Fighter Re-grouping

> jeremy claridge wrote:

> Had this recently with 2 torpedo fighter groups. After their attack

Does anyone have any house rules for re-grouping fighter squadrons
during a battle?

I use the Morale rules to see if the fighters will continue to attack. So if
too badly shot up they are practically usless for the rest of the battle. It
can quite often be that I may have say 24 working
fighters but spread out into 6-8 squadrons.
But what I want to do is get them back to the carrier re-group and then
say be able to
launch 4 complete groups instead of 6-8 incomplete ones.

Had this recently with 2 torpedo fighter groups. After their attack run I had
2 left in one group and 3 left in the other.
After getting back to the carrier to re-load it would have been better
to have been able to
re-launch just 1 squadron of 5 fighters.

Obviously the restriction of all being the same fighter type should exist, but
how long do you think this should take and what is the best way to represent
the morale issue?

> Jeremy wrote:
I think you've written your own house rule:

> But what I want to do is get them back to the carrier re-group and

Why not do that? Have the incomplete groups "land" on their carrier in one
turn, regroup using the second turn to do so, then launch again on third turn?

> Jeremy wrote:

Guess I was fishing for moral support:)

I also thought of Morale being the average point between the joining
squadrons. Although adopting the new fighter total as the new moral value
would be easier.

Think I was also after anyone who had done this already?

In a message dated 7/8/99 5:39:34 AM EST, jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk
writes:

<<
Had this recently with 2 torpedo fighter groups. After their attack run I had
2 left in one group and 3 left in the other.
 After getting back to the carrier to re-load it would have been better
to have been able to
 re-launch just 1 squadron of 5 fighters.

Obviously the restriction of all being the same fighter type should exist, but
how long do you think this should take and what is the best way to represent
the

morale issue? >>

All during World War II Dive Bomber and Scout squadrons (who flew the same
type) would launch in mixed groups with no problem. As long as they share
performance, type and mission grouping them in squadron size launches should
be no problem.

> jeremy claridge wrote:

> But what I want to do is get them back to the carrier re-group and
ones.

During a battle? Hm... I suspect squadron cohesion and such things would
suffer rather badly when you suddenly get a new wingman in the middle of a
battle. After the battle, fine, but I'd demote a squadron
re-grouped during the battle to one step less than the worst of the
original squadrons (OK, Turkeys remain Turkeys :-/ ).

Any airforce people on the list who'd like to comment?

Later,

In a message dated 7/8/99 11:15:16 AM EST, oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
writes:

<< After the battle, fine, but I'd demote a squadron
 re-grouped during the battle to one step less than the worst of the
 original squadrons (OK, Turkeys remain Turkeys :-/ ).
> [quoted text omitted]

Or use the proficiency level of the poorest squadron fragment. As long as they
run similar mission profiles from the same carrier, they should be used
to working together just fine  -  check with a navy stick rather than an
air force puke!

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> During a battle? Hm... I suspect squadron cohesion and such things

OK, here goes.

I am involved in a life and death struggle, my chioces are: 1) Rearm and go
back out with what remains of my original 12. 2) Rearm and go back with a
squadron at full strength.

Tough choice that.

OK, everybody in favor of number one raise your hand!!!

Since I don't see anybodys hand up, The choice must be number two.

:-)

Bye for now,

I don't see any problem with allowing pieces parts to reform into squadrons,
even on the fly. We don't have any FT rules that prevent escorts, cruisers or
capitals from changing formations or groupings on the fly, why apply that kind
of detail to the fighters? If you had a couple of squadrons of PT boats that
attacked, were broken up I don't think any one would cry foul if you took the
survivors, regrouped them and attacked again. Admittedly covering the 6 of a
fighter is faster and more demanding than flying a PT boat, but the concept is
pretty much the same.

If you're going to argue that specific pilots have better combat efficiency
when combined with specific other ones, then you should also be arguing that
certain ship captains work better with others, and when they don't there
should be a penalty when firing beam weapons, maneuvering or putting up
defensive fire against missiles or fighters.

--Binhan

> During a battle? Hm... I suspect squadron cohesion and such things