Does this sound familiar?

[decaro]

Look what was recently posted on the C@W forum!

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!
Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...

If this sounds familiar, it should; in C@W, LBA and airfields were almost untouchable, until the developers just announced a fix that will allow LBA/airfields to take some real damage.

Check-out the entire thread at the C@W forum.

[LarryP]

I think I will leave it unfixed so when I get ticked off at losing, I have an ace in the hole.

[Ike99]

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!
Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...

Hi Larry. I'm going to go off on a branch theme in your post but relate it to Uncommon Valor.

hmmm...I hate all this house rule stuff. Respectfully said...Some of these guys just don't know what they're talking about. They have an image in their mind that doesn't fit the reality in my opinion. Not that I'm an expert on the subject but I can read.

There is nothing gamey about putting carrier based aircraft on an airfield.

The whole purpose of an aircraft carrier is to bring airpower up when you don't have a land based airfield. If you have a land based airfield you don't need a carrier! Simple no? Carrier planes basing on airfields was done all the time in the Pacific. It's not gamey it's historic.

Some like to say Japan can't win a stock game. Well maybe not when you make house rules hamstringing the Japanese saying they can't withdraw their carriers when they no longer need them.

They say Japan can't win but at the same time insist on the Japanese playing keeping his carriers around so he can sink them all and get a few thousand victory points when the Japanese player doesn't need them anymore! it makes no sense.[:D] Then in turn the Japanese player has to insist the allied player not bomb his ships below 10,000 feet!

All the house rules are what knock the play balance out of whack, not the game....in my opinion. [;)]

[Warfare1]

I wonder if it is the type of victory conditions that might need to be tweaked?

Fortunately in UV the player can also toggle "damaged units" to also count toward victory points, and not just "sunk" or "destroyed" units.

[decaro]

Yes, historically the escort carrier USS Long Island ferried a flight of fighters to Guadalcanal in '42, but the LI was a sorry excuse for a flat top w/o much AAA or armor; whenever it's used in UV, it's usually the first to sink as it doesn't take much to send it to the bottom.

It's one thing for a carrier fleet to transport extra aircraft to reinforce a forward base, but to leave all of its aircraft there renders the carrier a defenseless, useless target, which doesn't make (offensive) sense. Carriers are floating airfields that can go (undetected) almost anywhere, anytime; that's their real value.

Weather permitting, you can always bomb an island airfield 'cause it's not going anywhere, but the carrier TF has the element of surprise; just look how the "puny" Doolittle Raid altered IJN strategy in the Pacific and changed the course of WW II!
And when was the last time an island -- at least one on a map -- tactically surprised anyone.

Anyway, the C@W poster was playing vs. the AI, which, no matter how good, is too dumb to know when its opponent is being "creative."

[tocaff]

Ike,

You amaze me considering how you want everything to be played to a historical theme.  If that's so why would you strip CVs of their planes?  The Japanese did it later in the was because their reserve pool was lost in '44, but the USN didn't do this.  Those squadrons in The Cactus Airforce were Marines, not USN.  All that being said remember that nobody forces you to play a way that you don't want to.  Some of us have agreed to some house rules between ourselves because we want them and we don't force them on anybody and we often play others without them.  The balance of play can only be adjusted by ship %s as the US will grow in strength past what the Japanese can deal with even if the lose their CVs.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

How's this for stroking historical play as the US!
Transfer all of your carrier planes to land bases and conduct all of your strikes from there!!! Move all of your carriers out of harms way. You lose no ships and your airfields can't be sunk. I tried this with the Wake Scenario and it works??? Gamey, but un-real...

Hi Larry. I'm going to go off on a branch theme in your post but relate it to Uncommon Valor.

hmmm...I hate all this house rule stuff. Respectfully said...Some of these guys just don't know what they're talking about. They have an image in their mind that doesn't fit the reality in my opinion. Not that I'm an expert on the subject but I can read.

There is nothing gamey about putting carrier based aircraft on an airfield.

The whole purpose of an aircraft carrier is to bring airpower up when you don't have a land based airfield. If you have a land based airfield you don't need a carrier! Simple no? Carrier planes basing on airfields was done all the time in the Pacific. It's not gamey it's historic.

Some like to say Japan can't win a stock game. Well maybe not when you make house rules hamstringing the Japanese saying they can't withdraw their carriers when they no longer need them.

They say Japan can't win but at the same time insist on the Japanese playing keeping his carriers around so he can sink them all and get a few thousand victory points when the Japanese player doesn't need them anymore! it makes no sense.[:D] Then in turn the Japanese player has to insist the allied player not bomb his ships below 10,000 feet!

All the house rules are what knock the play balance out of whack, not the game....in my opinion. [;)]

Hi Ike;

Are you sure you didn't mean for your reply to go to Joe D? I don't care whether a game is historical or not most of the time. I just want to have fun playing the thing and get what I consider to be my moneys worth. I care more for the game not locking up and all the features to work as promised.

Sometimes I like the historical value and I also compare what I am playing to the books I read. Other times I don't care and I just want to try and win against the AI. I see so many posts that argue about how this should be and that should be, I flat out don't give a hoot. I shy away from those kinds of issues and besides, I am not that historically learned as most of you here.

I mean all that I said in complete kindness. [:)]

[decaro]

Don't forget that C@W isn't UV; in C@W LBA were untouchable and still are until the first fix gets out.

Just thought some of you would be amused to see that C@W players have already found the same work-arounds, even though the game was just released!

[decaro]

... Those squadrons in The Cactus Airforce were Marines, not USN ...

The first flight off the LI was VMF-223, which indicates they were Marines of the "Rainbow" squadron. A few days later, they were joined by five USAAF Bell P-39 Airacobras.

[Ike99]

Hi Ike;

Are you sure you didn't mean for your reply to go to Joe D? I don't care whether a game is historical or not most of the time. I just want to have fun playing the thing and get what I consider to be my moneys worth. I care more for the game not locking up and all the features to work as promised.

Hi Larry. I wasn't directing my comment to anyone or any game. I haven't played C@W so I can't speak to exactly what that person was saying...but it has been discussed on here before about putting carrier planes on land bases. Sounded familiar as you said. [:D]

Ike,

You amaze me considering how you want everything to be played to a historical theme. If that's so why would you strip CVs of their planes? The Japanese did it later in the was because their reserve pool was lost in '44, but the USN didn't do this. Those squadrons in The Cactus Airforce were Marines, not USN...

Hi Todd.

What I'm saying is this. I see some Allied players wanting to serve up the Solomons and Port Moresby to the Japanese on a plate. They figure, hey I can wait till I got my hellcats, corsairs, 200 B17's and such then go on the offensive in 43'. Right?

Well if the Allied player sits back and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to try and delay, hurt the Japanese the Allied player can't complain if the Japanese player pulls his carriers.

The Allied player sits back for almost a year doing nothing and lets the Japanese player turn Lunga, Lae, Dobadura and some others into International Airports with a whole chain of other 4+ airfields strung up and down the Solomons and New Guinea...[&:]Then come back and win by getting points through sinking all the Japanese carriers because a house rule won't let the Japanese send his carriers to Tokyo? Now that seems gamey doesn't it?

Sure the Allied player can do that IF they can bank on being able to slap hellcats and corsairs on the carriers in 43', sail all the way to Truk if need be and cash in by sinking several 1,000 points worth of Japanese carriers and planes.

If the Allied player has to worry about the Japanese player getting and developing all these airbases on the cheap, slapping hundreds of fighters on them, including those from his carriers, then withdrawing his carriers...I don't think we would see so many Allied players sitting and doing nothing but waiting for almost a year.

If the Allied player sits and does nothing for a year...then can't close the points gap in time...that's their bad game play and their problem.

Hope I explained myself ok [:D]

[Ike99]

If that's so why would you strip CVs of their planes?

Hi Todd, I forgot [:D]...let me answer this.

Carriers are needed when you don't have airbases. When you have airbases you don't need carriers. The US didn't pull off all it's carrier planes in the Pacific because it was always moving forward to areas where it didn't have airbases but it needed airpower.

The Japanese going backwards started pulling off all their carrier planes because they had the airbases and needed the extra planes on them. They didn't need the planes on carriers anymore.

In the war with Iraq didn't the US pull it's aircraft off the carriers and base them in Saudi Arabia? Didn't need them on carriers anymore, had airbases.

It's always been like this.

If the Allied player sits back doing nothing and let's the Japanese develope all these airbases for nothing...don't complain if they pull their carriers when they don't need them anymore.

All that being said remember that nobody forces you to play a way that you don't want to.

Your right Todd. If I agree to a houserule before a game with someone I adhere to it but I never ask for any myself.

[decaro]

Hi Larry. I wasn't directing my comment to anyone or any game. I haven't played C@W so I can't speak to exactly what that person was saying...but it has been discussed on here before about putting carrier planes on land bases. Sounded familiar as you said.

Ike, Larry didn't say that. "That person," me, said it! Unlike UV, the issue in C@W was that, until the fix goes thru, LBA are almost untouchable, so pulling your planes off their carriers is a cheat. In UV you can still successfully attack LBA, so it's not a cheat, just a tactic considered by some as "gamey." As for me, if you don't like surprises, then play the AI.

I think Ike is angry w/me for comparing his taunting of Lupo to Tokyo Rose; I didn't mean anything personal re that, but body-building Arnold S. was known for psychologically deconstructing his opponents just before a competition, and Ike basically does the same thing w/his clever graphics.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... Carriers are needed when you don't have airbases. When you have airbases you don't need carriers. The US didn't pull off all it's carrier planes in the Pacific because it was always moving forward to areas where it didn't have airbases but it needed airpower.

The Japanese going backwards started pulling off all their carrier planes because they had the airbases and needed the extra planes on them. They didn't need the planes on carriers anymore.

In short, carriers are mobile, offensive airfields, while static airfields tend to be defensive in nature. Pulling your carriers out of theater says you're going on the defensive; it's a tactic, not a cheat.

In the war with Iraq didn't the US pull it's aircraft off the carriers and base them in Saudi Arabia? Didn't need them on carriers anymore, had airbases ...

Which war w/Iraq? I think the US lost airspace rights over SA in the 2nd Gulf War and had to rely on carrier-based air, but the US used both carrier and LBA in both conflicts.

Hope this clarifies things and smooths any rufffled feathers.

[Ike99]

Hi Joe,

I think Ike is angry w/me for comparing his taunting of Lupo to Tokyo Rose; I didn't mean anything personal re that, but body-building Arnold S. was known for psychologically deconstructing his opponents just before a competition, and Ike basically does the same thing w/his clever graphics.

Hi Joe, no i'm not angry with anyone. But yes your right, I will use psychological tactics to make an opponent second guess, hesitate, lose confidence or commit a mistake if possible. [:D] Nothing personal though, just in the spirit of the game. I'll use anything to try and win a scenario people say can't be won from the Japanese side. Of course.[;)][:D]

I won't make up houserules to limit my opponents abilites though...like he can't bomb below 10,000 ft.

My ships were bombed below 10,000 ft by B17's in me and Todd's game and I didn't say (Oh my! Look at this! These B17's are too effetive, the games broke, we need a houserule about this.)

No, I changed tactics . My convoys went on short runs and in bad weather and I think Todd will agree it was quite effective at preventing him from blasting my convoys to pieces with his LBA.

But Todd's right, people can play with what ever house rules they agree by and so will I. But Like I said I haven't seen anything in UV to make me think the game is broke and house rules are a have to thing. I think some may actually knock the play balance off but that's just me.

That's all.[:)]

[Ike99]

Unlike UV, the issue in C@W was that, until the fix goes thru, LBA are almost untouchable, so pulling your planes off their carriers is a cheat. In UV you can still successfully attack LBA, so it's not a cheat, just a tactic considered by some as "gamey." As for me, if you don't like surprises, then play the AI.

Am I understanding you correctly Joe? In C@W a person can base his carrier based air on off map airbases that he can attack from but that can't be attacked? [&:] If so...well yeah that's a problem. [:D]

[tocaff]

The big choice for the Allies at the start of the game is should he play a speed bump defense in PM and how to hold EPV.  I say this because we all know that it's damned near impossible in a PBEM against a competant Japanese player to hold onto PM.  The easiest way to a Japanese auto victory is to take Luganville and if the Allied player keeps his hold on EPV then that'll fail.  The only way to hold EPV is to build it up fast and pull an Aussie div, 7th, and base it there.  There aren't enough troops to hold Luganville and you do need lots of LCUs in Townsville to protect there.  Invading Oz take a huge amount of luck as normally it's a Japanese graveyard.  You can play the game any way you'd like as long as you and your opponent agree as to which scenario, settings and house rules, if any.

[decaro]

Actually, I don't think the airbases were even off-map; for some reason, in C@W it's very hard to damage airfields/LBA. This was apparently caused by a glitch, which has now been fixed. However, the first patch w/this fix is yet to go public, so the problem is still in effect.

Check the "unhistorical link" under the C@W forum for the whole amusing story; it was amazing how quickly new players found this "cheat."

As for me, I just got the game yesterday and I'm going through the tutorial; the interface is very different from UV/WitP, but both games are advertised in the C@W manual!

[LarryP]

Joe D.
Ike, Larry didn't say that. "That person," me, said it! Unlike UV, the issue in C@W was that, until the fix goes thru, LBA are almost untouchable, so pulling your planes off their carriers is a cheat. In UV you can still successfully attack LBA, so it's not a cheat, just a tactic considered by some as "gamey." As for me, if you don't like surprises, then play the AI.

Joe;

Thanks for setting this straight for me. I tried. [;)]

Joe D.

As for me, I just got the game yesterday and I'm going through the tutorial; the interface is very different from UV/WitP, but both games are advertised in the C@W manual!

Anyway, it's funny but CAW has caused me to be more interested in going back to the WitP and WPO series. I wanted more options in CAW and it is just too limited sometimes for my playing desires, so I am playing similar scenarios but in WPO right now. [:D] I also own UV but it has been acting strange. [X(]

[decaro]

Are you patched to v2.5 in UV? If not, that would explain why it would be "acting strange."

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Are you patched to v2.5 in UV? If not, that would explain why it would be "acting strange."

Yes, see my thread on this:
tm.asp?m=1501737

[Ike99]

I say this because we all know that it's damned near impossible in a PBEM against a competant Japanese player to hold onto PM.

I'm not so sure taking Port Moresby is so much of a
preordaned issue as some make it out to be.

Maybe it is in scenario 19 but in scenario 17 at 100% commitment it isn't at all. The only thing the Japanese have to take it with is the 144th Rgt in Rabaul and that's really about all.

The Japanese are way outgunned in land units at
the beginning. It is unlikely the Allied player
won't find the opportunity at some point early to put
in the 7 Australian Division and New Guinea Force.

If that happens and there isn't too many reasons why it couldn't your looking at the earliest a end of June attack on Port Moresby using the 2nd and 38th Divisions.

And that is the earliest any serious attempt could be made.

Come this time the Allied player has aquired CV's
Hornet, Saratoga and Wasp. The whole time this is going on LBA's flying out of PM are bombing your transports at 1,000 ft coming down from Truck for 2 months and anything else they can find.

Sound fun?

Once you do get your land units to take Port Moresby
your looking at a very dangerous run around Gili-Gili in the face of every LBA from Austraila, possibly 6 US carriers and LBA's from Port Moresby looking to turn your troops into shark snacks.

You can do the long overland march from Buna where you'll end up at Port moresby worn out and missing alot of assault points from fatigue
and heavy allied bomber attacks. Taking the overland
march also means you got to supply this huge force with transports in the face of LBA's for quite a while so they can even stay combat effective.

Sound like a preordaned thing to you?

If you slip up one small thing the Allied player can
easily give you a big busted nose for all your efforts.

Try taking Port Moresby against the A.I. on scenario
17 at 100% commitment. Then after seeing how hard that was and all the planning you had to do to do it, times by two against a human player.

Port Moresby is not a give me at all on scenario 17 at 100%.

edit- Larry, Joe, Joe, Larry. Ok, got your names right. My mistake. [:D]