"defensive" carrier - gamey?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

ORIGINAL: ckammp
I was referring to the tactic of resizing 1 squadron to 72 planes.
I believe this tactic can be abused to create a large number of these huge squadrons, which IMHO is simply cheating.

Not sure if that is even possible. If I'm reading the resize rules correctly (http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.php?title=Resizing_Carrier_Units), he can, at most get his fighters groups up to 37% of his CV capacity. Of course, he might get them bigger if he has a CVL or CVE with a large enough capacity (60% of CVL cap and 90% CVE)

Yes, it is possible.
From the link you cite:
"Only carrier capable F, FB, NF, DB, and TB groups can resize according to the first applicable condition below
a) if only one group on the CVx, then new size is 9/10 of CV capacity."

Akagi capacity is 81. 9/10 of 81= 72.

Also, the OP stated he had resized a fighter group to 72 planes.

Regardless, I still feel doing so is gamey.

The Essex class eventually operated 73 VF, 15 VSB, and 15 VT. Not bad for a design originally intended to operate 36 VF, 37 VSB, and 18 VT.

[Smeulders]

Yep, I misread it, I thought the a) rule was just used if none of the others were applicable.

[Sardaukar]

Wonder if one could use it to counter Kamikazes.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007


So my question is: Is it gamey to have a fighter only CV?

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.

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?)

Either the game shows you why in 1942 would have been a bad thing, or it shows you why the Japanese could have considered it, or the model is broken.

A good game should allow you to try all kinds of wild stunts *as long as they were physically possibile in real life* and see what happens. If something is objectively stupid, a good game will lead to bad results by itself.

My favourite example are pre-WWII naval wargames. Imagine one that showed CVs superiority over BBs: he would have been labeled as "broken". Not to talk about the "gamey" tactics of using CVs as all-out offensive platforms against enemy fleets.

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't think it is gamey if it is done from a shipyard base to prepare the stores inside the ship for fighters(more guns amno, maybe needs more fuel, no need for torpedos, most bombs, just maybe ome small bombs) there is need of some time spent on training and tactics.

I'd say not gamey at all but with a caveat that CV airgroups cannot be changed unless the CV is in port. this will prevent the immediate swopping over of fighters to bombers in mid ocean to gain an 'unhistorical' advantage. IMO kepping 12 kates with 60 zeros is the best option anyway.

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?) can be justified by the late-44/early-45 resizing of US carrier squadrons (historically true, done to counter kamikaze attacks, and only added more fighters while still keeping DBs and TBs).

It isn't "creative" tactics, it's just cheating.   

If 72 fighters can be stored and fly off of a carrier, how would this be considered "gamey" or "cheating"? Just because it wasn't a practice in RL does not mean that it wouldn't be done in the right situations.

In 1920, people were appalled at Billy Mitchell's ideas. The idea of a plane sinking a BB???? Unheard of. It would never happen.

The Japanese conducting a surprise bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941??? No way. It would be impossible to traverse the length of the Pacific without anybody knowing it. Plus the fuel that would be needed would be outrageous.

Bombers taking off from a flat top???? Impossible. Too short of a runway for them to take off from. Besides, they would never get close enough to Japan undetected in order to bomb Tokyo.

A bomb that could destroy a complete City???? No way.

"Extreme situations call for extreme measures". or "Necessity is the mother of invention".

[SuluSea]

Not gamey, using the platform for defensive purposes instead of offensive.

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007


The biggest problem I see is the usage of the resize feature (as a few have pointed out). As John 3rd have said, loading 3 daitais makes more sense, as it gives tactical flexibility. What I tried to do is gaining more fighter frames without having to use other squadrons, as I'm short of those anyway. So i believe that this makes it gamey, not the concept of a CAP-only CV.

You sound like a fair person, agree with this as well.

[Lifer]

Not gamey if you transferred the fighter squadrons on board set to whatever was normal prior to boarding.  So you would have 2, 3 or 4 squadrons of fighters up to the carrier limit rather than 1 squadron resized to 70+.

Greg

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I believe the tactic is gamey, and it can be easily abused.

I don't understand how putting only fighters on a large Japanese carrier in 1942 (never even attempted in RL, and why would they?) can be justified by the late-44/early-45 resizing of US carrier squadrons (historically true, done to counter kamikaze attacks, and only added more fighters while still keeping DBs and TBs).

It isn't "creative" tactics, it's just cheating.   

If 72 fighters can be stored and fly off of a carrier, how would this be considered "gamey" or "cheating"? Just because it wasn't a practice in RL does not mean that it wouldn't be done in the right situations.

In 1920, people were appalled at Billy Mitchell's ideas. The idea of a plane sinking a BB???? Unheard of. It would never happen.

The Japanese conducting a surprise bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941??? No way. It would be impossible to traverse the length of the Pacific without anybody knowing it. Plus the fuel that would be needed would be outrageous.

Bombers taking off from a flat top???? Impossible. Too short of a runway for them to take off from. Besides, they would never get close enough to Japan undetected in order to bomb Tokyo.

A bomb that could destroy a complete City???? No way.

"Extreme situations call for extreme measures". or "Necessity is the mother of invention".

I belive the tactic of resizing a squadron to 72 planes is gamey (cheating).
IMHO, it is too easy to abuse this tactic, and I believe it would result in skewed combat results.

I do not accept the justification of 'creative' tactics by using the claims:
"Well, they could have!"
"The other side did it, my side could too!"
"They just didn't think of it!"
The fact that one side was historically able to use certain strategies/tactics/technologies should not be used as a reason to allow the other side access to those same strategies/tactics/technologies.
Nor should the AE game engine be manipulated to allow such ahistorical practices.

[witpqs]

Not gamey.

Resizing one squadron to ~72 planes might be gamey. Use multiple squadrons.

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
I belive the tactic of resizing a squadron to 72 planes is gamey (cheating).
IMHO, it is too easy to abuse this tactic, and I believe it would result in skewed combat results.

Have you a practical example for this or it is only guessing?

I do not accept the justification of 'creative' tactics by using the claims:
"Well, they could have!"
"The other side did it, my side could too!"
"They just didn't think of it!"

To sum it up: you don't accept justifications showing how it could have happened very well in real life too.

The fact that one side was historically able to use certain strategies/tactics/technologies should not be used as a reason to allow the other side access to those same strategies/tactics/technologies.

Sure: this because the other side was stupid - any side except "the one who was bright enough to do it".

Nor should the AE game engine be manipulated to allow such ahistorical practices.

I still fail to see why they are "a-historical" - if not in the sense that it would be a-historical *not* to try to invade Midway given a situation in-game similar to the strategic one in 1942. But maybe that's just me.

Or maybe some people have problems accepting that a game is not a slide-show re-enacting operations and tactics 1:1 - like a dude I played agaist who whined hard, after losing with the Germans at Kasserine, about how "I hadn't done what the Americans historically did". [8|]

[Kwik E Mart]

not gamey....all my pets are deductions for tax purposes....[:'(]

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: ckammp
I belive the tactic of resizing a squadron to 72 planes is gamey (cheating).
IMHO, it is too easy to abuse this tactic, and I believe it would result in skewed combat results.

Have you a practical example for this or it is only guessing?

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.

I do not accept the justification of 'creative' tactics by using the claims:
"Well, they could have!"
"The other side did it, my side could too!"
"They just didn't think of it!"

To sum it up: you don't accept justifications showing how it could have happened very well in real life too.

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.

The fact that one side was historically able to use certain strategies/tactics/technologies should not be used as a reason to allow the other side access to those same strategies/tactics/technologies.

Sure: this because the other side was stupid - any side except "the one who was bright enough to do it".

In RL, the US was able to pull off the Doolittle Raid; the Japanese had no ability to do the same thing.
In AE, you are able to use the editor to simulate the raid; should the Japanese be given the same ability?
In RL, the US developed the Atom Bomb; the Japanese tried, didn't come close.
In AE, you can use the editor to let both sides have use of the Atom Bomb; would this be fair?
Neither side was "stupid", but that doesn't mean both sides were even.

Nor should the AE game engine be manipulated to allow such ahistorical practices.

I still fail to see why they are "a-historical" - if not in the sense that it would be a-historical *not* to try to invade Midway given a situation in-game similar to the strategic one in 1942. But maybe that's just me.

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

Or maybe some people have problems accepting that a game is not a slide-show re-enacting operations and tactics 1:1 - like a dude I played agaist who whined hard, after losing with the Germans at Kasserine, about how "I hadn't done what the Americans historically did". [8|]

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

[bradfordkay]

"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. "

Herein lies the crux of the question. Filling a carrier with all fighters is not "gamey" per se, but using this mechanism to create "super squadrons" is gaming the system IMO.

[morganbj]

Here's a simple rule of thumb:

If it hurts your side, it's gamey.

If it helps your side, it's creative use of historically-based game functions to accurately model what was possible.

[crsutton]

Question. If you put the 72 plane unit ashore, will it revert to normal size? If so, then I guess I am OK with it.

[AW1Steve]

My defination of "Gamey" is a flaw in the game design that allows you to do something impossible or unrealistic in real life. Example....in vanilla WITP there was a flaw (now fixed) that allowed you to transfer "broken" aircraft by road. The flaw is , that you could send them anywhere's that was in flight range, despite the fact that they couldn't fly. All you needed was a road "somewhere". You could evacuate the PI of crippled aircraft that way. NOW THAT was gamey. Doing something irregular,unusual or even stupid is not gamey. It's irregular,unusual or stupid. I feel that people who want to play "boxed" scenarios should stay with the AI. Or find some one who will accept 500 house rules. As for myself, were I setting houserules in a PBEM (which I've never done) , there would be only one.....1) play like a gentleman and let your common sense and the "golden rule" be your guide. [:)]

Now, this old curmageon needs to get back to my rocker on the front porch with "ole Betsy" before that damned hippie steals any more flowers![:D]

[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.

Yeah: 6 x 36 = 218 Fighters. That's with no VMF fighters shipped, which is also pretty common.

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

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]