than the design airgroup would fix some of the possible real world reasons for inefficiency that I thought of. To be honest I would have thought that the number of lifts available would have a bigger impact on efficiency, but at the moment the lifts are abstracted.
In a future patch I would like to see airgroup efficiency as a factor that we could design for with number and placement of lifts having a displayed impact on efficiency as well as as tonnage and cost. Center line lifts cost less than deck edge lifts but take up more tonnage; having more than X (30 maybe) aircraft per lift impacts efficiency; using a deck park allows us to carry more aircraft for minimal tonnage and improves efficiency but the planes can be damaged by bad weather, and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Oct 15, 2019 4:40:03 GMT -6
I think that for simplicity and resource management sake I will limit my CVs to being medium size fleet carriers in the future, keep them just below that 100 figure and rule out any issues just in case.
As to whether its more efficient to build more 25,000t CVs with 95 aircraft or 50,000t CVs with 180 I shall leave others to decide.
But I'm going to stick with more of the smaller type.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 15, 2019 10:20:53 GMT -6
I think that for simplicity and resource management sake I will limit my CVs to being medium size fleet carriers in the future, keep them just below that 100 figure and rule out any issues just in case. As to whether its more efficient to build more 25,000t CVs with 95 aircraft or 50,000t CVs with 180 I shall leave others to decide. But I'm going to stick with more of the smaller type. I would base my decision on the building of carriers on geography. Here are my suggestions: Large carriers Great Britain United States France - Atlantic Japan Medium and small carriers Germany Italy Russia This is how I make the decision.
|
|