• …do i really need to explain


  • 0-1 carry one fighter or torpedo plane cost 8


  • How about they cant attack, so they are truly only used as excourts and not in major attacks


  • 0-1 means no attack, defend at 1

    cost is the only aspect. I suggest 8 or it will become fashionable to buy 2 jeep carriers for 14 to get the extra hit.

    Now a poor nation can buy these for small escort duty. ( Italy hint)


  • @Imperious:

    0-1 means no attack, defend at 1

    cost is the only aspect. I suggest 8 or it will become fashionable to buy 2 jeep carriers for 14 to get the extra hit.

    Now a poor nation can buy these for small escort duty. ( Italy hint)

    I agree with you.

    I assume that with the advanced shipyards tech, the cost would only go down to 7 IPCs rather than 6.  Right?


  • A cheaper fighter for carriers would also be nice.

    Where’s the “Let’s Talk Naval Fighters” thread when you need it?


  • @Imperious:

    0-1 means no attack, defend at 1

    I ment the fighters based on them cant attack, otherwise i would just call it a light carrier and call the old carrier a fleet carrier


  • The fighters must be able to attack. Whats the point in buying a CE if the planes cant attack>?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Negatory.  I agree with you that Escort Carrier at 7 IPC is too cheap, but I disagree that 8 IPC is better.  Make them cost the same as a fighter, 10 IPC.  Why?

    1)  Significantly more manpower and materials have to go into the creation of materials, delivering of materials, assembling of materials, training a crew (significantly larger crew too), etc of even an escort carrier.

    2)  This is price sufficient to fit into the naval costs of the rest of the units.  A destroyer is 8 IPC, a cruiser is 12 IPC.  An escort carrier being 10 IPC just seems to fit.

    3)  An escort carrier is significantly more dangerous to the enemy than a destroyer is.  Why make it cheaper?  Remember, a carrier (any carrier) has a threat range of 3 territories.

    Here’s the escort carrier I envision:

    1. Cost 10 IPC
    2. Holds 1 Fighter max
    3. Move 2
    4. Defend 1
    5. Attack - (Cannot attack, but may be brought into the battle and taken as a casualty when the owner chooses, like transports used to be.)
    6. Limited to 2X escort carriers as you have full carriers. (For example, Japan starts in 1941 with 3 carriers, so they could build 6 escort carriers if they do not lose any main carriers.  This does not apply to carriers already built.  If Japan were to lose one of their main carriers, they would not have to remove 2 escorts, they just could not build more until the main carrier was rebuilt.)

    That last rule (number 6) might be too confusing, so I’m considering it optional.


  • well how does a 10 IPC CE look into the argument of 1 battleship w 2 planes vs 2 escort carriers and 2 planes

    or some similar study?


  • Escourt carrier should cost 7 and its planes not able attack.

    then it is a truly unique unit with its own roll, to escourt


  • If an escort carrier were any more than 7, I’d just save up for a normal carrier.


  • To look at Escort Carriers properly, one must compare the current carrier 1-2-2-14 with 2 fighters 2@3-4-4-10 to what we would like to have to “flesh out” the naval lineup.

    Current carrier + 2 fighters

    7     Combined attack value
    10     Combined defense value
    3     hits
    34   IPC cost
    –    Fighters may attack at a range of 3 and still land on the carriers

    Escort Carrier - This is what most of the posts have promoted.

    0     Attack
    1     Defense
    2     Movement points
    8     IPC cost

    Escort Carrier + 2 fighters

    6     Combined attack value
    8     Combined defense value
    3     hits
    28   IPC cost
    –    Fighters may attack at a range of 3 and still land on the carriers

    Obviously, this is better than the above regular carrier+2 fighters.

    So, what is needed is to add both escort carriers AND naval fighters.

    I propose that unless both escort carriers AND naval fighters are added to the naval lineup, then escort carriers are superfluous.


  • With the above post in mind, I propose the following for both Escort Carriers AND Naval Fighters.  Also, with Naval fighters being slightly weaker than their land-based counterparts, I propose that the regular aircraft carrier’s IPC cost be slightly tweaked.

    Regular Aircraft Carrier

    1    Attack
    2    Defense
    2    Movement points
    11    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 10 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
    –    May  hold up to 2 naval fighters.

    Escort Carrier

    1    Attack
    1    Defense
    2    Movement points
    7    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 6 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
    -    May only hold up to 1 naval fighter.

    Naval Fighter

    2    Attack (May be upgraded to 3 Attack with the Jet Fighter technology.)
    3    Defense
    3    Movement points (May be upgraded to 5 movement points with the Long Range technology.)
    8    IPC cost (Cost is lowered to 7 IPCs with the Advanced Shipyard technology.)
    –    Only naval fighters may operate from carriers, but naval fighters MAY be used on land.

    Regular Aircraft Carrier + 2  naval fighters

    5    Combined attack value
    8    Combined defense value
    3    hits
    27  IPC cost
    –    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

    Escort Carrier + 1 naval fighter

    3    Combined attack value
    4    Combined defense value
    2    hits
    15  IPC cost
    –    Up to 2 naval fighters may be on the regular cv.

    These stats seem to fit a little better into the naval chart.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

21

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts