Never Thought I'd Start Another One - tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11092
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

Re: Never Thought I'd Start Another One - tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by PaxMondo »

sfatula wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 12:47 am While I have not converted those two CS myself yet, the other advantage of doing so is having more carrier fighters to help protect the fleet instead of floatplanes.
True, but by the time that those extra 30 A6M's each matters, you need 1000 more fighters, not 60.

The point is, the ships have value in '43. in '44, they are only VP's to be harvested by the DeathStar. My preference is to get use out of them in '43 instead of having them in a dock. Remember they essentially have NO armor. These ships cannot last in a hostile environment.

HOWEVER, it is a thin choice. The counter arguments have been around for 10 years, and a lot of good players do convert them. I'm offering some thoughts counter to the conventional wisdom. Use as you see fit.

I should add, that in most of the AAR's that I have read, more CV's are lost to SS in '43 than any other cause. I postulate in '43 you need those ASW FP's badly.


:ugeek: :ugeek: :ugeek:
Pax
sfatula
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:17 pm
Location: Calera, OK
Contact:

Re: Never Thought I'd Start Another One - tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by sfatula »

I was not disagreeing, I was merely pointing out an additional argument for converting them. Missing through almost all of '43 is definitely hard to swallow.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”