Fighters defending on a three

[Nukchebi0]

How much would the game be changed if fighters could only defend on a three (basically a flying tank)? Would this see more naval action, would less money be spent on fighters, or would fighters be phased entirely out because they were a bad purchase? I would love to hear opinions and analysis on this matter.

[TATCCITW]

While it would definately lessen my purchases of them I still think they'd be very useful in trading territories in Europe.
As for sea I generally don't go all that naval as is, but a loaded carrier defending with three 3's would still be a formidable opponent.

[Imperious Leader]

This is a house rules idea.

[Crazy Ivan]

Would the cost of the fighters also be reduced? say to 7 IPC? That should keep them as a viable purchase, due to the greater movement capability over tanks. As it is, I rarely invest in fighters in my games due to the high cost.

[Pervavita]

$7 would be far too low IMHO, i think $10 could still be pulled off as in the last edition they cost $12 for the same power. there strength is not there 4 deffence but there 3 attack with flexability, the cheaper cost and extra deffence is why they are preffered over bombers IMO.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I agree, reducing the cost to 7 would make them cheaper then submarines.  Remember, they are still very flexible.

However, I might say:

Attack - 3
Defend - 3
Cost - $10
Move - 6

Makes them even more flexible, and, IMHO makes up for the reduced defense ability.


But then, I'd also say reduce the costs of destroyers to $10 as well.  Make a destroyer as good as a fighter in naval battles that way.  (AARe already did this, it's not broken I think.)

I'd also change bombers

Attack - 4
Defend - 2
Cost - 12 IPC
Move - 6

(notice their range was not changed, this is because they defend slightly better now and cost less.)

Likewise, both Battleships and Carriers should cost 18 IPC. Carriers maybe having their defense cut to 1 as well as their attack at 1.  After all, the idea was to keep your carriers behind and bring them up for fighter recovery after the area was secured, right?  They were not really intended to defend anything, just to bring the aircraft up.




That said, I did once play a game where Japanese and American fighters cost 8.  All ships cost 50% of normal.  Subs were 4, Destroyers 6, Battleships 12, Carriers 8.  That was a fun game! 

[Bunnies P Wrath]

How much would the game be changed if fighters could only defend on a three (basically a flying tank)? Would this see more naval action, would less money be spent on fighters, or would fighters be phased entirely out because they were a bad purchase? I would love to hear opinions and analysis on this matter.

Aircraft carrier and two fighters cost 36 IPC defending with three 3's, and attacking with 1, 3, 3.  Vulnerable to submarine attacks without escort.

Three destroyers cost 36 IPC defending with three 3's, and attacking with 3, 3, 3.

I'd still buy fighters if fighters defended at 3, even if their cost stayed at 10 IPC.  You can use fighters against ground targets, and you'll typically have an aircraft carrier "escorted" by transport/sub fleets.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Interesting take.

Destroyers can be better then fighters, if you have combined arms, in that case.  Att/Def at 3 + Bombard @3 in opening fire.  Not too bad if Fighters are nerfed.

Though, I agree, fighters can defend on land and sea, that gives them flexibility.