Aircraft Carriers – What’s the point?

Home Forums Historical Victory At Sea Aircraft Carriers – What’s the point?

  • This topic has 35 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 months ago by Nat.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #186385
    Mick
    Participant

    After reading your post I checked out the AA capabilities of a few of the ships from each nation, and swamping a ship seems wise as only a couple have range bands and most of the rest have Local 1 with only a few with 2+.

    I’m currently solo gaming until my British fleet is fully painted so I reckon I will just practice with various styles of leets from all nations and see which playstyle I prefer. I was actually thinking of putting teh HMS Eagle in my list above but until I see the planes in action and see what they can do I’ll leave it out. It seems alot of points for only a 3rd of the aircraft from the Ark Royal. With teh game plays I have seen though I’m getting the feeling the British with be a heavy ship fleet (BB’s and Cruisers) and if I can put an aircraft carrier in just to menace the opposition, unless I can come up witha fleet with loads of AA, lol.

     

    #186386
    Mick
    Participant

    So I was curious about making an IJN and US carrier fleet and came up with this, based on models released and models I have (no proxies). And I was abit gobsmacked at what I came up with.

    IJN (1500 pts)

    Akagi (17 flights) 250pts

    Zuikaku (18 flights) 275pts

    Kumano 280pts

    Mogami + Radar refit 305pts

    5 x Fubuki Class Destroyer + refits to 1943 (radar) 350pts

    4 x Aichi D3A1 Val Dive Bomber 40 pts

    The 2 carriers are carrying a more or less even split of D3A1’s and Zero’s. I have 13 scouting dice of which 6 I could reroll.

    US (1500 pts)

    USS Enterprise (24 flights) 280pts

    USS Hornet (24 flights) 280pts

    USS Alaska 250pts

    USS Chester + 1940 Radar refit + 1941 refit 145pts (I had 5 pts left so just spent it on the extra refit)

    USS Indianapolis + 1942 Radar refit 155pts

    6 x Fletcher class destroyer 360pts

    6 x Fletcher 1942 refit -30pts

    6 x Fletcher 1942 refit -90pts

    6 x Fletcher 1943 Advanced Radar refit 30pts

    The 2 carriers are carrying an even split of Corsairs and Hellcats. I have 21 scouting dice of which 8 could be re-rolled.

    Now obviously I have played these fleets yet, but unless my figures are wrong and just off face value I think the US would smash the IJN fleet. I mean they out number the Japanese in carrier aircraft by 9 flights. They out number them in ships, I mean the Alask has more than twice the number of hull points as a Mogami, longer range. The Chester and Indianapolis have slightly less hull points and slightly less firepower. The Fubuki’s seem better destroyers than teh Fletchers, but there are only 5 v 6 for the US.

     

    @Nat – Would you se your own IJN fleet against the above US fleet? Or have you come across something similar? And use the same tactics you have mention previously?

     

    #186397
    Nat
    Participant

    I’d cry…. my list would need a fair bit of luck with the FAN torpedo rolls… BUT as my list is a 1943 list the teeth are pulled from that USN list (corsairs arent carrier capable, DP is half dice & Alaska isnt a valid selection) so I’d give it a go…..

    #186398
    Mick
    Participant

    Well if we are going date specific, I would have to radically change the fleet unless I proxy the aircraft. If I’m not proxying and we are sticking with 1943 I guess I would have to switch out the Alaska for the other two Northampton class cruisers. That puts me 2 pts over so I would either remove the radar refit on the Chester OR I could swap out one of the Yorktowns for the Essex. Just means I will have shed loads of Hellcats, lol. So I guess in the end I would just have one and use the rest of the points for a Portland and couple more destroyers.

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Mick.
    #186404
    Enioch
    Participant

    @Mick

    Let me be as clear as possible: the Warlord-published points lists are garbage.

    Going by Warlord points, the supremacy of USN carriers is crushing during any and all time periods, especially if you use a dive-bomber heavy loadout. It’s so imbalanced it’s not even funny. From 1944 onwards there is nothing any of the other nations can bring that can stand up to an equal-budget USN battlefleet built with Warlord points (assuming equal player skill and damage-based strategic objectives).

    Do not. I repeat: Do NOT. EVER. expect an even fight if you’re using Warlord points to determine your fleet compositions in a pickup game. Get a community points mod.

    #186405
    Mick
    Participant

    Well thats abit sucky. Seems as though they either favour US ships as they have released far more of them or they just didn’t do any play testing, as a novice without even playing that list I think it would smash any other fleet. Have you got a link to any community ones?

    #186406
    Enioch
    Participant

    Here is SHIPS (Statistically Harmonized Indexed Points System) developed by myself with the help of other members of the VaS community Discord.

    I’m attaching version 1.3.0 – I have version 1.4.0 in the works but on hiatus because I was waiting for Warlord to do something before I wasted any more of my time. After the second FAQ / errata doc was posted without addressing the points issues, I’m starting to ramp up work again.

    The mod involves points rebalancing for all base versions of the ships, based on their actual performance. It also completely reworks carriers and aircraft to make them fairer to surface ships.

    Read the notes document, it’ll let you know how to use the docs.

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Enioch.
    #186410
    Mick
    Participant

    Ar no that means I have to redo my fleet building lists in excell, lol, bummer. My KGV’s have gone up as well :(. Well I don’t get to play much but I will defo test this versus Warlords one. If alot of the community are using it then hopefully Warlord will release an errata or better yet a pack of stat cards of the already released ships. Before I opened that PDF I was half expecting a shed load of stat changes in which case I probably wouldn’t have used it.

    Not too sure I understand the whole carrier off the table hull percentage thingy, but I’ll read it a couple of times and see if that sticks in the brain.

    Thanks matey!!

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Mick.
    #186422
    Enioch
    Participant

    My KGV’s have gone up as well 🙁

    It’s just a little 10% bump in price to justify their excellent armor, torpedo defense and AA. If you want to see massive hikes in prices (that are absolutely justified), look at USN ships, and especially their slow BBs.

    Before I opened that PDF I was half expecting a shed load of stat changes in which case I probably wouldn’t have used it.

    Nah. Generally (with some notable infuriating exceptions) Warlord have done a good enough job being consistent with their stat attribution. It’s how much they’re costing those stats that is the problem.

    Not too sure I understand the whole carrier off the table hull percentage thingy, but I’ll read it a couple of times and see if that sticks in the brain.

    If you need any help, let me know.

    #186447
    Eric Kingsley
    Participant

    I am relatively new to the game and building out my IJN and USN fleets.  This thread is helpful and interesting.  I have thought that Aircraft Carriers were probably a tipping points in terms of balance between the different Navies.  Sure the European factions all have at least one Aircraft Carriers to pick from but the shear variety and generally buffed power of the US and IJN carriers feels like those Navies would have a significant advantage vs the European Navies in a carrier battle.

    That said I do think it makes perfect sense (from a historical perspective) that if playing a 1945 game the USN is going to outclass every other navy in the game as by that point in the war the US had by far the most powerful Navy in the world.  1942/43 is probably a good balance point where early war the IJN is going to have an advantage.  I am not sure if not playing the scenarios how you properly balance the game among all Navies in a pure points battle.

    I have not honestly gotten deep enough into the other 4 Navies to figure out for myself where the balance/tipping points are.  One thought I have had is that in a Points based system I would think allowing mixed Axis and Allies fleets based in 42/43 may be one way to have more balanced and varied points battle games.  The other thought is Carriers maybe should just give a discount on flight point costs not get all the flights “included” in the price, also I think the Carriers in deep deployment and off the board is problematic.

    #186450
    Nat
    Participant

    You’ve hit the biggest issue with WLPS & Carriers in my opionion after a number of discussions – the free flights (which is why all the community points systesm have a carrier discount)

    Deep Deployment – after the FAQ has added about a page of extra rules, they’ve adminted that it doest work so ‘recommend you dont use it in tournaments’…. I said when the book was released they should have just cut Deep Deployment because theres not enough rules for it to work.

    Yes 43 is my (FB wardroom group) recommendation for pickup games for that balance pickup game.

    The issue with allowing nations to mix fleets in pickup games is some ships will never see play, and you lose some of the national charactistics and flavour (such as the French with no large claibre rear facing turrets)

    However , that the sellilng point of the game – it quick and easy to learn and easy to adapt to your local gaming group.
    (ps check yout the new from the wardroom thread for guides on flights, mtbs, subs & a 1 page turn guide)

    #186452
    Eric Kingsley
    Participant

    Yeah I am in the FB group and I have read all the 101 documents, very helpful, thank you.

    I see your point about mixing/not mixing fleets.

    I guess I missed the point about recommending not allowing Deep Deployment in tournaments, that is good to hear.  As for discounted flights I will have to look up what the recommendations are.  I suppose you can’t have too little of a discount because then folks wouldn’t take a carrier at all and would just pay for flights but out right free flights seems to be unbalanced considering the cost of carriers compared to the differences in the number of flights each carrier can take.

    #186453
    Enioch
    Participant

    @Eric Kingsley
    You will find that SHIPS provides essentially exactly that: a system to pay for your CV flights with a discount compared to Land-based air. And fixes surface ship point imbalances as well.
    Docs are posted above.

    #186454
    Mick
    Participant

    @ ENIOCH

    So I read the notes for S.H.I.P.S again and most of it seems simple enough, overall points over haul, easy enough. The carrier points and hanger points nice and simple. Got a couple of questions though, sorry..

    1.2.0 Second AA Rework – it mentions about the AA costs, I presume this cost is implemented into the base cost of the ship and not a seperate cost for AA?

    1.1.0 Release of MTBS ……….. – Can you confirm that the Shimmikaze has jumped right up to 175 pts to reflect the speed increase? 😮

    Not sure what the 3/3/4 refers to in the notes about the Fubuki, I thought it might mean either the AD or DD, but these are all 3/3/3 in both the book and stat cards.

    1.0.5 Hotfix for USN CAs – When you say statted with 8 secondaries, I presume you just mean the initially desription of the weapon (8×5 inch) as the AD  does say 6?

    1.0.0 AA Rework, Carrier Tweaking – I find this note a little confusing, when you talk about the price increase in AA etc, is this refering to Refit costs? So any gun with the Dual Purpose Trait, Local Trait and Physical increase in AA batteries is costing +5 points each, would that be correct?

    The last paragraph about carriers, you say it only provides 50% of an equivalent surface ships points, does this refer to victory points? And does this refer to map based or of map? And I presume this overides the next questions about Carrier Rework?

    0.9.0 Carrier Rework –  Again it mentions they only provide 80% of points, agin I presume this refers to victory points? I don’t know what it means when it refers to paying a points penalty? I thought it meant to do with a low base cost but then the more flight you carry it gets more expensive!

    Well as soon as I have a few I will add another sheet to mt excell spreadsheet with the re-adjusted S.H.I.P.S pts cost and add the aircraft as they used to be free. I’ll have to see if anyone at my local store are using this system if not I will have to see if they are prepared to as I can see alot of players favouring the WG version on USN fleets.

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Mick.
    #186456
    Enioch
    Participant

    Taking your questions in ascending order of the “patch” versions. Note that these are CHANGELOG notes (i.e. they document how the SHIPS mod has changed through different versions). Most of them only make sense if you’ve followed development from the beginning and wonder about things like “Why has thing X changed when we went from version 0.8.5  to version 0.9.0 of SHIPS?) :

    • 0.9.0 Carrier Rework –  Again it mentions they only provide 80% of points, agin I presume this refers to victory points? I don’t know what it means when it refers to paying a points penalty? I thought it meant to do with a low base cost but then the more flight you carry it gets more expensive!

    This is under-the-hood algorithm information, and does not affect you as a user of the lists (it only concerned playtesters): use the values of the ships as listed.
    What it means is that the hull of a CV costs less in points than the hull of a surface combat ship with equivalent stats (to reflect the fact that CVs are not meant to fight with their primary hull, their combat value increases primarily based on their aircraft, not their HP or guns). To give you an example, if a carrier brings an extra pair of 6″ guns or a few HP, it’s not that important, since it’ll be hiding in the back and (hopefully) never using them. Whereas an extra pair of 6″ guns or some more HP on e.g. a light cruiser makes all the difference in the world.

    Note that CVs also have to pay their hangar costs on top of whatever the hull is actually worth.

    • 1.0.0 AA Rework, Carrier Tweaking – I find this note a little confusing, when you talk about the price increase in AA etc, is this refering to Refit costs? So any gun with the Dual Purpose Trait, Local Trait and Physical increase in AA batteries is costing +5 points each, would that be correct?

    This is partly the case: to calculate the cost of a ship, a gun contributes with its standard anti surface cost (which varies depending on its stats) and on top of that it gets the added +5 AA cost if applicable. So, increasing local by 1 costs 5 points, but increasing any DP or AA weapon might have additional costs, depending on the stats of the gun.

    I have not statted all refits yet (the list give you costs for base ships), but I have made an .xlsx that you can use to calculate ship values based on any stats. I’ll see if I can find it and post it here. For now, you can basically use Warlord costs for the refits, they’re close enough for government work (although still hilariously broken in some instances).

    • The last paragraph about carriers, you say it only provides 50% of an equivalent surface ships points, does this refer to victory points? And does this refer to map based or of map? And I presume this overides the next questions about Carrier Rework?

    This is essentially a rebalance of the previous (0.9.0) costing of CVs. Instead of 80% of an equivalent surface ship, hull stats only provide 50% of the equivalent surface ship (and to that you add the hangar cost). You pay that when you bring the CV to battle, it doesn’t matter if it’s on the table or in deep deployment. In any case, these are all under the hood calculations, and they’re all factored in the final lists: pay the cost of the CV as listed (+ Hangar Cost or Combat Air Group cost, whichever is the highest).

    • 1.0.5 Hotfix for USN CAs – When you say statted with 8 secondaries, I presume you just mean the initially desription of the weapon (8×5 inch) as the AD  does say 6?

    I had made a mistake and told the cost algorithm to calculate the value of these ships as if they had 8 secondary attack dice. In actuality, they have 6. I fixed that. This resulted in a -5 point reduction in their price from the 1.0.0 -> 1.0.5 version of SHIPS. This is irrelevant to you, you’re on version 1.3.0, it’s fixed.

    • 1.1.0 Release of MTBS ……….. – Can you confirm that the Shimmikaze has jumped right up to 175 pts to reflect the speed increase? 😮

    Confirm.

    Warlord points do not take into account the capabilities of the vessel, including but not limited to:
    1. Agility
    2. Speed
    3. Torpedo load
    4. the ability to use RADAR to acquire targets at night for torpedo strikes.

    • Not sure what the 3/3/4 refers to in the notes about the Fubuki, I thought it might mean either the AD or DD, but these are all 3/3/3 in both the book and stat cards.

    Same as the USN CAs above. I had originally told the algorithm to calculate points for the Fubuki as if her launchers had 3/3/4 attack dice. This was a mistake, which I identified and corrected in this version (1.1.0). It does not affect you, you’re already on 1.3.0 and the correction is implemented.

    • 1.2.0 Second AA Rework – it mentions about the AA costs, I presume this cost is implemented into the base cost of the ship and not a seperate cost for AA?

    Correct. The rebalance of AA in 1.2.0 affected the cost of the base value of AA batteries, before the +5 bonus. They became slightly cheaper, to better match other AA options. Once again, this does not really affect you – you are using 1.3.0, this is already implemented in the lists.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.