[Consim-l] CV Session Report

[Mike NotSpecified]

Ergonomics of CV (and I think Flat Top will be about the same, playing now) 
are pretty good.  Both games include a large pad of paper with the hours 
running down the left margin and columns for each air formation.  If you 
launch a strike of Dauntless (endurance 6) and Devastators (endurance 5) at 
0700, you make an X in the 0700 row, a D in 1300 row and a T in the 1200 row. 
 That represents the hour those planes will run out of fuel.  Planes spend 
extra fuel in combat, so you may have to erase the D and T and move them up an 
hour.  Its actually very easy.

Ships are plotted on paper maps.  Observed ships and plane formations move on 
the main board, otherwise things are secret.  In a true double blind game 
(with umpire) even the weather could be revealed only if you have a ship or 
plane in postion to observe.  I suspect that would be quite a time commitment, 
but also suspect it would be great fun.  Would love to try it some day.

Thanks for reading!


On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:16:15 +0200
  "Mircea Pauca" <mircea.pauca at gmail.com> wrote:
> ["Mike NotSpecified"] 
>> BGG has published my session report on CV if anyone is interested.
>> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1245400#1245400
> 
>    I've followed the replay with great interest.
> 
>    First, I appreciate this more detailed system highlighting
> 1h timing of flights, but wonder how 'ergonomic' is it in play ? 
> for instance, fuel left for each air unit is marked on a roster ?
>    Was this system applied to South Pacific carrier actions too ?
> 
>    (The most 'compact' system still having some decisive air
> timing detail- 3.5h, is Markus Stumptner's "Solomon Sea")
> 
>    Funny detail, how that carrier was running away from BB
> Yamato, and could not launch planes due to wind direction...
> 
>    Another question, now on historical doctrine:
> was it relevant for Japanese (or other amphibious powers)
> to have completely dedicated Carrier, Bombardment and 
> Landing task forces ? wouldn't have been better for ships
> to join and detach as needed, for more mutual protection ?
> 
>    Also, a game like "Fire in the Sky" separates completely
> surface ships for Sea Control and those for Ground Support,
> not to mention those attached to carriers are useless as guns
> (relevant only as AA fire, and DD against submarines).
> 
>    I understand some physical limitations:
> - Carriers cannot go close to shore, and must sail at some
> speed and direction relative to wind for plane landings.
> - Civilian transport ships much slower
> 
>    Or maybe US Navy was more flexible, only Japan had 
> those fixed formations ?
> 
>   Thank you for thinking about this,
>    Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania