DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE*

I totally disagree based on game standards for CAP 2  and Cap 3 Carriers;  

  By games standards am talking about what has been done in the past and that includes expansion;
 
   I made the case many moons ago about the Unryu and was knock down by what i believe was ridiculous reasoning;

really won't want to get into it again hate to see the same stupidity all over.

 With regard to the game;

 1;;  I believe i understand you thoughts on the Games air units and how they don't or can't truly represent any carriers all around mix;

        IF so could not agree more.

 2;;  Some thoughts on the games Illustrious Class and Indefatigable;

The first three Illustrious later in the war when deck parking became a refit norm could all carry a little more than 50 a true game CAP 2

  Indefatigable and her sister over 80 a true CAP 3 

3;; Point being

      When designers create a unit;;; Pennsylvania for example its year entered war plus any improvements ala Pennsylvania's AA rating for 1941 a little high

4;;  Indomitable is definitely a candidate for some ground between the groups; but she's not a CAP 3.

If we want to talk about how to do that, some good ideas have already been posted;

  I strongly believe Cap 2 carriers are the games worst use of air; why I argued for the Unryu's to be CAP 3;; but a PRECEDENT has been set;

5;; The Ideas so far;; poor and limited facilities have been posted, for this unit its to broad.

 This unit needs a new limited CAP SA and i believe it should be based of Fighters only;

Example its a Cap 2 but a CAP 3 if 2 are fighters; if 2 fighters return in a single phase one fighter needs to rearm;

 Its totally based on the history of these UK carriers air wings and the lack of their original aircraft designs.

They had no true DB or an against all navies TB; in the Pacific they did fighter sweeps;

  I believe this approach holds back early war advantages and gives late war reality.

  I think we know that RB was going in a Generic direction with most of his early units; but like all success and the need for more

you have to be innovative;;   The Team Decks advance into the game pretty much had to deal with what way they thought best.

 For me until Hood they did a great job.

Not crying over spilt milk i like new units in most any form unless they leave no avenue of use for an original.

We've been back and forth for a while pretty well stated what i'd like and to see and why;;; how about you.

I'd go with ExB and either ExF2 or Fighter Cover.

ExF2 could also arguably account for the extra fighters

I agree expert Torpedo is more appropriate for the RN. They rejected dive bombing completely, and even returned some Dauntless'. That said, the Avenger was used by both navies quite extensively as a more traditional "gliding dive" bomber. That isn't as accurate as dive bombing, but still effective.

I think CAP 2 plus a bump to CAP 3 if two of the units are fighters is the way to go. This carrier was a "tweener" design between the Illustrious class and the Implacable class.

We have never used deck parks as part of the capacity calculation. Mainly because only the Allies did it from mid-war on. The IJN didn't have enough aircraft (carrier pilots actually) to even fill their normal complement of aircraft by that time!

Should one Fighter have to rearm otherwise its a full CAP 3 when its really not!!!

I like u ique ideas, but if we've given other ships on the boundary of CAP more restrictive SAs, should we go this route here? What about Fighter Cover 7? Something a tad more effective than 5.