[TEC] Carrier air groups, etc

joea · 06-02-07, 05:55 PM

tater, is there any record of US subs getting hunted by Japanese carriers? The IJN never had CVEs AFAIK, and as you mentioned the CVs would launch all out strikes when needed on land or enemy fleet targets...they probably had a CAP of some sort but they didn't do ASW patrol. Land planes did I guess.

tater · 06-02-07, 06:54 PM

Actually, they did have CVEs, Taiyo is one, at least according to Combined Fleet (Parshall and Tully are pretty autoritative regarding the IJN, IMO).

They didn't use them too often as CVE in the sense that the USN and RN did though. Partially because once the fleet CVs were toast, everything changed.

I made missions but I have a theory my idea won't work. I think that the airgroups are picked at the time the unit is created, or per patrol. So if I have a group change from 3 Zeros and nothign else on Feb 14th, to 18 of everything, the thing stays at 3 Zeros.

If that's true, dropping to a CAP is the best I can do.

A definitive CV change would also involve removing the planes from the CV decks, since the IJN didn't keep planes on deck usually. Bugs me every time I see a CV.

leovampire · 06-02-07, 09:52 PM

You couldn't get this result after a successfull torpedo attack

tater · 06-02-07, 10:50 PM

Yeah, you're right. That would make me happy

tater

tater · 06-03-07, 11:11 AM

Sorry, joea, I didn't really answer your question. No, they didn't use them to hunt subs. I think to the extent they were "escort" carriers, they were (doctrinally) thinking about AIR escort. CAP vs enemy aircraft.

All small IJN CVs (CVL/CVE) carried B5Ns (or period equiv) rather than a mixture of dive bombers (VB) and carrier attack planes (VT) in addition to Zeros (early war a few had A5M Claudes, actually). The reaosn was that the Val was a one trick pony with a weak load, while the VTs could carry what the IJN considered the primary anti-ship weapon, the torpedo, but could also carry (for the IJN, anyway) a substantial bomb load compared to the single 250kg bomb aboard a D3A.

So far my tests have not worked out as planned. I think that the airgroup chosen is based on the start date of the player's mission (single mission, or patrol date of start), and do not change over the course of the patrol/mission. This is too bad since the airgroups would be a way of controlling what planes you'd see any given day.

If this is indeed the case, the only solution will be to gut the airgroups totally, IMO.
Scripted missions can still get full air groups, they only need be added as scripted units. I suppose this is more realistic anyway.

I also have not bee strafed by Zeros once. Then again, I haven't been attacked by CV aircraft at all lately, even testing in visual range of a CV for days, hitting the button to make contact or status reports all day. I've had dozens of planes fly over, none attack me. Wonder what is wrong... G4M and flying boats always seem to attack me, but the CV planes just don't ever.

Anyone have any ideas what I sgould look at?

leovampire · 06-03-07, 02:41 PM

do you also adjust them in the EQP file with the plane as well? I also found that for some reason or another the Better escorts Mod also made some kind of difference as well in my own case working with it.

In the Airstrike file change the probabilities for radio reports higher if you want faster results to test all of it.

06-02-07, 09:52 PM	#3
leovampire Eternal Patrol Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Waterbury, CT. USA Posts: 2,336 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	But if there were no planes on deck You couldn't get this result after a successfull torpedo attack __________________ AIR_BASE_NAV_MAP_MOD Reflections_on_the_Water

06-03-07, 02:41 PM	#6
leovampire Eternal Patrol Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Waterbury, CT. USA Posts: 2,336 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	when you adjust your bomb loads do you also adjust them in the EQP file with the plane as well? I also found that for some reason or another the Better escorts Mod also made some kind of difference as well in my own case working with it. In the Airstrike file change the probabilities for radio reports higher if you want faster results to test all of it. __________________ AIR_BASE_NAV_MAP_MOD Reflections_on_the_Water

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-02-07, 05:55 PM	#1
joea Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: At periscope depth in Lake Geneva Posts: 3,512 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	tater, is there any record of US subs getting hunted by Japanese carriers? The IJN never had CVEs AFAIK, and as you mentioned the CVs would launch all out strikes when needed on land or enemy fleet targets...they probably had a CAP of some sort but they didn't do ASW patrol. Land planes did I guess.

06-02-07, 06:54 PM	#2
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Actually, they did have CVEs, Taiyo is one, at least according to Combined Fleet (Parshall and Tully are pretty autoritative regarding the IJN, IMO). They didn't use them too often as CVE in the sense that the USN and RN did though. Partially because once the fleet CVs were toast, everything changed. I made missions but I have a theory my idea won't work. I think that the airgroups are picked at the time the unit is created, or per patrol. So if I have a group change from 3 Zeros and nothign else on Feb 14th, to 18 of everything, the thing stays at 3 Zeros. If that's true, dropping to a CAP is the best I can do. A definitive CV change would also involve removing the planes from the CV decks, since the IJN didn't keep planes on deck usually. Bugs me every time I see a CV.

06-02-07, 10:50 PM	#4
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, you're right. That would make me happy tater

06-03-07, 11:11 AM	#5
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Sorry, joea, I didn't really answer your question. No, they didn't use them to hunt subs. I think to the extent they were "escort" carriers, they were (doctrinally) thinking about AIR escort. CAP vs enemy aircraft. All small IJN CVs (CVL/CVE) carried B5Ns (or period equiv) rather than a mixture of dive bombers (VB) and carrier attack planes (VT) in addition to Zeros (early war a few had A5M Claudes, actually). The reaosn was that the Val was a one trick pony with a weak load, while the VTs could carry what the IJN considered the primary anti-ship weapon, the torpedo, but could also carry (for the IJN, anyway) a substantial bomb load compared to the single 250kg bomb aboard a D3A. So far my tests have not worked out as planned. I think that the airgroup chosen is based on the start date of the player's mission (single mission, or patrol date of start), and do not change over the course of the patrol/mission. This is too bad since the airgroups would be a way of controlling what planes you'd see any given day. If this is indeed the case, the only solution will be to gut the airgroups totally, IMO. Scripted missions can still get full air groups, they only need be added as scripted units. I suppose this is more realistic anyway. I also have not bee strafed by Zeros once. Then again, I haven't been attacked by CV aircraft at all lately, even testing in visual range of a CV for days, hitting the button to make contact or status reports all day. I've had dozens of planes fly over, none attack me. Wonder what is wrong... G4M and flying boats always seem to attack me, but the CV planes just don't ever. Anyone have any ideas what I sgould look at?