Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

[Tanaka]

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

[btd64]

Never heard of that one. What would be the bases for it?....GP

[HansBolter]

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

Oh, wait a minute, the latter one doesn't exist.

Never mind.






ps....for those too thick to grasp my point.......it's that it is the Japanese side that needs reigning in on ahistorical capabilities, not the Allies.

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: btd64

Never heard of that one. What would be the bases for it?....GP

I never heard of this house rule, but I presume it has to do with the fact that the USN did not approve F4Us for carrier operations until April 1944. On the other hand though, Japanese players also have many opportunities to advance their aircraft research beyond historical dates so I don't see why one should limit only the Allies in this.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Well, due the bad landing characteristics of the early Corsairs - restricted forward visibility and strong tendency to bounce - plus disapproving the additional logistical strain to support different fighter types - the USN did not accept Corsairs on carriers. Only when the bounce problem got fixed and a new landing approach in an arc instead of going straight ahead pioneered by the Brits got adopted, the USN finally accepted the Corsair for carrier operations - that was in April 1944. The first operational carrier units flying Corsairs entered combat only in December 1944. But yes, let the Allies have ahistorical capabilities but reign-in the Japanese, because the Allies need a boost so much more, having only about 10 times the war making capabilities of their enemy... [8|]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, due the bad landing characteristics of the early Corsairs - restricted forward visibility and strong tendency to bounce - plus disapproving the additional logistical strain to support different fighter types - the USN did not accept Corsairs on carriers. Only when the bounce problem got fixed and a new landing approach in an arc instead of going straight ahead pioneered by the Brits got adopted, the USN finally accepted the Corsair for carrier operations - that was in April 1944. The first operational carrier units flying Corsairs entered combat only in December 1944. But yes, let the Allies have ahistorical capabilities but reign-in the Japanese, because the Allies need a boost so much more, having only about 10 times the war making capabilities of their enemy... [8|]

Well, yes: [8|]
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.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, due the bad landing characteristics of the early Corsairs - restricted forward visibility and strong tendency to bounce - plus disapproving the additional logistical strain to support different fighter types - the USN did not accept Corsairs on carriers. Only when the bounce problem got fixed and a new landing approach in an arc instead of going straight ahead pioneered by the Brits got adopted, the USN finally accepted the Corsair for carrier operations - that was in April 1944. The first operational carrier units flying Corsairs entered combat only in December 1944. But yes, let the Allies have ahistorical capabilities but reign-in the Japanese, because the Allies need a boost so much more, having only about 10 times the war making capabilities of their enemy... [8|]

Well, yes: [8|]
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.

Since the Japanese can do all of that why should the Allies be restricted in using their assets to the best available capabilities? If nothing else, remove the "hooker" class of the F4Us until the latest version.

[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?

[RangerJoe]

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?

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

[Mercenary]

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

Oh! I remember about this rule. That was 11 years ago. When I played the first game. [:D] But even then it was rare among us. It probably doesn't work anymore [:D]

[Leandros]

As I see it it is not a question of house rule but that the game actually denies it. I am in July '43 and corsairs are not allowed onboard by the game. Except for eventual dock loading and then only to leave the ship by air, if so wanted.

At what date does the game allow Corsairs on US carriers?

Fred
-----

[Nomad]

The F4U-1 did not have a tail hook and is never a carrier capable aircraft. All the others after that are, the F4U-1A, etc.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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?

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.

[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.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



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?

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?

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The F4U-1 did not have a tail hook and is never a carrier capable aircraft. All the others after that are, the F4U-1A, etc.

Well, I suppose that is why the game denies it onboard...[;)].. so it's not a "home" rule...?

Fred
----

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The F4U-1 did not have a tail hook and is never a carrier capable aircraft. All the others after that are, the F4U-1A, etc.

Well, I suppose that is why the game denies it onboard...[;)].. so it's not a "home" rule...?

Fred
----

Ok so sounds like it is no longer valid? Did not mean to raise such a touchy subject [:D]

[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

[DesertWolf101]

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?

Hans, I don't find this comparison to be true at all.

Now full disclosure, I have not yet been able to play as Japan in the last two years of the war so I can't really say how bad the situation for the Empire really is during that time. But in terms of the Allies being described in the manner above for the first 18 months of the war? No way! In all 4-5 games that I have played as the Allies I have found ample assets and means to defeat the Japanese player in less than 6 months. I think there is a clear reason why there is a real struggle to find people willing to play Japan on the opponents page. Granted the production and R&D system in the game is clearly ahistorical, but given two players of equal skill, I think it's undeniable that the Allied side is far easier to play over the length of the game. '

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

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

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?

Hans, I don't find this comparison to be true at all.

Now full disclosure, I have not yet been able to play as Japan in the last two years of the war so I can't really say how bad the situation for the Empire really is during that time. But in terms of the Allies being described in the manner above for the first 18 months of the war? No way! In all 4-5 games that I have played as the Allies I have found ample assets and means to defeat the Japanese player in less than 6 months. I think there is a clear reason why there is a real struggle to find people willing to play Japan on the opponents page. Granted the production and R&D system in the game is clearly ahistorical, but given two players of equal skill, I think it's undeniable that the Allied side is far easier to play over the length of the game. '

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

It isn't just the material things that are ahistoric for Japan. Complete cooperation between IJN and IJA is a real help to the Japanese side. And a pilot training program that works is another plus they did not have.

And from Hans' comments, he wants a historical type contest more so than a game that holds the Allied side back for the first year. Let's just say everyone has their own idea of where the sweet spot of balance should be.