Jump to content
Sky Captain

Carriers mandatory in 2.5?

Recommended Posts

With the new rules, carriers have become even more important. To name a few points:

- Relaunch wiped out squadrons.

- Local air support only fighters, but can easy be retasked by a carrier (as fas as I know).

- Subs getting stronger, increases the need for torpedo bombers. Especially for nations without much torps.

 

So, are carriers becoming a no brainer?

Sky Captain

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were already a bit of a no-brainer before, but I would argue that carriers will now have a diminishing return as a lot of their utility comes from the pool of dead wings, a single large carriers or support carrier squadron I suspect will become the norm and full carrier spam will be less of an issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always took carriers before and I will continue to do that.  I never did carrier spam I only took one.  I used to play aggressively with my carrier to keep up with saw squadrons.  I think I will use them to sit back and relaunch now.  Having so many LAS now means that you will probably be more likely to change them from fighters to other things.  If it was still 2 LAS no matter the points I may or may not have changed them.  Depending on what my opponent brought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't a must-have but they are a must-deal-with. If you can nuke the carrier into oblivion from turn 1 or scare it enough that it can't close up for massive bombing runs, you'll be okay.

That depends a lot on your opponent though. Against a Savannah, an Euclid or a Vauban, you're better off CAPing everything and rolling into foetal position while crying a lot, because you're going to get buried in bombers and there's nothing you can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Seph said:

Euclid.

Not really, it brings one squadron of 4 drones and costs 300 points (or 320 points for a single squadron of 5). Just exploit the fact that it's taking up a third of the CoA player's points and can't get more than 9 AD on a target unless it's in RB1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sebenko said:

Not really, it brings one squadron of 4 drones and costs 300 points (or 320 points for a single squadron of 5). Just exploit the fact that it's taking up a third of the CoA player's points and can't get more than 9 AD on a target unless it's in RB1.

And if it's hiding in Stratospheric, it ain't never going to get down low enough to threaten you with that PA. At 7" per turn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sebenko said:

Not really, it brings one squadron of 4 drones and costs 300 points (or 320 points for a single squadron of 5). Just exploit the fact that it's taking up a third of the CoA player's points and can't get more than 9 AD on a target unless it's in RB1.

IMHO, the 2.5 Euclid is a full carrier that merely happens to have (bad) guns and a ton of armor. With proper set-up, it's throwing three 17AD attacks in RB2 hitting on 3+ and bypassing shields. Whether or not that's worth 345 points is another problem, but the fact is that an Euclid is going to bomb the hell out of you while being pretty much immune to returning fire. Also, it's not the kind of model you play below 1500 points.

Edit: The PA on it is for bullying other Sky Fortresses or Scoutships wanting to be cheeky. The overall firepower of the thing isn't strong enough to justify flying it Low Level and negating half of its defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, a Euclid's usefulness is directly proportionate to the number of Sky Fortresses and Dreadbots you play against. 

 

I would argue a Savannah does not have that going for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seph said:

IMHO, the 2.5 Euclid is a full carrier that merely happens to have (bad) guns and a ton of armor. With proper set-up, it's throwing three 17AD attacks in RB2 hitting on 3+ and bypassing shields. Whether or not that's worth 345 points is another problem, but the fact is that an Euclid is going to bomb the hell out of you while being pretty much immune to returning fire. Also, it's not the kind of model you play below 1500 points.

Edit: The PA on it is for bullying other Sky Fortresses or Scoutships wanting to be cheeky. The overall firepower of the thing isn't strong enough to justify flying it Low Level and negating half of its defenses.

Where are you getting all those bomb attacks? It can only bring one bomber squadron on it's own, and local air support has to be fighters. You'd have to make sure you lost all the other drones and replaced them with bombers, while trying to maintain aerial superiority. It's a big risk to take if you haven't invested even more points into more carriers.

Of course, the big issue with the Euclid is that no CoA player wants to spend that many points on it, especially considering the far more reliable damage output of a conventional dreadnought. I could spend 300-ish points on a Kepler-Aristotle E-turret squadron or a Prometheus, which will be much more reliable and not feel like I'm wasting the model's potential as it cowers at Stratospheric.

Incidentally, I missed the upgraded coordinator range option because the typeface is so difficult to read in big blocks. If you must have a flashy font, leave it to titles and use a nice basic serif font for the main text- it'll fit with the DW style and still be readable. 16" coordinator range sounds pretty useful, but paying 25 points on top of the 300 for the Euclid is a bit much.

The PA really should be much more powerful to justify the risk of moving to low level- a 300 point, 125 strategic value model with vulnerable, fuel reserves and DR7/CR11 will look very juicy to any opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I thought mandating LAS being fighters was a bit pointless, but I totally forgot about retask (all these actual carrier rules are new to me). So that makes the fighter mandate even more pointless- if you brought a carrier, you can have them be whatever you want anyway (not like those carrier points are going to do anything else on the first turn)- and if you didn't bring a carrier, you probably want them to be fighters anyway to have a chance at defending against opposing SAS. Rules for nothing, I think.

You're still risking the rest of your fleet not having fighter cover, and all your not-so-tough bombers are in one place. I think it doesn't really stack up compared to a typical dreadnought.

But most importantly- who wants a dreadnought to be nothing more than a shepherd for drones hiding at stratospheric? It's the same issue as a lot of the CoA changes- balance wise they could go either way, but they're definitely losing cool factor. Yeah, I like that my opponent needs to throw over 40AD (or some very powerful MARs) to crit the Euclid, but that doesn't sound exciting for anyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sebenko said:

Hmm, I thought mandating LAS being fighters was a bit pointless, but I totally forgot about retask (all these actual carrier rules are new to me). So that makes the fighter mandate even more pointless- if you brought a carrier, you can have them be whatever you want anyway (not like those carrier points are going to do anything else on the first turn)- and if you didn't bring a carrier, you probably want them to be fighters anyway to have a chance at defending against opposing SAS. Rules for nothing, I think.

You're still risking the rest of your fleet not having fighter cover, and all your not-so-tough bombers are in one place. I think it doesn't really stack up compared to a typical dreadnought.

But most importantly- who wants a dreadnought to be nothing more than a shepherd for drones hiding at stratospheric? It's the same issue as a lot of the CoA changes- balance wise they could go either way, but they're definitely losing cool factor. Yeah, I like that my opponent needs to throw over 40AD (or some very powerful MARs) to crit the Euclid, but that doesn't sound exciting for anyone involved.

If you want to re-task them on turn 1, it means you've got to activate your carrier(s) before the initiative sinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Maccabeus said:

If you want to re-task them on turn 1, it means you've got to activate your carrier(s) before the initiative sinks.

Depending on your fleet, there's no such thing as initiative sinks. At least, I haven't done the whole "I move a recon plane, your turn" dance since I started taking enough RB4 firepower to convince my opponent that he should make every activation count. And, as Sebenko points out, there's nothing forcing you to move your fighter outside of your turn 2 carrier range.

To elaborate on my point a few posts above, the carrier had their power curve inverted in 2.5 I think. In 2.0, a carrier was at its strongest on the first few turn, when it could dominate activations, re-task stuff to adapt to the situation and replenish the first wave of plane if the base survived. In 2.5, a carrier is at its strongest around mid-game, once a couple squadron have been destroyed, allowing for explosive damage spikes through multiple re-launch actions. Unless, of course, it took damage and lost carrier points.

In this situation, a carrier able to keep its carrier points high is very valuable. It takes two crits to shutdown a carrier (6), while a carrier (9) will be able to re-launch until it has taken 7 HP worth of damage. Also, it takes one mere damaging hit to stop a carrier (6) from twin launching, while it takes two crits to stop a carrier (9) from doing so. So, carrier (9) is massively better than carrier (6). If a carrier also happen to be hard to damage (so, Sky Fortresses or Dreadnaught-Carriers), it becomes really hard to shut them down directly and one has to do fancy AA management to keep re-launch from happening.

I say all this assuming that it is possible to activate SAS in the turn they have been re-launched. Which may or may not be right (the rules are particularly unhelpful here) but is interesting from a tactical point, while the opposite would mean that one can mostly ignore carriers as they won't have the time to do much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seph said:

 

I say all this assuming that it is possible to activate SAS in the turn they have been re-launched. Which may or may not be right (the rules are particularly unhelpful here) 

I don't understand - in what other way can the rule be read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just played an all aerial using 2.5. Several observations. 

Stratospheric is just a height level. If you think you safe you better check your opponents list for Air hunters with RB 3 range that can go Stratospheric. I chewed up a Savannah easily with two Krichovs and finished it off when I closed with one of two Tinguksas. My opponent had a Valley, which clobbered one of my  Krichovs when he finally got it in range (set up error).

Stratospheric works both ways, My opponent had surfaces ships a Volley gun mark Mississippi and a Saratoga. These were good choices  I found that Obscured was often a good choice as attacks from both Statospheric and Surface hit on fives- Except the Mississippi had air hunter Shields and range- deadly.

The Orbats direct that a number of units with attached SAS squadrons can take them as CAP- some of my aerial units had that. So much for only CAP being LAS.  I had a Zamiec and two Apollos, two Tunguskas, two Krichovs and Valkyrie's Fury. Those that started as CAP had to stay as CAP- but could and did Attack his SAS.  I assumed that if I rebuilt those they could then return to SAS duty. This never came up. Could they CAP other units?

SAS everywhere all the time. The Squadron Support SAS for the Tunguska did not specify CAP  they detached  and moved separately just like other SS units do. That gave me a five 5 SAS units, two 3's with the Krichovs that stayed CAP, a 4 with the Fury, that stayed CAP and two 4s with the Apollos. , against his two LAS, and four from the two Carriers. He rebuilt any SAS I destroyed until I could start knocking down his Carrier points . He got very lucky ( I got unlucky) on my early attacks but over time the helpless Savannah and Saratoga was pummeled. I even got to Flame thrower his Mississippi- That was fun. Was able to rebuild my loses as well, But there were more than one move from the enemy-- MY carriers did not get squished--He was too busy attacking my Medium bombers  and Tunguskas- that copied the Zamiec Shields. 

SAS vs aerial was the the call on anything not at Strat.  Anything at Strat got hit by the big guys lurking at Obscured or Strat. New dimension and the FSA have great weapons for that in their Medium Bombers, Valleys and the PYB-2s. His big carriers were VERY vulnerable.

Note the Tunguska has Hunter (1) without listing the Height or Weapon. Is this a mistake or a new version , like redoubtable?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CDR_G said:

Stratospheric is just a height level. If you think you safe you better check your opponents list for Air hunters with RB 3 range that can go Stratospheric. I chewed up a Savannah easily with two Krichovs and finished it off when I closed with one of two Tinguksas. My opponent had a Valley, which clobbered one of my  Krichovs when he finally got it in range (set up error).

Stratospheric works both ways, My opponent had surfaces ships a Volley gun mark Mississippi and a Saratoga. These were good choices  I found that Obscured was often a good choice as attacks from both Statospheric and Surface hit on fives- Except the Mississippi had air hunter Shields and range- deadly.

???

What rules are you playing with? The 2.5 rulebook I have (digital version) says that a model in Stratospheric hits and is hit on a base of 6+ not matter what the other model's height level may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just played a game and observed a game, part built fighter squardrons everywhere, being able to create a squadron one you have enough bases it a bit powerful. 

Multiple carriers are able to bog down the activation sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Asuo said:

Just played a game and observed a game, part built fighter squardrons everywhere, being able to create a squadron one you have enough bases it a bit powerful. 

Multiple carriers are able to bog down the activation sequence.

You can only rebuild, not generate from various fractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elessar said:

You can only rebuild, not generate from various fractions.

We had several instances where a flight would lose t bases and another would lose, that left the five bases the carrier need to rebuild, so it spawned another flight of fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.