Jump to content
Sky Captain

Carriers mandatory in 2.5?

Recommended Posts

I think the biggest issue with carriers and rebuilding will be meta related.  If you get enough carriers you might be able to not have to worry about it, but if you only have one or two it could become a much higher priority target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put some pain on the carrier!

A solid crit on most, usually helps a good amount of re-builds from ever happening!

Even with the stratospheric capabilities, they still typically suffer large amount of neutering in the games I play. Rebuild is a fun option, but a heavy handed reliance or approach to it, personally, has only yielded emberassing defeat. 

They are far from invincible and usually ignored when beat up, and it's line vessels that do the heavy lifting, not those weedy little planes! :P

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fracas said:

 

You activate and the target can refuse AA?

Yeah. The rules for shooting say you 'may' do a targeted attack, defensive or counter attack action. So you can just choose not to shoot back.

 

It's the sort of thing that would get raised eyebrows about from your opponents, but it's a legitimate strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the rebuild option is a fun option. And maybe it isn't as powrefull as we think. BUT still it needs some limitations. There are tons of very strange situations...

1) Is there any rule against firing at your own squads? I don't think so. Thus I would have a fighter wing ready to kill off my useless wings.

2) The fighter ACE ability let you reroll dice. In some cases that may be used to reroll 6's cuz you don't want to kill your opponent.

3) heavy AA, swarm tactics and that alike is a dubios bonus. In many cases it's negativ since you only want to weaken the enemy, not wipe them out.

4) You will see divebombers attacking fighters and the fighters refusing to fight back. Or vise versa.

5) +1 in DR for SAS is mostly positive, but in some situations it is negative when it comes to SAS versus SAS. You want to weaken the enemy but get eliminated your self.

6) +1 AA for divebomber/torpedo bomber is a dubious bonus.

6) 3 fighter sqauds versus a wing of 5. It's better to have the 3 cuz they will get eliminated, the 5 will only be weakened.

7) A 3 fighter wing is very good. As it does not totally destroy a target, but at the same time there is a large probability to get eliminated your self.

8) Especially with the heavy AA, if you target a dive bomber wing which has allready activated, and you roll to good, it is eliminated, and the enemy get the shot at rebuilding it and activating it. It turns the spend dive bomber to an unspend divebomber...

9) Lets say you have 5 wings at start of game and start of that turn. Then you activate all 5 wings, and you are lucky, 3 of them are eliminated in the process. Then you rebuild 2 full squads of 5 wings at one of your carrier. The activate the two wings. You are lucky once again and 1 of them are destroyed. Then you activate your other carrier and rebuild 2 again. Thus, you activate the SAS up to 9 times.

10) nr 7 will lead to strangt things like you don't necessarily want to fire at the full 5 squad of fighters, since you want the enemy fighters to risk destroying your wing instead of weakening it.

And the problem arises because it's not only better to weaken a wing than to eliminate it, but far far better. This should never be. Atleast not to the extent it is now. Increase the cost of rebuild to atleast 4 (I recommend 6, as that what it cost to fully rebuild and rearm a wing)  and don't allow SAS to activate in the same turn as they are build. That will eliminate all these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Freiherr von Schlitz said:

As I read the rules you cannot refuse.
Page 125 "Any Targeted Model must lead a Counter Attack to defend itself."

If you read ALL of the bullet points, you don't have to declare a counterattack, if you don't want to. However, if you do, the targeted model must be the lead model.

So you can just choose to ignore that last plane, and deny the carrier the rebuild, if you want to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are overstating it in practise. Forces with indiscriminate and barrage attacks will be able to damage carriers fine and prevent relaunches. Having some aerial forces will do the same (a Valley firing on most Carrier 6 models should be able to get a Crit for sure and deny double respawns.)

Having a CAP protects a vessel from at least one wave of dive bombers pretty well - and since they move slowly compared to fighters, that should be ok.

 

Yes, some forces, especially wholly naval ones with no carriers, will be handed parts of their anatomy on a plate - but this happens in every game, especially after a major rules/edition change. 

 

Even if every unit in a game is individually viable (and I would say they are not) that doesnt mean every combination is inherently viable. That, is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. It's not the power of the carriers, heck not even the rebuild action itself, but the fact that more AA isn't always a good thing which really irritating. Any time anyone starts debating whether it's allowed to choose not to counter attack, something is wrong. My points 1-10 above are points which should be looked at. And the solution is simple, make it more expensive, both in time & carrier points. I really don't understand why nobody caught this before going public...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Grand-Stone said:

I disagree. It's not the power of the carriers, heck not even the rebuild action itself, but the fact that more AA isn't always a good thing which really irritating. Any time anyone starts debating whether it's allowed to choose not to counter attack, something is wrong. My points 1-10 above are points which should be looked at. And the solution is simple, make it more expensive, both in time & carrier points. I really don't understand why nobody caught this before going public...

But then we're back to carriers being pocket battleships that just happens to deploy planes at the start of the battle. Re-build allows carriers to actually play like carriers, since the game mechanics and length don't really allow the planes to come back, resupply and strike again. The other options would be to double SAS movement and give them Hit&Run (but then you have RB4 bombing too) or scrap the entire system and play with Fleet Action carrier rules.

And really, the solution is simply to shoot the carriers and to CAP your important stuff. The game often only lasts three turns so there won't be a lot of rebuilding done. The problem lies less with re-build itself and more with specific models/lists like dreadnought-carriers and all-carrier fleets, which were already broken before and didn't really change. Skyfortresses too, but that's a problem with the height level rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Seph said:

But then we're back to carriers being pocket battleships that just happens to deploy planes at the start of the battle. Re-build allows carriers to actually play like carriers, since the game mechanics and length don't really allow the planes to come back, resupply and strike again. The other options would be to double SAS movement and give them Hit&Run (but then you have RB4 bombing too) or scrap the entire system and play with Fleet Action carrier rules.

And really, the solution is simply to shoot the carriers and to CAP your important stuff. The game only lasts three turns so there won't be a lot of rebuilding done. The problem lies less with re-build itself and more with specific models/lists like dreadnought-carriers and all-carrier fleets, which were already broken before and didn't really change. Skyfortresses too, but that's a problem with the height level rules.

As stated, yes the rebuild makes the carrier play as carrier, and that is very very good. But why oh why should rebuild be much much better than replenish and rearm??? It should be the other way around.

And no, CAP will not solve the problem that rebuild is much much better than replenish. CAP will only be a trapped SAW which you CANNOT replenish or rebuild.

Make rebuild cost atleast 4 carrier points and don't allow them to activate. Maybe even the rebuild only gives you a single SAW in the squad and then you will need replenish actions to fully rebuild it up to it's max capazity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't understand how it costs 6 co to refill a really damage base and rearm their bombs, but a brand new spanky wing is only 3? 

I think 4 carrier points would be a good number at least, it means undamaged light carriers and medium carriers with no more than 2hp lost can rebuild 1 per turn, large carriers can rebuild 2 per turn as long as they have taken no more than 1 damage.

 

at the bare minimum they need to arrive with an activation marker, the pilots have taxied, taken off, climbed to combat altitude and got into formation. surely that should count as their action for the turn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd need a few more games before coming to any firmer conclusions - but I just think forces need to adapt to these new conditions. It is no worse than the Recon activation spam of 6 months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, slimeball said:

I also don't understand how it costs 6 co to refill a really damage base and rearm their bombs, but a brand new spanky wing is only 3? 

I think 4 carrier points would be a good number at least, it means undamaged light carriers and medium carriers with no more than 2hp lost can rebuild 1 per turn, large carriers can rebuild 2 per turn as long as they have taken no more than 1 damage.

 

at the bare minimum they need to arrive with an activation marker, the pilots have taxied, taken off, climbed to combat altitude and got into formation. surely that should count as their action for the turn

Well, in that manner, existing squadrons have landed, taxied, waited for fuel and new ordnance, taxied again, launched and flown back to altitude which takes more time then launching a squadron that is waiting fully fueled and armed.

I think that the 3 carrier point is fine but that it would be better if they got an activation marker. I like that carrier feel more like carriers now and it is a lot better than the old system, it could use some minor tweaks though perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While theory crafting is fine, without some real world games, and some time for people to adjust to those changes, it really is only theory.  After all, in theory exploding dice will let a 40 point small ship take out a dreadnought in one turn, in practice that is never going to actually happen.

Same here, while in theory you can launch and launch huge numbers of SAS in a turn, in practice I think it is going to be *far* fewer.  And the way SAS works if they are getting wiped out it means they aren't actually making a meaningful attack.  So spending a lot of points in carriers with the hope of the SAS they produce getting shot down completely, and therefor not being a threat to the target, just to gain activations doesn't seem like it is going to work well in most cases. 

You can't just spam the cheapest carriers possible like you could with Recon planes because they're going to take enough damage, even at RB4, to not even be able to re-build if they get any attention at all.  It is one thing to spend the points for known and reliable activations, it is another to spend those points to maybe get those activations if the dice work out in your favor and you time everything correctly.  Also, unlike recon planes, there aren't going to be several "free" activations with every ship that needs a spotter.

In the end, if all of the SAS from local air support and the plethora of carriers you bring are doing no damage at all because you want to get them shot down completely, and carriers have very little firepower on your own, you're going to be in much worse shape than someone with fewer activations if they are making good use out of everything they have. 

I just couldn't see an extra 6 activations a turn making up for a "500 point list" when your opponent has 1000 because you spent 500 points of your list on nothing but getting those extra activations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does still not change the fact that if you have enough carriers, rebuilding is much better than replenishing, and thus you will run into 'I don't want to totally destroy you' which will lead to a can of worms of stupidity.

If you have 5 divebombers and a carrier within reach of one of my BB, but I have 5 fighters ready to strike. I may want to do a premture attack... If I send in 5 fighters with swarm tactics I do run the real risk of destroying your entire divebombers squad, acomplishing nothing. Then it would be far far better to send in a 3 saw fighter wing to kill of 2 or hopefully 3 saw...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grand-Stone said:

But it does still not change the fact that if you have enough carriers, rebuilding is much better than replenishing, and thus you will run into 'I don't want to totally destroy you' which will lead to a can of worms of stupidity.

If you have 5 divebombers and a carrier within reach of one of my BB, but I have 5 fighters ready to strike. I may want to do a premture attack... If I send in 5 fighters with swarm tactics I do run the real risk of destroying your entire divebombers squad, acomplishing nothing. Then it would be far far better to send in a 3 saw fighter wing to kill of 2 or hopefully 3 saw...

Accomplish little, perhaps. If the Carrier has gone, or is damaged, no respawn. And even if not, you will have another go before the SAS does, to damage them then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Grand-Stone said:

But it does still not change the fact that if you have enough carriers, rebuilding is much better than replenishing, and thus you will run into 'I don't want to totally destroy you' which will lead to a can of worms of stupidity.

If you have 5 divebombers and a carrier within reach of one of my BB, but I have 5 fighters ready to strike. I may want to do a premture attack... If I send in 5 fighters with swarm tactics I do run the real risk of destroying your entire divebombers squad, acomplishing nothing. Then it would be far far better to send in a 3 saw fighter wing to kill of 2 or hopefully 3 saw...

In your example though if you let the divebombers do their run and first and the dice don't go in your favor you could end up taking damage to the BB.  If you wipe them out preemptively then they don't get their activation, the carrier has to activate to rebuild them, and then they have to do their own activation.  The SAS/carrier combo has gained nothing by rebuilding, still 1 SAS unit and 1 carrier, and still 2 activations, but this time the carrier has to activate before the SAS does (because the SAS doesn't exist until the carrier takes its turn).

If you preemptively come in and take out 4 SAS leaving 1 alive, they have two choices:   Active the single one and try to get it killed, then active the carrier, and then activate the newly rebuilt squad.  3 activations and 1 real attack.  Or activate the carrier, replenish the SAS squad, then activate the SAS unit.  2 activation and 1 real attack.

In both of those scenarios preemptively taking out the SAS unit completely is at least as good as just damaging it.  The fact that it puts you in more control over what is going on is a good thing, you've forced the activation order of the carrier and for all you know they could have (and still might) send the SAS squad after a different unit, one without the 5 fighters close enough to support it.

 

It is always going to be better for fighters to take out fully armed bomb/torp units than to let them do their thing first.  Now if they've already dropped their ordinance and are heading back they've already done their job and your fighters are too late to help.  In that case it would be better to let them return to the ship.  But that would be true of real life combat too, if you failed to stop them from dropping their bombs it is better to be prepared for the next batch of planes than to expend resources to take out ships that have already done their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Erloas said:

In your example though if you let the divebombers do their run and first and the dice don't go in your favor you could end up taking damage to the BB.  If you wipe them out preemptively then they don't get their activation, the carrier has to activate to rebuild them, and then they have to do their own activation.  The SAS/carrier combo has gained nothing by rebuilding, still 1 SAS unit and 1 carrier, and still 2 activations, but this time the carrier has to activate before the SAS does (because the SAS doesn't exist until the carrier takes its turn).

If you preemptively come in and take out 4 SAS leaving 1 alive, they have two choices:   Active the single one and try to get it killed, then active the carrier, and then activate the newly rebuilt squad.  3 activations and 1 real attack.  Or activate the carrier, replenish the SAS squad, then activate the SAS unit.  2 activation and 1 real attack.

In both of those scenarios preemptively taking out the SAS unit completely is at least as good as just damaging it.  The fact that it puts you in more control over what is going on is a good thing, you've forced the activation order of the carrier and for all you know they could have (and still might) send the SAS squad after a different unit, one without the 5 fighters close enough to support it.

 

It is always going to be better for fighters to take out fully armed bomb/torp units than to let them do their thing first.  Now if they've already dropped their ordinance and are heading back they've already done their job and your fighters are too late to help.  In that case it would be better to let them return to the ship.  But that would be true of real life combat too, if you failed to stop them from dropping their bombs it is better to be prepared for the next batch of planes than to expend resources to take out ships that have already done their job.

 How is it better to let the enemy escape and rearm than to kill them when you can? Especially as pilots are a rare resource.

 

if you don't kill the enemy on your own term they will try to kill you on their own terms.

 

gamewise it should never be preferable to let the enemy survive to rearm than to kill them all

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

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.