Is it true that unless Carriers stay to the periphrey, they will be sunk??



  • Is it true that unless Carriers stay to the periphrey, they will be sunk??

    IOW will they be sunk if you venture with them to or thru the midddle of the

    islands/board?

    :?


  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    Carriers can be sunk. There is a random element to the casualty system so if the AC’s slot comes up it is hit even if you have other ships present.

    It isn’t so much where you put your ACs but whether or not you escort them reducing the chance that their slot will come up. Sinking an enemy carrier is also worth victory points so you have to protect them.



  • Does anyone know whether or not carrier operations were conducted in the midst of all the islands or were they conducted outside of the islands on the “edge” of the board?

    Are there any restrictions on carrier movement?

    Seems to me that manuevering an aircraft carrier in those waters would be problematic at best?

    A sidenote: Do fighters have the same range as in all other AA games?
    Likewise bombers?

    BTW do other naval units soak off carrier hits or does the carrier stand the same chance of being sunk with or without escorting navy units?  😐

    Thanks for the help.


  • Official Q&A

    @Shakespeare:

    Are there any restrictions on carrier movement?

    Seems to me that manuevering an aircraft carrier in those waters would be problematic at best?

    There are no special movement restrictions on carriers.  They have the same restrictions as other ships.

    @Shakespeare:

    A sidenote: Do fighters have the same range as in all other AA games?
    Likewise bombers?

    Fighters may move up to two spaces before combat, and up to two spaces after combat.  Bombers may move up to three spaces before combat, and up to three spaces after combat.

    @Shakespeare:

    BTW do other naval units soak off carrier hits or does the carrier stand the same chance of being sunk with or without escorting navy units?   😐

    It depends.  The combat system is unique.  Hits are assigned randomly, so in theory carriers stand the same chance of being hit as everything else.  However, attacks that don’t have enough firepower to roll enough dice to reach a carrier on the casualty chart will hit escorting ships first.  Also, hits assigned to unit types that aren’t in the battle “wrap around” to the beginning of the casualty chart.  Since carriers are pretty far down on the chart, other ships will receive these “warp around” hits before carriers do.  Of course, in either case, if there aren’t enough escorting ships to absorb the hits, the carrier will be left holding the bag.  As a result, only a “direct hit” will hit a carrier if there are enough combat ships escorting it.  The odds of a direct carrier hit vary with the strength of the attacking force, and the odds of an indirect hit vary with the make-up of the defending force.

    For more information, you can read the rules here and the FAQ here.



  • @Shakespeare:

    Does anyone know whether or not carrier operations were conducted in the midst of all the islands or were they conducted outside of the islands on the “edge” of the board?

    If you are asking historically… in my recollection I believe that as for the Allies, that the US Carriers, like the Enterprise stayed out of what would be the center of the board (between the islands) and launched from what would be the edges.  I don’t know about the  Japanese Carriers–they were in the Guadalcanal area though, which is part of what pushed Allied Carriers farther out to sea…, that and Japanese night fighting.



  • Carriers did not operate in the slot, there were two carrier battles in the guadalcanal campaign,

    Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz Islands

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EasternSolomonsChart.jpg

    At Eastern Solomons the IJN Carrier Ryūjō was sunk and the USN Enterprise damaged.

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SantaCruzChart2.jpg

    At Santa Cruz the USN Hornet was sunk and the USN Enterprise was damaged. The IJN Shōkaku was damaged.

    Also the USS Wasp was torpedoed and sunk by the IJN Sub I-19

    From Wikipedia;

    On Tuesday, 15 September, those two carriers and North Carolina—with 10 other warships—were escorting the transports carrying the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal as reinforcements. Wasp had drawn the job of ready-duty carrier and was operating some 150 miles (240 km) southeast of San Cristobal Island. Her gasoline system was in use, as planes were being refueled and rearmed for antisubmarine patrol missions; and Wasp had been at general quarters from an hour before sunrise until the time when the morning search returned to the ship at 10:00. Thereafter, the ship was in condition 2, with the air department at flight quarters. There was no contact with the Japanese during the day, with the exception of a Japanese four-engined flying boat downed by a Wasp Wildcat at 12:15.

    About 14:20, the carrier turned into the wind to launch eight fighters and 18 SBD-3s and to recover eight F4F-3s and three SBDs that had been airborne since before noon. The ship rapidly completed the recovery of the 11 planes, she then turned easily to starboard, the ship heeling slightly as the course change was made. The air department at flight quarters, as they had done in earlier operations, worked coolly at refueling and respotting the ship’s planes for the afternoon mission. Suddenly, at 2:44, a lookout called out, “three torpedoes … three points forward of the starboard beam!”

    A spread of six Type 95 torpedoes were fired at the Wasp at about 14:44 from the tubes of the B1 Type Japanese submarine I-19. Wasp put over her rudder hard-a-starboard, but it was too late. Three torpedoes smashed home in quick succession about 14:45. In an odd occurrence, one torpedo actually broached, left the water, and struck the ship slightly above the waterline. All hit in the vicinity of gasoline tanks and magazines. Two of the spread of torpedoes passed ahead of Wasp and were observed passing astern of Helena before O’Brien was hit by one at 14:51 while maneuvering to avoid the other. The sixth torpedo passed either astern or under Wasp, narrowly missed Lansdowne in Wasp’s screen about 14:48, was seen by Mustin in North Carolina’s screen about 1450, and struck North Carolina about 14:52.[2]

    All the rest of the naval battles in the area were mostly surface ship engagements, some Battleships early on but mostly Cruisers and Destroyers and the Japanese won many of these fights.



  • In the game play of Guadalcanal, are the carriers by both sides pushed into the slot?



  • It is common for the IJN to have a large surface group in F and the US to have a large surface group in H.  From these positions, the navies are in position to support “their half” of the islands.  With carrier air limited to a movement of two-out-and-two-back, and bombers limited to a movement of three-out-and-three-back, it is necessary to get the carriers near the middle to give the carrier air enough chance to influence things in the game.

    Much has been said here about the relative ineffectiveness of air power.  I think we need to recognize it is a game and some things need to be adapted to make it fun for both sides.


  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    Airpower is only ineffective if you’re the guy with less. Fighters aren’t a ‘luxury’ purchase in GCNL.



  • So is that what basically everyone?? is saying: that becz of the Rules, carriers need to go into The Slot; which did not happen historically? Is that right?

    That is a disappointment. I mean, the rules should try to recreate or mimic the actual historical campaign; otherwise why name it Guadalcanal?

    Carriers in the slot is that always done in the gameplay? If so, it is not true to the basic history of the Campaign, is it?

    What if the carrier’s fighter ranges were extended to allow them to combat over the slot without the carriers being there as apparently happened in the history of the Campaign?

    Would that better portray the historical nature of the Guadalcanal campaign?

    I am just puzzled by the lack of fidelity to the history.


  • Official Q&A

    In historical wargames, there is always a fine line to be walked between historical accuracy and game balance, playability and just plain fun.  There are always sacrifices that have to be made to history, unless you’re making a game that’s purely a historical simulation, which tend to be very long and complex.

    A&A games were never intended to be historical simulations.  They are intended to be relatively light, fun games with a WW-II theme that evoke that conflict rather than recreate it.


  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @Krieghund:

    In historical wargames, there is always a fine line to be walked between historical accuracy and game balance, playability and just plain fun.  There are always sacrifices that have to be made to history, unless you’re making a game that’s purely a historical simulation, which tend to be very long and complex.

    A&A games were never intended to be historical simulations.  They are intended to be relatively light, fun games with a WW-II theme that evoke that conflict rather than recreate it.

    And Krieghund hits the nail on the head again.  :mrgreen:



  • absolutely, it’s historical until you start play.  After that you’ve changed the timeline.

    I think the bigger question about the accuracy of the games deals with “Are things able to happen that happened historically” 
       Were Carriers able to go into the Slot?  Yes, they feasibly could have, but the 2 sides historically choose not to do so.  If you had to do everything that did happen, then you already know the outcome.



  • Yes, I understand that murraymoto, but if the game forces you to rely on tactics or strategies that were obviously not employed by either side, what kind of a simulation is that even though I know Axis & Allies is not supposd to be a simulation on the order of Campaign for North Africa, the old SPI monster?

    I love playing these Axis and Allies games and I will gladly overlook certain aspects of historical lapses in favor of playability, but does it not strike people as odd that you are forced to employ carriers in a manner that no sane Admiral in either the Japanese or American fleet would have employed them in the actual battle?

    I am no naval expert, but I know the dangers of sending in a carrier group in a severely restricted body of water as is The Slot.

    We don’t send an American carrier group into the Persian Gulf do we? Or do we?

    Where do we draw the line or should draw the line?

    Am I being just too “historical?”  :?

    I really appreciate all your comments, thanks.


  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @Shakespeare:

    We don’t send an American carrier group into the Persian Gulf do we? Or do we?

    Yes we do.



  • Your trying to be too historical. Carriers in the slot are not always doomed…mostly but not always.

    Other members have also had issues with the games historical accuracy, but as has been said if you make the game to accurate or realistic so that the Japanese player will always lose, who would want to play as the Japanese???

    What’s cool about A&A?  Conquering the USA with the Japanese.
    In real life they could not finish China, didn’t want to go into Australia, only nibbled at India, but something cool about marching down Pennsylvania Avenue with my Samurai Sword unsheathed demanding unconditional surrender.  😄



  • Is that right?

    If you do send a carrier down The Slot, it will be sunk not always, but most of the time??

    Is that what most of the players have discovered?

    What percentage of the time does that occur?

    Again thanks for listening to my questions, I appreciate all your answers.



  • the percentage is gonna be changed on what you bring with it to screen, how many subs they can throw at you to target them and how much general firepower they can bear on them.  Being in the Slot means they could be more open to airfields and artillery as well.  there’s not going to be a guarantee on it either way.  If you want to use the aircraft on your CV offensively though you have to be fairly close to do it, with their flight limitations so you may want to bring them closer into the fight.  if you can rely on airstrips more, you may need CVs more for defense.
      My play with GC is limited, but I’ve taken CVs into the Slot and they survived and I have also lost them.  But I also kept them to the sides at times and had them taken out too.  wherever they are they are targets because of the VP attached to them and since it takes double the hits for BBs, they are more likely to be shot at with subs.



  • Thanks


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 4
  • 4
  • 2
  • 17
  • 1
  • 8
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

82
Online

14.9k
Users

35.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts