Carrier based aircraft tree

[sjg132]

So, many nations had important series of carrier planes that had a great effect on the war. It would be okay to just make sea variants of existing aircraft, but really? I just don't think omitting greats such as the Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, just to name some of the american ones is that historical. Are there carrier aircraft trees?

 

[panzerzombie]

The small carrier symbol in the aircraft research of the land versions lead to a carrier variant you will need to research and build separate.

 

[GundamMerc]

The small carrier symbol in the aircraft research of the land versions lead to a carrier variant you will need to research and build separate.

That's not what he's asking, he already realizes this. He's asking for an aircraft tree for carrier-specific aircraft that were only used as carrier aircraft.

 

[Denkt]

They do the same about self propelled artillery, anti air and tank destroyers as they have done with carrier based aircrafts.

 

[GundamMerc]

They do the same about self propelled artillery, anti air and tank destroyers as they have done with carrier based aircrafts.

Except all those things were mostly conversions as a whole, whereas many carrier aircraft were purpose built solely as carrier aircraft, rather than being converting from an existing airframe. Which means that it isn't a parallel comparison.

 

[Denkt]

While they mainly was conversions they clearly do not look the same and they includ some of the most prominent weapons of the war such as STUG III.

 

[sjg132]

Looking for dedicated carrier aircraft and support vehicles like

 

[GundamMerc]

While they mainly was conversions they clearly do not look the same and they includ some of the most prominent weapons of the war such as STUG III.

Yes, but they're still conversions. You can still name TD variants IG, so it isn't like they aren't getting their fair due. Carrier aircraft that aren't conversions are completely left out, which means you cannot create some of the most iconic aircraft of WWII.

 

[xtfoster]

I think you are giving too much importance to the term 'variant' in this case. While it fills the role of variant within the game, you are not (necessarily) making a variant of the land based plane per se.

Now, for the Germans (who didn't really make any carrier based aircraft but toyed with some carrier-capable conversions of existing aircraft) and Soviets (who didn't even go that far). They are going to have to just create variants of the real land-based craft (Ju 87T (T for Träger) for example, I think the Soviets will be variant SM but can't remember why).

However, for the US and Japan (and UK and France) in most cases the carrier-based aircraft are as famous (if not more) so they WILL (as the devs have said MANY times) be in the game (but still in the variant slot).

And in some cases there just simply isn't a land-based(only) version available so they use carrier-based for both (particularly for Naval Bombers which they are trying to keep to single engine aircraft).

So yes. The F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, and A6M 'Reisen' (Zero) are in the game. They probably will still use the land based version's graphic (at least in Vanilla 1.0).

EDIT: And you can rename and/or upgrade the carrier-based versions to your hearts content in game as well.

 

[panzerzombie]

That's not what he's asking, he already realizes this. He's asking for an aircraft tree for carrier-specific aircraft that were only used as carrier aircraft.

Ah you both mean to show them as separate tree instead of the little symbol ? Could have been worded better then e.g. they are not "omitting" the F4F, F6F, F4U they are there.

I agree that for a better visibility a separate tree would be better but I assume its for place reasons. And yes unlike the tank variants the naval planes did not use or were developed from land planes in every case ( but some were simple conversions like Me109 T and Ju87 T and Seafire ... ). But a separate tree for dedicated carrier planes AND a second tree ( or that little symbol instead ) for carrier conversions would be redundant and not add anything meaningful IMO.

 

[leeuw]

I think the reason they used only one tree is something like: you are not researching the Spitfire and then you research its carrier-based variant, but you are researching a 1936 ground-based fighter (i.e. you are searching the best solution for the airframe, the engine, the avionics, etc) and then you use what you have learned to realize the more complicated 1936 carrier-based airplane.

 

[jcpvdberg]

So, many nations had important series of carrier planes that had a great effect on the war. It would be okay to just make sea variants of existing aircraft, but really? I just don't think omitting greats such as the Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, just to name some of the american ones is that historical. Are there carrier aircraft trees?

Lets point something out.. You said: many nations, but there were only a handfull of country's with carriers during the war. So lets not make it bigger then it is.
Then you claim that they had a great effect on the war. Well only in the war in the pacific. So again, don't make it bigger then it is.

 

[GundamMerc]

Lets point something out.. You said: many nations, but there were only a handfull of country's with carriers during the war. So lets not make it bigger then it is.
Then you claim that they had a great effect on the war. Well only in the war in the pacific. So again, don't make it bigger then it is.

considering the Pacific was half the war..., and that the British used aircraft carriers in the Atlantic/Mediterranean...

 

[jcpvdberg]

Half the war? All other theaters in war together didn't involve as much troops and resources etc then the war between Germany and Soviet Union. So not even close to being half the war.

 

[panzerzombie]

...and the brits mostly used outdated Biplanes on their older carriers ( Swordfish until at least ´44)

 

[Gort11]

I'm not sure I get what the problem is. There are as many technologies that give carrier planes as there are types of plane a carrier could have, so there are three per tier for a total of nine designs per major power, and that's before we get into jets.

Sixty-three models of carrier planes sounds like decent representation to me.

 

[Axe99]

...and the brits mostly used outdated Biplanes on their older carriers ( Swordfish until at least ´44)

The Brits used a range of aircraft on their carriers - the Albacore, for example, served alongside the Swordfish, before the Barracuda started replacing them both from 1943. They also used Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes, Seafires, Fireflies and a bunch of US planes as their carrier fighters, and Avengers as torpedo bombers. Even the Eagle (one of their oldest) had Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars operating from it, and Argus (the oldest) operated Seafires in support of Operation Torch in 1942. They both definitely operated Swordfish and Albacores (also a biplane, although not as out of date) as well, but to characterise the Fleet Air Arm as mostly using biplanes isn't quite accurate.

On topic, the way it's set up in the tech trees looks fine by me. All of the nations that developed carrier aircraft needed to develop land-based aircraft, and generally first, before their carrier planes in those areas, and we heard in the 2D art thread we can have different art for the carrier variants, so we can still have our Zeroes and Wildcats, and the research path is plausible.

 

[mursolini]

So, many nations had important series of carrier planes that had a great effect on the war

How is USA and Japan "many"?

Now, for the Germans (who didn't really make any carrier based aircraft but toyed with some carrier-capable conversions of existing aircraft) and Soviets (who didn't even go that far). They are going to have to just create variants of the real land-based craft (Ju 87T (T for Träger) for example, I think the Soviets will be variant SM but can't remember why).

However, for the US and Japan (and UK and France) in most cases the carrier-based aircraft are as famous (if not more) so they WILL (as the devs have said MANY times) be in the game (but still in the variant slot).

Remind me, where did Sea Hurricanes and Seafires came from?
I have no knowledge of French carrier aircraft, nor have I heard of great exploits of French naval aviation, how come you call them famous?

Current system makes sense for all but Japan and US.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Still, naval bombers and carrier-borne torpedo bombers were totally different things, don't know why they're lumped together.

 

[Axe99]

How is USA and Japan "many"?

Remind me, where did Sea Hurricanes and Seafires came from?

The Swordfish, Albacore, Fulmar, Barracuda and Firefly were all designed by the UK as carrier aircraft. They didn't have as much of a split between carrier and land aviation as the US or Japan, but they were hardly all conversions from land-based aircraft either.