New Carriers - For Better or For Worse?

[Robbernosky]

Do you think the new stat adjustements of carriers(+2IPCs, 2 hits, 0 offence) make it a better or worse unit?

I would probably say worse, because you gain 2 IPC’s, lose 1 offence, and only get the ability to take another hit(although planes can’t land on it to defend against a counterattack!)

[JimmyHat]

The problem I see with the 2 hit option is it takes away one of the perks of the BB.  Now all capital ships add an ablative wound?  I liked the older system where ablative wounds were the reason to get bbs.

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

@JimmyHat:

The problem I see with the 2 hit option is it takes away one of the perks of the BB.  Now all capital ships add an ablative wound?  I liked the older system where ablative wounds were the reason to get bbs.

The way I see it, battleships still have big value over carriers.

For 4 extra IPC’s, you add 4 on attack, 2 more value to defense, and shore bombardment.

[knp7765]

@kdfsjljklgjfg:

@JimmyHat:

The problem I see with the 2 hit option is it takes away one of the perks of the BB.  Now all capital ships add an ablative wound?  I liked the older system where ablative wounds were the reason to get bbs.

The way I see it, battleships still have big value over carriers.

For 4 extra IPC’s, you add 4 on attack, 2 more value to defense, and shore bombardment.

Plus, with a BB, when it takes the first hit, it can still do everything it’s supposed to.  When a CV takes the first hit, it becomes inoperable for planes.  You could lose some valuable fighters or tacs if they can’t find another landing space.  So even though carriers can now take 2 hits, they still don’t take away from the battleships.

[special forces]

I don’t know if it isbetter or worse, but it has become more interesting.

[edfactor]

Its worse, it turns the carriers into a defensive unit. And they were the most offensive unit in the pacific really.

I would have made carriers a 0/0 unit that can take 1 hit (as opposed to transports) and cost 12. Cannot be targeted by kamakzies as long as its escorted by a cruiser.

edit
Because of the restriction on air units when they are damaged, when on defense you can take a hit on them and its fine because they can usually land on a nearby island.  When carriers are attacking they just cant take the hit .

[Xandax]

I like the new rules with double hit and limited operating rules.
Mostly the double hit has effect if you lack destroyers and there’s sub around or the carrier is empty.

@edfactor:

Its worse, it turns the carriers into a defensive unit. And they were the most offensive unit in the pacific really.

I would have made carriers a 0/0 unit that can take 1 hit (as opposed to transports) and cost 12. Cannot be targeted by kamakzies as long as its escorted by a cruiser.

The Carriers were only offensive due to the air crafts. However they were prime targets of the enemy, yet though to sink. I feel the double hit rules symbolize this nicely.

[edfactor]

Japanese carriers weren’t tough to sink, only the US carriers were tough to sink.

[soldaatvanoranje]

@special:

I don’t know if it isbetter or worse, but it has become more interesting.

Agreed!

It makes sense that such an unit is not sunk that easily and I love the complexities associated with capsizing your Carrier!

More tactical choices make a more interesting game!

[Gargantua]

I prefer the new carriers.

Don’t believe the HOG WASH about them not being an offensive unit.  Thier TIP and or SOAK capabilities are so much more powerful then people realize.

Dollar to hit ratio, they are JUST as effective as a destroyer loss.  $8 a hit.  Alot of people underestimate the soak capabilities of the acc.  Thus making them GREAT for offense.

Even better, they are a good choice for a  STRAFING navy, you go in 1 round, take a few tip hits, retreat to an AB zone, or a zone you can build into / build and AB on.

The new rules are better.  The best way to prove it, would be to play a game where you could buy either/or type of carrier, from both versions.  See what people buy…

[knp7765]

I think Escort Carriers or Light Carriers would fit that spot niceley.
ATTACK = 0
DEFENSE = 2
MOVE = 2
COST = 10
Can carry 1 fighter or tac.
Takes 1 hit to sink.

Of course, now we need a new piece.

[suprise attack]

For better .They were tough to sink……I kind of miss the days when a Trans could sink a BB or a CV …back on topic  WHAT GARG. SAID !!!

[SilverAngelSurfer]

I think it’s for the better.  Better reflects the realities of aircraft carriers being difficult to sink without allowing them to become overly powerful.

[edfactor]

The US Essex class was tough to sink, of the 5 carriers (6 if you include Wasp which was launched shortly after the war started) that we started the war with only Enterprise survived. All the Japanese carriers pretty much went up like tinder when we hit them. Carriers are a large target loaded with fuel and bombs. They dont really deserve a 2nd hit.  (US carriers sunk: Wasp, Hornet, Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown) - Most of the carriers the Japanese started the war with were lost when it was a real fight, the later ones of course were launched into an American dominated lake called the Pacific Ocean.

Maybe the Essex class does, it was bigger had much better internal layout, all the US cariers flooded their fuel lines with inert gas when under attack and every person on board a US carrier had at least limited training in damage control (only the designated damage control crews on Japanese carriers had any training at all).  So please don’t argue that they were tough to sink, too many of them ended up at the bottom of the sea for that argument.

[Gargantua]

Edfactor,  the carrier piece represents a cluster of ships, not just a SINGLE carrier.  Escorts n all.

Unless you think the eastern front was decided by 10 german planes, and maybe a couple of guys.

[edfactor]

Garg people were saying carriers were tough to kill, and i think i just said that carriers were not all that tough.  Responding that a carrier is not a single ship really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.  Unless of course your going to argue that since the cruisers and destroyers survived the battle that Japan did not lose 2 carriers pieces at the battle of midway?

[Peck]

In what ruleset were carriers changed?  Did I miss something (wouldnt be the first time).

[special forces]

@Peck:

In what ruleset were carriers changed?  Did I miss something (wouldnt be the first time).

since pacific 1940

[Jay]

New carriers better for me. Like the soak and the defending “tip” decision.

The only problem I have with carriers is being able to bring them into a suicidal fight, to land fighters that have moved their max range to arrive at the fight. The hwole rule that states " you can assume all your enemies attacks will miss and all your will hit is silly".  This rule alone screws italy in the med.  Every game the carrier gets suicided in A+2 to kill Italys fleet and allows fighters from London into the fight.

[kcdzim]

@Jay:

New carriers better for me. Like the soak and the defending “tip” decision.

The only problem I have with carriers is being able to bring them into a suicidal fight, to land fighters that have moved their max range to arrive at the fight. The hwole rule that states " you can assume all your enemies attacks will miss and all your will hit is silly".  This rule alone screws italy in the med.  Every game the carrier gets suicided in A+2 to kill Italys fleet and allows fighters from London into the fight.

I’m surprised that the UK is willing to suicide fighters against SZ 97 or 95.  By suiciding 2 planes they make themselves weaker in the Channel and I can’t imagine how they keep any navy after G2??  Yeah, sure, it’s a definative win against Italy, but who does that?  Besides, wouldn’t it be better to move the carrier in noncombat (assuming you won the fight) and pick up the planes, rather than send the carrier to take hits and guarantee you lose the two planes??