Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index

Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal


 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 597

PostPosted: Fri 29 Dec - 00:28 (2017)    Post subject: 2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games Reply with quote

Please posts any ideas/comments you have that you think will help balance the scenRios for 2P game play.

Here are some suggestion.

Midway - Midway needs more fuel.  Originally Midway had unlimited fuel.  However, some US players took advantage of this by sending all their aircraft to Midway and then kept their CV away at a safe distance. So limited fuel was introduced to prevent this. However I feel is a bit too restrictive.  There are time when I loose a CV and Midway was the only place I could send planes from that CV. But due to low fuel, once the planes were there they were pretty much grounded because of low or no fuel.  Providing a little more fuel would be helpful.  The big question is how much.  I would suggest an average of 100 barrels would be good.  This would provide a full day of fuel for the Midway based planes and a surplus that would allow diverted CV planes (due to sinking) to operate about 2 or 3 air strikes. 

Guadalcanal - Add PBY to San Christobal in the Guadalcanal game. Due to the limited number of bombers for the US, it is very difficult for the US to be able to scout and attack at the same time.  The US forces are out numbered by the IJN.  The only way for the US to win is to use there forces sparingly but this requires good scouting capabilities to provide intelligence.  Adding PBY to SC will provide this and is historically accurate.  


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Fri 29 Dec - 00:28 (2017)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 929
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 31 Dec - 18:42 (2017)    Post subject: 2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games Reply with quote

This seems not to difficult do


I would add also
Coral Sea
Historically the IJN had won but opted to withdraw because of severe air losses. 
To balance the game my proposal is to have the IJN force to retreat when facing heavy losses on CV (to be determined). The mechanism would be similar to the Revenge Raids scenario. 
This way the US player has a little chance to prevent the Japanese to grab Port Moresby which is quite valuable


Back to top
currymutton
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 599

PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 03:17 (2018)    Post subject: 2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games Reply with quote

My $0.02

Midway
- Fuel Limit on Midway:  make it about 50 + 18 x 2 -> good for about 2 flights of  a CV consisting 7 F4F, 8 SBD and 3 TBD
- Add incentive for Midway -> make Midway easier to fall and/or more scores for IJN to seize it (but within a limited time like the AH version)

SZ
If in Guadalcanal the Guad air force is such a miserable, in SZ it is no better, suggest similar treatment by adding more seaplanes aid the search

BS
IJN simply has no chance due to biased US air power, and lack of close enough air base to support Lae which can be KO before evening of Day 1...
I suggest cutting air power on US side and/or adding another base on New Britian


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 597

PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 04:26 (2018)    Post subject: 2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games Reply with quote

currymutton wrote:
My $0.02

Midway
- Fuel Limit on Midway:  make it about 50 + 18 x 2 -> good for about 2 flights of  a CV consisting 7 F4F, 8 SBD and 3 TBD
- Add incentive for Midway -> make Midway easier to fall and/or more scores for IJN to seize it (but within a limited time like the AH version)

SZ
If in Guadalcanal the Guad air force is such a miserable, in SZ it is no better, suggest similar treatment by adding more seaplanes aid the search

BS
IJN simply has no chance due to biased US air power, and lack of close enough air base to support Lae which can be KO before evening of Day 1...
I suggest cutting air power on US side and/or adding another base on New Britian





Midway
I think even that amount is insufficient.  I think the formula for fuel at airfields with limited fuel should at minimum be the number of aircraft  x 2 (number of airstrike per day) x 3 days.  So if Midway has 14 planes then 14 (aircraft) x 2 (airstrike) x 3 (days) = 84 barrels + 18 for CV planes.  Personally I think this formula should be used for all airfields that have limited fuel.


Santa Cruz
Yes I absolutely agree.  I did some research a while back that is posted in the History section of the forum under Data for PBY, shows that during the battle of Santa Cruz the US had PBYs at Espiritu Santos and Santa Cruz Island (supported by a tender).

Bismarck Sea
Yes I absolutely agree.  However, I suggested increasing Lae to 15 to give it more survivability.  
I also suggested adding Gasmata, which was still in use at the time of this battle, with an airfield rating of 10 or 15.  This would provide more flexibility and bring medium bombers (with fuel range under 30) into play.  Currently they sit at the airfields because they don’t have the range to attack anything.  This will put more pressure on the US and provide more CAP protection for TFs.
I also suggest giving all airfields unlimited fuel. This is for game play reason.  As it is now, both side send everything to Rubaul or Port Morsby because they have unlimited fuel. Giving unlimited to all adds flexibility.  
I explain in more detail on the thread I created in this section.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 597

PostPosted: Tue 2 Jan - 04:34 (2018)    Post subject: 2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
This seems not to difficult do


I would add also
Coral Sea
Historically the IJN had won but opted to withdraw because of severe air losses. 
To balance the game my proposal is to have the IJN force to retreat when facing heavy losses on CV (to be determined). The mechanism would be similar to the Revenge Raids scenario. 
This way the US player has a little chance to prevent the Japanese to grab Port Moresby which is quite valuable




I think this should be applied to Midway as well. If the US manages to sink and/or destroy the flight deck of 4 CVs then the IJN should retreat.  


However in Revenge Raid, I think only the CVs should be forced to retreat.  Surface ships should be allowed to stay. Forcing all ships to retreat makes it too difficult for the US to win.


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 09:37 (2018)    Post subject: 2P - Rebalancing Scenarios for 2P Games

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  

Index | Administration Panel | Create own nforum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group