Carriers

[Veqryn]

Previously, Carriers cost 14 and where a 1/2/2/14 unit that could carry two fighters
Now Carriers cost 18, take two hits, and I’m assuming are a 1/2/2/18 unit (with 2 hp) that can carry two fighter-type units

previously if you wished to go on the offensive, you would purchase a combination of submarines, carriers, and a full compliment of fighters for those carriers.
generally, you would attack with the subs and fighters (and perhaps other boats you started with), while leaving behind your valuable carriers)

now that carriers cost 4 more, and their extra hit point will not help on the offensive because you don’t attack with it, does this mean that the pacific just got even more defense oriented than it already was?
fighters and carriers both defend at better values than the attack with, and submarines project a proactive defense of 2 spaces away……

here are my two cents:

make the new carriers a 1/1/2/17 unit (with 2 hp) able to carry 2 fighter type units
remove the requirement that fighter-bombers be accompanied by a fighter or tank to get their full 4 attack power
optionally:
and add escort carriers as a 0/0/2/9 unit (with 1 hp) able to carry just 1 fighter type unit
and make fighters cost 9
and fighter-bombers cost 10 and be a 4/3/4/10 unit, with no silly requirement to have a tank or normal fighter present to be that 4 attack (the extra cost by 1 ipc is enough of a nerf, don’t make me split my airforce in funny ways too)
[and as a side note, i think cruisers should remain at 12 ipcs, a 3/3/2/12 unit, without AA gun ability, but as a slight and small enough boost, they could either shore bombard at 4 instead of 3, OR they could be allowed to have their casualty shot when sunk by submarines, which would not be full anti sub capabilities, but just enough to make them worth their full 12]

that should spice up the pacific and make it less about large standoff fleets that never attack each other.
and it will provide the designers more options for representing the prewar navies
and the changes, especially the first two, are small and subtle enough to not require drastic changes in strategies

[Andy_Dandy]

I don’t think the superstack tactics will work as well anymore anyways due to the extra seazones and larger map. Guess you still will have a main fleet, but you’ll also need smaller fleet groups for efficiant island jumping, coastal invasions and convoy raiding.

But still some good thoughts there….

[Guest]

3 cheers to the end of super stacking

[Upside-down_Turtle]

Carriers should be a 0-1-2-14 unit, take 2 hits to destroy.

[Veqryn]

the point is to make the offensive and defense the same number since the 2 hits thing contributes SO much to defense already

[maverick_76]

1-1-2-18 with two HPs is good.

[Adlertag]

@maverick_76:

1-1-2-18 with two HPs is good.

spot on dude  :-)

[Guest]

@maverick_76:

1-1-2-18 with two HPs is good.

Any historic reason for why a carrier would take 2 hits to destroy? Were they built better than a destroyer or cruiser or is just you don’t want to lose your investment? They already can have up to 2 fighters aiding in their defense and you want more? I am not for this at all.

[Adlertag]

@Brain:

Any historic reason for why a carrier would take 2 hits to destroy? Were they built better than a destroyer or cruiser or is just you don’t want to lose your investment? They already can have up to 2 fighters aiding in their defense and you want more? I am not for this at all.

Well, the cruisers and destroyers had to move in close to the enemy, and then they were vulnerable to counter-fire. The carriers could stay safe in the rear miles away from the action, and send their planes to do the job.

[Guest]

@Adlertag:

@Brain:

Any historic reason for why a carrier would take 2 hits to destroy? Were they built better than a destroyer or cruiser or is just you don’t want to lose your investment? They already can have up to 2 fighters aiding in their defense and you want more? I am not for this at all.

Well, the cruisers and destroyers had to move in close to the enemy, and then they were vulnerable to counter-fire. The carriers could stay safe in the rear miles away from the action, and send their planes to do the job.

That is my point you already have to kill the foghters before you can even get to the aircraft carrier.
Once the fighters are gone, then the carrier is a sitting duck and is not worthy of 2 hits.

[idk_iam_swiss]

I think that its fine. Seriously…I dont think anyone will be able to AFFORD carriers in this game! You do realize that anzac only makes 9 IPC. America, and britian dont make that much either. Its fine considering their new cost. If anything it makes me think MORE offensively instead of deffensively. Do I want a carrie at 18? with no attack. then I will have to buy at least one plane. OR do I want a battleship for 20? That has superior firepower.

[Guest]

The aircraft carrier’s sole purpose is to move planes in closer to the target. And the game already allows this.

[Veqryn]

I am purely against Super-Stack Standoff.  (SSS for short), which I feel makes for bad gameplay regardless of whether it is historical or not.

[maverick_76]

Carriers were actually built tough. If you think about it the ship is a floating road, these things have to withstand planes crashing on them. I think to make it even is lowering the defense of the carriers from three to one yet allowing 2 hits to sink, granted they were not as tough as battleships but they could definitely take a licking. Plus if they cost 18 and have no defense ability then 2 HPs are useful to protect your investment as well. I think a marriage of historical accuracy and better game playability is needed in this case, and 1-1-2-18 seems good to me.

[Veqryn]

I’m for 1-1-2-17 with 2 hitpoints.  I feel 18 ipcs is too expensive and may cause more purchases of warships even though Aircraft should be the main thing being purchased as navy.

[Guest]

The foghters already give them more defense than any other ship.

[maverick_76]

@Brain:

The foghters already give them more defense than any other ship.

There is a reason why Aircraft carriers are the new flagship of navies and the battleship isn’t anymore. I think the Japanese Learned that the hard way when their Battleships, the Musashi and Yamoto, with 18 inch guns (world’s biggest at the time) were sunk by carrier groups with planes. That was when the world realized that carriers were the new ass kickers of the ocean.

[Guest]

And that was because of the planes not the ship.

[maverick_76]

Yeah and to reflect that we want to see the defense of the carrier lowered to a one from three, because without planes the carrier is pretty defenseless. It doesn’t mean that it still can’t take a beating though.

[WILD BILL]

First off has it been confirmed that the cost of a carrier is going up. If so I must have missed that post. Could someone clarify.

Before you discuss lowering the def of a carrier keep in mind that if you take a hit with your carrier you can’t land your planes back on it, unless your at or can move to a port for repairs. That I know was confirmed. If your defending you wont be able to move your carrier so its possible that you could lose your planes even if they survive (no place to land). A carrier able to take 2 hits will be bitter/sweet.