So who would buy a destroyer when for 2 more IPCs you can get a unit with 3 range and carries a fighter and does ASW too?
Then get rid of destroyer altogether
@Uncrustable:
So who would buy a destroyer when for 2 more IPCs you can get a unit with 3 range and carries a fighter and does ASW too?
Then get rid of destroyer altogether
I think you must compare them on a same IPC basis:
TF-A: 1 CVL A0D1C10-11 + 1 Fgt A3D4C10 + 1 CA A3D3C12= A6D8C32, 2 hits vs Subs, only 1 ASW
TF-D: 4 DDs A2D2M2C8 = A8D8M2C32, 4 hits vs Subs and 4 ASW
Would you really get ride of the DD?
Subs have better odds of surviving against TF-A than TF-D
U-Boat TF: 5 Subs A2D1M2C6 = A10D5M2C30, 5 hits Task Force.
Fst rnd, 52= 10/6 1 hit (1 subs casuality)
Scnd rnd 42= +8 12/6 = 2 hits No more TF-A (1 Sub casuality vs DD)
Third rnd 3*2= 6/6 1 hit No more TF-D
Frth rnd ???
Ok if you want more units make it basic:
3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB
CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5
Ok in the real game, people would much rather spend 2 more for the carrier
And why the hell did you include a cruiser in your example lol kinda warps it
And it doesn’t matter if you have one ASW or a million ASW lol that has no affect
Giving escort carrier ASW will severely impact destroyer purchases
@ Imperious Leader
Ok if you want more units make it basic:
3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBB
CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3- 3 hits? Find it too much, 3 planes enough.
CV= OOB
CVL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3- I pledge for ASW.
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB Probably the only cruiser type which worth the cost. But it should be named Armored Cruiser CA instead. OOB would be Light Cruiser or Heavy Cruiser CL
CA= OOB Would be name Light Cruiser CL
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7 With M3 and changing TT to D1, I’d rise the cost to 8 IPCs.
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5 Have read the other tread about plundging fire? BBB will still be vulnerable against plane, because it keep A4D4. I think it is more balance.
@Uncrustable:
Ok in the real game, people would much rather spend 2 more for the carrier
And why the hell did you include a cruiser in your example lol kinda warps it
And it doesn’t matter if you have one ASW or a million ASW lol that has no affect
Giving escort carrier ASW will severely impact destroyer purchases
I disagree, because in my examples, after 1st/2nd round, Fighter can no longer defends vs subs.
I add Cruiser because both CVL and CA will have M3: a Natural Task Force.
Keeping ASW for the fighter to be able to defend vs Subs, it requires the first hit be taken by the cruiser, it means loosing A3D3.
After 1 casuality: CVL+Fgt= A3D5 vs 3 DDs= A6D6. DDs are now better on defense.
After 2 casuality: Fgt=A3D4 must land or sink vs 2DDs= A4D4.
Still have 2 units left to defend vs Subs.
Keeping more DDs help having some good fodders.
Your example was dumb becuase it included a cruiser?
lol it was escort carrier vs destroyer
not escort carrier and cruiser vs destroyer
my point was simply that giving escort carriers at 10 IPC ASW would wreck destroyer purchases
here is a much better example:
2 fighter + 2 escort carriers = 40 IPCs = A6D10 move of 3 for carrier and 4 for fighter + the fighters can attack on land + ASW
5 destroyers = 40 IPC = A10D10 movement of 2 + ASW + cant attack land
you starting to see my point ? it gets even better at lower incomes, for example if a power has 20-24 IPCs to spend, it would get the escort carrier for ASW and the versitily of it + a fighter for 20 IPCs instead of spending so much 16-24 on destroyers that only do ASW and only move 2 and cant attack land, etc etc
@Uncrustable:
Your example was dumb becuase it included a cruiser?
lol it was escort carrier vs destroyer
not escort carrier and cruiser vs destroyermy point was simply that giving escort carriers at 10 IPC ASW would wreck destroyer purchases
here is a much better example:
2 fighter + 2 escort carriers = 40 IPCs = A6D10 move of 3 for carrier and 4 for fighter + the fighters can attack on land + ASW
5 destroyers = 40 IPC = A10D10 movement of 2 + ASW + cant attack landyou starting to see my point ? it gets even better at lower incomes, for example if a power has 20-24 IPCs to spend, it would get the escort carrier for ASW and the versitily of it + a fighter for 20 IPCs instead of spending so much 16-24 on destroyers that only do ASW and only move 2 and cant attack land, etc etc
Again, 2 CVL will be vulnerable vs Subs attack.
2 hits and it is over.
Pray that there is a landing field nearby for the 2 Fgts.
40 IPCs worth of destroyers can survives A10D10, 5 hits.
But we should also compare 2DD+2CA vs 2CVL+2Fgt. or 1 Fgt+1tacB= A7D9, can be possible also.
2DDs A4D4+ 2CA A6D6= A10D10 4 hits + 2@3 SB vs A6D10 4 hits (except 2 vs subs).
Now you have 1 rnd of ground support, but much better vs subs.
If we compare on offensive against a fleet including subs. Both will negate a time the Subs FirstStrike.
Just compare the 2 Fgts @3+ 2@0 won’t survive longer vs 2DD@2+2CA@3 or 5DD@2.
I think the fleet will prevail here.
CVL A0D1M3 ASW will not become the end of DDs.
They will be needed in slower attacking fleet.
Since I will not introduce 2 types (CVE and CVL) but only one.
I integrated how they use the Escort Carrier to the CVL.
There is the historical ground of ASW:
The Navys escort carriers, called “Jeep carriers” or (by the press) “baby flat tops,” never received the headlines or glory accorded their bigger sisters. Jeeps did the routine patrolwork, scouting and escorting of convoys that their larger fleet-type counterparts couldnt do. Lightly armored, slower than the fleet carriers and with far less defensive armament and aircraft, they performed admirably when called upon.
Jeep carrier crews, who joked that “CVE” (the Navy’s designation for this type of ship) really stood for “Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable,” became experts at hunting, finding and killing U-boats in both ocean theaters. Jeeps and their crews also provided fighter and close air support for amphibious landings, and served as aircraft transports as the tempo of the carrier war in the Pacific mounted to a crescendo.
http://home.comcast.net/~ivorjeffreys/jeep.html
For those who speak french, here is a documentary mainly about Escort/light aircrafts carriers.
From 7 minutes to the end (23 min.), they talk about Casablanca-class CVE and Independence-class CVL.
Working as air support for amphibious assault.
83 CVE (jeep) 20 knots / 9 CVL 31 knots, 45 Fgts, all were in operation since 1943 for USA.
Fighters from CVL were protecting the fleet and his Essex CV, while fighters from CV were protecting TacB.
Around 14m.30s. They talk about ASW in the Atlantic.
Sorry, I couldn’t find the original english version :?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryjq-dCuin8
Here is a canadian !!! :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
Around 5 min. the captain say:
He have 2 types of planes on board: ASW (Avengers) and fighter interceptors against planes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvnz06-MRc
Around 40m.45s, talk about Jeep Carriers in Atlantic.
42min. Some images from success of Guadalcanal CVE boarding U-Boat in Atlantic.
49 min. Leyte’s Gulf Jeep Carriers victorious defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8BvL0JuAM
Another way to see the weakness of CVL ASW:
Re: HBG Light Aircraft Carriers.
ASW is a cool idea. Never thought of giving a carrier ASW.
I think A 0, D 1, M 2, C 9 , 1 hit, carry 1 plane are excellent values for this unit.
With that in mind, say you have 1 CVE with 1 fighter on board. You see an enemy sub in range so you decide to attack it. In your combat move, you would move both the CVE and the fighter. While the CVE has no attack value, it’s ASW ability allows the fighter to attack the sub (where as if the fighter went by itself, it couldn’t target the sub).This kind of attack could be potentially costly to you. While you have decent odds of hitting the sub with your fighter @ 3, and the sub’s weak defense of 1 makes you mostly safe, whether you hit the sub or not, it could get that lucky 1 and sink your CVE costing you a 9 IPC unit to kill a 6 IPC unit. What’s more is now the fighter has to find a place to land with it’s remaining moves. If it can’t, you also lose the fighter. So, it just cost you 19 IPCs to kill the enemy’s 6 IPCs.
With that in mind, would any of you attack a lone sub with a CVE and fighter?By the way, I am assuming we would give these same values to the Seyditz class Light Aircraft Carrier in the German Set, right?
@Imperious:
Ok if you want more units make it basic:
3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
2 Cruisers: BC and CA
2 Destroyers: DD and DE
2 battleships: BB, BBBCVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
CV= OOB
CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
CA= OOB
DD=OOB
DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
BB=oob
BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5
I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs 2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.
