RE: Flying Carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Ullern -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 6:45:22 PM)

I represent a group that has played WIFFE deluxe since 1996 and two years ago we decided to quit using CVPs.

The decision was made on three reasons:

  • The CVP rule added work on the logistick end, but not on the action end
  • The CVP rule makes CV less historical correct since some CVPs are good fighters while others are good bombers. (Historically good fighters and bombers would be mixed on all CVs in a task force.)
  • The CVP rule was time consuming but didn’t add anything to the game (there is nothing that you can do with CVPs that you can’t do without).


RAW really describes CVPs as mandatory if using the SiF optional. MWIF product one requires the player to use SiF, but the functionality for not using CVPs are already implemented as an optional. But what if you figure that WIF Classic is just what you want in product 2? Why would you want to delete something that is useful in a possible later product?

I would recommend keeping the optional there. If you don’t want to play with it, then you don’t need to think about that optional. (But make sure that default is the optional rule on though, since that is RAW.) I don’t see any problem since MWIF is already implemented that way.

Some would argue that allowing to use SiF without CVPs would make CVs too numerous (playing SiF effect) and too powerful (not playing CVP effect). If you think so, just never use the optional rule.

The effect of not including CVPs are that CVPs cost build points and sometimes also action limits (to rebase them), and you probably have to produce more than the numbers of CVs. So not using CVPs is essentially the same as a give away of build points and action limits to the major powers who needs CVs. So what? The optional rule of not using CVP with SiF is a new optional rule that gives USA, CW and Japan a break. Possibly as much as a 30BP break to USA there....

On the other hand the offensive chit optional is an optional that gives 2 offensives to Germany, 1 to Japan and 1 to USSR in a full global campaign, giving these countries a break. (1 offensive = 15 build points. So 30 build point break to Germany.) And these offensive can be spent in a way that give you unlimited actions for a single impulse.

The Guard Banner armies rule is a rule that gives a break only to USSR.

The City based volunteers rule gives lots of free land units, primarly to Germany (worth more than 30 BP), although USSR, Japan, USA and Free France also gets some.

WIF are full of rules that gives just some countries a break. And each WIF group chooses their set of rules to balance the game the way they want to play it. I see only positive reasons to keep this “new” optional as long as it requires no extra work for Steve. And I want to use it.



composer99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 7:27:33 PM)

I would want CVPs to be mandatory.

CVPs are already hugely overpowered in factors compared to LBA. A CVP with 25-75 planes usually has equivalent or better air-to-sea combat power than a NAV representing 100-250 planes. CVPs, especially late-war ones, can often hold their own in air-to-air factors vs. LBA FTR, again despite this disparity in unit scale. As someone else pointed out, a 1939 Gladiator is being generously gifted with 3 a2a factors.

Take away the requirement to spend money and action limits on CVPs and you are giving this power away for nothing more than the cost of carriers. Germany & Italy don't stand chance against the CW at sea in that case. And carrier planes get even more powerful if you are not using CVP. If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter - which means the air component on the Ark Royal in 1939 is as good as the best Spitfires or German Me-109s at the time, and remains competitive into about 42.

I do not think that the choice of carrier plane classes at this point is a design flaw. Harry has had years and years to change it if he thought it was wrong. By now I believe it to be a deliberate design decision meant to keep the CW carrier fleet from being so powerful in 39-41 that the German & Italian navies are sent to Davy Jones' locker without much blood, sweat, toil & tears on the CW player's part.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 7:49:22 PM)

Apparently I excited a hornets nest.[8|] Let me summarize topics:

1 - Carrier air units mandatory or optional?
2 - 2 carrier air units permitted on a aircraft carrier if they 'fit'.
3 - Carrier air units employed by the player as if they were land based units.
4 - Carrier air units randomly drawn that are too 'large' for the existing/pending carrier fleet.

Let me know if I missed something.[&:]

#2 and #3 are already optional rules. The pros and cons of those rules can be argued but in the end they are optional and players can choose whether to use them or not.

#1 can be set up the same way. Since some players seem to like to play without carrier air units, it is tempting to just leave that as is - as optinal rule. But then there seems to be a corollary question as to whether the build cost for carriers should be changed since SIF is mandatory in MWIF. Making carriers cost 2 or 3 more BPs was mentioned as a possibility.

#4 is certainly something Harry has heard about previously. I would be interested in what he has to say about it. [I might add that anything the computer can do in the way of implementing an 'intelligent' selection of carrier air units, could be done by the players manually. Though undoubtedly it would be easier havnig the computer take care of it.]

Lastly, I can add some text to each optional rule description giving a short summary of the opinions of experienced players as to its loveliness/ugliness. I have done this in a few rare cases already.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 8:01:43 PM)

Another thing that might be useful would be a list of optional rules that need each other to work well and a list of optional rules that don't work well together. 



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 8:05:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Another thing that might be useful would be a list of optional rules that need each other to work well and a list of optional rules that don't work well together. 


Arrgh[:@]



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 8:24:55 PM)

ullern said :
quote:

The effect of not including CVPs are that CVPs cost build points and sometimes also action limits (to rebase them),

This rebase problem may be corrected in an errata that will be published in the next annual. I hope that MWiF include it. Well, let's wait for it to be published to tell.


Composer99 said :
quote:

If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter -

Memory does not always serves. This doesn't exist as far as I know.


Steve said :
quote:

#2 and #3 are already optional rules. The pros and cons of those rules can be argued but in the end they are optional and players can choose whether to use them or not.

They are optional within an option, so how will MWiF treat them ?


quote:

#4 is certainly something Harry has heard about previously. I would be interested in what he has to say about it. [I might add that anything the computer can do in the way of implementing an 'intelligent' selection of carrier air units, could be done by the players manually. Though undoubtedly it would be easier havnig the computer take care of it.]

Please ask him.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 8:24:56 PM)

I think I will be quiet for a while

[sm=scared0018.gif]


Keep up the great work, Steve.  This is an awesome project and you are 'da man'!!

[:)]



Jimm -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 9:12:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Another thing that might be useful would be a list of optional rules that need each other to work well and a list of optional rules that don't work well together.


Arrgh[:@]


Perhaps something the beta testers can start working on as we start seeing the effects of the options we are looking at.



Jimm -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 9:20:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I would want CVPs to be mandatory.

CVPs are already hugely overpowered in factors compared to LBA. A CVP with 25-75 planes usually has equivalent or better air-to-sea combat power than a NAV representing 100-250 planes. CVPs, especially late-war ones, can often hold their own in air-to-air factors vs. LBA FTR, again despite this disparity in unit scale. As someone else pointed out, a 1939 Gladiator is being generously gifted with 3 a2a factors.

Take away the requirement to spend money and action limits on CVPs and you are giving this power away for nothing more than the cost of carriers. Germany & Italy don't stand chance against the CW at sea in that case. And carrier planes get even more powerful if you are not using CVP. If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter - which means the air component on the Ark Royal in 1939 is as good as the best Spitfires or German Me-109s at the time, and remains competitive into about 42.

I do not think that the choice of carrier plane classes at this point is a design flaw. Harry has had years and years to change it if he thought it was wrong. By now I believe it to be a deliberate design decision meant to keep the CW carrier fleet from being so powerful in 39-41 that the German & Italian navies are sent to Davy Jones' locker without much blood, sweat, toil & tears on the CW player's part.


Why make an option "mandatory" when it clearly arouses so much opinion on both sides?

I've played with and without, and I can live with either, and can see the attractions of both.

But when you are looking to satisfy the vast universe of WIF players with this long-awaited product, I dont see why you cant accommodate the non-Cvp option when when for some people not having the this as an option will be a turn off for some, especially as it means no particular saving in time or effort (I assume) to keep it in?



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 10:04:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I would want CVPs to be mandatory.

CVPs are already hugely overpowered in factors compared to LBA. A CVP with 25-75 planes usually has equivalent or better air-to-sea combat power than a NAV representing 100-250 planes. CVPs, especially late-war ones, can often hold their own in air-to-air factors vs. LBA FTR, again despite this disparity in unit scale. As someone else pointed out, a 1939 Gladiator is being generously gifted with 3 a2a factors.

Take away the requirement to spend money and action limits on CVPs and you are giving this power away for nothing more than the cost of carriers. Germany & Italy don't stand chance against the CW at sea in that case. And carrier planes get even more powerful if you are not using CVP. If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter - which means the air component on the Ark Royal in 1939 is as good as the best Spitfires or German Me-109s at the time, and remains competitive into about 42.

I do not think that the choice of carrier plane classes at this point is a design flaw. Harry has had years and years to change it if he thought it was wrong. By now I believe it to be a deliberate design decision meant to keep the CW carrier fleet from being so powerful in 39-41 that the German & Italian navies are sent to Davy Jones' locker without much blood, sweat, toil & tears on the CW player's part.


Why make an option "mandatory" when it clearly arouses so much opinion on both sides?

I've played with and without, and I can live with either, and can see the attractions of both.

But when you are looking to satisfy the vast universe of WIF players with this long-awaited product, I dont see why you cant accommodate the non-Cvp option when when for some people not having the this as an option will be a turn off for some, especially as it means no particular saving in time or effort (I assume) to keep it in?


OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.



composer99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 10:12:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Composer99 said :
quote:

If memory serves, you take a carrier's class and multiply it by 1.5 to get its a2a rating when its air component flies as a fighter -

Memory does not always serves. This doesn't exist as far as I know.



You are correct. Memory does not serve indeed.

This is why I should only check this stuff at home instead of on break at work...



Toed -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/28/2007 11:53:39 PM)

Carrier air units mandatory or optional?
Mandatory:
more complexity, but the computer will handle the rules of course.
more fun, more chits = more fun  [:)]
more expensive to have carriers, well carriers are supposed to be expensive ...
more options, you can experement with diffrent planes on different carries in different seas with different missions ... and so on. more than with only the static carrier chits.
follows raw, which can't be wrong.
Optional:
doesn't seem to hurt to have the option of not playing with carrier air units.
easier, fewer chits and options - never wrong when you're learning.
can be used to balance the game in favor of the players that build lots of carriers.

Mandatory seems to win - barely.

2 carrier air units permitted on a aircraft carrier if they 'fit'?  - Of course

Carrier air units employed by the player as if they were land based units? - Of course not.  (unless you really really want to change the air war)

Carrier air units randomly drawn that are too 'large' for the existing/pending carrier fleet? - Unless someone finds a really good alternative then I say No. *EDIT - No to changing RAW that is *



bredsjomagnus -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/29/2007 12:45:07 AM)

quote:


Making them optional requires little from me, other than reviewing, commenting, and validating the code for temporary air units for carriers.

Making them mandatory doesn't require much more (maybe less), since I will just delete all the code about temporary air units for carriers.

If it isn´t a big deal implementing make it optional.

They who like the CVPs will be happy and they who don´t will also be happy.

Even I, who hasn´t played the game enough (yet) to have an opinion, will be happy.

Or as Monty Python puts it in "The holy grale":
"Its supposed to be an happy occasion, lets not argue about who killed who", said by the brides father right after sir Lancelot slaughtered the wedding guests.



Jimm -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/29/2007 1:44:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.


I would agree, I think this achieves the necessary compromise- bringing Carriers without planes into line with Wif "Classic" while keeping everything else in line with SiF. I cant see the reason for CVs to be cheaper in SiF, except for the assumed use of seperate carrier planes, so this makes sense.








michaelbaldur -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/29/2007 10:18:00 AM)

we play with the house rule that cvp are split i force pools by cost .... then your can build the size you need ....

the option needs to be optional



Jimm -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/29/2007 1:13:14 PM)

not realy a help- all the Italian & German CVP up to 1945 are cost 1- but size varies between 2 & 4.




brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/29/2007 4:06:38 PM)

can we see some Carriers fly though? That would be cool. Probably the USA would get those first I bet.



ezzler -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/30/2007 4:55:27 PM)

Do you mean split into foce pool by size instead of year ?



Ullern -> RE: Flying Carriers (12/31/2007 3:17:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.


Fine with me (although I didn't see the need for the added build points, but if you think that will make it more "eatable" for the general public then fine)

[:)]



christo -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 1:14:55 AM)



[/quote]
OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.
[/quote]


While your knowlege of the game and the designers is second to none, I was under the impression that MWIF was intended to be as faithful to WIFFE as possible.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 2:11:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christo



quote:


OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.


While your knowlege of the game and the designers is second to none, I was under the impression that MWIF was intended to be as faithful to WIFFE as possible.

Actually, being true to WIF FE is the motivation for making carriers cost more.

WIF FE makes including carrier planes mandatory when playing with Ships in Flames. This discussion is about violating that edict and having carrier planes optional, even though MWIF has Ships in Flames mandatory. This makes the effective reduction in cost of carriers an issue.

When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.



christo -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 2:21:11 AM)

I stand corrected



composer99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 8:13:05 PM)

After the initial set-up all CVP are sorted by cost into separate force pools just like all other air units (e.g. cvp-0, cvp-1 & cvp-2), which doesn't help CW, Germany or Italy if they have a carrier/cvp class mismatch problem. I believe the extra sorting would have to be by class size as a subdivision of the cost.

That is a house rule, however, and I imagine it would be out of the scope of MWiF product 1.

On a related note, I have changed my mind and agree now that the cvps should be optional in MWiF, though probably with the extra cost downloaded onto the carriers themselves.



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 8:47:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christo
quote:


OK, Jimm & ullern are not wrong. Why ditch something that is optional after all.
What I would like however, would be to have 1 BP added to the first cycle cost of CVs and 2 BP added to the second cycle, for games with the Carrier Planes option off. That way, the price of the carriers will be the same, there will only be the rest that is different.

While your knowlege of the game and the designers is second to none, I was under the impression that MWIF was intended to be as faithful to WIFFE as possible.

If it was to be true in this area of the game, the question would not even be asked, and Carrier Planes would be mandatory, as they are in WiF FE when playing with SiF, and considering that MWiF has SiF as mandatory.



Froonp -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 8:50:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

To give more food for thought, let's also consider that CVP cost 3 BP when playing without the "Pilots" option.
If playing with the "Pilots" option, then the CVP cost 0 to 2 BP (well 99% cost 1 BP), and you need to build a pilot (crew) to man the CVP. The food for thought is that the pilot is not always destroyed when the CVP is lost. It is only destroyed about half of the time when fighting and destroyed above the sea with friendly ships or ports in that sea area, and destroyed 100% of the time by AA.



composer99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/2/2008 10:14:13 PM)

When not playing with CVPs, carriers that lose their air component in an air battle or to AA are considered damaged by RAW (14.4); they go to the repair pool upon returning to port and cost 2 bp and take 2 turns to return to play.

When playing with CVPs, carriers that lose their CVPs are all fine; but you have to replace the CVPs (usually you will have some in reserve) and maybe the pilots.



Jimm -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/3/2008 1:13:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

To give more food for thought, let's also consider that CVP cost 3 BP when playing without the "Pilots" option.
If playing with the "Pilots" option, then the CVP cost 0 to 2 BP (well 99% cost 1 BP), and you need to build a pilot (crew) to man the CVP. The food for thought is that the pilot is not always destroyed when the CVP is lost. It is only destroyed about half of the time when fighting and destroyed above the sea with friendly ships or ports in that sea area, and destroyed 100% of the time by AA.

Food for thought indeed. A similar thought occured to me previously when you suggested the additional CV cost for the no CVP option. Dont forget though, RAW specifically says: 14.6:- (opening para)

"....CVs are not affected by the pilot rules, unless you are playing with [carrier planes]"

Obvious perhaps, but its worth noting that it is stated, not merely implied. So you cant take the value of the pilot into consideration in the cost of the CV- its the same whether or not you play with pilots- they are gratis unless you are playing with CVPs.

Not sure what this says about balance, but you might consider that big lump of BP over 6 turns for each stage of the build- maybe you can figure some net present value calculations into this? Without Carrier Planes, you pay 3bp in J/F 41 and 7BP in J/F 42 for Shinano, as Japan say?
Playing with CVP, you pay 2 and 5 respectively- then in M/J42 pay 1BP for a plane and in JA42 another 2 for a pilot.

Overall, the cost is the same. But with the second, you have had those additional 3BP to play with for a lot longer. Come mid 42, your Prod multiple is probably up, (inflation!) so the value of those BP paid later is actually less! PLus you have had use of those BP in the meantime.

Overall I think best leave pilots out of the consideration- things get far too complicated- easier to just say you get the pilot for free if you need it!








brian brian -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/3/2008 2:08:46 AM)

How about a 'majority' & RaW solution - I think the majority of players use Ships in Flames with Carrier Planes. So if SiF is mandatory, make them fly the Carrier Planes as per RaW, with an option not to use them - another majority would vote for being able to choose anyway, like the rest of the optionals. I can't remember exactly why this question came up to begin with without reading Steve's introduction to this thread. The idea of no Carrier Planes but more expensive carriers I don't think would be very popular at all - how many people play that way right now? I think very, very few if any really. It is interesting to discuss in theory, but think about the reality of people firing up their first game of MWiF. Even if there are balance issues one way or another without using them, I think players would want to discover that for themselves, esp. the ones who have never tried the alternative to their usual ftf game. One of the big uses of MWiF for people who currently play will be to try out things they'd never use in a 3d ftf game due to the time invested in it. But with MWiF more people will finally try, say, the Hitler's War option, frex. As for balance, nothing matters to the USA as far as costs of units; what matters to them is what turn they enter the war, and the Allies were recently given a nice gift by ever so slightly raising the US Entry chit values. The CW operates a lot of carriers early when every BP counts the most, but so does Japan.

So really maybe a question is what choice to use for the 'beginner' set of optionals.

That leaves the problem of explaining the bizarre addition of carrier planes to your force pool when you can't use them yet. A solution is simple - allow people, in this case only, to not add a unit to the force pool when it appears; OR to allow splitting of same cost carrier planes into force pool grouped by starting class, either of which solve the problem. But this creates two other problems - a minor one of changing RaW that I'll get back to, and a bigger one of adding to Steve's workload. If something works goofily in WiF that is no good reason it absolutely has to stay goofy in MWiF - especially when the attempt to keep it the same begins to get fairly convoluted like the idea of changing carrier costs. WiF will always have passionate fans who would like to see it conform to their ideas of it and WWII, and I am one of them at times, but I don't think this issue is really one of 'those' issues nor that big of a deal for most people - they just play the game the way it is.

By far the simplest solution to keep the ball rolling is to make Carrier Planes the default _option_, and make an extra special effort to explain how they work to anyone new to the game. Actually having two different possible systems adds to the work for Steve...



Ullern -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/3/2008 4:08:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When playing with carrier planes, every carrier needs a carrier air unit in order to do anything at all. So, using standard WIF FE rules, you would pay for the carrier and the carrier air unit. As MWIF is coded right now, playing without the 'optional' rule for carrier planes, a player gets all the benefits of carriers at a reduced cost. The bias is towards major powers that have carriers: especially CW in the beginning of the war and the US once it enters the war.

Making carriers cost more when not playing with carrier air units, brings the cost of carriers back into balance with the other cost of units being produced.

To give more food for thought, let's also consider that CVP cost 3 BP when playing without the "Pilots" option.
If playing with the "Pilots" option, then the CVP cost 0 to 2 BP (well 99% cost 1 BP), and you need to build a pilot (crew) to man the CVP. The food for thought is that the pilot is not always destroyed when the CVP is lost. It is only destroyed about half of the time when fighting and destroyed above the sea with friendly ships or ports in that sea area, and destroyed 100% of the time by AA.


To take this thought a bit further:

Not using CVPs makes X in the Air Combat damage the CV. With the suggested BP modification the cost of an X in a Air combat is then 2 BP for a CVL or 3 BP for a CV. Which is fine if the pilot option is not used, but if the pilot option is used, the pilot would often survive and the CVP cost is less than that. On the oposite side though: it takes just 2 turns to repair a damaged ship while 4 to build a CVP and that is a benefit. (Conclusion: with pilots: CV costs a litle more but halves the production time)

Then another factor emerges:
Take an average naval combat: a American and British task force in MED against a Italian and German LBA. In the Air Combat each side gets a DX result so an German FTR is shot down and a CW CV is damaged. The Axis get 5 Air To Sea Factors cleared (after AA), spend suprise points for 2 column shifts and there are 11 ships, giving the Axis a 1X, 2D and 2A result against the Allied task force. The X takes the CV, but the Axis get to choose the second D too, and this goes to the CV that was damaged in the Air combat, so the allies looses 2 CV instead of just 1 and another one damaged.

The lesson here is that without CVP it's easier to sink CVs. That happens whenever you get an naval air combat with DX/AX in an air combat and your opponent gets to choose a D in the naval combat. And whenever that happens you pay the full CV cost (which would be typical 8 BP for Essex class CVs) instead of CV repair and building a new CVP (which is 2+1 BP). But most signifcantly: Building a CV takes long time (10 turns for Essex class), so would you really do this? Wouldn't the CV be gone for the remainder of the game?

Then yet another factor emerges:
In a surface naval combat or a sub naval combat where a CV is targeted (by expending suprice points), the cost of a D to a CV is 3 BP without CVP rule but 2 BP with CVPs since the CVP and pilot is not affected by the D on the CV. (The cost of a X is not changed because an X would kill both the CV and the CVP with pilot.)

Conclusion
I made the arguments assuming the cost of CVs was increased as per Patrice's suggestion. This makes initial CV building almost as expensive as with CVPs. (I say almost because of the wrong CVP for CV problem that makes you produce more CVP than you need.) But at the same time the cost of using the CVs in naval-air combats increases dramaticly. The cost of using the CVs in other naval combats inreases a litle. The cost of using CV on other missions (port strikes, ground strike, etc..) is as before.

And what advice should I give now? [&:]



Zorachus99 -> RE: Flying Carriers (1/3/2008 5:48:27 AM)

Ever since the air units for carriers was introduced, I never thought of going back.  Basing the capability on the number of the carriers is cheesy IMO.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625