ML52, most convoys, troop, cargo or otherwise, were generally protected by DDs and DEs. Battlewagons were not as plentiful and were used to escort CVs, bombard the shore and be there to duke it out with other BBs, should they appear and threaten the weaker ships (though that became a rarity - the IJN seemed to do their level best to avoid putting their BBs in harm's way from mid war on).
Buster! You bring up an interesting point. Should the U.S., Japanese and British CVs only carry their respective aircraft in the MA? Well, I suppose they could still all carry anything that sports a hook unless in an actual event (where they would shine in their differences and immersive qualities). The BBs, though, would bring more battle to a water map. As I mentioned before, it would be nice to have the types of TFs rotate when spawning, perhaps even have one port spawn in one order of rotation and another in a different order. That would guarantee a potential different type of face-off every time. (And my wish slips down the slippery slope of coding complexity).
Fork! You `ol scallywag! I wouldn't have made such a correlation (fire control vs. air traffic control) but I suppose you could be right. I think I'd have to defer to Earl or someone else here that has more insight, regarding. But I've always thought the objections of one side or another having an additional layer of technical advantage, when it comes to adding larger ship classes, as not as much of an obstacle as it may be made out to be. We heard the same thing about the Sherman tank (it doesn't stand a chance against a Panzer, why model it?) and the inverse regarding the B-29 (if we model it, we'd have to model the atom bomb! After all, that was the purpose of the Superfortress!*). AH has always been a bit of compromise. Even events aren't 'reenactments.' It's perfectly fine not to model radar fire control (just as it's perfectly fine to model 'dar' availability for every player's cockpit. Whatever makes the game balances and fun.
mthrockmor, I agree, delayed fuses would be very interesting (and may have been what Snailman was alluding to, as well).
I've said, time and again, that I enjoy the game just as it is (and I do). If this wish never comes to pass I can still enjoy a conversation of what if (which is what I'm doing). But I do admit that if just the Japanese CV, U.S. BB and Japanese BB are modeled, it would lend itself to Pac fan players (and event CMs) having a ball. (IMO)
