Let's Talk Naval Fighters!

[Bardoly]

Well, since no one else started this thread, I guess I have to.   

Naval Fighter Stats

2     Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3     Defense
2     Movement points (May be upgraded to 4 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.


What do y'all think?

[Imperious Leader]

My Naval Fighter Stats

3     Attack
3     Defense
2     Movement points (May be upgraded to 4 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.

I don't like the last part because people will just buy them for land defense and you will have a bunch of so called 'naval fighters' always performing on land.  Let fighters be for land and naval for naval...no mixing.

[Bardoly]

My Naval Fighter Stats

3     Attack
3     Defense
2     Movement points (May be upgraded to 4 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.

I don't like the last part because people will just buy them for land defense and you will have a bunch of so called 'naval fighters' always performing on land.  Let fighters be for land and naval for naval...no mixing.

You really think so?  A 2 attack, 3 defense, 2 move air unit for 8 IPCs instead of a 3 attack, 3 defense, 2 move armor unit for 5 IPCs which can blitz and can take a territory?  I don't think so.  Maybe after getting some tech upgrades, some players would get them to help out with trading territories, but not as a base unit.  I mean, the naval unit only has 2 movement points!  How can it be used on land very well?  Also, if you’re saying that naval fighters may only be used at sea, then how do you build them and fly them out to the carriers which have already left port.

I do see that you would have the naval fighter have an attack value of 3, whereas I believe that it should be a 2 attack.  I'm trying to model the fact that naval air divisions were smaller than land-based air divisions.

I did have another thought, though.  How about the naval fighter having a movement value of 3 (upgradeable to 5 with the Long Range technology)?  This would allow a fleet to move 2 spaces away from the IC and yet still be able to fly newly built fighters out to join the fleet.  I think that this would be better.

So, with that said, here are my updated naval fighter stats.

Naval Fighter Stats

2     Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3     Defense
3     Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
8     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.


What do y'all think?

[Upside-down_Turtle]

Well, since no one else started this thread, I guess I have to.   

Actually, I did start one, but accidentally spelled it Navel Fighters.     Man, that conjures up all kinds of images. 

Any who, I'm starting to think all these different planes are getting kind of redundant, and having carrier fighters only being able to move 2 severely restricts ones combat options.  I see no reason why I couldn't fly a P-51 mustang off a carrier.  I know some fighters were specialized for carriers, but why couldn't a standard fighter be retrofitted to be a carrier plane?  Folding wings is all you really need.   

[dinosaur]

You also need a reinforced airframe to take the stress at landing.  Tailhooks.  Maybe other things.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

You also need a reinforced airframe to take the stress at landing.  Tailhooks.  Maybe other things.

Yes, tail hooks.  I meant folding wings as the only major mod.  Although, a reinforced airframe would be another major modification as well.  Better "shocks" (I'm sure that's not the real term), too. 

Perhaps naval fighters could be the same as regular fighters, but cost 12 instead of 10. 

[LuckyDay]

You really think so?  A 2 attack, 3 defense, 2 move air unit for 8 IPCs instead of a 3 attack, 3 defense, 2 move armor unit for 5 IPCs which can blitz and can take a territory? 

only if the 3/3/2 armor unit can take off from Carriers...

[LuckyDay]

i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering.  I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering.  I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.

That might work.  Still, it means IL has to rethink his optimal Axis opening moves.  Japan can still destroy tones of US ships, but carriers become vulnerable. 

[Bardoly]

i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering.  I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.

That's why I gave them a range of 3 (5 with Long Range).

[LuckyDay]

i think the reduced range of the carrier-based planes is reasonable when considering the vast amount of ocean they are covering.  I would think that one might even not count the movement from/to the carrier as a move, like in AAP when launched from an airbase.

That's why I gave them a range of 3 (5 with Long Range).

not counting the move to/from the carrier actually gives naval fighters a range of 4 when launched from a carrier.  A range of three means that they would have to land a)on a different carrier, b) on land, c) that the carrier would have to move to pick them, as a 3 range cannot return them to the ship and use their full range.

a range of 2 (with bonus from carriers) encourages them to be used on carriers, otherwise they will be overused on land.

That might work.  Still, it means IL has to rethink his optimal Axis opening moves.  Japan can still destroy tones of US ships, but carriers become vulnerable. 

yes, and the initial setup of the game might be best to check for the inclusion of such fighters from the start.

[Imperious Leader]

If you want it realistic naval fighters should be 2 space movers. ok

But to also be realistic they cant be used on land. different branches of the service didn't make requests: "Hey  admiral -send us some torpedo bombers"

I say attack at 3, defend at 3 move 2, cost 8-9

Air was the key factor against ships. If you had them you can sink anything that floats.

[Bardoly]

If you want it realistic naval fighters should be 2 space movers. ok

But to also be realistic they cant be used on land. different branches of the service didn't make requests: "Hey  admiral -send us some torpedo bombers"

I say attack at 3, defend at 3 move 2, cost 8-9

Air was the key factor against ships. If you had them you can sink anything that floats.

But imagine if your country were really being hard-pressed by your enemies and your fleet had been destroyed, but you still had some naval fighters.  You as the commanding general wouldn't say, "I need to attack this territory to protect the capital, and I really need some more units.  It's too bad that I don't have any aircraft carriers for these naval fighter divisions to base from so that they could join in the attack."

The solution to the problem of people buying naval fighters specifically for the purchase of land warefare is to give them a shorter range and to make the regular fighter to actually be more cost-effective, so perhaps the naval fighter should have the following stats with the cost raised to 9 IPCs.

Naval Fighter Stats

2     Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3     Defense
3     Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
9     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 8 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.


What do y'all think?

[Imperious Leader]

Naval Fighter Stats

2     Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3     Defense
3     Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
9     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 8 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.

why do they attack at 2? A fighter with bullets kills a battleship at 3, and a fighter with torpedo bombs or a large bomb does it at 2? No way.

[Bardoly]

Naval Fighter Stats

2     Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
3     Defense
3     Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
9     IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 8 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
--    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters may be used on land.

why do they attack at 2? A fighter with bullets kills a battleship at 3, and a fighter with torpedo bombs or a large bomb does it at 2? No way.

I am definitely not opposed to a 3 / 3 naval fighter.  The reason for having the naval fighters be a 2 attack / 3 defense value was to continue the AA tradition of fighters having a higher defense, so my questions for you would be the following:

Why have fighters always had a lower attack than defense?

Why have aircraft carriers always had a lower attack than defense?

At least I do understand why infantry units have a higher defensive value because of being dug-in and all that, but why would naval units have higher defensive values?  Off the cuff, I would think that if any offensive/defensive values were to be unequal with naval units, that the attaker would have the advantage, so the offensive value should be the higher one.

I have always thought that perhaps all of the units in the game should have equal attack and defense values, but I do understand that in a 6-sided die system (where currently no unit has an attack or defense value of "5" or "6" - effectively making it a 4 point system) that for unit variation, some units should have unequal attack / defense values.
_______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________

On a diferent note, how do you feel about the naval fighter having a range of 3 (5 with Long Range)?

Without adding special rules from other verions of AA, I feel that this is just about right.  Imagine a carrier in a seazone 1 move away from a sea zone containing an island.  The naval fighters on the carrier MAY attack the island and still land on the carrier which has moved into the sea zone surrounding the island.  I think this move was and should be a part of WWII.  With a range of 2, that move would not be valid without special rules which would add to the complexity of the game.