sorry for asking,I dont know whats NDA.Those that might will be under an NDA. No sense in even asking.
o-
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.
o
sorry for asking,I dont know whats NDA.
Non Disclosure Agreement, you have to sign it if you are an alpha or a beta-tester, it's a legal agreement so you can't abuse your knowledge from being a beta
Non Disclosure Agreement, you have to sign it if you are an alpha or a beta-tester, it's a legal agreement so you can't abuse your knowledge from being a beta
aaa,those things.
Anfortunately I did in the meantime read this thread more closely again and according to King there is no brigade-composition for any air unit,they all are 100 planes,ground wings and CAG-s.
I just can hope that 100 Stukas will finely have atachable Messerschmit Bf 109 escort brigade.
And that there will be little tiny hangars for CVL-s. I sopose??
Last edited:
Liebgot, it does look like all carriers will have the capability to take on a CAG. What will be different will be the efficiency (relative strength) of the CAG based upon the carrier's hangar value. A fleet CV would presumably carry a CAG at near 100% efficiency, representing 100 aircraft; a CVL would carry a CAG at perhaps 40-50% efficiency, representing 40-50 aircraft; and a CVE would presumably carry it's CAG at about 20-30% efficiency, representing about 20-30 aircraft.
The result is that a fleet carrier (CV) CAG has about twice the combat power of a CVL's CAG and perhaps 3 to 4 times the combat power of a CVE's CAG, assuming that all CAG technologies are otherwise equal.
Thats the best I can figure from reading the latest DD, anyway.
The result is that a fleet carrier (CV) CAG has about twice the combat power of a CVL's CAG and perhaps 3 to 4 times the combat power of a CVE's CAG, assuming that all CAG technologies are otherwise equal.
Thats the best I can figure from reading the latest DD, anyway.
Lets see options:
1.There will be atachable 100 planes CAG-s to CV and CVL, but little tiny hangars of light carriers will be tragicomic squeezers of CAG-s...
A full strenght,and production cost of CAG will be reduced just to fit in small hangar????A waste?
In war times:rofl::wacko::rofl:
2.There will be separate small CAG-s for CVL-s... ,dont believe,though fair enough solution
3. There will be atachable 100 planes CAG-s to CV, but CVL-s will not have planes,again no CAG for CVL-no improvement over HOI II,is that all they can offer?...
4- There will be no CVL-s.in game. hm, 70% of carriers bult in ww2 were light carriers.
5.They will maybe realy make small and big carrier hulls,and small carriers carrieing 1-2 CAG brigades making their CAG air divison and big fleet carriers carrieing 3-4 CAG brigades making their CAG air unit,just like other air units and ground divisions will be made,and just like players are sugesting for months becouse it is logical and natural path, ,but they just want us to test would we love HOI III even in circumstances of something going anbalanced during game developement,like for instance something from 1-4 being true,except 2.
We would, of course,.
especialy becouse we know to little in this moment,so there is hope they will surprise us like many times with definitive solution.
Last edited:
I think we will end up a bit frustrated with the system they are probably going to use, because it short-changes many aspects of naval and air warfare. The One-CAG-Fits-All is a good example of how they are using a system designed to replicate land warfare, also work for sea and air warfare. It is a "kludge" and fairly inelegant, not to mention ahistorical. But, assuming it works out OK and I can still rule the Pacific with carrier TF's and terrorize the Japanese merchant fleets with submarines, then I'll be happy. More or less.
I think we will end up a bit frustrated with the system they are probably going to use, because it short-changes many aspects of naval and air warfare. The One-CAG-Fits-All is a good example of how they are using a system designed to replicate land warfare, also work for sea and air warfare. It is a "kludge" and fairly inelegant, not to mention ahistorical. But, assuming it works out OK and I can still rule the Pacific with carrier TF's and terrorize the Japanese merchant fleets with submarines, then I'll be happy. More or less.
Imagine just an option they are throwing back with their solution,(let us presume I understand what did they done with monolite CAG/hangar idea)- how to land CAG planes on ground airfileds?.To even combine them with land based air units-very historicaly.
But they cant make this anymore I am afraid.
Imagine CAG squeezed in small hangar ,on carrier it is 30 planes representation, on airfield expands to strenght of full ansupressed 100 planes:Wooow:wacko:
Last edited:
have the Dev Diaries jumped the shark?
While i am quite pleased and enthusiastic over the changes to surface warfare on the naval side of things, im quite disappointed, and think they have literally stepped out of position from that awesome line of near perfect improvements all the way til now with regards to Cags.
They are quite honestly shortchanging Cag battles, an entire theatre of war is having its key component marginalized, the Carriers didn't win the naval war, the Cags did, true if the carriers weren't there neither were the Cags, but i don't recall ANY carrier sinking anything, it was all the Cags, the single most important combat GROUP in the pacific theatre, and for that matter, the atlantic as well.
I could well be out of line and spouting for lack of knowledge, but, from what we've been told, and the blatant statements of generic Cags, I can't help but feel more than underwhelmed, sorely disappointed.
They cite micro as the reasoning, however, if you permit the division builder to be implemented for aircraft, but have a default Cag in place already designed this isn't an issue. People who don't want to bother, or who dislike micro and who will shy from it as a result, can simply build the default cag, those with more interest in micro can then proceed to customize a cag, you are making both groups happy, more happy people=good, instead, while i can't state how many, or how disappointed they may be, this decision is chafing others needlessly.
Taken further, there's has been mention of different Cag sizes for CVs and CVLs(i could be wrong, but i think i heard such, so, ignore me here if not, or take it as the suggestion it is anyways), but hangar could EASILY work with a multi wing Cag system. If you exceed your hangar size, say 5 wings with space for 4, you only get(for sake of a number)67% efficiency instead of 80%. if you are undersized then no bonus. Your tech's needn't be changed, just the target air wings, and now, the CVL's might only have say 1-3 wings depending on tech, while CVs have 3-5, the units retain FULL functionality and granularity, while being effectively the same and fully differentiated. Again, with the basic default Cag already in place for each, there would be ZERO increased micro from this thus far, just options for those that want it. This permits the customization of the Cags as those interested as they see fit, all fighter Cags, 4 fighter and 1 dive bomber, 1 fighter 2 dive and 2 torp, and so on, the possibilities and strategies this opens are near endless.
This leaves combat implementation, and again, this need not increase micro, while leaving the door open for greater control. There are two ways to go about this, one is to simply assign the entire Cag mission priorities with maximum ranges, and let the AI do what it wants with the loaded Cag(default or otherwise). The other is to Allow the Airwing(division) designer to permit down to single wing Cags, and to load multiple(2+3 or 4+1, etc.) of which ever wings you seek into the hangar, and then individually dish out their orders, all the control some players seek, and WAY more realistic, and the overall combat mechanics can remain as they are from what i've seen of them.
Again, no more micro for those that don't want it, just stick to the basics and your set, generic and well rounded jack of all trades but master of none, or get into it and customize, and enjoy the benefits of 2-1 fighter superiority in that Cag battle, letting your lone dive bomber close in after all the opposing Cag aircraft have been obliterated.
This should satisfy both sides of the fence, and let Paradox move in both directions at once, greater accuracy and granularity while reducing micro. At the very least this is no more intensive than the land warfare system is, and only a few countries will really get into this. I don't play Japan for the invasion of China, i play it for the chance to sink the US fleet, for the opportunity to show what a Cag is capable of, and in that you've hobbled me.
I honestly hope im proven wrong and their chosen system works wonderfully to represent the complexity of naval warfare.
While i am quite pleased and enthusiastic over the changes to surface warfare on the naval side of things, im quite disappointed, and think they have literally stepped out of position from that awesome line of near perfect improvements all the way til now with regards to Cags.
They are quite honestly shortchanging Cag battles, an entire theatre of war is having its key component marginalized, the Carriers didn't win the naval war, the Cags did, true if the carriers weren't there neither were the Cags, but i don't recall ANY carrier sinking anything, it was all the Cags, the single most important combat GROUP in the pacific theatre, and for that matter, the atlantic as well.
I could well be out of line and spouting for lack of knowledge, but, from what we've been told, and the blatant statements of generic Cags, I can't help but feel more than underwhelmed, sorely disappointed.
They cite micro as the reasoning, however, if you permit the division builder to be implemented for aircraft, but have a default Cag in place already designed this isn't an issue. People who don't want to bother, or who dislike micro and who will shy from it as a result, can simply build the default cag, those with more interest in micro can then proceed to customize a cag, you are making both groups happy, more happy people=good, instead, while i can't state how many, or how disappointed they may be, this decision is chafing others needlessly.
Taken further, there's has been mention of different Cag sizes for CVs and CVLs(i could be wrong, but i think i heard such, so, ignore me here if not, or take it as the suggestion it is anyways), but hangar could EASILY work with a multi wing Cag system. If you exceed your hangar size, say 5 wings with space for 4, you only get(for sake of a number)67% efficiency instead of 80%. if you are undersized then no bonus. Your tech's needn't be changed, just the target air wings, and now, the CVL's might only have say 1-3 wings depending on tech, while CVs have 3-5, the units retain FULL functionality and granularity, while being effectively the same and fully differentiated. Again, with the basic default Cag already in place for each, there would be ZERO increased micro from this thus far, just options for those that want it. This permits the customization of the Cags as those interested as they see fit, all fighter Cags, 4 fighter and 1 dive bomber, 1 fighter 2 dive and 2 torp, and so on, the possibilities and strategies this opens are near endless.
This leaves combat implementation, and again, this need not increase micro, while leaving the door open for greater control. There are two ways to go about this, one is to simply assign the entire Cag mission priorities with maximum ranges, and let the AI do what it wants with the loaded Cag(default or otherwise). The other is to Allow the Airwing(division) designer to permit down to single wing Cags, and to load multiple(2+3 or 4+1, etc.) of which ever wings you seek into the hangar, and then individually dish out their orders, all the control some players seek, and WAY more realistic, and the overall combat mechanics can remain as they are from what i've seen of them.
Again, no more micro for those that don't want it, just stick to the basics and your set, generic and well rounded jack of all trades but master of none, or get into it and customize, and enjoy the benefits of 2-1 fighter superiority in that Cag battle, letting your lone dive bomber close in after all the opposing Cag aircraft have been obliterated.
This should satisfy both sides of the fence, and let Paradox move in both directions at once, greater accuracy and granularity while reducing micro. At the very least this is no more intensive than the land warfare system is, and only a few countries will really get into this. I don't play Japan for the invasion of China, i play it for the chance to sink the US fleet, for the opportunity to show what a Cag is capable of, and in that you've hobbled me.
I honestly hope im proven wrong and their chosen system works wonderfully to represent the complexity of naval warfare.
Last edited:
One thing i hope PI does something about is the parameters used for the AI to retreat from naval Battle. The average org - strengt of current ships in battle parameter used in earlier hoi versions is not good enough. The AI should also take into consideration combat power of the opposing fleet compared to own fleet, and own lost ships during engagement.
Yeah, and can we choose pilots too? I want the ability to select the best possible individual pilots from as early as flightschool. Also, I want to be able to select which bombs and torpedoes they carry and how many. And if you could make it so i can choose the amount of fuel they get on a sortie and what spare parts and equipment is used for maintenance, that be grand too! :/
Last edited:
Accepted, but does it have a leader?, Can it be improved with research, battle experiences etc... does it vary in size depending on the type size of the carrier/hanger... Come on throw a dog a bone
The DD already states that itś effectiveness is dependent on hangar type. I intrepret that as "we can model this way that a CAG on a CVL is only 1/3rd as effective as a CAG on a Fleet carrier". I really like that system.
This may have been mentioned already, but on the left hand side of the screen, would it be possible to display the stats of each of the Naval Units? In HOI2, you can see the model of each of the units, which gives you a general idea of the strength of the fleet you are facing. With HOI3 not using models, displaying the stats seems to be the best way I can think of of achieving this. If space is a problem, perhaps hovering over each ship could bring up a 'tooltip' outlining the basic stats (gunsize, radar equipped, fire control level, speed, armour, whatever...)
It's important to know in combat whether the fleet you are facing is a handful of rickety old pre-WW1 dreadnaughts, or a taskforce of Superheavybattleships.
A CAG will be a regular air unit if I understand correctly, with its own leader, strength, org, etc etc.
@Tigey: I think at least the ship classes could be shown in the battle window, or in tooltips on mouseover. Actual numerical stats I think can be left out of the battle screen, just like in HOI2. However, the more I think about it, I would prefer to leave ship classes out of the battle screen entirely. You can look up or memorize the stats of each ship class, but who has the time or memory for that? It would be useful for getting a sense of which classes are newer or older, but I think think leaving them out would add some excitement of uncertainty to naval warfare. I have a feeling the class information and perhaps other information will be available in tooltips. Guess we'll have to see.
Whatabout CVL?
1.Small hangar?
2.Small CAG?
3.No CAG for CVL?
4.No CVL?
Just one number,please.
Last edited:
Whatabout CVL?
1.Small hangar?
2.Small CAG?
3.No CAG?
4.No CVL?
Just one number,please.
We can safely assume a CVL has a smaller hangar, and thus a less effective CAG. It holds the same CAG unit though. I think this is a really neat way of differentiating between different carriers yet still not get a lot of micromanagement concerning planes and plane make-up (as some on these forums suggest).