Tocaff vs bigred

[HansBolter]

I find this discussion fascinating.

It has been my experience that even though they are listed as carrier capable that Marine air squadrons will not fly from carriers.

I have placed Marine DBs on the CVEs and gotten nothing out of them.

Without the Marine squadrons to operate from them some of the CVEs will be relegated to NEVER having any air as they arrive in theater without any. If the U.S. player doesn't have left over carrier squadrons from sunken carriers to place on those CVEs, then they are only good for shuttling LBA fighter squadrons.


p.s. WitP does differentiate between carrier capable and carrier trained.

[tocaff]

Well BR and I have discussed our situation like gentlemen and have resumed our game.  We both have suffered greatly in our struggle and to let this titanic battle of a game go would've been a shame.  BR is a gamer that I would give another go at any time.

[tocaff]

OK, so I was mistaken and the agreement that I thought that we had reached wasn't to be.  BR informed me that without Marine air aboard the Wasp she'd have nothing and he said that he would therefore use the Marines on carriers, but pull the Corsairs.  Under that kind of arrangement I called the game over.  BR had sunk or crippled a very large portion of the KB, yet I was willing to continue if the Marines were put back into their LBA status.  It's hard enough for the Japanese player to defang the USN's naval air power once, twice is virtually impossible.  It's a shame because this was one good game that ended prematurely.

[bigred]

Copyed from another forum.

The Corsair was the 'hotrod', the biggest engine available with the biggest prop in a small airframe. Lots of new aerodynamic ideas. Arguably, with the P51D, Spitfire XXI and TA 152, and maybe the post war Sea Fury, the best of the prop fighters. Two - three years ahead of the rest, and lasted longer in service because its range and load carrying capacity was better than the early shipboard jets.

The Hellcat, whilst not actually a development of the Wildcat, was its lineal successor, relied on the 'tried and true' and whilst built to defeat the A6M (and did) was slower than contemporary land based fighters, and the Corsair.

Admiral Towers' BureauAir reluctantly did not clear it for carrier ops in 1942 because of the visibility problem on landing, and because the port wing stalling speed was higher than the starboard wing speed. The Fleet Air Arm, because they needed it to make do with smaller air groups, developed a curved landing pattern which overcame the visibility problems. The addition of a stall block to the starboard wing improved low speed handling. Two navy squadrons, VF12 andd VF 17, did carrier qualify their F4Us, but operated from shore although they did manage to dos some refueling stops on carriers. Eventually the FAA tactic was adopted by the USMC and then the USN to get some VMF's shipboard, and VMF 124 and 213 were assigned to the Essex in 1944.

Reguarding our game, I can see pulling the F4U from carrier ops in 43. I can't understand the difference between committing US naval air to land ops and then commiting marines to sea ops in a gaming format. Maybe this is historical, but in this game I have done both all game long. The effect has been extra carrier air casualties while on ground duty(2 air wings thru loss of the bases). I see a balance. Now the rules have changed in mid game.
This is a very competitive game. Todd has said I will not be able to pull it out. I am still willing to try. I thank the gamers for your comments. I will be saving slot 7 for Todd if he changes his mind.

[tocaff]

I had no idea that BR was using naval air at his bases all along and I didn't know what got trapped in GG and PM when I took them.  BR shouldn't have kept any aircraft at those bases once he realized that they were my focus because of the risk of being trapped there.  Of course this being his first PBEM he got caught by things that I did that the AI would never do.  My beef is that no matter who you're playing against it's asking to much of the Japanese player to eliminate the USN's naval air arm twice in one game.  I didn't demand a restart from before all of my CVs played catch with his bombs or posed as targets for his LBA fighters on the CVs, but I did demand that he remove them from that point on. 

I'm deeply entrenched, have a large reserve of LCUs that are fresh and BRs very light on shipping so it's safe to say that he'd have one hell of a time recouping a 6 or 7K point difference over the course of the next 9 months. 

All things being equal we've agreed to disagree about the game so I'm going to let it die where it is and I'm looking for an opponent to play as the Japanese in a new game.  BR, it's open to you also as we did have fun and I understand your point also.

[HansBolter]

I have somewhat mixed feelings on this issue.

Both sides did operate carrier air from land bases.

The Americans only did it as temporary shuttles for flights that couldn't make it back to their carriers.

The Japanese did it as a matter of policy, strengthing their heavily weakened LBA at Rabual as the carriers retired to Truk.

The Japanese were never able to effectively make up the losses those carrier air formations suffered while operating from land bases.

Since WitP clarifies the issue by making the Marine air Carrier Capable, but NOT Carrier Trained, I think it is not unreasonable to expect a house rule in UV that they can't be used on carriers. (I have yet to learn what good it does in WitP to be designated Carrier Capable while not being Carrier Trained...probably just there for historical accuracy since they can never become Carrier Trained in the context of the game).

The Americans are weak in good quality LBA fighter squadrons early in the game. Adding the carrier fighter squadrons to the land bases can significantly improve the Americans chances in the overall air war, but doing so SHOULD, IMHO, bring with it the risk of handicapping later carrier operations through losses to those squadrons. The Americans shouldn't get to have their cake and eat it too.

They shouldn't be able to throw those carrier squadrons into the LBA battles, use them up, and then simply make their carriers operational again when the Marine squadrons start appearing. If they want to run the risk of running down the carrier squadrons by committing them to the LBA battlles they should have to suffer the penalty of waiting for those destroyed carrier air squadrons to be reconstituted and appear in the reinforcement pipeline much later.

That's my 2 cents.

p.s. I don't mean for this to seem as harsh criticism of you BR as you were just doing what seemed to make sense in the context of what the game mechanics allow, but it gives the Americans an advantage I don't think they should get (and I am playing the Americans against Tocaff in a PBEM game as well).

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


The Americans are weak in good quality LBA fighter squadrons early in the game. Adding the carrier fighter squadrons to the land bases can significantly improve the Americans chances in the overall air war, but doing so SHOULD, IMHO, bring with it the risk of handicapping later carrier operations through losses to those squadrons. The Americans shouldn't get to have their cake and eat it too.

They shouldn't be able to throw those carrier squadrons into the LBA battles, use them up, and then simply make their carriers operational again when the Marine squadrons start appearing. If they want to run the risk of running down the carrier squadrons by committing them to the LBA battlles they should have to suffer the penalty of waiting for those destroyed carrier air squadrons to be reconstituted and appear in the reinforcement pipeline much later.

That's my 2 cents.

p.s. I don't mean for this to seem as harsh criticism of you BR as you were just doing what seemed to make sense in the context of what the game mechanics allow, but it gives the Americans an advantage I don't think they should get (and I am playing the Americans against Tocaff in a PBEM game as well).

For what is worth, I agree with Hans on all accounts. U.S Commanders should be able to risk Navy Carrier Squadrons operating off land bases if they choose; however should never be able to operate Marine Squadrons from a carrier. While it was not U.S. doctine to operate carrier squadrons from land bases during combat (they certainly did so during training), they had the capability to do so. On the other hand, I am not aware of any evidence that Marine Pilots were carrier trained (nor ever operated from carriers) during the war. I suspect there were marine pilots who were deck qualified; however, these exceptions should in no way be used to justify flying an entire Marine Squadron off the decks of a CV or CVE.

Additionally, in BR's defense, none of this would I have realized if I had not spent the last six months immersed in WWII Pacific War history after discovering UV and WiTP.

Additionally, Additionally: I even tried putting a Marine Wildcat Squadron on a small CVE in my first game against the AI. It didn't work. At the time I assumed it was a carrier qualification issue. From this discussion, and a re-read of the rules, I suspect I exceeded the CVE capacity too greatly to conduct flight ops. After reading more of the operational histories, I realized I never should have tried to fly Marines off a carrier anyway.

[HansBolter]

Until now I was under the impression that they couldn't becasue it didn't work when I tried it in my first solitaire game.

I put a Marine dive bomber squadron on the Long Island and it never flew. It had 16 planes which is exactly the capacity of the LI so I know that it was not refusing to fly because the carrier was overloaded. I had the LI tag along with the fleet carriers, albiet in a separate TF so as not to slow down the fleets, and it accompanied them on several raids against ports and ground units althewhile never once flying a sortie.

Following that experience I put the DB squadron back on a land base and used the LI solely as a decoy for my fleet carriers.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Until now I was under the impression that they couldn't becasue it didn't work when I tried it in my first solitaire game.

I put a Marine dive bomber squadron on the Long Island and it never flew. It had 16 planes which is exactly the capacity of the LI so I know that it was not refusing to fly because the carrier was overloaded. I had the LI tag along with the fleet carriers, albiet in a separate TF so as not to slow down the fleets, and it accompanied them on several raids against ports and ground units althewhile never once flying a sortie.

Following that experience I put the DB squadron back on a land base and used the LI solely as a decoy for my fleet carriers.

It was my first AI game over 6 months ago, so I don't remember clearly. I got the impression it didn't work, and then later realized what I thought was the historical reason for it...

I use the LI to ferry fighters between Noumea and Brisbane to shift the weight of my effort until I free-up a carrier squadron by letting the IJN use a CV or CVE for torpedo practice.

[bigred]

edited correction:

For 1 complete 180 day cycle about 6 sqn's of USN air was listed on the air reinforcement chart to arrive at UNKNOWN LOCATION. vf6,vb6,vs6,vf8,vs8.vb8. I expected the naval air to show up at Nouma.
Now I suspect that the only way to get those sqn's into play is to send an empty fleet carrier to Pearl to ferry the units. Has anyone experienced this? How long is the turn
around?(390days) Bigred

[tocaff]

OK, here's the poop on the game.  As of right now it looks like BR and I will roll our game back to 2/17/43.  This is prior to our big fleet actions and it allows BR to shift his strategy also.  He's agreed to remove the Marine air from the CVs. 

I'm glad that there will be a resumption of this enjoyable game and BR will still get to flex the Allied muscle and hit me despite his agreement to weaken himself with the carrier air issue.

[tocaff]

The game has been resumed as of 2/17/43 and we've progressed to 2/19/43.

Bombings of the poor peace loving Japanese are intensive and deadly.

[tocaff]

March 1, 1943

Allied loses have slowed as their planes, pilots and ships are better.  BR is also building towards an attack and I believe that anything I do see is to draw me off from where it's going to be. 

CV  4
CA  7
CL  4
DD 45
PG  4
APD 6
DMS 1
DM  1
MSW11
AO  7
SS 11
PT 38
SC 14
TK  1
AP & AK  41

Aircraft (all types) 2485

Victory Points  13289/6918

The point spread is not so large as it may seem as once the Allied offensive rolls things can and probably will change rapidly.  I still haven't decided if I should stay dug in and make him come to me and then counter or lay back and make him struggle for points.

[Ike99]

Non issue

[tocaff]

Blah, blah, blah

[Ike99]

Non issue

[UniformYankee]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Ike, go back into hiding, you're litter in our forum trolling for trouble again.

You sound more and more like an old lady and not an old man Tocaff you know that.

¨our forum¨??

I bought this game same as you and this is as much my forum as yours.

You´re crying...again.

Big Red played by your house rules and because you don´t like the outcome your trying to change them middle of game and roll the clock back. That, or create a controversy on his use of the F4U-1 to opt out of the loss. His use of his F4U-1 is not in question here. You never mentioned them in your house rules. Big Red played to the best of his ability within the confines of your house rules and you came up short. Stop your crying and take your loss.

A players AAR is kind of a personal space ... if you attack that space .. then you agree that it is good for anyone to attack your AAR ... so .. if you agree that attacking your AAR is good then continue to attack others AAR and reap the consequences.

[Ike99]

Non issue

[tocaff]

Blah, blah, blah

[decaro]

Before this gets out of hand -- assuming it hasn't already -- let me inform everyone of a similar situation in the PacWar forum re the F4U.

My signature doesn't make me an expert on this bird, but I know there were several "technical" issues w/the Corsair that prevented it from being used for carrier service even though it was rated carrier-capable from day one.

One issue was the lack of forward visibility on account of the F4U's long fusalge; that was supposedly solved by Brit pilots who had to learn to land the Seafire -- the carrier- capable version of the Spitfirew -- using an indirect approach.

Then there was the issue of getting spare Corsair parts in a timely manner to the various fleets, which was like hitting a moving target. There was also an issue over room for both these parts and those for the Hellcats.

Aside from Corsairs being carrier-capable or not, there are several other issues in PacWar that had to be resolved by house rules, i.e., no deployments of Aussie homeguard troops. These issues were resolved in UV/WitP w/code that prevented the player from ever moving these troops.

But if and when CF does something w/the Corsairs, you're going to need some agreement/house rules to avoid a gamey situation. Otherwise, anything goes, unless that's what you wanted in the first place.

Anyway I'm going to congratulate Tocaff and BR for putting aside their differences and continuing w/their game; it's not everyday that players come to a mutual understanding on these forums, but I like to think that the UV forum is more "user-friendly" than the WitP forum.

Let's keep it that way.