This rule was actually changed from the way it was in Revised in order to prevent air units from getting an extra movement. In Revised, when a carrier was mobilized fighters were allowed to be moved from the territory containing the IC onto the carrier. Under that rule, a fighter could move from New South Wales and attack Japanese-held Western Australia, then fly back to New South Wales in noncombat movement, then be moved onto a new carrier in sea zone 62 in the Mobilize New Units phase, resulting in five spaces of movement.
Carriers
-
I like that idea, 2 hits but planes can’t land until repairs are made. This keep people from using it as a free hit like people do with battleships. I like that idea a lot, still forces you to try and keep your carrier out of harm’s way, but if it the only thing left and manages to get out of battle with damage, all you need are repairs and new planes to make it a killing machine again. Makes sense to me.
-
Thats why the defense should not be lowered. If you are defending and manage to keep it alive with no fighters to protect it you could be attacked again before you can limp it back to port on your turn. Now just because you can’t put your planes back on the carrier in this game, it doesn’t mean it has no defenses. It could still have some air units that would launch even if they are not shown.
-
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.
-
I think you lower the defense, this stresses to have battle groups and patrol ships, no more lone carriers wandering around, that just is not accurate. Carriers always had either destroyers or cruisers or even battleships to defend them, I think lowering the defense makes people have to play more accurately or they will be punished like real life if you leave an expensive piece naked out in the open, I think that was the idea Larry had in making you have to go back to a friendly port for repairs, you can’t clog up the entire ocean by having one unit in each seazone, massing units is the best way to keep them alive, and allows other groups to try and out maneuver each other, thus the real cat and mouse game played in the oceans can really begin!
-
Just think of all the changes you are looking to do for carriers all together.
1)Increase the cost to 17 or 18 ipc
2)Lower its def value to 1 (some are calling for 0)
3)Stop its ability to land planes on it if its damaged (per Larry) which also lowers is ability to def itself and the fleet even more.
4)Giving it 2 hits w/strings attachedAt this point I’m not sure carriers are a good buy (thats why they lowered them in AA50). I could maybe go for have it def at 2 normally, and reduce its def value in half (1) if it is damaged (along with similar changes to the BB). I would also like to Larry allow you to land one air unit on a damaged carrier (don’t know if this is etched in stone yet).
All I’m saying is that if you are at sea and are attacked. Would you absorb a hit w/carrier knowing that it could cost you a plane or 2 or maybe more. This would also reduce the def of the entire fleet as I normally like to build a diversified fleet. Remember you will have other enemies that could 1-2 punch you before you can rebuild/repair.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Pacific sounds awesome! did larry actually SAY what the new carrier price would be though?
-
From what I understand it will stay the price it was in AA50.
-
@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: :-Dsorry, couldn’t resist…
-
@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: :-Dsorry, couldn’t resist…
ROFL!
-
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 17like 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 -
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.
-
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 hitVeqryn
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? -
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.
-
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.
-
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……
-
Yeah…from what I heard you cant deploy planes on a carrier anymore you have to start them out from an airfeild.
-
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.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
