canada québec
New Carriers - For Better or For Worse?
-
Garg people were saying carriers were tough to kill, and i think i just said that carriers were not all that tough. Responding that a carrier is not a single ship really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course your going to argue that since the cruisers and destroyers survived the battle that Japan did not lose 2 carriers pieces at the battle of midway?
-
In what ruleset were carriers changed? Did I miss something (wouldnt be the first time).
-
In what ruleset were carriers changed? Did I miss something (wouldnt be the first time).
since pacific 1940
-
New carriers better for me. Like the soak and the defending “tip” decision.
The only problem I have with carriers is being able to bring them into a suicidal fight, to land fighters that have moved their max range to arrive at the fight. The hwole rule that states " you can assume all your enemies attacks will miss and all your will hit is silly". This rule alone screws italy in the med. Every game the carrier gets suicided in A+2 to kill Italys fleet and allows fighters from London into the fight.
-
@Jay:
New carriers better for me. Like the soak and the defending “tip” decision.
The only problem I have with carriers is being able to bring them into a suicidal fight, to land fighters that have moved their max range to arrive at the fight. The hwole rule that states " you can assume all your enemies attacks will miss and all your will hit is silly". This rule alone screws italy in the med. Every game the carrier gets suicided in A+2 to kill Italys fleet and allows fighters from London into the fight.
I’m surprised that the UK is willing to suicide fighters against SZ 97 or 95. By suiciding 2 planes they make themselves weaker in the Channel and I can’t imagine how they keep any navy after G2?? Yeah, sure, it’s a definative win against Italy, but who does that? Besides, wouldn’t it be better to move the carrier in noncombat (assuming you won the fight) and pick up the planes, rather than send the carrier to take hits and guarantee you lose the two planes??
-
@Jay:
New carriers better for me. Like the soak and the defending “tip” decision.
The only problem I have with carriers is being able to bring them into a suicidal fight, to land fighters that have moved their max range to arrive at the fight. The hwole rule that states " you can assume all your enemies attacks will miss and all your will hit is silly". This rule alone screws italy in the med. Every game the carrier gets suicided in A+2 to kill Italys fleet and allows fighters from London into the fight.
I’m surprised that the UK is willing to suicide fighters against SZ 97 or 95. By suiciding 2 planes they make themselves weaker in the Channel and I can’t imagine how they keep any navy after G2?? Yeah, sure, it’s a definative win against Italy, but who does that? Besides, wouldn’t it be better to move the carrier in noncombat (assuming you won the fight) and pick up the planes, rather than send the carrier to take hits and guarantee you lose the two planes??
It can be very appealing to cripple Italy, especially if Germany didn’t send fighters as scramble cover to Southern Italy.
-
Garg people were saying carriers were tough to kill, and i think i just said that carriers were not all that tough. Responding that a carrier is not a single ship really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course your going to argue that since the cruisers and destroyers survived the battle that Japan did not lose 2 carriers pieces at the battle of midway?
The losses you listed for the Americans were only a fraction of the number of carriers they possessed, none of which were sunk, even after taking kamikaze hits. The Japanese carriers were not easy to destroy either, most were eventually sunk because they were hit multiple times by overwhelming US aircraft. The British lost the HMS Eagle to a German U-Boat, and the really old and terrible carrier HMS Hermes (the Royal Navy’s first carrier actually) to the Japanese, it took 70 bombers 40 hits to sink her. And that was an old obsolete carrier, talk about easy to sink.
-
What GARG. said put both in the game and see which one gets purchased, do it in multiple games so there is less of a fluke chance that may favor one or the other
-
The USS Lexington took two torpedo hits and 3 bombs during the Battle of the Coral Sea and continued flight operations until the battle was over. Some explosions later sunk it, but that’s pretty impressive. That was before they started putting torpedo hulls on the carriers.
The USS Yorktown dodged 8 torpedos in that battle. Got all busted up with bombs and scrambled back for the defense of Midway after a few days worth of repairs.
If they were so easy to kill why didn’t they just kill them before they did so much damage to the Japanese fleet? When the reality is every ship and plane is pretty much focused on taking out said carriers.
They are two hit pieces for sure.
-
The USS Lexington took two torpedo hits and 3 bombs during the Battle of the Coral Sea and continued flight operations until the battle was over. Some explosions later sunk it, but that’s pretty impressive. That was before they started putting torpedo hulls on the carriers.
The USS Yorktown dodged 8 torpedos in that battle. Got all busted up with bombs and scrambled back for the defense of Midway after a few days worth of repairs.
If they were so easy to kill why didn’t they just kill them before they did so much damage to the Japanese fleet? When the reality is every ship and plane is pretty much focused on taking out said carriers.
They are two hit pieces for sure.
Amen.
I also like Gargantua’s idea of having both carrier types available to purchase. You could consider one an escourt carrier and the other the main battle carrier. I am guessing Imperious Leader can tell us what their abreviations should be (CV, CVE, ABCD, etc.).
Suggested Topics
