|
Bearcat2 -> RE: The Shattered Sword: John 3rd vs. Anachro--BTS (12/18/2018 11:20:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
In reading a few posts, there seemed to be so many unfamiliar names among CV, CVL, BB, BC that it seemed like heavies might be everywhere doing terrible things to the good guys.
What's your impression of the mod, so far. Has it given you a touch more freedom to do things or do you find yourself a tad more limited? Are you satisfied with everything? And I know the answer to this question: Are you having fun? [:)]
Always having fun! BANZAI!
The Mod seems to be OK. Each side has a good amount of toys to play with and I wish I could speak with him some. Have no idea what he is doing or trying to do. The strength of the Mod really depends on the Allied Player.
All the changes within the Treaty ALWAYS benefit the Allied player on the 5:5:3 basis so that gives proportionally more for them to play with. EX: The Japanese get the Amagi-Class BC Ishitaka but the American gain Lexington-Class BC's Constitution and Constellation (with one old BB (Mississippi I think) scrapped to balance out the numbers).
Beyond the Treaties, the Allied player has lots of very early choices to convert some AOs or AS into CVEs. Those are pretty decent deals to augment things in late-32 or -43. The two ANZAC CAVs (Melbourne and Wellington) and two American CLV's can convert into proto-Princeton-Class CVLs and they are pretty nice.
Add to those possibilities above, the increased strength of the French, Australian, and New Zealand Navies and there are lots of things to use.
Lastly---due to what happened in our match--the off-map aircraft purchase system for the Allies and I think it makes for a massive boost in Allied power IF USED WELL.
Would just love to talk to Sean about that...
Does that help? Does it create more questions?
I know there is always LOTS of Allied player crying, whining, and lack of understanding regarding the Mods and that they favor the Japanese too much. There may be some kernels of truth there. Don't know until we're farther into the Mod. I'd love to hear from that crowd. Some of the BS that I read over in your thread (when our match ended) indicated a ton of ignorance. Whether that is intentional, lazy, or accidental I do not know. Would love to constructively talk about it and try to rectify any misunderstandings.
The treaty limits were by tonnage, not number of ships. In this scenario, Japanese cruisers have more tonnage than the US even when including the ships not in the Pacific. I could be wrong but I think you forgot to include your 2 CV conversions in your earlier comparison.
At start, the Japanese have 6 CV's, 7 CVLS, 3 CVE as compared to stock 6CV, 2 CVL, and 2 CVE's. The Japanese requirements for Chinese garrisons, appear to be less, ex: in stock Shanghai 720, Canton 360.
I think this scenario is interesting, there are allied limitations regarding the British CV's, they should be able to get more Strinbeans; the Br CV fighters are more than enough. their attack squadrons are a 1 shot wonder, replacements are a problem.
|
|
|
|
