+1 for the popular view of battleships being historically obsolete by 1936 being a little out of step with actual ship capabilities and tactical/strategic roles (and great post by Paul Ketcham, as always
). By about 1940-1942 (somewhere in there, it varies depending on the carrier capability of the fleet in question) they ceased to be the primary strike weapon of the fleet, but at no point in WW2 was any vessel more effective at sea control (ie, denying passage of enemy ships through to a convoy/anchorage/harbour/etc
. The carrier aircraft would
eventually get their job done, but there was no guarantee on any given day they would (and it was often considerably lower odds than the 'popular view' portrays), while getting around a battleship was a low-odds proposition unless it could be sunk. Imo, historically what 'killed' battleships tactically and strategically was the advent of effective ship-to-ship missiles, as it no longer made sense to have huge guns with huge amounts of armour.
In-game, I tend to play "historically plausibly" (and only in SP), but I find well-screened BBs (and BCs) to be very, very effective. I did a test of equal-NIC fleets using 1.9.3 not too long ago, testing a 'carrier fleet' (4 CVs, 2 CAs, 4 CLs, 16 DDs) vs a 'balanced fleet' (2 BBs, 2 CVs, 2 CAs, 4 CLs, 16 DDs), and using 1936 ships/aircraft and early naval doctrines, the balanced fleet did nearly twice as much damage to the carrier fleet. However, using 1940 or 1944 ships/aircraft and doctrines, the carrier fleet did about 50 per cent more damage than the balanced fleet. This was with both fleets using fleet-in-being doctrines. There are oodles of permutations that can be tested, and the base strike doctrine would be expected (although this doesn't mean it will - I once tested some land combat and found superior firepower doctrine had greater manpower losses than mass assault, all else being equal, so "what it says on the tin" can be misleading) to make carriers a bit more effective.
The switch towards carriers being more effective is kind of cool, as the game mechanics follow the shift in balance over the period.
One thing to keep in mind is that in 1.9.3, carrier aircraft are
very good at disrupting other aircraft. When I was testing, a carrier force outnumbered 2:1 in fighters did no damage at all with its aircraft, as they were all disrupted. Thus, there may (and it's just a may, I haven't tested) for an inferior fleet (ie, one that can't hope to match the enemy on carrier aircraft) be a good argument for all-fighter carriers (to block the enemy strike aircraft) backing up BBs.