Attacking carriers as TT

[Jay]

We use a rule that attacking carriers are treated like transports in that they can only be chosen as casualties when no other piece are left. They still have to be chosen before TT . Also if subs are defending and only planes are left then the carrier has to take any hits .

But it seems rushing carriers into battles to take hits is a bit silly . On the defense make sense they were prime targets and they could fight back . But just using  a capital ship as fodder with no attack value make no sense to me .  Please respond.

In my last Alpha +2 game it both screwed me as germany against an american fleet and aided the Italians round 1 vs. UK.

[knp7765]

Yeah, I actually agree with you that using carriers to soak up 2 hits in a battle does seem ridiculous.  After all, carriers are capital ships and one SHOULD be protecting them, not throwing them in as fodder.  Unfortunately, this is a tactic that I often find myself using, particularly as USA because of their greater income can more easily replace the carriers than other nations.  Many times I have sent a fleet into a large battle and rather than taking hits on pieces that can still shoot the enemy, I will take a hit or two on the carrier. 
This usually happens in two cases: 
1=the first round of US hits didn't go so well and there are still a lot of enemy targets to destroy.  In these cases, I usually intend on taking the planes that would have landed on the carrier as future casualties because I know I will be getting more casualties in the 2nd or 3rd round of combat.
2=the attack is taking place adjacent to a friendly territory, in which case I know my planes will still have a landing space.  Also, there will still be many enemy targets going into the 2nd round of combat.

So, while it may not be a sensible tactic, nevertheless it is one that I often find myself using.