Re: Modified Scenario 17

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Re: Modified Scenario 17

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Re: Modified Scenario 17

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Modified Scenario 17 - 6/12/2003 10:29:59 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

If you're playing with Historical Midway outcome, then why aren't you also including the outcome of the Coral Sea battle as well?

There IS an historical scenario (16) that reflects the Coral Sea and Midway outcomes and begins on 1 Jun 42.

The notes must be wrong. It was Yorktown herself that was lost at Midway.

CV USS Lexington and CVL IJN Shoho should also not be available as they were sunk at Coral Sea
[/list=1]

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 31

Re: Modified Scenario 17 - 6/12/2003 10:35:09 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spruance
[B]There is a modified scenario 17 on the Spooky website
- anyone played this?

Seems to be the very thing I have been harping on about. Scenario 17 with historical Midway result. From the release notes:

"The Japanese will not receive CV`s Akagi, Soryu, Kaga, Hiryu, CA Mikuma, Sub I-164.
The U.S. will not receive DD Hamman or CV Hornet. The non arrival of Hornet, a Yorktown class CV lost at Midway will make up for you having Yorktown in the Game.

The arrival of CV Lexington has been changed to day 75 to reflect her arrival on or about July 25."

Any thoughts on this new senario...? [/B][/QUOTE]

It's not what I'm looking for, because the Midway outcome is known beforehand.

Mr. Frag, the scenario I suggest involves some innovative design work that may be useful for future games, and certainly adds some flavor to UV that is not currently present. I would be a lot happier with your responses if you would quit summarily referring to what I suggest as being "silly" and commanding that I play or not play as you dictate.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 32

- 6/12/2003 10:43:22 PM

spruance

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/9/2003
From: Brighton, East Sussex
Status: offline

[QUOTE]It's not what I'm looking for, because the Midway outcome is known beforehand.[/QUOTE]

I agree but at least scenario 17 can now be played without
the Midway ships being present, a totally ahistorical situation.

I agree that the hindsight thing makes it a bit silly; you know
that Midway is going to cost the IJN 4 carriers and the US 1.

I think your idea of a computer-generated Midway battle
is a great one, for what it's worth.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 33

Re: Re: Modified Scenario 17 - 6/12/2003 11:04:42 PM

spruance

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/9/2003
From: Brighton, East Sussex
Status: offline

The notes must be wrong. It was Yorktown herself that was lost at Midway.

Isn't Hornet removed from the game because Yorktown is
needed for the Coral Sea battle?

Not allowing Hornet to enter is effectively allowing Yorktown to fight at Coral Sea and then removing it to fight the Midway battle.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 34

- 6/12/2003 11:09:58 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Dont understand why all the angst. UV includes a "historical" scenerio (16?) that starts in June and only allows the survivors of Midway and Coral Sea to appear. Closest one gets to "uber carrier" groups is if the ship commitment variables gives the Japanese Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiyo and Junyo, and on the USN side, Hornet, Wasp, Saratoga, and Enterprise all within a very short period of time

If anything causes unbalance it's not the warships but the proliferation of transports.......a specific tweak that was granted by Matrix way back due to player complaints about there not being enough of them for the usual high tempo operations that players like to conduct.

Ask Soulblazer ;) He threw more transports at me than Russians at a German bridgehead during his very first invasion playing the "historical" late 42 scenerio. At that point i had NO carriers because he sank them (the two i had....the boob :D ) Fortunatly i had ships and airpower....oh and mines......lots o mines :)

despite all that....there were so many transports it was like a shootout at the OK corral

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 35

The Battle of the Coral Sea affects Midway - 6/12/2003 11:14:25 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

You can't have Midway without Coral Sea because there is somewhat of a causal relationship between the two.

If, as USN you lose both US CV's, Midway's outcome is different. Without [I]Yorktown[/I]'s SBD's, only one, possibly two IJN carriers get hit.

The US could likely have sustained greater damage in that scenario than just losing one carrier.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 36

Re: The Battle of the Coral Sea affects Midway - 6/13/2003 1:09:19 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]You can't have Midway without Coral Sea because there is somewhat of a causal relationship between the two.

If, as USN you lose both US CV's, Midway's outcome is different. Without [I]Yorktown[/I]'s SBD's, only one, possibly two IJN carriers get hit.

The US could likely have sustained greater damage in that scenario than just losing one carrier. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly, sir.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 37

- 6/13/2003 2:11:27 AM

estaban

Posts: 235
Joined: 9/20/2002
Status: offline

Hah!!

Playing without the Japanese "Midway" carriers is a sure road to getting pummeled.

People play scenarios 17 and 19 because they are the best balanced scenarios.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 38

- 6/13/2003 5:02:04 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

People play 17 and 19 because they are the longest scenarios.

And some people are naval wargaming nuts. To those people a large number of CVs is a requirement in a wargame.

I am a (non-naval) wargaming nut. A CV is just another weapons system. If the game is not balanced then the Japanese need to begin with a larger points tally.

That is how to restore balance.

Some players are nuclear-weapon wargaming nuts. They too have ideas on how to restore balance.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 39

- 6/13/2003 6:29:29 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

pasternakski,

I fail to see where I am implying you are silly but hey, whatever ...

You guys are looking at Midway as JUST a CV battle, what about the rest of it? The Invasion force? The Troops?

If you were suggesting factor them ALL into the outcome, I'd understand what you were shooting for. With ONLY the CV's at steak, I just don't see the point of doing it at all. Do it all and I'd be completely in agreement with that kind of thing. Doing it half-arsed as such with just CV's makes no sense to me. Yes, the USA only risked some CV's, but Japan has a heck of a lot more out there then just some CV's. What is Japan lands the fatal strike instead of the USA? The invasion would have happened as planned. Whats that do to UV's theater? What troops are missing on both sides? What ships? and finally what CV's? You can't just look at the one small part as it is taken out of context and makes no sense.

The CV's would not have been there without the invasion fleet as they would have no reason to be there. If you look at the whole picture, it makes sense. Looking at JUST the CV's is silly. ;)

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 40

- 6/13/2003 6:38:19 AM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]pasternakski,

I fail to see where I am implying you are silly but hey, whatever ...

You guys are looking at Midway as JUST a CV battle, what about the rest of it? The Invasion force? The Troops?

If you were suggesting factor them ALL into the outcome, I'd understand what you were shooting for. With ONLY the CV's at steak, I just don't see the point of doing it at all. Do it all and I'd be completely in agreement with that kind of thing. Doing it half-arsed as such with just CV's makes no sense to me. Yes, the USA only risked some CV's, but Japan has a heck of a lot more out there then just some CV's. What is Japan lands the fatal strike instead of the USA? The invasion would have happened as planned. Whats that do to UV's theater? What troops are missing on both sides? What ships? and finally what CV's? You can't just look at the one small part as it is taken out of context and makes no sense.

The CV's would not have been there without the invasion fleet as they would have no reason to be there. If you look at the whole picture, it makes sense. Looking at JUST the CV's is silly. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Midway Battle did not exist in a vacuum

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 41

- 6/13/2003 9:15:55 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Look, all I am asking for is this (and Mr. Frag, you are a thoughtful, respectable guy who contributes a great deal to these forums, pardon me if I was a little grumpy):

1. The scenario is identical to scenario 17 in terms of the initial commitment.
2. The Japanese and Americans spar through the "Coral Sea" period, the Japanese knowing that Midway is coming while trying to pull of whatever coups they can with what they have been given to work with in May and June. The Americans counter with what they can scrape up, as historically.
3. Midway happens. The program gives you the results, which can be anything from "Next stop San Francisco" through "Take that, Yamamoto" (the latter being the historical result). This is most dicey as a PBEM option, where the players have established their relationship with each other in May and June and now await the outcome of the "main event" at Midway.
4. The game goes on, with the computer imposing the necessary adjustments on forces, reinforcements, and so on in accordance with criteria built into the various "Midway outcome" templates.

From here on, you fight with what you've got and accomplish what you can. Victory conditions imposed by the program after the Midway outcome has been determined guide your strategy (for example, "Japanese score substantial victory at Midway, but suffer heavy losses. Akagi and Soryu sunk in exchange for Yorktown and Lexington. Japanese commitment to South Pacific theater increased by xxxxxx, and reduced by xxxxxx. Allied commitment increased by xxxxxx, and reduced by xxxxxx.").

One of the more complex programming elements would be that the scenario has to take into account what the players have lost in the time leading up to the Midway "interlude." For example, if Yorktown and Lexington have been p1ssed away early, the Japanese will have an easier time at Midway. Also, if the Japanese have stupidly lost Sho and Zui, maybe forces will have to be withdrawn from the Midway TO&E to keep the SoPac Americans from making too much early progress in the absence of Combined Fleet (Think of Midway with only two Japanese fleet carriers).

Land and air replacements and reinforcements would have to be built into the "post-Midway database," as well.

I know that WITP will be the 400-pound gorilla, but I don't want to lose UV as a viable game. This scenario is the one I was hoping would be the heart of UV when it came out - obviously, I was sadly disappointed.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 42

- 6/13/2003 9:24:09 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I'm game as long as it's not in a vaccum, perhaps a nice shift in Victory Points would be in order too if the system determined it a Japan success...

Just didn't see much sense as it JUST being the CV's as the CV's wound never have been there without the invasion plan...

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 43

- 6/13/2003 9:46:22 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

Pasternaski has an interesting suggestion that could present each player (allied or axis) with a new set of conditions to adjust to. This has replay potential. But can it be programmed?How many different outcomes of the Battle of Midway are there?

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 44

- 6/13/2003 10:21:30 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I'm game as long as it's not in a vaccum, perhaps a nice shift in Victory Points would be in order too if the system determined it a Japan success...

Just didn't see much sense as it JUST being the CV's as the CV's wound never have been there without the invasion plan... [/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely. A brand new war emerged after Midway, and I think it would have been the same no matter who won there. For gaming purposes, each outcome would have to be accompanied by an adjustment in the victory conditions to balance things in view of the Midway results.

I absolutely agree that the implications would have involved far more than just the numbers of CVs involved. There are so many possibilities. For example, suppose CincPac had decided that, after a marginal Japanese victory at Midway resulting in capture of the island but rout of the Combined Fleet, a riposte was necessary. The South Pacific would have been put on minimum reinforcement, but, due to the heavy Japanese fleet losses, an enterprising Allied commander might have been able to mount a successful, if perhaps limited, counteroffensive.

Remember that UV puts you in charge of what was, initially, a secondary theater. As the war heated up, it became the primary theater of operations for a long time, until the Central Pacific offensive gathered steam. There are many permutations that have never been explored, and I think that this game could explore them to the satisfaction of many UV players.

For example, suppose that the Japanese lost at Midway, but only marginally, sinking two or three American carriers while losing only one. Yamamoto might have decided to throw his remaining resources into a cataclysmic assault on Australia. You wind up with a situation similar to what often results in UV after the "Coral Sea" time period, but now it is August. Numbers favor the Japanese, but time is more than ever on the Allies' side. How do you cope?

UV has unexplored aspects, in my opinion, and the game has not yet reached its full potential due to the limited attention given to scenario design.

Gimme what I wanted when I bought it, guys. There is no guarantee that WITP will explore these possibilities satisfactorily. UV and WITP are two different games on two different scales addressing two different (but related) subjects.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 45

Re: The Midway Conundrum - 6/13/2003 11:04:58 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spruance
[B]As a new player, I am interested to know what people's views
are on whether the Midway carriers should be included in a
given game.

I notice from postings that the most popular scenarios for PBEM
games seem to be those that cover the entire duration
of the South Pacific campaign, namely #17 and #19. Now I
know that in both these scenarios, the four Japanese and one
US carrier sunk at Midway are available to the players.

Doesn't this create an ahistorical situation whereby players
have ships not available to their historical counterparts?
In which case, I wonder why people don't play the scenario which begins after Midway, given most people's preference for historical accuracy. [/B][/QUOTE]

I can't speak for anybody else, but I just love playing with all those cool ships.

I am an old wargamer with a lot of cardboard under the bridge and I have always been of the opinion that you can never have too many counters on the table :-)

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 46

Re: Re: The Midway Conundrum - 6/13/2003 2:39:01 PM

spruance

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/9/2003
From: Brighton, East Sussex
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
[B]I can't speak for anybody else, but I just love playing with all those cool ships.

I am an old wargamer with a lot of cardboard under the bridge and I have always been of the opinion that you can never have too many counters on the table :-) [/B][/QUOTE]

Fine I have no problem with that. I mean, if people want to
go into the scenario editor and add HMS Victory, USS Nimitz
or the Starship bleedin' Enterprise that's fine by me. I personally
view UV as a historical simulation, but I don't believe its
approach to Midway gives me the total picture.

In conclusion: the simple solution is to take out the Midway
ships. The full solution to build in some computer resolution
of the Midway outcome.

And if other people hate those ideas, they still have the current
scenarios 17 and 19.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 47

- 6/15/2003 10:06:16 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]I wonder why so few people seem to play the post-Midway[/B]

One of my favorites is the Aug-42 through Dec 43 campaign, but I havent gotten anyone to PBEM with me for that one..

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 48

- 6/15/2003 10:51:00 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]I wonder why so few people seem to play the post-Midway[/B]

One of my favorites is the Aug-42 through Dec 43 campaign, but I havent gotten anyone to PBEM with me for that one.. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have a feeling that it's because most players think the Japanese cause is irretrievably lost after the historical Midway result.

Well. Tell that to the Japanese. They struggled mightily after Midway and gave the Americans some serious hell. With some breaks (along the lines of what the Americans got at Midway), they might have pulled off some amazing things.

I suggest that superior leadership might have made a decisive difference, as well. You can provide that as the Japanese player in UV. Yes, you are on the short end of the stick. Yes, time is against you. Isn't that the kind of challenge you went out looking for when you became a wargamer?

So, come on, you would-be heroes, give Snig a run for his money. How about you, Rodriguez? (Ah, no Captain, man, I've got to - ah - reprimer the jeep!) I guess I won't bother to ask Brown...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 49

- 6/15/2003 5:32:56 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Couple of things:
There are a few people who seem to want to play UV like chess - totally predictable range of moves all within their control, and an even chance of winning. The others (myself included) like to have to deal with what they've got. I think the 'Midway simulated by the AI, and you get what you're given' is a good idea, but half the possble PBEM games would be stopped by the 'wrong' result. Also JN players are like hens teeth for historical scenarios

For UV to really work with the historical scenarios (especially with the Midway varient), the victory system needs to be revised. Who wins the campaign is immaterial (USA unless something really wierd happens!). The points system only needs to determine who PLAYED better. I.E. did you do better than you would expect given the situation. For the historical scenarios and the Midway varient to work, the US would have to have a great number of points removed for a historical Midway (or JN get a load). Maybe some modification to the points, where a players points are scaled by the opponents total force (VP count of all ships, planes etc) somehow... Then set victory as twice the VP count at any point (or similar - remove the auto victory as now)

Then those of us who like playing a hopeless defence have something more objective to judge against than 'I lost, but it took 2 weeks longer, and he lost 1 more CV than history' type rationalisations, that we are left with at present.

I other words, something like the bonus VP given to JN in PACWAR (but less crude I would hope)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 50

- 6/16/2003 12:42:21 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
[B]Couple of things:
There are a few people who seem to want to play UV like chess - totally predictable range of moves all within their control, and an even chance of winning. The others (myself included) like to have to deal with what they've got. I think the 'Midway simulated by the AI, and you get what you're given' is a good idea, but half the possble PBEM games would be stopped by the 'wrong' result. Also JN players are like hens teeth for historical scenarios

For UV to really work with the historical scenarios (especially with the Midway varient), the victory system needs to be revised. Who wins the campaign is immaterial (USA unless something really wierd happens!). The points system only needs to determine who PLAYED better. I.E. did you do better than you would expect given the situation. For the historical scenarios and the Midway varient to work, the US would have to have a great number of points removed for a historical Midway (or JN get a load). Maybe some modification to the points, where a players points are scaled by the opponents total force (VP count of all ships, planes etc) somehow... Then set victory as twice the VP count at any point (or similar - remove the auto victory as now)

Then those of us who like playing a hopeless defence have something more objective to judge against than 'I lost, but it took 2 weeks longer, and he lost 1 more CV than history' type rationalisations, that we are left with at present.

I other words, something like the bonus VP given to JN in PACWAR (but less crude I would hope) [/B][/QUOTE]

Completely agree. VP "loading" would have to be part of the solution. I consider, too, that the historical Midway outcome was about as bad as it could be for the Japanese. Most simulated outcomes would be more favorable, encouraging the Japanese player to continue. Also, as this is just a scenario and not the entire game, the players would know going in what the uncertainties are and would be committed to seeing it through no matter what. Think of the position the Allied player would find himself in after a disaster at Midway!

It's got the "kick" to it I was really hoping for from UV and didn't get.

Scenario 17 is, to me, just a more detailed rehash of Grigsby's old War in the South Pacific game, where the Japanese AI would sit in Truk until 10 carriers accumulated, then make a mad dash with all of them toward Noumea. As the Allies, you put your carriers in a TF parked at Noumea, with every land-based plane (especially fighters) you could get your hands on stacked up at the airfield. Then, when the Japanese carrier TF was just out of range, you disbanded your TF until the next morning, when the Japanese would have foolishly forgotten you were there (talk about your naval search bugs) and wandered conveniently close so that you could have the inevitable knock-down-drag-out battle that the Allies stood a pretty good chance of winning or at least breaking even in.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 51

- 6/16/2003 1:12:23 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]I have a feeling that it's because most players think the Japanese cause is irretrievably lost after the historical Midway result.

Well. Tell that to the Japanese. They struggled mightily after Midway and gave the Americans some serious hell. With some breaks (along the lines of what the Americans got at Midway), they might have pulled off some amazing things.

I suggest that superior leadership might have made a decisive difference, as well. You can provide that as the Japanese player in UV. Yes, you are on the short end of the stick. Yes, time is against you. Isn't that the kind of challenge you went out looking for when you became a wargamer?

So, come on, you would-be heroes, give Snig a run for his money. How about you, Rodriguez? (Ah, no Captain, man, I've got to - ah - reprimer the jeep!) I guess I won't bother to ask Brown... [/B][/QUOTE]

I found Sniggy's scenerio an enjoyable change of pace from the material laden SC's 17 and 19.

Variety is after all the spice of life. My opponent though did rather think i had a screw loose for offering to play it as IJN. Then again thats hardly the first time anyone has ever made that observation about me :p

Still too many **** transports though.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 52

- 6/16/2003 2:18:02 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]I found Sniggy's scenerio an enjoyable change of pace from the material laden SC's 17 and 19.

Variety is after all the spice of life. My opponent though did rather think i had a screw loose for offering to play it as IJN. Then again thats hardly the first time anyone has ever made that observation about me :p

Still too many **** transports though. [/B][/QUOTE]

I used to play the Aug '42 - Dec '43 campaign as the Japanese against the AI back when I was trying - in vain - to learn how to play UV. It's a tough go, especially if you give the Allies max ship commitment and difficulty level. Of course, the artificial stupidity makes enough blunders that you can do pretty well on points.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 53

- 6/16/2003 8:41:10 PM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

For the first part of Aug42-Dec43 things aren't really too horribly unbalanced:

Japs - Shokaku, Zuikaku, Junyo, Hiyo, Zuiho, Ryujo, Ryuho, lots of BBs and CAs

Americans - Enterprise, Hornet, Saratoga, Wasp, a few BBs, lots of CAs

Naturally the Americans have all the other advantages they normally enjoy, but historically the Japanese still managed to sink 3 American carriers after Midway in the battles of the S. Pacific (Saratoga was the only carrier present at the start of the war to survive the war, right?)

I like this scenario because it forces the players to act more historically...be conservative or you could lose everything on a roll of the dice.

_____________________________

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 54

- 6/16/2003 8:48:27 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]For the first part of Aug42-Dec43 things aren't really too horribly unbalanced:

Japs - Shokaku, Zuikaku, Junyo, Hiyo, Zuiho, Ryujo, Ryuho, lots of BBs and CAs

Americans - Enterprise, Hornet, Saratoga, Wasp, a few BBs, lots of CAs

Naturally the Americans have all the other advantages they normally enjoy, but historically the Japanese still managed to sink 3 American carriers after Midway in the battles of the S. Pacific (Saratoga was the only carrier present at the start of the war to survive the war, right?)

I like this scenario because it forces the players to act more historically...be conservative or you could lose everything on a roll of the dice. [/B][/QUOTE]They only sank two: Wasp (by sub torpedo), and Hornet (Battle of Santa Cruz). Enterprise also survived, and was the most decorated ship in the Navy to boot, IIRC.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 55

- 6/16/2003 10:34:22 PM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]Enterprise also survived, and was the most decorated ship in the Navy to boot, IIRC.[/B]

Okay, I wasn't sure about the Big-E, but still 2 CVs isn't bad either considering the odds against them. I'd say that the Japanese navy still had teeth for a little while after Midway, and the fun of the historical scenario is to see how much damage you can do with those teeth before you are overwhelmed.

For some reason I thought one of the Essex classes (Intrepid or Franklin) was most decorated...

_____________________________

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 56

- 6/16/2003 10:44:58 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]
...
For some reason I thought one of the Essex classes (Intrepid or Franklin) was most decorated... [/B][/QUOTE] [I]Intrepid[/I] had the most "incidents" in terms of being hit for damage.

[I]Franklin[/I] was the most seriously damaged to survive.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to spruance)

Post #: 57