Carriers as Priority Targets

[Petiloup]

Was something done to avoid using transport fleets to screen Carriers from planes or subs attacks?

In WAW you could put for example put 2 carriers in the middle of 6 transports and therefore lessen your chance of loosing those carriers.

Knowing how pilots were trained to target carriers first this isn't really making sense.

Same for subs especially knowing the Japanese doctrine to strike at military targets with their subs to the point they had quotas for their torpedoes. Unlimited vs carriers, 1 torpedo for a transport only then it was something like 2 for cruisers and so on.

[Uncle_Joe]

In the current build, Carriers are 40 time more likely to be attacked than a Transport by CAGs. Also planes will tend to 'gang up' on Carriers more often.
 
As far as subs, well, the Japanese doctrine of striking at military targets wasnt overly successful beyond 42. Compared to the total number of submarines deployed, the Japanese destroyed considerably less tonnage of enemy ships than the US did.
 
At the scale the game is modeled (ie, with naval units representing a group of ships with escorts), subs shouldnt be taking out surface fleets all that often. There is a modifier in the game that keeps subs from engaging surface fleets a good percentage of the time and makes subs feel more like what they historically were rather than like modern nuclear attack subs which are designed to go toe to toe with surface fleets. Subs can and still do take out surface ships every now and then, but they are better employed hunting transports or scouting for the enemy in the Pacific (a good use for Japanese subs IMO and one in which they were used quite often historically). 

[Petiloup]

Good news for the planes attacks.

About the Japanese doctrine it was indeed a huge mistake and all in all the number of warships sunk by subs is far lower then transports, I agree with you.

Now if you diminish the chance of subs to strike at surface fleet how about limiting the strange tactic of striking at subs in the middle of the ocean with all you got. Sometimes surface ships could move unhindered due to weather or just lack of being spotted so you can imagine how hard it is to spot submarines. But in WAW just put 1 sub in the Atlantic and it's a magnet for Light Fleets.

[Uncle_Joe]

Subs are still visible so yes, they attract attention (again, at this scale, I dont see that as a bad thing per se...generally people knew if subs were operating in an area). The ability for subs to stay out of the way is represented with a special -3 to be hit modifier when a sub is alone in a sea zone during an opposing turn. If you stack up your subs, you start to lose this 'dispersal' bonus.
 
In practice, it keeps equal tech subs alive a little longer and require more effort and coordination between air and Light Fleets to kill of subs at sea. Its not a cure-all though and the best sub tactic is still to move out, attack an exposed Transport and then scoot back to port.
 
Note also that Germany can build subs in 3 turns (compared to 4 in WaW). Also, a change in the way odd-cost damaged units are handled means that its possible that a sub 'damaged' on the German player's turn can be 'fixed' and back ready to go the next turn.
 
All in all, the Atlantic Campaign feels much better than in WaW. Op fire is different so some times you can even sneak a few Light Fleet raiders out into the Atlantic and wreak some havoc (as I found out in a multiplayer game the other day). Norway is an ideal base for this btw.

[Petiloup]

Looks good, now can't wait to see it work from first hand experience.

The use of Light fleets is indeed a nice way to kill a few transports.