Okay,
Thanks for responding and confirming Drunken Cat ( love the name! ).
BH
Carriers
-
Yeah underneath other peoples karma, you’ll see [applaud][smite]. It looks like idk_iam_swiss just got there, When you get there you can start smiting me like all my other stalkers. :-D
-
thank you krieg, i know you’re busy. i do my best :)
-
yea you are definatly Kreighund Jr.
-
I think 1-1-2-16 sounds good. Carriers did have defenses against planes but not really against other ships, that is why I think the original 3 defense was whack. I think the best solution should be 0-1-2-15, either that or what I mentioned above.
that is pretty good
-
yea you are definatly Kreighund Jr.
i could think of worse things to be junior to :wink:
-
i could think of worse things to be junior to
Would you like to name a few?
-
I sense a george bush joke in the works!...guys those are sooo 2007. I would hate to have been chairman maos kid though…
-
If Carriers still cost 14 but take 2 hits to destroy, then they would be more useful as hitsoaks than as fighter deployers, even if you need a Port to repair, and even if they have no real combat power. They would be either take 2 hits at 7 IPCs apiece, or 1 hit for free per 14 IPCs worth of Carriers.
Maybe they should have it at 1-1-2-18, but declare that after 1 hit, only 1 Aircraft can land on it, rather than none?
-
idk…I think that would get abused. especially by america.
-
If Carriers still cost 14 but take 2 hits to destroy, then they would be more useful as hitsoaks than as fighter deployers, even if you need a Port to repair, and even if they have no real combat power. They would be either take 2 hits at 7 IPCs apiece, or 1 hit for free per 14 IPCs worth of Carriers.
Maybe they should have it at 1-1-2-18, but declare that after 1 hit, only 1 Aircraft can land on it, rather than none?
I agree with the higher cost. I don’t agree with planes landing after 1 hit.
-
Just keep them as in AA50, 1-2-2-14, 1 hit to die. If works, why changing?
-
Just keep them as in AA50, 1-2-2-14, 1 hit to die. If works, why changing?
That’s a good question. Why changing? Uh I mean why change?
-
i think it is changing to represent the importance of repairing your fleet in this game
however, since you can’t land fighters on the damn thing after it is hit…. you are sort of screwed anyway
which makes me think… why not have it both ways in a way:
when hit, a carrier can only hold 1 fighter instead of 2
now that might be cool, but it still doesn’t solve the issue of reduced offense
(offensive power is being reduced in two ways: by forcing you to pay more money for the ability to host your offensive fighters (you don’t bring carriers into attacks, but they are often the defending party) and being forced to sink something that now takes 2 hits)why change something that was working really well. i would totally agree with keeping it 1-2-2-14 with 1 hit to die
-
I agree. Leave well enough alone.
-
Thirded.
2 hit carriers will really change the Atlantic as well as there is almost always another place to land your fighters and you can worry about repairing the carrier once the enemies planes are all shot down at your leisure. This will truly put the carrier as the ultimate shuck defender.
Also, I was really hoping strat bombers would help break the defensive deadlock of the sea by being a powerful navel attack unit. Just what makes a torpedo bomber defend at a 3? I understand regular figs high defensive value as they defend against enemy planes very well, but what gives?
-
I know if I was busy flying my torpedo bomber and suddenly out of nowhere I was attacked by a fleet of hostile ships, there is nothing I would rather have than my trusty torpedo. This should give me a defensive value of at least 3. :-D
-
I personaly feel that a cost of 18 and two hits will definitly stop stacking. That will increase the percentage of smaller fleets becease a large fleet will be too expensive. Then it will add more historical accuracy because now countries will not build a carrier when they have a little extra money. When considering the purchase of a carrier it now becomes a larger decision. If those two changes are made then it will really bring true navies. Germany will no longer have a rediculous navy of carriers and a battleship. Only the true naval powers of the war will be able to utilize the carriers. Though I saw somewhere in this thread the idea of an escort carrier, they would truely end super stacking and still allow all countries a airforce on the sea. That’s my thoughts on the carriers.
-
Pretty good idea, I HATE stacking!
-
The only way to stop stacking is to create more spaces in the ocean, but the drawback will be a slower game.
-
Would it be a fun game though?
Suggested Topics
