Best way to defend Carriers

[wargameplayer]

So Carrier combat in this game tends to be shall we say--decisive. Especially since once those carriers are destroyed it's game over.

So attacking planes will go for the carriers first in a sea attack but I am wondering what naval or other units can you place around the carriers to protect them other than other CAG?

Destroyers/Battleships? putting them on an island next to other units? Any ideas.

BTW, raising the damage points to destruction from 2 to 3 might be considered for carriers.

[aaminoff]

My impression is that land-based fighters are critical. Their Evasion and Air-to-Air ratings are better than CAG, and if the carrier fleets are roughly similar in size the addition of just 1 or 2 extra planes to one side of air to air combat can make a big difference.

Once the CAG get through however I agree with you that the carriers seem to go down pretty fast. One could argue that this is historical - at Midway the IJN lost something like 3-4 carriers within a few hours; but it may make for a poor game when the big expensive assets can get knocked out in an unlucky battle.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, Land-based Fighters are the way to go to protect your CVs. Without that you better have superior AtA and EV on your CAGs (and superior numbers) so you can put the enemy CAGs down in the attack and not suffer the counter-attack.
 
As far as how realistic it? Well, each turn represents 3 months of combat. A lot of carriers can be lost in a 3 month time period. I still think the probability of a carrier being targeted is far too high though (as I thought in the beta). I know in WaW people argued that carriers were the prime targets and that pilots were trained to go after them etc etc. But my answer to that is also the 3 month turn. A 'battle' doesnt represent a single engagement. Many times the CV task forces could potentially have not been found, but a surface TF might be. But with the current weighting, there is VERY little chance of anything but the CVs being attacked. So it makes it FEEL more like one giant battle rather than the 3 months worth of operations that it is supposed to be representing. It is here that I think that WaW actually did it better than AWD does.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
I still think the probability of a carrier being targeted is far too high though (as I thought in the beta).

I have to totally agree. What really kills it is that the CAGs even double up on carriers before going to other targets.

[wargameplayer]

[Reply to Message]

Well to balance it out I'd suggest one other damage point before the carrier is scrapped. That or some other mechanism so that they are completely taken out of the game so easily.

An argument from a game play perespective wouldd be right now you have 1-2 carrier battles per game and usually--one side is out of carriers. This would allow damaged carriers to come back into the fray more frequently thus your average game would have at least 1 or 2 more battles before control of the pacific was sorted out.

I agree that carriers would get all the attention but for example. I had a fleet with 4 bs and like 5 light fleet and 6 carriers. The USA comes in with 4 CAGS and destroys 3 of the CAGS and carriers. And he had like 1 damaged CAG and 1 destroyed one.

The Emperor was not pleased.

[Uncle_Joe]

I agree that carriers would get all the attention but for example. I had a fleet with 4 bs and like 5 light fleet and 6 carriers. The USA comes in with 4 CAGS and destroys 3 of the CAGS and carriers

 
And this is where I think the game makes the 'mistake'. A 'fleet' of 6 CV units (~12 actual carriers), 4 Heavies (~8 BBs/BCs/CAs) and 5 Lights (numerous CAs/CL/DDs etc) is very likely not one monolithic task force. And over the course of 3 monts of fighting in an area as large as the game's sea zones TFs arent likely to stay all concentrated together. It would be very likely that some TFs might be exposed to attack while others are not. But the game treats it all as one gigantic TF and the CVs are almost always the targets leading to very skewed results IMO.
 
If the weightings were different (ie, similar to WaW), then CV longevity would increase and it would make a lot more sense to keep 'escorting' vessels with your CVs. Right now, I rarely do so....I hit and run with the CVs but dont bother expending supplies taking HF/LF with me even if I expect a counter attack from enemy CAGs because the added vessels wont matter...the CVs will still be the ones attacked.
 
Giving CVs an extra hit could be confusing and its not consistant with the rest of the game. Changing the weighting would accomplish the same end results (CVs surviving longer) but without unduly mucking with the rules.
 
I

[wargameplayer]

Militia get just the one hit as opposed to the normal two.

Weighting change might work too tho. It is true that carriers were the most sought after targets but they were also the most protected. Destroyers and Battleships would take extra risks to screen the carriers from air attacks.

So if you have those ships along in the mix, there should be some accounting for it. Hard balance I guess.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Giving CVs an extra hit could be confusing and its not consistant with the rest of the game. Changing the weighting would accomplish the same end results (CVs surviving longer) but without unduly mucking with the rules.

I do think that simply eliminating the doubling up on carriers could do the trick. That, and the player should consider researching evasion. With a notch on evasion and only 1 CAG targeting a CV, damage is likely but destruction is not.

Frankly, I think eliminating the doubling up is a no brainer. Were it up to me, I'd also change the weightings to something like

Code: Select all

CV	8
 HF	4
 LF	2
 TF+SF	1