The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes - that guy, you know THAT GUY
There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know - Harry Truman
And well, everything can be obvious... but only after you've found it out or someone told you. - Titan79
My first AAR playing as Germany using the AoD Third Reich Mod - currently reached August 1945 - more updates to come
The bigger a fleet, the less space to navigate exists. So in general bigger fleets should suffer some penalties. In attack there might be a seperate stacking penalty for carriers. If there is a fleet of 3 DD and 1 CV the CV should not have less firepower than if it were only 1 CV and 1 DD.
Me being pedantic again but in RL you're wrong about escort carriers. They were designed for convoy protection and ASW work but in WWII were often used in the latter stages to boost air power over major landings. For instance when Taffy2 had the brief but unpleasant encounter with Yamato at Letye Gulf. As you say they formed the considerable majority of the carriers available to the allies and the CVs and CVLs were markedly more powerful but they could still play a significant role in other combat form.
The escort carriers had an encounter with the Japanese ships during the Battle of the Leyte Gulf and the Japanese withdrew only because they thought that they were facing a full CTF. During that battle, most of the planes carried by the escort carriers weren't even equipped with anti-ship weapons... Anyway, my point is that it is a mistake to look at the production stats and combine the number of constructed/converted CVs, CVLs and CVEs, because CVEs were markedly different from other carriers - much weaker, cheaper and generally produced in high numbers.
BTW if we are already talking about the Battle of the Leyte Gulf, then it should be mentioned that without trained pilots carriers were pretty much useless. Most of the Japanese carriers were used as decoys during that battle, simply because they lacked skilled pilots. This is sth which all HOI games fail to represent.
Last edited by Cybvep; 08-06-2012 at 12:40.
Very true. That was virtually the entire purpose of the plan, to lure away the 'real' warships and hammer the invasion force. Even the Japanese by this time realised their carrier element was a spent force.BTW if we are already talking about the Battle of the Leyte Gulf, then it should be mentioned that without trained pilots carriers were pretty much useless. Most of the Japanese carriers were used as decoys during that battle, simply because they lacked skilled pilots. This is sth which all HOI games fail to represent.
However isn't this represented, to a degree only admittedly, in the game by weakened CAGs not fully rebuilt, and also possibly by Japan not having the resources to continue researching more advanced a/c designs.
Anyway, we're getting off the subject, talking about history rather than the game.
Lack of representation of pilot training problems is a serious drawback of all HOI games IMO.Anyway, we're getting off the subject, talking about history rather than the game.
For the record, the US completed 24 Essex Class carriers before the end of the war and added to those few remaining from earlier classes (Saratoga, Enterprise, Ranger) totaled around 27 "Fleet Carriers" at war's end. The 100-odd total carriers included mainly escort carriers and carriers which gave ground support as well as a few "Light Carriers". Japan built Light Carriers (smaller fleet carriers) too.
Invasion of Okinawa probably had around 16 Fleet Carriers involved, give ot take a few. Can't find my sources anymore on that one to say exactly.
BTW -- ship speed is all wrong for US and Japanese Fleet Carriers. They all should go 29+ knots. Actually the US original Lexington and Saratoga which are CV2 in the game should go 33 Knots and haul as many planes as CV4's. They were build with Battlecruiser power trains and had most of the side armour for better defense. They were faster than a Battlecruiser design because of lighter weight while not having the gun turrents and heavy upper ship structures.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." Margaret Thatcher
"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it" Ronald Reagan
Sorry to "undead" this thread but I was wondering what exactly has been changed in 1.8 in regards to naval warfare?
@Pang, seeing you are very good with calculations can you maybe give a definite guide in how one should play the game in regards to naval aspects - I mean what are the optimal naval compositions for different countries/tasks/strategies? I so far learned that there is no general "ideal fleet composition" since the ideal number of vessels in a stack and composition depends on the country one plays, and the purposes of said fleets.
Since I like Japan would you please be so kind as to write what different naval strategies one can employ with this country, what task forces should be built, what should be the composition of those task forces (how many ships of which type), etc.? The reason I ask you directly is that I've seen many conflicting statements here on the forums and I'm confused as who is right and who is wrong. I can't put up my own decision since I haven't had that many naval engagements with which I could see first hand what holds true and what not.
Thank you in advance,
The ideal composition is probably 26 Subs, 13 CV-CAG + 13 DD-ASW or 13 SH-BB-Improved Hull(+4other brigades) + CL-Improved Hull(+1 other brigade). Bigger Fleets have lower attack values. I find fleets of 6+6 ships the most adequate choice for most purposes. They can annihilate smaler fleets and avoid bigger fleets antil those bigger fleets have suffered severly from NAV and CAS. But there are many options and i am not exactly an expert on this subjekt.
The United States WWII carriers were:
Lexington Class - 3 ships
Yorktown Class - 4 ships
Essex Class - 24 ships
Midway Class 3 ships, commissioned in 1945 and followed with the cancellation of all remaining keels laid.
The light carriers were:
Independence Class - 9 ships
Saipan Class 2 ships, commissioned 1946 and followed with the cancellation of all remaining keels laid.
That ends the WWII carriers. New CV construction begins with the Forrestall Class - the first CVs specifically built to handle jet aircraft with first ship commissioning in 1955.
While it does not add up to even one hundred, Serenissima is correct because the American's grouping of carriers made it appear that there were "hundreds and hundreds". In fact, most peope are shocked when they learn there were only 45 ships (and actualy less as some were sunk) because the impression is much greater numbers.
Last edited by Commander666; 04-11-2012 at 15:24.
But CV-4 Ranger is its own class (1st purposeful built carrier) and only did 25 knots. This makes a problem.
When we get to next Yorktown Class (CVs 5, 6 + 8) speed is 32 knots. But CV-7 Wasp is different class and only does 29 knots. These are probaby AoD CV-III.
With the large Essex Class beginning at CV-9 Essex (AoD CV-IV) speed is 33 knots.
A wonderful solution would be to not let US players build carriers as they wish, but force them to first have the proper carriers.
Not sure what US got at game start but it started IRL with CV-1 Langley (1 ship which is AoD CV-I, speed 15 knots).
I cannot give you an answer for mods. AoD uses -0.02 for each ship above 2. If Core uses the same a fleet of 26 ships will offer the strongest offensive.
I think it does. In which file can I see ship stats (range, visibility, speed, attack, etc.)?
Regarding modifying the game to make Carrier fleet air strike on a surface ship fleet more realistic (ie air attack and air defence values used), this would require a check of the current fleet separation distance versus the max gun range of the surface fleets. If the gun range is exceeded, the combat is calculated using the air combat values only. If the separation distance is within gun range, the combat should be calculated using a combination of the sea & air combat values (probably with the air attack values handicapped due to the close proximity of the enemy ships). Include night/day & weather effects. Can gunman code something like this ?
Yes, that's a perfect solution (at lest in theory)! It certainly sounds manageable.
Another question of course is whether it's something the engine would support well, but in any case.
In an ideal world this is how naval combat should look like in AoD:
I seriously don't like how Paradox applied their land combat model to air and naval warfare. I mean, what exactly is Organisation meant to represent in naval battles? Fires? Casualties? Ammunition? It just doesn't work like divisions losing cohesion during protracted fighting! They should have read some serious naval tactics books then coded a model based on that. I would have liked to see task forces start at long range, then see the spotting and long range fire, and gradual increasing engagement by the ships, with varying doctrines and tactics chosen and clearly displayed on a battle screen.