Alternative way of integrating Air combat in regular combat- For Review

There is a good objection in this post. You should take it into account in G40e. It implies a revision of the price of carrier to keep the balance on a 1:1 IPC basis:
@ItIsILeClerc:

I have read it somewhere before and I think I also have argued for it myself,

BBs should never be a better buy than a CV. I know this is a game, no simulation, but by all means, leave the carrier in its rightful (very superior) position to the BB.

So whatever the relative costs are I like to emphasis again: buying CV+2aircraft should always trump BB-only buys.

It is even possible that BBs are already too cheap, because for 36 IPCs I can buy (theorethically) 1 BB + 2DD, getting even with a 1CV+2FTR buy of my enemy on the other side of the ocean… If my objective is just to stop him/her.

There is some options to get a more balance Cruiser & Battleship vs Carrier & planes.

I will first present the two options of price and units:
There is mainly 2 options within Fg A2D3C8,

Option 1: -2 IPCs cost reduction for Carrier, (my preferred choice)
G40e Fighter A2D3 8 IPCs

G40e TcB A3-4D3-4 10 IPCs 
Cruiser 10 IPCs  G40e

Strat Bomber 12 IPCs

1942.2 Carrier 13 IPCs 12 Should be best but it is hard to get this far.
Or maybe just give an additional hit.

2 hits Carrier 14 IPCs -2 reduced price to better balance with BB and CA because of the low FgA2D3 C8.

Battleship 18 IPCs  G40e

Option 2: Increase +1 IPC to CA+BB and -1 IPC to Carrier
G40e Fighter A2D3 8 IPCs 
G40e TcB A3-4D3-4 10 IPCs 
Cruiser 11 IPCs
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
1942.2 Carrier 13 IPCs -1 IPC.
Carrier 15 IPCs -1 reduced price to almost fit with BB and CA because of the very low attack factor of FgA2.

Battleship 19 IPCs

Just remember, Uncrustable:
to balance BB and CA, we made many calculations based on a OOB Fg A3D4! and TcB.

That is not the same now.
The cost and unit revision of the Fg and TcB has created a distortion on relative stats between each other units.

Against a carrier, the cruiser unit A3D3C10 has become, on 1:1 IPC basis, too much better on offence and defense.
CV A0D2C16
Fg A2D3C8
TcB A4D4C10
A6D9C34vs  A3D3C10
5x A6D9C34  vs  17 x A3D3C10
A30D45C170 vs A51D51C170
75 pts, 20 hits  vs 102 pts, 17 hits
42% vs 56% odds of survival for CV on offence,
82% vs 17 % odds of survival for CV on defense.

vs OOB CV Fg+TcB :  near 92% vs 8% on offence /100% vs 0% on defense

Carrier cost revised (14 IPCs) vs Cruiser G40e
5xA6D9C32vs 16xA3D3C10
A30D45C160 vs A48D48C160
75 pts, 20 hits vs 96 pts, 16 hits
58% vs 39% odds of survival for CV on offence,
90% vs 9 % odds of survival for CV on defense.

And it is the best combination you can get with a carrier OOB (A6D9C34), it could be a lot worst with 2 Fighters (A4D6C16+ A0D2C16= A4D8C32!!!).

Even a costlier combination vs the OOB CA_A3D3C12 show some problem.
3 CA A9D9C36 vs  2 TcB A3-4D3-4+CV A0D2 = A6-8D8-10C36, at best it is even at 18 pts and at worst:
it is    9+9= 18 pts  >  6+8=14 pts (When there is no match 1:1 with fighter).

According to this, it is necessary to reduce the cost of carrier by -2 IPCs (or by -1 IPC and increase +1 of the BB and CA) because A2D3 is weak as a single unit on a carrier but the low price save it to stay a bit competitive also.

Carrier revised vs BB C18, G40e
9xA6D9C32vs 16xA4D4C18
A54D81C288 vs A64D64C288
135 pts, 36 hits vs 128 pts, 32 hits
47% vs 51% odds of survival for CV on offence,
96% vs 3 % odds of survival for CV on defense.

vs OOB CV Fg+TcB  vs BB OOB:
A7D7C37 vs A4D4C20
53% vs 46% odds of survival for OOB CV+Fg+TcB on offence,
98% vs 2 % odds of survival for OOB CV+Fg+TcB on defense.

Last comparison 1CA+1BB vs CV A0D2C14 IPCs, 2 hits+ 2 Fgs A2D3C8

A7D7C30, 3 hits vs A4D8C30, 4 hits.
14 pts > 12 pts
A7 vs D8= 21% vs 72% for the carrier on defense.
A4 vs D7= 60% vs 32% only for the the carrier on offence.

On my next post, I will put other version with Fg A3D3.

Here is some alternates costs to balance with Carrier and Fg A3D3 / TcBA3D3

Option B1: (with a -2 IPCs reduction cost for carrier)
Fighter 9 IPCs  
Cruiser 10 IPCs  
TcBomber 11 IPCs
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
1942.2 Carrier 12 IPCs
Carrier -2 reduced price,
2 hits, Carrier 14 IPCs
Battleship 18 IPCs

Option B2: lower cost for TcB at 10 IPCs (very near of Fg C9), and carrier reduced by -1.

Fighter 9 IPCs
TcBomber 10 IPCs
Cruiser 10 IPCs  
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
Carrier -1 reduced price to almost fit with BB and CA new cost:
Carrier 15 IPCs OOB
Battleship 18 IPCs

Option B3: The more favourable to planes. All units at the lower balance cost. Carrier OOB.

Fighter 8 IPCs
TcBomber 10 IPCs
Cruiser 10 IPCs  
Strat Bomber 12 IPCs
Carrier 16 IPCs OOB
Battleship 18 IPCs

4 DDA8D8C32 vs  1CV-Aa A0D2C16
                       2 Fgs A6D6C16
                       > A6D8C32
16 points > 14 points
37% vs 52%,
CV-Aa vs 4 DDs
45% vs 49%, draw 6%.
CV-Aa better on defense and almost even on offence vs DD.

1 BB A4D4C18   vs   1CV-Bb A0D2C16 + 1 Fg A3D3C8 + 1 TcB A3-4D3-4C10
2 DD A4D4C16   vs  A7D9C34
A8D8C34, 16 pts = 16 pts
35% vs 54% CV-Bb better on defense
CV-Bb vs BB+ 2DDs
39% vs 52%  CV-Bb on offence is slightly inferior to defending BB & 2 DDs.

1 BB A4D4C18          vs 1CV-Cc A0D2C16 + 2 TcB A3-4D3-4C10
1 CA A3D3C10         vs A6-8D8-10C36
1 DD A2D2C8           A6D8 or A8D10
A9D9C36**                   14 pts  or 18 pts (depending upon Air Supremacy bonus)
18 pts > 14 pts                   = 18 pts**

BB, CA, DD vs  CV-Cc (D8) without Air Sup.
57%       vs 34%, draw 9%, CV-Cc (D8) loose on defense,
CV-Cc (A6) vs BB, CA, DD
22% vs 70%, draw 8%, CV-Cc (A6) loose on offence.

BB, CA, DD vs  CV-Cc (D10) If Air Supremacy
37%          vs 51%, draw 12% CV-Cc (D10) better on defense.
CV-Cc (A8) if Air Sup vs BB, CA, DD
40%                vs 46%, draw 14% CV-Cc (A8) almost even on offence

Tac bombers- cost 10 A3D3, no SBR
-Tac bombers A4D4 when paired with a tank or fighter (1:1 combined arms bonus)

On this point, keep the bonus 1:1 with Fighter, but…
I would also give the same bonus anytime Air Supremacy is gained : no enemy plane.

But, I will add that any AAA unit forbid the Air Supremacy bonus for TcB.
It will be an incentive to bring on attack or keep this unit on defense.

So, in this situation, they can still get the A4/D4 if paired 1:1 with Fg, but any other stay A3D3.
Of course, when all the AAA are destroyed, all TcB get 4 A/D.

So, Air Supremacy is gained when no enemy plane or AAA is present in combat.

In Naval Battle, it could be an advantage of cruiser seen as a AA platform:

Naval Air Supremacy: no enemy plane and no enemy cruiser is present.

What do you think of these ones?

@Uncrustable:

Either or, air supremacy bonus should require at least one friendly fighter to obtain.

But with the way were going, to further simplify, and to prevent tacs from becoming too powerful, remove the air supremacy altogether.
Did you read about the AAA and Cruiser forbidding Air Supremacy?

Option 1: After all, what we come through it is my favourite one!
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
Tecbmb cost 10 A3D3, 1:1 with tank or fighter to A4D4, no SBR
Bomber cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1D6. +2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Carrier cost 14  Good change, not so radical in combat.
No other OOB changes

Option 2:
Change tac bomb to 10 IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB change

On fighter intercepting SBR at 2:
SBR is a bit powerful currently OOB.
Many times bombers will be sent alone with no fighter escort even when their are enemy fighters, this is because you can easily overwhelm the fighters with bombers with all @1.
With interceptors @2 it will force more escorts to protect bombers.
It’s also OOB 42.2 I believe.
So nerf SBR a little, and add a bit of historical realism (higher risk for sending bombers unescorted)
Could also add: fighters range 6 from operation airbase during escort SBR

For SBR combat, we should come back to my version of SBR 1942.2 slightly modified from OOB
(I erased the First Strike of the bomber but kept it for Fighter):
Fg A1First Strike D2
TcB A1 D1
StB A1 D0

should require at least one friendly fighter to obtain

This is a hard limitation in naval combat, in some battle the Fighter will be taken as fodder but on the other side it could have no plane at all.

Don’t forget, there is no more OOB Fighter D4, all the time.

I thought AAA and Cruiser can somewhat limit the scope of the A/D 4 of TcB.

+2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase

Is it true?
An StB can get A5? and damaged 1D6+2?

It is a good idea to give such a bonus, since the SBR can be difficult to pass Fg D2 then AA D1.

This is always the problem about SBR when there is escort or interceptor, there is a higher cost to Raid IC (more casualties, diverting precious planes from other objectives, 1 single round of fire) than the regular 1D6 odds of survival vs AAA.

I think we already discuss of this on an old thread.

Maybe escorts and interceptors should be allowed to fight in other combat mission after.
So maybe their will be more casualties but, at least, useful units can be used elsewhere.

With Fighter able to hit planes every round on “1”, it is far more interesting to kept them in real combat. This less rigid rule can become an incentive to go more on SBR.

However, since only Fg or TcB can scramble in the IC’s territory, but all enemy planes can come from everywhere within range, if we allow other combat mission to the other planes, I think, to be fair, all attacking planes, not just StBs, have to roll an AAA after the air battle.

At least, with -1 IPC to TcB and -2 to Fg lower cost, it will be easier to replace casualties.
In addition, G40e have reduced the cost of many units, the additional money could be input on the aftermath of disastrous SBR.

@Uncrustable:

Maybe just go back to OOB air units
Change tac bomb to 10, no other change
What should the carrier cost with this? -1?

Either or, air supremacy bonus should require atleast one friendly fighter to obtain.
But with the way were going, to further simplify, and to prevent tacs from becoming too powerful, remove the air supremacy altogether.

Option 1:
Fighters cost 8 A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
Tecbmb cost 10 A3D3, 1:1 with tank or fighter to A4D4, no SBR
Bomber cost 12 A3D1, SBR at 1D6. +2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Carrier cost 14
No other OOB changes

Option 2:
Change tac bomb to 10IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB change

Taking a different and fresh look on to all this,
have you ever ponder on this other way of balancing air units?

Giving TacB the defensive D4, all the time, of OOB fighter.
It will be less complicated to watch TcB on offense only if they qualified to A4.
And if Air Supremacy is ruled, to watch for it on 1 side only.
The game is already used to it, somehow.

TcB A3-4D4M4C10 get A4 only when paired with Fg or Armor.
Fg A2D3M4C8, any “1” rolled hit a plane, give +1A to TcB 1:1,

In carrier operations, it will make this:
2 Fgs a low A4D6C16,
Fg+TcB A6D7C18,
2TcBs A6D8C20 (as it was an OOB Fg)

Maybe it is not viable, I don’t know.

I’m just throwing my 2 cents, to be sure all possibilities have been explored.

Another addition to improve balance:
Fg A2D3M4C8, any “1” rolled hit a plane, give +1A to TcB 1:1,
and give +1A/D when paired to another Fg 1:1.
A small improvement to Fg, to better match this converted (OOB Fg) TcB unit.

In carrier operations, it will make this:
2 Fgs A5D7C16, instead of A4D6 (or A6D6C22 for 2 TcB OOB)
Fg+TcB A6D7C18, (vs A7D7C21, OOB)
2TcBs A6D8C20 (as it was an OOB Fg)

Maybe, this way it can be possible to rise Carrier cost to 15 IPCs because Air units value will be nearer OOB.

@Uncrustable:

Maybe just go back to OOB air units
Change tac bomb to 10, no other change
What should the carrier cost with this? -1?

Option 1:
Fighters cost  8  A2D3, intercept SBR at 2
Tac bmb cost 10 A3D3, 1:1 with tank or fighter to A4D4, no SBR
Bomber cost  12 A3D1, SBR at 1D6. +2A & +2SBR when launched from airbase
Carrier cost 14
No other OOB changes

Option 2:
Change tac bomb to 10 IPCs, fighters intercept SBR at 2, carriers cost 15
No other OOB change

Keeping in mind the same principles:
Fighter must be lighter and cheaper unit but good against plane and
TcB is heavier and best plane (Jack-of-all-trade) against most units.

Option 1: cheaper and lighter fighter unit and TcB  A/D much variable.
Fg A2D3C8 any “1” rolled hit a plane (owner’s choice).
TcB A3-4D3-4C10 +1A/D when paired 1:1 with Fg
Carrier 14 IPCs.

Advantage:
Much more aircraft units in the game.
Can take more easily the “1” Fg directly hitting other plane, in the game balance flow of casualties and buying of new units.

Option 2: nearer OOB but Stat of OOB Fg A3D4C10 attributed to TcB
TcB A3D4C10 +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg (and Armor?)
Fg A3D3C9 any “1” rolled hit a plane.

Advantage:
The TcB can take the place of the OOB Fg on carrier and keep the same cost model.
The Fg have the same basic stats A3D3 as the OOB TcB.
It is nearer OOB vs all naval units.

CV-A: 2 Fgs Worst combination, but cheaper and can destroy plane much directly.
A6D6C18, 12 pts  (vs OOB 2 Fgs: A6D8C20, 14 pts)

CV-B: Fg+TcB Best combination on offence.
A7D7C19, 14 pts (vs OOB Fg+TcB: A7D7C21, 14 pts)

CV-C: 2 TcBs Best combination on defense.
**A6D8C20, 14 pts  **(vs OOB 2 TcBs: A6D6C22, 12 pts)

Disadvantage:
Intuitively (or because of years of OOB Fg units before TcB appear), we have the impression that TcB shouldn’t be the best unit on defense, but is it really the case?
1 IPC less between Fg and TcB is not much, but Fg will be buy because, TcB need it to get A4.

What is the balance cost for Carrier?
16 IPCs?
(Because both planes will be -1 IPC, for 2 unit x -1 IPC= - 2 IPCs vs OOB)?
or 15 IPCs?
Explanation: -3 IPCs for a full loaded carrier for 3 units = -1 IPC/unit.

What will be the price of Carrier to keep balance vs BB and CA (at -2 IPCs/ unit) C16 or C15?
Or still 14 IPCs?
Explanation:
CV -2 IPCs + 2 Fg/TcB -2 IPCs = - 4 IPCs/ 3 units = - 1.33 IPC/ unit vs -2 IPCs/unit for BB and CA.

For G40e scenario of all OOB and only TcB -1 IPC,
there is only TcB reduced -1 OOB to 10 IPCs.

Probably it is better to keep the Carrier at 14 IPCs.
Average reduction cost will be around -1 IPC/ unit with 1 OOB Fg on board.

@Uncrustable:

Yes tactical bombers no longer SBR anything, bases or IC. (they would be too powerful)
It may not be perfect historical realism (not the only case in this game imo)…
But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…

1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (air supremacy bonus for tacs and taking out enemy air)

2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need fighters (protection + air supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.

3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters and airbases to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.

All these rules, taken along with 12IPC bases, will greatly increase the use/importance of airbases.

There is much historical realism here.

Keeping in mind all these principles, I think the last option 2 fit very well in these requirements.

@Uncrustable:

Option 2 is worse than we have now OOB
pay 1 more IPC and get the tac that defends at +1 and can attack at +1
fighters will be a rare purchase indeed

your going to beat this dead horse into a creamy pulp lol

i dont even think anyone is following it anymore

And now the zombie is walking…

After all the different roads explored,
I think it is the last one which is nearer the OOB and, at least, the easiest to implement as a singular House Rule with your principles in it (without too much affecting the overall balance).

And for G40e, I don’t want to convince you at all cost to implement the TcBA3D4C11 in G40e.
IMHO, if you searching for a wider acceptance, you must keep OOB Fg and TcB (-1 IPCs).

However, if you want something like the principles below, at least think about it.
Just read it as it was the first solution suggested instead of the last of a long exchange.
(If it had come to my mind earlier, be sure I would had submited it.)

But at least, you keep reading and comments that help a lot find better and simpler HR (IMO) like this one below.

@Uncrustable:

But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…

1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (air supremacy bonus for tacs and taking out enemy air)

2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need fighters (protection + air supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.

3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters and airbases to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.

There is much historical realism here.

TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.

The problem, as you show, was in the cost: TcB at 10 IPCs too low or Fg at 9 IPCs too high.
And, reading your thread on a revised cost calculation, it becomes clear to me that TcB must be at 11 IPCs: A3-4+D4+M1**+3**= 10.5 rounded up = 11 IPCs

It works with OOB.
It is better balance with a carrier at 16 IPCs with a BB at 19 IPCs and CA 11 IPCs (because of BB and CA having already a cost problem).

It can also works with either a carrier at 15 or 14 IPCs and BB and CA at minus 2 IPCs (18 and 10).

In carrier operation, you also get a progressive improvement with higher cost units (which wasn’t the case with a OOB TcB at 11 IPCs: a kind of singular aberration!) and, most of all, the A/D value for a full loaded carrier doesn’t change vs OOB.

CV-A: 2 Fgs
A6D6C18, A/D sums 12 pts (as was 2 x OOB TcB A3D3= 12 A/D pts but at 22 IPCs)

CV-B: Fg+TcB
A7D7C20, A/D sums 14 pts (as was OOB Fg+TcB: A7D7 = 14 pts but at 21 IPCs)

CV-C: 2 TcBs
A6D8C22, sums 14 pts (as was 2 x OOB Fgs: A3D4C20 same A/D pts but at 2 IPCs higher)

And it is clear to me that this is the HR I will suggest on my next A&A board game.
It will allow to observe the Fg and TcB new interraction (following the principles above) with a minimal change to units value.

I liked the Fg A2D3C8 and TcB A3-4D3-4C10, there is more variability and stategy in it but it had greater impact on balance.

So, no cost change for the TcB stay at 11, just an upgraded D4.

But Fg still the best in air combat fight with A3D3 because it is now cheaper.
11 Fg A3C9 vs 9 TcB D4C11 = same cost 99 IPCs
61% vs 36%

9 TcB A3C11 vs 11 Fg D3C9 = same cost 99 IPCs
11% vs 87%

@Uncrustable:

TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.

With these, now tacs will rarely be purchased lol
pay one more IPC and get always A4 and range 6 + better SBR (bomber)

2 less IPCs and only 1 less defense with same offense much of the time (meaning fighter is far more efficient at both attacking and defending)

lol sorry to keep raining on your parade

After the rain, the sunshine! lol
And rains help it get cleaner.

So it means that your Air Supremacy for TcB must be incorporated to get A4.

Air Supremacy: no enemy’s air + at least 1 Fg on your side. And no more armor pairing.
So Fg will still be needed.
Will not change much in carrier operation (since without Fg, TcB stay A3),
but on land operation, it will becomes very often A4.

Does it improve the balance vs Fg and StB?

@Uncrustable:

Fighter: cost 8 A2D2 R4, hits to air units first, intercepts SBR @2, defends from operational AB @3 (not during SBR)
Tactical: cost 10 A3D3 R4, A4D4 if no enemy units and atleast 1 friendly fighter, cannot SBR
Bomber: cost 12 A3D1 R6, SBR at 1D6, operational AB gives +1 to SBR and attack aswell as range

Baron this is far superior to anything you have come up with.
There is very good reason to purchase all 3, none of which are OP relative to the others.
You need fighters pretty much for everything, but they are weak by themselves. Requiring tactical or strategic bombers.
If you go tactical bombers you need fighters to give them air supremacy and to protect them from enemy fighters.
If you go strategic bombers you need fighters to protect your airbases so the bombers get their attacking bonus, without constantly dishing out IPCs to repair them. Aswell as protecting the bombers during shorter range missions.
Show me the flaw of this.

Is it the ONE you will finally implement in G40e?
You kept A2D2 in your pocket and finally coming back with it?  :-D

It must be tested, I think it is viable but will need a different opening set-up.
The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.
It could work. And it have no Fg with alien to A&A system: “1” rolled hit something.

You don’t answer my last question: can Air Supremacy correct somehow the flaw you pointed to me vs Fg and StB cost?

I’m in a different perspective, don’t want to shake everything at the same time.
My friends must make little step at a time: too much change will get a NO for answer, and they will want to play OOB on this topic, that’s it.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.