House Rule - no squadron resize, no transfer of restricted to CV

[Lowpe]

Has anyone played a game where resizing naval air squadrons wasn't allowed and where you couldn't transfer restricted squadrons to carriers?

[btd64]

Nope. What are you thinking here? For the Allies, some units resize automatically if the resize is on. Other than that, Japanese squadrons I can't comment on because I haven't made it to that point yet in my PBEM....GP

[HansBolter]

I think he is thinking of reigning in the ability of the Japanese player to transfer restricted squadrons to carriers, resize them garguantly and then transfer them back to land operations.

This allows the Japanese player to exploit his extremely deep air frame pools.

The lack of depth in the Allied pools already prevents this kind of 'exploit'.

[IdahoNYer]

L_S_T and I have limited them, not prohibited them. Training squadrons could go to 90 planes, squadrons to be used in combat could resize to 36 planes. (If I recall correctly)

[Lowpe]

You can transfer even a permanently restricted air group simply by flying them onto a carrier at sea. Now they are un-restricted and assigned to Independent I recall. So that avoids having to pay PP to switch HQ or frees up white restricted air groups that were not meant to change HQs.

Both the Allies and Japan can resize squadrons (if they don't resize down the road on their own) by getting them on carriers.

A lot of JFB really exploit this, especially with float planes. The Allies do it too, but are generally a bit more restricted than the Japanese (plane builds, and also a lot of Allied squadrons have resize dates).

The benefits are usually an incredibly highly trained pilot pool to draw from. Or simply just very large squadrons. All of a sudden that size 18 night fighter squadron can have 72 planes for example. Of course there is a supply cost to be paid...

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I limit resizing to 45 planes max, as part of my standard HR

I don't have a HR for transfering restricted, but it is an exploit I never use; if I resize restricted squadrons, I then change them back to their original HQ; PP cost is zero to move from independent to the original HQ

A HR should also deal with changing HQ within command.. it is gamey to have the entire US army under "ComFleetAirWest" because it is 1/3 cheaper to change within command
I personally don't use ComFleetAirWest outside US territories; they won't go farther than PH; it is a training HQ in my books

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

A HR should also deal with changing HQ within command.. it is gamey to have the entire US army under "ComFleetAirWest" because it is 1/3 cheaper to change within command
I personally don't use ComFleetAirWest outside US territories; they won't go farther than PH; it is a training HQ in my books

I have played games with that House Rule, and even without the rule never did it.

[jdsrae]

No to the first question, but I’m in pbem #1.

There is also a fixed constraint on the amount of land based aviation support that each side gets.

[Uncivil Engineer]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You can transfer even a permanently restricted air group simply by flying them onto a carrier at sea. Now they are un-restricted and assigned to Independent I recall. So that avoids having to pay PP to switch HQ or frees up white restricted air groups that were not meant to change HQs.

Both the Allies and Japan can resize squadrons (if they don't resize down the road on their own) by getting them on carriers.

A lot of JFB really exploit this, especially with float planes. The Allies do it too, but are generally a bit more restricted than the Japanese (plane builds, and also a lot of Allied squadrons have resize dates).

The benefits are usually an incredibly highly trained pilot pool to draw from. Or simply just very large squadrons. All of a sudden that size 18 night fighter squadron can have 72 planes for example. Of course there is a supply cost to be paid...

You should require the squadron be bought out BEFORE you put it on the CV.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Uncivil Engineer

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You can transfer even a permanently restricted air group simply by flying them onto a carrier at sea. Now they are un-restricted and assigned to Independent I recall. So that avoids having to pay PP to switch HQ or frees up white restricted air groups that were not meant to change HQs.

Both the Allies and Japan can resize squadrons (if they don't resize down the road on their own) by getting them on carriers.

A lot of JFB really exploit this, especially with float planes. The Allies do it too, but are generally a bit more restricted than the Japanese (plane builds, and also a lot of Allied squadrons have resize dates).

The benefits are usually an incredibly highly trained pilot pool to draw from. Or simply just very large squadrons. All of a sudden that size 18 night fighter squadron can have 72 planes for example. Of course there is a supply cost to be paid...

You should require the squadron be bought out BEFORE you put it on the CV.

you can't buy out permanently restricted units.

[mind_messing]

I do it as a matter of course. First time around I made the squadrons operational, but in practice they're very unwieldy to use, even if the prospect of a good 81 squadron sweep was tempting.

Second time around I used it to supercharge the IJN's training programme, which is a far more cost effect use in my view. It's tight for IJN pilots for a lot of the war, so being able to boost the training capacity is a massive help.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I think he is thinking of reigning in the ability of the Japanese player to transfer restricted squadrons to carriers, resize them garguantly and then transfer them back to land operations.

This allows the Japanese player to exploit his extremely deep air frame pools.

The lack of depth in the Allied pools already prevents this kind of 'exploit'.

Doesn't come cheap for Japan to actually fill out those squadrons with planes.

The main advantage for the Allies is that it lets them fill out a very tight training bottleneck (USN F/DB/TB)

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

No to the first question, but I’m in pbem #1.

There is also a fixed constraint on the amount of land based aviation support that each side gets.

In theory, yes.

In practice, less so. There's a lot of static support in rear areas that can be boosted with investment in a size 8/9 airbase to double AS.

[Lowpe]

Do you think having those restrictions would slow the pace of the game down some?

[RangerJoe]

Units in 100% training need one third of the support. You can use out dated aircraft in them. You can also supersize them much higher than 72 . . .

[dr.hal]

Lowpe, I believe the underlying principle of your original post is rooted in the exhaustive concept of traditional play vs. game play. In traditional play, one tries to adhere to principles and procedures of the military side that you are playing. While in game play, you can use what ever dynamic that the game allows. I would suspect that most of us play somewhere in between those two extreme ends of a continuum. In the arena of Naval Air, I believe the game allows much more than it needs to. For example, it's easy to allow non-CV qualified air CV capable units to transfer to a carrier and operate with little in the way of consequences. Although we are told that accident rates are higher for such a unit until it gets "trained" it is not very apparent in my experience (and I certainly know how difficult it is to land on that postage stamp at sea called a CV in all its scary reality). Yet folks do exploit this and other "allowed" options. So clearly if there is a mismatch in players, a traditionalist vs. a gamer, the former is at a decided disadvantage. This is especially true for the Japanese player. I would guess that a more interesting question to have addressed is what players have tried to follow a campaign using HRs that strictly follow the actual traditions exercised by their chosen side. I know I've not done so.... the first problem I would have is knowing enough history to actually be able to ID those restrictions to put into play on both sides in the first place! The game allows for much more flexibility than history did. Which is part of the fun.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Lowpe, I believe the underlying principle of your original post is rooted in the exhaustive concept of traditional play vs. game play. In traditional play, one tries to adhere to principles and procedures of the military side that you are playing. While in game play, you can use what ever dynamic that the game allows. I would suspect that most of us play somewhere in between those two extreme ends of a continuum. In the arena of Naval Air, I believe the game allows much more than it needs to. For example, it's easy to allow non-CV qualified air CV capable units to transfer to a carrier and operate with little in the way of consequences. Although we are told that accident rates are higher for such a unit until it gets "trained" it is not very apparent in my experience (and I certainly know how difficult it is to land on that postage stamp at sea called a CV in all its scary reality). Yet folks do exploit this and other "allowed" options. So clearly if there is a mismatch in players, a traditionalist vs. a gamer, the former is at a decided disadvantage. This is especially true for the Japanese player. I would guess that a more interesting question to have addressed is what players have tried to follow a campaign using HRs that strictly follow the actual traditions exercised by their chosen side. I know I've not done so.... the first problem I would have is knowing enough history to actually be able to ID those restrictions to put into play on both sides in the first place! The game allows for much more flexibility than history did. Which is part of the fun.

I can't imagine how Japan could compete if for example they had to apply Army vs Navy cooperation for example. I am definitely not adverse to being either gamey or non-historical. Heck, I invaded California.[:D]

What I am trying to figure out is how to slow down the speed (pacing) of the game a bit. Make a long game even longer, I guess I am nuts.

The biggest method I think is to play a scenario 2 style game...but I kind of feel that makes Japan too strong.

Another example is the non-stop shore bombardments for weeks or months at a time. Every day. I have done it. I have had it done to me.

But I am sincerely curious to see how a pbem with the restrictions in the title turned out.

[JoV]

I resize existing groups to make better use of carrier capacity, e.g. the Ryujo air groups at game start are resized up to its 48 plane capacity (from memory I resize the torp bombers to 27 and the fighters to 21 to match the torp load). For the Chitose et al I take off the larger air group and resize the smaller one up to its full capacity. That's about it. For the KB carriers that start out below capacity but with a planned resize, I split up a LBA group to better fill them out till the resize occurs. Have never known whether or not this is 'gamey' or not. Just seemed like making the most of what you have [:D]

Similarly I haven't used CVs to make restricted groups independent, but I have switched the HQ of bases around Japan to Home Command so that I can move them out of Japan proper. Is that any more or less gamey? Dunno [:'(]

[RangerJoe]

Actually, I think that part of the resizing of the fighter groups is the realization that more fighters were needed as well as folding wings.

[dr.hal]

Well the strategic level cooperation problem is a WHOLE new ball game! As I've discussed with other players in other threads, it could be realistically approached by setting up a campaign with multiple players on each side. This would be accompanied by HRs concerning communications between players and the use of PPs by players. It could be a fascinating exercise in strategic level infighting with a corresponding impact on tactical fighting!

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

What I am trying to figure out is how to slow down the speed (pacing) of the game a bit. Make a long game even longer, I guess I am nuts.

I'm playing a PBEM campaign now with the DaBabes reduced cargo restrictions. I'm told that this slows down the game's pace of action by a degree that makes flow more "realistic". It's too early to tell in my game, but that's the hype on the DaBabes website... You might think of using one of those scenarios.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
What I am trying to figure out is how to slow down the speed (pacing) of the game a bit. Make a long game even longer, I guess I am nuts.

The biggest method I think is to play a scenario 2 style game...but I kind of feel that makes Japan too strong.

Another example is the non-stop shore bombardments for weeks or months at a time. Every day. I have done it. I have had it done to me.

But I am sincerely curious to see how a pbem with the restrictions in the title turned out.

I feel you are looking for pace factors in the wrong place. Plane training and unit size is not a significant factor. Resizing would lead to more intense air war, but that's for both sides. Even if Japan can employ more planes, it pays with increased supply usage. And training boost is symmetrical.

Pace of the game is mainly determined by the speed of base building and the ease of transportation. HR limiting the number of engineer units on the base would be a good start here. Which is not entirely illogical. You cannot cram the future airstrip choke-full of bulldozers, they would just get in the way of each other