Author Topic: "Reserve" Squadrons for Rangoon '42 (Read 1012 times)

DoKGonZo · « **on:** August 25, 2004, 12:24:57 PM »

I've been pondering an idea to reduce the risk of players having to stand-down as a result of in-flight losses. See what you think:

Each side has one reserve squadron. For the IJA, it's 9 D3A Val dive-bombers. For the Allies, it'd be 6 SBD's acting as "Brewster Buffalo"s ... no gunners. If and only if there are not enough available planes in the front line squadrons, excess players who would otherwise not be able to fly (i.e. not standbys) could have the option of either gunning a front-line bomber or driving one of the reserve squadron planes.

The reserve squadron would be subject to the same replacement rules as every other. So if you get all your Val's wiped out, well that's tough cheese - you need to rebuild it mission by mission with repaired planes.

Kind of weird ... but could keep things interesting.

I also contemplated using Yak-9T's as P39's ... except the Yak is just too damn fast.

jordi · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2004, 04:55:57 PM »

I think if you are going to use attrition and reserves ALL pilots who are forced out of thier plane should get a chance to FLY something the following frame. Now they can choose to gun - but they should nto be FORCED to gun.

Most people who sign up are signing up to fly - something - each and every frame.

Now you make them aware that if they do something stupid and lose thier plane they may not get that hot ride the next frame - but they will get something. And if they want that HOT ride they better bring thier plane back in 1 piece !

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2004, 06:07:50 PM »

OK ... I'll tweak things some more ... I can just picture 24 SBD's attacking a like number of Vals ... yikes.

-- edit --

I'm adding in the reserve aircraft rules. I test flew the Val and SBD and while they do indeed suck, they aren't that far off in terms of speed, turn rate, armor, and firepower from the Ki-27 and Buffalo. They're obviously far less effective that the front-line ships, so if you take serious losses your combat effectiveness will suffer a lot flying these second line ships. But if a couple of Vals can corner a Hurri or Spit down low, they can certainly kill it. Likewise an SBD could down a M2 Zero if give half a chance.

I do prefer this to making people sit out missions.

jordi · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2004, 10:32:25 PM »

Not saying you shouldn't do it your way.

Just saying it has not been done that way - so people may be caught off guard if they show up for frame #2 and told they can't fly because xxxxx

No matter how loud and long you tell people to read the rules - it seems most ( but probably not that many ) do not really READ the rules.

Just giving you an FYI. For most people change is GOOD - or alteast it is a change - just the loud vocal minority will squeal the loudest.

HUN · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2004, 12:14:04 AM »

I'd take an SBD over a spit1 or hurr1 any time...

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2004, 12:19:12 AM »

Nah ... it's cool ... the idea hit me as I was reading stuff on the actual battle and it just seemed "right" to have something with fixed landing gear acting as a fighter and something equally crappy trying to shoot it down.

The important thing is that if you throw away the 1st line rides, your fighting effectiveness drops severely. An SBD may be preferable in ways to a Spit I - but it's gonna have a tougher time intercepting and downing bombers.

There could be some very funny and entertaining mass SBD v. Val fights by the end of this one. Just thinking of the suffering and cussing from people flying these beasts made me smile ear to ear.

I'll have the revised write up posted by week's end.