The only rule I ever actually played that is somewhat similar, was one that my friend Oddie tried in Classic. The way he had it, carrier based aircraft were essentially attached to their carriers. The carrier came with 1 free fighter that could not be replaced.
So the carrier was like a 2 hit unit, on defense. The carrier fighters could only be used on the carriers, and so were always taken as casualties before the deck on defense. On attack they had to return to the same carrier. So basically there was no carrier fighter switching of any kind.
Allies couldn’t land fighters on a teammates deck. Land based fighters couldn’t replace lost carrier fighters etc.
It really was like the aircraft were just an extension of the carrier deck.
Of course these were cheaper in relative terms than the land based fighters, but their use was narrower. All the attack/defense values were otherwise OOB classic.
The idea at the time was that carrier would be a cheaper/effective way to carve through sub/transport fodder. It was just slightly less expensive than a transport/sub + regular land based fighter combo (which then cost 20 total ipcs), but unlike the land based fighter it was pretty much attached at the hip to its carrier, and could only operate at sea or along the coast.
This was 3rd edition, with 2 Hit battleships and subs submerging as I recall. The 1 fighter carrier at 18 ipcs, was a good buy relative to the OOB carrier + 1 fighter, which cost 30 ipcs, or the OOB carrier +2 fighters which cost 42! So it was kind of an attempt to really bring down the cost of fleets. Kind of a cool concept when I look back on it.
I only played it that way a few times, and it was in early days. I thought it was too rough on UK/US, which really seemed to require fighter switching to make the Atlantic workable. And on Japan which needed to change their fighters from land to sea or vice versa the most. I also though it made German naval ambitions even more impossible hehe, but that was kind of a pipe dream anyway. In any case, I didn’t really know the game as well as I would later come to know revised.
I honestly haven’t experimented much with aircraft changes. Usually it’s been messing with the economy for me. The whole idea of altering unit values is something I found a bit daunting. Though I’m starting to warm up to the idea more recently. Mainly owing to the fact that the OOB values have changed over time.
The fighter unit still seems somehow sacrosanct though. I have a really hard time considering changing its values, ever since it was dropped from 12 to 10 ipcs in Revised. I guess because 10 just felt right. Since then its a bit like infantry at 3 for me. Hard to change without messing a lot of other things up.
The carrier by contrast still feels all over the place hehe.
It went from 18 ipcs and 1 hit, attack at 1, defend at 3
To 16 ipcs and 1 hit, attack at 1, defend at 3.
To 14 ipcs and 1 hit, attack at 1, defend at 2.
Back to 16 ipcs but 2 hits, attack at 0, defend at 2.
Not sure how much any of that is useful to the current question of cheap/weak fighters on expensive carriers. It’s almost the opposite I guess. But when you say expensive carrier that’s the thing that came to mind for me. I remember those damned expensive Classic carriers where the stacked deck cost more than any Nation’s economy in a single turn haha. And I remember this dude struggling to find a way to make them somehow more affordable, to cut through chipped out transport fodder.
:-D
