Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games
 


       Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WaS Clubhouse
danaussie

Club Royal Navy Rebuild

Hi Everyone,

It is clear that Anrack as the current President of Club Royal Navy is no longer with us to any capacity, Fires has been taking care of the Club in a guardianship role for some time it seems. And many thanks to him for that.

I am here to Rebuild our club and to take command back of the club that I built. To do this I am counting on the support of the Clubhouse President as well as the support of all  CRN Members former and new.

We will need to start a new thread and largely blat all posts from the former CRN HQ Command Centre and build a new one so that I may have the powers of "edit", I cant do anything while Anrack's Homepage is under his control.

I intend to add Hokies list of Lend Lease Aircraft to our list of units available to CRN Builds, I believe he has done his homework correctly and I see no reason that these units should not be made freely available to Club Royal Navy as soon as possible.

I also intend to restructure our Awards and Roll of Honor sections to make this more user friendly.

I think the best way for me to do all of this is to simply restart a new thread and transfer the information to it, then the Club House President can simply stickie it up for us, I would then ask him to blat our old HQ Command Centre once this is done.

If anyone has any suggestions or concerns about this proposal, please let your feelings known here or PM me if you wish.

Cheers guys  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

"Facta Non Verba"

Dan
hokiepastor

Hip hip hooray!
SWO_Daddy

Dan,

When you get your new thread set up, let Fires or I know.  I can un-sticky the old thread and sticky the new one.  Will change the title of the old thread to make sure its clear it is no longer current, without deleting any of the history.

Great to see you back!

Cheers,
SWO
firesdstny

Indeed!

Some of the other clubs national and theatre alike can update as well.

Dan good to have you back onboard!
danaussie

Thanks guys, its great to be back...its been way way way too long.

Guys I am so impressed by the changes you have made, Im also glad to be able to sit back and enjoy running my club again, I cant tell you how happy I am.

Keep up the great work guys...and please dont move us to Online Matches. Wink  Laughing

Ill get back to work.... Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

Dan
Admiral Woodside

I will post replies to comments made in the CRN thread so as not to clutter up the first several posts of the new CRN thread which will need those slots reserved. danaussie, you should hurry and put add two blank posts as place holders in the new CRN thread before anybody posts there.

danaussie wrote:
I would vote for Hokie's list in full.

I would vote that the SBD3 be used, only 1 squadron of land based planes per 100 points.

The UK used them only for testing, and not for combat.

The RNZAF only used them in small numbers and for only a short time, and they had no carrier. So land Based Only.

I think trying to force anything further is an excercise in futility.

Thanks guys I think we are done here. Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

Dan

The thing is, the NZ squadron only used the SDB-5 in combat, not the SBD-3, and only as a dive bomber, not as an ASW aircraft, while the SBD-3 card in game has ASW capability, and they did not train in ASW, only in dive bombing. So, the SBD-3 is certainly not the aircraft to use. If you wanted to restrict the aircraft to a land base, the one to take and restrict to land would be the full SBD, as that is the one they flew.

As for using the aircraft for a use it was not actually used for in the war, the SBD was a purpose built carrier dive bomber, and we have an example with the KM FW 200 Kondor card of an aircraft that was used as a normal patrol bomber in the war, but is used in game routinely as a missile delivery aircraft. Where was all the training of those crews. Far less plausible to have the Kondor in the missile role instead of its traditional role than having a purpose built carrier aircraft actually used on a carrier.

So the vote is a 2 to 2 tie for using the SBD-5 as a carrier aircraft at this point, and 2 to 2 tie for using the SBD-5 versus using the SBD-3, that is, for votes from club members. danaussie, are you suggesting we close the voting immediately without a result and just take the SBD-3 no matter what, mate? Seems arbitrary. Besides, they did not use the ASW SBD-3 in combat. I can't see how this is a solution at all. Better to just not include the SBD than to include one they did not fly in combat. But that's just me, mate.

Admiral Woodside
danaussie

Listen...first of all "I'm" not suggesting anything, that was given to both you and Vetnor, Im simply cutting and pasting the information into the new CRN Lend Lease Options section.

Second of all Im not here to be your intellectual punching bag mate, Im here to run my club as best I may with the information I have at hand, so you may wish to watch your tone. I have been to this puppet show already and I've seen the strings. If you want to help thats fine, if you want to start getting pushy you might as well leave now, I dont want to hear it and Im pretty sure nobody else here wants to either.

Vetnor had suggested the SBD3 and gave his reasons, if you want to see the SBD5 instead added then I suggest you discuss the matter with him, get it squared away between you and then inform the club president of your consensus. Then I shall add whatever you both decide on including year restrictions and all the trimmings to the lend lease list.

Dan
Admiral Woodside

brigman wrote:
Quote:

Apparently, some Ozzies don't understand a Yank simply trying to keep the peace.  As for your statement:

Admiral Woodside wrote:
Quote:

Actually, I called for nominations for a new president a month or so ago and left the call up for a week IIRC, with no one being proposed. I would be willing to vote for danaussie as returning president providing I can get the following pending successful motion implimented, which was carried by two votes to none. Here is a quote of the proposal


It sure read that way to me (emphasis added by me).


As I said in the above quote, I had called for an election previously, so it is not like I was dictating anything, whatsoever. And I did not even put my own name up for nomination. Nor did anyone nominate anyone for a vote for that office.

And the real problem I had with what you were saying lies in your original statement:

Quote:
Brigman wrote:
I seriously hope you're not trying to make Dan's presidency contingent on his approval of the Dauntless for CRN use, Woodside.

Dan founded this club, and is offering to take the unmanned helm.


I only mentioned my own vote. That's democracy, mate. People cast votes based on positions taken. You were conflating that with me somehow preventing Dan from becoming president again. Later in my post I expanded on what I said, that he could take any title he wished since he did not seem to like the title President, and I put a smiley after that just to be sure I was understood. Maybe my jesting did not register, hence my later comment on the differences in humor between Yanks and Aussies. There is a real difference, believe me. But, that is a discussion for another day. And besides, I felt the matter of the SBD was settled, so this was just old business to be concluded IMO. And yet, suddenly the SBD issue blew up, despite nobody previously objecting to it at all for over a month, and with one vote in addition to mine in favor of the change I proposed, (from an inactive club to boot!). Perhaps you can see where I was coming from now.

Quote:

In any case, Dan is obviously capable of handling himself.  As a new forum member, you are probably unaware that a pushy, insistent CRN member had caused his initial departure over forcing a US plane into the club the first time. I was simply trying to prevent a recurrance.

Carry on.


Well the RN and Commonwealth did obtain/buy US aircraft and fly them from their fleet. Other nations bought ships (and aircraft) from Britain and fielded them as well. That's just the history we have to work with. Ironically, the currently proposed expanded list of Lend Lease aircraft is probably well and truly beyond what that former CRN member had even dreamed of having. Too bad he is not around now to use them...

But no, I have not read any of the old CRN thread which must be buried quite a way back in the past. And as I said over a year ago with regard to apparently that same forum member, I did not know him. But, because I had wandered into the minefield of the former Club South Pacific thread with a straightforward query on historical units, it seems to me I have been associated with apparently that same forum member in several people's minds ever since. There is an irony here, too. In opposing my simple and very modest request to modify the unit list of Club South Pacific at that time, to be essentially a full early war theater nation, with the implication that I would join and rebuild that club, you have now gotten an uber Club Pacific instead. I guess that is the law of unintended consequences in operation.

BTW, after the comments I received in the former Club South Pacific thread(s), at that time I went and looked at what the other theater clubs were fielding in units, and it seemed to me that several clubs were similar or even stronger than what I was proposing as well. O_o

Regards,

Admiral Woodside
Admiral Woodside

danaussie wrote:
Listen...first of all "I'm" not suggesting anything, that was given to both you and Vetnor, Im simply cutting and pasting the information into the new CRN Lend Lease Options section.

Second of all Im not here to be your intellectual punching bag mate, Im here to run my club as best I may with the information I have at hand, so you may wish to watch your tone. I have been to this puppet show already and I've seen the strings. If you want to help thats fine, if you want to start getting pushy you might as well leave now, I dont want to hear it and Im pretty sure nobody else here wants to either.

Vetnor had suggested the SBD3 and gave his reasons, if you want to see the SBD5 instead added then I suggest you discuss the matter with him, get it squared away between you and then inform the club president of your consensus. Then I shall add whatever you both decide on including year restrictions and all the trimmings to the lend lease list.

Dan


That is bit over the top, don't you think? I have endeavored to be polite and state my case with references in defense of my position. I wasn't seeking to punch anybody up. It seemed like old business I was requesting to be finished up with respect to the SBD, since no one had taken objection to my suggestion for over a month, and one person had even voted in favor of it. Then, like I said in a previous cross post, the SBD issue suddenly blew up out of the blue, which totally caught me by surprise. Maybe we should just leave the SBD off the list and just call it at that. The two SBD cards just do not quite fit, unfortunately.
danaussie

wow...awesome...great...wonderful, now have you contacted Vetnor yet, to decide on the SBD3 or SBD5? Or shall I do that for you?

In the meantime, I have been rebuilding the CRN HQ Command Centre, so if you dont mind just sorting that one little issue out we can have it all squared away.

Thank you Very Happy

Dan
Admiral Woodside

danaussie wrote:
wow...awesome...great...wonderful, now have you contacted Vetnor yet, to decide on the SBD3 or SBD5? Or shall I do that for you?

In the meantime, I have been rebuilding the CRN HQ Command Centre, so if you dont mind just sorting that one little issue out we can have it all squared away.

Thank you Very Happy

Dan

I already have a pending PM not yet responded to with Vetnor on another matter. If I recall correctly, he was going on vacation somewhere around now, so he may not be reachable at this time.

The new CRN thread transcribed well.

Admiral Woodside
danaussie

...and other things were deleted and added...but yeah anyway.

Dan
Admiral Woodside

I don't see hokiepastor in the CRN members list yet. He joined over the weekend and is now displaying the CRN avatar.

Admiral Woodside
danaussie

Admiral Woodside wrote:
I don't see hokiepastor in the CRN members list yet. He joined over the weekend and is now displaying the CRN avatar.

Admiral Woodside


Good catch...cheers Im on it.

Dan Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
danaussie

Ok mate thats done, just let me know about the Dauntless, I just want you to know that I agree that it should be used, even from what Ive read (which isnt much). But it should be available to RNZN as an RNZAF land based bomber, in limited form. Now thats just from what Ive read and from the information supplied by Vetnor and yourself.

To be honest Im not sure I understand what you were talking about when it came to this plane coming with a tailhook and that relevance to this unit being able to be used as a Carrier bourne aircraft. Not sure, I wasnt really following that part of the discussion very well.

If the SBD-3 (its card) is the best plane over the SBD-5 (its card) as the most appropriate unit for the RNZAF aircraft Im happy to add it to the list, just need to know which one, but would like you to have the discussion with Vetnor.

I just wanted to be absolutely certain is all.

Cheers Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

Dan
hokiepastor

Admiral Woodside wrote:
I don't see hokiepastor in the CRN members list yet. He joined over the weekend and is now displaying the CRN avatar.

Admiral Woodside


Thanks for catching this! I'm very glad to be part of club rn.

On the sbd issue (not sure what vetnor said, but I'll post my reasons), I'm not overly a fan of including EITHER version in-game, because they both represent the unit as it served as the primary strike force of the usn in 1942-43. The one NZ squadron that flew them for 8 weeks did not accomplish near the same record. Not their fault, they were brave and flew competently, but they had no opportunity to take on a Japanese carrier force for an iconic moment.

That said, I am open to including a single squadron in game, but feel the heavy bomb load plus pta is too much. The sbd3 better represents the base stats of the unit in NZ service, IMO.

Also, and I am more adamant about this, it should not be carrier-based. Yes, the planes could do it (maybe - more on that below), but the pilots couldn't. They just didn't have the training.

In regards to the planes, the units the rnzaf received were (I believe) former usmc planes. Usmc planes typically did not have tailhooks installed, as they weren't carrier-based. Odds are the New Zealand Dauntlesses, at least some of them, were not carrier planes.

All of that said, I'm fine with whatever the club decides.
Admiral Woodside

hokiepastor wrote:
Admiral Woodside wrote:
I don't see hokiepastor in the CRN members list yet. He joined over the weekend and is now displaying the CRN avatar.

Admiral Woodside


Thanks for catching this! I'm very glad to be part of club rn.

On the sbd issue (not sure what vetnor said, but I'll post my reasons), I'm not overly a fan of including EITHER version in-game, because they both represent the unit as it served as the primary strike force of the usn in 1942-43. The one NZ squadron that flew them for 8 weeks did not accomplish near the same record. Not their fault, they were brave and flew competently, but they had no opportunity to take on a Japanese carrier force for an iconic moment.

That said, I am open to including a single squadron in game, but feel the heavy bomb load plus pta is too much. The sbd3 better represents the base stats of the unit in NZ service, IMO.

Also, and I am more adamant about this, it should not be carrier-based. Yes, the planes could do it (maybe - more on that below), but the pilots couldn't. They just didn't have the training.

In regards to the planes, the units the rnzaf received were (I believe) former usmc planes. Usmc planes typically did not have tailhooks installed, as they weren't carrier-based. Odds are the New Zealand Dauntlesses, at least some of them, were not carrier planes.

All of that said, I'm fine with whatever the club decides.

Not a problem, mate. Welcome aboard!

I received my PM from Vetnor now and he doesn't think he said anything about the SBD either. Perhaps Dan meant you instead, since you are the one that did the aircraft update list if I am not mistaken.

Before I floated the SBD idea I did look for any indication that the tail hook, needed for a "safe" carrier landing, had been removed from the aircraft they received, but found no indication of that. Not sure if the USMC version had or had not a tail hook either. My reading of the Dauntless page on wiki seemed to indicate to me that the SBD-5 would have still had the hook, and that is the one the NZ squadron bombed with.

At any rate, flakstruk has pointed out the 2010 rulebook rule which states that historical limit US carrier based aircraft can be based on carriers, and these are not land based cards.

Furthermore, if we do restrict them to a land base, consider that they will no longer be costed correctly. Nobody is going to be able to afford so many points for an aircraft that has to rearm every other turn.

As for the model, the SBD-3 is ruled out due to having ASW Bomber 2, and the NZ squadron did not train in that, only in dive bombing. And certainly they would have done a better bombing run with an aircraft like that than a Bomb 7 for goodness sakes. NZ had a large air force in WW2. So I really think the full SBD Dauntless fits more with their use, even if they only bombed airfields (taking out a lot of enemy aircraft I might add).

And as a land based dive bomber costing 10 points and only giving a Bomb 7 attack every other turn, seriously no one will ever use an SBD-3. The UK has better options with the new Firefly F.Mk I card, Bomb 9 for 11 points, every turn, or the older Barracuda Mk.II card for 12 point can do a Bomb 8 and Torp 2. The only card that would even have a chance of getting used would be the full SBD which has Bomb 10, albeit every other turn if land based. Even then, the cost is huge, 13 points for a land based aircraft only bombing every other turn. Still it could still get played once and a while just for its Bomb 10 on the first turn.

Ironically, I only researched the card in the first place to get a lone SBD squadron on an aircraft carrier as a Midway factor wild card, not to get an ASW/Scout plane.

Admiral Woodside
hokiepastor

Land-based would not prevent it from being used with a FAS.  In fact, that's how I would use it.
Admiral Woodside

hokiepastor wrote:
Land-based would not prevent it from being used with a FAS.  In fact, that's how I would use it.

FAS?
hokiepastor

Forward Air Strip.  Basically a one-plane-only landing strip that goes on the map and thus lets a plane fly every turn.
hokiepastor

Admiral Woodside

hokiepastor wrote:
Forward Air Strip.  Basically a one-plane-only landing strip that goes on the map and thus lets a plane fly every turn.

Right. OK. I forgot that card counts as a Carrier to one's aircraft. Apparently even the Land Base SA cannot prevent an aircraft from using it, even if it counts as a Carrier. Seems like that would work then for the SBD if we chose to restrict it to a land base. Not worth it for a Bomb 7 aircraft though...

Admiral Woodside
hokiepastor

Like I said, the carrier-based component is what I have the strongest opinion on.  Given the very low numbers in service for an extremely small period of time, and the fact that none of those pilots were carrier-capable, I think that it is important not to give the UK carrier-based SBDs.  They had the option, when they evaluated the plane, and didn't go with it.  FAS actually captures the flavor of how the SBD was used by the RNZAF.

As to which version, I leave it up to the entire club to decide.

Also, I noticed on Danaussie's list on the new Club RN page, there was no "year introduced" date for the SBD.  It would have to be 1943.
danaussie

hokiepastor wrote:
Like I said, the carrier-based component is what I have the strongest opinion on.  Given the very low numbers in service for an extremely small period of time, and the fact that none of those pilots were carrier-capable, I think that it is important not to give the UK carrier-based SBDs.  They had the option, when they evaluated the plane, and didn't go with it.  FAS actually captures the flavor of how the SBD was used by the RNZAF.

As to which version, I leave it up to the entire club to decide.

Also, I noticed on Danaussie's list on the new Club RN page, there was no "year introduced" date for the SBD.  It would have to be 1943.


Ok on that too, cheers guys, and good morning to you, my apologies for the confusion between yourself and Vetnor Hokie.

It was a very confusing day yesterday (well at least for me) I seemed to jump right into a heated debate over this SBD. We needed to get this new CRN HQ up and I guess didnt need this to be going on in the middle of that. So also my apologies for my rudeness and abrasiveness on account of that yesterday, I dont want us to get off on the wrong foot.

It seems to me that we need to have a special card made, would that be right? Some things on the SBD3 card are right while others are wrong, likewise for the SBD5 and SBD standard. I dont think it would be a big deal for the Forumini card makers to come up with this if you want me to go and ask them. It would be helpful if you guys would write a detailed proposal so we could simply give it to the card makers.

Ill go change that date...

Dan
SWO_Daddy

I don't know how everyone in this discussion will feel about this option, but we've always had the option to use custom cards by mutual agreement.  The two cards below were cards I was putting together for my next deck that could work for this purpose. Totally unofficial cards of course, but we've used Forumini cards in the past by mutual agreement plenty of times, including in National League games.  This, or something else like it (if the forumini custom cards get going again), might be an answer...



A note on the date: I went with the 1944 for date based on when the squadrons deployed operationally.  They did do some training with USMC units before that, but none of those missions were operational missions.
danaussie

well then why dont we use one of these cards? The only thing that jumps out at me straight away is the year, pretty sure Hokie mentioned 1943 not 1944...not sure though. But I would have no objection...its better than no card which is what we have right now.

Thanks SWO Daddy as always your work is magnificent.

PS: Or if the stats are not right (which Im not arguing) may we hire your services to make one for us SWO? We would very much appreciate it.

Dan Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
hokiepastor

SWO_Daddy wrote:
I don't know how everyone in this discussion will feel about this option, but we've always had the option to use custom cards by mutual agreement.  The two cards below were cards I was putting together for my next deck that could work for this purpose. Totally unofficial cards of course, but we've used Forumini cards in the past by mutual agreement plenty of times, including in National League games.  This, or something else like it (if the forumini custom cards get going again), might be an answer...



A note on the date: I went with the 1944 for date based on when the squadrons deployed operationally.  They did do some training with USMC units before that, but none of those missions were operational missions.


I would support these, especially the dauntless, 100%
Admiral Woodside

SWO_Daddy wrote:
I don't know how everyone in this discussion will feel about this option, but we've always had the option to use custom cards by mutual agreement.  The two cards below were cards I was putting together for my next deck that could work for this purpose. Totally unofficial cards of course, but we've used Forumini cards in the past by mutual agreement plenty of times, including in National League games.  This, or something else like it (if the forumini custom cards get going again), might be an answer...

<snipped nice looking cards!>

A note on the date: I went with the 1944 for date based on when the squadrons deployed operationally.  They did do some training with USMC units before that, but none of those missions were operational missions.

While I have not made myself familiar with the role of the Avenger in NZ service, the card looks interesting. The Dauntless card looks appropriate with regards to payload, i.e., Bomb 10, and the SA, Close Air Support Specialist, which corresponds to the exact mission they were employed at. But, to me, the cost seems to be too high by one point. Comparing with two other land base limitation cases, that of the USN Corsair at 14 points vs the USMC Corsair at 10 points, and the Avenger case you just worked up 14 points vs 10 points, both loosing 4 points. Now there is other stuff going on with these two cards as well, but the Dauntless looses the much more valuable Press the Attack (in comparison with the Close Air Support), too. So I would suggest the Dauntless might be costed to loose 3 points instead to give 10 points as its cost. Just my opinion. Even at 11 points, the card is now usable.

An argument could be made that now with the FAS card, that the goal posts have moved, and that now all land based units should cost more, and likewise that the USMC Corsair for example is now under costed, etc. However, only with the FAS card does the no rearming for a Land Based SA unit get cancelled, (if I have read the card's SA's right), and if the FAS is lost the unit would have to switch to the normal land base and resort back to having a rearming counter every other turn. I have just been made aware of this aspect of the FAS card, so I might be off here. Assuming I have the FAS card right, any opponent really fearing the Dauntless would likely attack that base first. Plus, we won't be changing the USMC Corsair cost any time soon, if ever. So I think we could follow the previous cases and consider pricing the custom NZ Dauntless card at 10 points. Anyway, that is just my opinion. I agree with the 1944 date on the SBD Dauntless, being when the SBD-5 was deployed in combat.

At any rate, thanks for the work on the cards. Very impressive!

Last night, right after I logged out, it occurred to me that we did not have to choose either/or SBD-3 or SBD-5. I realized that we could add the SBD-3 with a year limit of 1943, when they were flown by NZ, and the full SBD as the SBD-5 with a year limit of 1944, when those were flown by NZ. Then one simply maintains the one squadron total rule for the NZ squadron. Then one could choose whichever one that felt right to the particular player. Some like myself felt the SBD was more appropriate, and others felt the SBD-3, so each can go with what they felt was more appropriate, but they could only choose one for a game. After all, NZ flew both types of SBD, just like the UK flew both types of the Avenger cards. Just limit it to one total squadron and the separate year limits and it is all resolved. So for those online players that will only allow official cards, this approach would suit those games.

If the custom card approach is allowed for a game by mutual consent, then obviously the custom card would be the better approach. Between the two, all cases are covered. Thanks again for the cards.

Regards,

Admiral Woodside
Admiral Woodside

I am really uncertain of the interpretation I am giving to the Forward Air Strip (FAS) card that I wrote before:
Quote:
An argument could be made that now with the FAS card, that the goal posts have moved, and that now all land based units should cost more, and likewise that the USMC Corsair for example is now under costed, etc. However, only with the FAS card does the no rearming for a Land Based SA unit get cancelled, (if I have read the card's SA's right), and if the FAS is lost the unit would have to switch to the normal land base and resort back to having a rearming counter every other turn. I have just been made aware of this aspect of the FAS card, so I might be off here. Assuming I have the FAS card right, any opponent really fearing the Dauntless would likely attack that base first. Plus, we won't be changing the USMC Corsair cost any time soon, if ever.

On further inspection, I am not sure FAS really does grant the USMC Corsair carrier rights to no longer have a rearming counter. Does anybody else have a read on this? Would a USMC Corsair have to rearm every other turn even on a FAS? The USMC Corsair is technically not a Patrol Bomber (and we are not really talking about Patrol Bombers in this discussion). If not, then the Dauntless would be a rather unique special case that breaks the rule on rearming, since it is a carrier aircraft, restricted voluntarily to a land base, and so can benefit from the Carrier SA of the FAS to not have to rearm when based there. Yikes! This is tricky. This would also presumably be an issue with the FW-190 land based fighter, which is not a patrol bomber either. So the FAS Airstrip SA which states also that an SA can't prevent Aircraft from basing on this unit seems to cancel that (part of) the SA (but not the carrier attack bonus part), which is the only rule preventing it to be used on a carrier. Only Patrol Bombers (and certain Seaplanes?) AFAIK are specifically prevented from basing on a carrier. Help from the rules lawyers is requested here. Rolling Eyes

Regards,

Admiral Woodside
SWO_Daddy

I'm kind of stuck with the cost of 11 on the Dauntless.  I realize it is conservatively costed, but I've already printed the French A-24 (essentially the same plane, without the Close Air Support SA) at the same cost.  If anything, I'm making this a little more aggressive than the previous plane (which was also deliberately conservative). Flying from the forward airstrip, it remains a pretty good plane. On the positive side, it retains the big bomb dice of the USN SBD, something I think it appropriate for the NZ squadron. Not a top-end rock star in 1944, but still a decent threat to pretty much anything short of a BB.  

One other NZ plane I've done (then I'm headed to the rack) - if you really want a truely straffing fighter against ground targets...

SWO_Daddy

As for the forward airstrip... yes, Fighters, Dive Bombers, and Torpedo Bombers operating from them, even if they have Land Based or Land Fighter SAs, do not receive rearming markers (because the FAS acts as a "carrier" for those aircraft).  It makes planes like the Sturmovik and USMC Corsair a lot more potent.

The hole Airstrip SA is a play on what the rulebook has to say about "carriers", "patrol bombers" and the Land Based/Fighter SAs.
Admiral Woodside

hokiepastor

So anyway, by request of the 1st Sea Lord of the CRN, I have been asked to consult with you on the Lend Lease list you presented and which we are now trialing and refining. I was struck by two issues that IMO would be objectionable to other clubs which either break game cards or break previous club moderator decisions on units. I am not trying to be critical. I am only trying to get this right so we don't run into problems during National Club season.

(1) You have provided these entries to the Lend Lease list:

USMC F4U-1A – Corsair Mk. I/II – 1943 (may be carrier based)
F4U-1D – Corsair III/IV – 1944


Allowing the USMC Corsair to be carrier based breaks the game card, and should not be done, even if certain Commonwealth units may have operated that way. There would need to be a custom card for this, because otherwise the USMC Corsair card as it currently exists would be severely undercosted when used on a UK carrier. Best not to sail into that mine field...

(2) When I requested club moderators to add the two Avenger aircraft to the Lend Lease list earlier this year, it was on the basis of the majority moderator's decision that specific year limits be imposed on the two Avengers, that everyone in the Clubhouse would have to follow for the Lend Lease case. Your entry in the LL list on the Avengers is shown as:

TBF/TBF-1 – RN FAA, RNZAF, and RCAF - 1942

However, in this thread:

http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about35099.html

sublime828 wrote:
Quote:
Motion approved Very Happy

<snip>

Club presidents using US lend-lease air in your clubs' builds, please reflect the changes to indicate the following in your allowable unit lists:

The following units can be used according to the respective year restrictions in clubhouse play:

TBF-1 Avenger: 1942-1945
TBF Avenger: 1944-1945

sub out! Very Happy


If you read this thread, it was a majority moderator vote. So we need to reinstate the above two year limit restrictions on the Avenger, that were there last week due to my previous efforts on CRN's behalf. I will leave it to you to sort out which Commonwealth nations go on which lines of the above two Avengers.

Thanks BTW for your hard work on the list. Very impressive!

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside
Admiral Woodside

SWO_Daddy wrote:
I'm kind of stuck with the cost of 11 on the Dauntless.  I realize it is conservatively costed, but I've already printed the French A-24 (essentially the same plane, without the Close Air Support SA) at the same cost.  If anything, I'm making this a little more aggressive than the previous plane (which was also deliberately conservative). Flying from the forward airstrip, it remains a pretty good plane. On the positive side, it retains the big bomb dice of the USN SBD, something I think it appropriate for the NZ squadron. Not a top-end rock star in 1944, but still a decent threat to pretty much anything short of a BB.  

One other NZ plane I've done (then I'm headed to the rack) - if you really want a truely straffing fighter against ground targets...



Yeah, OK. I can live with the 11 points for the NZ Dauntless. Yes, the Dauntless is not a Helldiver, but it does have that one more Bomb point over the new Firefly. Thanks very much for doing these cards for the CRN! Can't wait to get them (yes I am still on your alert list Smile ).

Neat, a killer straffer! Don't forget the RNZAF label prefix.

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside
Admiral Woodside

SWO_Daddy wrote:
As for the forward airstrip... yes, Fighters, Dive Bombers, and Torpedo Bombers operating from them, even if they have Land Based or Land Fighter SAs, do not receive rearming markers (because the FAS acts as a "carrier" for those aircraft).  It makes planes like the Sturmovik and USMC Corsair a lot more potent.

The hole Airstrip SA is a play on what the rulebook has to say about "carriers", "patrol bombers" and the Land Based/Fighter SAs.

Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated. The FAS card is one of those very tricky cards we have, filled with implication. When holiepastor brought it to my attention, as I read the card it sent my head spinning with possibilities, like gosh I could like deploy seven or eight of these and they are not that much worse cost than heavy carrier aircraft slots. Wink Just kidding about the numbers I would use. And the AA of the FAS is not that good at any rate. Still, it provides carrier-like spots for nations with few or no carriers, so that's pretty neat.

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside
Flakstruk

I applaud you guys on your enthusiasm but I have to ask.

In what situation would you ever take the dauntless? In what would the 10 dice dauntless be a significant advantage over a 3torp or 7bomb alt-payload avenger?
Not trying to be a drag, just want to understand the thrust of the initiative from the far side of the channel.
Admiral Woodside

Flakstruk wrote:
I applaud you guys on your enthusiasm but I have to ask.

In what situation would you ever take the dauntless? In what would the 10 dice dauntless be a significant advantage over a 3torp or 7bomb alt-payload avenger?
Not trying to be a drag, just want to understand the thrust of the initiative from the far side of the channel.

He he. Yes, well bombs work well on carriers, while torps work well on BBs. Rock, paper, scissors... Sure they can both be applied to either, but it is nice to have that one more option. I guess the Dauntless is kind of a sentimental thing for me, a Midway wildcard factor. And yes, now that the FAS card has been pointed out to me, I would likely take even a land based Dauntless with a FAS from time to time. Very Happy

I guess I should also consider painting my RNZAF Dauntless squadron "all black". Wink For the northerners reading this, that is an inside joke BTW. The Kiwi teams tend to go by the label, the "all blacks" because their uniforms or cars, etc, are, er uh well, all black. At some point when I finally get the miniatures, they will be very tiny indeed in 1/4800 scale for use with 1/6000 scale ships.

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside
SWO_Daddy

Admiral Woodside wrote:
Neat, a killer straffer! Don't forget the RNZAF label prefix.


Unfortunately, the deck that included the NZ Corsair has already been to the printers a couple of times.  Will probably not be seeing a change there. To change it I'd have to re-upload the entire deck of 72 cards...a surprising time consuming process.  At least the roundel is right.
hokiepastor

Admiral Woodside wrote:
hokiepastor

So anyway, by request of the 1st Sea Lord of the CRN, I have been asked to consult with you on the Lend Lease list you presented and which we are now trialing and refining. I was struck by two issues that IMO would be objectionable to other clubs which either break game cards or break previous club moderator decisions on units. I am not trying to be critical. I am only trying to get this right so we don't run into problems during National Club season.

(1) You have provided these entries to the Lend Lease list:

USMC F4U-1A – Corsair Mk. I/II – 1943 (may be carrier based)
F4U-1D – Corsair III/IV – 1944


Allowing the USMC Corsair to be carrier based breaks the game card, and should not be done, even if certain Commonwealth units may have operated that way. There would need to be a custom card for this, because otherwise the USMC Corsair card as it currently exists would be severely undercosted when used on a UK carrier. Best not to sail into that mine field...

(2) When I requested club moderators to add the two Avenger aircraft to the Lend Lease list earlier this year, it was on the basis of the majority moderator's decision that specific year limits be imposed on the two Avengers, that everyone in the Clubhouse would have to follow for the Lend Lease case. Your entry in the LL list on the Avengers is shown as:

TBF/TBF-1 – RN FAA, RNZAF, and RCAF - 1942

However, in this thread:

http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about35099.html

sublime828 wrote:
Quote:
Motion approved Very Happy

<snip>

Club presidents using US lend-lease air in your clubs' builds, please reflect the changes to indicate the following in your allowable unit lists:

The following units can be used according to the respective year restrictions in clubhouse play:

TBF-1 Avenger: 1942-1945
TBF Avenger: 1944-1945

sub out! Very Happy


If you read this thread, it was a majority moderator vote. So we need to reinstate the above two year limit restrictions on the Avenger, that were there last week due to my previous efforts on CRN's behalf. I will leave it to you to sort out which Commonwealth nations go on which lines of the above two Avengers.

Thanks BTW for your hard work on the list. Very impressive!

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside


I'm not looking to undo previous decisions without the express permission of the club.  On the two issues you raised:

A) On the USMC Corsair, I was simply pointing out that the UK used them from carriers, even though the USN didn't.  I think they probably should stay land-based for game purposes.

B)  On the TBF, I wanted to differentiate them somehow, but the cards themselves make that difficult.  I'm fine with making a distinction based on year, if we all agree to it.

I also want to encourage us to consider using SWO's cards for the UK's versions of American planes.  You can find them online in the Marketplace, and it would do away with "Lend-Lease" concerns.  Yes, they aren't "official," but if the two players are okay with it (and usually - but not always - the UK card is no better [and sometimes worse] than the US card), then its allowed.  I know that there is a carrier Corsair in there, the NZ Corsair SWO posted above, an Avenger, a PBY, and some others.  Worth considering!  Then we don't have to worry about all of this.

I'd also be fine with the distinction on the Dauntless (which until now SWO hasn't done).  Make the -3 model available in 1943, make the RNZAF model available in 1944, limit either/both to one squadron.
Brigman

Lads,

I am just pointing this out, not dictating anything, so don't shoot the messenger. Wink

But, nothing in the club rules allow you to break game rules, such as putting a USMC Corsair on a carrier.  That unit has "Land Fighter" and cannot go on a carrier or benefit from EDF.

Club rules are about unit selection, and that's it.  So if you want a carrier Corsair, take the F4U-1D.

Also, I applaud SWO's cards and use them myself.  But please be aware that you must get your opponents permission to use them in a match, as they are not (dare I say it) "official".  So when we get to the competitive League season, you may encounter players who say "No".  Just a caution.
bunyan

@Brigman
so just wodering?  isnt Tn/TP/TAe card not offical too?  i mean if i played you and said that no Team cards just Wotc?  so i think that if the club puts astrisk next to the cards in the fleet selection and also provides a picture of all the cards in the club/theater that an oppenent would say no.  its a level playing field as in everyone knows what cards they can use.
Admiral Woodside

Brigman wrote:
Lads,

I am just pointing this out, not dictating anything, so don't shoot the messenger. Wink

But, nothing in the club rules allow you to break game rules, such as putting a USMC Corsair on a carrier.  That unit has "Land Fighter" and cannot go on a carrier or benefit from EDF.

Club rules are about unit selection, and that's it.  So if you want a carrier Corsair, take the F4U-1D.

Also, I applaud SWO's cards and use them myself.  But please be aware that you must get your opponents permission to use them in a match, as they are not (dare I say it) "official".  So when we get to the competitive League season, you may encounter players who say "No".  Just a caution.


Exactly. That is why I said that in order to satisfy everyone, and for the usual (almost always) case of not using custom cards in online games, we should adopt both the SBD-3 with a 1943 date and the straight SBD with a 1944 date. This is both historically based and these are official cards. Both would be restricted to land bases as well. The custom NZ cards are very good, and will get played, but just not in online tournaments, going by what has gone on in the past.

And yes, there can be no question of flying the USMC Corsair card off a carrier deck. It is not costed for that, being too cheap, so it would be an unfair advantage and nobody is going to like it.

Furthermore, the dates for the Avenger versions were sorted out long ago, like in August 2012, and by majority vote of the clubhouse moderators, so as far as I am concerned, that is carved in stone. Wink The reason for those dates for the two models was pretty much about play balance in year restricted games.

Having said that, I do like the effort you have put into the list hokiepastor. I was especially interested to see the V-156F Vindicator in the list. That was a good looking early war aircraft, featured in a movie no less. I was just not aware it had been used by the UK. You learn something new everyday.

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside
danaussie

I agree in full to Brigmans comments, I think I will add as an "Important" notice in the Lend Lease section of our Unit Restrictions section that "All" custom cards may only be used if they are mutually agreed by both players before the commencement of play.

If they are not, then they may not be used.

We should also be very cautious on what we allow to be used and in what fashion it is used. Custom Cards allow us to be very "creative" in what SA's are used and at what points cost. I would be lying if I said that it did not concern me about what precedents we set with this strange notion of "Democracy" we run here at the Clubhouse.

That something should be allowed on the basis of a 2 to 1 vote of a clubs most "active" members under the license of the "Democratic" process is frankly laughable. And as such I urge my members to take caution on what "You" allow to happen here at Club Royal Navy. Those that squark the most often or the loudest are not always necessarily right.

Please take care at what you implement and "always" take a wholistic approach and not a selfish one.

Dan
hokiepastor

Good words of wisdom, First Sea Lord!

I think the suggestions we've made so far RE year availability and units that can be used (and the use of SWO's Dauntless card when agreed upon between opponents) are legitimate and helpful.  However, we need to be careful not to lose the flavor that is the Royal Navy.
Admiral Woodside

hokiepastor wrote:
Good words of wisdom, First Sea Lord!

I think the suggestions we've made so far RE year availability and units that can be used (and the use of SWO's Dauntless card when agreed upon between opponents) are legitimate and helpful.  However, we need to be careful not to lose the flavor that is the Royal Navy.


It is good to see we are all in agreement then. And since we are talking about a Lend Lease list of official cards only, I think my suggested compromise for using the SBD-3 from 1943-45 and the full SBD as the SBD-5 from 1944-45, both being land based, and one unit only, seems like the only way to go to satisfy everyone. I am willing to concede that now.

Therefore, I will just propose an edited list, so we can put this behind us. So, given the game rule requirement that the USMC Corsair card requires land basing, and given the clubhouse wide adopting of common dates of availability for the Avengers that followed from a majority moderator vote, and also with the compromise on the SBD I suggested, I recommend we change the Lend Lease list to read as follows (where I have highlighted the changes in bold):

F6F:  Gannet/Hellcat – 1943
F4F:  Martlet I/II/III – 1941
FM-2 – Martlet Mk. V-VI – 1943
USMC F4U-1A – Corsair Mk. I/II – 1943
F4U-1D – Corsair III/IV – 1944
P-40 – RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF
B-24 – Liberator – RCAF, RAAF, RAF
B-17 – RAF and RCAF
B-25 – RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF
PBY – RAF, RN, RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF
PBM – RAF and RAAF (1 unit per 100 points)
SBD-3 Dauntless – RNZAF - 1943 (Land Based only)(1 unit total of SBD-3 or SBD)
SBD Dauntless - RNZAF - 1944 (Land Based only)(1 unit total of SBD-3 or SBD)
TBF-1 Avenger - RN FAA, RNZAF, and RCAF - 1942
TBF Avenger - RN FAA, RNZAF, and RCAF - 1944

V-156F Vindicator – Chesapeake, RN FAA - 1941
B-339 Buffalo – RNZAF, RAAF, RCAF, RAF, RN FAA; recommend use of Dutch Buffalo card.

That should take care of it as far as I can see, and as far as the official cards are concerned. For the official team sea gods cards and any new ones to come if any, that is usually taken care of by making a note that the sea gods cards are allowed unless otherwise not agreed to by an opponent.

Thanks to everyone for their combined efforts.

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside
firesdstny

goodpost

Easy solution.  Follows precedent of the Avengers.  Looks clean to me.
SWO_Daddy

Seems reasonable to me.  The land-based option on the Dauntless (which you can get around using a FAS) seems reasonable enough to me.  One thing this might do...get the Victorious back on the battle map.

I like it guys.  I'll be doing something similar with a handful of aircraft in Club USN.  Give me a couple days, and I'll get a revised list posted - I know what I need to do based on what you've done here...I just need the time to do it.  

Cheers,
Club USN COMINCH
danaussie

Yes I agree with this list in full. We'll done 2nd Lord. I will update first thing in the morning, am on IPhone currently. That is of course if Hokie and Vetnor also agree. Just nice to have reached a solution that we can be happy with.

Is there anything else anyone needs or wants me to do as far as the HQ is concerned, working on Ranks Graphics currently. Other commendation medals have been removed for the time being. Not sure if we want to simplify from the old list of commendations or remove them all together, or create some new ones. Any of these 3 options are acceptable to me.

Cheers guys...we'll done again.

Dan
LcdrSwizzle

Nice solution Team RN. As always, to paraphrase Bismarck the man: "Sausage is better 'tasted' than made."
Vetnor

danaussie wrote:
That is of course if Hokie and Vetnor also agree.
Dan


I agree.
hokiepastor

Well done, guys.  Lend-lease list looks solid.

I agree.
danaussie

Splendid, then it's all is well and back to our Brandy then. Wink  Very Happy

Dan Laughing
LcdrSwizzle

danaussie wrote:
Splendid, then it's all is well and back to our Brandy then. Wink  Very Happy

Dan Laughing


Brandy? I thought ClubRN would be drinking Gin? <hic> back to my schnapps!
Flakstruk

The correct answer is Rum and/or Singapore Slings
ticat1

Flakstruk wrote:
The correct answer is Rum and/or Singapore Slings


Lamb's FTW!!!
danaussie

Actually I drink Scotch Whiskey, I thought Brandy sounded more pompous. Rolling Eyes  Laughing

Point being we are done here as long as no-one else has any objections or additions, amendments, ideas, complaints, issues, problems, suggestions...etc etc etc.

I can get back to my tutorial in Naval Modelling.

PS: I will have all the ranks graphics posted up in the next 2 days. Once they are up CRN Members may use them depending on how many battles they have won while playing Royal Navy Builds, just report your wins to the CRN HQ Command Centre so that we can decorate you appropraitely. All CRN Members begin with the rank of Able Seaman once they join the club, you will move up the ranks according to the amount of games you win.

Cheers everyone Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy

Dan
Admiral Woodside

danaussie wrote:
Actually I drink Scotch Whiskey, I thought Brandy sounded more pompous. Rolling Eyes  Laughing

Point being we are done here as long as no-one else has any objections or additions, amendments, ideas, complaints, issues, problems, suggestions...etc etc etc.

I can get back to my tutorial in Naval Modelling.

My favorite drink is definitely Pepsi Cola, two cans a day ration, in the fine tradition of the RN. Er, uh, wait, maybe that was supposed to be a grog ration. Oh well, to each his own. Wink Having a Pepsi now. Cheers!

CRN looks all set. Thanks for the hard work everyone. Good to see the CRN fully up and going again. He he, looks like we have "provoked" others to get fully back into National Clubs, with captains everywhere checking their rosters... Perhaps another club or two will get a reboot as well.

Thanks to firesdstny and SWO_Daddy for their show of support. Very much appreciated!!

Yes, now I can also get back to what I was doing this week, myself. I have a Flames of War (FOW) (1/100 scale) "15mm" WWII battle to plan for this weekend, in command of a GrenadierKompanie. While I was planning on staying with GHQ 6mm Modern Microarmour, the local club here is so into Flames of War that I have plunged back into WWII miniatures after a 25 year break. Formerly I was all HO scale Airfix men and ROCO vehicles (1/87 scale). While Battlefront's FOW 15mm scale is a bit smaller than HO, I don't have any HO to compare it with anymore, and so seeing all the units sitting here it really looks similar to me. Even the colour of the vehicle plastic, at least for the Germans, looks the same as ROCO as well. At any rate, I am planning a mass spray painting and further detailing of the vehicles and troops, so I will be well and truly stuck into here, for a few weeks at least!  Very Happy

Cheers,

Admiral Woodside

       Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WaS Clubhouse
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum