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 modifications

 
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: 656

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 01:49 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

i would like to propose a few modification for 2P games.


Double The Value of Aircraft - Double the point of aircraft lost.  One thing I see player do often is send planes on a kamikaze mission.  The primary reason is that sacrificing a couple squadrons of aircraft is much cheaper than a CV.  By increasing the value of aircraft it might make players think twice about sacrificing their planes. However, I know there has been talks of automatically forcing aircraft to return when low on fuel.  If this is implemented the value change for aircraft may not be needed.  Bottom line is that sacrificing aircraft at this point in the war was a strategic mistake in the long run and were not to be thrown away needlessly. But players aren’t concerned with this because the game is over after 3 days. 


Reduce the Range of D3A and 5BNs to 18 - While the Japanese planes had longer range the Japanese rarely used this range to their advantage. By reducing the range slightly it gives the game a little more balance. 


Allow US CAs attaches to a CVTF to launch scout planes - During the war US CV-TF primarily scouted by using bombers.  The IJN CV-TF on the other hand primarily used only scout planes from BBS and CA.  Carrier planes were rarely used. But in the game any CAs or BBs attached to a IJN CV-TF can still launch scouts while the US cannot.  This put the US at a disadvantage.  So balance the game I propose that one of the two following.
A - The IJN cannot use bombers on CVs to scout.  They must rely only on BB or CA scout planes. This is more historically accurate. 
or
B - Allow US BBs and CAs to launch scout planes even when attached to CV-TF.  
Personally I favor option A. In nearly all the games the IJN has superior scout capabilities from land based aircraft. Going with option A would help balance the game a bit more.


Midaway - 
a.  Have the IJN fleet start closer to Midway and increase the spotting value for PBYs at long range.  Historically the PBYs spotted the IJN TF on June 3.  But because the IJN starts so far away and the new scouting rule make spotting a TF at long range, the US is never able to spot the IJN TF on day one.  Since the US is out numbered.  It needs to be able to at least detect the IJN TF so they can get a better idea where to position their CVs.


b.  In 2P games the IJN player almost never attacks midway with planes on the morning of the first day of battle. This is because the IJN know the US is in the area and are holding his aircraft to attack US CVs. The IJN player should receive penalty points if it does not attack Midway before 0900 and at least 3 CVs must participate in the attack. If they fail to do so, the value of their transport fleet occupying Midway is cancelled.  


c.  Midway must have more fuel. About 100~120 barrels should be sufficient. As it is now there is not even enough fuel for the aircraft based there.  There should be enough fuel for the planes at Midway and for one CV should it be sunk. 


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 01:49 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,011
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 18:04 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

Reducing the range of D3A and B5N ?
Well this is THE advantage of the fragile Japanese
In my opinion, the Japanese should have used it more often and force the opponent carriers to run to close the distance 


This is only one hex more than TBF
Should not be a big deal 


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,011
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 18:05 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

Scout planes
Today, only the AI has this ability


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,011
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 18:07 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

Midway
b- is a good idea
c- may be too easy for the US. Need to have more literature on it


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 21:01 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Reducing the range of D3A and B5N ?
Well this is THE advantage of the fragile Japanese
In my opinion, the Japanese should have used it more often and force the opponent carriers to run to close the distance 


This is only one hex more than TBF
Should not be a big deal 




It is a big deal in the beginning of the war when F4Fs have a range of 13, SBDs have a range of only 15 and TBD only have a range of 12. 


Last edited by USS Archerfish on Wed 21 Mar - 22:53 (2018); edited 1 time in total
Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 22:35 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Midway
b- is a good idea
c- may be too easy for the US. Need to have more literature on it


Unfortunately I really haven’t been able to find much info as to how much fuel Midway had.  Everyone just focus on the battle.  Maybe Larsenjp can dig something up.  


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 656

PostPosted: Wed 21 Mar - 22:52 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Scout planes
Today, only the AI has this ability


Yes I know the AI controls BBs and CAs scout planes .  But when a US BB or CA is attached to a CV-TF it will not launch scout planes. You said you programmed it that way because the US relied primarily on CV bombers as their scouts and not BB and CA scout planes. I agree this is historically accurate. The Japanese did just the opposite. The used primarily BB and CA scout planes for their search and not CV planes.  As it is right now the Japanese CV-TF gets to use both BB, CA and CV bombers to scout.  The US CV-TF can only use bombers to scout.  This puts the US at disadvantage.  So I see two ways to resolve this.


Options
A.  If you chooses the rule to go by history then the IJN should not be allowed to use bombers for scouting. It must rely only on scout planes from BBs and CAs.  


B.  Game playability. If you choose this method, then US BBs and CA should be allowed to use these scout planes when combined with CV-TFs.  


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 10:42 (2018)    Post subject: 2P modifications

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