Should Aircraft Carriers have more flights

[Reaverman]

Post a comment, before ya post ya vote

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I voted twice as many flights, but that's not really accurate. I think they should all be one-hit-wonders like in ACtA, so all the 2-hit flights should be doubled. Otherwise, I think carriers should have more flights, to their real operational capacity (NOT their theoretical maximum capacity so often stated).

Wulf

 

[Reaverman]

Like Wulf said really

 

[Fitzwalrus]

I really don't think the number of Flights is the problem.

With one or two exceptions, the current numbers are historically accurate at six planes per Flight. The problem (IHMO) is the effectiveness of the aircraft, which just doesn't match their historic capabilities. Rather than double the number of Flights, double the existing AD instead and try that out. If you double the number of Flights you'll have twice the on-table counter congestion you have now (which is bad enough), and what do you do then about the "three Flights per attack" rule?

One of VaS's strengths is the comparative KISS level of the rules. If there is going to be a "fix" for aircraft, make the fix the one that has the least effect of complicating the game: change the AD.

 

[Burger]

I'm with Walrus, the number of flights is fine. But the flights should be more effective, for example triple the AD. And make them able to land and re-arm.

 

[Steelwhip]

Have to agree with Fitz and Burger. the number of flights are not the issue....the effectiveness of each flight is the issue.

just my humble opinion of course

 

[resQscooter]

If you up the AD per flight you are still putting all of your eggs into three baskets per ship, which to my eyes they become even less effective. I see 2 possible solutions:

1.) Increase number of flights which may attack a single ship. Between dodging and multiple damage flights (of the 7 strike flights in the lists, 4 of them can take 2 damage) it seems to me you can swamp an average ships AA defenses.

2. Further divide the number of flights you can activate in one turn. Perhaps activate three groups at once instead of all of one type. Being able to pick off escorts with a group or two, then send in other groups against the main target seems like it would work.

Look at the historical air attacks on surface fleets and mostly you will see hundreds of strike fighters in the air coming in successive waves.

 

[BuShips]

I didn't vote for two reasons. First, I have not played as yet and think that a serious attempt at play testing various combinations of load-outs should be done before tossing in my opinion. Second, setting aside my above comments and just plunging in (heh) I'd say the poll needs a modifier for the option that Fitzwalrus suggested :wink: . It could be argued (as stated already) that the aircraft are at about the correct number for flights of six aircraft each. Considering that a typical warship primary gun tube has basically a 1-die attack value assigned to it and around 3-4 damage dice to follow a hit that raising the hit percentage might be a way to increase aircraft effectiveness without swamping the targets with piles of damage dice. In fairness to Mongoose, the intent was clear as to not to overly "accurize" the air threats to turn this into the air-dominating war it turned into. I'm not too sure about the time frame of the battle as to allow aircraft rearming, other than my comments elsewhere in another thread that maybe the carriers should operate off the board edge and be allowed a second attack only when cornered after all primary-table escorts were either defeated or bypassed. In seeking a bit of historic background (only from memory at this time) the percentage of hits from naval gunfire at a distance could have only been maybe around 2%, but considering that bomb-packing aircraft were a step towards the modern autonomous "smart bombs" of today (side note acknowledging that a kamikaze was one of the first smart-bombs), the percentage of attack dice could be raised to justify this advantage of aircraft to bring the "bullet" home under better guidance. If you wanted to really give aircraft their just-do then you might triple the attack dice but the game as a naval game would not be as "fun". Accurately though, each bomber might carry a battleship projectile in a flight and arguably want six AD. The Japanese level bombers at Pearl Harbor were actually packing 14" and 16" AP battleship projectiles in the planes as they flew over "battleship row". :shock:

 

[Daddy Dragon]

What if instead of increasing AD or increasing the number of flights, we get a bonus to the die roll for each additional flight of the same type attacking the same target?

Leave the maximum flights per attack at 3 per, but you'd have the choice to sacrifice the attacks of individual flights to boost the chances of one (basically, the +1 per flight like dogfights in ACTA). That bonus would be applied to all rolls for the attack, AD to hit, DD to damage and as a modifier up or down on the crit table.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Larry

 

[BuShips]

What if instead of increasing AD or increasing the number of flights, we get a bonus to the die roll for each additional flight of the same type attacking the same target?

Leave the maximum flights per attack at 3 per, but you'd have the choice to sacrifice the attacks of individual flights to boost the chances of one (basically, the +1 per flight like dogfights in ACTA). That bonus would be applied to all rolls for the attack, AD to hit, DD to damage and as a modifier up or down on the crit table.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Larry

Certainly another idea to consider, and your suggestion comes from the game that spawned VaS anyway. Hmm... Since at present the aircraft cannot rearm within the game (One-shot), a player could "pile-on" using this option or just whittle away by using wave after wave of flights of three in successive turns.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

They do not need more flights. They need 3 times as many AD

Cpt Kremmen

 

[Bigwig_mark]

I agree with Cpt Kremmen there are enough flights but each flight is too ineffective.

same number of flights but more AD per flight. 3AD is a good figure.

Remember if the no of carrier flights is increased then the number of "off-table" flights should also be increased. All aircraft forces are big enough without doubling them

Mark

 

[Oly]

I'm with BuShips on this. Although it may not be accurate I don't to see aircraft dominating the game as they did in real life.

Part of what attracted me to the game was the idea of ship to ship combat. Sinking a Battleship with a realistically devasting attack by aircraft simply isn't as much fun to me as two giants slugging it out.

I do feel that it was a deliberate design decision to somewhat nerf the aircraft and to keep the focus of the game on the ships.

 

[Reaverman]

I'm with BuShips on this. Although it may not be accurate I don't to see aircraft dominating the game as they did in real life.

Sorry, what happened in the Pacific War again?

Nothing is stopping slugging it out with big ships, but what about those who like carrier actions. The game should be called Victory in the Atlantic, since it seems to be geared to those sort of tactics.

 

[Poi]

As they work now, I'd never take a carrier, or anything other than fighters to keep enemy bombers away.

I want ships, lots and lots of ships.

 

[Oly]

Sorry, what happened in the Pacific War again?

Nothing is stopping slugging it out with big ships, but what about those who like carrier actions. The game should be called Victory in the Atlantic, since it seems to be geared to those sort of tactics.

It does seem far better suited to the Atlantic battles I'll grant you. I suspect that they didn't give it that name because they didn't want to cut the American market out of the game.

I wonder if they could have found some way to put out the apparent design decision to keep the focus on the ships. Something about the final days of the dominance of the Battleship before aircraft and carriers took over.

 

[Bob Hume]

I don't want to change the rules at all. I don't want to do an air dominated game. Again, if I wanted to do an air game, I'd use other rules. However, if you are going to change it, I'd prefer the suggestion of BuShips as the way to do it.

 

[Soulmage]

I don't want an air dominated game either. I love the fact that the focus is on the big gun ships rather than the boring aircraft carriers.

I'd be ok with a slight increase in the effectiveness of aircraft, just so that they were a more playable option, but I really want the battleships to stay front and center of the action which is where they are at now!!

 

[Reaverman]

I don't want an air dominated game either. I love the fact that the focus is on the big gun ships rather than the boring aircraft carriers.

I'd be ok with a slight increase in the effectiveness of aircraft, just so that they were a more playable option, but I really want the battleships to stay front and center of the action which is where they are at now!!

Then you are all creating an unbalance, a Battleships alone game is going to be dominated by the IJN. The Yamato is going to mince most ships, and only lucky shots are going to do anything (thats if you get into range of it before being mauled). The only way the Yamato was sunk, was through Airpower. You cant have one, without the other. Remember, WWII was the twilight of the BB ship fleets, it was the advent of Carrier operations.

If you want a BB dominated game, I suggest you look towards WWI

 

[Burger]

Then you are all creating an unbalance, a Battleships alone game is going to be dominated by the IJN. The Yamato is going to mince most ships

Well thats where the PL system is supposed to even it out. Same as the Minbari would dominate all the other younger races in ACTA when comparing mainline warships (ie. Sharlin vs Omega). Their ships are better, so they are higher PL, so the other races get more of their inferior ships to create a balance.

Problem is, VAS ships are very similar to each other, and cannot simply be "tweaked" for balance because the ships are based on real historical data. Some are simply better than others, yet cost the same to buy. My oft-quoted example is the Yamato and the Nelson. It doesn't make sense for these ships to be at the same level because the Yamato is quite blatantly far superior... but putting the Nelson to Battle level would be too much of a change. This is why I support a move to a points system for VAS.