"defensive" carrier - gamey?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Any time you mass fighters at one hex location, you'll be stretching the game engine so expect ahistorical results in terms of losses and impact on bombing efficiency if this tactic is utilized. If your opponent is ok with it then have at it.

Any idea of the approximate limit on fighters per hex? I'm assuming it must be something over 200, as the KB in 1941 has just over 100 in their airgroups, correct (108)? Which most re-size and fill out a bit. I forget where they end up ... but I think about 120 or so on the fighters.

Is this only fighters or is there a max hex limit on the number of total ac?

Kinda worried about this as the allies. It's pretty easy to get to +200 fighters in a hex in '44 when you get your "Armada" going. I'd have to check but I think you can get way over 200 fighter easy.

I believe that the approximate limit to the total number of aircraft (not only fighters) in a hex is 999.

At least that's what I've gathered from seeing combat reports from 1945.

Now I don't know if you consider a hypothetical 999 fighter CAP wiping out a 399 bomber formation escorted by 400 fighters to be game breaking, but I personally hope I never have to find out either way. [:D]

Mmmm, yes I can see the limit at 999 (if true) being an issue. 6 Essex class will bring 540 a/c to the party. Doesn't include all the floats ... figure 60 more. That's 600 allied alone. If you are JAP and attacking this Armada, you had better be able to bring +500 a/c. Thats 1100 total in the hex ... actually not fictional at all, nor in game unrealistic. Ouch. And 6 Essex is not hard for the Allies in '44. Actually you typically have that plus CVE's ... so 700 or so a/c easily. Still not counting LB a/c.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


Any idea of the approximate limit on fighters per hex? I'm assuming it must be something over 200, as the KB in 1941 has just over 100 in their airgroups, correct (108)? Which most re-size and fill out a bit. I forget where they end up ... but I think about 120 or so on the fighters.

I'm not aware of any limit.

[Hipper]

in 1943 HMS Victorious was operating in the Solomon's with one US carrier - she was turned into a fighter carrier with 60 martlet / F4's while the US carrier held all the bombers

not that gamey then !

[Cap Mandrake]

*******Villa on the Agean, 388 BC**********


Two men in kinda sissy robes with one shoulder open are engrossed in some form of competition. On a large table, there are hundreds of small stone ship tokens arrayed on a charcoal map of the island of Salamis and sourrounding waters. The younger man speaks.


Plato: .....OK, I'm gonna do a balls of naptha attack from Royal Corinthian Navy Ship Corinthian on this trireme here...hmmm....Royal Persian Navy Ship Ur. Let's see..range is 1 decicubit...<examines die roll chart on parchment>...here we are...OK here goes..<he tolls a stone die and begins to make the decrescendo ball of burning naptha sound> ZZZZEEEEEEuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuBOOM! <the die stops> SIX! I GOT A SIX! THAT IS ONE RIGGING DMAMAGE POINT AND TWO CREW DAMAGE POINTS! YEAH BABY! Let's see...I'll take out the 1st and 7th Royal Immortal Marine platoons. And we know who leads the 7th don't we? <childish mocking tone> It's Xerxes Jr. Need any barbecue sauce there Jr? HAHAHHAHAHHA

Socrates: GOD DAMNIT!!! HOW COME I GET ALL THESE CRAPPY ROLLS? And don't be such a jerk. It's not Xerxes' son, it's his nepwhew. I hate this idiotic greek fire crap. Waaaaay to powerful if you ask me. Besides, I could have sworn the Corinthian did a ball of naptha attack last turn?

Plato: <starts giggling> She did.

Socrates: What?! You can't do that.

Plato: Oh yes I can. I purposely left behind the grappling hooks in port. That gives me one free cargo point. That gives me DOUBLE balls of naptha!

Socrates: BULL SHIT! That is soooo gamey. No Greek commander would ever sail without his grappling hooks.

Plato: Would you agree that commanders are often chosen for their mental alacrity?

Socrates: Well...yeah.... I suppose that is true...and perhaps family and political connections. Take the nephew of Xerxes, for eg.

Plato: Yes, yes, of course, and how is that working out for him?

Socrates: Not so good, to be honest.

Plato: Let me refine my statement then. Successful commanders survive because of their mental alacrity.

Socrates: So stipulated.

Plato: And every innovation in warfare must necessarily supercede some previous standard practice.

Socrates: Well.....yeah....

Plato: And the commander of the Corinthian has succeded here via innovation?

Socrates: And a lucky die roll too! And don't try to pull that Socratic method crap on me ass hole. I INVENTED IT! GREEK BALLS OF FIRE ARE BULL SHIT. DOUBLE GREEK BALLS OF FIRE ARE DOUBLE BULL SHIT! I QUIT! YOU CAN GO PLAY WITH YOURSELF! <he scatters the tiny stone pieces everywhere, many falling over the cliff into the Aegean. He storms off with hsi slave in tow>

Plato: Socrates is a baby. Socrates is a baby. QUITTER! Socrates is a baby. Socrates is a baby.............

[Big B]

Mandrake! Your killin' me here! [:D][:D]

EDIT: I think I had that game...wasn't it the naval expansion for SPI's Phalanx? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

*******Villa on the Agean, 388 BC**********


Two men in kinda sissy robes with one shoulder open are engrossed in some form of competition. On a large table, there are hundreds of small stone ship tokens arrayed on a charcoal map of the island of Salamis and sourrounding waters. The younger man speaks.


Plato: .....OK, I'm gonna do a balls of naptha attack from Royal Corinthian Navy Ship Corinthian on this trireme here...hmmm....Royal Persian Navy Ship Ur. Let's see..range is 1 decicubit...<examines die roll chart on parchment>...here we are...OK here goes..<he tolls a stone die and begins to make the decrescendo ball of burning naptha sound> ZZZZEEEEEEuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuBOOM! <the die stops> SIX! I GOT A SIX! THAT IS ONE RIGGING DMAMAGE POINT AND TWO CREW DAMAGE POINTS! YEAH BABY! Let's see...I'll take out the 1st and 7th Royal Immortal Marine platoons. And we know who leads the 7th don't we? <childish mocking tone> It's Xerxes Jr. Need any barbecue sauce there Jr? HAHAHHAHAHHA

Socrates: GOD DAMNIT!!! HOW COME I GET ALL THESE CRAPPY ROLLS? And don't be such a jerk. It's not Xerxes' son, it's his nepwhew. I hate this idiotic greek fire crap. Waaaaay to powerful if you ask me. Besides, I could have sworn the Corinthian did a ball of naptha attack last turn?

Plato: <starts giggling> She did.

Socrates: What?! You can't do that.

Plato: Oh yes I can. I purposely left behind the grappling hooks in port. That gives me one free cargo point. That gives me DOUBLE balls of naptha!

Socrates: BULL SHIT! That is soooo gamey. No Greek commander would ever sail without his grappling hooks.

Plato: Would you agree that commanders are often chosen for their mental alacrity?

Socrates: Well...yeah.... I suppose that is true...and perhaps family and political connections. Take the nephew of Xerxes, for eg.

Plato: Yes, yes, of course, and how is that working out for him?

Socrates: Not so good, to be honest.

Plato: Let me refine my statement then. Successful commanders survive because of their mental alacrity.

Socrates: So stipulated.

Plato: And every innovation in warfare must necessarily supercede some previous standard practice.

Socrates: Well.....yeah....

Plato: And the commander of the Corinthian has succeded here via innovation?

Socrates: And a lucky die roll too! And don't try to pull that Socratic method crap on me ass hole. I INVENTED IT! GREEK BALLS OF FIRE ARE BULL SHIT. DOUBLE GREEK BALLS OF FIRE ARE DOUBLE BULL SHIT! I QUIT! YOU CAN GO PLAY WITH YOURSELF! <he scatters the tiny stone pieces everywhere, many falling over the cliff into the Aegean. He storms off with hsi slave in tow>

Plato: Socrates is a baby. Socrates is a baby. QUITTER! Socrates is a baby. Socrates is a baby.............

[vonTirpitz]

+1 Mandrake. Kudos. [:D]

[witpqs]

"DOUBLE balls"

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Big B
I think I had that game...wasn't it the naval expansion for SPI's Phalanx? [;)]

War in the Agean, Philosopher's Edition

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

"DOUBLE balls"

Yes, sounds like some kind of salve is needed.

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: Big B
I think I had that game...wasn't it the naval expansion for SPI's Phalanx? [;)]

War in the Agean, Philosopher's Edition

That was a good game, but the "Trireme bonus" ruined it.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

That was a good game, but the "Trireme bonus" ruined it.

[:D]

[bradfordkay]

Battleline Games had an excellent game Trireme out in the '70's. It was something of an ancients version of Wooden Ships and Iron Men.

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Hipper

in 1943 HMS Victorious was operating in the Solomon's with one US carrier - she was turned into a fighter carrier with 60 martlet / F4's while the US carrier held all the bombers

not that gamey then !

+1

[Deca]

+1 Cap Mandrake

Plato:
Oh yes I can. I purposely left behind the grappling hooks in port.

That's classic


Speaking of games, it reminded me of the following "D&D gaming" classic clip.

Magic Missle
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... ic-missile

"I had to show him that a long bow, at close range, with a magic missle enchantment on it...there's no way to duck out of the way of it."

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
What's to stop someone from resizing a number of squadrons and then transferring them to different bases? It was pointed out above, this gives them an unfair advantage for coordination. And what stops someone from thereby creating huge training squadrons for the IJN? With a 72-plane squadron, you could assign 95 pilots. A few such squadrons would allow the japanese player to train far more pilots than the US. Even a JFB would have to admit that the US pilot training infrastructure was far superior to that of the Japanese.

Are you then implying that the training model of WitP:AE is broken? Its' just a question.

I don't believe in what-if fantasy nonsense. Ideas thought up with 65 years of hindsight shouldn't apply to a historically accurate, realistic wargame. And how much ego can a man have, who thinks he knows better than all the professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries? I guess it's awful easy to be an armchair quarterback.

True: as everybody knows, NO ONE plays wargames to see how things could have been different given a different operational choice. We ALL play by following a 1:1 corrispondence with history. And the "professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries" NEVER made a mistake. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. And if they did, it's only unfair for us to play a wargame to see if/how a different tactic could have worked. Down with us, bad cheaters! [:-]

In RL, the US was able to pull off the Doolittle Raid; the Japanese had no ability to do the same thing.

Actually they had, and did, using their own tactics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on ... rld_War_II

In AE, you are able to use the editor to simulate the raid; should the Japanese be given the same ability?

Beside the strange fact that to re-create something which happened in RL one has to use the editor, what about letting Japan try some stunt in the US of the kind they actually tried?

In RL, the US developed the Atom Bomb; the Japanese tried, didn't come close.

True, basically because they had neither the tech or the means (now, if we talk about the Germans...) But they *had* the means to create fighter-only carriers - the choice not to do so being a doctrinal one. In WitP: AE I'm told I'm the ubercommander. As such, can I give around some orders and see how it goes? Thank you.

Please cite a RL example of a WWII Japanese carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons.

Please, cite a real life example of the US winning at Kasserine.

Please cite a RL example of an WWII US carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons.

Please, cite a RL esample of Singapore resisting against all odds and becoming a thorn in the Japanese side.

I thought the game was War in the Pacific 1941-1945:Admiral's Edition, not Revisionist History in the Pacific 2010: JFB Edition.
But maybe that's just me.

I understand your pain: I thought that the game put me in either Allied or Japanese theatre commander shoes, asking me to find a way to win the war given the available assets, and not a multimedia history book about what happened. But maybe that's just me.

Or maybe some people just have to cheat to win a game.[8|]

Since we are in the "maybe" phase, maybe some people need for the losing side to behave exactly the way they behaved in RL if they want to have the faintest hope to win - every deviation from the script being whined up and hard as "cheating". Maybe, of course.

[Herrbear]

The only "gamey" aspect that I see is that you used only one squadron and resized them. If you had brought abord three or 4 fighter squadrons and used them then I see no problem.

[Nemo121]

And how much ego can a man have, who thinks he knows better than all the professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries? I guess it's awful easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Yeah, deciding to pick up a sword and charge 200 metres across open terrain directly towards a line of medium machineguns supported by an infantry platoon in clear weather during daylight hours... Yup, no way anyone could better that.

In real wars the side which wins is NOT usually the side which routinely does amazing things. The side which wins tends to be the side which makes the fewer mistakes. Wars are replete with mistakes. We shouldn't be forced to stolidly follow them.


As far as fighter-only CV TFs... Actually I've been doing that routinely enough long before I advised John3rd to do it as I believed 1:1:1 ratios for fighters vs dive vs torpedobombers was wrong and preferred something much more along the lines of 3:1 for fighter and attack planes and it seems to work pretty well. It is not, however, without risk and, as such, it is a tactical/operational option and not something uncounterable.

If people prefer not to do that or play against it then they're free simply to specify that in their House Rules. I think that arguing whether others should or shouldn't do it is misguided. What harm is it to you if someone uses a tactic you don't like in a PBEM you aren't playing ( or, conversely, limits themselves in a way you wouldn't)? Surely a much more sensible approach would just be to say "different strokes for different folks" ?

Honestly, I couldn't care what level of innovation etc others adopt in PBEMs I will probably never even hear of. It will never effect me. Swap in fighters if you want, don't if you don't/ The only thing which matters is making sure your opponent and you see eye to eye.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: ckammp
What's to stop someone from resizing a number of squadrons and then transferring them to different bases? It was pointed out above, this gives them an unfair advantage for coordination. And what stops someone from thereby creating huge training squadrons for the IJN? With a 72-plane squadron, you could assign 95 pilots. A few such squadrons would allow the japanese player to train far more pilots than the US. Even a JFB would have to admit that the US pilot training infrastructure was far superior to that of the Japanese.

Are you then implying that the training model of WitP:AE is broken? Its' just a question.

Nowhere did I imply that the training model of WitP:AE is broken; it is not.
I did state, and will continue to do so, that using the ability to re-size a squadron to 72 planes is gamey, and can be easily abused; using these 72 plane squadrons as training squadrons is but one example.

I don't believe in what-if fantasy nonsense. Ideas thought up with 65 years of hindsight shouldn't apply to a historically accurate, realistic wargame. And how much ego can a man have, who thinks he knows better than all the professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries? I guess it's awful easy to be an armchair quarterback.

True: as everybody knows, NO ONE plays wargames to see how things could have been different given a different operational choice. We ALL play by following a 1:1 corrispondence with history. And the "professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries" NEVER made a mistake. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. And if they did, it's only unfair for us to play a wargame to see if/how a different tactic could have worked. Down with us, bad cheaters! [:-]

There is a huge difference between employing strategies that were not utilized in WWII and using gamey tactics. Players who use gamey tactics are cheaters. If you don't know the difference, perhaps you shouldn't play the game.[:-]

In RL, the US was able to pull off the Doolittle Raid; the Japanese had no ability to do the same thing.

Actually they had, and did, using their own tactics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on ... rld_War_II

Um...what?[&:]
Sorry, I never knew that the Japanese put 2E LBA on a carrier, sailed to the West Coast, and bombed LA or San Francisco. Let me guess: Their pilots then landed in Argentina?[8|]

In AE, you are able to use the editor to simulate the raid; should the Japanese be given the same ability?

Beside the strange fact that to re-create something which happened in RL one has to use the editor, what about letting Japan try some stunt in the US of the kind they actually tried?

Having used the editor to re-create the Doolittle Raid, I can see where there is potential for it to become a gamey tactic, unless HRs are used. It was a good call by the devs to limit it to mods only.
As for the Japanese, what "stunts" are you advocating?
Tying bombs to balloons in the vain hope it would work?
Or giving Japanese subs the ability to destroy US baseball fields?

In RL, the US developed the Atom Bomb; the Japanese tried, didn't come close.

True, basically because they had neither the tech or the means (now, if we talk about the Germans...) But they *had* the means to create fighter-only carriers - the choice not to do so being a doctrinal one. In WitP: AE I'm told I'm the ubercommander. As such, can I give around some orders and see how it goes? Thank you.

Yes, even you can claim to be an "ubercommander" in WitP:AE. Give as many orders as you please, just don't cheat. Simple, no? [8D]
And you're welcome.

Please cite a RL example of a WWII Japanese carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons.

Please, cite a real life example of the US winning at Kasserine.

Again: Um...what?[&:]
Sorry, but how does what happened at Kasserine have anything to do with WitP:AE? Or whether or not the Japanese ever put only fighters on their carriers?

Please cite a RL example of an WWII US carrier being assigned only fighter squadrons.

Please, cite a RL esample of Singapore resisting against all odds and becoming a thorn in the Japanese side.

Getting rather repetitious, but: Um...what?[&:]
Once more, how does what happened at Singapore have anything to do with whether or not the US ever put only fighters on their carriers?

I thought the game was War in the Pacific 1941-1945:Admiral's Edition, not Revisionist History in the Pacific 2010: JFB Edition.
But maybe that's just me.

I understand your pain: I thought that the game put me in either Allied or Japanese theatre commander shoes, asking me to find a way to win the war given the available assets, and not a multimedia history book about what happened. But maybe that's just me.

I truly understand your pain: asking you to find a way to win the game given the available assets is simply beyond your capabilities. You have to stoop to using gamey tactics.
And sadly, it's not just you.

Or maybe some people just have to cheat to win a game.[8|]

Since we are in the "maybe" phase, maybe some people need for the losing side to behave exactly the way they behaved in RL if they want to have the faintest hope to win - every deviation from the script being whined up and hard as "cheating". Maybe, of course.

Maybe, if some people understood the difference between using creative strategy and using gamey tactics, they would be able to enjoy the game without whining and trying to justify their cheating.
Maybe, just maybe.
But I doubt it.

[AW1Steve]

I'm amazed at how quickly this thread has gotten out of control and degenerated in relevancy. Might I remind you gentlemen of the question? The only new question should be "what is gamey?". Otherwise , you might consider if "defensive" carrier - gamey?" Let's not get personal, nor get bogged down in the weeds. [:)]

[oldman45]

I think a house rule allowing the creation of defensive carriers is fine, the only stipulation is the player uses multiple fighter squadrons.