I think their is a consensus this unit is is a bit over done.
Sea Basing is getting way out of control in this deck I believe 3 units already; this unit needs to be tied to a ship not have open range on Sea Basing.
Its already been given a plane type which it just resembles;; Spotting is an accurate example of its purpose, Sea Basing is not.
Its to much to add Escort to the P-38, but we can turn this thing in to Pegasus.
RB made it clear when chitose and rufe were released that he didnt want units dependant on others. Seabasing is the exactant SA for floatplanes and none of them are gamebreakingly powerful.
The overall unit cap prevents extreme swarms as well.
RB made it clear when chitose and rufe were released that he didnt want units dependant on others. Seabasing is the exactant SA for floatplanes and none of them are gamebreakingly powerful.
The overall unit cap prevents extreme swarms as well.
The forum may vote on units;; hows its designed is up to you.
War at Sea is not an exact simulation and its air game is a far abstraction from the rest of the game.
You may believe RB had no intention on units being depended on others I feel differently or to say how you may feel units relate to one another.
The Rufe was a prime example or a well qualified unit to represent Sea Basing, I don't believe he intended to flood the game with that SA.
Forget swarms or a weak unit [whats a detachments] -- placement advantage of such is a big advantage alone.
I think the Myrt was a good example of how some units have to obscurely fit into the game.
I proposed this SA early in the AR196 thread, but it was rejected. I think it was considered a bit over-complicating and restrictive. All of these float/seaplanes did operate from shore bases as well. It would have needed clarification on sector limits as well I think. One per ship likely.
Ship Basing - This unit can base only in a sector containing a friendly Cruiser or Battleship. Don't place a rearming counter on this unit during your air return step. If there are no cruisers or Battleships in your fleet at the start of the Air Return step this unit is destroyed.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
RB made it clear when chitose and rufe were released that he didnt want units dependant on others. Seabasing is the exactant SA for floatplanes and none of them are gamebreakingly powerful.
The overall unit cap prevents extreme swarms as well.
The forum may vote on units;; hows its designed is up to you.
War at Sea is not an exact simulation and its air game is a far abstraction from the rest of the game.
You may believe RB had no intention on units being depended on others I feel differently or to say how you may feel units relate to one another.
The Rufe was a prime example or a well qualified unit to represent Sea Basing, I don't believe he intended to flood the game with that SA.
Forget swarms or a weak unit [whats a detachments] -- placement advantage of such is a big advantage alone.
I think the Myrt was a good example of how some units have to obscurely fit into the game.
Rb said so explicitly in one of his opening salvoes.
I proposed this SA early in the AR196 thread, but it was rejected. I think it was considered a bit over-complicating and restrictive. All of these float/seaplanes did operate from shore bases as well. It would have needed clarification on sector limits as well I think. One per ship likely.
Ship Basing - This unit can base only in a sector containing a friendly Cruiser or Battleship. Don't place a rearming counter on this unit during your air return step. If there are no cruisers or Battleships in your fleet at the start of the Air Return step this unit is destroyed.
See it can be done but I think you're trying too hard to paint inside the square so let's break it down.
Ship Basing - This unit can base only in a sector containing a friendly Cruiser or Battleship. Don't place a rearming counter on this unit during your air return step. If there are no cruisers or Battleships in your fleet at the start of the Air Return step this unit is destroyed.
1) This unit can base only in a sector containing a friendly Cruiser or Battleship........ Considering that a cruiser, battleship or any other type of ship can't be on the map unless its in a sector this is a roundabout way of saying -
This unit must be based on a friendly Cruiser or Battleship, one per ship.
It's the same dog just a different leg action.
2) .......Don't place a rearming counter on this unit during your air return step........ Since the Seaplane Detachments SA function as aircraft and doesn't have this why does this unit? I think its just mansplaining and it can be omitted.
3) .....If there are no cruisers or Battleships in your fleet at the start of the Air Return step this unit is destroyed. This could be very ambiguous and would need too much clarification which could be avoided by saying "one per ship".
How about the following -
Ship Basing - This unit can base on a friendly Cruiser or Battleship, one per ship. Reduce the number of this unit to equal the number of cruisers or Battleships in your fleet at the start of the Air Return step.
You could add - Represent it using a marker/miniature.
P.S. The aircraft represented by seaplane detachments (which include the Arado and Walrus) could also land on water and could operate from shore bases. Lets keep this simple and just follow what RB has already done?
The forum may vote on units................ fit into the game.
Rb said so explicitly in one of his opening salvoes.
The ship has sailed, seabasimg is the standard
If you hadn't noticed RB is no longer affiliated with this game and has no legal input into it. As far as W@S is concerned RB is dead and no matter how much you pray RB will not rise from the tomb four days later so I wish people would stop worshiping him as god and accept the fact that what he says and thinks about W@S has no value.
WotC are not producing or supporting W@S so as far as their concerned W@S is dead.
While RB may have said that he is a hypocrite because in his very own SA he says that seaplane detachments are treated as aircraft and represented by markers (miniatures are a type of marker) and yet are dependant on a specific unit and if that unit is destroyed you lose that detachment.
He could have had given the detachments sea basing but why over complicate it. KISS!!!
The only way to get consensus on what to make and what to do is to continue to do things in the spirit of the game designer. Otherwise it’s just a frayed rope where each strand is another’s opinion and there is no agreement. The game designer’s intent is wholly relevant.