What about planes?

[wilson2]

The starter set comes with nine units. Does this count planes or do they come with carrier? I Think that you would not get much for your money if so. Comments welcome.

[TheFoeHammer]

The starter set comes with nine units. Does this count planes or do they come with carrier? I Think that you would not get much for your money if so. Comments welcome.

The planes will be a unit in the game. There will be 3 planes on a stand and a stat card to go along with it. (see the Opening Salvo). So a booster or a starter could contain a plane as one of it's units. I would imagine the cost of making a plane unit is equal to or greater than making any other common/uncommon unit.

Planes definitely do not "come with" the carrier. There are some planes that are not carrier-based planes at all.

[wilson2]

so you get 3 planes for one unit. Good. Cause with 1 fighter and one dive bomber each the other way thats 4 of your 9 units. And thats not even many planes

[wilson2]

Which opening salvo says that you get 3 for 1 unit

[XAos]

Which opening salvo says that you get 3 for 1 unit
Some of the unit photos show 3 small planes on a single stand, eg;
http://www.wizards.com/global/images/ah_aam_ah20070212c_picMain_en.jpg
http://i18.tinypic.com/2v9epz8.jpg
But from the photos, I can't determine if the planes are 3 seperate models on one stand. Or a single piece of plastic, with the planes connected by their wingtips.:confused: That could be a result of the angle the photo shots have been taken. can someone who has seen the actual models clarify this please.?

[wilson2]

o good i thought that white stuff wass showing the planes taking a sharp turn(i.e. trailing smoke)

[Joisey]

Clearly, although the fighter mini shows mulitple planes, its ONE UNIT, with one stat card, not three.

I believe it will be highly probable that WOTC will put at least one carrier, one "plane unit", one BB, one destroyer, one sub, and one freighter in each starter, to diversify the types of units you start with as much as possible.

[TheFoeHammer]

I believe it will be highly probable that WOTC will put at least one carrier, one "plane unit", one BB, one destroyer, one sub, and one freighter in each starter, to diversify the types of units you start with as much as possible.

I don't think that would be possible. With only one rare in the starter that would preclude a BB and a CV in the same box. They could do a light carrier like the Jintsu, which is an uncommon, but I doubt it.

Odds are the only "non-randomness" that will be applied to the starter is the 3 Axis/3 Allies promise, which is probably hard enough of a distribution rule to place into an automated "random" production line.

[XAos]

I believe it will be highly probable that WOTC will put at least one carrier, one "plane unit", one BB, one destroyer, one sub, and one freighter in each starter, to diversify the types of units you start with as much as possible.

We know the starters will be;
1 rare (BB, CA or CV)
2 Uncommon (CL, CVL, freighter, plane)
6 common (DD, sub, plane, MTB, DDE)
So the odds favour getting atleast one DD, Sub, plane and CL
The odds of getting a freighter or CV are quite low.

[TheFoeHammer]

so you get 3 planes for one unit. Good. Cause with 1 fighter and one dive bomber each the other way thats 4 of your 9 units. And thats not even many planes

You have to think of a plane unit as representative of a Squadron or Flight of that particular plane type as it would be in any standard boardgame. The carrier cards we've seen seem to have capacity for 3 air units. That's not meant to be 3 planes, but more like 80-90 planes.

[Bellerophon]

You have to think of a plane unit as representative of a Squadron or Flight of that particular plane type as it would be in any standard boardgame. The carrier cards we've seen seem to have capacity for 3 air units. That's not meant to be 3 planes, but more like 80-90 planes.

Yes, my take is that the each stand of planes is a squadron of aircraft (20-30) planes. Which makes sense...If an aircraft carrier like Enterprise has a basing capacity of three, it would correspond to the 3 squadrons (approximately) of aircraft that the Big E carried.

[TheFoeHammer]

Yes, my take is that the each stand of planes is a squadron of aircraft (20-30) planes. Which makes sense...If an aircraft carrier like Enterprise has a basing capacity of three, it would correspond to the 3 squadrons (approximately) of aircraft that the Big E carried.

Yes, and I am hoping it will be effective to play a historically accurate mix of 1 F4F, 1 SBD and 1 TBD squadron. Because that just fits very nicely.

[Bellerophon]

Yes, and I am hoping it will be effective to play a historically accurate mix of 1 F4F, 1 SBD and 1 TBD squadron. Because that just fits very nicely.

Of course, different mixes of aircraft would probably be the norm, as players tailor the aircraft loadout to the particular game or scenario that they are playing. For example, I could see a sub-hunting scenario where a player may wish to take 3 squadrons of F4F's for his/her carrier in order to enhance the ability to find and destroy the submarine.

[XAos]

Yes, and I am hoping it will be effective to play a historically accurate mix of 1 F4F, 1 SBD and 1 TBD squadron. Because that just fits very nicely.

Except historically Enterprise air-group had 4 squadrons of aircraft.
1 F4F designated "Fighting-6"
1 TBD "Torpedo-6"
2 SBD, "Scouting-6" & "Bombing-6".

[swarbs]

Except historically Enterprise air-group had 4 squadrons of aircraft.
1 F4F designated "Fighting-6"
1 TBD "Torpedo-6"
2 SBD, "Scouting-6" & "Bombing-6".

Obviously, the models of the different types of aircraft were upgraded, but was the ratio between types changed during the war? I seem to recall airgroups later in the war being much more fighter heavy.

[Belisarius]

Obviously, the models of the different types of aircraft were upgraded, but was the ratio between types changed during the war? I seem to recall airgroups later in the war being much more fighter heavy.

According to this site (http://cv6.org/company/airgroups.htm ), early in the war (through Midway), Enterprise carried 18 F4F Wildcats, 18 TBD Devastators, and 36 SBD Dauntlesses (18 in VB-6 and 18 in VS-6). After Midway, squadron deployment gets a little more mixed, so she didn't always carry VF-6, VT-6, VB-6, and VS-6 (and she didn't have a scout bombing squadron after May 1943)

In July and August 1942, she carried 36 F4Fs in VF-6, and her torpedo squadron (VT-3 at the time) had 15 TBF Avengers. VB-6 and VS-5 each had 18 SBDs.

October 1942-May 1943: Numbers were the same as above (but different squadrons)

November 1943-December 1943: Only 3 squadrons carried, VB-6 (SBDs), VT-6 (TBFs), and VF-2 (F6Fs). The site doesn't give numbers.

January 1944-July 1944: 4 squadrons, VB-10 (SBDs), VF-10 (F6Fs), VT-10 (TBFs), and VF(N)-101 (4 F4U-2(N) night fighters).

August 1944-November 1944: VB-20 (20 SB2C Helldivers), VF-20 (32 F6Fs), VT-20 (16 TBM Avengers), and VF(N)-78 (4 F6F-3(N) night fighters).

December 1944-May 1945: Only two squadrons, VF(N)-90 (34 F6F-5(N)s) and VT(N)-90 (21 TBMs).

[MarcusAurelius]

A game like War at Sea requires some level of generalization, especially when it comes to aircraft. Not all carriers fielded the exact same number of fighters and bombers. Plus, the composition of air groups changed throughout the course of the war.

At Midway, for example, Kaga carried 27 Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bombers while Akagi had just 18. A look at just about every major battle of the war shows similar minor discrepancies — even between carriers from the same class.

Or consider the Ark Royal. At the outbreak of WWII, it carried 26 Fairey Swordfish and 24 Blackburn Skuas. But by 1941, its air group consisted of 36 Fairey Swordfish and 18 Fairey Fulmars.

[Bellerophon]

All of the listed variations in the complement of aircraft aboard the Enterprise just underscore my point that it would be entirely accurate to have tailored mixes of aircraft for any particular game or scenario. While this would be due to the choices of the player instead of the historical availabilty of aircraft, the wide range of choices makes carrier operations in this game even more enjoyable. As future sets are released, and we get more choices of the type of aircraft for carriers, carriers will get some 'flexibility' as a unit that other unit types do not or will not have in this game.

I think it would be very interesting to have three squadrons of bombers, like B-25's (a la the Doolittle raid), for use during a historical battle. What do you think would have happened if one of the US carriers during the Battle for Midway had medium bombers to attack the Japanese fleet?

[Joisey]

All of the listed variations in the complement of aircraft aboard the Enterprise just underscore my point that it would be entirely accurate to have tailored mixes of aircraft for any particular game or scenario. While this would be due to the choices of the player instead of the historical availabilty of aircraft, the wide range of choices makes carrier operations in this game even more enjoyable. As future sets are released, and we get more choices of the type of aircraft for carriers, carriers will get some 'flexibility' as a unit that other unit types do not or will not have in this game.

I think it would be very interesting to have three squadrons of bombers, like B-25's (a la the Doolittle raid), for use during a historical battle. What do you think would have happened if one of the US carriers during the Battle for Midway had medium bombers to attack the Japanese fleet?

It would have been disastrous, since the Hornet couldn't operate it's own fighters while it carried the B-25's, and the B-25's were strictly on a one way mission. Why not just base the bombers at Midway island, and leave the carrier planes on the carrier?

[Lynx7725]

What do you think would have happened if one of the US carriers during the Battle for Midway had medium bombers to attack the Japanese fleet?
It'd had been disastrous. Medium bombers were notoriously ineffective for anti-ship duties at that point in the war; skip-bombing didn't really catch on until later, and skip-bombing against warships might not be very conducive to the long-term health of the aircrews.

If this had happened, that would mean one less effective USN carrier at Midway, which might have resulted in fewer losses to the IJN carrier fleet (IMO unlikely that it'd make a difference to USN ships sunk). That would likely have prolonged the war, and might have resulted in more clashes in the Solomons, particularly carrier battles near Gundalcanal.

[swarbs]

It'd had been disastrous. Medium bombers were notoriously ineffective for anti-ship duties at that point in the war; skip-bombing didn't really catch on until later, and skip-bombing against warships might not be very conducive to the long-term health of the aircrews.

If this had happened, that would mean one less effective USN carrier at Midway, which might have resulted in fewer losses to the IJN carrier fleet (IMO unlikely that it'd make a difference to USN ships sunk). That would likely have prolonged the war, and might have resulted in more clashes in the Solomons, particularly carrier battles near Gundalcanal.

I agree except I think it would have had a greater effect on the battle even then this. The three airwings of the US carriers sunk 3 Japanese carriers, the remaining ship launched a return strike sinking one US flat-top. If you take one carrier out of the battle the remaining two US airwings sink two Japanese carriers (or maybe there are enough zeros on CAP to shoot at both the torpedo and the dive-bombers sinking even fewer ships). Then the remaining two or more Japanese carriers still have a lot of fire power left over to unleash on the US fleet, probably resulting in more sinkings. Unfortunately for the Japanese the US was about to start pumping out Essex class ships fast enough that the result of Midway may not have mattered.

[Bellerophon]

It'd had been disastrous. Medium bombers were notoriously ineffective for anti-ship duties at that point in the war; skip-bombing didn't really catch on until later, and skip-bombing against warships might not be very conducive to the long-term health of the aircrews.

If this had happened, that would mean one less effective USN carrier at Midway, which might have resulted in fewer losses to the IJN carrier fleet (IMO unlikely that it'd make a difference to USN ships sunk). That would likely have prolonged the war, and might have resulted in more clashes in the Solomons, particularly carrier battles near Gundalcanal.

As a hypothetical, I think everyone in agreement that bombers would be terrible in early carrier warfare. :p But, I think it would be interesting to try something like this in WaS, as it would be fun to experiment with a historical situation with different variables, like aircraft mix. :D

How about Japanese carriers operating the Japanese version of the Me262 from late in the war?

[Lynx7725]

I agree except I think it would have had a greater effect on the battle even then this. The three airwings of the US carriers sunk 3 Japanese carriers, the remaining ship launched a return strike sinking one US flat-top. If you take one carrier out of the battle the remaining two US airwings sink two Japanese carriers (or maybe there are enough zeros on CAP to shoot at both the torpedo and the dive-bombers sinking even fewer ships). Then the remaining two or more Japanese carriers still have a lot of fire power left over to unleash on the US fleet, probably resulting in more sinkings. Unfortunately for the Japanese the US was about to start pumping out Essex class ships fast enough that the result of Midway may not have mattered.
It's not an issue of whether the US could pump out Essexs -- that's largely irrelevant in the operational aspect of the PTO at the point in time.

Thing is, had the US lost 2 fleet carriers at Midway, that would reduce the entire PTO carrier fleet to 1 carrier -- the Lexington was sunk, the Saratoga was laid up for repairs (and missed Midway because of that), the Yorktown was sunk at Midway, and either the Hornet or Enterprise would be gone. That leaves 1, maybe 2 USN fleet carrier against likely 3 or even 4 IJN fleet carriers (Shokaku, Zuikaku, and whatever survived Midway).

That would severely curtain the US' ability to project power. The USN would not be willing to risk their valuable carriers until, as you said, the Essex came on line and had their shakedowns done. That meant the Gundalcanal operation might not have been able to be put together, or might have to go in without carrier support. With a stronger IJN presence, the Gundalcanal campaign might have been harder fought or even lost, if it even happened.

With Gundalcanal and more importantly, its airstrip in Japanese control, that would have secured the Japanese's southeastern flank, and would have made supplying Australia more difficult. While I personally don't think Japanese intended or was capable of invading Australia, that would have pressurized the Allies there and made it more difficult to crawl up the islands again -- and in fact, might have driven the Allies to go through SE Asia instead.


How about Japanese carriers operating the Japanese version of the Me262 from late in the war?
Uhm, practically, I think it's difficult and probably a one-way trip. I don't quite think that the Japanese CVs are quite ready to accept jets landing on them.

But in the context of the game, if you can fit them on, feel free to try them.

[Joisey]

Not sure the Me262 airframe could have withstood a tailhook arrest landing.

Also, what was the runway length needed for the Me262 to take off? Remember the Japanese did not have catapault launchers (which would be another airframe stress issue anyway).