Air group assignments

[spence]

Unlike the USN air groups, IJN air groups were part of the ship's company of the ship to which they were assigned.

So if either a ship (Shokaku) or its air group (Zuikaku) were heavily damaged then that ship and air group were out of action (Battle of Midway). Contrast that with USS Yorktown - ship damaged at Coral Sea and air group shot up pretty good - ship patched up hurriedly (separate story) but air group losses replaced with air group from a different carrier (Saratoga).

In the game I have had several PBEM opponents load the KB up with torpedo bombers while shuffling their dive bombers off to secondary units like CVL's and CVE's. Aside from the physical impossibility of moving D3As between the flight deck and hangar deck on IJN CVLs/CVEs (bigger a/c because they could not fold their wings) this should cost the IJN Player a bunch of PP's. But it doesn't because all IJN aircraft are assigned to Combined Fleet in the game which means they can be used any way the IJN Player wishes at no PP cost. Unrealistic flexibility should be something paid for with PP's.

[wdolson]

If you don't like it, you'll have to negotiate a house rule. The game gives the same capability to both sides, even though the Japanese didn't initially take advantage of it. Starting in 1943 the Japanese did move air groups off carriers and made them land based where they got chewed up in the Solomons. The Japanese again sent their carrier air groups to Formosa in July 1944 (may have been a little later) when Halsey raided Formosa in preparation for the invasion of the PI. The Combined Fleet staff thought an invasion of Formosa was imminent.

Bill

[Hyacinth]

Not using Vals from CVL/CVEs is a good rule, otherwise restricting the compositions is not.

Japanese where very innovative and flexible at times, so better to keep the "what if" in the game.

[spence]

Let the Japanese be as innovative as they want. All I am advocating is that they pay for such innovation with PPs.

[Numdydar]

Well the code is not going to change to force Japan to pay PPs, so it would have to be a house rule.

I personally, as I only play Japan, see no issues with removing AC from CV and setting up whatever AC I want on them. This is NOT an historical simulation. It is a game. We are not trying to recreate history we are trying to change it. As Japan's leader, I have the ability to modify anything I want.

I can increase production of specific aircraft as much as I want. That is not historical at all either. Yet you are concerned about this minim issue compared to what Japan can do in this game? Just seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

The issue with these topics is there is a high percentage of PBEM games that never get into late '43+ on. So a lot of the Allied complaints about 'Japan should not be able to ...' are based on the '41-42 timeframe. Once you get into '43 on, you should realize as the Allies that these complaints don't really matter much. Japan will lose. Period.

They may do better than historically, which is why at least some of us play as Japan [:)]. But now you want Japanese players to pay PP to change CV groups? I'm sorry but I have no sympathy or support for anything like this. Because I have played japan in PBEM's until '45 and know that none of this matters at the end.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well the code is not going to change to force Japan to pay PPs, so it would have to be a house rule.

I personally, as I only play Japan, see no issues with removing AC from CV and setting up whatever AC I want on them. This is NOT an historical simulation. It is a game. We are not trying to recreate history we are trying to change it. As Japan's leader, I have the ability to modify anything I want.

I can increase production of specific aircraft as much as I want. That is not historical at all either. Yet you are concerned about this minim issue compared to what Japan can do in this game? Just seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

The issue with these topics is there is a high percentage of PBEM games that never get into late '43+ on. So a lot of the Allied complaints about 'Japan should not be able to ...' are based on the '41-42 timeframe. Once you get into '43 on, you should realize as the Allies that these complaints don't really matter much. Japan will lose. Period.

They may do better than historically, which is why at least some of us play as Japan [:)]. But now you want Japanese players to pay PP to change CV groups? I'm sorry but I have no sympathy or support for anything like this. Because I have played japan in PBEM's until '45 and know that none of this matters at the end.

This is a completely invalid argument.

If it's a game and not a simulation, then why are the Allies restricted to a historical production and commitment rate?

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for spoiled rotten Japanese players who have all the flexibility in the world that is denied to their opponents and greet any request for restrictions on that flexibility with whining.

And since 90% of those who play the game never see 1945 how it is in the end really doesn't matter.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well the code is not going to change to force Japan to pay PPs, so it would have to be a house rule.

I personally, as I only play Japan, see no issues with removing AC from CV and setting up whatever AC I want on them. This is NOT an historical simulation. It is a game. We are not trying to recreate history we are trying to change it. As Japan's leader, I have the ability to modify anything I want.

I can increase production of specific aircraft as much as I want. That is not historical at all either. Yet you are concerned about this minim issue compared to what Japan can do in this game? Just seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

The issue with these topics is there is a high percentage of PBEM games that never get into late '43+ on. So a lot of the Allied complaints about 'Japan should not be able to ...' are based on the '41-42 timeframe. Once you get into '43 on, you should realize as the Allies that these complaints don't really matter much. Japan will lose. Period.

They may do better than historically, which is why at least some of us play as Japan [:)]. But now you want Japanese players to pay PP to change CV groups? I'm sorry but I have no sympathy or support for anything like this. Because I have played japan in PBEM's until '45 and know that none of this matters at the end.

This is a completely invalid argument.

If it's a game and not a simulation, then why are the Allies restricted to a historical production and commitment rate?

If it's a simulation and not a game, why are the Allies not restricted to the political realities of the wartime alliances?

I find it quite amusing that you're bemoaning historical replacement/reinforcement rates when the Allied player (if he so chooses) can simply ignore the various conflicts between the Allied powers on the international stage.

China can be abandoned to fend for itself, the Dutch can be left out to dry and the Americans have no hard requirement to send any troops to defend the sea-lanes to Austrailia.

To actually reply to your question, the Allies are restricted to a historical production and commitment rate because of "Europe First". If you don't like it, I suggest you have a look at the mod that lets you exchange PP's for additional aircraft.

[Dili]

I don't see the problem with Japanese mix carrier crews, it was done halfway in war. It is like changing strategy.

Now the issue of Val - and Grace btw - request an house rule that is sensible because it was a physical impossibility. Same with putting other than a Glen floatplane in "common" Japanese submarines.


Refer to my research on thread called Aircraft limitations of Japanese carriers?

with some references also to US CVE's.

tm.asp?m=3609259

[Hyacinth]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't see the problem with Japanese mix carrier crews, it was done halfway in war. It is like changing strategy.

Now the issue of Val - and Grace btw - request an house rule that is sensible because it was a physical impossibility. Same with putting other than a Glen floatplane in "common" Japanese submarines.


Refer to my research on thread called Aircraft limitations of Japanese carriers?

with some references also to US CVE's.

tm.asp?m=3609259

What are the house rules for types in US CVEs?
Something as simple as not using Vals in IJN CVL/CVEs?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well the code is not going to change to force Japan to pay PPs, so it would have to be a house rule.

I personally, as I only play Japan, see no issues with removing AC from CV and setting up whatever AC I want on them. This is NOT an historical simulation. It is a game. We are not trying to recreate history we are trying to change it. As Japan's leader, I have the ability to modify anything I want.

I can increase production of specific aircraft as much as I want. That is not historical at all either. Yet you are concerned about this minim issue compared to what Japan can do in this game? Just seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

The issue with these topics is there is a high percentage of PBEM games that never get into late '43+ on. So a lot of the Allied complaints about 'Japan should not be able to ...' are based on the '41-42 timeframe. Once you get into '43 on, you should realize as the Allies that these complaints don't really matter much. Japan will lose. Period.

They may do better than historically, which is why at least some of us play as Japan [:)]. But now you want Japanese players to pay PP to change CV groups? I'm sorry but I have no sympathy or support for anything like this. Because I have played japan in PBEM's until '45 and know that none of this matters at the end.

This is a completely invalid argument.

If it's a game and not a simulation, then why are the Allies restricted to a historical production and commitment rate?

If it's a simulation and not a game, why are the Allies not restricted to the political realities of the wartime alliances?

I find it quite amusing that you're bemoaning historical replacement/reinforcement rates when the Allied player (if he so chooses) can simply ignore the various conflicts between the Allied powers on the international stage.

China can be abandoned to fend for itself, the Dutch can be left out to dry and the Americans have no hard requirement to send any troops to defend the sea-lanes to Austrailia.

To actually reply to your question, the Allies are restricted to a historical production and commitment rate because of "Europe First". If you don't like it, I suggest you have a look at the mod that lets you exchange PP's for additional aircraft.

It's because it is BOTH a simulation AND a game that arguments like these are silly. That's the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't complaining because the game isn't an exact simulation. Of course no one wants it to be.

I was merely citing one example of many that proves it is both game and simulation.

What I truly don't like is whining Japanese players when they have been handed every possible break to make their side "viable" to play.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
It's because it is BOTH a simulation AND a game that arguments like these are silly. That's the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't complaining because the game isn't an exact simulation. Of course no one wants it to be.

I was merely citing one example of many that proves it is both game and simulation.

No, it's a game. It says as much on the store page of Matrix Games. There are some who try to use it as a simulation, but that involes messing with the game player-side.

What I truly don't like is whining Japanese players when they have been handed every possible break to make their side "viable" to play.

Something tells me you've pretty limited experiance with Japan in the late-war. The "breaks", so to speak, matter as much as a teardrop in the ocean in the long run. The Allies, with their "historical" reinforcement and replenishment rate, have enough in the end to beat Japan twice over. "Breaks" or not.

Yes, the Japanese get various "breaks". They can directly control production, but it's hardly as flexible as you think. Oil and fuel (and thus HI and Supply) are limited - they translate into only so many airframes/LCU's/ships. Those Zero's built in 1942 are Shinden's not built in 1945.

But the Allies get those various "breaks" as well. There's no risk of China signing a seperate peace with Japan because the Allies won't support their war effort, nor is there any public outcry in Austrailia if the Americans leave them to hold out against Japan on their own.

They balance out quite well in my view.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Who's whining here - the AFB? Let's take away every little "unfair advantage" the Japanese side has, so that the Allied players can win the war in 1943 - against the AI, because no human player would like to play Japan anymore...
JFBs can put Vals on CVEs? Big deal, AFBs can put Hellcats and Corsairs on CVEs. For each "unhistorical advantage " of one side someone will find something similar on the other side, so stop the fanboy bashing.
Yes, some brake on Japanese plane production and some flexibility on Allied production would be nice. There are mods who try to adress this.

[Chijohnaok2]

Whatever house rules two consenting players agree to in their game is their business.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

Whatever house rules two consenting players agree to in their game is their business.

Absolutely.[8D]

[wdolson]

Both sides can do unhistorical things that give them an advantage that didn't exist in the real war. It's part of the game. That's what house rules are for.

Bill

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well the code is not going to change to force Japan to pay PPs, so it would have to be a house rule.

I personally, as I only play Japan, see no issues with removing AC from CV and setting up whatever AC I want on them. This is NOT an historical simulation. It is a game. We are not trying to recreate history we are trying to change it. As Japan's leader, I have the ability to modify anything I want.

I can increase production of specific aircraft as much as I want. That is not historical at all either. Yet you are concerned about this minim issue compared to what Japan can do in this game? Just seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

The issue with these topics is there is a high percentage of PBEM games that never get into late '43+ on. So a lot of the Allied complaints about 'Japan should not be able to ...' are based on the '41-42 timeframe. Once you get into '43 on, you should realize as the Allies that these complaints don't really matter much. Japan will lose. Period.

They may do better than historically, which is why at least some of us play as Japan [:)]. But now you want Japanese players to pay PP to change CV groups? I'm sorry but I have no sympathy or support for anything like this. Because I have played japan in PBEM's until '45 and know that none of this matters at the end.

This is a completely invalid argument.

If it's a game and not a simulation, then why are the Allies restricted to a historical production and commitment rate?

If it's a simulation and not a game, why are the Allies not restricted to the political realities of the wartime alliances?

I find it quite amusing that you're bemoaning historical replacement/reinforcement rates when the Allied player (if he so chooses) can simply ignore the various conflicts between the Allied powers on the international stage.

China can be abandoned to fend for itself, the Dutch can be left out to dry and the Americans have no hard requirement to send any troops to defend the sea-lanes to Austrailia.

To actually reply to your question, the Allies are restricted to a historical production and commitment rate because of "Europe First". If you don't like it, I suggest you have a look at the mod that lets you exchange PP's for additional aircraft.

I am just curious as why on earth you thought my message was 'whining' about Japan? That I think having to pay PP's to move CV AC around is stupid?

The only reason that the Allied production is fixed to the historical record is so the AFB's cannot just ignore the ETO and pile the entire US production into the PTO. Which would happen if allowed. Then Japanese players WOULD have something to whine about [:D]

Again absolutely NOTHING any AFB complains about matters at the end. Of course if you have Japanese players dropping out in '42 and '43 I can see why these things would matter. But that is not an issue with the game mechanics, it is an issue with whom you are playing with. Which is a totally different issue.

But then I could just be whining again [:D]

[spence]

Japanese carrier doctrine differed in many important ways from both USN and British carrier doctrine:

First off, Japanese CAP was directed against incoming strikes by...NO ONE. An even if some Ensign Yoshida actually had something approximating a radar plot in his head none (or practically none) of the fighter planes were listening to him...EVER. The pilots took their radios out of their planes to increase manueverability.


Second off, for the first year of the war Japanese carriers defended themselves, all by themselves. Their screen was dispersed so far away (because they had no radar plot) that they could not contribute ANY effective antiaircraft fire at aircraft attacking those carriers.

Third off, Japanese carriers included their organic air groups in their ship's company so Japanese aircraft carriers and air groups did not have the same flexibility as their USN counterparts.

At the beginning of 1942 no one had ever fought a carrier vs carrier battle. The differences in doctrine at that time turned out to be important. The 4 battles that took place in that one year show illustrate the differences between the nations' doctrines. The only one that the Japanese can claim to have won (Santa Cruz) put their carrier force out of action for months due to the lost of pilots/aircrew. The one that they could be arguably claim (Coral Sea) to have won resulted in two of their CVs being put out of action while under nearly the same circumstances the USN put the same carrier back into the fight imediately (Yorktown at Midway).

In this game not one of these doctrinal differences has been simulated.

While changing all the mechanics of the whole game system is a bit over the top maybe just a simple reassignment of carrier aircraft to the individual carrier in accordance with Japanese carrier doctrine is not a terrible and unjustified fix. Let the IJN player create that which was entirely foreign to his starting place in his doctrine but let him pay some cost (in this case PPs)
for doing that.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: spence

At the beginning of 1942 no one had ever fought a carrier vs carrier battle. The differences in doctrine at that time turned out to be important. The 4 battles that took place in that one year show illustrate the differences between the nations' doctrines. The only one that the Japanese can claim to have won (Santa Cruz) put their carrier force out of action for months due to the lost of pilots/aircrew. The one that they could be arguably claim (Coral Sea) to have won resulted in two of their CVs being put out of action while under nearly the same circumstances the USN put the same carrier back into the fight imediately (Yorktown at Midway).

Have you read the Osprey Duel book on IJN vs USN carriers in 1942? They came to the opposite conclusion. They pointed out the only battle of 1942 where the USN did well was Midway. In the rest of the battles, the Japanese outperformed the USN for the most part. Though American flexibility did put the Yorktown back in action quicker.

In this game not one of these doctrinal differences has been simulated.

While changing all the mechanics of the whole game system is a bit over the top maybe just a simple reassignment of carrier aircraft to the individual carrier in accordance with Japanese carrier doctrine is not a terrible and unjustified fix. Let the IJN player create that which was entirely foreign to his starting place in his doctrine but let him pay some cost (in this case PPs)
for doing that.

Modders are free to do what they want with their own scenarios. It probably is not going to happen with the official scenarios. It could probably be done by assigning carrier aircraft to restricted HQs.

Bill

[Hyacinth]

It is plausible that there could have been multiple doctrinal and tactical changes after Coral Sea.


If not then the player playing Japan could just sail the carriers to their faith in Midway at the right date.

[Hyacinth]

Actually to me it seems IJN was breaking its own doctrine.
First by committing capital ships in attritional battles in the Solomons and then exposing them to harm in the Central Pacific.