If I’m not mistaken…as I usually am…didn’t the Japanese think that Battleships “ruled” the oceans only to discover that the carriers/fighters did?
I think most of the things I’ve read about the Pacific (not that I’ve read a lot) the fighters proved to be the decisive factor; fleets in WW2 rarely encountered each other in head to head battles as they had in past wars. The new rules with transports and subs helps to imitate that better and it makes aircraft more viable against fleets, no one in there right mind would have sent just aircraft after fleets in AAC or AAR.
I ran across a rule in the “enhance realism rules” (but I haven’t tried it yet) that makes it so ONLY fighters can attack sea units, which seems to make things more… “realistic” and “forces” players to use bombers as…well…bombers (units that drop bombs on large stationary targets).
I’ve never felt that long range aircraft disrupt the game THAT much; so they can reach a place but they cant TAKE a place, you still need land units with aircraft SUPORT to do that. With long range aircraft you CAN reach fleets easier but if you took out the bombers from “sea battles” this might offset the extra punch that can be dealt against fleets.
A&A has such a LARGE and ABSTRACT game scale its hard to make EVEYTHING work out “just like in WW2” but the AA50 (just like AAR) is a great improvement over its predecessor. Changes have been made that feel more “real” but are still in keeping with the games abstract scale.
Fighters and heavy bombers don’t feel like that much of an over kill to me, and I think fighters only feel so much more powerful in sea battles in AA50 because of the new rules regarding transports and subs (once bullet catchers…now nothing). If there was MORE ships, fighters might feel less powerful against fleets.
Someone mentioned reducing the cost of fighters, wouldn’t that just encourage someone to build more of them? Why not reduce the cost of ships instead; wouldn’t that encourage players to make more of them?
The battle system for A&A, and correct me if I’m wrong, strongly favors the player with the most units in a battle (as it should) right? So if fighters, a relatively low cost unit (compared to sea units) match ships one for one or two for one, doesn’t it make sense that they should/will win more in sea battles than ships do? If ships out numbered air units instead of vice versa as it usually is in sea battles, wouldn’t the ships win/survive longer?
I don’t feel that the game mechanics/air techs out balance the game as much as the abstract scale of the game does. I hate to use this word but I cant think of another one to use, but the balance of air and sea units when it comes to battles is…“poorly”… balanced for battles.
Let me explain what I mean, infantry, artillery, tanks, fighters and bombers can be “balanced” better, faster and easier in land battles than sea and air units can “balance” out in sea battles. I think this is in due in large part to the lower unit costs and close incremental attack/defense values of the land units when compared to air units and sea units. Heavy bombers seem to “upset” that balance in land battles (as they should…to a small degree) but I don’t think I’ve ever heard some one argue that regular bombers are TOO strong. When it comes to sea power verses air power, that balance is harder to achieve and favors the fighters/bombers due in large part to their “low cost” and “high attack/defense” strength when compared to ships. If ships were as “abundant” as land units are in land battles, things might balance out much faster and easier in sea battles. Take bombers out of the sea battles and this might offset some of the strength of air power as the rules are played now. Reduce ship cost (making them more abundant) and this might further “balance” the strength of air power to more closely match their strength in land battles.
However, if units costs are reduced too much, that could cause an entirely new problem, because now ships would stand the chance of be coming bullet catchers (like infantry in land battles and like transports and subs used to be) instead of something that players strive to protect; because they cost so much to rebuild and are so vulnerable to destruction.