The problem here is that you are giving to much emphasis on an option rule and ignoring the core rules of Red Vs Blue which what W@S has always been.
You people have spent years trying to turn W@S into something its not, a historically realistic simulation. Let the people who want to play the optional nation pure/historical rules to come up with their own scenario rules on what should be allowed on a carrier.
We should be focusing on KISS (emphasis on the Stupid). The SA should be allowing for those who want to play a more realistic simulation but not at the expense of KISS.
1. In historical restrictions play, what aircraft will provide australian character? 2. What will be internally consistent with other hypothetical carriers already with cards?
Post by admiralwoodside on Mar 11, 2022 1:22:49 GMT
In case I am not logged on at the time of a vote on the issue, I vote in advance for class limit 2 due to historical evidence that two different carriers of this class were offered to the RAN during WW2. There is simply no hard fast rule saying that we have to start with zero and only add one at a time. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I remain in favor of a UK Carrier Ops Special Ability, whether a simple one like the single sentence one I already proposed, or with more detail as I also suggested if that is seen as necessary. Granting single aircraft types seems unnecessarily restrictive given the hypothetical nature of the carrier itself. How are we to know what aircraft they were going to operate? There could have even been US, UK or New Zealand aircraft squadrons stationed on board. Corsairs, Avengers, Wildcats and Hellcats could have been embarked, plus at least three late war UK aircraft. Then there is the aspect, mentioned before, of what aircraft people have in their collections. Many will not have all types and will struggle to just have four carrier aircraft for the potentially two RAN carriers. The context of this SA, just to remind, is for an exclusively Australian fleet. If it is just a Red vs Blue with no restrictions, then no carrier/aircraft related SAs are even needed. If the historical rule book options are added, it just defines it as the UK built carrier that it was, likely inheriting their doctrine, which included operating late war US aircraft.
Im hard against a 'britsh ops' ability because it is inconsistent with previous cards and with history.
In both canadian and australian examples the FAA transferred the squadrons to the dominion navy.
HMCS Warrior transferred in jan 1946 bringing with her 4 squadrons: 803, 883 825 and 826. Said squadrons were disbanded as british and reestablished as canadian at that time.
When HMS Sydney was delivered in 1948, she equipped 805 and 816 squadrons formerly of the FAA.
These a combat decorated, frontline squadrons and thier equipment being provided in combination with the carrier. There was no RAN evaluation of possible airwings.
RN colossus class in 1944-45 equipped either barracuda/corsair or firefly/seafire airgroups and one or the other would have been present if the transfer had gone ahead.
Australia had no manpower to operate 2 carriers in ww2. As it was, the navy had to petition the war cabinet for a larger amount from the fixed, limited recruitment numbers to even manage 1.
As far historical restrictions goes, one of the 2 above airgroups is correct. Class limit 1 on logic and card precedent with decks (per midway) and the previously mentioned australian and polish cruisers. This only applies for optional historical restriction games however, and is purely a flavour decision. In a open setting, no limits for any class or basing are applied.
Edit, i lean towards seafire/firefly. As an analog for RAAF spitfire v's and thinking on it now, the chance to do a commander hampton-gray ability on a corsair equipped hmcs warrior later on.
1. In historical restrictions play, what aircraft will provide australian character? 2. What will be internally consistent with other hypothetical carriers already with cards?
Any abiliy/s will have no bearing on open games.
That makes no sense.
Why not? Is it too simple a concept? What doesn't make sense is proposing giving a unit Ram when it doesn't have an ASW attack.
1. In historical restrictions play, what aircraft will provide australian character?
Considering this unit is totally hypothetical(fantasy) there is no historical basis to restrict anything. The RAN operated close to both RN in the Atlantic/Mediterranean and USN navy in the Pacific so its not beyond the realms of possibility that she would operate Seafires, Martlets, Wildcats, or any other UK/US aircraft after all Australia did buy US aircraft, Tanks, Vehicles etc. You're trying to make this unit Historically accurate when it never actually existed.
2. What will be internally consistent with other hypothetical carriers already with cards?
Treat it as a UK carrier since she was built by the British, she was not Australian built. All other hypothetical carriers were build by the nation they represent so my previous point still stands. This will be the first fantasy unit not built by the country's navy that it will serve in.
Keep it KISS. Treat it as a UK carrier and in historically limits let the players decide on what aircraft is based on it since historically there's no precedent.
The options if a player wishes to use any aircraft? 1. Don't use the optional rule. 2. Do use the optional rule and legally substitute HMS Colossus
Its a non arguement to suggest anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. The objective here is to determine what distinctiveness this unit has in play. If people want to have said discussion, i encourage them to create a thread specific to that.
The two options provided are best guesses reached by verifiable information. Theyre going to give different capabilities and play styles. Which is a good thing.
Firefly and Seafire are probably better since this will be a late-war carrier, though the Barracuda is more versatile (it has an ASW line). The firefly is a solid bomber though, so I think it should be fine.
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
Firefly and Seafire are probably better since this will be a late-war carrier, though the Barracuda is more versatile (it has an ASW line). The firefly is a solid bomber though, so I think it should be fine.
I concur, the ASW would be nice but the RAN has some good destroyers in that role and the beaufort is cheap
In case I am not logged on at the time of a vote on the issue, I vote in advance for class limit 2 due to historical evidence that two different carriers of this class were offered to the RAN during WW2.
I like the class limit of 2 as well. Given the difficulties in lining up an Australian fleet as it stands now, I see no inherent power upset in allowing up to 2 carriers, while at the same time giving Aussie fleets a more robust fleet option. Lets face it they won't have the unit power to challenge some larger Axis fleet builds, but having two carriers compared to just one for a mid-point match would allow a more competitive setup.
I do agree also with the UK aircraft, as the vast majority of Australian use of US aircraft was in an Army capacity (granted, they didn't have carriers, but aircraft were still used by a separate branch and not included in naval operations, for the most part). Examples being the SB2C Helldiver, that the US Army designation was the A-25A Shrike. The Shrike was the model provided to the Aussies for evaluation, and only one example was evaluated, the naval/carrier Helldiver version wasn't provided for evaluation.
Therefore it would make more sense to me (imo) to use UK aircraft with the carrier.
Class limits doesnt work on what we'd like. Germany would have like 6 H-Class battleship. Class limit is 2, for each card we have. If a ship is lost and replaced, replacement doesnt increase limits. That RBs advice on class limits.
The aircraft options are listed above. A UK blanket SA is not among them.
Class limits doesnt work on what we'd like. Germany would have like 6 H-Class battleship. Class limit is 2, for each card we have. If a ship is lost and replaced, replacement doesnt increase limits. That RBs advice on class limits.
The aircraft options are listed above. A UK blanket SA is not among them.
Your first paragraph is a straw man argument, i.e., a logical fallacy, where you vanquish some unrelated straw man to forward your argument. Historically, the class numbers offered to Oz was two. It's just that simple.
Your second paragraph with [the limitation to] "your" aircraft options as the only ones that are allowed is also a logical fallacy. This time it is the argument from authority, where you [and the card organizers] are the authority.
Let's step back for a moment here shall we? What are we trying to achieve with an Aussie Colossus carrier class? What was pointed out long ago in the Vergilius Fleet Building Guide was that in order to attack a sector with naval aircraft one really needs 3x strike aircraft of the same type, either DB or TB, which are then accompanied by a possibly cheap land based fighter plane with the Escort SA. If we impose a non historical restriction of one on this Aussie carrier, then at most we will be able to have two premium strike aircraft, and no premium fighter, since a single ship will only carry two aircraft. On the other hand, if we allow for two then we can do an optimum carrier strike on one sector, which would be worthwhile and may sink a ship. Since one carrier will not really do that very well, one would need to augment the strike with a second rate tag-teamed Beaufort attack, (with tag-teamed Kittyhawks with its Escort SA for the support, the later of which one would also do in a two carrier case as well). One would not, however, in the single carrier case get the premium fighter that would come with two carriers as the fourth plane, which would be very useful for defending out flattop sector or attacking enemy fighters. As I pointed out before, this can be looked at as a play balance issue. If one wants to convince someone in a mid points game to take a pure Aussie force, then one has to give them something substantial. A single aircraft carrier of capacity two is just not quite substantial enough.
Class limits aren't a matter for arguement. The inclusion of hypothetical ships increases limits by one. This has been the case since the GZ and Aquila were added.
Unless you have a historical arguement to counter. All that has been offered is speculation and preference. Those options stand because. -They reflect the way in which the class was used by RN in the relevant years -Reflects precedents of reasonable comparable ships -Provide a unit that is distinct
This is irrespective of peoples opinions of me. The explaination of how i would run this project made it clear that the team would have final word. To sustain balance and precedent.
Class limits doesnt work on what we'd like. Germany would have like 6 H-Class battleship. Class limit is 2, for each card we have. If a ship is lost and replaced, replacement doesnt increase limits. That RBs advice on class limits.
The aircraft options are listed above. A UK blanket SA is not among them.
Your first paragraph is a straw man argument, i.e., a logical fallacy, where you vanquish some unrelated straw man to forward your argument. Historically, the class numbers offered to Oz was two. It's just that simple.
Your second paragraph with your fixation on "your" aircraft options as the only ones that are allowed is also a logical fallacy. This time it is the argument from authority, where you are the authority. I reject your claim of authority.
Let's step back for a moment here shall we? What are we trying to achieve with an Aussie Colossus carrier class? What was pointed out long ago in the Vergilius Fleet Building Guide was that in order to attack a sector with naval aircraft one really needs 3x strike aircraft of the same type, either DB or TB, which are then accompanied by a possibly cheap land based fighter plane with the Escort SA. If we impose a non historical restriction of one on this Aussie carrier, then at most we will be able to have two premium strike aircraft, and no premium fighter, since a single ship will only carry two aircraft. On the other hand, if we allow for two then we can do an optimum carrier strike on one sector, which would be worthwhile and may sink a ship. Since one carrier will not really do that very well, one would need to augment the strike with a second rate tag-teamed Beaufort attack, (with tag-teamed Kittyhawks with its Escort SA for the support, the later of which one would also do in a two carrier case as well). One would not, however, in the single carrier case get the premium fighter that would come with two carriers as the fourth plane, which would be very useful for defending out flattop sector or attacking enemy fighters. As I pointed out before, this can be looked at as a play balance issue. If one wants to convince someone in a mid points game to take a pure Aussie force, then one has to give them something substantial. A single aircraft carrier of capacity two is just not quite substantial enough.
You spent 2 paragraphs on the attack of Flaks credibility. You can have a constructive argument without the attacks. You could have made your point in half the typing