Flying Carriers

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Composer99 said :

If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter -

Memory does not always serves. This doesn't exist as far as I know.

You are correct. Memory does not serve indeed.

This is why I should only check this stuff at home instead of on break at work...

[Toed]

Carrier air units mandatory or optional?
Mandatory:
more complexity, but the computer will handle the rules of course.
more fun, more chits = more fun  [:)]
more expensive to have carriers, well carriers are supposed to be expensive ...
more options, you can experement with diffrent planes on different carries in different seas with different missions ... and so on. more than with only the static carrier chits.
follows raw, which can't be wrong.
Optional:
doesn't seem to hurt to have the option of not playing with carrier air units.
easier, fewer chits and options - never wrong when you're learning.
can be used to balance the game in favor of the players that build lots of carriers.

Mandatory seems to win - barely.

2 carrier air units permitted on a aircraft carrier if they 'fit'?  - Of course

Carrier air units employed by the player as if they were land based units? - Of course not.  (unless you really really want to change the air war)

Carrier air units randomly drawn that are too 'large' for the existing/pending carrier fleet? - Unless someone finds a really good alternative then I say No. *EDIT - No to changing RAW that is *

[bredsjomagnus]

Making them optional requires little from me, other than reviewing, commenting, and validating the code for temporary air units for carriers.

Making them mandatory doesn't require much more (maybe less), since I will just delete all the code about temporary air units for carriers.

If it isn´t a big deal implementing make it optional.
 
They who like the CVPs will be happy and they who don´t will also be happy.
 
Even I, who hasn´t played the game enough (yet) to have an opinion, will be happy.
 
Or as Monty Python puts it in "The holy grale":
"Its supposed to be an happy occasion, lets not argue about who killed who", said by the brides father right after sir Lancelot slaughtered the wedding guests.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp


OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.

I would agree, I think this achieves the necessary compromise- bringing Carriers without planes into line with Wif "Classic" while keeping everything else in line with SiF. I cant see the reason for CVs to be cheaper in SiF, except for the assumed use of seperate carrier planes, so this makes sense.

[michaelbaldur]

we play with the house rule that cvp are split i force pools by cost .... then your can build the size you need ....

the option needs to be optional

[Jimm]

not realy a help- all the Italian & German CVP up to 1945 are cost 1- but size varies between 2 & 4.

[brian brian]

can we see some Carriers fly though? That would be cool. Probably the USA would get those first I bet.

[ezzler]

Do you mean split into foce pool by size instead of year ?

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.

Fine with me (although I didn't see the need for the added build points, but if you think that will make it more "eatable" for the general public then fine)

[:)]

[christo]

[/quote]
OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.
[/quote]


While your knowlege of the game and the designers is second to none, I was under the impression that MWIF was intended to be as faithful to WIFFE as possible.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: christo

OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.

While your knowlege of the game and the designers is second to none, I was under the impression that MWIF was intended to be as faithful to WIFFE as possible.

Actually, being true to WIF FE is the motivation for making carriers cost more.

WIF FE makes including carrier planes mandatory when playing with Ships in Flames. This discussion is about violating that edict and having carrier planes optional, even though MWIF has Ships in Flames mandatory. This makes the effective reduction in cost of carriers an issue.

When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

[christo]

I stand corrected

[composer99]

After the initial set-up all CVP are sorted by cost into separate force pools just like all other air units (e.g. cvp-0, cvp-1 & cvp-2), which doesn't help CW, Germany or Italy if they have a carrier/cvp class mismatch problem. I believe the extra sorting would have to be by class size as a subdivision of the cost.
 
That is a house rule, however, and I imagine it would be out of the scope of MWiF product 1.
 
On a related note, I have changed my mind and agree now that the cvps should be optional in MWiF, though probably with the extra cost downloaded onto the carriers themselves.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: christo

OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.

While your knowlege of the game and the designers is second to none, I was under the impression that MWIF was intended to be as faithful to WIFFE as possible.

If it was to be true in this area of the game, the question would not even be asked, and Carrier Planes would be mandatory, as they are in WiF FE when playing with SiF, and considering that MWiF has SiF as mandatory.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

To give more food for thought, let's also consider that CVP cost 3 BP when playing without the "Pilots" option.
If playing with the "Pilots" option, then the CVP cost 0 to 2 BP (well 99% cost 1 BP), and you need to build a pilot (crew) to man the CVP. The food for thought is that the pilot is not always destroyed when the CVP is lost. It is only destroyed about half of the time when fighting and destroyed above the sea with friendly ships or ports in that sea area, and destroyed 100% of the time by AA.

[composer99]

When not playing with CVPs, carriers that lose their air component in an air battle or to AA are considered damaged by RAW (14.4); they go to the repair pool upon returning to port and cost 2 bp and take 2 turns to return to play.
 
When playing with CVPs, carriers that lose their CVPs are all fine; but you have to replace the CVPs (usually you will have some in reserve) and maybe the pilots.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

To give more food for thought, let's also consider that CVP cost 3 BP when playing without the "Pilots" option.
If playing with the "Pilots" option, then the CVP cost 0 to 2 BP (well 99% cost 1 BP), and you need to build a pilot (crew) to man the CVP. The food for thought is that the pilot is not always destroyed when the CVP is lost. It is only destroyed about half of the time when fighting and destroyed above the sea with friendly ships or ports in that sea area, and destroyed 100% of the time by AA.

Food for thought indeed. A similar thought occured to me previously when you suggested the additional CV cost for the no CVP option. Dont forget though, RAW specifically says: 14.6:- (opening para)

"....CVs are not affected by the pilot rules, unless you are playing with [carrier planes]"

Obvious perhaps, but its worth noting that it is stated, not merely implied. So you cant take the value of the pilot into consideration in the cost of the CV- its the same whether or not you play with pilots- they are gratis unless you are playing with CVPs.

Not sure what this says about balance, but you might consider that big lump of BP over 6 turns for each stage of the build- maybe you can figure some net present value calculations into this? Without Carrier Planes, you pay 3bp in J/F 41 and 7BP in J/F 42 for Shinano, as Japan say?
Playing with CVP, you pay 2 and 5 respectively- then in M/J42 pay 1BP for a plane and in JA42 another 2 for a pilot.

Overall, the cost is the same. But with the second, you have had those additional 3BP to play with for a lot longer. Come mid 42, your Prod multiple is probably up, (inflation!) so the value of those BP paid later is actually less! PLus you have had use of those BP in the meantime.

Overall I think best leave pilots out of the consideration- things get far too complicated- easier to just say you get the pilot for free if you need it!

[brian brian]

How about a 'majority' & RaW solution - I think the majority of players use Ships in Flames with Carrier Planes. So if SiF is mandatory, make them fly the Carrier Planes as per RaW, with an option not to use them - another majority would vote for being able to choose anyway, like the rest of the optionals. I can't remember exactly why this question came up to begin with without reading Steve's introduction to this thread. The idea of no Carrier Planes but more expensive carriers I don't think would be very popular at all - how many people play that way right now? I think very, very few if any really. It is interesting to discuss in theory, but think about the reality of people firing up their first game of MWiF. Even if there are balance issues one way or another without using them, I think players would want to discover that for themselves, esp. the ones who have never tried the alternative to their usual ftf game. One of the big uses of MWiF for people who currently play will be to try out things they'd never use in a 3d ftf game due to the time invested in it. But with MWiF more people will finally try, say, the Hitler's War option, frex. As for balance, nothing matters to the USA as far as costs of units; what matters to them is what turn they enter the war, and the Allies were recently given a nice gift by ever so slightly raising the US Entry chit values. The CW operates a lot of carriers early when every BP counts the most, but so does Japan.

So really maybe a question is what choice to use for the 'beginner' set of optionals.

That leaves the problem of explaining the bizarre addition of carrier planes to your force pool when you can't use them yet. A solution is simple - allow people, in this case only, to not add a unit to the force pool when it appears; OR to allow splitting of same cost carrier planes into force pool grouped by starting class, either of which solve the problem. But this creates two other problems - a minor one of changing RaW that I'll get back to, and a bigger one of adding to Steve's workload. If something works goofily in WiF that is no good reason it absolutely has to stay goofy in MWiF - especially when the attempt to keep it the same begins to get fairly convoluted like the idea of changing carrier costs. WiF will always have passionate fans who would like to see it conform to their ideas of it and WWII, and I am one of them at times, but I don't think this issue is really one of 'those' issues nor that big of a deal for most people - they just play the game the way it is.

By far the simplest solution to keep the ball rolling is to make Carrier Planes the default _option_, and make an extra special effort to explain how they work to anyone new to the game. Actually having two different possible systems adds to the work for Steve...

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

To give more food for thought, let's also consider that CVP cost 3 BP when playing without the "Pilots" option.
If playing with the "Pilots" option, then the CVP cost 0 to 2 BP (well 99% cost 1 BP), and you need to build a pilot (crew) to man the CVP. The food for thought is that the pilot is not always destroyed when the CVP is lost. It is only destroyed about half of the time when fighting and destroyed above the sea with friendly ships or ports in that sea area, and destroyed 100% of the time by AA.

To take this thought a bit further:

Not using CVPs makes X in the Air Combat damage the CV. With the suggested BP modification the cost of an X in a Air combat is then 2 BP for a CVL or 3 BP for a CV. Which is fine if the pilot option is not used, but if the pilot option is used, the pilot would often survive and the CVP cost is less than that. On the oposite side though: it takes just 2 turns to repair a damaged ship while 4 to build a CVP and that is a benefit. (Conclusion: with pilots: CV costs a litle more but halves the production time)

Then another factor emerges:
Take an average naval combat: a American and British task force in MED against a Italian and German LBA. In the Air Combat each side gets a DX result so an German FTR is shot down and a CW CV is damaged. The Axis get 5 Air To Sea Factors cleared (after AA), spend suprise points for 2 column shifts and there are 11 ships, giving the Axis a 1X, 2D and 2A result against the Allied task force. The X takes the CV, but the Axis get to choose the second D too, and this goes to the CV that was damaged in the Air combat, so the allies looses 2 CV instead of just 1 and another one damaged.

The lesson here is that without CVP it's easier to sink CVs. That happens whenever you get an naval air combat with DX/AX in an air combat and your opponent gets to choose a D in the naval combat. And whenever that happens you pay the full CV cost (which would be typical 8 BP for Essex class CVs) instead of CV repair and building a new CVP (which is 2+1 BP). But most signifcantly: Building a CV takes long time (10 turns for Essex class), so would you really do this? Wouldn't the CV be gone for the remainder of the game?

Then yet another factor emerges:
In a surface naval combat or a sub naval combat where a CV is targeted (by expending suprice points), the cost of a D to a CV is 3 BP without CVP rule but 2 BP with CVPs since the CVP and pilot is not affected by the D on the CV. (The cost of a X is not changed because an X would kill both the CV and the CVP with pilot.)

Conclusion
I made the arguments assuming the cost of CVs was increased as per Patrice's suggestion. This makes initial CV building almost as expensive as with CVPs. (I say almost because of the wrong CVP for CV problem that makes you produce more CVP than you need.) But at the same time the cost of using the CVs in naval-air combats increases dramaticly. The cost of using the CVs in other naval combats inreases a litle. The cost of using CV on other missions (port strikes, ground strike, etc..) is as before.

And what advice should I give now? [&:]

[Zorachus99]

Ever since the air units for carriers was introduced, I never thought of going back.  Basing the capability on the number of the carriers is cheesy IMO.