Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

[tigercub]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Is that what you would do or would you modify your game play? [&:]

I would never quit (i.e. simply disappear) from a game, but I see no problem in admitting defeat when the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time. It is the ability to advance R&D and airframe production that gives the Japanese player a chance to rest remotely competitive and retain a motivation to play a bit longer.
Not sure how I would modify my game play - what else can you modify when the ability to modify airframe production is taken away? With HI and supplies NOT being spent on airframe R&D and production, you can build shipyards to speed-up ship production (but not create more ships) and factories to build more armament and vehicle points (but not create more ground units) - so game play may change to more ship losses and more destroyed ground devices from Allied bombings you cannot defend against with the limited numbers of (mainly) Oscars and Zeros you will be forced to fly. Heck, it is already difficult enough to resist the Allied juggernaut WITH the ability to modify airframe production.

Now, that being said, I'm actually in favor of reigning-in Japanese airframe R&D and production because for a good player it is easy to "abuse" the ahistorical capabilities given in the game. BUT reigning-in the Japanese only if the ahistorical capabilities of the Allies are being reigned-in as well - otherwise the game becomes even more asymetrical as it already is.

Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical.


"the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time."

Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game.

Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured?

I see a lot of Japanese players lining up to play now days just look at the list of players putting there hands up! why is that?

[tigercub]

No Corsair's allowed on US CV's until 1/44.

and no that's a crazy HR.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's a game, and as part of the game the Japan player gets the ability to massively increase production above historical levels and the ability to greatly accelerate the availability of key airframes.

Yup, and without that ability even more games would end in 1942/43 with the Japanese player admitting defeat or simply quitting, wouldn't they?

So you interpret that one thing, which can (depending upon game) balance/partly balance what I mentioned, as being responsible for Japan player resignations in 1942/43, even though a carrier capable version of the Corsair does not arrive until late '43. Your mileage and mine do vary. Peace.

No Sir, I interpret your post above as a general observation about the game - the Japanese side gets ahistorical advantages by game design (which nobody denies). You don't even mention the Corsair in your post so how could I interpret it the way you imply? I have never said that carrier-based Corsairs are the reason Japanese players quit in 1942/43 - you are putting words in my mouth. I said that taking away the ahistorical advantages would cause more players of the Japanese side to give up earlier.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical.


"the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time."

Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game.

Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured?

Replacing "Allies" with "Japanese" would mean that in the first 18 months of the game, the Allies exhaust their means for offering resistance and have no chance to inflict lossses and to hit back from time to time.

Despite the 1945-level supply and fuel production they get from Day 1 which is virtually untouchable for the Japanese, despite the never-ending and ever-increasing amount of reinforcements the Allies receive?

I find this hard to believe - maybe if an inexperienced or over-agressive or extremely unlucky Allied player squanders his assets. But even if the entire pre-war US Navy gets sunk in the first 18 months - the Allied player can still make a comeback.

That the Allied player has to endure a tough time in 1942 is in the nature of things and can't be held against the Japanese player - the Allied player has to endure if the game is to continue to the point when he can hit back. If the Allied player doesn't want to endure "Japanese hammer blows" in 1942, then he can play the Marianas or Downfall scenarios instead of the grand campaign.

What is comical is to compare what the Allies have to endure in 1942 with what the Japanese have to endure in 1944 - apples and oranges, I wonder if you you have ever played a PBEM on the Japanese side into the late war?

If you start a grand campaign as Allied player, you know that you will suffer in 1942, but also that you can come back with a vengance and an unstoppable steamroller - that helps to endure the tough start.

As Japanese player in 1944 you know the situation is bad - and can get only worse.

I agree though that the Japanese player should continue to fight as long as he has some fighting assets left. But when the fleet is sunk, the airforce impotent and the industries gutted, then it should be ok to call it quits?

[geofflambert]

Well, since the Brits were using them on their inferior carriers before the USN did, that would explain why you shouldn't let the Americans do it. NOT.

[Ian R]

Number crunching:

In stock scenario 1 the carrier capable F4U-1A arrives 10/43, at a rate of 78 per month, i.e you are going to average about 80 a month with average die rolls. Some arrive with incoming VMFs, but not huge numbers.

On the basis you need about 100 aircraft to initially equip and then service a carrier fighter group* of 48 aircraft (or more depending on how you have things configured, if you can resize them - you may be limited to 40 per by the historical air group configuration progression in stock) then by the end of 3/44 you have maybe six serviceable CV loads as a max.

Also, you will have to pay PPs in many cases to swap your land based VMFs into alternative airframes (possibly F6F) that do not appear in their usual upgrade path, or search around and find a VMF that can resize to what yoiu need and put it on a CVE for 90 days to get it properly qualified, paying PPs to put it in FM-1s or suchlike so it doesn't prang a bunch of shiny new Corsairs while training.

I think the developers got this just right. The superior F6F service rating gets you more available air frames than an F4U-1A equipped unit, as well, reflecting the logistical issues of mixing types; the F4U-1D has a service rating 1 like the F6F, and arrives in late 1944 when Corsairs were historically deployed ship-board. This is not an insignificant improvement.

[* One highly experienced VF operating Corsairs in the Solomons - possibly VF-17 - re-attached their tail hooks and made pit stops on a CV while flying out over the fleet in about November 1943, but earlier, in April 1943, VF-12 had successfully completed deck landing qualifications, followed by VF-17 who were landed from assignment to Bunker Hill's CAG for mainly logistical reasons.]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

This was a standard House Rule in WITP because the 1st US Corsair in that game was Carrier Capable they did not have the F4U v F4U1A difference we have in AE- so many players in that game would put USMC Sqns with Corsairs onto Carriers in early 43 because in that game it was carrier capable.

Historically as represented in AE that 1st US Corsair is NOT carrier capable

So the house Rule is not required any more - it was a WITP NOT a WITP:AE issue

Not a touchy subject at all because it is a DIFFERENT game issue
Andy

Thanks Andy that's the answer I was looking for!

[rustysi]

Have you tried playing playing as the Japanese in a PBEM? What are your experiences with this?

None. He doesn't play Japan, and doesn't PBEM.

[rustysi]

and put it on a CVE for 90 days to get it properly qualified

Not necessary.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

and put it on a CVE for 90 days to get it properly qualified

Not necessary.

No, it isn't. It is a carrier capable type. I am sure, however, that you know that it is advisable, so as to reduce ops losses, to qualify the air group flying it as carrier trained.

Let's see if you can stop being a smarty pants for a minute or two and agree with that, eh?

[Andy Mac]

You are arguing over a house rule for a DIFFERENT game that has been resolved for what 12 years....let it go

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You are arguing over a house rule for a DIFFERENT game that has been resolved for what 12 years....let it go

Sorry mate but I said

I think the developers got this just right.

And old rusty wanted to argue the toss.

I'll refrain from defending the team if you like.

Edit: Dyslexia.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

No Corsair's allowed on US CV's until 1/44.

IIRC there was a hr back in the WITP days saying "no Corsairs on CVE" but I can't recall the reason for it or were the CVE too small to carry Corsairs?

[Ian R]

Not RN ones. Some of them operated F4Us after conversion to the 'assault carrier' configuration.

I don't think the USN ever put them on CVEs, to be fair.

[Andy Mac]

US CVE's operated Corsairs in support of Australian operations off Borneo in 45

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical.


"the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time."

Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game.

Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured?

Replacing "Allies" with "Japanese" would mean that in the first 18 months of the game, the Allies exhaust their means for offering resistance and have no chance to inflict lossses and to hit back from time to time.

Despite the 1945-level supply and fuel production they get from Day 1 which is virtually untouchable for the Japanese, despite the never-ending and ever-increasing amount of reinforcements the Allies receive?

I find this hard to believe - maybe if an inexperienced or over-agressive or extremely unlucky Allied player squanders his assets. But even if the entire pre-war US Navy gets sunk in the first 18 months - the Allied player can still make a comeback.

That the Allied player has to endure a tough time in 1942 is in the nature of things and can't be held against the Japanese player - the Allied player has to endure if the game is to continue to the point when he can hit back. If the Allied player doesn't want to endure "Japanese hammer blows" in 1942, then he can play the Marianas or Downfall scenarios instead of the grand campaign.

What is comical is to compare what the Allies have to endure in 1942 with what the Japanese have to endure in 1944 - apples and oranges, I wonder if you you have ever played a PBEM on the Japanese side into the late war?

If you start a grand campaign as Allied player, you know that you will suffer in 1942, but also that you can come back with a vengance and an unstoppable steamroller - that helps to endure the tough start.

As Japanese player in 1944 you know the situation is bad - and can get only worse.

I agree though that the Japanese player should continue to fight as long as he has some fighting assets left. But when the fleet is sunk, the airforce impotent and the industries gutted, then it should be ok to call it quits?

You fail once again to grasp the point I have always and will continue to make:

The Allied player has to pay up front for his heyday by first enduring the Japanese heyday.

The Japanese player has his heyday handed to him on a silver platter and only has to pay the piper after the fact.

This places on Japanese players a debt of obligation to stick it out and weather the Allied heyday.

In my one and only, sour taste in my mouth experience, with PBEM, in an Uncommon Valor game, my low life scum Japanese opponent, who duped this newbie into agreeing to play the UV equivalent of an Ironman game because he would need a beefed up force to be able to go the distance, promptly quit when his early bid for autovictory failed.

My observations see quitting as soon as your heyday ends continues to be a prominent trend amongst those who play the Japanese side.

I have the utmost respect for the few Japanese side players who actually go the distance.
You happen to be among that group.

[mind_messing]

No house rules are needed. For every action, there is an appropriate reaction. HR's serve as a crutch for bad play.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That one would likely correspond to the one restricting The Japanese from having operational jets in '44.

Can you provide an example of that?

I don't doubt that it's technically possible, but is it at all practical?

I strongly suspect not, but happy to be proven wrong.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No house rules are needed. For every action, there is an appropriate reaction. HR's serve as a crutch for bad play.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That one would likely correspond to the one restricting The Japanese from having operational jets in '44.

Can you provide an example of that?

I don't doubt that it's technically possible, but is it at all practical?

I strongly suspect not, but happy to be proven wrong.

I read that as a joke. Hans is funny sometimes.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No house rules are needed. For every action, there is an appropriate reaction. HR's serve as a crutch for bad play.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That one would likely correspond to the one restricting The Japanese from having operational jets in '44.

Can you provide an example of that?

I don't doubt that it's technically possible, but is it at all practical?

I strongly suspect not, but happy to be proven wrong.

I read that as a joke. Hans is funny sometimes.

Some people just do not understand satire . . .

[spence]

My observations see quitting as soon as your heyday ends continues to be a prominent trend amongst those who play the Japanese side.

In the BigB Mod it is not possible to put Corsairs onto CVs until the F4U-1D becomes available sometime in 1944. I'm in mid-Jan 1944 and it hasn't happened yet (BTW the F4U-1D is not as good as the F4U-1A in A2A)(I suppose I could find out when it shows up but since I can't manipulate it all I just wait).