Are carriers useable in the pacific at all?

[FStefanak]

The Man the Guns naval system does an awful job representing this.

I respectfully disagree with that verdict. The mission mechanics already support "fleet in being" thinking. Your battleships sitting in port on invasion support contribute to your naval superiority without you having to sortie. Shore bombardment is relevant. I agree that carriers are not represented too well, and AI doesn't know how to use its navy, but the modeling of battleships in that system is very good, I think.

I'd still like an upgrade to carriers but I consider that to be a matter of rather tiny fixes. Enable air sorties when carriers are disengaged, make engaged carriers always try to disengage, include carriers "in range" to all nearby combats (as disengaged). Balance naval targeting and damage output from carrier missions outside naval combat to be possibly just as effective as
when inside combat, up to 100% when enemy fleet is fully spotted (arguably, flip it so there's a penalty when actually engaged). Add carrier strike force mission (sortie just like regular strike force but keep distance).

This chain of really small fixes all work in the current system, produces realistic results, and would make carriers rightful queens of seas.
I do wonder why they took so much effort with that system and then stopped just shy of implementing these details.

 

[Denkt]

Well I have had good success with using Carriers as floating airbases, rather than trying to engage the enemy navy. As the US I sunk basically the whole Japanse navy with airpower and without losing a single ship. So to me Carriers don't seems weak because airpower is so strong, but they are most useful if you have no airbases in range.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

I was wondering why carriers are depending on Universal Time rather than local time. Can anyone elaborate on this?

Oversight due to the game being Eurocentric.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

I respectfully disagree with that verdict. The mission mechanics already support "fleet in being" thinking. Your battleships sitting in port on invasion support contribute to your naval superiority without you having to sortie. Shore bombardment is relevant. I agree that carriers are not represented too well, and AI doesn't know how to use its navy, but the modeling of battleships in that system is very good, I think.

I'd still like an upgrade to carriers but I consider that to be a matter of rather tiny fixes. Enable air sorties when carriers are disengaged, make engaged carriers always try to disengage, include carriers "in range" to all nearby combats (as disengaged). Balance naval targeting and damage output from carrier missions outside naval combat to be possibly just as effective as
when inside combat, up to 100% when enemy fleet is fully spotted (arguably, flip it so there's a penalty when actually engaged). Add carrier strike force mission (sortie just like regular strike force but keep distance).

This chain of really small fixes all work in the current system, produces realistic results, and would make carriers rightful queens of seas.
I do wonder why they took so much effort with that system and then stopped just shy of implementing these details.

It wouldn't be a problem if parked Carrier task forces contributed to naval superiority.

Somehow, a battleship fleet parked in a port on Strike Force counts, but if you park a carrier group in that sea zone to port strike the battleships, NONE of those ships count towards naval control because they're not assigned to the zone.

Well I have had good success with using Carriers as floating airbases, rather than trying to engage the enemy navy. As the US I sunk basically the whole Japanse navy with airpower and without losing a single ship. So to me Carriers don't seems weak because airpower is so strong, but they are most useful if you have no airbases in range.

This is the biggest problem. The new mechanics actually encourage you to use carriers like floating airfields, which makes sense, but the AI is not programmed to use them that way, so it's trivially easy to sink all their ships with parked carriers while their carriers only engage if their whole fleet engages.

 

[Denkt]

As the US you can build so many Carriers that you can have 2k or so carrier based Aircrafts, which is like a level 10 airbase that moves and can pretty much destroyer Everything in it seazone very quickly if the enemy don't have Aircrafts in the airzone as well. Aircrafts technology make a huge difference as 1944 naval bomber is alot better than 1936 naval bomber and the more Aircrafts you have the more ships you will detect if I'm not wrong so Aircrafts effeciency may be exponential rather than linear to quantity.

This is the biggest problem. The new mechanics actually encourage you to use carriers like floating airfields, which makes sense, but the AI is not programmed to use them that way, so it's trivially easy to sink all their ships with parked carriers while their carriers only engage if their whole fleet engages.

Yes that is the issue, Carriers are quite good but the ai don't really know how to use them to full effect. Airpower is so important to the naval war in HOI4, not only do it sink ship but it also help finding the enemy navies. Parked Carriers may be hard if not impossible for the enemy to find if the carrier task force have good detection and air superiority should multiply your ships detection.

It also make alot of sense since Carriers should not be close to enemy ships and I suspect naval combat represent quite close distance, since detection keep the enemy from finding your ships, you can use that to your advantage to keep the Carriers away from combat.

If the enemy go for carrier spam you are pretty much forced to stay at the coast since you really need airpower to survive. Even if you don't face Carriers, staying near the coast is still a very good idea so you can use your airpower against enemy navy, which is very cost effective.

 

[Emren]

Well I have had good success with using Carriers as floating airbases, rather than trying to engage the enemy navy. As the US I sunk basically the whole Japanse navy with airpower and without losing a single ship. So to me Carriers don't seems weak because airpower is so strong, but they are most useful if you have no airbases in range.

How do you do this? Simply park the carrier in an ocean tile, and then run air missions? So the carrier itself has no mission?

 

[Denkt]

How do you do this? Simply park the carrier in an ocean tile, and then run air missions? So the carrier itself has no mission?

Yes you place them in the middle of the airzone you want your Aircrafts in so they get most coverage and press the anchor symbol. Then you do the same as you would with a normal airbase. I think massed Carriers are most effective because the more air superiority you have the more detection you will have, on other hand spreading out the Carriers allow more sea zones to be covered with some airpower, but it don't seems as deadly. Port strikes seems quite effective as well so if you know the enemy navy is at port, bring all your Carriers next to it and put the Aircrafts in the airzone the port belong to and port strike which can do absolute massive damage.

Here is a old screenshot showing how German carriers can be used to sink the japanese navy

Spoiler: Screenshot

This is the damage carrier based Aircrafts can cause in 1 month, see how lopsided the result are, and no naval battle at all took place.

Spoiler: Screenshot 2

I think it is fair to say that Carriers are quite good and this was not even base strike Carriers with 1944 Aircrafts, so not even the best they could be.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

How do you do this? Simply park the carrier in an ocean tile, and then run air missions? So the carrier itself has no mission?

Yes. It also allows you to port strike strike forces.

The AI is totally incapable of dealing with it, however, so you'll stomp all over them.