DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE*

ticat1 Moderator "Ready, Aye, Ready" Posts: 1,363	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Sept 24, 2018 0:52:34 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by ticat1 on Sept 24, 2018 0:52:34 GMT Ok, so if we nix Poor Facilities in favour of a CAP 3 if additional unit is a fighter, are we wanting at least one other fighter? Or will just making the additional unit be a fighter be enough?
	To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea

flakstruk Deck E developer Posts: 9,839	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Sept 24, 2018 2:50:42 GMT via mobile Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by flakstruk on Sept 24, 2018 2:50:42 GMT Why though? If we're going to set so low a bar we might as well throw thr guidelines out entirely and just make it cap 3? Poor facilities isnt a perfect fit but its written exactly for this kind of grey area

Syzmo Deck E developer Posts: 400	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Sept 24, 2018 12:38:23 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Syzmo on Sept 24, 2018 12:38:23 GMT Im with Flak, an SA exists for what we're trying to do. Its on the player if they dont want to take this unit because they perceived the SA as negative.

firesdstny Deck E developer Posts: 1,419	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Sept 26, 2018 4:25:34 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by firesdstny on Sept 26, 2018 4:25:34 GMT No, Poor Facilities here is appropriate and is actually a positive SA because it increases the CAP size.

au64
Deck E playtester

Posts: 1,847

DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE* Sept 26, 2018 16:42:58 GMT

Quote

Post by au64 on Sept 26, 2018 16:42:58 GMT

Sept 26, 2018 4:25:34 GMT firesdstny said:

No, Poor Facilities here is appropriate and is actually a positive SA because it increases the CAP size.

I still disagree. You look at PF as a positive because you see the Indomitable as an inherent 2 Cap carrier.

I see the Indomitable as a 3 cap carrier with a specific load out (2 fighters and 1 other). Which makes PF a negative.

The difference is that my viewpoint grants me 3 planes to utilize every turn (granted 2 are fighters), where your viewpoint grants me 3 planes on one turn and 2 planes on the second... with the added risk of guaranteeing a lost plane if he ship is sunk with a plane rearming.

This is the fundament discussion.

Last Edit: Sept 26, 2018 16:43:15 GMT by au64

ticat1
Moderator

"Ready, Aye, Ready"

Posts: 1,363

DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE* Sept 27, 2018 2:27:00 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by ticat1 on Sept 27, 2018 2:27:00 GMT

The range for Cap 2 is 38-62.

So the 45 and late war 52 capacity is still well within that range so this is very solidly a capacity 2 carrier.

So in this case, Poor Facilities is a generous SA to give.

From my personal perspective it's the most appropriate but I agree the name had connotation to it.

I personally see absolutely no reason not to rename it. There's existing precedent and it's not going to create any weird overlap by making it a separate SA according to game rules

To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high.
-In Flanders Fields. John McCrea

flakstruk
Deck E developer

Posts: 9,839

DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE* Sept 27, 2018 9:42:12 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by flakstruk on Sept 27, 2018 9:42:12 GMT

Sept 26, 2018 16:42:58 GMT au64 said:

Sept 26, 2018 4:25:34 GMT firesdstny said:

No, Poor Facilities here is appropriate and is actually a positive SA because it increases the CAP size.

I still disagree. You look at PF as a positive because you see the Indomitable as an inherent 2 Cap carrier.

I see the Indomitable as a 3 cap carrier with a specific load out (2 fighters and 1 other). Which makes PF a negative.

The difference is that my viewpoint grants me 3 planes to utilize every turn (granted 2 are fighters), where your viewpoint grants me 3 planes on one turn and 2 planes on the second... with the added risk of guaranteeing a lost plane if he ship is sunk with a plane rearming.

This is the fundament discussion.

An extra fighter simply isnt a meaningful enough cost for the benefit. Id simply expect in a carrier pair to embark a fighter-fighter-bomber + bomber-bomber-bomber rather than fighter-bomber-bomber x2.

What i did think of in this posting is that value adding, and demonstrating the transition nature of this ship might be beneficial. Perhaps;

SA: if a friendly carrier with capcity of 2 or less is local to this unit. This unit may exceed its capacity by 1.

au64
Deck E playtester

Posts: 1,847

DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE* Sept 27, 2018 18:23:41 GMT

Quote

Post by au64 on Sept 27, 2018 18:23:41 GMT

Sept 27, 2018 9:42:12 GMT flakstruk said:

What i did think of in this posting is that value adding, and demonstrating the transition nature of this ship might be beneficial. Perhaps;

SA: if a friendly carrier with capcity of 2 or less is local to this unit. This unit may exceed its capacity by 1.

Ohhhhh… I like this!!!! Gives an extra reason to play the smaller escort carriers.

It's barely historical and not technical at all... but adds a unique game element. This I have to go ponder.

ticat1 Moderator "Ready, Aye, Ready" Posts: 1,363	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Sept 29, 2018 16:24:34 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by ticat1 on Sept 29, 2018 16:24:34 GMT OK so I added a poll and we'll go forward with the majority decision.
	To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea

gaz01
Forumini Lieutenant

Posts: 672

DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE* Sept 29, 2018 17:52:34 GMT

Quote

Post by gaz01 on Sept 29, 2018 17:52:34 GMT

After reading through this all again I'm still not sure what would be best.

I still see reasons not to be convinced by either of the two choices. I've never been a huge fan of poor facilities anyway and prefer to see it on older obsolete units, in terms of its effect and the name as referred previously. Cap 3 with fighters is an interesting idea but if you always intended on multiple fighters anyway (which I see a lot) it makes no difference, so its really only marginally less than a pure cap 3 anyway and encroaching on the Implacable's that way.

Replenish aircraft looks good enough to me with whatever else you wanted on it.

Last Edit: Sept 29, 2018 18:03:01 GMT by gaz01

"That's right son, join the navy. Get behind a bloody big gun and knock the hell out of somebody"

"We went out, got our arses kicked, then came back again"

flakstruk Deck E developer Posts: 9,839	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Sept 30, 2018 4:55:43 GMT via mobile Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by flakstruk on Sept 30, 2018 4:55:43 GMT Of the 2 options, Poor Facilities. I dont support a name change however

waratsea4
Forumini Lieutenant

Posts: 839

DECK F HMS Indomitable *DONE* Oct 2, 2018 4:32:50 GMT

Quote

Post by waratsea4 on Oct 2, 2018 4:32:50 GMT

Sept 27, 2018 9:42:12 GMT flakstruk said:

Sept 26, 2018 16:42:58 GMT au64 said:

I still disagree. You look at PF as a positive because you see the Indomitable as an inherent 2 Cap carrier.

I see the Indomitable as a 3 cap carrier with a specific load out (2 fighters and 1 other). Which makes PF a negative.

The difference is that my viewpoint grants me 3 planes to utilize every turn (granted 2 are fighters), where your viewpoint grants me 3 planes on one turn and 2 planes on the second... with the added risk of guaranteeing a lost plane if he ship is sunk with a plane rearming.

This is the fundament discussion.

An extra fighter simply isnt a meaningful enough cost for the benefit. Id simply expect in a carrier pair to embark a fighter-fighter-bomber + bomber-bomber-bomber rather than fighter-bomber-bomber x2.

What i did think of in this posting is that value adding, and demonstrating the transition nature of this ship might be beneficial. Perhaps;

SA: if a friendly carrier with capcity of 2 or less is local to this unit. This unit may exceed its capacity by 1.

SA: if a friendly carrier with capacity of 2 or less is local to this unit. This unit may exceed its capacity by 1.

Have to agree this is a nice one;;

MY two cents for this one;; CAP 3 with at least one CAP a must Fighter and no DB TB expert;

You have to seal from Peter to Pay Paul; other wise you have a game anomaly

SWO's Fighter Cover 5 showed what the unit was all about;; adding a must fighter gives its more versatility than the SA.

Last Edit: Oct 3, 2018 4:11:48 GMT by waratsea4

texasarcher Deck E playtester Posts: 436	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Oct 2, 2018 21:45:15 GMT via mobile Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by texasarcher on Oct 2, 2018 21:45:15 GMT Figter cover was a good idea too, but I think 7 was too high and 5 too low. Fighter cover 6 would have been perfect IMO to go with the CAP 2...

ticat1 Moderator "Ready, Aye, Ready" Posts: 1,363	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Oct 8, 2018 3:05:55 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by ticat1 on Oct 8, 2018 3:05:55 GMT How are we feeling about this? Should I redo the poll? SA: If this unit is in the same sector as a friendly Carrier, this unit may exceed its capacity by 1 I modified it a bit
	To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea

flakstruk Deck E developer Posts: 9,839	DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE Oct 8, 2018 9:32:08 GMT via mobile Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by flakstruk on Oct 8, 2018 9:32:08 GMT If its that easy to trigger why bother with a SA at all?

Gallery Title:
Image URL:
Image Title:
Comment:
Tick this box if you would like to allow other members to add images to your gallery.Add Image

Forumini

title

DECK F HMS Indomitable DONE

Post by ticat1 on Sept 24, 2018 0:52:34 GMT

Post by flakstruk on Sept 24, 2018 2:50:42 GMT

Post by Syzmo on Sept 24, 2018 12:38:23 GMT

Post by firesdstny on Sept 26, 2018 4:25:34 GMT

Post by au64 on Sept 26, 2018 16:42:58 GMT

Post by ticat1 on Sept 27, 2018 2:27:00 GMT

Post by flakstruk on Sept 27, 2018 9:42:12 GMT

Post by au64 on Sept 27, 2018 18:23:41 GMT

Post by ticat1 on Sept 29, 2018 16:24:34 GMT

Post by gaz01 on Sept 29, 2018 17:52:34 GMT

Post by flakstruk on Sept 30, 2018 4:55:43 GMT

Post by waratsea4 on Oct 2, 2018 4:32:50 GMT

Post by texasarcher on Oct 2, 2018 21:45:15 GMT

Post by ticat1 on Oct 8, 2018 3:05:55 GMT

Post by flakstruk on Oct 8, 2018 9:32:08 GMT

Quick Reply