Can we get the historical floatplane/flying boat in the next dlc?

[LordWahu]

which is why they gave spotting chance, do they not?

but that ultimately leads to a general discussion of “who” or “what” we are playing as in HOI4. We certainly are playing from a position of abstraction and interest beyond the scope of Nimitz, arguably we are playing from a view point above that of FDR—to continue the American analogy. I’d argue we are playing the entire “country”, like an omnipotent invisible hand.

on the scale of hoi4–where air wings are about to be abstracted to units of 100, I guess I just don’t see the utility in modeling the 20mm cannons on single floatplane.

as has been discussed, their primary purpose was spotting, either for surface combatants, submarines, or to make main battery fire more accurate.

im not a naval historian nor was I serving on a surface ship when floatplanes were relevant—they may be under tuned compared to history with respect to their spotting/reconnaissance impact—but I’m not sure I buy the idea they need to be anything other than a modifier on a given ships performance.
I’m also not a dev, so this is just some blowhard on the internets opinion.

Then there's Warspite, the only battleship to have sunk a submarine (IIRC), using her floatplane

 

[Sourlol]

Then there's Warspite, the only battleship to have sunk a submarine (IIRC), using her floatplane

I mean, I think there’s probably merit to giving a floatplane equipped ship some amount of submarine attack—or whatever the stat is called.

I just don’t see the point in putting that plane into the air war mechanic as though it was a carrier/land based fighter or bomber

 

[Bossman Zero]

Then there's Warspite, the only battleship to have sunk a submarine (IIRC), using her floatplane

USS New York supposedly sank a submerged U-Boat in WWI via accidental collision: two underwater collisions and damage to a propeller in an area too deep for shipwrecks to hit surface traffic, and a dent in her hull the size of a U-Boat bow when she went into drydock afterwards.

Thread tax: the devs said they didn't want the floatplane catapults to turn battleships and cruisers into mini-carriers, but it feels like there's a missed opportunity to use floatplanes on them without carrier mechanics. Since the floatplanes will have surface and sub detection stats, why not remove them from the catapult, have it provide slots for holding floatplanes, and as long as the ship has at least one, add the plane's detection stats to the ship's? The floatplanes don't act like an air wing or a CAG, but instead make daily reliability checks during a battle to see if they get shot down by enemy planes/AA. And the floatplanes can only be replenished after spending a certain amount of time in port.

 

[machineTranslation]

which is why they gave spotting chance, do they not?

but that ultimately leads to a general discussion of “who” or “what” we are playing as in HOI4. We certainly are playing from a position of abstraction and interest beyond the scope of Nimitz, arguably we are playing from a view point above that of FDR—to continue the American analogy. I’d argue we are playing the entire “country”, like an omnipotent invisible hand.

on the scale of hoi4–where air wings are about to be abstracted to units of 100, I guess I just don’t see the utility in modeling the 20mm cannons on single floatplane.

as has been discussed, their primary purpose was spotting, either for surface combatants, submarines, or to make main battery fire more accurate.

im not a naval historian nor was I serving on a surface ship when floatplanes were relevant—they may be under tuned compared to history with respect to their spotting/reconnaissance impact—but I’m not sure I buy the idea they need to be anything other than a modifier on a given ships performance.
I’m also not a dev, so this is just some blowhard on the internets opinion.

Seaplanes cannot be simulated only by unifying data. If someone wants to simulate that a seaplane should be able to go where an ordinary plane cannot, then only distance data is appropriate.

But it doesn't sound right to let a seaplane have a higher range than an ordinary plane.

 

[pheonicia]

USS New York supposedly sank a submerged U-Boat in WWI via accidental collision: two underwater collisions and damage to a propeller in an area too deep for shipwrecks to hit surface traffic, and a dent in her hull the size of a U-Boat bow when she went into drydock afterwards.

Thread tax: the devs said they didn't want the floatplane catapults to turn battleships and cruisers into mini-carriers, but it feels like there's a missed opportunity to use floatplanes on them without carrier mechanics. Since the floatplanes will have surface and sub detection stats, why not remove them from the catapult, have it provide slots for holding floatplanes, and as long as the ship has at least one, add the plane's detection stats to the ship's? The floatplanes don't act like an air wing or a CAG, but instead make daily reliability checks during a battle to see if they get shot down by enemy planes/AA. And the floatplanes can only be replenished after spending a certain amount of time in port.

Or we could just have the float plane cost be abstracted into the cost of the whole ship like it is currently and not have to make an entire production line to produce a handful of planes.

 

[Anaraxes]

Or we could just have the float plane cost be abstracted into the cost of the whole ship like it is currently and not have to make an entire production line to produce a handful of planes.

The cost is abstracted into the seaplane module, not the whole ship. Personally, I wouldn't be that keen on having to produce floatplanes for BBs and search cruisers, since it's such a small number. You'd put one mil on it and forget about it, like scout planes or transports if you use those. Just give the the planes to the ships "for free", as is done currently, no accounting necessary.

But given that there's a plane designer, I don't see a huge difficulty or harm in using those stats to calculate the search value for that seaplane module. No airfield icon on the non-carriers, no mission assignment. The module just bumps the stats of the ship much as it does now. If the small differences you can conjure by fiddling with the floatplane design aren't worth it to you, great; just stick with the default design. Come up with a new design, and it bumps the stats of new floatplane modules. (You could have a floatplane module refit to upgrade if you weren't willing to just bump the value for all floatplane modules everywhere.)

I think we'd want a production line for bigger seaplanes to match scout planes. Use the current air code, and base the planes from ports. Only planes with sea/floatplane modules can base at a port. Make the basing limit small -- say, 10 per port level instead of 100 per airfield level -- and there's no worry they'll somehow dominate land-based air (especially given the disadvantages I expect come with adding the seaplane module in the first place), or even carrier-based air, even if the seaplanes have a naval attack value that comes with a secondary torpedo armament. The ports can then search adjacent sea zones and mount a small naval attack value good for sniping at subs/convoys (as Catalinas were designed to do), small TFs, or just thrown into a big battle for a few extra attacks because you expect that every plane will do their duty for England.

 

[Bossman Zero]

Or we could just have the float plane cost be abstracted into the cost of the whole ship like it is currently and not have to make an entire production line to produce a handful of planes.

A 'handful'? You might be surprised to learn that there were 1519 Vought OS2U Kingfishers, 1418 Aichi E13As, 740 Supermarine Walruses, 514 Arado Ar 196s and 314 CANT Z.506Bs built for WWII. And they weren't used just for ships, but also for maritime patrols, you know, that new mission type that's coming?

 

[Gort11]

Then there's Warspite, the only battleship to have sunk a submarine (IIRC), using her floatplane

Nah, HMS Dreadnought sunk U-29 during the Great War, by ramming.

 

[Znail]

Nah, HMS Dreadnought sunk U-29 during the Great War, by ramming.

I think he meant specifically by using the float plane.

 

[BaronNoir]

IMO,the problem is that right now (might be clearer in the next patch) the ''naval bomber'' amalgate many types of aircraft, especially suggesting that a single engine carrier aircraft (ie, either a torpedo or dive) can be adapted as a long range patrol naval bomber (like the two engined catalina or even dedicated four engine bombers like the Privateer)

 

[T Knight]

IMO,the problem is that right now (might be clearer in the next patch) the ''naval bomber'' amalgate many types of aircraft, especially suggesting that a single engine carrier aircraft (ie, either a torpedo or dive) can be adapted as a long range patrol naval bomber (like the two engined catalina or even dedicated four engine bombers like the Privateer)

Correct, but the main advantage to floatplanes was to use harbors, gamewise this would mean not limited to land airbases. I think it would be better if naval bases were treated like stationary aircraft carriers, ie they can base certain modified airplanes. Naval base could base perhaps 10-50 planes per level

 

[BaronNoir]

Wasn't the point of hydroplanes (in French at least, hydravions means both floatplanes and flying boats) , especially floatplanes, to offer a degree of mobility ?

 

[The Colonel]

Flametanks already suffer from the fact that a single factory tends to massively overproduce vs. your need. Something that you would use even fewer of should absolutely not be something we have to produce.

 

[BaronNoir]

The problem is also that, right now, NAV bombers have serious drawbacks. Like for instance, that TAC have better range and can be used for something else (in fact, the next patch might be the deathknell of the NAV-they did added maritime long range patrol (AKA, flying boats) that can be two engined or four engined, but you can now produce one aircraft that can peform two missions. Say, a Nell or Betty-like two engines, carrying torpedoes for NAV strike and bombs for TAC)

 

[xtfoster]

The problem is also that, right now, NAV bombers have serious drawbacks. Like for instance, that TAC have better range and can be used for something else (in fact, the next patch might be the deathknell of the NAV-they did added maritime long range patrol (AKA, flying boats) that can be two engined or four engined, but you can now produce one aircraft that can peform two missions. Say, a Nell or Betty-like two engines, carrying torpedoes for NAV strike and bombs for TAC)

Well yes, but like the current Tactical Bomber, they will suffer the same fate as all Multi-Role aircraft. They might be able to perform multiple missions, but a dedicated platform is going to be able to do it better.

Pre-BBA, the Tac can perform the role of a Naval Bomber, but is only better when it comes to range. With the designer, it seems that you will no longer be locked to Naval Bombers being Light Aircraft, so you could design a Medium Aircraft as a dedicated Naval Strike Aircraft and have the same range as your Medium Aircraft that is designed as a Medium Bomber. If you instead decide to put both Naval Strike modules (i.e., torpedoes) and Bombing Modules, it will be able to perform both missions but neither as well as a dedicated design.

EDIT: And the Large Aircraft Maritime Patrol Aircraft, while longer ranged than both, are likely to be extremely expensive.