Carrier Battle Philippine Sea - Scenario 1

[@chrisschall5834]

Good stuff. Nice to see this getting out to players. You cannot combine Air missions. Per 4.37 and 4.51 you would make the air attacks on the Japanese strike individually. Also, Air Mission 1 could have contributed to (1) attack on the Japanese forces. See page 14. The word immediately is confusing but it would be landed after the attack. I play out the attacks on the map. I transfer the Japanese air points and US forces in that single combat to the map so I can see fighter vs fighter, etc. Not needed, but really works for me. Adds immersion I suppose. I also "point" the air strike counters in the direction of travel. Not needed but it does help keep things clear--this is especially useful when many forces are on the map and you have search a/c out, etc.

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

Thanks for the reply! It looks like I did get 4.51 wrong, the Japanese would have had more opportunity to return fire against each Intercept Mission. As for Air Mission 1, I read the 'US Fuel' special rule to Scenario 1 as requiring the mission to have at least 1 fuel or be immediately removed from play on it reaching zero. I like your idea of playing out the air attacks on the map. I think I may have to create a battle board just for that purpose.

[@chrisschall5834]

@@MyOwnWorstEnemy yeah, not as critical in this early scenario. In later scenarios, the fuel usage is a real killer-literally, you will lose a lot of a/c to ditching and crashing. Neat idea creating a battle board.

[@climbmd]

@@MyOwnWorstEnemy when I showcase this in an AAR for my playgroup, I plan on breaking out my Check Your Six! minis to recreate the air-to-air tangle (probably sometime this weekend)

[@kaufmadsce]

I agree that Air Mission 1 could have attacked. They had three fuel points to burn before being removed and it costs three to attack, so they would be removed right after the attack.

[@kurtiseschofield]

Just got my copy of the game today. This is exactly the replay that I need. I am anxiously awaiting the next turn. Great job!

[@carsons5750]

Thanks for showing us the game, it’s gone from not being on my radar at all to near the top of my purchase list. Hope you’ll show us a few bigger missions as you get things figured out!

[@TomMcCarthy-jp4zg]

Thank you for this video. I just started learning the rules a few days ago and seeing a playthrough really helps.

[@joeperez3520]

You need to keep track of enemy planes shot down so that you can keep track of what the total air strength of the enemy force is/was, which will determine how many carriers that enemy force has when the Intelligence Level for that force is high enough to tell you its exact composition.

[@bkk6211]

Waiting for my copy to arrive so this was a welcome surprise!

[@richarddefortuna2252]

Me, too. Thank you for the playthrough!

[@lesliedavis775]

Thanks, I appreciate the time you took to make this video. I f found it much easier to understand the game from watching your video than trying to follow the example of play in the Playbook. I'm looking forward to more playthroughs of the Philippine Sea scenarios from you.

[@climbmd]

I, also, just got my game today. When I unboxed, I got a little overwhelmed by everything within. This was *perfect* for breaking down the first scenario with some of the rules needed. Looking forward to the next ones.

[@alanellis9205]

Thanks for this video! Very helpful in getting this first part sorted out.

[@kevinalbertina136]

I'm thinking about buying it. Thanks for the video. It helps me get a feel for it.

[@StevetheNPC1337]

I think you have convinced me that I need to buy this before it disappears!

[@Tombonzo]

Perfect Timing, Just got my copy!! And yes, this is a great idea…. A learn along play through!!

[@davidwarren3221]

Thanks for the Playthrough, Am learning along with you...greatly appreciated

[@chuckparrott8245]

Great playthrough but I did catch a couple of things. Around 26:33 mark, you ended up adjusting Intercept 1's fuel twice and didn't reduce Intercept 2. Also in the final intercept phase I thought if you spent fuel for dogfighting, even if it took you below 0 fuel, you could still engage and then remove the intercept markers per the special scenario rules. Don't have my playbook/scenario book handy to verify. Still very well done to get the overall scenario idea on how to do air movement and engage in air to air combat.

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

Yes, the way the special scenario rule for US Fuel is written sounds to me like it fuel reaches 0, then remove. I think the consensus is that it would be allowed to make the attack first. As for the adjusting fuel twice for Intercept 1, that's just me trying to do too many things at once. 😛

[@dbd31463]

@@MyOwnWorstEnemy The wording is a little funny on the US fuel special rule. The first sentence says to remove immediately when reaching 0, then later in the sentence it says you can engage if only having 1 or 2 fuel left then remove after combat. I follow the latter part of the sentence.

[@bgm-1961]

Hmm... During the 26 min mark, when Air Mission Groups 1 and 3 turned around to head back East to chase the Japanese Air Raid group... well, that just seems wrong. All my book/movie/gaming /academic knowledge of how air intercepts work informs me that once an attacking formation makes it through an intercepting formation, the intercepting formation is then: 1) Too scattered to reform in time so to have any further effect 2) And even if they could reform, would almost always never be able to chase down and catch up to the attacking formation So, I wonder why the game allows for those two intercepting groups to turn around and meet the attacking group again over the target hex? I don't know of any time that actually happened in real life. But then again, I'm not a bonafide expert on the matter either. It just seems wrong, is all. Anyway, this was an EXCELLENT video! You have a new subscriber!

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

My guess is that this is just an abstraction of the game we are seeing. I'm not sure the intercept missions are really turning around and giving chase but are indeed expending fuel. But I could be wrong about that. Welcome to the channel!

[@chrisschall5834]

This game does not have detailed air combat. There are some abstractions. This game is also turn based. when the Jap air raid moves, the US squadrons are also moving but you wait until the appropriate turn phase to move them. So, they are actually moving along and the air battle is advancing toward the TF.

[@radioj77]

Thanks for scenario 1! Looking forward to scenario 2! I agree with you on the terminology! Kind of confusing! But liking the game so far!

[@chrisschall5834]

I love Aegis counter trays. Nice to see they fit in one tray.

[@chrisschall5834]

update to myself for some venting. They (of course) do not fit in one tray--i use two. This is my biggest peeve of this otherwise excellent title. The counter printing management decisions are atrocious with this game. Two many wasted back printing opportunities. All of the damage counters are backprinted --but with the same number!!! Many counters are blank on the back when they could have used back printing. This could have saved tremendous counter space. Rant off.

[@progfict]

Great stuff....keep it going.

[@johnsy4306]

Also each intercept mission attacks on its own, you don't combine them together

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

Correct!

[@Jimo1956]

Thanks for uploading the playthrough. Was even fun watching. Well explained. Still waiting for my copy here in Germany. Guess it will show up in the next 2-3 weeks. I like what I'm seeing (also having the original Avalon Hill "Carrier"). They are doing a good job with the introductory "learning scenarios." Good that you mention how you "learn" the game. I pretty much always do it the same way. Follow the recommendations to use the learning scenarios, read the respective rules overview, don't bother about the rest, use the board and components, while setting up etc. LEARNING BY DOING: Oh, and then I mark and highlight the read text. If I'm unsure or don't understand a rule/text, I make a note and get it clarified later. And then game. One doesn't need a PhD to learn or play this game. Rubbish. Not a Masters either. How to eat an elephant? Bit by bit. Many gamers make the big mistake and try to read all of the rules in one go. Quickly give up because they obviously don't remember/undesrand everthing. Rome wasn't built in a day. One learns a game. Takes time. With experience one picks up rules/ games faster in the future.

[@ScottPalmer-mp1we]

The terminology used in the rules/Scenario is bothersome with regard to Japanese planes. The rule book (4.52) refers to escorts and strike planes. The scenario calls them fighters and strike planes under Japanese Setup. This is a great game, but things like what I cited hinder a person learning how to play.

[@eugeniomariopazielli8478]

This first scenario illustrates very hasty mechanics, maybe because it's introductory, I hope. Is fighter combat at squadron level? if I'm not mistaken (8-12 units per marker), I hope it's more detailed in the full game. And finally, why does the imperial navy never consume fuel, did they have seed oil vehicles??? Some things baffle me maybe everything fixes in the full game. Thank's for this video

[@chrisschall5834]

This is not a detailed air combat game. You only know about fuel the US air units consume. You know nothing about the enemy forces--until you search and engage them. The US admiral in charge would not know or care about Japanese fuel levels. Only that they are inbound so get ready for action.

[@eugeniomariopazielli8478]

@@chrisschall5834 I get it, the game is all about American operations. Ok, I pre-ordered it, can't wait.

[@johnsy4306]

When the Japanese attacked the US fighters, shouldn't they have taken a -1 DRM also? Also, I suggest you use the zoom feature on your camera. Very difficult to see the counters from such a long distance.

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

The Japanese Air-To-Air Comat Table does not have the '-1 Target is Fighter' modifier listed. On some videos I do bring in a second 'close-up' camera. I like to have the main camera show everything to help people learn the game. I probably should use that second camera more. Thanks for the feedback! 🙂

[@radioj77]

Scenario #2 doesn't work very well with 13 fuel points! Along with 6 critical fuel points, the 7th is elimination, gives you 19 fuel points. It's 17 hexes to carriers and back at one point per hex. It's one point for attack and one for landing which equals 19. If you spend 3pts to move your 2 hexes via the fuel expenditure chart one time your not getting back to your US carriers. Or if you have to roll a second die for contact, your not getting back to your carriers. If you do get back, using the safe return chart, your chances of a safe landing are about 10% or less. I had one plane land safely out of all 19 that flew the air strike. I did sink two Japanese carriers though! I apologize for getting ahead of your video, but curious if you have had the same issue, or am I missing something? 🤔

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

As I understand it, Scenario 2 is based on an actual battle. I don't think your results are too far off of the actual outcome. 🙃

[@vstar7196]

Not interested in this game. The U.S. fleet vastly outnumbered the Japanese fleet in aircraft and ships. The actual battle was never in doubt even after Halsey screwed up. A game recreating a one sided battle is pointless.

[@MyOwnWorstEnemy]

Well, that's why I still haven't bought White Dog Game's Pickett's Charge.

[@stephenfliss8834]

Fair enough, but you're confusing this battle with the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Spruance was in overall command at the Philippine Sea. Although the deck was stacked against the Japanese, their naval and land-based air assets had some chance of upsetting the US capture of the Marianas if Spruance and Mitscher erred in their decisions and the Japanese succeeded in coordinating their naval and land-based airstrikes. I'm finding this game an interesting study of USN naval air operations circa mid-1944. Jon Southard's Carrier is definitely a greater challenge.

[@john-lenin]

04:00