Carriers

[WebRider]

I've played all the pacific war games, I even playtested Pacific War and Carrier Strike for SSI, Gary, David Landry. I've played QQP's rip off of South Pacific c64 game.
If you dont have detailed carrier operations and plane to ship battles your missing the boat. I hate to see Norm Krogers influence on Gary's work, I've tested a few of his games and never liked his attrition modles, although it would have worked in a pacific war scale. I dont know but a pacific war game without detailed carrier battles is missing the whole point of the pacific war, carriers and air power. I was so excited about these two upcomming games until I read how you were planning on handling the carriers. I hope I hope I hope I'm wrong, in this case I would love to be wrong. I hate to post negativly here but that is just my thoughts. Its been years since I've played a carrier game.


------------------
The Red Dragon looks thru the purple haze of the window pane at an orange sunshine.

[RevRick]

I respectfully disagree. I do not want to get to the point I have to tell each squadron commander how to load his aircraft, tell the CAG what type of strike to launch. I want a strategic game. I may want to make sure that a TG operates at a different risk exposure in certain threat enviromnemts, i.e., what Nimitz did with Spruance at the Mariannas and with Halsey at the Philippines, but to get involved with the details of each carriers operations, while attractive at the early war stage, would become cumbersome to the point of distraction to those of us who wish to work with the grand sweep of the war. Theater commanders do not have time to work at that scale, or they would not be a theater commander in the first place.

Now, if you want to design a game which places one in the role of a TF commander - that sounds just fine also. But, this is not the game for that in my opinion.



------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman

[grumbler]

Actually, The Pacific war was about engineers and land-based air, for the most part. I agree that CV operations should be shown on a detailed scale but controlled on the grnd scale. Sorta like PacWar is now.

[moore4807]

For what its worth- I agree with RevRick about the strategically controlling TF's and air groups. Having said that, I really am hoping for a "shortlist" of options for TF/groups (ie: defensive Ops only, ground support, mixed, air superiority, tactical bombing, carpet bombing etc). The effectiveness of the commander, numbers, and efficency ratings should then determine the outcome of thier orders.
This would greatly enhance the PacWar style strategic game- several posts have complained about invading an enemy base and having the fledgling airgroup waste itself on attacks- then its unable to defend itself from attack and promptly lose the base back to the enemy. I too plea that this wasnt realistic, although the overall game is still good- it kept me from many an invasion til I had such overwhelming odds as to be removed in the real Navy for cowardice!
Just some thoughts...
Jim