HBG Light Aircraft Carriers.

[toblerone77]

So what are people’s thoughts on implementing the light carriers from HBG into the D6 mechanics of A&A?

I’m thinking A0 D1 M2 C9 carries one fighter or tactical bomber. Same rules as fleet carrier apply except capacity and absorbs only one hit.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

So what are people’s thoughts on implementing the light carriers from HBG into the D6 mechanics of A&A?

I’m thinking A0 D1 M2 C9 carries one fighter or tactical bomber. Same rules as fleet carrier apply except capacity and absorbs only one hit.� �

They were used as escort and protection ship. They should be AntiSubWeap and 10 IPCs. A1D1M2
Or A1D2M2 12 IPCs Under 1942. For Global A0D1M2C10 ASW. So the only fighter can do patrol mission against Sub.
And it would make more sense to match them with Fleet Carrier for protecting them.

Discussion open on the ASW…

[toblerone77]

I’m thinking more like “cheap carrier”. One IPC (9 total) over the half price of a regular fleet carrier, otherwise you may as well just buy a fleet carrier. As far as ASW I’m thinking that it should have destroyer-like abilities only when paired with a tactical bomber.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

I’m thinking more like “cheap carrier”. One IPC (9 total) over the half price of a regular fleet carrier, otherwise you may as well just buy a fleet carrier. As far as ASW I’m thinking that it should have destroyer-like abilities only when paired with a tactical bomber.

So if we stay in Global,
CVE : A0D1C9, 1 hit, carry1 plane, become ASW when paired with a TacB.
vs
CV A0D2C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes.

And from an historical point of view,
are you sure Fg have no attack capabilities against Subs, even non-submerge one?
I find this more simple to give ASW to the CVE, whether Fg or Tac inboard.
Besides, it is a less powerful ASW than DD because it has only @1. Their real strentgh still lies in the plane.

[toblerone77]

ASW is probably fine with just a fighter or none at all. I’m not looking to make another destroyer in my game. My primary desire with this is a cheap alternative to fleet carriers no matter which edition we’re talking about. You could give it general ASW abilities but they don’t necessarily need to be overly strong. Cancelling sub advantages in general would be fine in and of itself.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

ASW is probably fine with just a fighter or none at all. I’m not looking to make another destroyer in my game. My primary desire with this is a cheap alternative to fleet carriers no matter which edition we’re talking about. You could give it general ASW abilities but they don’t necessarily need to be overly strong. Cancelling sub advantages in general would be fine in and of itself.

This unit you are looking for can be a A0D0M1C8 and carry one unit. That’s all.
But this kind of unit was a converted cargo ship with ASW on board and a small flight of aircraft to protect merchant marine’s ship against subs.
Thus wasn’t made to protect warships.

Making a half aircraft carrier could be as you said A0D1M2C9 but I think it is a more versatile and interesting unit if you give both capacity: ASW and carry 1 aircraft. They really had both roles during WWII.

In 1942.2 can be **CVE A1D1M2C9-10, 1 hit carry 1 Fg and has ASW  ** vs CV A1D2M2C14 1 hit, carry 2 Fgs.
CVE under 9 IPCs, it is too cheap vs CV 14 IPCs.

[toblerone77]

ASW is fine with or without planes. You’re right that escorting convoys was thier original role. However as the war progressed thier role as a carrier became more important because the Essex class carriers took a long time to build and were far more expensive. The US needed the Casblanca because it was going to take until 1944 to get the Essex class carriers fully produced to needed force requirement.

[knp7765]

ASW is a cool idea. Never thought of giving a carrier ASW.
I think A 0, D 1, M 2, C 9 , 1 hit, carry 1 plane are excellent values for this unit.
With that in mind, say you have 1 CVE with 1 fighter on board. You see an enemy sub in range so you decide to attack it. In your combat move, you would move both the CVE and the fighter. While the CVE has no attack value, it’s ASW ability allows the fighter to attack the sub (where as if the fighter went by itself, it couldn’t target the sub).
This kind of attack could be potentially costly to you. While you have decent odds of hitting the sub with your fighter @ 3, and the sub’s weak defense of 1 makes you mostly safe, whether you hit the sub or not, it could get that lucky 1 and sink your CVE costing you a 9 IPC unit to kill a 6 IPC unit. What’s more is now the fighter has to find a place to land with it’s remaining moves. If it can’t, you also lose the fighter. So, it just cost you 19 IPCs to kill the enemy’s 6 IPCs.
With that in mind, would any of you attack a lone sub with a CVE and fighter?

By the way, I am assuming we would give these same values to the Seyditz class Light Aircraft Carrier in the German Set, right?

[americancyco]

Ok I have a question because I’m a little confused.  Are you saying the escort’s get Anti Sub Warfare only when they have a fighter on them or at all times?

I’m not saying I hate the rules because other then the Anti sub warfare the stats are exactly what I use, but I like the idea of adding the anti sub warfare.

Also are you giving them everything the destroyer gets, or just some of the abilities?

[toblerone77]

I’d post the link but I’m on my phone typing this.wiki casablanca class and WWIIEscort carriers. That will provide some insight. I have a huge interest in these they built right near the last two cities I’ve lived in.

[baron Münchhausen]

@knp7765:

ASW is a cool idea. Never thought of giving a carrier ASW.
I think A 0, D 1, M 2, C 9 , 1 hit, carry 1 plane are excellent values for this unit.
With that in mind, say you have 1 CVE with 1 fighter on board. You see an enemy sub in range so you decide to attack it. In your combat move, you would move both the CVE and the fighter. While the CVE has no attack value, **it’s ASW ability allows the fighter to attack the sub (where as if the fighter went by itself, it couldn’t target the sub).**This kind of attack could be potentially costly to you. While you have decent odds of hitting the sub with your fighter @ 3, and the sub’s weak defense of 1 makes you mostly safe, whether you hit the sub or not, it could get that lucky 1 and sink your CVE costing you a 9 IPC unit to kill a 6 IPC unit. What’s more is now the fighter has to find a place to land with it’s remaining moves. If it can’t, you also lose the fighter. So, it just cost you 19 IPCs to kill the enemy’s 6 IPCs.
With that in mind, would any of you attack a lone sub with a CVE and fighter?

By the way, I am assuming we would give these same values to the Seyditz class Light Aircraft Carrier in the German Set, right?

ASW with the CVE also works like a DD (for simplicity) but at lower odds.
However it means you can bring more aircrafts from other carriers (fleet or escort or even airbase) to accomplish Anti Sub Mission.
Once the CVE is hit and there is no other ASW like a DD, then aircraft can no more attack the subs.
A0D1M2C10 seems to me a more balance unit.
Loosing a plane or a CVE will cost the same when taken has a casualities, so their is more chance that CVE will be the casualities. And that is historically accurate, more of them were destroyed than Fleet Carrier (CV).

[americancyco]

Ok I’m liking this but here is something I noticed

ok so lets say the sub takes out the escort then the fighter/ tac bomber will no longer be able to attack or land (ouch).

If the escort doesn’t have a fighter it still wont be able to attack the sub (if it’s on it’s own)

[baron Münchhausen]

@americancyco:

Ok I’m liking this but here is something I noticed

ok so lets say the sub takes out the escort then the fighter/ tac bomber will no longer be able to attack or land (ouch).

If the escort doesn’t have a fighter it still wont be able to attack the sub (if it’s on it’s own)

The CVE can still choose to retreat.
That’s why, I prefer the 1942 version, it keeps a little attacking value � @1:
In 1942.2 can be CVE A1D1M2C9-10, 1 hit, carry 1 Fg and has ASW � � vs CV A1D2M2C14, 1 hit, carry 2 Fgs.

But in either way, a sub cannot hit the aircraft so it is the CVE that will sink.
That happen during WWII. Subs torpedo escort carriers.

It is part of the fun, for almost the same price (16 IPCs) you got 2 DDs, Att4Def4.
They will be better but they cannot help in amphibious battle vs CVE+Fg, Att3-4 Def5.
The CVE is a versatile unit but is neither better than DD neither than a CV.
But able to do both jobs in his limited ways.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@americancyco:

Ok I’m liking this but here is something I noticed

ok so lets say the sub takes out the escort then the fighter/ tac bomber will no longer be able to attack or land (ouch).

If the escort doesn’t have a fighter it still wont be able to attack the sub (if it’s on it’s own)

The CVE can still choose to retreat.
That’s why, I prefer the 1942 version, it keeps a little attacking value  @1:
In 1942.2 can be **CVE A1D1M2C10 carry 1 Fg and has ASW   ** vs CV A1D2M2C14 carry 2 Fgs.

The real value of a CVE is still as an escort carrier. This means protecting the bigger ships.
It give the option between CVE and DD for defense against Subs.
In itself @1 vs @2 it is not that good, but if you had a Fg Def@4,
it can fit naturally beside a Fleet Carrier without adding another DD to block the Subs preemptive strike.

If you compare, 1DD@2+ 1 Cruise@3= 20 IPCs Att5/Def5.
On defense, CVE@1+Fg@4 get the same Def5 for the same 20 IPCs but Att 3-4 depending of CVEA0-1.
So this unit really become an escort unit (not that good on offense), and not just another mini-carrier.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

ASW is fine with or without planes. You’re right that escorting convoys was thier original role. However as the war progressed thier role as a carrier became more important because the Essex class carriers took a long time to build and were far more expensive. The US needed the Casblanca because it was going to take until 1944 to get the Essex class carriers fully produced to needed force requirement.

Casablanca-class carrier was more a slow merchant ship escort.
Actually, I was more thinking about an Independence class aircraft-carrier.
A light aircraft carrier, faster than Casablanca class able to follow a warships fleet.
That’s why I prefer A1D1C10 in 1942 (even A1D2C12 for simplicity about Attack and defense value of aircraft carrier)
but, since fleet carrier CV A0D2C16 2 hits in Global, it becomes A0D1C9-10 1 hit ASW and carry 1 Fg

[americancyco]

Would these be ally ships only or is there a axis version you would use?

[toblerone77]

HBG has allied and German escort/light carriers.

[toblerone77]

I bought a few German light carriers to counter the allies light carriers. I have TONS of HBG pieces. My intent is to have one super sized Axis and Allies set with the abilty to play OOB and HR games with low to high complexity. Not only that they add flavor to old and new games.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

ASW is fine with or without planes. You’re right that escorting convoys was thier original role. However as the war progressed thier role as a carrier became more important because the Essex class carriers took a long time to build and were far more expensive. The US needed the Casblanca because it was going to take until 1944 to get the Essex class carriers fully produced to needed force requirement.

I don’t know if you ever read this, but that is what my humble research lead me to:
@Baron:

TITLE: More Carriers (revised) in 1942.1/1942.2

This is a list of different carriers unit.
Does it worth it to introduce them in the Atlantic and the Pacific for more historical inspiration?
Does it unbalanced the game against subs (and Germany)?
I think it is the case.
So introducing those sea units AntiSubWeapon (i.e. escort carrier), should be outweighted by a special sub rules Wolfpack attack : when 3 subs or more attack the same sea-zone, the first round is Att@3 per sub, the other round  Att@2 per sub. It can be a first strike or not. The presence of an ASW vessel doesn’t cancel the Wolfpack capability since it’s only for the first round of battle. This rule apply for any power, not only Germany.

Is Anti-Sub Weapon too cheap?
Is it better to rise the cost of a CVE to 10 IPCs and of a CVL to 12 IPCs?          
Because many will prefer them instead of destroyers?

Cost Move   Att   Def
Escort carrier CVE
(Casablanca 28 fighters) 9(10?)  2    1  1    Takes 1 hit/ ASW / Carry 1 fighter
Light carrier CVL
(Independence  45 fgts) 11(12?)  2    1  2     Takes 1 hit/ ASW / Carry 1 fighter
Fleet carrier CV
(Yorktown/Big-E 90 fgts)  14      2      1  2     Takes 1 hit/  Carry 2 fighters
Fleet carrier CV
(Essex 100 fgts)           16      2      1     2    Takes 2 hits/ Carry 2 fighters/ if hit once, only 1 fighter can operate and land on it, repaired as BB at the end of the round
Supercarrier CVB
(Midway 130 fgts)            22     2       1     3 Takes 2 hits/ Carry 3 fighters/ if hit once, only 2 fighters can operate and land on it, repaired as BB at the end of the round.

Carrier (any) are priority target: for a battleship (BB) to absorb 1 hit, you must allocate one hit to a carrier if their is one present.
If there is more than one carrier, another carrier (any) or an already damaged BB must also take a hit before a second BB soaks 1 hit.
Thus, a fleet with 1CV (2hits) and 2BB have to take 1 hit on the CV before taking the two hits on each BB.
Another fleet with 1CV (2 hits), 1CVL (1 hits) and 2BB have to take 1 hit on the CV, 1 hit on the BB, then either sunk the CV or the CVL before allocate another hit on the second BB. Although, it is possible to sink the BB instead of a carrier.
It is also possible to sink the CVL first, then take 1 hit on a BB, then 1 hit on the CV then 1 hit on the other BB.
Inspiration: Gamers Paradise

About fighters operations on a damaged CV
If we take a look at the initial placement of 1942.2, USA has only 1 CV in Hawaii.
This unit represent actually 1 group of three carriers: CV-5 Yorktown damaged/CV-6 Enterprise fully operational /CV-8 Hornet fully operational).
So, I think it can be acceptable to a damaged CV to still be able to operate 1 aircraft because it is not only 1 carrier but a task force of this kind of unit.
More, if 1 turn is three months long, it is enough time to repair a carrier. For instance, the Yorktown took only 48h at Pearl Harbour before going to Midway.

I use the following rules to determine the cost:
2 IPCs for 1 point Att or Def. 1 IPC for ASW. 2 IPCs for 1 additionnal hit.
Examples:
CV (1+2)+2xfgts(3+4)= 17 points x2= 34 IPCs: 14 IPCs for the carrier + 2 IPCs for 1 additionnal Hit= total 16 IPCs
CVE (1+1)+fgt(3+4)= 9 points x 2= 18 IPCs:    8 IPCs for the carrier + 1 IPC for AntiSubWeapon = total 9 IPCs
CVL (1+2)+fgt(3+4)= 10 points x 2= 20 IPCs:   10 IPCs for the carrier +1 IPC for AntiSubWeapon= total 11 IPCs
CVB (1+3)+3xfgts(3+4)= 25 points x2 = 50 IPCs: 20 IPCs for the carrier /+ 2 IPCs for 1 additionnal Hit= total 22 IPCs

[toblerone77]

Anybody who wants some fun added to thier games should check out HBG and thier product line if you haven’t yet. They have something for everybody and give you near-OOB pieces for custom games.