In version 1.2 (the current version) yes they can. In Version 3 (due out this month) no they can’t.
Carriers vs Islands in Pacific?
HMS Serapis last edited by
I’m interested in this … For what purpose do you build and use aircraft carriers? Especially with the US in Pacific? Why do I ask? Because in my opinion they are quite useless, because we have many islands in the Pacific that can serve the same purpose, moreover they can receive more planes, because they take them by so-called “frog jumps” from island to island. I understand that the number of capital ships is only valuable reason for production if we compete with Japan. . I am interested in your opinions. Maybe you see something I haven’t recognized so far. So it’s not a question of rules, I’m just interested in your experiences with aircraft carriers. Give me a reason to produce because they are economically unprofitable.
insaneHoshi last edited by
@hms-serapis If you are island hoping, you cant defend your fleet with aircraft.
Also I do not see how you are able to attack islands with aircraft without carriers to land on. An aircraft from Hawaii, could not reach any islands japan may take (save one)
Trig last edited by Trig
@hms-serapis Similar points to @insaneHoshi
Carriers give better fleet defense. Planes on island have to have an airbase built, and then only 3 fighters can scramble, and then even with radar, you still can’t scrabble tactical bombers.
Also, you have to capture an island the turn before you can land planes on it. So unless you have some very good ANZAC forces that don’t mind doing all the heavy lifting, you have to leave your fleet one turn ahead of your planes. (Reinforcement of captured bases only applies for the Marshals and Carolines.)
Range is better on a carrier. You don’t have to exit the island, and you can land where you don’t control islands. (See above point.) With a land based plane, you need Long Range Aircraft and and airbase to hit an island in the next sea zone. Or you can use a carrier. Carriers are needed to get effective island hopping going, as bombards only go so far aginst a determined Japanese militia spam.
Also, MAP off a carrier is so much better than MAP off an island.
Carriers are capital ships, meaning they give you hit points to take in battle, and are essential for a American VP.
Also, there is not always an island there. The northern Pacific is rather short on islands. And carriers can move to respond to threats. Islands can’t.
Carriers definitely have a role in maximizing the efficiency of an American push, and that should be the cornerstone of all US strategy, no matter the theater. Making the most of the short time the US is in the war is the best way for the Allies to achieve a victory.
Don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but my immediate reaction to this was that it wouldn’t seem like you were taking defense into account as much as you should have! As the others said, the defense ability makes them very important in and of itself, if you ask me. That alone is worth it.
But if you’re in the north-central Pacific too, there isn’t as many chances for islands as you point out, so if you have two fleets going on, perhaps a northern one would need carriers more heavily than the south.
In terms of offensive capabilities, you do start out one space closer to whatever destination you might have if already on a carrier as opposed to land, and that can certainly make a difference at times also!
HMS Serapis last edited by
Tnx for answers and opinions.