Is Carrier change to capital ship justifiable?

No, they are stronger overall.

An old carrier that took one hit could land just as many planes.

As far as moving the carriers in sometimes you NEED to move them to the sz of battle so the planes can land. As far as landing and taking off planes need room to land and take off. If the ship is damaged I’d assume the room would be less. Then again that’s just a guess on my part.

Battleships suffer no penalty for damage to reflect the fact that they were much more sturdy than carriers.

@Krieghund:

Battleships suffer no penalty for damage to reflect the fact that they were much more sturdy than carriers.

They also cost more. 20 is a good chunk of IPCs to pay.

@moompix:

No, they are stronger overall.

An old carrier that took one hit could land just as many planes.

I think this is the major point.  Previously, if the carrier gets hit, that’s it; no place to land the planes, no way to get those IPCs back.  Now, you get a (relatively) free hit absorbed allowing the carrier to stick around.  If you don’t have anywhere else to land the planes if your carrier has to take a hit, then leave it out of the combat, otherwise, you take it in and take your chances, and just have to send the damaged ones backward for repair while the newly produced ones come up front; before you just sent new carriers up from behind without the chance to salvage the old ones.  2 IPCs extra cost isn’t a bad trade for that IMO.

Plus, think about a carrier on defense next to one of your territories.

They defend the same as old carriers, and you can absorb the extra hit without worrying about losing your planes, if they survive the battle.

BUT, AC are capital ships. Just look at how they are being used in today’s navy (well, mainly US Navy). The entire fleet is centered around the AC. Battleship has been removed from all fleet, leaving AC as the only capital ship.

There are plenty of advantages in the new AC, but there are also a few disadvantages. They could have pushed them in the high 18 ipc I think.

YOU ARE ALL WRONG !

Carriers should never get a 2-hit capability.

And the Airbases should not be allowed to scramble unlimited numbers of planes.

I think carriers could cost 14 IPC, att 0, def 2 and sink after the first hit.
Airbases should be able to scramble 6 planes only, and one plane less for each damage point. Now Airbases dont make carriers reduntant.

Kev, buddy, you guys dont know how to balance a game. Please listen to me and lets do this right.

To me, carriers wouldn’t be worth 14 if they had no attack value and couldn’t absorb two hits. For slightly more you could put in two destroyers that would absorb two hits combined and could be better offensively just over the price of the carrier, and for two IPCs more than each plane on it, (or one in the case of tac bombers) you could put a cruiser in the fleet that would fight just as well and be able to shoot shoreshots as well.

@Razor:

I think carriers could cost 14 IPC, att 0, def 2 and sink after the first hit.
Airbases should be able to scramble 6 planes only, and one plane less for each damage point. Now Airbases dont make carriers reduntant.

Airbases don’t make carriers redundant as it is now.  You still need carriers to protect fleets in areas without airbases, and you need them to project air power out of your airbases’ range.

Krieghund is right again. Plus, as we all know, carriers are the ship with the most powerful bombardment of all… sorties. And when taking islands, you need that.

Hey, I love carriers, and we all still need them when we want to well do that old trick you know, butt when that is said, no WWII-carrier deserve a two-hit capability, no sir.

This is my point.

Got it ?

@Razor:

Hey, I love carriers, and we all still need them when we want to well do that old trick you know, butt when that is said, no WWII-carrier deserve a two-hit capability, no sir.

This is my point.

Got it ?

LOL

@Omega:

BUT, AC are capital ships. Just look at how they are being used in today’s navy (well, mainly US Navy). The entire fleet is centered around the AC. Battleship has been removed from all fleet, leaving AC as the only capital ship.

There are plenty of advantages in the new AC, but there are also a few disadvantages. They could have pushed them in the high 18 ipc I think.

Omega, I think it’s apples to oranges going on here, to make a comparative issue between the carriers in today’s US navy with those of WWII…  In today’s navy there’s many other things to consider, global imaging, modern jet fighters, cruise missiles, etc. (some of these are also why the Battleship “has been removed”).  I don’t believe an AC should have the 2 hit capability, not a WWII one (and i don’t think an A&A game in a contemporary setting should have it either).  Sure, someone could go and bring up certain histories where such and such carrier took this 2 or 3 hits from Japanese fighters/bombers/other ships - but we’re talking about the representation of units in A&A, not just 1 plane or one ship’s bombardment - but many.

If it is too much trouble to repair a carrier and you got so much money you’d just rather buy a new one, then take the second hit on the carrier too and save a destroyer.  Problem solved.

@Gharen:

Is anyone else starting to think that giving carriers 2 hits, cost 2 more IPCs, and removing the attack value basically does nothing for the carrier.  Once hit it can do anything for planes until its repaired unless it has allied planes on it.  But I think the fact that planes can’t land on a damaged carrier just defeats the purpose of moving them even remotely close to combat.  Battleships still retain bombard capabilty even when damaged.  Why shouldn’t carriers be allowed to at least land their aircraft and not be able to launch them until repaired, giving the player the option of trying to save his planes instead of losing countless more ships and aircraft just to save a moving/non attacking airbase?

Just curious if anyone else thinks that this change weakens carriers.

i do not think the change weakens the carrier, i think it makes it stronger.

however, the framing of your question seems wrong to me. i think it is important if the change makes the game more fun, not if the unit is stronger or weaker. if a unit is comparatively too strong or too weak(see cruiser), it leads to easy purchasing decisions which means a boring purchase.

i think the carrier’s effectiveness to cost is pretty good. i am having lots of fun making my purchases for japan, usa, and anzac as unit costs and effectiveness is pretty good. there are a couple of exceptions as cruisers are never considered aswell as uk and china purchases are boring because they only purchase infantry.

i do wish the carrier was the same as guadalcanal with 0 attack value and 0 defense value with the ability for 2 hits. i do prefer the 2 hits but wish they were not such a defensive piece.

I still prefer the 1/3 carrier. But its not a major thing to me. I can live with 0/2 2hit carriers.