D6-2 does not increase the power of AC in general, except against T3+, which strongly deserve the nerf. D6-2 with scrapped turret suppression is the ONLY system proposed so far that maintains current power levels against T2 targets. TTS will allow a wave of 3f&5B bombers to score 17.5 attacks compared to a current average of 11.7 - that's an increase of 50%!
T3 under the D6-2 will still be 300% more protection than T1 - in other words BBs will remain better protected than their cruiser counterparts, so it will still make sense for carriers to target only the weak or crippled, whilst making attack runs against a BB a viable (if less effective than agaisnt cruisers) option, just like for any other weapons system.
Lol made my day.
![Grin ;D](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
This the the proof that numbers (wrong numbers, but that doesn't matters here at all) can't replace a valid argument. Your system simply screws up every basic game mechanism. You won't see anything others than carriers under this rules.
Your 17.5 attacks equals
- a Firepower of 24,5 against 30cm closing capitalship,
- a firepower of 34,5 in the third column (capital ship moving away)
- a firepower of 49,5(!) against a 30 abeam capital ship/moving away over 45cm etc.
Even if you consider lock on that doesn't change much - AC are than the superior weapon system in every aspect.
There is absolutly NO reason to favor a gunship over a carrier under this rules. They are already a very good weapon system. Their only downside is, they lose performance/are useless against high turret values.
Don't get me wrong: you CAN abandon turret surpression. You can even say that every suriving bomber does D6 attacks or even 6 attacks. No big deal.
But you have to introduce some counter-mechanism that allows a player with the inferior number of AC to, well...counter them.
- let turrets hit on 2+
- fighters remove Bomber on a 1:2 or even 1:4 ratio (this allows viable defensive tactics with inferior number of AC)
- Escorts hit a have on 3+
- etc.
It doesn't matter what you do, but if you improve AC in such a way, you need a counter.
I'm with you that the current system is not elegant, but your proposal is simply too strong.