原文链接http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=13121549 r- N" N' N( ?
这似乎可以解释老外为什么不喜欢把carrier capable的飞机调上CV
. \( W. C# h p1 a% h4 g作者id: Don Bowen, 似乎很权威3 | {; d6 ?4 b# D- J2 s D1 N
Let me repeat that: 5 w6 f1 R6 d: X7 @$ ^ X4 m
Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers.
' F9 M0 o+ L9 T+ ]) U h& j6 N7 j; A4 w g+ V
The game considers a carrier air group to be an entity and has logic to alter its composition over time. This reflects the historical changes that were made to airgroup composition. $ ^: \4 Z/ m# T u, D
% G$ y2 Q# o' ZIn order for this logic to work, the carrier air group MUST be intact and MUST be on it's home carrier. This routine works well if you do not alter the parameters that it uses. If you move a squadron to a different carrier you risk upsetting these calculations and having rather unusual sizes calculated as a result. (似乎说在op计算上会有问题? size的问题应该是指航空队容量升级吧?)
$ }: H' `& }5 R6 m+ S" s3 s5 X3 X4 r1 A+ C' V: `( O" y
I understand that it is perfectly historical for squadrons to move between carriers. But the game logic will simply not support it and if you do it you are just beating your head against the wall.
) p1 z9 O: i6 D0 E-------------------------( o2 n j3 r8 r8 T# G
另一贴:0 b! D. e5 j' H- t8 w; l) J
A carrier air group is an entity. If it is intact, it can be on any carrier (and will resize to fit on the carrier).
$ b% q, G, _* U) C, L! X6 ]1 d! c, B
In fact, you make a good point. I should have labeled this thread "Do not move your carrier air groups off of their home carriers unless you transfer the entire airgroup to completely replace the airgroup of another, same type carrier of the same nation". Same type being CV, CVL, CVE. # R% q6 {4 |8 D) z; T& H! I2 h) {
* s5 a9 j6 M* ` _You can also usually get away with trading squadrons of the same type between same carriers. That is, taking the VB squadron off of Carrier X and replacing the VB squadron from Carrier Y. B' J7 E/ _ y2 e2 \
; c* h% F$ @: D0 VWhere you get in trouble is mixing the types or adding additional squadrons. Many people want to "up-fighter" by adding a second fighter squadron to one carrier - usually taking it from another carrier that has been damaged or lost. This just does not work - the routines will get confused by the "extra" squadron and adjust squadron sizes incorrectly. (什么叫does not work? 不明白, 不出击了?出击少了?)
( g. y T0 r/ n4 m) L" ]0 |8 U, v# h+ `$ b
There are a number of things about this process that are "right". It correctly processes changes in carrier group composition over time, prevents overly "gamey" restructuring of carrier air groups (every player wants a 100% fighter carrier by January, 1942), and adjusts the carrier air group to properly fit on it's carrier (even if the carrier's capacity changes by upgrade).2 P4 p& ?' X9 o' ]7 e9 f6 z# r
------------------------------* B9 `( |( C% i+ e2 W
似乎调动航空队在岛群上是广泛使用的,不知道各位大大对文中所说的影响有什么观点? |
发表于 2007-9-4 09:39
| 
发表于 2007-9-4 10:19
| 
/ [' U, o+ K1 ~
) Z9 \0 l0 ]# a4 g# D0 s
