Matrix Games Forums

I have read some on this, but most likely not all. I thought the practice was embraced and not thought to be 'gamey'. Then I read a post which included this...

Some air units can be resized up or down. This can be a straight out gamey tactic which defeats the dev purpose in designing the OOB and production. Not that those who so benefit will accept it for what it is believing they are entitled to do whatever it takes to win.

Am I missing something, taking this in the wrong way, or what?

I'd like to know what the community believes.

It's there so you can put units on carriers. Sometimes you can do this with a divided group but when you transfer them off you retain the resize. This is possibly what the writer was thinking about.

I do not think it's overly gamey and think the writers reaction to doing it is a bit strong. Seems a simple house rules would be sufficient, e.g. any group resized for carrier ops should be changed back, divided or not.

Some players were using the CVs to resize land-based fighter squadrons to something like 90 planes and then putting them ashore again. This is clearly gamey.

Like many other game mechanics, it can be abused.

Creation of 81 plane IJN wings can make it pretty hard slogging in a battle of attrition. But the Japanese economy has a finite limit in resources so without skillfull management, you would face a whole bunch of A6M3s and D3Y2s and fewer late war planes.

Yes it could slow the Allied advance down in 42-43 but once the weight of Allied strength starts to flow in 44... You will be squashing a bunch of older plane.

Reasonable goals and limits should be part of the pre-game discussion - that is if you like to use HRs to smooth out the 'simulation'. Some players prefer few HRs.

I usually set a limit to the individual squadron size and a rough number of 'pilot seats' celling level.

Both sides can do it. Should be discussed before starting a game. Good compromise IMO is to allow a limited number of units to be resized and for training purposes only - units must remain in the rear area.
In this context floatplanes need to be mentioned, as only Japan has the cs type ships that allow a resize to 24. Clearly gives an advantage to Japan to boost ASW, naval search and pilot training. OTOH any HI points and supplies spent to flesh-out all those floatplane units with airframes won't be available to build something else, like late-war fighters, so there is a trade-off. Some AFBs think resizing of float planes is gamey. Well, IMO it is one of the little things that may help Japan to stay competitive a bit longer, which makes for a more interesting late game.

Some in shore patrol Sqdns can be converted to DB's. These can be transferred to CV's and resized up to 99. Once removed can be converted back to FP for ASW work or training.

The 'best' (ab)use I've seen is - convert IJA bomber squadrons to that gyrocopter thingy. Transfer to carrier, resize then back to shore and convert to torpedo capable Helens.

80+ plane groups is imho gamey. I abuse this too but use in general IJ CVLs (the one with 27 or 30 planes max), so there are some 9 or 18 plane units which I re-size to 27 or 30. Probably also gamey a bit. Mainly for more training slots but I do not have enough planes to fill these units out with planes anyway - lost a big bunch of carrier air too.

There are always several sides to an available tactic. This one is used by virtually all Japanese players. Most stay within the level of Japanese group sizes already in game; 27-45 planes.

There are several advantages we all know about to large groups:

1. Bigger groups means more planes coordinating to a mission, whether it's CAP, strike escort or sweep.

2. Bigger groups means the player has more total planes available, can split groups and spread more planes out for defence or attack.

3. Bigger groups also allows more training, thus better pilot quality throughout the game and especially into the late game. Pilots can even gain LOTS of experience simply flying 100% CAP in a rear base in a big group.

Disadvantages are:

1. Flying more, producing more, using more missions also has a direct supply/HI cost. This is often overlooked but is a real consideration for a Japanese thinking of upsizing every group possible. It doesn't seem like much per turn, but the cost of using, replacing (supply cost for new airframes) and building 2-3 times the planes the IJN fielded is huge. HUGE!

2. Larger groups need more Air Support and infrastructure. There is not enough to go around already, so this can lead to less effective use of these large groups except in large, well supplied and supported bases. This could have a knock-on effect of needing more base building (supply cost), more shipping of materials, troops and supply (armament, fuel and supply cost) buying out more units to use in forward areas (PP cost) and replacing or rebuilding all of this once they are inevitably destroying in Allied advances (HI, armament and supply costs).

3. Bigger groups can have diminishing training returns if you work through your entire replacement pilot pool. This is not so hard to do. So you can get to mid-44 and realise you've got only 300 pilots left in "school"' and you don't have kamis trained.

4. As the Allies move forward, if you have your eggs (or airframes) mostly in the same large baskets, they provide much more juicy targets and can result in massive losses that mean whole fronts can collapse because the size 9 field just got wiped, 300-500 planes are destroyed or damaged waiting to be flamed on the completely closed fields, and the door opens to Allied advances.

There are probably a lot more pros and cons but these seem the most apparent from my experience. I've used moderate upsizing in three PBEMs as Japan, and one made it the distance to show the damaging supply/fuel losses that were partly attributable to overuse of these forces and their necessary support structures.

ORIGINAL: Yakface

The 'best' (ab)use I've seen is - convert IJA bomber squadrons to that gyrocopter thingy. Transfer to carrier, resize then back to shore and convert to torpedo capable Helens.

I wanna see that [:D]

Re-sizing certain air groups for both sides is IMHO legit. Never occurred to me to abuse it in order to create CV air groups larger than 27, it doesn't make sense (see obvert's post). As IJN player I make use of resizing FP squadrons, from let's say to 9, 18, 27(max). sizes. The Japs got so many replacements of Jakes, Petes, Daves, so why not upsizing them from 2 (nicked from a CL, CA, CS or AV) and make good use of them as ASW or Naval Search squadrons?

Klink, Oberst

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

.... Never occurred to me to abuse it in order to create CV air groups larger than 27, it doesn't make sense (see obvert's post). ...
Klink, Oberst

Never occurred to me either.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Both sides can do it. Should be discussed before starting a game. Good compromise IMO is to allow a limited number of units to be resized and for training purposes only - units must remain in the rear area.
In this context floatplanes need to be mentioned, as only Japan has the cs type ships that allow a resize to 24. Clearly gives an advantage to Japan to boost ASW, naval search and pilot training. OTOH any HI points and supplies spent to flesh-out all those floatplane units with airframes won't be available to build something else, like late-war fighters, so there is a trade-off. Some AFBs think resizing of float planes is gamey. Well, IMO it is one of the little things that may help Japan to stay competitive a bit longer, which makes for a more interesting late game.

I think this can be exploited, and as L_S_T says, should be discussed prior. Both sides can benefit, and as an Allied player, I'm happy to see 36 plane Marine squadrons!

I dream of size 90 Corsair units. [:)]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I dream of size 90 Corsair units. [:)]

Sorry but thats clearly against the Geneva conventions.[:@]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Both sides can do it. Should be discussed before starting a game.

This. Too often someone is yelling "gamey" w/o considering what kind of game others want to play

With resizing itself it seems that Japan is gaining more than the Allies. The latter always have a shortage of airframes, so upsized units might not bring much additional bang. And Allied training is not as essential late war, when schools churn out good enough pilots from the start.
For Japan though, one can set a hell of an IJNAF training program with resized fighters and float planes. Not to mention using Stellas to resize IJAF bombers. Supply cost is modest, 81 fighter unit burns about 9000 supply a year on CAP, don't recall what are the costs for training but they are less of equal to that.

Honestly, resize away. I've played 3 years now in a game that's had this going on for both sides. There are advantages, yes, but there are also costs.

IMO, the end result is simply a more active air war. As long as you properly anticipate the large groups. At first it cost me some ships, but once I started planning accordingly, things went fine.

In that game, air losses for Japan are over 33K and for the Allies are about 16K, in November 1944. IIRC, by comparison this is rather high. Those numbers are more common for an end-game screenshot sometime in 1945. And we aren't even to end-game yet. I'm expecting numbers of around 50K losses for Japan and 22-23K losses for the Allies.

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I dream of size 90 Corsair units. [:)]

Sorry but thats clearly against the Geneva conventions.[:@]

I have a few.

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Both sides can do it. Should be discussed before starting a game.

This. Too often someone is yelling "gamey" w/o considering what kind of game others want to play

With resizing itself it seems that Japan is gaining more than the Allies. The latter always have a shortage of airframes, so upsized units might not bring much additional bang. And Allied training is not as essential late war, when schools churn out good enough pilots from the start.
For Japan though, one can set a hell of an IJNAF training program with resized fighters and float planes. Not to mention using Stellas to resize IJAF bombers. Supply cost is modest, 81 fighter unit burns about 9000 supply a year on CAP, don't recall what are the costs for training but they are less of equal to that.

Depending on the airframes... I disagree.

I mean, what else are you going to do with 400 Wildkittens of multiple models in your pools? Seriously, you get like 180/mo of the FM-2. You'd never use them without resizing some units. You may as well do so, even if it's just for training.

It should also be noted that a LOT of IJN units at least can't resize at all - in particular a bunch of the NF units. They simply don't even have the option. Same with several USN units.

Most stay within the level of Japanese group sizes already in game; 27-45 planes.

That's exactly what I'm doing, and with only one or two exceptions these are groups that stay in the HI as trainers. TBH there are not a whole lot that can be resized with the exception of the float planes.

In this context floatplanes need to be mentioned, as only Japan has the cs type ships that allow a resize to 24. Clearly gives an advantage to Japan to boost ASW, naval search and pilot training.

Agreed, and I do a pretty good number of them. I don't use them much for training, other than themselves. When I look at Japan's search assets, it seems like they are 'entering the ring' blindfolded. Yes, that's historical, but its one of the 'what if' aspects of the game that I like to play with. Just like pilot training, which Japan was poor at, to say the least. Sub, ASW doctrine. So many things Japan neglected. I'm certainly not doing it to win, Japan has no chance for that (at least in stock scen1), except maybe when it comes to mismatched opponents.

So if I have bunches of Jakes out there looking around, what am I really going to gain. Seeing where I'm gonna get clobbered from one day earlier.[:D]

Oh, and as always my opponent would be well informed of things like this to make sure he/she is OK with such things.

Thanks for all the responses people.

Even for people who think it's gamey to resize air units, resizing as many Jake units to 20 or 24 as you can should not really be seen as gamey IMO. You can't use them for anything but float planes, and while they're using for range 10 search you're going to lose a lot to Ops - which imposes a HI/supply cost that can add up over time. A rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but it's still there. Jakes cost just as much as a Frank, Jack, George, Sam, or Judy. Likewise, they're really only all that useful at range 8 search (which turns into range 4 ASW). How much of a game changer is that? Not much at all. It just helps at the margins.