Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The naval warfare: How does it work? How should it work?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
AoD surface naval combat works decently except when one side contains a few (3-4) CVs and the other none. Then you get almost 100% (exactly 100% in my limited experience) CV strikes, no surface action, and the non-CV side runs away before suffering significant losses. In maybe 15 such actions I have seen exactly three ships sunk on the non-CV side (not counting actions where that side consisted entirely of a single DD or TP flot, although even then they survive more often than not).

In AoD (although not in RL) it is more effective to not send your carriers at all if the enemy has none and your surface forces are strong.

Besides that:
-All CVs should be capable of ground support missions, or if that is too hard, could increase the max. bombardment malus. This itself should be different for one province islands and for bigger places. Impressionistically, slightly higher than now for one province islands, lower for bigger ones, much lower for continental masses.

-More brigades for CVs would be better (actually for all ships; one is too few for DDs). The CORE 'better watertight protection' and 'better range' brigades are both good. The latter should have gradations depending on fleet train type techs.

-In the game CVLs serve even less purpose than in RL. Somewhat better in CORE where CVs take so long.

-CVEs were very important in RL, but hard to model in the game. If done as a tech upgrade to convoy escorts, they would be essentially free as units--and their ground support use would be lost.

-Ideal would probably be to represent directly both CVEs (as divisions of three?) and convoy escorts (as flotillas) and allow both to be swapped between on-map and convoy escort duty at different exchange rates. They would also have to be swappable both ways, so there would have to be tracking of the origins of the contents of your convoy escort pool. (Of course the escort allocation algorithm itself needs overhaul, but offhand it is not clear whether that would interact with this issue.)
 
Escort carriers - light carriers? What terms are these? Can somebody please name some real US ships that were escort carriers but not light carriers? Somehow I seem to have missed a whole class of aircraft carriers that never existed... which is strange since I make a business of replicating US warships which includes every US aircraft carrier every built, cancelled or planned from CV-1 to CV-79. Yes, they variously at times had designations and re-designations of CVA, CVS, CVL, etc.

Please be aware that CVE is an acronym for "Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures" which is totally unrelated to aircraft carriers, and does not translate to CVE as referred to above (Aircraft Carrier, Escort).

Should I believe that if a "fleet carrier" is not with a fleet, it can not be a fleet carrier; and if it is not escorting anything it can not be an escort carrier? But it was only ever an "attack carrier" when it carried the official designation of CVA, and only an anti-submarine carrier when it was designated CVS? For the info of all, there are only two types of US carriers - CV and CVL. The difference is equivalent to the difference between a bus and a mini-van. And every US carrier performed all roles during the war. The USN finally wisened up to that fact by re-designating them as either CV or CVL (and added CVN once they advanced to nuclear propulsion).

Yes, if only AoD was an "ideal game". But I like how my carrier fleets work in 1.08. In fact, I think naval warfare has improved considerably from earlier versions. Or maybe it is the commanders of my fleets that improved using those same game counters (?).
 
Last edited:
Commander666 said:
Escort carriers - light carriers? What terms are these? Can somebody please name some real US ships that were escort carriers but not light carriers? Somehow I seem to have missed a whole class of aircraft carriers that never existed... which is strange since I make a business of replicating US warships which includes every US aircraft carrier every built, cancelled or planned from CV-1 to CV-79. Yes, they variously at times had designations and re-designations of CVA, CVS, CVL, etc.

Please be aware that CVE is an acronym for "Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures" which is totally unrelated to aircraft carriers, and does not translate to CVE as referred to above (Aircraft Carrier, Escort).

Should I believe that if a "fleet carrier" is not with a fleet, it can not be a fleet carrier; and if it is not escorting anything it can not be an escort carrier? But it was only ever an "attack carrier" when it carried the official designation of CVA, and only an anti-submarine carrier when it was designated CVS? For the info of all, there are only two types of US carriers - CV and CVL. The difference is equivalent to the difference between a bus and a mini-van. And every US carrier performed all roles during the war. The USN finally wisened up to that fact by re-designating them as either CV or CVL (and added CVN once they advanced to nuclear propulsion).

Yes, if only AoD was an "ideal game". But I like how my carrier fleets work in 1.08. In fact, I think naval warfare has improved considerably from earlier versions. Or maybe it is the commanders of my fleets that improved using those same game counters (?).
Click to expand...

CVs were fleet carriers, from Lexington, Akagi, Furious, and Bearn onward. Some very early conversions such as USS Langley and HMS Argus are hard to classify.

CVL was a U.S. designation for the nine ships converted from Cleveland-class CL hulls, plus two purpose built at the end of the war. A few foreign ships such as HMS Hermes and IJN Ryujo are often characterized this way.

There were also IJN conversions of large liners such as Junyo which are sometimes rated CVs and sometimes CVLs.

CVEs were U>S. and British World War II cargo or oiler conversions (plus a few some IJN seaplane tenders and a few US and Japanese purpose-built), very slow with short flight decks and low AC capacity.

Boradly, the uses of CVs and CVLs were the same and they were typically operated together. CVEs were used for ASW (and in 1944-45, ground support), and were never operated together with fast carriers.

Thus the game can get by with a common model for CVs/CVLs but not for CVEs.
 
Thank you for pointing out a fact about CVEs which strangely - in 10 years of business has never entered our business even as a query. Yes, researching about them I see there were 125 ships converted and designated CVE. Rather ugly ducklings, which might explain why our business has never encountered them. Thanks for the correction.

Regarding the USS Langley, it has its own class - 1st US aircraft carrier. I would like AoD to force US player to have to build that (CV-I counter) and also the other 7 early carriers before Essex Class. While Essex class properly is CV-III, the earlier 7 comprise 4 different classes (two classes with only a single ship). Grouping them all as CV-II counter is unsatisfactory.

My idea is that US player must complete those ships (more or less CV-II) but the "more or less" is handled by each counter being correct for the great variances (speed from 25 to 33 knots and other things). So, instead of putting up a production line as you wish, you need to build as directed for historical accuracy.

This could be handled by simply blocking CV-III counter going into production, and the counters that result from CV-II production are simply individualized as they complete. It would need a bit of instruction in the balloon text when you put CV-II into production.

EDIT: Well, then there really were "hundreds and hundreds" of US carriers... well, one and a three-quarter hundred (?)
 
You could try the CORE mod if you want more realistic carriers. The last version is a bit of a regression as compared to before, but still much more realistic than vanilla randomness. The Langley is not in the game as it was converted to a seaplane tender in october 1936, but the Lexington-class, the Ranger-class, and the Yorktown-class are all completely different carriers with different stats.
 
Let's not forget CV-7 USS Wasp which was not of the Yorktown class. Yah, CORE sounds like a good idea... if I knew anything about it. I'm sure my wife will love the idea! Strangely, I married a wonderful woman who is the only female I know of who actually played Hearts of Iron. I remember one game she had German panzers liberating India. But these days she thinks I am being a "big boy" who failed to progress to Facebook. Anyway, there is always hope my 6-year old daughter will show her how important this "history game" really is. Actually, I am happy with AoD... anything to give a reason to be in Forum!

Good point about the Langley. Well then, using CV-I and CV-II counters makes it easier to deal with America's very different early aircraft carriers in WWII.
 
Last edited:
The last version is a bit of a regression as compared to before, but still much more realistic than vanilla randomness.
Click to expand...
To which previous version are you referring to?

Commander666, please send me a PM with a link to your business. I'm interested in what kind of ship models you have.
 
Whether Lexington and Yorktown are separate classes or not is kind of secondary compared to the concern that the AI is utterly incapable of either competent fleet composition or competent fleet use.
 
Yes, I fail to recall any enemy CVs meeting in WWII when something was not sunk!

However, as the AI has no normal range restrictions (it appears) it can get away with NOT creating competent fleet compositions. Mixing DD-1 screens with CV-IVs seems to be perfect for global capability.
 
Last edited:
Hister said:
To which previous version are you referring to?

Commander666, please send me a PM with a link to your business. I'm interested in what kind of ship models you have.
Click to expand...

Sure. I'm a bit new at using PM. Can you please send me message because I know how to reply once I see message from someone. Thanks.

But I can answer your question here. We "custom replicate specific to client stated circa" every ship anyone wishes to order a model of - provided we can find plans. That would include CVE - if anybody ever ordered one.
 
Last edited:
Sure. I'm a bit new at using PM. Can you please send me message because I know how to reply once I see message from someone. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I've sent you a PM. Otherwise you can click on my nickname and on the left side of the pop-out box that opens you will see Private message. Click onm it and you are good to go.

Edit:
But I can answer your question here. We "custom replicate specific to client stated circa" every ship anyone wishes to order a model of - provided we can find plans. That would include CVE - if anybody ever ordered one.
Click to expand...
Hm, 1:1 size or small models? But I guess I'll see soon enough when I get your link.
 
Hister said:
I've sent you a PM. Otherwise you can click on my nickname and on the left side of the pop-out box that opens you will see Private message. Click onm it and you are good to go.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. But I already answered the question. While my website truely is the greatest website that retails "mahogany built ship models" not because I built it but because my website is the only one in the world that diminishes the retailing while maximizing the history, we stock nothing. We only accept custom orders. However, just search "mahogany built ship models" and when you find what you consider to be the best website, then you probably found mine. Sorry, I do not wish to give out the address - even in PM. That would be against core principles regarding mixing business with pleasure.
 
Just saw your edit. No, we have never built anything 1:1 scale and our craftsman do not have the skills to do that. That would probably be best achieved in either a Western country or with the support of an Asian government that would import Western know how to succeed in a full scale replica.

The largest we have build is 1:6 scale (a 12-foot long display model) and we are very well set up to do "display models" limited to FedEx aircraft that can handle that size freight. But as regards any floating ship or boat, our models would either sink or tip over because we have no naval architects in our employ. It is just fantastically detailed and accurrate display models, most of our orders being in scale 1:430 to 1:120 range. As regards the various ships and subs we have done (most of the US Navy for starters) those scales means models that range from ~18" to ~48" respectively.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back