Separate carrier aircraft

[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.

[crusaderiv]

Up to you Leader!     :-D

I found it page 15…

• Fighter who departed from a carrier must necessarily return to its original carrier or may
  land on ally carrier at the end of the battle. If the carrier is sunk and the fighter still alive, it may land
  on a friendly territory. Otherwise, it is removed from the game board.
  So the starting point of the Fighter during the “combat move” is very important.
  This is the principle between the army and navy air force.
  The only time that you can send an aircraft from a territory to a carrier is during the
  “Non-combat move”. There is no exception.

[baron Münchhausen]

This p.15 rules on carrier’s planes is in which game version?

[crusaderiv]

This p.15 rules on carrier’s planes is in which game version?

LOL. I knew that someone was going to ask the question. :-D

Baron…it’s in our game rule…

[baron Münchhausen]

You got me!  :-D

I was under the impression I missed a subtility on OOB plane movement rules.
You puzzled me.

[crusaderiv]

Crusader 1
Baron 0