Carriers

[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.

[Guest]

@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.

As it should be.

[Imperious Leader]

Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked.

but the rules also says that planes cannot launch if the carrier is damaged. So is it the case that if the carrier is ever elected as a hit, the planes can no longer land on the carrier and are forced into this “one space away thing or die” rule?

If that is the case the 2 hit carrier is no positive thing that anybody could ever use.

[bennyboyg]

@Imperious:

Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked.

but the rules also says that planes cannot launch if the carrier is damaged. So is it the case that if the carrier is ever elected as a hit, the planes can no longer land on the carrier and are forced into this “one space away thing or die” rule?

If that is the case the 2 hit carrier is no positive thing that anybody could ever use.

Well I mean having your fighters die is better than having your fighters AND your carrier die.

[ksmckay]

Well I mean having your fighters die is better than having your fighters AND your carrier die.

Exactly, it certainly isnt worse than AA50 or any of the previous games and probably makes a lot of sense in reality.  In reality (which doesnt really matter since this is a game) if a group of subs happened to come across a lone AC you would expect it to get sunk.  I doubt many subs were ever sunk by machine gun fire from an AC.

Pretty simple.  Dont leave AC’s by themselves when at risk from subs and certainly don’t do it if your planes dont have a place to land.  Makes sense.

[warwinner]

I think I’ve come up with a good scenario in which to use the carrier to soak up a hit.

Say you launch an amphibious assault with lets say 2 transports, 2 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 Battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 carrier and 2 fighters. You take the territory only losing one infantry in the conflict, but your opponent rolled snake eyes for is AA. Bye bye fighters.
On your opponents turn a counter attack is launched with lets say 2 fighters and 1 bomber (I understand that attacking a fleet like the one above with only 2 fighters and 1 bomber is unlikely, but this is just an example) Your opponent scores 2 hits total. You tip the battleship, and since you have no fighters left to worry about landing, you tip the carrier. When your defending units fire back, you score 3 hits and destroy his little squadron, ending the battle.
In the end, you have 1 battleship(damaged), 1 carrier(damaged), 1 cruiser, and all of your transports. You still have to go back to port, but you have saved some IPC’s by not losing any ships such as the cruiser. This is just my 2 cents worth, agree or disagree as you please.

[Veqryn]

the rules say you can’t launch a fighter/plane from a carrier with 1 hit on it.
the rules also say you can’t land a fighter/plane on a carrier with 1 hit
the rules also say that all fighters launch whenever your carrier is attacked, even if just by 1 sub.

so this begs the question, is there a situation possible where you have a fighter/plane on a hit carrier, or is the first rule just redundant?  I don’t see why we need to have the first rule, since the situation would never occur with the other 2 rules…

Oh, and my friends and I plan on using Carriers as a 1/1/2/14 unit, instead of this 2 hit but too expensive to buy crap.

[Imperious Leader]

Make a easy example:

Carrier 2 fighters with 1 hit and 1 cruiser and Battleship defending against 2 battleships, 2 Cruisers

The attacker gets two @4, two @3

Defender gets one @ 2, one @ 3, and one @ 4  The 2 fighters don’t roll. but if this was AA50 it would be:

three at 4 and two at 3

So now we are in a worse position with a 2 hit carrier. The price is now 16 IPC as well.

This is not good.

[kcdzim]

@Veqryn:

the rules say you can’t launch a fighter/plane from a carrier with 1 hit on it.
the rules also say you can’t land a fighter/plane on a carrier with 1 hit
the rules also say that all fighters launch whenever your carrier is attacked, even if just by 1 sub.

so this begs the question, is there a situation possible where you have a fighter/plane on a hit carrier, or is the first rule just redundant?  I don’t see why we need to have the first rule, since the situation would never occur with the other 2 rules…

Oh, and my friends and I plan on using Carriers as a 1/1/2/14 unit, instead of this 2 hit but too expensive to buy crap.

It’s not redundant when it involves friendly powers on carriers.  Say Britain attacks a fleet using his carrier (and it has to attack to land a plane in that sea zone) but has a US fighter on board.  Carrier takes a hit in the battle, the british fighter that was to land there will be lost (or was selected as a casualty) but the US fighter will remain on board as cargo, and now will not be able to launch until the carrier is back in port.

@Imperious:

Make a easy example:

Carrier 2 fighters with 1 hit and 1 cruiser and Battleship defending against 2 battleships, 2 Cruisers

The attacker gets two @4, two @3

Defender gets one @ 2, one @ 3, and one @ 4  The 2 fighters don’t roll. but if this was AA50 it would be:

three at 4 and two at 3

So now we are in a worse position with a 2 hit carrier. The price is now 16 IPC as well.

This is not good.

It seems unlikely that this would ever happen as the only way to end with a hit and two fighters aboard would mean you would have had to attack with a carrier with two friendly aircraft on board.  As in the above example, with two US fighters.  But I cannot think of an instance where you would WANT to do that unless it was a massive fleet attack and you couldn’t leave the carrier behind (but why not wait for the non combat move as the 1 soaker hit probably wouldn’t help with the attack all that much.

[kcdzim]

@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.

Thanks for clarifying that.  Considering the new rules of planes not being able to spot subs without the destroyer, I’m not sure I would have caught that they would be aloft when the torps hit (Although, it seems as though it would be an appropriate exploit if the sneak attack also meant planes weren’t yet in the air, but perhaps that would add an extra unnecessary rule).

[Imperious Leader]

It seems unlikely that this would ever happen as the only way to end with a hit and two fighters aboard would mean you would have had to attack with a carrier with two friendly aircraft on board.  As in the above example, with two US fighters.  But I cannot think of an instance where you would WANT to do that unless it was a massive fleet attack and you couldn’t leave the carrier behind (but why not wait for the non combat move as the 1 soaker hit probably wouldn’t help with the attack all that much.

The example points out that the 2 hit carrier does not improve the carriers position because it now costs 2 more IPC and the ‘so called’ free hit can cause alot of problems if taken. So basically the carrier went up 2 IPC for nothing. That was my point.

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.

[Krieghund]

I should clarify my earlier statement.  Carrier-based planes are always considered to be defending in the air when the carrier is attacked, unless the carrier was previously damaged.  Any planes on a damaged carrier would not launch in defense.  As kcdzim pointed out, planes trapped on a damaged carrier should be a pretty rare occurrence.

I think that once you’ve tried a few games the benefits of the two-hit carrier will become apparent, especially for the defender.

[WILD BILL]

Its not totally useless. If you are attacked or make an attack in a sea zone next to your own naval base (NB), then you can soak up the hit and land your planes on the ground. Then on your turn the a/c is auto fixed (next to NB). Not ideal but it won’t cost you a unit, unless another enemy can attack you before your turn.  It won’t even cost you movement for your ftrs if you also have an airbase(AB) there. You can then continue out to sea or plot your next move. It is going to change some of the mechanics of the game on weather you take a/c into battle or not. In many cases the a/c would be left behind at a safe distance anyway so it won’t have much of an effect. How often do you take the carrier in when you attack Pearl Harbor, you don’t because you don’t want to leave much for a counter attack. Now that a/c has no attack value leaving it behind will become even more predominant.

I didn’t like the whole 2 hit carrier thing when I first heard about restrictions to planes. I’m still not to sure about it. I personally think when hit, you should only loose 1/2 your capacity for air units, but that would have probably raised the price even more.

Where 2 hit carriers will help more is when you have larger battles with multiple carriers and you plan on loosing a few planes. Then you might take in a carrier just to keep higher rolls in play in later rounds of the battle. Use it more for an expensive shield.

I can’t wait to test it out. The Pacific is huge and the new bases will make naval war much more interesting. There will be much more planning involved for all the seas. When attacking, battles will reflect what really happened, as carriers wouldn’t be going into the fight normally, only there air units would. The 2 hits (although restricting) will show the difficultly involved in attacking/sinking those floating fortresses.

[Razor]

I think the naval rules and system established in AA 50 Anniversary ed. is the most perfect, and it was not neccessary to change the system again. This new two-hit carrier will make combat resolving a lot more complicated, and that is not good. Remember that this game will be played by average people, and not only some Einstein-playtesters that love challenges and like to develope new rules. Most of the players want a mainstream combat system, so we can pay attention to strategies and play. So more smites to Kev and Craig.

[Krieghund]

You make a good point, Razor.  In many cases, simpler is better.  However, Larry’s purpose in making these '40 games is to give something new to players who’ve always wanted a “meatier” A&A experience.  If simple is your thing, you may be better off sticking to AA42 or AA50.  The good thing is that there’s something for everyone.

[Razor]

@Krieghund:

You make a good point, Razor.

You are my buddy, Kev, so you may call me “Raz”. And I do want the level of complexity that AA40 will offer, I’m just complaining that the new two-hit carrier is silly. Thats all. You could not make a game with Blockhouses, butt a two-hit carrier that are real confusing and certainly will make a lot of problems when resolving combat, yes that you could make. Terrain ? Nooo, too complex. A two-hit carrier ? yes of course. You already made ports, airfields, minor IC and major IC, so why not a two-hit carrier ? Now Razor must go figure.

[Krieghund]

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

[Razor]

@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.

[WILD BILL]

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.

[ksmckay]

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?