Lord Crayfish wrote:
As a semi-committed proponent of the battleship and the Tsushima-style pitched battle, aren't aircraft carriers best suited to long-range power projection? They're faster. Battleships are excellent as long as they're protected, and if you don't have them and fight somebody who does, you're gonna have a bad time (see Yalu River)Gen. Smit wrote:
The advantage of artillery and bombarding ships is obvious, deal damage without taking damage.Further, the interceptors are essential when your bomberstacks need protection, against AA as extra HP, or in counterstrikes against enemy interceptors. start a bomb raid with bombers, when you see the interceptors coming you retreat the bombers and assault with your interceptors, then you are attacking and thus stronger than the enemy interceptors.BlackStormz wrote:
A lot of you suggested using a lot of Artillery. Despite having produced a two dozen level 3 SP Artillery. I have found that they really slow you down as you have to wait for them to slowly disintegrate the enemy. The combo Mechanized Infantry and light tank work fine without them. The only advantage I can see of them is if you are attacking a large stack, but in these situations, I found that tactical bombers can easily do the job (and they are much quicker to move around).
Only battleships does not work, you need protections against subs and planes, and you must either use carriers with interceptors or cruiser, i.c.w. destroyers.
Carriers need to be well reserached before they become useful due capacity limits.Or you need to build numerous, not a cheap solution, and carriers need to be protected too.
I think they have their place on big maps with longer playing spans. But anything under 15-20 days it is probably not extremely convenient.
But I certainly acknowledge that the "reach" of an Aircraft Carrier is much better.