Carriers

@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.

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.

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

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.

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

@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.

And that was because of the planes not the ship.

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.

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.

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 attached

At 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.