ThanksIt was fun TehDarkMiner...thanks for doing it!
Hm, interesting. Considering I never got to keep a BC for more than 2 months in this game, and what happened to you, that's strong evidence to suggest to me never to build BCs in the future. Most of the Japanese ships you were facing probably wouldn't have been that greatly teched (either they started with or built during the first few years most likely) - I think BCs might just cost too much for what they do.For what it's worth, it happens that about a week ago I did a test start with the USA and focused on BCs over BBs because I had read that "some" folks thought them a nice fit for the CVs along with CAs and CLs.
On both of my first 2 naval battles with Japan I lost an up-to-date BC. And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if my third BC had been out in action the first week and not waiting for another new Essex-class CV (like the other two were serving) it would be toast as well. Nope, not doing that again. Btw, All my CAG, AIR and Naval techs were at minimum current and several techs were a year ahead. The Alaska and Hawaii were quickly sunk in their first engagements.![]()
Well that's certainly true. My BCs were fairly good in terms of technology, so I was surprised to see them die so quickly. CLs are definitely good though.Generally, I see Australian BCs and CVs as for getting troops safely to their destinations and threatening enemy trade and transports, but if they get mixed up with a stronger foe can get sunk and their utility in improving friendly vs. enemy freedom of action is gone.
Actually, CLs will do that job just as well, but have a heavier cruiser with escorts helps beat off light enemy attacks.