Flying Carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 8:58:28 PM)

WIF FE has the option of including the carrier based air units or not. This is an anacronism from the early days of WIF and the result is a set of rules about how aircraft carriers 'fly' missions. Now I always had trouble visualizing the big aircraft carriers taking to the air and buzzing around, but hey, that's just me.

CWIF (MWIF's predecessor) had carrier based air units as optional, which means there is a lot of code where 'temporary' air units are created when a carrier sends its air component aloft as wither fighters or as bombers. So far so good.

The problem arises in that MWIF (as did CWIF before it) makes SIF units mandatory. Patrice, and other WIF players note that this imbalances the game, for reasons too technical for me to remember easily. They suggest the the carrier based air unit be made mandatory.

So the question is,
"Carrier based air units: optional or mandatory?"

Making them optional requires little from me, other than reviewing, commenting, and validating the code for temporary air units for carriers.

Making them mandatory doesn't require much more (maybe less), since I will just delete all the code about temporary air units for carriers.
====
To make this post a little more interesting, and to refresh your memory about what is involved, here is a page from Rules as Coded (RAC).

It is different from the example in RAW (Rules as Written) and you can compare the two if you have acopy of the latter.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/C6DE8A0995394EEA89F248F6A38DF968.jpg[/image]



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 9:11:35 PM)

The only reason I would have a problem with this is if there is a balance issue when using the carrier planes and not using planes in flames. 
(Is Planes in Flames optional in MWiF?)

Patrice, could you give us a short synopsis of the problem just to satisfy curiosity?

The concept of carrier groups not fitting on some carriers will make the game a little more challenging to learn for new players, but should not be the end of the world either.





JagWars -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 10:07:51 PM)

quote:

So the question is,
"Carrier based air units: optional or mandatory?"


I prefer to play with the carrier based planes. However, to me this is a two part question.

If the carrier planes are mandatory and if the computer, through random picks, chooses carrier plane classes for which the player has no carriers on the map, in the construction pool, in the repair pool, nor in the production queue, then I should prefer that the carrier planes be optional. As the Japanese or CW player, I have to build 50% more planes than I need because I continue to pull class 3, class 4, and class 5 carrier planes when my carrier fleet is predominately classes 1 and 2. (Actually, we use an house rule that you only add to the force pool those carrier planes with classes for which you have carriers on the map or in the construction / repair pool or in the production queue.)




ezzler -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 10:17:53 PM)

I agree with Jaguar. Resolve the carrier planes class issue first , and then just make it mandatory.





paulderynck -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 10:24:40 PM)

I doubt that I'd ever use the option to play without CVPs. Having never done so I bow to the wisdom of Patrice et al.

One thing about the RAC example. There is no mention about the orange air-to-air factor on the Beaufighter. If playing with the twin-engine option, the AX becomes a DX and Maria might then choose to lose the front bomber. Should there not at least be a mention of that possibility (or use the Brit 9-moving 6-factor night fighter in the example instead - maybe the Aussies don't save the day!)?

Also I'm not sure how that particular RAC excerpt ties into a discussion about using CVP units.

I suspect the play balance issue is due to SiF doubling the number of CVs which then get overly powerful when playing without CVPs.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 10:50:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I doubt that I'd ever use the option to play without CVPs. Having never done so I bow to the wisdom of Patrice et al.

One thing about the RAC example. There is no mention about the orange air-to-air factor on the Beaufighter. If playing with the twin-engine option, the AX becomes a DX and Maria might then choose to lose the front bomber. Should there not at least be a mention of that possibility (or use the Brit 9-moving 6-factor night fighter in the example instead - maybe the Aussies don't save the day!)?

Also I'm not sure how that particular RAC excerpt ties into a discussion about using CVP units.

I suspect the play balance issue is due to SiF doubling the number of CVs which then get overly powerful when playing without CVPs.

Last sentence of 3rd paragraph: "... they are not playing with optional rules." So that the fighter is twin engine is not part of the calculations.



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 11:01:21 PM)

Well, I'm in favor of having the Carrier Planes mandatory in MWiF, for at least two reasons.

First, because the WiF FE rule as written dictates that this is like that.
RAW quote :
***********************************
14.4.1 Carrier plane units (CVPiF & SiF option 56)
If you are playing with Carrier Planes in Flames or Ships in Flames, a CV’s carrier plane is represented as a separate unit.
***********************************

In MWiF, Ships in Flames is mandatory (this may be dabatable, but the MWiF programming has gone too far now to go back, it would add too much time to make SiF optional -- Maybe we can ask this for MWiF product 2, but for now I think it's better to keep it as it is).
So MWiF is playing with Ships in Flames.
So, Carrier Planes are represented by a separate unit, the Carrier Plane unit.


Second, because playing with SiF carriers but without Carrier Planes will unbalance the game too much in the favor of Carriers.
I mean, playing with CVP, the CV cost you about 2+3 BP, plus the carrier plane (1 BP) plus the pilot, that is about 8 BP for each CV. It can cost you 3 BP more if you stack a second CVP on the same CV.
Playing without CVP, the CV only cost 4-5 BP, and have stable power, their class, either as a FTR or as a bomber, at will. A Class 5 US Carrier, is a 5 strength FTR, or a 5 strength bomber at will, all the time.

To play without CVP, we would need to play without SiF. For comparison, in the WiF FE cardboard game the average British CV costs 4 BP (+3 BP for the carrier plane) using SiF, and it costs 7 BP not using SiF. The average Essex class CV costs 5 BP (+3 BP for the CVP) using SiF, and costs 8 BP not using SiF.

So, for a cheaper price, you've got flexibility, and stable power. The price is so cheap, that you could easily afford twice the number of CVs.

In my opinion, this can't be.
The only way it could exist would be to add a house rule that, if not playing with CVP, all CVs cost 1 more BP first cycle, and 2 more BP second cycle.


About the "problem" that Carrier Planes don't fit carriers, I know this can be seen by some as a problem, but for me this is the same as picking up a Defiant FTR in 1941 (they are from 1939 so you can't scrap them before 1942) when you'd have wished for a Spitfire V. I see this as the effects of bureaucracy and its weaknesses in assessing its real needs, plus some level of corruption, or who they are friendly with. I mean, well, the Minister in charge of buying FTRs knows the Managing director of the Boulton & Paul factory, and buys a Fighter Wing of Defiants instead of Spitfires. Well, this is the same for me with non fitting Carrier Planes. WiF is full of that, and as SamuraiProgrammer, I'm not bothered at all with that.

This said, the decision of making the Carrier Planes optional or Mandatory can't be conditionned by this one, as IMHO it has severe repercussions in the play balance of the game.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 11:25:37 PM)

Thanks for the information.

I thought carriers (in the old days) cost more than 4 or 5.   I thought it was more like twice that.






Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/27/2007 11:37:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Thanks for the information.

I thought carriers (in the old days) cost more than 4 or 5.   I thought it was more like twice that.

SiF carriers cost around 4-5 BP (plus 3 BP for the carrier plane), WiF Classic carriers (it means without SiF) cost around 7-8 BP.



lomyrin -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 12:09:37 AM)

I also agree with Patrice's reasoning and the CVPs should be mandatory.

Lars 



JagWars -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 12:35:29 AM)

quote:

About the "problem" that Carrier Planes don't fit carriers, I know this can be seen by some as a problem, but for me this is the same as picking up a Defiant FTR in 1941 (they are from 1939 so you can't scrap them before 1942) when you'd have wished for a Spitfire V. I see this as the effects of bureaucracy and its weaknesses in assessing its real needs, plus some level of corruption, or who they are friendly with. I mean, well, the Minister in charge of buying FTRs knows the Managing director of the Boulton & Paul factory, and buys a Fighter Wing of Defiants instead of Spitfires. Well, this is the same for me with non fitting Carrier Planes. WiF is full of that, and as SamuraiProgrammer, I'm not bothered at all with that.


The difference is that a Defiant is not a Spitfire, but a Swordfish is a Swordfish and even though a Defiant may be inferior to a Spitfire, I can still make use it somewhere. However, if I have a 4 class Swordfish without a 4 class carrier, all I can do is let it sit in the reserve pool. What is represented by a 2 class Swordfish vs a 4 class Swordfish, twice as many planes perhaps?

Also, Defiants, Hurricanes, and Spitfires were made in different factories. Converting a factory producing Defiants or Hurricanes to produce Spitfires requires significant investment in time, labor, materials and money, supplies of which were inadequate to meet demand. When demand is great even poor equipment is better than no equipment.

I realize that in game terms, the names on the counters are a convention and do not represent the actual make-up of the airwings. However, I would expect that counters with the same name would essentially represent the same combination of planes. While some of the older class UK CVs may have had trouble accommodating Seafires and later equipment, Illustrious and later class CVs did in fact have Seafire airwings. The first Seafires landed on the Illustrious in Feb 1942, I believe. Yet, in game terms, you will not see a Seafire counter on an Illustrious class CV until 1944. Similarly with Fulmars; they were on the Illustrious during the Taranto raid in Nov 1940, yet are not available to class 2 CVs until 1942. Therefore, the upgrade in CVP class does not appear to represent CV technology limitations, but instead, capacity limitations. And if manufacturing planning produces 200 planes when only 50 were needed, I would assume that the 50 would still be allocated and used.



brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 1:54:56 AM)

I agree it should be mandatory. Anyone I know that has tried a game without CV planes usually goes back to using them I think. Explaining how the classes work will be the hard part. And only the CW and to an extent Germany are all that hard to manage effectively.

The way I think about it, the class represents the capacity of the carrier. So when a new cv plane comes out, let's say a CW green/class 3 plane, it represents a new model of that plane, somewhat. The factors represent what that model plane could do when based on the Ark Royal at full capacity. The next year, it is allowed to base on the Courageous/Illustrious orange/class 2 carriers, which have a lower capacity. The thinking is that even though these carriers have less planes aboard, the factors stay the same as all air fleets slowly improve in quality during the war. So when a given plane moves to a second class, the other first class carriers on the board will already have better factored planes aboard anyway. So don't get too attached to the exact model of plane depicted on the counter. So for the Fulmars on the Illustrious in 1940, that is represented by the 1939 Swordfish with 3 air-to-sea factors that appeared in the 1939 force pool but couldn't fit on the Illustrious until 1940.

The cost of carrier planes also represents the extra cost of longer training times and more resources used to train carrier pilots. Occasionally someone will consider keeping track of carrier pilots separately, but playability losses quickly make that an idea not worth pursuing, though I still might try it someday as we work on adding chromatic layers of time-consuming fun to the naval system at home.

It is hard to get the hang of it, but with experience it becomes easier to manage the CW, German, or Italian CV plane fleets. For the CW, one trick is to be very careful about any scrapping decisions before set-up. Yes, you want the 3 air 1 sea range 4 Gladiator out there on the Ark Royal on the first turn, but you don't want to end up with less than 5 carrier planes that can set up on 1 green, 3 orange and 1 blue carrier, so don't scrap every single 1935 and earlier plane. The next trick is to build out whatever you don't draw at start in S/O 39 and N/D 39 (some of these should be zero cost models, and there is no gearing limit in S/O 39). Then empty the pool again in 1940, but there is not too much hurry as you don't need to get it done till N/D 40. But you definitely want it done then because 1941 introduces the blue/4 class planes you can't even use until 1942! (I do like the idea of not requiring a new CV plane to be added to the pools, perhaps that should be considered for MWiF but probably not due to the extra coding of making new force pool additions optional). But if you build all of them up to 1940 and replace any 1940 losses, you should be in OK shape through 1941. After that, decisions depend on whether you are building the pair of green/3 'Implacable' class CVs. Sometimes I build them, sometimes I don't - lose 2-3 orange carriers in 40-41 and it looks brilliant - don't lose any and they might not have much to do by the time they appear on the board. But the basics are the same - build CV planes in the second half of the year and less of them will go to waste. I think the 3 air-to-air ratings of the carrier based Gladiator is already extremely generous to the Royal Navy, so keep that in mind when keeping the planes straight gets a little frustrating. And if you lose the Ark Royal, good luck.

For the Germans, it is best to build the two orange class cv planes they start with in 1939, assuming the Graf Zeppelin is going to be finished at some point in the first several turns. The planes will arrive before the carrier, but the 1940 models are all green class and you won't need those for a long time if ever. The two orange Me-109 fighters should be enough to staff the Graf Zep for it's average life expectancy on the board. This is a good point to mention this - it is best to operate carriers with extra planes in the reserve pool, or even out on the board in strategic places like Gibraltar, Pearl Harbor, or Truk, if you can afford it. For Italy, same planning as Germany, build some planes in late 1940 even though any CVs won't be arriving until late 1941 at the earliest.

For Japan and the USA, I find it best to build as many of the new carrier planes as possible in Jan/Feb, and usually arrange my gearing to accomplish that. One of Japan's most desirable units is the 1941 range 7 plane, and you want that to appear in S/O 41, ready to go. Japan very occasionally sees a purple CV plane appear before a purple CV, but this probability is lessened by the 2 BP cost of some of the purple planes. The USA also occasionally sees a red carrier plane appear before the Essex carriers, but this doesn't usually go to waste for more than 2-3 turns at the most, and the USA can afford it.

One thing I will never use is double stacking carrier planes. I did it once and it was fun, but realism suffered a lot I thought. Keep in mind the capacity of carriers and some people already think carrier planes are over-rated compared to land-based air. But a carrier could deliver 100% of its planes to a battle it was involved in, and rather quickly; this might not be true of dispersed-based LBA wings in the area, especially given the necessary playability trade-offs in WiF on how LBA interacts with sea zones. But once you put two carrier plane counters on a carrier averaging 75 planes aboard, I think then they are definitely over-rated.



ezzler -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 3:16:35 AM)

Some good answers but to me it is still 'apoligist' reasoning.

Did the game designer intend the player to keep 1935 aircraft in service in 1942 .NO.
Did the game designer intend players to build out entire force pools of useless aircraft. NO . The designer intended the players to build what they wanted  otherwise it would be required for all players to build all of their force pools.

It was an error.A game design error.
Probably comes from using some modiifier calculation that didn't really simulate the smaller armoured european Cvs over the wooden pacific types double capacity.

It can be argued that faulty designs , failed engineering , lack of planning, bueurocracy etc leads to aircraft shortages etc , but in no rational sense can it be argued that a plane was developed for a carrier but was too good or large to be deployed.

The failings of governments , designers contractors etc is ALREADY built into the history of air warfare and hence into the game

The CW has the stringbag instead of a RN Dauntless performance aircraft because of RAF decisions to neglect the fleet air arm.
The USN has the SB2C Helldiver to replace the Dauntless despite the Dauntless often being regarded as the better aircraft.
Blackburn B 26 .. looks a dog.
The USAAF ordered the BOLO over the B-17 by some 340 planes to 17 after prototype trials in 1935.

There is no need to compound the historical errors by not allowing planes to fly.

It would be bad enough to design and manufacture a BP Defiant, worse if you were told that it needed special extended runways that the air ministry err forgot about , so now it cant be used until next year.

Nope. You can make all the 'the way i think of it is ...' rationals that you like .. but having no planes to put on carriers without careful play is a DESIGN FAULT.

Having knowledge over a newbie or an inexperienced player can be fun but any game , especially a computer game , that appears to be blatantly cheating will only bring tears.



Solve the problem, create solutions.



brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 5:07:03 AM)

I don't totally disagree with you, I was just explaining how to make the planes work out the best, given what you've got when playing the game as it is.

Really the best solution is to allow an MP to not add a new carrier plane to the force pool; just as the player can decide not to build the Audacious class CVs, they should be able to decide not to add the plane counters for that CV class until they need them, meanwhile re-using the earlier counters if they need to replace losses. Because that is the essential problem - a unit in a force pool that can only work with another unit, even when that other unit is not available and may never be available. But this is the only point in the game where I would advocate allowing a player this flexibility, beyond the scrapping rules as they stand now.

But if you detach yourself from the plane model depicted on the counter and think of them as generic carrier plane counters (all WiF planes used to be plain vanilla, no Me-109, etc., just FTR, TAC, NAV, STR or ATR with a generic silhouette), it makes more sense. So it is not a 1935 model plane on the carrier in 1942, it is some 1942 planes on the carrier, but represented by an older counter on the smaller carriers.

WiF doesn't have and never will have a precise counter<>historical production statistics, i.e. how many planes on a counter is not specified. With carrier planes, when in history new models came out, I'm sure they were deployed on all carriers as soon as possible. In WiF, the counters move to other carriers as they age, but this isn't the actual planes being shuttled from bigger to smaller carriers, it is new planes on all the carriers; the bigger carriers use the newest counters and the smaller carriers use the older counters, but in reality they are all flying new planes. Since the number of planes you get for your 1 BP (what is a Build Point in reality?) is not fixed, it represents continued investment in a carrier plane building program in general, not production of exactly this many Swordfishes or whatever. If you quit building carrier planes, then this process slowly comes to a halt. If you keep investing in them, all of your carrier plane fleet continues to improve.


So I guess after all this writing tonight I could volunteer to write the tutorial on carrier planes...perhaps by using a lot of this text.



christo -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 5:28:27 AM)


Sounds like I am going to be the first (?only) voice to oppose the CVP as manditory.

There are several things that I love about the CVP. It looks much nicer to see planes lined up against each other and the various strengths and weaknesses of the naval air arms demonstrated. I mean the early war zeros and zekes vs the late war corsairs etc. It also rings true to me to see a carrier in a sea area without planes rather than suffering a "D" result.

The problem that I have with them is the fiddling around that they require. It costs as much in terms of action limits to see 500 Lancasters bomb Berlin a thousand miles away than it does to send 20 Hurricanes from their airfield 5 miles to their carrier (ie rebasing your planes). It also telegraphs your intentions to your opponent. There is no way that Nagumo could know that the all of the planes on the American carriers were (hypothetically) fighters and could do no more harm to him than a large sperm whale!

Just about everything else in this great game is optional, why not CVP as well?

Christo



Mingus Roberts -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 6:47:18 AM)

While we're on the subject of making a rule optional. As a Canadian professional pilot who lives in the arctic and who is licensed on flying boats, the only rule which has always driven me insane is the frozen lake/flying boat rule. Only an Australian would make this rule (I know, I fly with several and they only know ice in relation to beer). Thousands of seaplanes and flying boats survive the winter on fresh and salt water. They can't take off mind you, but they are not destroyed... just pulled up on the beach. Lakes, bays and rivers do not freeze without warning... it takes weeks, and beaching an airplane takes anything from seconds (for a CL 215) to half an hour (for the Martin Mars which is as big as it gets bat the Spruce Goose). I'd wager that most of the WWII flying boats still in service are here in Canada (Catalina, Mars etc.), and they seem to make it through the winter just fine.

Long time lurker waiting for MWIF anxiously. So annoyed by this rule that I had to post. Sorry if it is in the wrong spot.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 6:52:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mingus Roberts

While we're on the subject of making a rule optional. As a Canadian professional pilot who lives in the arctic and who is licensed on flying boats, the only rule which has always driven me insane is the frozen lake/flying boat rule. Only an Australian would make this rule (I know, I fly with several and they only know ice in relation to beer). Thousands of seaplanes and flying boats survive the winter on fresh and salt water. They can't take off mind you, but they are not destroyed... just pulled up on the beach. Lakes, bays and rivers do not freeze without warning... it takes weeks, and beaching an airplane takes anything from seconds (for a CL 215) to half an hour (for the Martin Mars which is as big as it gets bat the Spruce Goose). I'd wager that most of the WWII flying boats still in service are here in Canada (Catalina, Mars etc.), and they seem to make it through the winter just fine.

Long time lurker waiting for MWIF anxiously. So annoyed by this rule that I had to post. Sorry if it is in the wrong spot.

Welcome. Your point is well made. Perhaps just making the units inoperable, even for rebasing, rather than destroying them outright?

And you're right, the thread on optional rules is a better place for this discussion.



brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 7:37:59 AM)

[we house ruled that out of existence, along with units 'falling in' when a lake unfreezes - but other people find it to be such a humorous incident they like those rules, but unfortunately they aren't simply an optional]



JagdFlanker -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 7:38:42 AM)

as a rank amateur learning the game it would not occur to me to not use pilots and carrier based units since using and upgrading equipment seems to me half of the fun of the game.

as a sidenote, i think it's interesting that there isn't a 'tanks in flames' - it'd be neat to be able to upgrade your panzer and tank corps to newer tank types similar to aircraft to increase their attack factor as the war goes on. all other equipment seems to dealt with in a detailed manner, so it's a shame tanks arn't treated the same way - being a tank buff



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 12:24:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz
It can be argued that faulty designs , failed engineering , lack of planning, bueurocracy etc leads to aircraft shortages etc , but in no rational sense can it be argued that a plane was developed for a carrier but was too good or large to be deployed.

Well, the F4U-1 Corsair was.
It was designed from the start to be a Carrier Plane, was put into operations with the USMC in Feb 1943, and did not see an US carrier before December 1944.



ezzler -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 3:25:48 PM)

Ahh but the problem was the F4u-1 wasn't good enough , not too good, for carrier ops.
long nose , poor landing abilities ,spin problems .. the Navy said no  and wanted the hellcat instead.

Lucky for the marines as they got a great plane first.A bit of extra development made this a great carrier plane.

A good example though of a carrier plane that 'wouldn't fit on a CV class'



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 4:37:44 PM)

It seems to me that no harm would come from allowing a player to voluntarily swap a counter for a less capable counter in this situation.  The only problem comes (if there is one at all) in defining what is 'less capable'. 

On the other hand, can't carrier planes operate as regular aircraft?  (That is to say, base on land just like other aircraft.)

If so, this problem is mitigated.   You pull a carrier plane counter that will not fit on any of your carriers.  You 'go back to the drawing board' on the next turn and build a new carrier plan counter and put the original one into service from a normal airfield until the right carrier comes along.

Also, isn't it true that this is normally only a problem early in the war when there is not as much naval activity going on that would really require a carrier?



flailen -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 4:40:00 PM)

Did I see on the History channel or something that the "bit of extra development" was actually the Brits figuring out if you made a turning approach to the deck, instead of a straight in final, they could see over the nose and judge the landing? In desperation comes innovation.



brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 4:46:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

On the other hand, can't carrier planes operate as regular aircraft?  (That is to say, base on land just like other aircraft.)



that is another important point. allowing them to fly regular missions when not on a carrier gives any country with convoys to protect a lot of nice convoy escorts, frex, further distorting the 'reality' of subs vs. convoys. a lot of people use cv planes but disallow them from doing anything except rebasing when not on a carrier.



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 4:55:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

On the other hand, can't carrier planes operate as regular aircraft?  (That is to say, base on land just like other aircraft.)



that is another important point. allowing them to fly regular missions when not on a carrier gives any country with convoys to protect a lot of nice convoy escorts, frex, further distorting the 'reality' of subs vs. convoys. a lot of people use cv planes but disallow them from doing anything except rebasing when not on a carrier.

In RAW, this is an option within the Carrier Planes option :

*************************
CVPiF option 56: Carrier planes may only ever fly rebase missions when not stacked on a CV.
*************************

As is the one about the double stacking of CVP on carriers.

*************************
CVPiF option 56: You may stack up to 2 carrier planes on each CV, provided that the sum of the size of all carrier planes stacked on a single CV is no more than that CV's air component. Each carrier plane may conduct missions separately from other carrier planes based on the same CV, and each carrier plane counts separately against air mission activity limits.
*************************



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 4:59:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

On the other hand, can't carrier planes operate as regular aircraft?  (That is to say, base on land just like other aircraft.)



that is another important point. allowing them to fly regular missions when not on a carrier gives any country with convoys to protect a lot of nice convoy escorts, frex, further distorting the 'reality' of subs vs. convoys. a lot of people use cv planes but disallow them from doing anything except rebasing when not on a carrier.

Before the rule proposed to limit the Carrier Planes to Carrier operations, we used them as you describe, and it was really really gamey. They are so cheap that they were used as cheap convoy escorts while also be kept as reserve CVP for replacing the losses on the carriers. I was really happy that Harry limited them outside their CVs.

The rationale is that they have their efficiency only by being carried by mobile bases that brings them all the time to the heart of the action, so their efficiency is magnified by their mobility and their concentration, and that if they were based on land they lost that mobility and that concentration and their tiny size compared to normal WiF FE air units, denied them any effect on the air war.



JagWars -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 5:56:37 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

On the other hand, can't carrier planes operate as regular aircraft? (That is to say, base on land just like other aircraft.) .



quote:


Original: brian brian

that is another important point. allowing them to fly regular missions when not on a carrier gives any country with convoys to protect a lot of nice convoy escorts, frex, further distorting the 'reality' of subs vs. convoys. a lot of people use cv planes but disallow them from doing anything except rebasing when not on a carrier.


Also, many of the CVP planes are very close to, equal to, or greater than their LBA counter-parts in AtA and AtS values for the cost of one production point. WHile I cannot say for sure that this alters playability unfavorable, it certainly seems like a player could easily abuse this option. Consequently, I have always played that CVPs can only operate from CVs except to rebase.

quote:


ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

The only problem comes (if there is one at all) in defining what is 'less capable'


In an FtF game, this might pose an issue, but in a computer game, the computer can determine whether the class of the picked CVP is equal to or less than the carrier class currently available to the player (in the consturction or repair pool or in the production queue).



Anendrue -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 6:21:01 PM)

I also agree with Patrice, Mandatory.



brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 6:21:20 PM)

I thought that the on-CV-only language had been added to the rules, and I even looked, but not deeply enough. thanks guys.



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 6:26:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I also agree with Patrice, Mandatory.

I added it to the list of questions for Harry anyway.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375