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 

Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced?
Goto page: <  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  >
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Carrier Battles for Guadalcanal Forum Index -> Topics -> New Features
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,314
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Fri 18 May - 07:06 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

So here is a recap of what could be implemented for the 3.0 or 3.1

SCOUTS


1. Detect and harass scouts. See other thread. Pro-US http://cbfg.xooit.org/t490-Detecting-and-harassions-scout-planes.htm
2. Reduce the scouting abilities of bombers. Best scouts are SBD, TBF, A29, B17, B24, H6K, H8K, B5N, G3M, G4M. Others could be half-efficient. Reduce a bit the efficiency of IJN carriers versus US carriers (Done)
3. Allow the Japanese launch seaplanes scouts in the air (only in 1P for now). (Done)
4. Seaplanes won't be launched before other search units (06:20). I know some people claim for all scouts to be launch able at 05:20 but this is another story (not related to balance and complicated) (Done)

BOMBERS  
1. Reduce the number of long range bombers and fighter at Rabaul in Aug-Dec 1942 by 20% more. Only in the 2P game as the AI is weaker.  (Done)

ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS
1. Increase AA capability at Guadalcanal.(Done)
2. Allow SBDs to be used as CAP if US looses all fighters.  Also done for D4Y (Done)
3. Increase the VP gains by the US when sinking Japanese ships or destroying as crew salvage parties were more effective on the Allied side. (Done)
4. Increase the number of VP gained by the US for destroying carrier-based Japanese air units (Done)
5. Make Japanese planes harder to repair (bad logistics) (Done)
6. Some pro-US options used for 1P games, could be allocated by default or selectable in a 2P game
7. SBD have an endurance of 20 when used as scout (Done)
12. Modify CAP to be more efficient. Currently a small strike of 4 counters for example can exhaust a CAP of 12 down to 6 to 4 counters.  Difficult for US to save CAP against a larger follow on wave.  (Done)


In overall, keep in mind that the AI is weaker than a human. 
I do not want to make it poor by giving advantage to the US. 
Hence, some modification might only be valid for the 2P game


Scenario Modifications
Current idea. nothing decided yet


CORAL SEA 
Currently the IJN needs to land only 15 infantry points to capture PM. Increase this to 36 (Done with 30) .  IJN has 12 TRS with 6 cargo points each. 36 would respresent half of this value. 

MIDWAY 
Very difficult for US since the Japanese player usually doesn’t attack Midway because they know US CV are near by.  Perhaps creat some sort of penalty for IJN player if they do not attack Midway in the morning.  Perhaps IJN player losses victory points for Landing troops on Midway.  Or maybe AI launches first attack?
Add a VP reward to the US at certain stage of the game if Midway airbase is still operational


Last edited by Bladerunner on Thu 31 May - 20:52 (2018); edited 8 times in total
Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Fri 18 May - 07:06 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Fri 18 May - 19:20 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

I don’t think reducing the efficacy of IJN CVs is needed. That’s not the primary issue.  The primary issue is the IJN scouting capability is too powerful. The proposed scouting modification will help a lot.  The other primary issues are Japanese bombers ability to attack CV.  In my opinion, not enough has been done to correct this problem.  Reducing bombers by 25% is a good start.  There needs to be restriction on bombers to make it much harder for them to change targets in flight, especially when far away from base.  

I would also like to add that both sides may launch scout planes from ships and CV at 0520.  There is ample evidence that CVs on both sides launched scouts at the crack of dawn.  This immediate launch of scout planes would only occur with the first launch of the day. Or if there has been no flight deck activity for 2 hours.




Here is a curiosity question.  If A Japanese bomber strike starts with Guadalcanal as the the target, then durning mid flight it’s redirected to ships, does it attack the ships with bombs or does the game changes it to torpedo?  Sometimes it looks like it changes to torpedos which it shouldn’t do. It’s not always easy to tell. 


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Fri 18 May - 22:20 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Archerfish,

Regarding your "curiosity question", i think it is OK with this: there is no change of bombers payload while they are en route. I am pretty sure of this.

Then, i agree with you regarding IJN carriers: no need to limit the IJN carriers capability. The problem as you say rather comes from scouting. However i disagree with the limiting the capability of Japanese seaplanes scouts like E13A; actually they were preeminent in Japanese scouting doctrine. I would rather try to limit the number of the Japanese scouts airborne at a given moment.

I agree regarding limiting the capability of Japanese G4M bombers against US ships. Besides limiting the number of bombers available in Rabaul (i agree with BR on this point), I would also limit size of air raids and availability of torpedoes at Rabaul. Launching massive anti-shipping air raids twice or three times a day during three consecutive days seems to me very unrealistic.

I also agree in adding the possibility of launching scouts as early as 0520.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 00:22 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Someone pls explain 12. " Modify CAP to be more efficient. Currently a small strike of 4 counters for example can exhaust a CAP of 12 down to 6 to 4 counters.  Difficult for US to save CAP against a larger follow on wave."  (Done)




=> This has to do with ammo-depletion of the CAP. 
50% today
So a decoy attack made with very few planes may remove half of the CAP, preparing the ground for a massive air strike
With the 3.0, the depletion will depend on the CAP vs attacker ratio with an advantage to the US because the Zeroes embedded less ammo


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 03:59 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

larsenjp wrote:
Archerfish,

However i disagree with the limiting the capability of Japanese seaplanes scouts like E13A; actually they were preeminent in Japanese scouting doctrine. I would rather try to limit the number of the Japanese scouts airborne at a given moment.


When I say reduce capacity I meant reduce their numbers. 


But sea planes or at least ship sea planes I think their scout capabilities should be reduced.  My thinking on this is numbers.  1 aircraft counter represents 4 aircraft. So if a CV launches 3 counters that is 12 aircraft.  BBs and CAs generally had only 2 sea planes.  So one ship aircraft counter should represent half the value of a normal aircraft counter since it only has two planes. 


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,314
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 07:52 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

No discussion for the moment of non-balancing features (ex: Low/High CAP)


B-17 were quite successful in detecting enemy convoys at long-range. With good weather, you see farther if you fly higher


Replacing fuel by a hangar capacity, why not. Again this is playing against both sides actually


I have added a point 4
4. Seaplanes won't be launched before other search units (06:20). I know some people claim for all scouts to be launch able at 05:20 but this is another story (not related to balance and complicated)
Actually, each cruisers may launch 1 air unit. 
Exceptionally, some are carrying more.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 08:31 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Thx BR


May I suggest some text to help the newcomers, inc say explanation of the search, eg the colours used?


May I repeat, as you haven't mentioned them; user defined parameters to aid balance eg likelihood of search;
and increased escort AA. These have a balance impact and with some historical basis; search was often luck, and if the players agree... fine.
I am not suggesting fudges, just removing negative balance posts.
Neither are too difficult to code, which is always in the back of my mind Smile
ie combat and search algorithm.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 08:33 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

PSB17 maybe good if the visibility is good, and if you see it ... what is it, poor at detail.

Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 08:39 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:


4. Seaplanes won't be launched before other search units (06:20). I know some people claim for all scouts to be launch able at 05:20 but this is another story (not related to balance and complicated)
Actually, each cruisers may launch 1 air unit. 


As long as everyone launches at the same time I’m fine with that.  


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sat 19 May - 17:34 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Ok, with the new update I show sea planes launching at 0600 instead of 0620. 

Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,314
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 20 May - 10:49 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

SBD wrote:

May I repeat, as you haven't mentioned them; user defined parameters to aid balance eg likelihood of search;
and increased escort AA. These have a balance impact and with some historical basis; search was often luck, and if the players agree... fine.




Not that easy to do but may be achieved by considering this as an option 
For the moment it is possible to play with option in the 2P game but it will come 


For the time being, it is possible to play by default with the surprise in the 2P game
Th surprise will reduce the search efficiency of the Japanese by 50%
Would it be OK ?


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,314
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 20 May - 10:56 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Regarding carrier TF scouting, the IJN may now use seaplanes from escort cruisers. 

To balance it somehow what will you prefer ?


a) allow the US cruisers to do the same, even if not historic
b) reduce the efficiency of D3A when scouting as crew were not trained to this role
c) do nothing 


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun 20 May - 18:45 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
Regarding carrier TF scouting, the IJN may now use seaplanes from escort cruisers. 

To balance it somehow what will you prefer ?


a) allow the US cruisers to do the same, even if not historic
b) reduce the efficiency of D3A when scouting as crew were not trained to this role
c) do nothing 


B


My reason is this.  Yes, US doctrine did not rely on sea planes for search while the Japanese used them for their primary search. IJN did not use their bomber very much for the search role but they did use them. When they did they primary used the B5N (according to SBD).  I think everyone pretty much agrees with this point.


The problem is that most players don’t play by the respective doctrine, they play buy what the rules allows them to do.  So if you are going to create rules to force the US player to follow US doctrine then YOU MUST FORCE the IJN player to do the same.  Forcing one side to follow doctrine and not the other creates an advantage. So if you’re going to force the US to play by it’s doctrine then here is how I feel the IJN should be force to do the same.


1.  Sea plane search are reduced by 50%  Why?  One aircraft counter represents 4 planes. BBs and CAs at most have 2 sea planes giving them 2 aircraft. So this is where I come to the 50% reduction conclusion. 


2. If IJN does use scout planes they are limited to one squadron (4 aircraft counters) and IJN must only use B5Ns. D3A can be used only if B5Ns are not available.  (Don’t know what the programming limitations or difficulties are here.). Another option is that their must be a mix of the two.  But by reducing Vals scouting abilities will force the IJN player to use the B5N. 


Also, no one should have an advantage on early scout launches.  I know you changed this which is great.  However, I noticed the sea planes are still launching 20 min earlier (0600) than CV scouts.  If US forces are not allowed to use sea planes for search then this in unacceptable.  


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Mon 21 May - 00:00 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

I fully agree with Archerfish and i think we must keep as close as possible to what was actually done by both sides, especially if it allows to balance the game by reducing some capabilities used by players not familiar with 1942 doctrines.

So regarding IJN scouting from TFs:
- mostly performed by seaplanes from cruisers (and possibly from BBs); and i agree that most of them had only 2 to 3 planes, except cruisers Tone and Chikuma that had more. Of course, IJN also had seaplanes tenders but these ships generally operated independently and were not part of carriers TF.
- otherwise IJN used B5Ns (that were also used for ASM duties) and D4Y (that was a new fast dive bomber available in very small number in 1942 and finally used as scout but i think we can neglect this one).
- to my knowledge, D3A were not really used for scouting but rather for ASM duties; so i would just prohibit the use of D3A air units for scouting. Maybe it would be difficult to stand for the Japanese side but we already prohibited fighters to be used for scouting...

Then we know that IJN relied heavily of large seaplanes like H6K and H8K but also on bombers like G3Ms and G4Ms. The crews were trained for it (they were naval aviators...).

Regarding US scouting from TFs:
- mainly SBD (that were used also for ASM duties)
- and most probably TBF (but they were also used for ASM duties)
- but no seaplanes from CAs & BBs; these were used only for ASR duties and for surface combat observation (and maybe we should take this into account for surface battle: adding a bonus when observation seaplanes are available; but this is another problem...). So i would again just prohibit the use of "small" US seaplanes for scouting... This would maybe be difficult to stand for the US player but this would be the same case than the D3A.

Then, the US relied heavily on PBYs (whose crews were trained for it) and also on Army bombers like B17s but the crews were not trained for scouting. BTW, i am sorry but i am afraid i disagree with BR about "flying high seeing far"; that's true in theory but not in practice because of problems of luminosity and contrast; it seems that scouts had to fly at relatively low altitude if they wanted to have a chance to see something on the sea. So to me, i would rather put a malus on the B17s....

The Allied were also using Australian Hudsons that were quite good at scouting (and the crews were apparently trained).

My 2 cents as usual... Wink


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Mon 21 May - 03:48 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

LarsenJP

I agree with everything you said.  However, I do have some reluctance at prohibiting the D3A from scouting. What if a IJN CV looses all its B5N?  How do they scout then?  That’s my only thought.  Allow the D3A to scout but at reduced effectiveness.  That would encourage player to use the B5N as scouts as was the norm for the IJN but they have a back up it things go bad.  


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 14:01 (2019)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced?

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
Goto page: <  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  >
Page 6 of 7

 
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