After doing some playtesting with the three options,
1) Poor Facilities 2) +1 Cap only with 2 fighters 3) +1 cap when with another Carrier of Cap 2 or less
Here's what we found... - from a perception basis most people didn't like Poor Facilities just because of the name disliked Poor Facilities as it sounded more negative than positive - No matter the name, poor facilities did work and represented the ability to have another plane (no matter the type) on board that was able to be utilized every other turn. - The added downside people did not like about the Poor facilities was when their carrier was sunk with the plane aboard they didn't get a "save" for the plane. - There was some feelings of being limited of only getting the +1 cap with an extra fighter, but it was offset by not having the unit getting automatically destroyed and basing the other non-fighters on another carrier - The bonus cap when with another carrier of cap 2 or less was probably the favorite as it felt like forming a carrier group. - The oddest pairing (when giving the +1 cap with another carrier) was with the HMS Argus (0 Cap) - The most common (favored?) pairing (when giving the +1 cap with another carrier) was with the HMS Unicorn or HMS Eagle - Surprisingly few people paired it with a expensive carrier over 15 points and we were playing generic red vs. blue
So, I promised some playtest feedback/thoughts and it's now delivered.
In all the years ive played the bearn i dont remember that ever happening.
It happened in the first game, his opponent threw everything they could at it when the extra plane was on the carrier in the hopes of getting a "two fer". This then set the precedence and strategy against Poor Facilities.
I think the Cap3s will always be more desirable. This becomes a question of accuracy (poor facilities) or function (FC#, new SA suggestions)
Poor facilities would be an acceptable option to me. Over analysing SA names and longshot events and trying to mitigate them has made for some off the messier bits of the team decks.
Simple capacity option if you hard against poor facilities is the 'adjacent carrier option'. That acceptable also, though i believe it should be limited to cap2s. The illustrious class ships have good SAs but are hamstrung by the cap 2. The cap3s dont need the help.
Fc is meh is my opinion. More so if were altering the value. I dont think it was ever intended as a full strength fighter squadrons worth of cover to justify 6 or 7 AA
Fighter cover is always good just for picking off the snoopers and letting other defensive AA attacks go for other targets. 7 would be too strong I think, so id say either 6 or even 5 considering the light aircraft it could be going for. Still quite early on the entry date for this as well so more chance of facing older aircraft.
What fighter cover have we used on previous cards? Is it just 5? Can't quite remember.
"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"
Fighter Cover 5 is the only FC used up to this point, and it is only on four ships: HMS Fencer, USS Guadalcanal, HMS Unicorn, and Zuiho
Here's the exact wording on FC5: Once per turn in the Antiair phase, you may make a 5-dice aa attack against enemy aircraft within range 3. This attack is in addition to your normal Antiair. The escort ability works against this attack.
For what it is worth, I'd support FC5/FC6 over Poor Facilities.
Option 1) Poor Facilities - We only need to rename this so it doesn't have the negative stigma. Other SA's have been renamed before so the precedent has already been set.
Option 2) Fighter Cover 6(7?) - Again we can expand on an existing SA. Has been done before so I don't see the problem?
Option 3) Adjacent Carrier - All though this may seem like an easy way to get a Cap 3 it does mean the British have to spend at least 11 points (HMS Argus) to get a Cap 3. That's 33 points when the U.S.N. can spend 16 points (USS Ranger) to get Cap 3 or 26 points (USS Hornet) to get a Cap 4 carrier of which both can base far superior aircraft. I know there are other factors to take into consideration i.e. more hull points etc. but I think this option isn't an option.
Option 2 gives a quick an nasty Cap 2.5 and Option 1 will give us a more realistic Cap 2.5 because you could lose the extra plane if sunk.
My vote would be for Option 1 due to the KISS nature but both Option 1 & 2 "feel" like W@S.
I am not aware of an identical SA being given two different names. If it has happened, it shouldn't happen again IMO. And I don't think the name not fitting perfectly is a good reason to change an SA name anyway. Plus I could argue the British carriers did have "Poor Facilities" relative to their size because they traded off aircraft hangar capacity for armor.
Either Option 1 (without a rename) or Option 2 would be okay with me. Overall, I would probably go with option 1 as being the most versatile.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
So it looks to me like Poor Facilities and Fighter Cover are the two options. State which one you want and the majority will win. I'll leave this till Tuesday the 6th
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea