With the ability to carry 3 aircraft on a Japaneese Fleet Carrier, it gives it a very good reason to build at the printed cost, besides the Japaneese Carriers carried more planes 80-90 as opposed the the US 60-70
Actually, you pretty much have it backwards. Ship-for-ship US CV’s carried more aircraft than their Japanese counterparts – in most cases, considerably more aircraft. Japanese CV’s and their nominal complements:
Shokaku 84
Zuikaku 84
Akagi 91
Kaga 90
Hiryu 73
Soryu 71
Taiho 60
Hiyo 53
Junyo 53
Shinano 45-55
Unryu 65
This data is from
www.combinedfleet.com, which is about as solid a source as you’ll ever find. Note that the aircraft totals above include spares. The Kaga, for example, actually only operated 72 planes; the rest were spares in various states of disassembly to replace combat losses.
Compare that to the aircraft capacities of the US carriers:
Essex-class 90-100
Yorktown-class 90
Lexington-class 91
Only 4 of the pre-war Japanese carriers had an air group equaling or approaching the size of those on US CV’s; the later war builds carried considerably fewer planes than US CV’s. Compounding the issue is the fact that Japanese logistics weren’t anywhere near as good as the US’s. Japanese carriers frequently operated below their organizational strength due to shortages of aircraft and pilots. This was a factor at Midway (along with many other things of course). The point is made in the book “Shattered Sword” that going into the battle, in spite of Japan having one more CV than the US the two sides were about equal in the number of carrier planes they could deploy.
As to making them cheaper than the US carriers – I was originally in that camp. After playing the game the past couple of years I changed my mind, for two reasons.
It took about the same resources for each country to build each of their CV’s. However, Japanese carriers were never as well-built as US CV’s. Their vital areas were not as well protected, their damage control procedures were not as good, and AA protection wasn’t as good. As an example, the US used steel piping for their water mains for firefighting; the Japanese used cast iron which was cheaper. When US carriers took a hit they usually kept water pressure – the Japanese learned the hard way that the shock from a bomb hit tended to shatter their cast iron water mains. As I said, though, it cost Japan the same amount of resources to build lesser designs as it did the US. This leads me to the next point…
As US tension levels increase, Japan usually begins to feel the economic pressure in the game, just as they did historically. In my opinion, any changes made to the game should emphasize that rather than give any relief from it. Japan can already do many more things in the game than they could have historically. My experience has been that if both sides push carrier construction prior to war, they usually end up about equal in CV and aircraft strength, which is about where they were historically.
Looking at the real-life data, there isn’t any basis for giving Japanese CV’s larger air groups than the US; if anything, the opposite should be done.
If you really want an equalizer, something that’s in the advanced house rules we’re working on is that when Japan goes to war with the Western Allies their fighters get a -1 modifier to their die roll and the WA get a +1 until the WA successfully gain Advanced Air Tactics.. Every turn AFTER the turn the WA go to war with Japan they roll a D-12. Initially the WA must roll a “1” or less. The number to roll or less goes up by one each turn; additionally, the WA get a -1 modifier to the die roll for every Japanese fighter shot down by a WA fighter (this modifier carries over every turn, so shooting down three Japanese fighters would mean a permanent -3 die roll modifier). When they roll less than the required number the WA have gained AAT and Japan no longer has their combat modifier for the remainder of the game. NOTE – If trying this rule it replaces the “Pearl Harbor” rule for aircraft units – Japanese fighters do NOT get both modifiers.
The intent of this is to give the Japanese the qualitative edge they had for the opening months at war – an edge that they gradually lost through combat losses and the development of superior fighter designs by the Allies.
We have not playtested this yet – too busy painting aircraft. But comments are welcome.
