Separate carrier aircraft

[toblerone77]

@Flashman:

I have a bit of inside knowledge of this since my Dad was an aircraft engineer in the fleet air arm.
He trained with bi-plane Gladiators, progressed to imported Avengers and ended the war with Spitfires. But the “Seafires” had to be modified to work on carriers.
Perhaps allow fighters to be used for either, but they cannot take off from the ground and land on a carrier or vv.
If a carrier is alongside a friendly land tt, allow a fighter to be loaded or offloaded there, but this is a transport move not a “flying” move. Consider the machine to have been modified in the process.
I suppose the only confusion would be when fighters from both are involved in a single battle.

I totally get what you’re saying I just think right now it could be cumbersome to reflect this with the lack of OOB or custom pieces to represent the difference. The only option I see would be to paint and modify sculpts. Although I enjoy it, it is quite difficult for the average player to replicate the difference with what is available on the market.

I still enjoyed your post Flashman.

[knp7765]

As far as having different sculpts to represent land based planes and those operating from carriers, you would really only need those for Japan and the US and we have those now:
US Land Based – P-38 (OOB), P-40 (HBG), P-51 (HBG)
US Carrier Based – F4U (HBG), F6F (OOB Pacific)
Japan Land Based – Tony (HBG)
Japan Carrier Based – Zero (OOB)

I know that England also had some carriers, but when you are playing England, how often do you actually buy carriers? We rarely see carriers built by UK in our games, unless the Allies are really whomping the Axis and the UK has extra money to spend. If some of you see more carrier action by the UK, then I guess you will have to do some of the options mentioned above.
As for the other countries, Germany, Italy, Russia, France and ANZAC, none of them even had carriers in service during the war, although I know for game purposes we would like the options. Plus, a standard G1 buy for a lot of people is a carrier. I guess if you really want to separate the planes, you will have to mark them like what was mentioned above as well. Since Germany never really developed a carrier in the real war, I can’t see HBG coming out with a specific carrier borne German plane any time soon. On a side note, I’ve often wondered if the Graf Zeppelin was finished and pressed into service, would Me262s have been able to operate on her.
Flashman,
I do understand your idea that land based aircraft should not be able to land on carriers – OR perhaps there could be a HR where if you spent an extra couple of IPCs per plane during your Purchase Units/Repair phase, certain planes could be modified to work on carriers.
However, why make the rule that carrier based aircraft can NOT land on land? Carrier based planes could still operate from regular runways. I think that restriction should be one-sided; any land based planes can not land on a carrier if they have not been modified. Then you would have to pay close attention to what types of planes you have where and not be sending any land based planes out on an attack where their only safe landing space would be a carrier.
I think this would only really affect sea battles, but I could see some occasions where a plane would take off from land, attack a certain territory then go to land on a carrier, like perhaps in anticipation of a future attack. So if you wanted to do that, you would have to pay that little extra to modify that plane (unless it was already a navy plane).
This might also affect Allies landing planes on carriers that aren’t their own.
Wittmann suggested that navy planes should cost more than regular planes. Perhaps they would cost 1 IPC more. Of course, you could buy a regular plane then convert it later but then it will cost you 2 IPCs to convert a regular plane to a navy plane. It’s like Minor and Major ICs. A Major IC costs 30 IPCs, a Minor IC costs 12 IPCs. You can convert a Minor to a Major for 20 IPCs, thus that Major just cost you 32 IPCs.
As I have been typing this, I was thinking of fighter planes but this could go for Tactical Bombers too. Again, the US and Japan currently have different sculpts but none of the other nations do.
US Land Based – Dauntless Dive Bomber (OOB)
US Carrier Based – Avenger Torpedo Bomber (HBG)
Japan Land Based – Val Dive Bomber (OOB)
Japan Carrier Based – Kate Torpedo Bomber (HBG)
So a Dauntless or Val would cost 11 IPCs, an Avenger or Kate would cost 12 IPCs. OR, you could buy a Dauntless or Val for 11 IPCs, then convert them later for an extra 2 IPCs.

What do you think? Good idea?

[CWO Marc]

Realistically, a carrier-based plane can land on land, but a land-based plane usually can’t land on a carrier.  For a plane to be able to land on a carrier, it generally needs a tailhook (to catch the arresting wires), a reinforced landing gear (to withstand the shock, and to stick to the deck without bouncing), and the ability to land at a fairly low speed without stalling.  It’s sometimes possible to adapt a land-based plane to operate from a carrier, as was the case with the Seafire version of the Spitfire.

[Flashman]

You could use the 1914 UK biplanes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Gladiators

note that one of the main features of built for carrier fighters was the folding wings, allowing more units to be stacked below deck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire

[Der Kuenstler]

I’ve thought about this before. What about permanently attaching two planes to the deck of the carriers - just glue them down - and make the carrier all one fighting unit. Then  adapt the carrier fighting rules. The reasoning is that carriers did not float around with no planes on them like they can in AA - carriers always had planes on them. Then the carrier born planes would stay separate from land based.

[toblerone77]

@knp7765:

As far as having different sculpts to represent land based planes and those operating from carriers, you would really only need those for Japan and the US and we have those now:
US Land Based – P-38 (OOB), P-40 (HBG), P-51 (HBG)
US Carrier Based – F4U (HBG), F6F (OOB Pacific)
Japan Land Based – Tony (HBG)
Japan Carrier Based – Zero (OOB)

I know that England also had some carriers, but when you are playing England, how often do you actually buy carriers? We rarely see carriers built by UK in our games, unless the Allies are really whomping the Axis and the UK has extra money to spend. If some of you see more carrier action by the UK, then I guess you will have to do some of the options mentioned above.
As for the other countries, Germany, Italy, Russia, France and ANZAC, none of them even had carriers in service during the war, although I know for game purposes we would like the options. Plus, a standard G1 buy for a lot of people is a carrier. I guess if you really want to separate the planes, you will have to mark them like what was mentioned above as well. Since Germany never really developed a carrier in the real war, I can’t see HBG coming out with a specific carrier borne German plane any time soon. On a side note, I’ve often wondered if the Graf Zeppelin was finished and pressed into service, would Me262s have been able to operate on her.
Flashman,
I do understand your idea that land based aircraft should not be able to land on carriers – OR perhaps there could be a HR where if you spent an extra couple of IPCs per plane during your Purchase Units/Repair phase, certain planes could be modified to work on carriers.
However, why make the rule that carrier based aircraft can NOT land on land? Carrier based planes could still operate from regular runways. I think that restriction should be one-sided; any land based planes can not land on a carrier if they have not been modified. Then you would have to pay close attention to what types of planes you have where and not be sending any land based planes out on an attack where their only safe landing space would be a carrier.
I think this would only really affect sea battles, but I could see some occasions where a plane would take off from land, attack a certain territory then go to land on a carrier, like perhaps in anticipation of a future attack. So if you wanted to do that, you would have to pay that little extra to modify that plane (unless it was already a navy plane).
This might also affect Allies landing planes on carriers that aren’t their own.
Wittmann suggested that navy planes should cost more than regular planes. Perhaps they would cost 1 IPC more. Of course, you could buy a regular plane then convert it later but then it will cost you 2 IPCs to convert a regular plane to a navy plane. It’s like Minor and Major ICs. A Major IC costs 30 IPCs, a Minor IC costs 12 IPCs. You can convert a Minor to a Major for 20 IPCs, thus that Major just cost you 32 IPCs.
As I have been typing this, I was thinking of fighter planes but this could go for Tactical Bombers too. Again, the US and Japan currently have different sculpts but none of the other nations do.
US Land Based – Dauntless Dive Bomber (OOB)
US Carrier Based – Avenger Torpedo Bomber (HBG)
Japan Land Based – Val Dive Bomber (OOB)
Japan Carrier Based – Kate Torpedo Bomber (HBG)
So a Dauntless or Val would cost 11 IPCs, an Avenger or Kate would cost 12 IPCs. OR, you could buy a Dauntless or Val for 11 IPCs, then convert them later for an extra 2 IPCs.

What do you think? Good idea?

I’ve leaned in a similar direction to yours knp when thinking about land vs. naval. For now I think I’ll wait until we get some more goodies from HBG. On a side note the Mitchell could easily be a land-based Allied TB.

As for looks I like using Corsairs with carriers. The Lightning just looks wrong on a carrier deck. I wish WOTC would just include Hellcats and Lightnings like they did in previous versions. I have thought that the old Stuka and HBG’s FW-190 would work well as “carrier” tacs and fighters due to their smaller size.

[General 6 Stars]

How about having only 1 land plane or 1 sea plane land on escort carrier at a time.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

How about having only 1 land plane or 1 sea plane land on escort carrier at a time.

Are you talking about the fleet carrier wich carry 2 planes.
Your house rules would cut in half land-plane on such carrier.

Max allowed: 1 land-plane per carrier.
A fleet carrier can have on board 2 sea-planes (like US hellcat) or 1 land + 1 sea-plane.
Or only 1 land-plane (any other land-plane in excess must be ditch into the sea.)

However, I suggest you can allow “kamikaze” attack from land-base plane.
After the battle, any land-plane in excess aboard carrier will be sink.

Otherwise, If you really talk about CVE Escort carrier (Casablanca-class), I think you off topic.

[General 6 Stars]

I mean regular carrier can load and unload 2 sea planes only and escort carrier can load and unload 1 plane from sea or land. So if you want to land a plane from land, it has to be a escort carrier only.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

I mean regular carrier can load and unload 2 sea planes only and escort carrier can load and unload 1 plane from sea or land. So if you want to land a plane from land, it has to be a escort carrier only.

It could be a game solution, but not an historical and accurate ones.

Escort carrier were much smaller than Fleet Carrier, which means less length of bridge to land on.

Since, Flashman rise a problem of “accuracy” about planes, it seems strange to correct it with an other “historical accuracy twist” house rule.

[General 6 Stars]

So in the Battle of Samar in the Philippines, with only escort carriers where did all those planes from the escorts land. @Baron:

Escort carrier were much smaller than Fleet Carrier, which means less length of bridge to land on.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

So in the Battle of Samar in the Philippines, with only escort carriers where did all those planes from the escorts land. @Baron:

Escort carrier were much smaller than Fleet Carrier, which means less length of bridge to land on.

As far as I know about the Leyte’s Gulf Battle, the fighters and TacBs were coming from the Escort carriers.
These planes were already “sea-planes” and able to lift off and land on any carriers.

[Craig Yope]

My friends and I play an advanced A&A type game in which the carrier air is differentiated by its range instead of by actual vehicle (though there is an exception to that in that the UK has an early war naval fighter unit to symbolize the swordfish/gladiator planes).

This represents the differences that come with the design limitations placed on carrier air.

Now it must be explained that all air units operate a bit differently in that they have a range instead of a movement allowance.  You can fly up to the range out to a target, then the range back from the battle.  Ranges are 2,2 for fighters and stukas/sturmoviks and 3,3 for bombers.  Western Allies also have heavy bombers have that can fly 4,4, but only when doing strat bombing.

Carrier air only have a 1,1 range, but understand that in this game the CV moves first, then the air unit can fly off of the deck to do its combat.  There is still the switching out of the generic fighter unit (with the exception of the UK unit until the spring of '42 when the regular fighter can then land on their carriers) from land to CV and vice versa, but the limitations concerning range during an actual attack does model the limits that were present in the war.

I did come up with with a naval air unit for the US and Japan to be used in this game, but it was more of an attempt to power down the generic fighter and its attack value against surface naval units rather than an attempt to come up a unique figurine for differentiation.

[Flashman]

Something else I’ve tried is that planes operating off carriers have to land back on the carrier to rearm (takes one cr) after 2 combat rounds, since we’re assuming that fighter vs ships are using bombs and torpedoes of which carrier planes could carry very few.

Should carriers and their planes be permitted to participate in different battles in a turn? If not, should the planes always have to be taken as casualties before the carrier?

[knp7765]

@Craig:

I did come up with with a naval air unit for the US and Japan to be used in this game, but it was more of an attempt to power down the generic fighter and its attack value against surface naval units rather than an attempt to come up a unique figurine for differentiation.

You also cut down the attack value for naval planes? So land fighters attack @ 3 but carrier fighters attack @ less? I understand your limitations on range but I think limiting the attack is too much.

@Flashman:

Something else I’ve tried is that planes operating off carriers have to land back on the carrier to rearm (takes one cr) after 2 combat rounds, since we’re assuming that fighter vs ships are using bombs and torpedoes of which carrier planes could carry very few.

Should carriers and their planes be permitted to participate in different battles in a turn? If not, should the planes always have to be taken as casualties before the carrier?

So if you have a big naval battle between two large fleets that takes, lets say 5 rounds of combat. Your carrier based planes fly out and participate in this combat for 2 rounds, sit out a round of combat for re-arming, then participate in another 2 rounds of combat? Does this include if the carriers moved into the combat zone as well? What about defending planes?

This seems to me like you could really threaten your own attack. Say you are attacking with 2 BB, 3 CA, 3 DD and 10 carrier based planes. After 2 rounds of combat, you suddenly cut your attacking force in half. Your remaining warships could get creamed in that 3rd combat round.

[crusaderiv]

I introduced it long time ago in my house rules.
Naval air force and Army air force.
To distinguish them, I painted the naval and army planes with different colors. (USA,Japan and UK).
Army plane cannot land on a carrier.
Naval plane cannot land on a territory.

[General 6 Stars]

So is that how I’m suppose to be playing it because if its in the rules I missed it.

[crusaderiv]

So is that how I’m suppose to be playing it because if its in the rules I missed it.
Are you serious???  :?

LOL…shame on you!!!

But it will be play a pleasure to give you the rule.

[General 6 Stars]

Up to you Leader!

[toblerone77]

Another option could be is to adjust the cost of a CV/AC bundle. When the carrier loses HP or planes are destroyed they must be repaired/replaced at a NB. The AC are permanently assigned to the carrier as if the carrier and aircraft were a single unit. You would need to sort out the stats for your particular HRs and play group’s preferences but it’s an idea just off the top of my head.