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
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Tue 8 May - 22:24 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Thank you AF and LJP
I love the chrome as do all gamers, but to help BR balance the game may mean just a few mods for the moment - see his post.


Some features are relatively easy to modify/code
eg CV escort AA effectiveness, particularly post Midway, others, as noted, less so.


Small comments
ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS. 
1. Increase AA capability at Guadalcanal. 
Dipped into Lundstrom's Guadacanal Campaign, and although not in the index, 
an "AA battery" had four 90mm guns with automatic fire control and radar, which apparently hit three bombers in one action 120942
.......seems reasonable to up the AA to balance?



2. SBD as CAP if looses all fighters
If you had lost all your fighters?!, you would be desperate Sad
They did CAP against Kates - see my v3 post re high/low CAP and scout/CAP SBDs- but would be slow against Zeros and dive bombers


A little concern is that only us + BR have commented on this four page post
I'd like to know the experiences of others with 2P balance, 
and how best to test each mod?


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Tue 8 May - 22:24 (2018)    Post subject: Publicité

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

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sat 12 May - 07:20 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Thank you too SBD.


I told all the people I’m playing with that there was a discussion and asked them to feel free to comment. I think a couple of them felt they have only been playing for a short time and felt they did t have enough experience to contribute. I tried to encourage them to participate anyway.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sat 12 May - 07:38 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

By the way, one last comment.  In the one 1P game, the program occasionally adds an extra IJN CV to create randomness. However, this feature has carried over into 2P. Example, I am currently playing Santa Cruz with Midair2.  I have 4 fleet CVs and CVL.  In the real battle there were only 3 fleet carriers and a CVL.  I would like BR to eliminate this part of the randomness that occasionally add an extra CV. The game should only include CVs that actually participated in the battle with the exception of Bismarck Sea.


I would also like to see the US start in random location.  The Japanese player get this, why not the US?


The final thing I would like to see is a historical option.  Where only the ships that actually participated in the battle are allowed in the game. 


Anyway, I think we have put quite a bit on BRs plate.  So let’s send him a gift card for beer, wine and coffee😁. Seriously BR, don’t try to kill yourself. Just do whatever you feel is right and at your own pace.  We appreciate all you do.  If there is anything else we can do to help just ask.


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,316
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 10:35 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Damn, a lot of writings !


I have read the idea that IJN pilots were too specialised and only a fraction of B5N and/or D3A may fly as scout.
Do you have any reference detailing the number of scouts a Japanese carrier could send ?

I looked over Wikipedia pages about Eastern Solomon and Santa Cruz battles
It seems that most detection were performed by seaplanes
Fleet scouts were only able to detect the enemy fleet as short range

I may also favour seaplanes over classic bombers 
Ex: a classic count only as half a bomber


Also regarding the numbers of scout being shot down, how come the Japanese were not able to destroy the US scouts ?
I am also thinking that PBY could at night with radar


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 13:29 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Hi Cyril,

Some comments below...

Bladerunner wrote:
Damn, a lot of writings !

A little bit of work for you. Wink
But it's all your fault giving people the chance of participating in the development of the game... Cool

Bladerunner wrote:

I have read the idea that IJN pilots were too specialised and only a fraction of B5N and/or D3A may fly as scout.
Do you have any reference detailing the number of scouts a Japanese carrier could send ?

It seems rather only B5Ns were concerned with scouting. Actually the plane had adequate radio-navigation equipment plus a three-men crew with one who was trained as an observer. Vals had only two crews members and I think they were not specially trained for scouting.
Concerning the number, honestly i do not know. But remember that Japanese carriers were working by divisions of two ships and one of them was on duty for supplying planes for routine ASM patrols, CAPs and maybe scouting. Anyway, i think it should be low, i would say up to 10 maximum since the Japanese relied heavily on seaplanes for scouting (see below).

Bladerunner wrote:
I looked over Wikipedia pages about Eastern Solomon and Santa Cruz battles
It seems that most detection were performed by seaplanes
Fleet scouts were only able to detect the enemy fleet as short range

Yes, most of the scouting efforts was made by seaplanes from cruisers/battleships, typically E13As or E8Ns, or from dedicated seaplanes airbases, typically H6Ks or H8Ks. They also had tenders that allowed them to set up temporary seaplanes bases, either for scouting or for providing temporary fighter support (using A6M2Ns or F1Ms).
However, it seems that actual Japanese scouting patterns were quite complex, mixing fleet planes like B5Ns and E8Ns/E13As plus seaplanes like H6Ks/H8Ks plus bombers like G3Ms/G4Ms...
Regarding range, i really don't know, i do not see why fleet scouts could find only at short range but if you have any arguments for this, i am interested. Okay

Bladerunner wrote:
I may also favour seaplanes over classic bombers 
Ex: a classic count only as half a bomber

I think there is no actual reasons for this since Japanese navy bombers, typically G3Ms and G4MS had on board observers trained for this duty. But i agree this is a good idea for balancing the game. Or limit drastically the fraction of bombers allowed in flying reco missions.

Bladerunner wrote:

Also regarding the numbers of scout being shot down, how come the Japanese were not able to destroy the US scouts ?

Just because the Japanese defensive system was completely ineffective with CAPs only being guided at view and/or by the AA fire of the ships (and sometimes by the big guns: at Midway, the fighters from the CAPs were guided towards the incoming US torpedo planes by the splashes of the cruisers/BBs big guns firing at them!!!).
The Japanese did not have radars and did not have equivalent of the FDOs (Fighter Director Officer); anyway, it would have been useless since their fighters just did not have radio device.
The US had radars, FDOs dedicated to guiding the CAPs and organizing the defense, and of course all their planes had (quite reliable) radio device.


Bladerunner wrote:
I am also thinking that PBY could at night with radar

Black Cats... I think Archerfish will be happy since he is a fond of the Cat. Cool
Actually Catalinas flew at night in scouting missions but also harassment and they were able to attack ships. I do not think they had much success in 1942 but they had in 1943. But i think Archerfish can tell more than me about this topic.


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 19:46 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Yes I am.  I use to build the models as a kid.


The Black Cats arrived in mid 42 but were small in numbers. By November they had a good number of aircraft and by January of 43 they were wrecking havoc.  Not only on ships but night raids of airfields.  Although they were slow they were very quiet.  The enemy couldn’t hear them until they were almost on top of them but by then it was too late.  Immediately after dropping their payload they dropped flares or magnesium bombs which completely wrecked the defenders night vision and would escape unharmed. 


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 19:50 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Also, BR. For the US in Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomon and Santa Cruz I think the US should have more transports.  For example in Santa Cruz they only get 2 TRS. It’s nearly impossible to refuel G.  I would prefer 4 TRS with 3 cargo or 6 TRS with 2 cargo than 2 TRS with 6 cargo.  More survivalbility in numbers. 

Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,316
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 20:57 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

I came across a good book 


The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 
https://books.google.fr/books?id=4zRlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=B5N+scout&source=bl&ots=gUiKXDlsXf&sig=ioE-D2h0eWGE1XI0LDc1DZgpBA8&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU472Fq4PbAhVlJJoKHWVQDrYQ6AEIWDAK#v=onepage&q=B5N%20scout&f=false


The author is talking about the flaws in the IJN search doctrine
More details in chapter 6 but this section of the book is not browasable


Back to top
Bladerunner
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Posts: 1,316
Localisation: France

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 20:58 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

USS Archerfish wrote:
Also, BR. For the US in Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomon and Santa Cruz I think the US should have more transports.  For example in Santa Cruz they only get 2 TRS. It’s nearly impossible to refuel G.  I would prefer 4 TRS with 3 cargo or 6 TRS with 2 cargo than 2 TRS with 6 cargo.  More survivalbility in numbers. 


You are expanding fuel like hell  Twisted Evil
I jave to check but usually, I never reach zero


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sun 13 May - 22:32 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Bladerunner wrote:
USS Archerfish wrote:
Also, BR. For the US in Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomon and Santa Cruz I think the US should have more transports.  For example in Santa Cruz they only get 2 TRS. It’s nearly impossible to refuel G.  I would prefer 4 TRS with 3 cargo or 6 TRS with 2 cargo than 2 TRS with 6 cargo.  More survivalbility in numbers. 




You are expanding fuel like hell  Twisted Evil
I jave to check but usually, I never reach zero



No, the fuel remains the same.  It just increases the number of ship.  In Santa Cruz the US only gets 2 TRS, 6 cargo points per TRS = 12 cargo points total. It doesn’t take much effort to sink 2 TRS.  But if you give the US 6 TRS carrying 2 cargo pts per ship that still equals a total of 12 cargo pts. It just gives the US a better chance to get some fuel to G.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Mon 14 May - 22:58 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

BR  has listed earlier his summary of suggestions, 
perhaps we should list those points most likely to balance the game with maximum impact and minimal coding.
eg USN AA, I keep mentioning


Good point BR re USN scouts not being shot down, but perhaps leave for the moment so as assist the USN re balance?


Do you have any reference detailing the number of scouts a Japanese carrier could send ?

Potentially any number, but as mentioned, IJN were loath to reduce their strike, by sending them scouting.


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Wed 16 May - 11:06 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

I'm sure I've mentioned this before as being ahistorical, and an easy one to code to restore balance?
Aircraft at Midway increased from 109 to 121 from 31/05/42 to 121 on 04/05.


Hardly indicative of any fuel restriction on Midway?
Remove this and any others where likely to help balance?


Has anyone heard of any fuel supply issue that restricted Henderson Field / Guadalcanal ops and similar?
Airfield and parts perhaps, not fuel 
 


Back to top
USS Archerfish
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2017
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Wed 16 May - 19:49 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

SBD wrote:
I'm sure I've mentioned this before as being ahistorical, and an easy one to code to restore balance?
Aircraft at Midway increased from 109 to 121 from 31/05/42 to 121 on 04/05.


Hardly indicative of any fuel restriction on Midway?
Remove this and any others where likely to help balance?


Has anyone heard of any fuel supply issue that restricted Henderson Field / Guadalcanal ops and similar?
Airfield and parts perhaps, not fuel 
 


Part of the reason fuel restriction was implemented was to prevent US players from just dumping all of their CV planes on midway, thus keeping their CV’s safe.. but I agree fuel at Midway is still too restrictive. Yes in the beginning fuel was limited.  I think the US underestimated that the Japanese response would be so fast.  So US follow up logistics lagged a bit the first few months. 


Back to top
SBD


Offline

Joined: 28 Oct 2017
Posts: 55
Localisation: UK

PostPosted: Thu 17 May - 07:26 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

Thank you AF


"Part of the reason fuel restriction was implemented was to prevent US players from just dumping all of their CV planes on midway, thus keeping their CV’s safe.."


Sorry to be blunt, LUDICROUS GAMISM and scenario rules
Midway was the first game I played, and played despite the awful restriction
Ahistorical and prevents a good game - any fool can just fly to Midway
"Two wrongs don't make a right", "Tail wagging the dog"


The last thing a Midway 42 admiral or pilot would do is fly off his CV and go to Midway to stop the IJN landing,
and make the destruction of his carrier that much likely
Nimitz was after the IJN carriers, and was prepared to let Midway go if necessary. "Don't loose your carriers"
(A FEW of them did fly to Midway by necessity. eg  damage and circumstances, home CV &/or plane damaged and MIdway nearer 


The scenario rules should be :
-- USN to destroy the IJN carriers
-- IJN to capture Midway and SECURE ie we can't do that if our carriers can't hold it?! Not easy, hence optional reinforcements, eg Shokaku
-- NO USN fuel restrictions, roughly half of the 109-120 planes were thirstier multi-engined as well.


I can't recall fuel restrictions on any air field, though there would be plane restrictions eg no B17 on Henderson


PLEASE change Bladerunner


sorry if text is slightly highlighted - a function of using a chromebook (cheaper than an ipad Smile
Please advise of any other Victory Condition gamism as Midway fuel


Back to top
larsenjp
Beta-testing

Offline

Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Thu 17 May - 21:02 (2018)    Post subject: Is Carrier Battles Unbalanced? Reply with quote

SBD,

I agree fuel limitation is probably not historical, at least the way it is implemented in the game.

Actually the problem behind is that some players, like you and most probably some others, play with some historical background, behaving like Nimitz, Halsey or Fletcher would have (or trying to Laughing ) and imposing on themselves constraints that are written nowhere in the rules, like trying to make carrier based planes back to their carriers at all cost. But some players play with the rules and will use all the possibilities given by them, even if it is not historical. Typically basing carrier planes at Midway or at Port-Moresby so that they can keep their carriers away.... That's why fuel limitations were introduced on land air bases (while there is no fuel limitations on carriers).

However, initially there was some strict fuel limitations on Henderson, as historically, but finally these limitations were modified because it was found that it was too difficult for the US player to deal with...One of the problem being that we do not really know the daily fuel capacity in Henderson.

Balancing is a difficult task as this is very subjective... Wink

Personally i would rather have strictly limited the number of planes that a given base could handle plus of course add some fuel limitations when it is historical,especially in Henderson. And balance through VP. But this is an open debate...


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 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  

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