Should carriers cost more?

[Cow]

This always bothered me about global. The carrier fighter naval buys are much stronger than in previous editions, the carrier now has cannon fodder factor now that it has a tilt, this screws up the naval balance pretty hard, because it makes attacking even more harder than defending.

In the past defending naval was a bit harder at times.  Carriers did not tilt and had an attack value so there was more incentive for the axis and allies to attack each other's naval as it wasn't as difficult now.

I would like carriers to cost 18 should another global map be printed and a game balanced around that. I feel that would we would see more showdowns with japan and usa if defending wasn't so much easier than attacking.

The pacific is fun for both sides, but it kind of sucks the fun away knowing how cheesy carriers have become, they are much better than ever (extra tilt for 2 more ipcs vs an attack roll at 1 - cannon fodder is better by far). Also before I did not necessarily have to have subs to sink carrier fighter... 2 bombers and a fighter was only slightly better... but now it is much more difficult.

In order to attack naval it seems I need a sub for each carrier the enemy has otherwise I must spend much much more money in order to sink the fleet.

[Shin Ji]

I agree that the carriers make defense by far the best option.  I feel like in the Pacific, it comes down to making the other guy either desperate enough to attack, or spread out enough to actually be vulnerable.  Every time I've been the one to engage fleets, I've lost, regardless of what the simulators seem to indicate.

[Bunnies P Wrath]

You could call it the Axis and Allies:  OK Corral Cow version.

[Gargantua]

Carriers make great offensive weapons too lets not forget...

2 hits for $16,  makes them a great hit soak when needed.

Also,  Bomber Builds can be > Carriers

Because of effective bomber range,  the enemy either has the entire fleet in one cluster,  or faces off nibbling elimination by enemy bombers!

[Vance]

Carriers by themselves may seem cheap but when you factor in the other unts that MUST be built with them, the whole group is very expensive.  At a minimum you NEVER want to have a carrier without a destroyer because that makes it extremely vulnerable to sub attacks, and you may need a blocker to make a getaway.

In my mind, fleets come in two flavours:

Offensive: Carrier, fighter, tactical bomber, destroyer, cruiser, 2 subs.  total cost is $69 not including the transports and ground units (5 transports, 1 armor, 4 artillery, 5 infantry will run you another $72).

Defensive: Carrier, 2 fighters, 2 destroyers, battleship. total cost is $72 not including additional destroyers or subs, and the naval/air base you want this to be parked next to (naval base, air base and 3 fighters costs another $60).

Bombers nearby completes either package.

[knp7765]

I don't think the price of carriers should be changed. Yeah, I agree they are formidable in defense, especially with a full load of fighters and that extra hit soak does come in handy at time. However, it can be a double-edged sword. Say you fight a big naval battle and during the thick of it, you take that first hit on your carrier to save another shooting unit. Then you wipe out the enemy fleet. If you have fighters and/or tac bombers left, at least two of them now have no place to land if you are not by a friendly island or coastline. So now you just lost 20-22 IPCs in valuable planes plus you have this carrier out there that is next to useless.
Another scenario; you have a carrier with 2 fighters and a destroyer escort. Your enemy attacks with 4 subs. Now, during the first round, ALL of your units can hit those subs and you are in good shape with two "2"s and two "4"s against his four "2"s. Say he gets 1 hit with his subs and on defense you hit 2 of his subs. Now, do you take that first hit with your carrier? If so, you just doomed your planes and are already planned to take a -$20 loss. As the attacker, he doesn't even need to stick around for the 2nd round of combat. He can retreat his subs knowing at the cost of $12 in subs he cost you $20 in fighters. Plus your carrier now need to limp back to a friendly naval base and hopefully not fall within range of enemy ships or planes in the process.
Or do you choose to lose the destroyer escort? If you lose the destroyer, the planes can't hit the subs anymore so you end up with 2 subs against your 2-hit carrier defending on 2. Odds are better for him rolling 2 dice for a "2" than for you rolling just 1 dice for a "2". So, for the 2nd round of combat, all he has to do is get 1 hit on your carrier and even if your carrier hits one more of his subs, he can retreat his remaining sub. His loss: -$18, your loss: -$28. Plus, once again you have a damaged carrier that has to limp back to a friendly naval base.
Of course there is the possibility that he gets REAL lucky and rolls snake-eyes on his 2nd combat round, in which case your carrier is sunk immediately without firing back and you still lose 2 fighters. His loss: -$12, your loss: -$44, plus losing naval presence in the immediate area. I really don't think you want carriers to be even MORE expensive in this case.

[axis_roll]

I don't know global, but reading this discussion reminds me of when we played an Expansion rules set from Gamers Paradise for AAR that had two hit capital ships (costs weren't modified back then).  The capital ships could take a damage hit, but they would need to be repaired, and if it were an a/c taking the hit, she would lose her ability to carry planes.  Damaged BB's could not attack either.  You had to sit (for one turn) in a SZ adjacent to an undamaged IC to get repaired (IC's could be protected from SBRs with eascorts, so an undamaged IC was a bit easier to achieve)

One last rule for the capital ships in taking damage:  When a capital ship(a/c, BB) were to be taken as damage, it had to be the carrier first.  In other words, carriers were the primary target for the attacker.

Feel free to pick and choose any of these rules to try and balance the pacific as you seem fit.