Forlorn Hopes: The Japanese Respond

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you have Jacks on your carriers? [8|]

Seems too strange to me.. What will prevent allies to pack all their CVEs with Corsairs? It would be a logical countermeasure..

[Nemo121]

Couple of things:
1. If you set your TFs to follow the CVE TF you run the risk of getting disrupted with reactions. I would have thought it made more sense to have them follow the SC TF.
 
2. Are you sure Jacks actually FLY from your CVs? Sure you can put them onboard but do they actually fly? I'm not sure how they are classified in your mod ( it is slot dependent ) but it would be worth you checking.

[String]

Um yeah, unlike the corsair, the jack was totally carrier incapable. I suggest you change them down now, otherwise it reeks of gameyness. While they are carrier capable ingame it is because all japanese navy fighters are. Probably some database thing.

[Nemo121]

String, to be honest I'm less bothered about whether it was possible in real life as I think that IF Japan had wanted it could have fairly easily made a carrier version of the Jack and in this alternate universe it is fairly reasonable to assume they went ahead and did that.
 
My point to John3rd is that it is possible that due to database issues ( being in the wrong slots ) those Jacks may simply NOT fly at all and just sit on those decks.

[String]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

String, to be honest I'm less bothered about whether it was possible in real life as I think that IF Japan had wanted it could have fairly easily made a carrier version of the Jack and in this alternate universe it is fairly reasonable to assume they went ahead and did that.

My point to John3rd is that it is possible that due to database issues ( being in the wrong slots ) those Jacks may simply NOT fly at all and just sit on those decks.

It certainly would have had a lesser performance than the landbased version. Afaik there was talk of a george carrier version, but never jack.

It is, in my view, quite gamey and unfair IF you have a house rule restricting corsairs off carriers, by which, you show that you are concerned about historic capability of carrier planes in the current PBEM.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: jumper

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you have Jacks on your carriers? [8|]

Seems too strange to me.. What will prevent allies to pack all their CVEs with Corsairs? It would be a logical countermeasure..

Corsairs aren´t carrier capable in BigB mod until the second version coming in mid 44...

[jumper]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: jumper

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you have Jacks on your carriers? [8|]

Seems too strange to me.. What will prevent allies to pack all their CVEs with Corsairs? It would be a logical countermeasure..

Corsairs aren´t carrier capable in BigB mod until the second version coming in mid 44...

I like this idea. But I think the japanese shoud be similary restricted in using Jacks and Georges on CVs..

[String]

ORIGINAL: jumper

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: jumper




Seems too strange to me.. What will prevent allies to pack all their CVEs with Corsairs? It would be a logical countermeasure..

Corsairs aren´t carrier capable in BigB mod until the second version coming in mid 44...

I like this idea. But I think the japanese shoud be similary restricted in using Jacks and Georges on CVs..

Most likely it was overlooked. I'm not sure if canoerebel even realised those could be used on carriers, if he had i'm sure he would have asked for a house rule on them.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: jumper

ORIGINAL: castor troy




Corsairs aren´t carrier capable in BigB mod until the second version coming in mid 44...

I like this idea. But I think the japanese shoud be similary restricted in using Jacks and Georges on CVs..

Most likely it was overlooked. I'm not sure if canoerebel even realised those could be used on carriers, if he had i'm sure he would have asked for a house rule on them.

I would hr them too. If not, I would use Corsairs on all my carriers (which would require a change of the mod in this case)...

[n01487477]

Just a follow up ... Sasebo supply

Original: NY59Giants
We have 3 converted airframe factories at Sasebo that don't repair as that base doesn't hold supplies (1488). The solution is moving a HQ there or what??

Mike Soli
I have had the same problem with Sasebo. I've tried shipping supply, flying supply, HQs.... No luck. Supply gets moved out as quickly as you bring it in. Just one of those quirky things....

Nemo
You can achieve the same result with a few Sentai of Tabbys at Sasebo. Once they hold supplies above 9,000 ( ideally about 20,000 ) you'll be just fine.

John moved some transports there and a HQ ... yet ...

Sasebo (5101) - Grace, Rufe, Irving

... So it has climbed slowly ... wonder if it will continue to rise ?

Keep you posted ... [>:] Michael, got enough time to post a Resource history of Sasebo ?

I know you want action, I've only got beans to count.[8D]

[John 3rd]

Hey Guys.
 
I have been mentioning the Jacks over and over in my posts ever since I embraced Nemo's Operational Concept.  I TOO considered it gamey but no one objected so I reconsidered it and did it.  If my initial feelings are correct then I will not run the turn currently sitting in my inbox and back up to reissue orders.  Needless to say it will throw things into chaos but you know how I HATE gameyness myself.  [8D][8D]
 
I should have made my concerns plainer prior to last night.  Am emailing Dan right now and will hop back on in a few moments.
 
The Decisive Battle will have to wait a bit...
 

[String]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Guys.

I have been mentioning the Jacks over and over in my posts ever since I embraced Nemo's Operational Concept. I TOO considered it gamey but no one objected so I reconsidered it and did it. If my initial feelings are correct then I will not run the turn currently sitting in my inbox and back up to reissue orders. Needless to say it will throw things into chaos but you know how I HATE gameyness myself. [8D][8D]

I should have made my concerns plainer prior to last night. Am emailing Dan right now and will hop back on in a few moments.

The Decisive Battle will have to wait a bit...

I never realised you were planning to use them on carriers, I always assumed you were using to support LBA operations.

[Q-Ball]

That is the right thing to do. Corsairs should be restricted, but even that is a gray area (though gamey). Jack/George is black and white: Never were CV planes, never intended to be.

[John 3rd]

I just sent this message to Dan:
 
Remember how your CVs didn't fly CAP for some stupid reason at the Marshalls?  Same thing here.  Those CS were set to follow the entire fleet and--instead--went off by themselves...oh, well...[/align] [/align]Dan--I need to back up a turn or two.  I haven't run your turn yet but am highly concerned that I have done something highly gamey that I did not understand until I got a big reaction within the AAR overnight.  There has been a huge discussion over how to fight the American Fleet and I've taken to an unorthodox strategy.  The strategy itself isn't gamey but I misunderstood an element of it and have decided to not do it.[/align] [/align]Put simply, I placed a reasonable number of high-performance navy Fighters onto some of my CVs that are not CV-usable.  I THOUGHT they were but I voiced the concern on the AAR and no one said anything.  Last night I published my Order of Battle and a number of good readers and contributors jumped in saying 'wait a minute that is really gamey.'  Don't think that anyone was actually fully understanding/reading what I was contemplating.  Readers think it is the equal of Americans having Corsairs on CVs prior to mid-1944.  I'll have to downgrade the planes before giving battle.[/align] [/align]You know how I hate gameyness!  I wanted you to know NOW so there is no major blow-up over this.  What do you think?[/align] [/align]If you need outside commentary, post this note onto your AAR.  I am doing so onto mine right now.[/align] [/align]A much chagrined Adm Cochran[/align] [/align]Readers:  I really thought you guys understood what i was doing prior to my publishing the Order-of-Battle.  This was simply a misunderstanding and I am sure Dan will want some feedback on his AAR.  PLEASE do not reveal anything other then what I have done...[/align] [/align]Thanks,[/align]John[/align] [/align]

[String]

That was a very good thing to do John, I'm really happy to see you made that offer

I only wish I had realised what you were planning beforehand, so the whole situation wouldn't have happened. I also hope you have enough Zekes do replace those Jacks at hand. [:)]

[John 3rd]

Thanks Guys.  I do not have enough airframes to re-equip them.  I am producing over 200 Jacks a month and about 150 Zekes.  Since I have had several weeks of game-time to contemplate and embrace Nemo's Strategy, I bumped the Jacks even more...
 
Gonna have to rethink things and see how many airframes I have of A6M3a.  Gawd--I thought you guys understood.  I didn't think it was right to put Jack's on but when no one objected and I said 'well why not!' 
 
To do this right we may need to shift back to the 18th or 19th.  A move back about 3 days should enable me to make the downgrades and still make the planned battle a few days later then the current turn of the 22nd.
 
Isn't this what AARs are all about?  You guys have been great and I so respect that it cannot be imagined.  Where else do things like this take place?!!  PLEASE jump onto Dan's AAR and comment about this to him.  He is probably pretty confused at the moment.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Guys.

I have been mentioning the Jacks over and over in my posts ever since I embraced Nemo's Operational Concept. I TOO considered it gamey but no one objected so I reconsidered it and did it. If my initial feelings are correct then I will not run the turn currently sitting in my inbox and back up to reissue orders. Needless to say it will throw things into chaos but you know how I HATE gameyness myself. [8D][8D]

I should have made my concerns plainer prior to last night. Am emailing Dan right now and will hop back on in a few moments.

The Decisive Battle will have to wait a bit...

I never realised you were planning to use them on carriers, I always assumed you were using to support LBA operations.

must have overlooked that too, never thought you would use them on carriers, nor did I think about the possibility that they are even carrier capable in Brian´s mod as I thought he would have made all non carrier capable aircraft non carrier capable (like he has done it with the first model of the Corsair).

[Nemo121]

While I don't see a problem with Jacks being used on CVs IF they are intentionally carrier-capable in the mod I think it useful to point out that in EA Jacks are NOT carrier-capable (for the reasons given above in terms of design ).
 
One thing: If you go back then I think you should add a codicil so that your opponent has to recapitulate his moves over the last couple of turns so that he can't jump down to Saipan and raid you while your CV airgroups are undergoing repair and regrouping. That's just a sensible little addition to make to prevent anyone taking advantage ( same would go for you obviously )

[John 3rd]

I agree Nemo.  I am going through my email finding the turn that should place us the day before he moves NW towards Okinawa.  It'll suck having to redo this but I think that should be reasonably fair.
 
My thoughts are to propose a Pacific hold in the Marianas/Bonins Sector until we reach the 9/22 turn.  At that point we can do anything we want.
 
Haven't heard back from Dan yet.  He may have a meeting or be working on stuff.
 

[John 3rd]

Just heard from Dan and he doesn't understand the problem.  This is what I wrote him:
 
One of the first truly excellent Fighters the Japanese produced was the Jack.  It is fully able to keep up with your Hellkitties and I moved some onto my CVs.  Problem is that they were never DESIGNED to serve on a CV.  It is stupid but I am breaking the rules.  There is a real chance that they won't even fly OFF the CVs.  [/align] [/align]There has been a fast-and-furious conversation running on my AAR ever since this became known.  Thank goodness we didn't lock horns PRIOR to this discovery!  I think we need to move back a few days so I can downgrade the planes.  Am going through my notes and the AAR as to when.  My initial thoughts are to the day prior to your move towards the NW with the American CVs.  Nothing happened then and your moved back towards Okinawa after I activated my Operation.[/align] [/align]This will be a pain in the ass to do.  We'll have to do a hold in the Marianas/Bonins area during that time and then jump back into it on the gameturn of the 22nd (where we are currently).[/align] [/align]Ask about this on your AAR.  There will be a host of people who'll jump on and help clear things up.[/align]John[/align] [/align]Can some of you jump onto his AAR and help him understand?  Thanks.[/align]