In my view, the use of Sea Basing and Patrol Bomber are abstractions. Its about getting the functionality of the plane *in game* roughly about right.
We've got fleeting references to what a "Patrol Bomber" is supposed to represent. Its imperfect. For example, a squadron of Dive Bombers is supposed to 25 planes according to the one bit of script in the rulebook. However, to my knowledge, no Navy in WWII had carrier based squadrons of Dive Bombers the counted 25 aircraft. 12-18 seems to have been far more common. If a 'Patrol Bomber' unit is supposed to strictly be 3 aircraft, why does USS Hornet, which carried and launched 16 B-25s, only get 1 B-25 at game start? The game has lots of those contradictions.
Simply put, planes like the Walrus, Ar196, Kingfisher, etc could almost be considered a new type of plane. RB seemed to not want to tackle them directly, and preferred to occasionally tinker with them through rare SAs and spotting abilities. If we could just create a new type, it would arguably be easier. However, it we're going to stick to the existing rules, we're stuck with the options of Fighter, Dive Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, and Patrol Bomber. All are aesthetically imperfect in this case (the Walrus is no more a "Dive Bomber" and it is a "Patrol Bomber")...just got to pick one.
In my view, the use of Sea Basing and Patrol Bomber are abstractions. Its about getting the functionality of the plane *in game* roughly about right.
We've got fleeting references to what a "Patrol Bomber" is supposed to represent. Its imperfect. For example, a squadron of Dive Bombers is supposed to 25 planes according to the one bit of script in the rulebook. However, to my knowledge, no Navy in WWII had carrier based squadrons of Dive Bombers the counted 25 aircraft. 12-18 seems to have been far more common. If a 'Patrol Bomber' unit is supposed to strictly be 3 aircraft, why does USS Hornet, which carried and launched 16 B-25s, only get 1 B-25 at game start? The game has lots of those contradictions.
Simply put, planes like the Walrus, Ar196, Kingfisher, etc could almost be considered a new type of plane. RB seemed to not want to tackle them directly, and preferred to occasionally tinker with them through rare SAs and spotting abilities. If we could just create a new type, it would arguably be easier. However, it we're going to stick to the existing rules, we're stuck with the options of Fighter, Dive Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, and Patrol Bomber. All are aesthetically imperfect in this case (the Walrus is no more a "Dive Bomber" and it is a "Patrol Bomber")...just got to pick one.
I totally agree with this. In some ways we are thinking way too hard about this. WaS is meant to be a simple, quick game to play, not a simulation. I think we need to pick the type that best does what we want it to do in the game and not get hung up on the definition. This is what I have been trying to figure out.
This is what I see.
Patrol Bomber: Advantage for Darkness rules and Distance rules. Cost 1 or 2 points higher.
Dive Bomber: No Darkness or Distance rules advantage. Cost 1 or 2 points lower.
I have played a lot of Darkness rules games and fair number of Distance Rules games. I am divided on this because I think the advantage in Darkness Rules is not to overwhelming, but the advantage for search checks with distance rules is a pretty big deal and would require a decent cost bump IMO. But my experience is Distance Rules are used far, far less than standard map rules. So do we want to put a cost on this to make it "reasonable" for Distance Rules at the cost of making it too expensive for standard games that are much more common?
IMO, I think the advantages to Darkness Rules and Distance Rules are not worth the needed extra cost. Games using those rules are far fewer than standard daylight rules games. So we would be making a unit that would likely only be a real advantage in Distance Rules overall IMO. Not worth it to me. On this basis I would prefer to make it a cheaper Dive Bomber that could function regularly in standard rules games. But I won't fall on my sword either way. I just think a cheaper dive bomber will see much more play.
If we are agreed to the basic specifications and SAs then maybe it would be helpful to get a cost for each version and see what that leaves us?
So we should lock down the armor value and "this turn/previous turn" options first to get this moving along IMO.
I think the specifications are clearly for the first 3/4/1 unit. This thing was dead slow and a wallowing boat in the air. One reference I read said that a pilot managed to do a loop with a Walrus one time.
I also vote for "this turn". It is way too much trouble to me to mark or write down every destroyed unit to track for the next turn. There are other issues too (like telegraphing to your opponent where you would like to place your Walrus').
Weeds I think that's a fair approach. We can cost out the two versions and see what we think.
One random thought on the Patrol Bomber option - if we didn't want the Walrus to have an advantage there, we could always add an SA that reduces the effectiveness of its long range search checks (kind of the opposite of Skilled Search...maybe call it Short Legs or some such thing). The difference in placement advantage at night could then remain (a selling point for some folks)... placing on a 3+ instead of a 5+ at night. The SA would be relatively short. Just a thought.
I had a thought about simplifying air rescue for your consideration.
Air Rescue - Once per game, this unit can perform a rescue mission if it's in a sector where a friendly unit was destroyed during (this/the previous turn). Score 3 victory points at the end of the turn.
Air Rescue(option 1) - The first time one of your aircraft is destroyed, your opponent scores no victory points for that aircraft.
Air Rescue(option 2) - The first time one of your aircraft is destroyed, your opponent scores # fewer victory points for that aircraft.
Advantage of immediate resolution and no additional conditionality. Disadvantages using multiples doesnt score additional points
Weeds I think that's a fair approach. We can cost out the two versions and see what we think.
One random thought on the Patrol Bomber option - if we didn't want the Walrus to have an advantage there, we could always add an SA that reduces the effectiveness of its long range search checks (kind of the opposite of Skilled Search...maybe call it Short Legs or some such thing). The difference in placement advantage at night could then remain (a selling point for some folks)... placing on a 3+ instead of a 5+ at night. The SA would be relatively short. Just a thought.
You know what. I had the spotting rules in distance rules confused. As this unit has such a weak attack and stats its not likely to be used in a pathfinder role anyway. I withdraw my objection to this as a pb.
Though i still think this had more in common as an airframe with a db/tb classification. For the sake of progress lets just settle it.
In my view, the use of Sea Basing and Patrol Bomber are abstractions. Its about getting the functionality of the plane *in game* roughly about right.
We've got fleeting references to what a "Patrol Bomber" is supposed to represent. Its imperfect. For example, a squadron of Dive Bombers is supposed to 25 planes according to the one bit of script in the rulebook. However, to my knowledge, no Navy in WWII had carrier based squadrons of Dive Bombers the counted 25 aircraft. 12-18 seems to have been far more common. If a 'Patrol Bomber' unit is supposed to strictly be 3 aircraft, why does USS Hornet, which carried and launched 16 B-25s, only get 1 B-25 at game start? The game has lots of those contradictions.
Simply put, planes like the Walrus, Ar196, Kingfisher, etc could almost be considered a new type of plane. RB seemed to not want to tackle them directly, and preferred to occasionally tinker with them through rare SAs and spotting abilities. If we could just create a new type, it would arguably be easier. However, it we're going to stick to the existing rules, we're stuck with the options of Fighter, Dive Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, and Patrol Bomber. All are aesthetically imperfect in this case (the Walrus is no more a "Dive Bomber" and it is a "Patrol Bomber")...just got to pick one.
I agree with your thoughts, and often said aloud to myself what is that man thinking, but as you say it was his way of SAing instead of Rule tweaking.
I would also agree on the squadron sizes, but i guess a cap 3 with Fighters, DB's and TB's at 75 planes fit most WW 2 CV's examples best.
I do realize at least to myself if your making this unit under the games premise it has to be a PB any thing else to me is ludicrous.
As I've stated not a big fan of Seabasing lots go planes could have landed on the water but were not given Seabasing, i think RB had a reason for that.
To make it fit "in game" functionally is fine; but again if too cheap with Seabasing bad idea;
I guess thats way i look at a MYRT type and say good idea; 2 good SA's needing CV's to effect the air game not just open sea sectors.
No imagination here; like if you have to have Seabasing limit it some how to Capital Ships as the Myrt is tied to CV's without using your Airfield Limits.
Sorry just don't see it the way its going, just me, As with the Unryu i would never bring expansions to the table i prefer yours, i believe you did it more to the way i researched it.
We have been following RBs lead for using Sea Basing for small floatplanes. I don't think these aircraft are generally powerful enough to be a swarm threat. They can help with air placement, but the unit limit for builds tends to keep that in check.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
SEARCH AND RESCUE: Once per game in the Air Attack step, this unit can perform a rescue mission instead of its normal attack if it is in a sector where a friendly Aircraft was destroyed on a previous turn. Score 2 Victory Points at the end of the turn.
If we want that to occur same turn, it could be something like this:
SEA RESCUE: Once per game in the Air Attack step, this unit can perform a rescue mission instead of its normal attack if it is in a sector where a friendly Aircraft was destroyed during the Air Defense step this turn. Score 2 Victory Points at the end of the turn.
Honestly, I don't think that would ever be used. This might be another option:
SEA RESCUE: Once per game in the Air Attack step, this unit can perform a rescue mission instead of its normal attack if a friendly Aircraft was destroyed at Range 2 or less from this unit during the Air Defense step this turn. Score 2 Victory Points at the end of the turn.
Might need some word-smithing (it seems a little wordy to me), but you guys get the idea. Thoughts?
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
I like the third version. It is simple but provides a little better chance of it triggering. It is basically just a flavor "freebee" for a couple of VC points.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Walrus Maker: Supermarine Introduced: Summer, 1936 Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in Length: 37 ft 7 in Speed: 135 mph, 217 km/h at 4,750 ft Forumini Speed: 8 Service Ceiling: 18 500 ft Armament: 2 x 7.7mm Vickers MG, 6 x 45kg bombs or 2 x 110kg bombs or 2 x 110 kg depth charges
Sea Basing - This unit can base only in a coast or an island sector on your side of the map. Don't place a Rearming counter on this unit during your Air Return step. Spotter - At the beginning of your Air Attack step, you may choose an enemy Ship within range 2. Your Ships roll one extra attack die when attacking that ship at range 2 or greater with their main Gunnery attack this turn. Air Rescue - Once per game, this unit can perform an air rescue at the end of the Air Defense step if a friendly Aircraft was destroyed within Range 2 of this unit. Score 2 victory points at the end of the turn. You can't make any attacks with this unit during the turn you use this ability.
I tried to use wording from WotC SAs in the edit of Air Rescue. The wording on the timing of action conditions needs to be precise.