AG124 and DrLarsen,
I find your information on the different Japanese carriers interesting. What might you guys think of for values for these types of fleet carriers (using a D6 system)?
You mentioned the Taiho being stronger, better armored and thus more expensive. So how about this:
Attack=1, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=20, Carry 3 planes, 3 hits to sink–1 hit still permits air operations, 2 hits NO air operations, must be repaired first
While the Soryu or Shokaku were somewhat more rudimentary, early war designs that didn’t cost as much. So:
Attack=0, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=16, Carry 2 planes, 2 hits to sink
Does this sound about right to you guys? The early war types similar to OOB, which is what Japan starts with. The stronger Taiho class would be something that Japan could purchase later. Much like the US starting out with the OOB Wasp Class but later buying stronger Essex (or FMG’s Enterprise) Class.
Also, would you make countries wait “X” number of rounds before they could purchase the bigger carriers? Or would this be something they could buy right away if they could afford to do so. Either way, I think the smaller, early war carriers should still be available throughout the game. Even in later rounds, you might want a little cheaper carrier that only carries 2 planes.
AG124 and DrLarsen,
I find your information on the different Japanese carriers interesting. What might you guys think of for values for these types of fleet carriers (using a D6 system)?
You mentioned the Taiho being stronger, better armored and thus more expensive. So how about this:
Attack=1, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=20, Carry 3 planes, 3 hits to sink–1 hit still permits air operations, 2 hits NO air operations, must be repaired firstWhile the Soryu or Shokaku were somewhat more rudimentary, early war designs that didn’t cost as much. So:
Attack=0, Defense=2, Move=2, Cost=16, Carry 2 planes, 2 hits to sinkDoes this sound about right to you guys? The early war types similar to OOB, which is what Japan starts with. The stronger Taiho class would be something that Japan could purchase later. Much like the US starting out with the OOB Wasp Class but later buying stronger Essex (or FMG’s Enterprise) Class.
Also, would you make countries wait “X” number of rounds before they could purchase the bigger carriers? Or would this be something they could buy right away if they could afford to do so. Either way, I think the smaller, early war carriers should still be available throughout the game. Even in later rounds, you might want a little cheaper carrier that only carries 2 planes.
I would prefer a 1/2 for attack/defense for the small (fleet) carriers, just like oob and perhaps giving a “super-carrier,” which the Taiho could perhaps be included in, having the advantage of a larger air group and a 3rd hit (if and only if there’s a similar 3rd hit BB possibility, as I can’t see having a carrier that’s tougher than a BB.) But the key thing that theoretically could make the 3rd hit arguable is the armored flight deck, something that similar candidates for “super-carrier” status (the US Midway and British Audacious classes) also have. I don’t see the US Essex class as a candidate for 3 hits, since it lacked this feature. The British Illustrious class, though, could perhaps be seen as a 3-hit carrier but sacrifice carrying capability, since they sacrificed #'s of planes to have this feature.
While not a candidate for a 3rd hit, the Essex might, however, be a cadidate for a 3rd plane.
I can’t see having a carrier that’s tougher than a BB.) But the key thing that theoretically could make the 3rd hit arguable is the armored flight deck, something that similar candidates for “super-carrier” status (the US Midway and British Audacious classes) also have. I don’t see the US Essex class as a candidate for 3 hits, since it lacked this feature. The British Illustrious class, though, could perhaps be seen as a 3-hit carrier but sacrifice carrying capability, since they sacrificed #'s of planes to have this feature.
The sacrifice in planes carried which you mention is an important point. Britain’s heavily armoured carriers held up well against kamikaze attacks when Britain got involved in the final stages of the Pacific War, but not everyone was convinced that they were a good design approach because the tonnage they allocated to armour reduced their plane-carrying capacity. It was argued that the best protection against kamikazes was to shoot them down before they could get near the carriers, and that the best way to do this was for carriers to send up strong combat air patrols – which in turn meant having carriers which could carry lots of aircraft (including fighters for protection).
Therefore, they did good to make little tiny pieces that people could enjoy yet not worry so much about historically accurate sculpts for each nation (although they did pretty good with the infantry sculpts). […] As for the pieces in Classic, I’ve always kind of guessed on what sculpts they might represent
I think the Classic equipments sculpts were never intended to be anything other than generic designs, without much attention being paid (as you mention) to historical accuracy. As you point out, the submarine in particular is notable for looking like a modern sub rather than a typical WWII design.
@CWO:
I can’t see having a carrier that’s tougher than a BB.)� But the key thing that theoretically could make the 3rd hit arguable is the armored flight deck, something that similar candidates for “super-carrier” status (the US Midway and British Audacious classes) also have.� I don’t see the US Essex class as a candidate for 3 hits, since it lacked this feature.� The British Illustrious class, though, could perhaps be seen as a 3-hit carrier but sacrifice carrying capability, since they sacrificed #'s of planes to have this feature.
The sacrifice in planes carried which you mention is an important point. Britain’s heavily armoured carriers held up well against kamikaze attacks when Britain got involved in the final stages of the Pacific War, but not everyone was convinced that they were a good design approach because the tonnage they allocated to armour reduced their plane-carrying capacity. It was argued that the best protection against kamikazes was to shoot them down before they could get near the carriers, and that the best way to do this was for carriers to send up strong combat air patrols – which in turn meant having carriers which could carry lots of aircraft (including fighters for protection).
Yeah the British armored-deck carriers did end up being just the thing when the kamikaze attack became the primary menace… so much so that the British Pacific Fleet (also known as Task Force 57, US 5th Fleet, and which essentially operated as 1 of its several fast carrier task forces) was specifically tasked with combating the Kamikaze menace by specially targeting airfields and trying to get the kamikazes to target them rather than more vulnerable US carriers. The thing is that its harder to shoot down a kamikaze with the limited resources of a carrier air patrol than a plane that is flying in a way that it would if its pilot is trying to get home again. At the same time, the British started emplying American planes and American flight-deck operations (leaving many planes in a “deck park” rather than insisting on having protected hanger space for them, which two things together increased the effectiveness and numbers of planes that they could field. Altogether, this meant that while the Americans had probably made the best choice in carrier design for fighting the battles up until Okinawa, the British design really came into its own from Okinawa on.
This brings an idea in mind to me: it might be interesting to experiment with a “kamikaze rule” in which fighters could increase their attack ranking for a one-shot suicide attack…
Gentlemen,
Have any you ever heard of the Japanese Pilot who in the evening as the sun was going down miss-took a RN Armoured deck carrier for his own and was astonished when he stepped onto the deck and found it armoured?
The only Imperial Japanese Navy carrier that I have heard might have had an armoured deck was Taiho.
Can anyone confirm this?
WARRIOR888
WARRIOR888 - I believe Shinano also had an armoured deck. The other Taiho class CV’s, on which construction never began, would also have had armoured decks.
I would like to continue the discussion of three-hit late war CV’s in the morning, but I agree that the Essex class’s lack of an armoured deck should be reflected in custom stats somehow. I would still like to see an Essex class sculpt though…
WARRIOR888 - I believe Shinano also had an armoured deck. The other Taiho class CV’s, on which construction never began, would also have had armoured decks.
I would like to continue the discussion of three-hit late war CV’s in the morning, but I agree that the Essex class’s lack of an armoured deck should be reflected in custom stats somehow. I would still like to see an Essex class sculpt though…
Well, I would too. Perhaps giving Essex 3 aircraft and Illustrious 3 hits and Taiho both? Shinano should probably be in the same category as Illustrious, with 3 hits but only 2 aircraft: as a BB conversion that was mostly finished when conversion started, it wasn’t a fully optimized design, though Shinano might have been capable of a larger air wing than had actually been projected for it. I’m not certain if its projected air wing size, surprisingly small for such a massive ship, may have been more of an operational decision than a result of absolute design limitations… I’d have to research more to see what its actual maximum capability MIGHT have been given alternate operational concepts. (They’d been planning to make it essentially a “reserve & refit” carrier with at least some excess capacity, so the usually-listed air wing may not have been close to its maximum possible air wing.)
Of course, I’d also love to see a Midway and an Audacious… and for that matter a Montana and a Lion or Vanguard and an Alaska and a Renown and a B65… OK, most of these had little direct impact, most not even finished, but AA Variants are all about “might-have-beens” and I’d love to see whole sets of just cool naval units and I wish there was more interest out there in these naval designs.
Certainly many designs that seem to be being given short shrift (Scharnhorst, Richelieu, North Carolina) had more demonstrable actual impact on the war than, say, a Tiger II, which FMG is insisting on doing ALONG WITH the more important Tiger I (which we’re about to get from WotC anyway…) We’re about to have 3 DIFFERENT Tiger I’s available from 3 DIFFERENT companies (not counting TWG’s or TT’s oversize units, which might actually work OK with a big board like GW 1939 or TWG.) Meanwhile, no hint yet of a Pershing or Comet to oppose all these Tigers with (though apparently an oob JSII is coming…) All the while FMG’s interminable delays go on ad infinitum. Ah, it’s all a muddle that makes my head spin! I keep thinking that maybe I should paint up a bunch more Panzersciffe pieces for the major warships, sub TT tanks for all the AFV’s and then I’d at least have a fully balanced range of pieces to use on a big board… but then I go lie down and the feeling goes away…
At least HBG seems to put out alot of pieces pretty quickly, with good quality. I’ll wait and see what he does over the next year before I get desparate and start painting again…
I believe one reason the Shinano aircraft capacity was limited was that she was designed as a Battleship and then hurried to change her to a Carrier, so last minute inefficiency. The biggest reason is that American aircraft wings folded near the fuselage where Japanes folded at the wing tips. Of course this is a generality but of what I read, this is my take. American Carriers had far better fire control over the Japanese carriers as well as the Japanese carriers did not vent very well so when bombed the gases accumulated in the ship, thus creating more explosions. My two cents worth.
@coachofmany:
I believe one reason the Shinano aircraft capacity was limited was that she was designed as a Battleship and then hurried to change her to a Carrier, so last minute inefficiency. The biggest reason is that American aircraft wings folded near the fuselage where Japanes folded at the wing tips. Of course this is a generality but of what I read, this is my take. American Carriers had far better fire control over the Japanese carriers as well as the Japanese carriers did not vent very well so when bombed the gases accumulated in the ship, thus creating more explosions. My two cents worth.
Yes, Shinano was originally laid down as the third unit of the Yamato class. After Midway, the Japanese Navy decided it needed more carriers and fewer battleships, so Shinano – which was only partially built at that point – was completed as a carrier.
And you’re quite correct about the superior fire control protocols on American carriers. The U.S. Navy, for example, took the trouble of purging hangar deck fuel lines after use with (I think) nitrogen gas in order to reduce their flamability in case an enemy bomb got through to them. The Navy also accidentally discovered that the natural material used in the uniforms of the enlisted men (cotton, I think) offered a fair degree of protection against flash burns during battle, so the Navy insisted that the men wear their full-length pants and keep their shirt sleeves extended rather than rolled up. The sailors didn’t like that in tropical weather (and rather envied the British, whose summer uniforms left their arms and legs bare), but they suffered far less from flash burns than men from navies which didn’t take the same precaution.
Gentlemen,
Have any you ever heard of the Japanese Pilot who in the evening as the sun was going down miss-took a RN Armoured deck carrier for his own and was astonished when he stepped onto the deck and found it armoured? The only Imperial Japanese Navy carrier that I have heard might have had an armoured deck was Taiho.Can anyone confirm this? WARRIOR888
I haven’t heard this story, but there’s one detail I’m wondering about. How could the pilot have been able to tell, just from looking at the deck, that it was the surface of a thickly-armoured steel deck as opposed to just the surface of a thin steel deck?
@coachofmany:
American Carriers had far better fire control over the Japanese carriers as well as the Japanese carriers did not vent very well so when bombed the gases accumulated in the ship, thus creating more explosions. My two cents worth.
I think this was the same problem that early British battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers had in the First World War against the Germans at Jutland. No way to seal off critical parts of the ship, like the magazines, so when they took hits and a fire broke out, they were toast. The German warships of the time had better armor protection so could take more punishment.
@coachofmany:
American Carriers had far better fire control over the Japanese carriers as well as the Japanese carriers did not vent very well so when bombed the gases accumulated in the ship, thus creating more explosions. My two cents worth.
I think this was the same problem that early British battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers had in the First World War against the Germans at Jutland. No way to seal off critical parts of the ship, like the magazines, so when they took hits and a fire broke out, they were toast. The German warships of the time had better armor protection so could take more punishment.
The main problem with the British ships at Jutland was indeed the lack of proper anti-flash shutters in the main gun turrets. Aircraft carriers don’t have heavy gun turets, so their vulnerability comes from a different source – essentially the large amounts of aviation fuel and ordnance that gets handled in the hangar deck (and sometimes above-deck, which is the problem the Japanese ran into at Midway when the American dive-bombers caught them in the middle of a refueling and rearming operation).
Yes; the Americans seemed better at damage control in all sorts of ways. It’s a complex and difficult area, and it seems as though US designers and planners spent a good deal more time working through many of these details. No doubt they’d also learned many helpful lessons from early-war losses, but the Japanese were also trying their best to learn these lessons but for some reason didn’t seem to get the details right. Taiho was built specifically with the lessons of Midway in mind, and still major mistakes in damage control doomed a ship that should have been able to survive. Shinano was then built with lessons from the Taiho disaster in mind, and still she was lost on her maiden voyage to an attack by a single sub! (To be fair, sources also point out that not all of her water-tight hatches or pumping equipment was installed; still, accounts indicate that the damage-control officers initially thought they had things under control and were then spectacularly proven wrong, and indication that something was missing in their understanding of the situation…)
But back to the subject of how we should treat the ships in terms of AA stats, after a little more checking, I found on Wikipedia that Shinano supposedly had a maximum capacity of 120 aircraft. What it didn’t say was whether this meant 120 combat-ready aircraft or whether many of these broken down for storage to use as spares and/or reserves… and I left most of my better sources in VA so I don’t have ready access to them to check on this point. So maybe giving her an air wing capacity of 3 would still make sense, but I’m not sure. The stats on her basic armor were impressive, so maybe once all her damage control equipment was installed, and given that her half-sister BB’s took such an incredible beating before going under, maybe she would have been a tough target too, also worthy of 3 hits…
Yes; the Americans seemed better at damage control in all sorts of ways. It’s a complex and difficult area, and it seems as though US designers and planners spent a good deal more time working through many of these details. No doubt they’d also learned many helpful lessons from early-war losses, but the Japanese were also trying their best to learn these lessons but for some reason didn’t seem to get the details right. Taiho was built specifically with the lessons of Midway in mind, and still major mistakes in damage control doomed a ship that should have been able to survive. Shinano was then built with lessons from the Taiho disaster in mind, and still she was lost on her maiden voyage to an attack by a single sub! (To be fair, sources also point out that not all of her water-tight hatches or pumping equipment was installed; still, accounts indicate that the damage-control officers initially thought they had things under control and were then spectacularly proven wrong, and indication that something was missing in their understanding of the situation…)
But back to the subject of how we should treat the ships in terms of AA stats, after a little more checking, I found on Wikipedia that Shinano supposedly had a maximum capacity of 120 aircraft. What it didn’t say was whether this meant 120 combat-ready aircraft or whether many of these broken down for storage to use as spares and/or reserves… and I left most of my better sources in VA so I don’t have ready access to them to check on this point. So maybe giving her an air wing capacity of 3 would still make sense, but I’m not sure. The stats on her basic armor were impressive, so maybe once all her damage control equipment was installed, and given that her half-sister BB’s took such an incredible beating before going under, maybe she would have been a tough target too, also worthy of 3 hits…
I have quite a few reference books at home that probably include specifications on Shinano, so I’ll have a look this weekend and see if I can turn up anything useful.
One of the factors which contributed to the confusion (and hence the poor damage control) on Shinano when she was torpedoed is that she had several civilian naval construction workers aboard. Their work clothes looked vaguely naval in design, so when they went up on deck after the ship was hit they were given orders by naval officers (who thought they were naval personnel) to return to their stations (which they refused to obey), thus confusing the real sailors nearby about whether or not orders had been given to abandon ship.
Shinano sunk because the crew were not experienced in counter flooding, so it listed heavily and broke the other compartments and sunk the ship.
Anyway:
CVL/CVE: 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 0-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
CVB: 1-2-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
@Imperious:
Shinano sunk because the crew were not experienced in counter flooding, so it listed heavily and broke the other compartments and sunk the ship.
Anyway:
CL/CVE:Â 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 0-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
Super Carrier: 1-2-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
I presume you mean CVL (Light Fleet Carrier), not CL (Light Cruiser?) In any case, I think I’d prefer:
CVL/CVE: 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 1-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
Super Carrier: 1-3-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
This still only gives the standard CV the same A/D stats as in AA42 and the SCV the same A/D as in classic.
Perhaps there could also be room for a CVE below a CVL as a 0-1-1-8 (1 hit, 1 plane)
In my July tournament with the kids I might try using a bunch of classic pieces to try the CVE along with (slow) old BB’s, (slow) 6 IPC transports and maybe (slow) DE’s, too on a classic board, (and use AH pieces for their standard “fast” equivalents) just to see how it goes.
@Imperious:
Shinano sunk because the crew were not experienced in counter flooding, so it listed heavily and broke the other compartments and sunk the ship.
Anyway:
CL/CVE:Â 0-1-2-10 ( one hit, one plane)
CV: 0-2-2-16 ( two hits, two planes)
Super Carrier: 1-2-2-22 ( three hits, three planes)
and she was sailing with a skeleton crew, and she didn’t have her fire control systems complete, and didn’t have her water tight doors installed.
I think giving SuperCarriers a defense of 3 would make them overpowered. They already carry 3 planes for defense plus take 3 hits to sink. You would need an armada just to attack 1 fully loaded Super Carrier.
A little curious about your CVE idea. I’m not sure that having a ship with a movement of 1 would be good for anything other than coastal defense. All other ships move 2 so it wouldn’t be able to keep up with anything. Or is that your idea for the “old” battleships and 6 IPC transports, that they only move 1 as well? I guess that might be an interesting idea. You could have a “fast” fleet take off to do an attack then a “slow” fleet comes up behind and makes a sort of second wave attack.
I think giving SuperCarriers a defense of 3 would make them overpowered. They already carry 3 planes for defense plus take 3 hits to sink. You would need an armada just to attack 1 fully loaded Super Carrier.
A little curious about your CVE idea. I’m not sure that having a ship with a movement of 1 would be good for anything other than coastal defense. All other ships move 2 so it wouldn’t be able to keep up with anything. Or is that your idea for the “old” battleships and 6 IPC transports, that they only move 1 as well? I guess that might be an interesting idea. You could have a “fast” fleet take off to do an attack then a “slow” fleet comes up behind and makes a sort of second wave attack.
That’s exactly my idea. Much like the 3rd/5th Fleet [a mobile strike force] (dominated by CV’s & CVL’s, supported by New BB’s & CA’s, along with the latest CB’s, CL’s and DD’s) was supported by the 7th Fleet [the amphibious force] which contained the slow transports supported by older BB’s and CA’s for fire support, CVE’s for air support, and DE’s for ASW/ screening. I’ve get one set of classic (& classic-style EotH, Xeno and/or TT) pieces for the amphibious task forces and one set of revised/AA40 pieces for the strike forces.
Note that slowing the slow ships down to 1 is premised on the assumption that I use a small board (probably the classic board.) Either next year (or maybe this year if I get a large # of kids who want to play) I’ll try a bigger board and speed up the fast ships to a 3 instead.
For me having at least 2 different ship speeds is about the only thing that makes any sense of Coach’s insistence on an old BB for everybody. Otherwise, just have the latest SBB/BB/CB for everybody, because the biggest difference between old and new BB’s was speed and efficiency. (Yes there were all sorts of other improvements, but most old BB’s were retrofitted with all of these improvements. Even in areas where this wasn’t possible, there was still such a scale & capability gap between any BB and any CA that you couldn’t reasonably lower old BB capabilities that much, besides the key speed exception. At worst, you could maybe say that a typical old BB would roughly equate to a slow CB.)
