Flying Carriers

[ezzler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

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]

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.) .

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.

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]

I also agree with Patrice, Mandatory.

[brian brian]

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]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I also agree with Patrice, Mandatory.

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

[Ullern]

I represent a group that has played WIFFE deluxe since 1996 and two years ago we decided to quit using CVPs.

The decision was made on three reasons:

• The CVP rule added work on the logistick end, but not on the action end
• The CVP rule makes CV less historical correct since some CVPs are good fighters while others are good bombers. (Historically good fighters and bombers would be mixed on all CVs in a task force.)
• The CVP rule was time consuming but didn’t add anything to the game (there is nothing that you can do with CVPs that you can’t do without).

RAW really describes CVPs as mandatory if using the SiF optional. MWIF product one requires the player to use SiF, but the functionality for not using CVPs are already implemented as an optional. But what if you figure that WIF Classic is just what you want in product 2? Why would you want to delete something that is useful in a possible later product?

I would recommend keeping the optional there. If you don’t want to play with it, then you don’t need to think about that optional. (But make sure that default is the optional rule on though, since that is RAW.) I don’t see any problem since MWIF is already implemented that way.

Some would argue that allowing to use SiF without CVPs would make CVs too numerous (playing SiF effect) and too powerful (not playing CVP effect). If you think so, just never use the optional rule.

The effect of not including CVPs are that CVPs cost build points and sometimes also action limits (to rebase them), and you probably have to produce more than the numbers of CVs. So not using CVPs is essentially the same as a give away of build points and action limits to the major powers who needs CVs. So what? The optional rule of not using CVP with SiF is a new optional rule that gives USA, CW and Japan a break. Possibly as much as a 30BP break to USA there....

On the other hand the offensive chit optional is an optional that gives 2 offensives to Germany, 1 to Japan and 1 to USSR in a full global campaign, giving these countries a break. (1 offensive = 15 build points. So 30 build point break to Germany.) And these offensive can be spent in a way that give you unlimited actions for a single impulse.

The Guard Banner armies rule is a rule that gives a break only to USSR.

The City based volunteers rule gives lots of free land units, primarly to Germany (worth more than 30 BP), although USSR, Japan, USA and Free France also gets some.

WIF are full of rules that gives just some countries a break. And each WIF group chooses their set of rules to balance the game the way they want to play it. I see only positive reasons to keep this “new” optional as long as it requires no extra work for Steve. And I want to use it.

[composer99]

I would want CVPs to be mandatory.

CVPs are already hugely overpowered in factors compared to LBA. A CVP with 25-75 planes usually has equivalent or better air-to-sea combat power than a NAV representing 100-250 planes. CVPs, especially late-war ones, can often hold their own in air-to-air factors vs. LBA FTR, again despite this disparity in unit scale. As someone else pointed out, a 1939 Gladiator is being generously gifted with 3 a2a factors.

Take away the requirement to spend money and action limits on CVPs and you are giving this power away for nothing more than the cost of carriers. Germany & Italy don't stand chance against the CW at sea in that case. And carrier planes get even more powerful if you are not using CVP. If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter - which means the air component on the Ark Royal in 1939 is as good as the best Spitfires or German Me-109s at the time, and remains competitive into about 42.

I do not think that the choice of carrier plane classes at this point is a design flaw. Harry has had years and years to change it if he thought it was wrong. By now I believe it to be a deliberate design decision meant to keep the CW carrier fleet from being so powerful in 39-41 that the German & Italian navies are sent to Davy Jones' locker without much blood, sweat, toil & tears on the CW player's part.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Apparently I excited a hornets nest.[8|] Let me summarize topics:

1 - Carrier air units mandatory or optional?
2 - 2 carrier air units permitted on a aircraft carrier if they 'fit'.
3 - Carrier air units employed by the player as if they were land based units.
4 - Carrier air units randomly drawn that are too 'large' for the existing/pending carrier fleet.

Let me know if I missed something.[&:]

#2 and #3 are already optional rules. The pros and cons of those rules can be argued but in the end they are optional and players can choose whether to use them or not.

#1 can be set up the same way. Since some players seem to like to play without carrier air units, it is tempting to just leave that as is - as optinal rule. But then there seems to be a corollary question as to whether the build cost for carriers should be changed since SIF is mandatory in MWIF. Making carriers cost 2 or 3 more BPs was mentioned as a possibility.

#4 is certainly something Harry has heard about previously. I would be interested in what he has to say about it. [I might add that anything the computer can do in the way of implementing an 'intelligent' selection of carrier air units, could be done by the players manually. Though undoubtedly it would be easier havnig the computer take care of it.]

Lastly, I can add some text to each optional rule description giving a short summary of the opinions of experienced players as to its loveliness/ugliness. I have done this in a few rare cases already.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Another thing that might be useful would be a list of optional rules that need each other to work well and a list of optional rules that don't work well together. 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Another thing that might be useful would be a list of optional rules that need each other to work well and a list of optional rules that don't work well together. 

Arrgh[:@]

[Froonp]

ullern said :

The effect of not including CVPs are that CVPs cost build points and sometimes also action limits (to rebase them),

This rebase problem may be corrected in an errata that will be published in the next annual. I hope that MWiF include it. Well, let's wait for it to be published to tell.


Composer99 said :

If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter -

Memory does not always serves. This doesn't exist as far as I know.


Steve said :

#2 and #3 are already optional rules. The pros and cons of those rules can be argued but in the end they are optional and players can choose whether to use them or not.

They are optional within an option, so how will MWiF treat them ?

#4 is certainly something Harry has heard about previously. I would be interested in what he has to say about it. [I might add that anything the computer can do in the way of implementing an 'intelligent' selection of carrier air units, could be done by the players manually. Though undoubtedly it would be easier havnig the computer take care of it.]

Please ask him.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

I think I will be quiet for a while
 

 
 
Keep up the great work, Steve.  This is an awesome project and you are 'da man'!!
 
[:)]

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Another thing that might be useful would be a list of optional rules that need each other to work well and a list of optional rules that don't work well together.

Arrgh[:@]

Perhaps something the beta testers can start working on as we start seeing the effects of the options we are looking at.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I would want CVPs to be mandatory.

CVPs are already hugely overpowered in factors compared to LBA. A CVP with 25-75 planes usually has equivalent or better air-to-sea combat power than a NAV representing 100-250 planes. CVPs, especially late-war ones, can often hold their own in air-to-air factors vs. LBA FTR, again despite this disparity in unit scale. As someone else pointed out, a 1939 Gladiator is being generously gifted with 3 a2a factors.

Take away the requirement to spend money and action limits on CVPs and you are giving this power away for nothing more than the cost of carriers. Germany & Italy don't stand chance against the CW at sea in that case. And carrier planes get even more powerful if you are not using CVP. If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter - which means the air component on the Ark Royal in 1939 is as good as the best Spitfires or German Me-109s at the time, and remains competitive into about 42.

I do not think that the choice of carrier plane classes at this point is a design flaw. Harry has had years and years to change it if he thought it was wrong. By now I believe it to be a deliberate design decision meant to keep the CW carrier fleet from being so powerful in 39-41 that the German & Italian navies are sent to Davy Jones' locker without much blood, sweat, toil & tears on the CW player's part.

Why make an option "mandatory" when it clearly arouses so much opinion on both sides?

I've played with and without, and I can live with either, and can see the attractions of both.

But when you are looking to satisfy the vast universe of WIF players with this long-awaited product, I dont see why you cant accommodate the non-Cvp option when when for some people not having the this as an option will be a turn off for some, especially as it means no particular saving in time or effort (I assume) to keep it in?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: composer99

I would want CVPs to be mandatory.

CVPs are already hugely overpowered in factors compared to LBA. A CVP with 25-75 planes usually has equivalent or better air-to-sea combat power than a NAV representing 100-250 planes. CVPs, especially late-war ones, can often hold their own in air-to-air factors vs. LBA FTR, again despite this disparity in unit scale. As someone else pointed out, a 1939 Gladiator is being generously gifted with 3 a2a factors.

Take away the requirement to spend money and action limits on CVPs and you are giving this power away for nothing more than the cost of carriers. Germany & Italy don't stand chance against the CW at sea in that case. And carrier planes get even more powerful if you are not using CVP. If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter - which means the air component on the Ark Royal in 1939 is as good as the best Spitfires or German Me-109s at the time, and remains competitive into about 42.

I do not think that the choice of carrier plane classes at this point is a design flaw. Harry has had years and years to change it if he thought it was wrong. By now I believe it to be a deliberate design decision meant to keep the CW carrier fleet from being so powerful in 39-41 that the German & Italian navies are sent to Davy Jones' locker without much blood, sweat, toil & tears on the CW player's part.

Why make an option "mandatory" when it clearly arouses so much opinion on both sides?

I've played with and without, and I can live with either, and can see the attractions of both.

But when you are looking to satisfy the vast universe of WIF players with this long-awaited product, I dont see why you cant accommodate the non-Cvp option when when for some people not having the this as an option will be a turn off for some, especially as it means no particular saving in time or effort (I assume) to keep it in?

OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.