Carriers

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.  Game design isn’t an easy process, Raz.  You can’t please everyone.

@Krieghund:

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.  Game design isn’t an easy process, Raz.  You can’t please everyone.

….that is right, Kev, butt I can mail Larry tonight and tell him my opinion of the two-hit carrier.

Ohh, Raz may even mail Greg Leeds and tell him how the silly two-hit carrier will destroy the game.

Krieg, I know you already went through this, could you clarify one more time about subs/kami’s only attacking a lone carrier w/planes on it. My confusion originates from djensens post on rules.

@Krieghund:

Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked.  It doesn’t matter what the attacking force consists of.  If your lone carrier is attacked by subs and hit, whether damaged or sunk, your planes will have one space of movement to land.  If they can’t, they’re lost.  The moral of the story is, don’t leave your fleets without destroyer escorts when there are enemy subs around.

quote from djensen from his posting on the rules re carriers:
“If aircraft are stuck on an damaged aircraft carrier (either because of a kamikaze attack or sub hit), they cannot take off from the aircraft carrier until the carrier is repaired. In this case, if the carrier is lost the aircraft are lost too.”
So is djensen wrong in his rule posting, or is it a misprint in the rules. As I see it both kami’s and subs would be sneak attacks.
It can’t be referring to friendly’s as cargo on an attacking a/c because any hit would trap them not just kami’s/subs.

PS: Your moral of the story is two fold.

1. DD escort allows your planes to fight enemy subs.
2. DD’s can take hits so your a/c can still land planes.
   DD’s just got a more important role, they will be even more like the inf or the sea.

most likely the sub part should not have been included as a possible reason for being stuck on a damaged carrier.

But the kamikaze question is a good one.  What happens when a Kamikaze targets a loaded AC?

Think not only about AAP, think about AAE and global game. Germany, UK and Italy can abuse of that 2-hit AC in Atlantic and Mediterranean. However, it’s going to be annoying having back to bases to repair, may of us will forget that  :|

Another thing with ACs is the use of tactical bombers … a fig+tac combo can be good if you want both attack and defense in Pacific, and the potential menace for D-Day and axis attacks at Egypt (supplied by tanks) can be good. However, with D-Day it has less use because a bomber can easily attack from England anyway. Same for Barbarossa, a bomber is always better for offense and a fighter is always better for defense. Only real good use for tacticals is in Pacific and only because bombers cannot land at ACs

Proper would be having tacticals with movement of 5. That would do people think a bit more what they want to buy. With 4 move tacts, figs are better for USSR and bombers are better for Germany (if you conserve initial figs). Or just make tacticals cost 10, with 11 are too expensive

@WILD:

Krieg, I know you already went through this, could you clarify one more time about subs/kami’s only attacking a lone carrier w/planes on it. My confusion originates from djensens post on rules.

@Krieghund:

Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked.  It doesn’t matter what the attacking force consists of.  If your lone carrier is attacked by subs and hit, whether damaged or sunk, your planes will have one space of movement to land.  If they can’t, they’re lost.  The moral of the story is, don’t leave your fleets without destroyer escorts when there are enemy subs around.

quote from djensen from his posting on the rules re carriers:
“If aircraft are stuck on an damaged aircraft carrier (either because of a kamikaze attack or sub hit), they cannot take off from the aircraft carrier until the carrier is repaired. In this case, if the carrier is lost the aircraft are lost too.”
So is djensen wrong in his rule posting, or is it a misprint in the rules. As I see it both kami’s and subs would be sneak attacks.

Sneak attack or not, when a carrier is attacked, its planes are defending in the air.  He may have just been trying to come up with a circumstance under which planes could be trapped on a damaged carrier, but this isn’t it.  The only way that it can happen is if a plane belonging to an ally is on an attacking carrier as cargo.

@WILD:

It can’t be referring to friendly’s as cargo on an attacking a/c because any hit would trap them not just kami’s/subs.

That’s correct.  Any hit would trap them.

@Imperious:

Who would ever take that hit on the carrier. Now the other naval units are cheaper than the carrier. 2 hit carrier was supposed to be an added benefit but it is useless.

You’d take the hit on the carrier when attacking a seazone within range of freindly territory.  In revised, 1942, or AA50 '42 this might be the the japanese/british naval battle off india on the first turn.  The planes are all in range of burma/french indochina, and I often reinforce there with the planes anyway leaving the navy to itself (no significant planes or navy in range to attack them).  Now the carrier soaks a hit (assuming the BB also took one of course) and doesn’t die.

I’d say the 2 hit carrier can be helpful, but you’ll always need to plan for it.  If you leave it to the enemy to exploit, well, buhbye planes.  Still , with the downgrade in defense from revised to 50, and the further downgrade in offense now, even with the soaker hit, I’m with you IL.  I’m not sure the price bump was warranted.

Re: having a carrier in the atlantic or med.  It won’t be easily abused, as the carrier has to wait a full round to be repaired.  But that will mean that one ally will need to make the first attack on it to leave it crippled, and then the next ally will have to attack it to finish it off, preventing them from attacking somewhere else.  It’s helpful.  Just not super helpful.

Not sure how two hit carriers can be as bad a thing as everyone is making them out to be.

The changes made to carriers from AA50 are now that they cost two IPC more, and their attack value went from 1 to 0.  In exchange they get a second hit except that the hit comes with the price of not being able to carry ftrs and has to be repaired.  They also can now carry Tac bombers so they can send out a little more offensive punch (though not much).

The second hit is certainly not as nice as the free hit to BB in AA50 that didnt make any sense in which a BB got absorb hit after hit without penalty and then magically repair itself after each turn (meaning a US BB could take a hit from germany, a hit from Japan, and a hit from italy, and then engage in combat and take another hit and still be 100% functional and ready to do it again)  That certainly didnt make sense and I think we should all be glad to see that their is a price to pay for assigning a hit to a capital ship.

Probably some ppl would like to have AA50 rules for carriers but how is that any better.  Does anyone really count on AC’s for their awesome attack value of 1?  What about kamikazes.  The ftrs would be just as vulnerable in either case two hits or not.  But now instead of losing the AC completely you can send it back to base and get it repaired for free compared to buying a new one for 14 IPCs.  I think two IPCs is a worthwhile price for a little extra durability.

All these scenarios saying that people can abuse the AC by crippling it with a hit and now the ftrs are lost only makes sense when comparing it to the imaginary AC that gets free hits.  The old AC would be even worse off after absorbing a hit (sunk).

@kcdzim:

Re: having a carrier in the atlantic or med.  It won’t be easily abused, as the carrier has to wait a full round to be repaired.  But that will mean that one ally will need to make the first attack on it to leave it crippled, and then the next ally will have to attack it to finish it off, preventing them from attacking somewhere else.  It’s helpful.  Just not super helpful.

You will need at least one more unit to attack the stack, and that can be a world of difference in attacking the whole stack or not. Now the carrier+planes combo gives you 4 hits instead of 3

However I must agree with the cost, 14 would be better … or at least let them attack at 1s or defend at 3s. We are getting too much units with 0 attack values: trannies, aa guns and now ACs … or ignore those odd bases and autorepair as always …

@Funcioneta:

You will need at least one more unit to attack the stack, and that can be a world of difference in attacking the whole stack or not. Now the carrier+planes combo gives you 4 hits instead of 3

However I must agree with the cost, 14 would be better … or at least let them attack at 1s or defend at 3s. We are getting too much units with 0 attack values: trannies, aa guns and now ACs … or ignore those odd bases and autorepair as always …

Except you can retreat if they choose the hit on the carrier, leaving them in a weaker position when your ally attacks.  And if they choose planes as casualties, each subsequent round is easier to win.

I know that if I attacked and they chose to hit the carrier, I’d probably immediately retreat if my partner could finish them off.  Damage done.

@ksmckay:

What about kamikazes.

Good old kamikazes … they are nice, a historical bonus to Japan … and we also get some ahistorical irreal ACME wall that also benefits Japan aswell. Just let’s hope they add at least the soviet-jap non-agression pact in the global game so we have at least one special rule that punishes Japan instead of aiding them

@kcdzim:

Except you can retreat if they choose the hit on the carrier, leaving them in a weaker position when your ally attacks.  And if they choose planes as casualties, each subsequent round is easier to win.

I know that if I attacked and they chose to hit the carrier, I’d probably immediately retreat if my partner could finish them off.  Damage done.

That’s totally true, but there are some cases where only one ally has enough power or range to attack, specially round 1 or 2 when USA and USSR are not at war yet  :wink:

Man, I had a extrange sight: a UK+France one-two punch … ugly!  :lol:

Well at least the French will be able to leave France lol.

As far as carriers go I agree with ksm. The way it played out in AA50 is once your carrier was hit it sunk, your planes had to find an alternate place to land. Its the same now except you have a chance to limp the carrier back and keep it. 
The 2 hit units are going to be bitter/sweat. This along with other changes/additions will make the naval battles much better and more realistic. Its adding a degree of logistics AA has been missing.

@WILD:

Well at least the French will be able to leave France lol.

That if they survive G1, but anyway you beaten me!  :lol:

@Veqryn:

@WILD:

As far as carriers go I agree with ksm. The way it played out in AA50 is once your carrier was hit it sunk, your planes had to find an alternate place to land. Its the same now except you have a chance to limp the carrier back and keep it. 
The 2 hit units are going to be bitter/sweat. This along with other changes/additions will make the naval battles much better and more realistic. Its adding a degree of logistics AA has been missing.

If they had of kept the price the same, I would agree with you…

but because they have upped the price, Carriers are much much less of a bargain, so much so that I think buying other naval units just became better.
The coolest thing to me about the prices from AA50, was that no matter how you cut it, whether offense or defense, a Carrier with 2 planes was more cost effective than purchasing the equivalent amount of other naval units.
Now that carriers jumped up in price, without adding ANYTHING tangible to offense or much to defense, a Carrier plus 2 planes is no longer the most cost effect route to go.

With a carrier and two fighters on defense you have 10 pips to hit at, and it takes 4 hits to kill and costs 36 IPCs. The only thing more cost effective would be buying 6 subs at the same cost hitting on 12 pips and taking 6 hits to kill. But the defense of the subs is half of its attack, and keep in mind in the pacific, at least, having a mobile platform to transport air units is invaluable as they are equally as usable on land and at sea. If you want straight out power, then sure, carriers are expensive, but what you’re paying for is mobility and I can’t see japan or america winning without the mobility they afford.

Look, im going to make this perfectly clear……

A torpedo hits a carrier…carrier is crippled and two fighter wings went up in the air then crash into the ocean

I DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN

A torpedo hit kills 20 IPCs of fighters?

And dont say “same thing happens in AA50…” because it doesent ok, carriers dont have two hits, yea the planes would die in AA50 but THIS time the carrier has TWO hits, isnt that some kind of protection from this insanity? cant fighters just stay on as cargo if it is an enemy unit they cant hit? and hits via sneak attack anyway. maybe one fighter is in the air on CAP, but i find it silly that this can happen

And of course im not going to leave my carrier fleet destroyerless, but if US attacks a Japanese fleet and kills the DD, then the UK attacks with one sub…look out planes because the UK has flying torpedos now

Torpedo hit doesnt kill 20 IPC worth of ftrs, the decision to put a loaded carrier at risk from a submarine strike is what killed the 20 IPCs of ftrs.  Dont base your valuable carriers where there arent enough units to defend them and nowhere safe for you AC to land.

And dont say “THIS time the carrier has two hits…”, it does have two hits but not these imaginary free hits that you wish it had.

@Veqryn:

@WILD:

As far as carriers go I agree with ksm. The way it played out in AA50 is once your carrier was hit it sunk, your planes had to find an alternate place to land. Its the same now except you have a chance to limp the carrier back and keep it. 
The 2 hit units are going to be bitter/sweat. This along with other changes/additions will make the naval battles much better and more realistic. Its adding a degree of logistics AA has been missing.

If they had of kept the price the same, I would agree with you…

but because they have upped the price, Carriers are much much less of a bargain, so much so that I think buying other naval units just became better.
The coolest thing to me about the prices from AA50, was that no matter how you cut it, whether offense or defense, a Carrier with 2 planes was more cost effective than purchasing the equivalent amount of other naval units.
Now that carriers jumped up in price, without adding ANYTHING tangible to offense or much to defense, a Carrier plus 2 planes is no longer the most cost effect route to go.

I can see the point here on both sides. However, by allowing us to keep the carrier after it’s been hit and repairing it for free, it actually frees up enough IPCs to buy bigger fleets. In AA50, if you lost the carrier and fighters you would want to replace them. Now, you still need to replace the fighters but purchase additional escort ships that you should have had in the first place. Bigger navies, bigger battles, bigger fun!