Aircraft Carriers

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Oh god no! I remember how it was in HOI1, where you first had to base your aircraft on the carrier, then scramble them once the ship was in combat, and finally ordering them to attack the enemy. In the meantime, you either had to pause (which made for a micromanagement hell when it come to carrier battles) or get your carriers blown to smithereens.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

surely there's a middle ground. I imagine a system where you get to build your CAGs and place them on the carriers. Then in a battle, the CAGs would function automatically just as they do now. Or, if more detail is wanted, they function just like mini ships, in that they take damage, inflict damage, etc. Each of the different CAGs would function a little different. In terms of gameplay, fighters in the CAG would attrit enemy CAGs while lessening attrition of Friendly CAGs. Dive Bombers and Torpodo bombers would only attack enemy ships, and you could give different strengths to each. To be honest, you could probably just have a fighter CAG and a "bomber" CAG to keep things simple.

Finally, I would really like to see Carriers be able to fend off NAVs better. It is really frustrating to have a 6-8 CV task force get cut to ribbons by NAVs, while inflicting no damage on the NAVs. Surely those fighters are good for something.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

good point. Immediately following the Mariana's Turkey Shoot, the US CTF launched a massive strike against the Japanese carrier fleet, inflicting serious damage. However, the strike ran late, and many US aircraft were lost due to low fuel (they attacked at extreme range) as well as the fact that night seriously complicated the landing process. The admiral in charge (I forget the name) actually made 2 calls that saved a lot of aircrew. He turned on all the carrier's lights, and he ordered planes to land wherever they could, not just on THEIR carrier.

Of the around 530 planes that survived the attack on Japanese carrier force, 80 were lost during recovery. Thats about one in six and half. Plus a daylight takeoff and well illuminated recovery. Like I said, night-time carrier strikes should either be impossible, or they should take their toll.




Why are you guys immedietly jumping on running through the gauntlet to the carrier(s)? Before something like that can be considered the surface TF needs to know where the carrier is. The most likely approximation would be "somwhere within 300kms"? How's that gonna help them? It would be even harder if it's just a lone carrier. After locating it, closing in would be pretty hard, unless the carrier is immobile. But an immobile carrier wouldn't be attacking, it would either be under tow or being scutteled.


Fully agree that carriers should have limited "ammo". Same for other warships.

 

[marshman]

If you want Aircraft carriers interesting like they were in WWII, the key is in the CAGs not the ships. The only reason the ships are interesting is because they have CAGS on them.

Gary Grigsby's World At War has the best implementation of this reality:

Aircraft carriers take a long time to build and if even one gets taken out it shifts the dynamic of control of the pacific. You have to be careful about using the carriers and pick and choose your fights. You also have to work to hide your carriers--because if you get into a fight and it's damaged too much all your other carriers can become more vulnerable.

If you find yourself with a CAG aircraft imbalance because of relatively less carriers than the other side, your carriers will be running all over the pacific as the odds go heavly against you.

The cat and mouse dnyamic is very fun.

Also the dynamics of attack, and CAG counter attack are very difficult to get exactly right.

For the game to cover the pacific front you need to have this dynamic. Its a hugely fun one. Tank battles are cool and all but the strategy in carrier battles is an element that no WWII game shoudl be without

 

[unmerged(105596)]

Finally, I would really like to see Carriers be able to fend off NAVs better. It is really frustrating to have a 6-8 CV task force get cut to ribbons by NAVs, while inflicting no damage on the NAVs. Surely those fighters are good for something.

This, and also land-based fighters should be able to take part in clashes involving CAGs.

 

[{LD}Firestorm]

Ahh i remember the days of the Crusier with the range out to the edges of the solar system... now that was loooong guns...

Meh, not as good as my destroyer whose firing range was that long.

:rofl:

Some of the glitches I see in hoi2

:rofl:

I had been wondering why my destroyer, underneath the sunk ship log, I saw 4 carriers and several battleships. Took me while to figure it out

Has any of the admin really said how these CAGs will work? Having them seperate seems like alot of micromanagment.

 

[Rush]

I remember the days in HoI when you could assign a Strategic Bomber (or any other kind of plane) to a Carrier

 

[krieger11b]

How about the fact that the size of the carrier had no bearing on the effectiveness of the CAG? An American Carrier would carry far more aircraft than a armored deck Royal Navy one.

The Essex class carried a whole lot more planes than the Saratoga.

 

[kstanb]

The Essex class carried a whole lot more planes than the Saratoga.

are you sure?
as of Wikipedia;
Saratoga: 91 aircraft
Essex: 90 to 100 aircraft

 

[Battlecry]

The only real differences as far as the carriers were concerned was efficiency: The Saratoga was a conversion carrier, while Essex class was built "from the ground up" as a carrier and so may have had more efficiently laid out facilities, which might provide for a somewhat faster turnaround time (i.e. somewhat higher number of sorties per day).

A towed barge could carry a perfectly effective CAG - but the efficiency/turnaround time (no hanger deck etc) would be abysmal.

 

[unmerged(103753)]

I agree with the OP. I also would like to see CVL/CVEs have actual aircraft as well, just a smaller amount.

In addition, since they are doing a DIY Division concept, I would like to see this carry over to the CAGs and ships as well, allowing you more flexibility in their design. Perhaps a CAG with Fighter and Dive Bombers but no Torpedo Bombers, designed for shore support. Perhaps you would rather be Fighter heavy for CAPs over your fleets. Anyways, I would like to see some more flexibility in design.

i want to see CVLs/CVEs as more of a defense for SAGs (fighter cover) and a sub killer rather than an iwinhahasupercarrierbitchmycruizergpwnedurcarrierskissmyfuckingassandgogetsomenavs

 

[unmerged(15623)]

i want to see CVLs/CVEs as more of a defense for SAGs (fighter cover) and a sub killer rather than an iwinhahasupercarrierbitchmycruizergpwnedurcarrierskissmyfuckingassandgogetsomenavs

While I agree 100% on the cruizerg thing, I don't think we should have any bigger reason to include CVLs than CVs in a fleet mainly made up of cruisers and battleships. Other than economic ones. But both of them should be better concentrated into actual carrier TFs.

Basically;

CVL were an economic stopgap measure to provide servicable fleet carriers where none or too few would be otherwise avilable. US Independence class was born out of the fact that US might get dragged into war soon, but Essexes were still far away. UK light carriers were born out the need to simply have bigger fleet air arm to protect the far flung corners of the earth (as was demonstrated by PoW incident). Their role was basically the same as that of proper CV.

CVE were cheap carriers intended for roles which would have been wasted on bigger carriers. They were generally too slow for real fleet operations. From Atlantic, they should be best remembered as sub hunters and escorts. From Pacific, they should be best remembered as invaluable air support bases.

 

[Bullfrog]

CVE were cheap carriers intended for roles which would have been wasted on bigger carriers. They were generally too slow for real fleet operations. From Atlantic, they should be best remembered as sub hunters and escorts. From Pacific, they should be best remembered as invaluable air support bases.

Yes. They were converted merchants AFAIK.

 

[kstanb]

I had an idea for CAGs size. Assuming a "CAG" to be equivalent to 30-35 planes:

A CVL will carry only one CAG which is the historical aircraft capability of most CVLs

A CV can carry either 2 or 3 CAGs depending on:

- Size and cost: A bigger design would be able to carry 3 CAGs, Lexington is a perfect example: it can carry 3 CAGs (90+ planes), although there were some shortcomings to their design, which can be modeled as lower stats than a newer one (Essex)
But the bigger the carrier, the more expensive it will be in time, IC and resources. It might be more cost efficient to build smaller 2 CAG carrier, like the Japanese Shokaku

- Armor: The more armor, the less CAGs it can carry. An armored flight deck will limit your design to no more than 2 CAGs (even 1 for older designs).

- Technology: Most early technology will allow you only unbalanced designs; you want an armored deck, you are forced to only one or 2 CAGs. Technology improvements will allow you to make better designs.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Yes. They were converted merchants AFAIK.

Yeah, most were. Some were built as carriers from the start though. Like the early carriers Hôshô and Hermes (which might as well be classed as CVLs). Casablanca and The Commencement Bay classes were purpose built, the use of obsolete engines on them allowed much faster production as it went around bottelnecks in naval enginebuilding industry. Bogue might have been purpose built as well, I need to check on my books.

I had an idea for CAGs size. Assuming a "CAG" to be equivalent to 30-35 planes:

A CVL will carry only one CAG which is the historical aircraft capability of most CVLs

A CV can carry either 2 or 3 CAGs depending on:

- Size and cost: A bigger design would be able to carry 3 CAGs, Lexington is a perfect example: it can carry 3 CAGs (90+ planes), although there were some shortcomings to their design, which can be modeled as lower stats than a newer one (Essex)
But the bigger the carrier, the more expensive it will be in time, IC and resources. It might be more cost efficient to build smaller 2 CAG carrier, like the Japanese Shokaku

- Armor: The more armor, the less CAGs it can carry. An armored flight deck will limit your design to no more than 2 CAGs (even 1 for older designs).

- Technology: Most early technology will allow you only unbalanced designs; you want an armored deck, you are forced to only one or 2 CAGs. Technology improvements will allow you to make better designs.

A very good idea IMO. Essentialy, the CAGs are "brigades" in "divisions" and a bigger ship allows a "division" with more "brigades". I think Shokaku class should have 3 though. It's max complement was over 80 planes, they just typically carried less.

 

[Alex_brunius]

But the bigger the carrier, the more expensive it will be in time, IC and resources. It might be more cost efficient to build smaller 2 CAG carrier, like the Japanese Shokaku

Great Ideas, Except that the Hiyo & Unryu classes might be more fitting as 2 CAG carriers than the Shokaku.

But this also leads to the question. Should the makeup of the CAGs be any different? Fleet CVs had around 2/3:ed bombers while CVLs tended to have around 2/3:ed fighters. CVEs Im not sure, but Im guessing they had more aircraft fitting to attack smaller shipps and subs (much fewer torpedo bombers).

 

[Bullfrog]

Great Ideas, Except that the Hiyo & Unryu classes might be more fitting as 2 CAG carriers than the Shokaku.

But this also leads to the question. Should the makeup of the CAGs be any different? Fleet CVs had around 2/3:ed bombers while CVLs tended to have around 2/3:ed fighters. CVEs Im not sure, but Im guessing they had more aircraft fitting to attack smaller shipps and subs (much fewer torpedo bombers).

Have 3 CAG "brigade" types, one a fighter, one a torp. bomber and one a dive bomber. Large expensive fleet carriers get 2 or 3 based on tech level, (each representing 30ish planes) so the best outfit for them would be one of each. CVLs get one, so that the spamming of them would not be unbalancing, and CVE's remain similar to the HoI2 CVL (without its magical teleport ability), its complement being abstracted as a few sub hunters and/or CAP fighters.

Another option would be to give a CAG "brigade" count for CV, CVL and CVE of 3,2,1 respectively, but that would give mass produced CVLs and CVEs an unrealistic advantage.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Another option would be to give a CAG "brigade" count for CV, CVL and CVE of 3,2,1 respectively, but that would give mass produced CVLs and CVEs an unrealistic advantage.

Agreed, If you want to give CVLs 2CAG "brigades" you have to give fleet CVs at least 5 This would on the other hand give insane detail to the game and allow more techs/mixed national factors affecting how many aircraft each CV can have.

Another approach would be to have the 3 CAG attachmets as Fighter, Bomber and Balanced (50/50), This could make more sense if they don't want to separate damage from torpedoes and normal bombs since we can have CVLs with a few bombers and still only 1 CAG.

 

[kstanb]

Another approach would be to have the 3 CAG attachmets as Fighter, Bomber and Balanced (50/50), This could make more sense if they don't want to separate damage from torpedoes and normal bombs since we can have CVLs with a few bombers and still only 1 CAG.

I like that idea, specially since it solves the problem without having to micro-managing more than one CAG per carrier

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Honestly I wish that CVE would have proper planes as well. I don't think they can be represented very well with just detection values, air attack, sub attack and shore bombardment.

20 plane "brigade" would allow them all at least one. And if the regular air wings are in 5 "brigades" as well, it would allow easy comparison with them.