Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Tanaka -> Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 10:01:57 AM)
No Corsair's allowed on US CV's until 1/44.

btd64 -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 10:14:16 AM)
Never heard of that one. What would be the bases for it?....GP

HansBolter -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 11:13:21 AM)
That one would likely correspond to the one restricting The Japanese from having operational jets in '44. Oh, wait a minute, the latter one doesn't exist. Never mind. ps....for those too thick to grasp my point.......it's that it is the Japanese side that needs reigning in on ahistorical capabilities, not the Allies.

DesertWolf101 -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 12:31:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 Never heard of that one. What would be the bases for it?....GP I never heard of this house rule, but I presume it has to do with the fact that the USN did not approve F4Us for carrier operations until April 1944. On the other hand though, Japanese players also have many opportunities to advance their aircraft research beyond historical dates so I don't see why one should limit only the Allies in this.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 12:33:24 PM)
Well, due the bad landing characteristics of the early Corsairs - restricted forward visibility and strong tendency to bounce - plus disapproving the additional logistical strain to support different fighter types - the USN did not accept Corsairs on carriers. Only when the bounce problem got fixed and a new landing approach in an arc instead of going straight ahead pioneered by the Brits got adopted, the USN finally accepted the Corsair for carrier operations - that was in April 1944. The first operational carrier units flying Corsairs entered combat only in December 1944. But yes, let the Allies have ahistorical capabilities but reign-in the Japanese, because the Allies need a boost so much more, having only about 10 times the war making capabilities of their enemy... [8\|]

witpqs -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 12:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Well, due the bad landing characteristics of the early Corsairs - restricted forward visibility and strong tendency to bounce - plus disapproving the additional logistical strain to support different fighter types - the USN did not accept Corsairs on carriers. Only when the bounce problem got fixed and a new landing approach in an arc instead of going straight ahead pioneered by the Brits got adopted, the USN finally accepted the Corsair for carrier operations - that was in April 1944. The first operational carrier units flying Corsairs entered combat only in December 1944. But yes, let the Allies have ahistorical capabilities but reign-in the Japanese, because the Allies need a boost so much more, having only about 10 times the war making capabilities of their enemy... [8\|] Well, yes: [8\|] It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes.

RangerJoe -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 1:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Well, due the bad landing characteristics of the early Corsairs - restricted forward visibility and strong tendency to bounce - plus disapproving the additional logistical strain to support different fighter types - the USN did not accept Corsairs on carriers. Only when the bounce problem got fixed and a new landing approach in an arc instead of going straight ahead pioneered by the Brits got adopted, the USN finally accepted the Corsair for carrier operations - that was in April 1944. The first operational carrier units flying Corsairs entered combat only in December 1944. But yes, let the Allies have ahistorical capabilities but reign-in the Japanese, because the Allies need a boost so much more, having only about 10 times the war making capabilities of their enemy... [8\|] Well, yes: [8\|] It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Since the Japanese can do all of that why should the Allies be restricted in using their assets to the best available capabilities? If nothing else, remove the "hooker" class of the F4Us until the latest version.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 1:40:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they?

RangerJoe -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 2:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they? Is that what you would do or would you modify your game play? [&:]

Mercenary -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 2:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tanaka No Corsair's allowed on US CV's until 1/44. Oh! I remember about this rule. That was 11 years ago. When I played the first game. [:D] But even then it was rare among us. It probably doesn't work anymore [:D]

Leandros -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 3:11:46 PM)
As I see it it is not a question of house rule but that the game actually denies it. I am in July '43 and corsairs are not allowed onboard by the game. Except for eventual dock loading and then only to leave the ship by air, if so wanted. At what date does the game allow Corsairs on US carriers? Fred -----

Nomad -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 3:15:12 PM)
The F4U-1 did not have a tail hook and is never a carrier capable aircraft. All the others after that are, the F4U-1A, etc.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 3:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they? Is that what you would do or would you modify your game play? [&:] I would never quit (i.e. simply disappear) from a game, but I see no problem in admitting defeat when the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time. It is the ability to advance R&D and airframe production that gives the Japanese player a chance to rest remotely competitive and retain a motivation to play a bit longer. Not sure how I would modify my game play - what else can you modify when the ability to modify airframe production is taken away? With HI and supplies NOT being spent on airframe R&D and production, you can build shipyards to speed-up ship production (but not create more ships) and factories to build more armament and vehicle points (but not create more ground units) - so game play may change to more ship losses and more destroyed ground devices from Allied bombings you cannot defend against with the limited numbers of (mainly) Oscars and Zeros you will be forced to fly. Heck, it is already difficult enough to resist the Allied juggernaut WITH the ability to modify airframe production. Now, that being said, I'm actually in favor of reigning-in Japanese airframe R&D and production because for a good player it is easy to "abuse" the ahistorical capabilities given in the game. BUT reigning-in the Japanese only if the ahistorical capabilities of the Allies are being reigned-in as well - otherwise the game becomes even more asymetrical as it already is.

witpqs -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 4:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they? So you interpret that one thing, which can (depending upon game) balance/partly balance what I mentioned, as being responsible for Japan player resignations in 1942/43, even though a carrier capable version of the Corsair does not arrive until late '43. Your mileage and mine do vary. Peace.

HansBolter -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 4:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they? Is that what you would do or would you modify your game play? [&:] I would never quit (i.e. simply disappear) from a game, but I see no problem in admitting defeat when the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time. It is the ability to advance R&D and airframe production that gives the Japanese player a chance to rest remotely competitive and retain a motivation to play a bit longer. Not sure how I would modify my game play - what else can you modify when the ability to modify airframe production is taken away? With HI and supplies NOT being spent on airframe R&D and production, you can build shipyards to speed-up ship production (but not create more ships) and factories to build more armament and vehicle points (but not create more ground units) - so game play may change to more ship losses and more destroyed ground devices from Allied bombings you cannot defend against with the limited numbers of (mainly) Oscars and Zeros you will be forced to fly. Heck, it is already difficult enough to resist the Allied juggernaut WITH the ability to modify airframe production. Now, that being said, I'm actually in favor of reigning-in Japanese airframe R&D and production because for a good player it is easy to "abuse" the ahistorical capabilities given in the game. BUT reigning-in the Japanese only if the ahistorical capabilities of the Allies are being reigned-in as well - otherwise the game becomes even more asymetrical as it already is. Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical. "the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time." Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game. Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured?

Leandros -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 4:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad The F4U-1 did not have a tail hook and is never a carrier capable aircraft. All the others after that are, the F4U-1A, etc. Well, I suppose that is why the game denies it onboard...[;)].. so it's not a "home" rule...? Fred ----

Tanaka -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 6:39:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leandros quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad The F4U-1 did not have a tail hook and is never a carrier capable aircraft. All the others after that are, the F4U-1A, etc. Well, I suppose that is why the game denies it onboard...[;)].. so it's not a "home" rule...? Fred ---- Ok so sounds like it is no longer valid? Did not mean to raise such a touchy subject [:D]

Andy Mac -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 7:07:56 PM)
This was a standard House Rule in WITP because the 1st US Corsair in that game was Carrier Capable they did not have the F4U v F4U1A difference we have in AE- so many players in that game would put USMC Sqns with Corsairs onto Carriers in early 43 because in that game it was carrier capable. Historically as represented in AE that 1st US Corsair is NOT carrier capable So the house Rule is not required any more - it was a WITP NOT a WITP:AE issue Not a touchy subject at all because it is a DIFFERENT game issue Andy

DesertWolf101 -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 8:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical. "the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time." Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game. Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured? Hans, I don't find this comparison to be true at all. Now full disclosure, I have not yet been able to play as Japan in the last two years of the war so I can't really say how bad the situation for the Empire really is during that time. But in terms of the Allies being described in the manner above for the first 18 months of the war? No way! In all 4-5 games that I have played as the Allies I have found ample assets and means to defeat the Japanese player in less than 6 months. I think there is a clear reason why there is a real struggle to find people willing to play Japan on the opponents page. Granted the production and R&D system in the game is clearly ahistorical, but given two players of equal skill, I think it's undeniable that the Allied side is far easier to play over the length of the game. ' Have you tried playing playing as the Japanese in a PBEM? What are your experiences with this?

BBfanboy -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 9:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101 quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical. "the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time." Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game. Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured? Hans, I don't find this comparison to be true at all. Now full disclosure, I have not yet been able to play as Japan in the last two years of the war so I can't really say how bad the situation for the Empire really is during that time. But in terms of the Allies being described in the manner above for the first 18 months of the war? No way! In all 4-5 games that I have played as the Allies I have found ample assets and means to defeat the Japanese player in less than 6 months. I think there is a clear reason why there is a real struggle to find people willing to play Japan on the opponents page. Granted the production and R&D system in the game is clearly ahistorical, but given two players of equal skill, I think it's undeniable that the Allied side is far easier to play over the length of the game. ' Have you tried playing playing as the Japanese in a PBEM? What are your experiences with this? It isn't just the material things that are ahistoric for Japan. Complete cooperation between IJN and IJA is a real help to the Japanese side. And a pilot training program that works is another plus they did not have. And from Hans' comments, he wants a historical type contest more so than a game that holds the Allied side back for the first year. Let's just say everyone has their own idea of where the sweet spot of balance should be.

tigercub -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 9:28:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they? Is that what you would do or would you modify your game play? [&:] I would never quit (i.e. simply disappear) from a game, but I see no problem in admitting defeat when the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time. It is the ability to advance R&D and airframe production that gives the Japanese player a chance to rest remotely competitive and retain a motivation to play a bit longer. Not sure how I would modify my game play - what else can you modify when the ability to modify airframe production is taken away? With HI and supplies NOT being spent on airframe R&D and production, you can build shipyards to speed-up ship production (but not create more ships) and factories to build more armament and vehicle points (but not create more ground units) - so game play may change to more ship losses and more destroyed ground devices from Allied bombings you cannot defend against with the limited numbers of (mainly) Oscars and Zeros you will be forced to fly. Heck, it is already difficult enough to resist the Allied juggernaut WITH the ability to modify airframe production. Now, that being said, I'm actually in favor of reigning-in Japanese airframe R&D and production because for a good player it is easy to "abuse" the ahistorical capabilities given in the game. BUT reigning-in the Japanese only if the ahistorical capabilities of the Allies are being reigned-in as well - otherwise the game becomes even more asymetrical as it already is. Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical. "the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time." Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game. Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured? I see a lot of Japanese players lining up to play now days just look at the list of players putting there hands up! why is that?

tigercub -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 9:35:55 PM)
quote: No Corsair's allowed on US CV's until 1/44. and no that's a crazy HR.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 9:54:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes. Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they? So you interpret that one thing, which can (depending upon game) balance/partly balance what I mentioned, as being responsible for Japan player resignations in 1942/43, even though a carrier capable version of the Corsair does not arrive until late '43. Your mileage and mine do vary. Peace. No Sir, I interpret your post above as a general observation about the game - the Japanese side gets ahistorical advantages by game design (which nobody denies). You don't even mention the Corsair in your post so how could I interpret it the way you imply? I have never said that carrier-based Corsairs are the reason Japanese players quit in 1942/43 - you are putting words in my mouth. I said that taking away the ahistorical advantages would cause more players of the Japanese side to give up earlier.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/3/2021 10:07:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical. "the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time." Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game. Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured? Replacing "Allies" with "Japanese" would mean that in the first 18 months of the game, the Allies exhaust their means for offering resistance and have no chance to inflict lossses and to hit back from time to time. Despite the 1945-level supply and fuel production they get from Day 1 which is virtually untouchable for the Japanese, despite the never-ending and ever-increasing amount of reinforcements the Allies receive? I find this hard to believe - maybe if an inexperienced or over-agressive or extremely unlucky Allied player squanders his assets. But even if the entire pre-war US Navy gets sunk in the first 18 months - the Allied player can still make a comeback. That the Allied player has to endure a tough time in 1942 is in the nature of things and can't be held against the Japanese player - the Allied player has to endure if the game is to continue to the point when he can hit back. If the Allied player doesn't want to endure "Japanese hammer blows" in 1942, then he can play the Marianas or Downfall scenarios instead of the grand campaign. What is comical is to compare what the Allies have to endure in 1942 with what the Japanese have to endure in 1944 - apples and oranges, I wonder if you you have ever played a PBEM on the Japanese side into the late war? If you start a grand campaign as Allied player, you know that you will suffer in 1942, but also that you can come back with a vengance and an unstoppable steamroller - that helps to endure the tough start. As Japanese player in 1944 you know the situation is bad - and can get only worse. I agree though that the Japanese player should continue to fight as long as he has some fighting assets left. But when the fleet is sunk, the airforce impotent and the industries gutted, then it should be ok to call it quits?

geofflambert -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/4/2021 1:33:05 AM)
Well, since the Brits were using them on their inferior carriers before the USN did, that would explain why you shouldn't let the Americans do it. NOT.

Ian R -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/4/2021 2:21:41 AM)
Number crunching: In stock scenario 1 the carrier capable F4U-1A arrives 10/43, at a rate of 78 per month, i.e you are going to average about 80 a month with average die rolls. Some arrive with incoming VMFs, but not huge numbers. On the basis you need about 100 aircraft to initially equip and then service a carrier fighter group* of 48 aircraft (or more depending on how you have things configured, if you can resize them - you may be limited to 40 per by the historical air group configuration progression in stock) then by the end of 3/44 you have maybe six serviceable CV loads as a max. Also, you will have to pay PPs in many cases to swap your land based VMFs into alternative airframes (possibly F6F) that do not appear in their usual upgrade path, or search around and find a VMF that can resize to what yoiu need and put it on a CVE for 90 days to get it properly qualified, paying PPs to put it in FM-1s or suchlike so it doesn't prang a bunch of shiny new Corsairs while training. I think the developers got this just right. The superior F6F service rating gets you more available air frames than an F4U-1A equipped unit, as well, reflecting the logistical issues of mixing types; the F4U-1D has a service rating 1 like the F6F, and arrives in late 1944 when Corsairs were historically deployed ship-board. This is not an insignificant improvement. [* One highly experienced VF operating Corsairs in the Solomons - possibly VF-17 - re-attached their tail hooks and made pit stops on a CV while flying out over the fleet in about November 1943, but earlier, in April 1943, VF-12 had successfully completed deck landing qualifications, followed by VF-17 who were landed from assignment to Bunker Hill's CAG for mainly logistical reasons.]

Tanaka -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/4/2021 2:24:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac This was a standard House Rule in WITP because the 1st US Corsair in that game was Carrier Capable they did not have the F4U v F4U1A difference we have in AE- so many players in that game would put USMC Sqns with Corsairs onto Carriers in early 43 because in that game it was carrier capable. Historically as represented in AE that 1st US Corsair is NOT carrier capable So the house Rule is not required any more - it was a WITP NOT a WITP:AE issue Not a touchy subject at all because it is a DIFFERENT game issue Andy Thanks Andy that's the answer I was looking for!

rustysi -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/4/2021 5:35:27 AM)
quote: Have you tried playing playing as the Japanese in a PBEM? What are your experiences with this? None. He doesn't play Japan, and doesn't PBEM.

rustysi -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/4/2021 5:36:29 AM)
quote: and put it on a CVE for 90 days to get it properly qualified Not necessary.

Ian R -> RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE? (9/4/2021 8:19:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: and put it on a CVE for 90 days to get it properly qualified Not necessary. No, it isn't. It is a carrier capable type. I am sure, however, that you know that it is advisable, so as to reduce ops losses, to qualify the air group flying it as carrier trained. Let's see if you can stop being a smarty pants for a minute or two and agree with that, eh?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375