For 3 points I think Spotter and ASW is well worth using in a game. In fact, we might need to consider a 4 point cost. I am not sure. Ar 196 got Spotter and I assume the Pete will get it. Those are the units "Spotter" was created for. It is similar to Scout Cruiser (which is should be) for 3 points. Sea Basing allows it fly every turn. This will be the Allied entry for this unit type. The main issue will be keeping it protected from fighters. A cheap fighter with Escort like the Claude or Sea Hurricane would do the job if needed.
I think type should be a fighter like the Myrt for consistency. Maybe a Dive Bomber. Definitely not a Patrol Bomber.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I'm agree with making it a fighter type as it would prevent escort from being used to protect it. I just threw it out there as a PB since that was technically what the unit was.
I think the Walrus should have the same bombing value as the Scoutplane Attack bombing value. It would give the Walrus a little more usefulness.
I understand the reason for making it a fighter type. It does feel wrong though. The Walrus will not be a carrier plane, so it can't get a weird Expert Fighter boost.
I think the Walrus should have the same bombing value as the Scoutplane Attack bombing value. It would give the Walrus a little more usefulness.
I understand the reason for making it a fighter type. It does feel wrong though. The Walrus will not be a carrier plane, so it can't get a weird Expert Fighter boost.
According to my book on Flying Boats by William Green, the Walrus was sent on bombing missions a time or two. The most well known being launched from HMS Dorsetshire on Italian Somaliland. But I think it was a rarity overall. They were doomed if there was any air opposition. Unlike the Ar 196 and Pete that were used offensively quite a bit.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I think a bomb attack is warranted. Albeit it 2-3. Hobarts one attacked targets also. My take. Bomber. Pinpointer. Seabasing. New SA. Cruiser Support?? If you control 3 or more commonwealth Crusiers this plane is 1 point cheaper? Or OPG chose a cruiser. It gets ER4 at -1 dice.
I agree. These little guys need Spotter. I tried making a few myself without it, and even though they where Patrol Bombers (which means they could be escorted), flew every turn, and didn't impact the land airbase....no body uses them!
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones
Well, since this one doesn't have a AA attack what would be the pros and cons of making it a patrol bomber versus a fighter? The Myrt couldn't be a patrol bomber because it is carrier based.
Last Edit: Jul 26, 2020 15:35:57 GMT by weedsrock2
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I did find some still images of Walrus' on aircraft carriers. So I guess it is true. Sadly, no video that I could find.
So I guess if we make it a fighter with Sea Basing it can technically land on a carrier as long as we don't give it "Land Fighter?" I would be okay with that. I am not sure what use it would be since Sea Basing pretty much allows unlimited use, but you never know. It might find a use in a specific set of scenario rules.
While I like the idea of Sea Basing or Carrier basing, there are couple of weird rules interactions to consider.
From the WOTC Clarrifications: www.jgray-sfb.com/WarAtSea/War_at_Sea_Clarifications.pdf (This is specifically about the Rufe, but at the time, I think it was the only Sea Based unit. It adds some specifics about how Sea Basing works)...
"A6M2-N "Rufe": These units must observe stacking limits when returning to base (four aircraft squadrons per sector). If there are no coast or island sectors on your side of the map, then this unit uses any sector in your Ship Deployment Area as its base. Rufes must be placed during the Air Mission Phase; they cannot be sent to the land airbase or remain at their base (but can be placed "in the air" above an island base)".
Additionally, page 18 of the Rulebook ( www.jgray-sfb.com/WarAtSea/WAS%202010%20Rulebook.pdf ) says Aircraft can't remain on the carrier at the end of the Air Mission Phase (they must be in the air in a sector or on the Land Airbase. Obviously, SAs like Poor Facilities and special rules like the Long Distance rules create exceptions to that. I honestly had forgotten about this rule until recently, but as near as I can tell, its still in effect, even though there are a bunch of exceptions to it now.
*I think* all of this creates a funky interaction where if the Walrus with Sea Basing is on a carrier, it must fly, and can't be sent to the Land Airbase (which is the same restriction it would face if it was just Sea Based). I'm sure SAs could be written to iron that out somehow, but as it stands, some of the rules interactions here could get a bit confusing.
As an aside, this is actually one ofv the biggest challenges I've found with relatively lightweight Sea Based planes - they are essentially "forced" to fly every turn, and if they don't have good stats and/or can be escorted, they die in droves if you don't have air superiority. I've made a few as custom cards with Sea Basing, and left them as bombers so they can be escorted (with a higher cost to go along with it), but even that hasn't really been enough to help their survivability in most cases.
One other though to clarify why I used Patrol Bomber on planes like the Walrus instead of Fighter or Dive Bomber when I made my own custom cards.
I completely agree these aren't patrol bombers in the traditional sense. They certainly have much less range than say a Catalina). The "Patrol Bomber" type covered in the rules helped simplify a number of rules interations and reduce the number of SA. Patrol Bomber removed the need for any kind of "Landbased" SA. It gave the floatplane a better placement roll in night games (a role this type actually excelled at) without adding any SAs. It did allow them to be escorted (something I wanted to have given their relatively low armor values), and as a result, most of my floatplanes like the Ar-196, Walrus, and Kingfisher ended up being a little pricey (typically around 7 points). Bottomline, it just made things easier from design standpoint.
Calling them Fighters (which removes any benefit from an escorting fighter and will generally make them less effective at night) and costing them considerably lower is a completely reasonable approach, but it does increase the chance that they can simply be spammed to get around other limits on aircraft numbers.