Carriers

[maverick_76]

I forgot that the price was raised on carriers, price is going to be dependent on what exactly the incomes are for the nations in the game, that can be ironed out later. But classically carriers should have little defense without planes, so I do think it would be correct to make them defend at one as well as attack at one. Planes are the carrier’s strength, play to that by having to sacrifice your planes before your carrier because if it does take a hit I think they should not land. It makes it also imperative then to control islands in the pacific and make airbases for the planes that are in distress to land. Think about it, that is why the US systematically took out one island after another, because you need them  to land planes and for repair yards for ships and supply lines. This would force the player to attack islands and not just skip the ones with no IPC value, in real war that makes no sense.

[Imperious Leader]

Larry did say a damaged carrier cant land planes.

1-2-2-14 seems right. I like the idea of how damaged carriers cant receive planes till repaired. Thats why the price cant really go up to anything greater than 15.

But i wish they kept the old idea of Tac bombers getting a 4 in first round against naval. That is a nifty rule.

So now what people will do is have each carrier with 1 fighter and 1 tac bomber. This will be the new norm for outfitting the carrier.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Pacific sounds awesome! did larry actually SAY what the new carrier price would be though?

[maverick_76]

From what I understand it will stay the price it was in AA50.

[LuckyDay]

@Brain:

I am starting to warm up to your idea. I didn’t know that the planes couldn’t land after 1 hit. I kind of like that.

just for clarity, they can’t land after 2 hits either!
:-o :roll: :-D

sorry, couldn’t resist…

[maverick_76]

@LuckyDay:

@Brain:

I am starting to warm up to your idea. I didn’t know that the planes couldn’t land after 1 hit. I kind of like that.

just for clarity, they can’t land after 2 hits either!
:-o :roll: :-D

sorry, couldn’t resist…

ROFL!

[Veqryn]

well, 14 or 15 ipcs is even better in my mind, so i agree with that IL,
i just think that Larry won’t do it, since he has said it will cost 18, have 2 hitpoints, can’t land planes if hit (he has not yet said it will be a 1-2 or 2-2 or 1-1 or 1-3 unit), so I was hedging my bets and asking for a drop to 17

like i’ve said before, and I’m not sure anyone is reading this, is that super-stacks-standoff is bad gameplay, and we need to forget about historical stats for the carriers and start looking at what creates better gameplay

1-1-2-17 or 2-2-2-17 or 0-0-2-15 or something along these lines would create better gameplay by limiting its defensive rolls in relation to the offensive power it brings

the only way we are going to get rid of super-stack-standoff is if we increase the offensive capabilities of the navies:
this means Carriers should not go up to 18 ipcs (that lowers the incentive to buy Carriers + 2 aircraft)
make carriers defensive rolls no larger than its offensive rolls
make Tac bombers / fighter-bombers a 4-3-4-11 unit that does not require a friendly fighter present to get its 4 offense

[Imperious Leader]

and I’m not sure anyone is reading this

I read this and i am sure about 15 others are as well. You would be surprised.

I think if you make the carrier at 18, with a 10 fighter and 11 Tac bomber… the cost of these three may tip the balance to other naval combination’s. This is a hike of 5 basis points and your attack is the same because the carrier dropped to Zero. Your spending 5 extra IPC to get one hit that is really an “emergency hit” because one hit makes the carrier useless, so its not really a benefit. I would make a house rule that the planes can fly more than one space away to save themselves in order to make use of the so called “free hit”. Since thats not the case in OOB i can’t see the carrier moving up in cost.

[WILD BILL]

@Veqryn:

well, 14 or 15 ipcs is even better in my mind, so i agree with that IL,
i just think that Larry won’t do it, since he has said it will cost 18, have 2 hitpoints, can’t land planes if hit

Veqryn
When did Larry say the cost of a carrier is going to $18. I don’t remember seeing it in his posts. I have even done a search.
Can anyone clear this up for me.  :?
Krieg?

[maverick_76]

I’m still liking the 1-1-2-(whatever the cost will be). And if the game is played accurately, then super stacks should not happen, with the game board being very large there should be lots of room to maneuver so if all of your eggs are in one basket the enemy will find it quite easy to outflank you with smaller groups. But there should be groups of naval units because one carrier all by itself without planes (even with planes!) should be suicide, in past games that was ok because at three or less you were going to at least take one of the opponent’s units with you. I just want to see the best strategy being used for best gameplay as well, which is using naval groups or task forces but super stacking should be made obsolete by the size of the board. What I meant earlier by massing units for example is like having a carrier with planes and two destroyers or a battleship, two carriers and two submarines, not 8 subs, 7 destroyers and 3 carriers fully stocked! Again though, the size of the board should negate super stacks, at least for AAP40. And AAE40 should not happen either because of the need for most units to be land based units.

[dinosaur]

I think the nature of naval combat is going to steer towards stacks.  There were reasons task groups were spread out historically, but these reasons can not be captured on a game where everyone sees all the pieces.  In naval warfare, you have to avoid the decisive engagement that can go against you.  One way to do this is to make sure you have the biggest dog on the block.

[Andy_Dandy]

You all forget an important point about why the carriers really should cost 18. Remember that airports are introduced, making floating and mobile airports even more powerful and useful. Do you want to build a static airport, or are the money better invested in a floating one? All the choices we get. :)

And one more thing; I hope and think indeed the Germany 1st turn carrier build isn’t a good idea anymore……

[idk_iam_swiss]

Yeah…from what I heard you cant deploy planes on a carrier anymore you have to start them out from an airfeild.

[maverick_76]

With the new size of the Pacific map it will be impossible to cover every part of the gameboard with one huge force, the size will force battlegroups instead of one giant stack.

[WILD BILL]

@Andy_Dandy:

You all forget an important point about why the carriers really should cost 18. Remember that airports are introduced, making floating and mobile airports even more powerful and useful. Do you want to build a static airport, or are the money better invested in a floating one? All the choices we get. :)

Andy I would think the other way on this. An island with an airbase and a port will be a powerful weapon. You will be able to have multiple air units and many more of them. You also won’t have to worry about where to land because you got dinged. It will also def your fleet just like it was a carrier. All the def capabilities of these island bases are still not known. I just remember in revised when America got the island bases NA it was pretty cool, and it didn’t have any of this other stuff. Don’t get me wrong I will still buy carriers, for mobility, but I wouldn’t think that should raise the price because they could always move. If anything the second hit that it gets is going to cause it to lose some of its mobility as it will be running back to port all the time.

[Guest]

How could running back to port be worse than being sunk?

[WILD BILL]

I also think that the island base unfortunately may promote super stacks. Think about it. Japan starts toward the US with a rather large fleet. The US has a medium size fleet it moves to Hawaii. Japan also brings in a secondary fleet to help from the Solomons. The US builds 3 or 4 fighters on west coast. Japan inches closer for the kill. US flies its fighters to Hawaii (island base) Now your at a stand off as neither power has an advantage. Before you had to have multiple carriers to protect your fleet, now you can just move to safety and bring in more planes. I don’t know does an air base have a limit to how many air units it can hold. Its just like trying to take Moscow and those damn Brits keep flying fighters over.

[Guest]

What advantage does an airbase give you in the game? We were already allowed to land anywhere.

[WILD BILL]

@Brain:

How could running back to port be worse than being sunk?

I didn’t say it would be worse then getting sunk. I’m saying if you choose to take the hit it will limit your defenses and most likely force you to retreat. This would surely hamper your mobility. It could also cost you plane.
@Brain:

What advantage does an airbase give you in the game? We were already allowed to land anywhere.

Now if you land on an island w/airbase any of the ftr & tac bmr on that island can def the surrounding sz just like they were on a carrier.

[Guest]

Thanks for the answer on the airbase a +1 to you.

But a mobility problem is better than no ship because it is sunk.