Carrier Configuration...

[henryjai]

I think it would be fair for us to be able to "specialize" our carriers...by able to define the ratio of each types of carrier aircrafts in your carriers.


a brief idea is...

1. Carrier got a "capacity" , indicating how many planes it could held, normally it should be a number , e.g. 40, 45...

2. the CAG would have seperate "strength" and "organization" for each type of plane, normally

a. Fighters
- mainly for air superiority
- would scramble automatically when under attack/enemy approaching
- could help attack smaller, lighter vessels, say, in convoy raiding.

b. Dive bombers
- deadly bombers...yep?

c. Torpedo bombers
- the suicidal planes that launch deadly torpedoes, could be carrying bombs instead if you specify (perhaps when you select the "cautious" stance it would not carry torpedoes)

and if you want a ratio of 2:1:1 for fighter:bomber:torpedo the strength would be 50/50 for fighters, 25/25 for bomber, 25/25 for torpedo bomber.

the seperate classes should have different stats, depending on your technology.

the idea of seperate strength is to increase "realism", when you lost all your torpedo bombers your ability killing enemy planes shouldn't be lowered...

3. the engagement should be automatic
of course the fighting would be not controllable by you, so it doesn't makes combat more complicated.

4. Pros
you would be able to configurate your carriers in a more specific way, say, to provide air cover for your precious battleships...

also it could help unify the class of light carriers, escort carriers, normal carriers and heavy carriers...it not only makes game easier and also helps modding.

because if you include the stat called capacity, you could use it in the formulas to calculate the fighting abilities of your carriers, say,

capacity x constant(related to capacity) x percentage of plane in the carrier x constant(related to stats)

from one of my threads of "air combat" i mentioned a few stats that are "maneuverability"... and other things should be always constant no matter how many planes you got, as it only provides fighting efficiency bonus.

it also makes technology development makes sense, it's quite silly to have "i already have 1944 fighters however i only get 1941 bomber so my CAG should suck"...

 

[Peekee]

I think it would be fair for us to be able to "specialize" our carriers...by able to define the ratio of each types of carrier aircrafts in your carriers.


a brief idea is...

1. Carrier got a "capacity" , indicating how many planes it could held, normally it should be a number , e.g. 40, 45...

2. the CAG would have seperate "strength" and "organization" for each type of plane, normally

a. Fighters
- mainly for air superiority
- would scramble automatically when under attack/enemy approaching
- could help attack smaller, lighter vessels, say, in convoy raiding.

b. Dive bombers
- deadly bombers...yep?

c. Torpedo bombers
- the suicidal planes that launch deadly torpedoes, could be carrying bombs instead if you specify (perhaps when you select the "cautious" stance it would not carry torpedoes)

and if you want a ratio of 2:1:1 for fighter:bomber:torpedo the strength would be 50/50 for fighters, 25/25 for bomber, 25/25 for torpedo bomber.

the seperate classes should have different stats, depending on your technology.

the idea of seperate strength is to increase "realism", when you lost all your torpedo bombers your ability killing enemy planes shouldn't be lowered...

3. the engagement should be automatic
of course the fighting would be not controllable by you, so it doesn't makes combat more complicated.

4. Pros
you would be able to configurate your carriers in a more specific way, say, to provide air cover for your precious battleships...

also it could help unify the class of light carriers, escort carriers, normal carriers and heavy carriers...it not only makes game easier and also helps modding.

because if you include the stat called capacity, you could use it in the formulas to calculate the fighting abilities of your carriers, say,

capacity x constant(related to capacity) x percentage of plane in the carrier x constant(related to stats)

from one of my threads of "air combat" i mentioned a few stats that are "maneuverability"... and other things should be always constant no matter how many planes you got, as it only provides fighting efficiency bonus.

it also makes technology development makes sense, it's quite silly to have "i already have 1944 fighters however i only get 1941 bomber so my CAG should suck"...

Sounds like a bit of a head ache: Are the planes actually different models or just differently armed? How do you represent losses? At what points can you set change the ratios?

How about have several CAG's able to be assigned to carriers this is their capacity. The CAG can also be assigned to land airbases (but not normal planes to carriers), moved to other carriers etc. There could still be slightly different "models" to represent fighters/bombers. Then the individual CAG would take losses and you could choose to assign them to different missions as required. (Or automate as needed)

 

[unmerged(131342)]

Why not abstract it all into one generic CAG?

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Why not abstract it all into one generic CAG?

Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of allowing specialised setups?

 

[unmerged(131342)]

And let research determine specialisation. So you can research better torps, carrier hooks, elevators, etc. I know form my own experience I's always design my CAGs in the above system always the same way anyways, especially since it's rather complicated and geared for a specific situation. I want all my carriers to be more or less generic but especially good at one thing. Research can determine this.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

So because you don't care about specialised task forces, no one else should be allowed to?
While I think the OP's idea is probably a wee bit too complicated and I probably would not specialise too much either, I have nothing against allowing others to do so. The best solution is probably to let CAGs have brigade-like subcomponents just like other air divisions.

 

[Bullfrog]

...The best solution is probably to let CAGs have brigade-like subcomponents just like other air divisions.

What? You mean it should be like division construction right? AFAIK air unit production has not been mentioned yet.

Of course I agree. Better system (that has been posted many times) would be FTR/DIVE/TORP brigades or squadrons put together to make specialist CAGs. 3 or 4 for CVs and 1 or 2 for CVLs, depending on the techs. You can choose the "specialty" of your CAG, which would also cause a disadvantage in another area if your CAG was too lopsided in favor of defense or offense.

 

[MontanaPrussian]

What? You mean it should be like division construction right? AFAIK air unit production has not been mentioned yet.

Of course I agree. Better system (that has been posted many times) would be FTR/DIVE/TORP brigades or squadrons put together to make specialist CAGs. 3 or 4 for CVs and 1 or 2 for CVLs, depending on the techs. You can choose the "specialty" of your CAG, which would also cause a disadvantage in another area if your CAG was too lopsided in favor of defense or offense.

Agreed. I am in favor of this as as it would give you the type of CAGs suited to your Naval Stategy.

 

[bz249]

Sounds like a bit of a head ache: Are the planes actually different models or just differently armed? How do you represent losses? At what points can you set change the ratios?

How about have several CAG's able to be assigned to carriers this is their capacity. The CAG can also be assigned to land airbases (but not normal planes to carriers), moved to other carriers etc. There could still be slightly different "models" to represent fighters/bombers. Then the individual CAG would take losses and you could choose to assign them to different missions as required. (Or automate as needed)

I think a CAG is too small to be represented as an air unit (or it should be a very understrength one)... AFAIK the game have air divisions which are much bigger units. So a CAG is better to be permanently linked to a carrier although as a separate entity which takes losses on their own.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think a CAG is too small to be represented as an air unit (or it should be a very understrength one)... AFAIK the game have air divisions which are much bigger units. So a CAG is better to be permanently linked to a carrier although as a separate entity which takes losses on their own.

hmm. interesting to see how they reinforce. Will the CV have to return to port to reinforce its CAG?

 

[MontanaPrussian]

hmm. interesting to see how they reinforce. Will the CV have to return to port to reinforce its CAG?

Good question. I would guess the answer is yes,they need to mgo back to base,although historically,the USN used CVE's to ferry replacements to the CV/CVLs.

 

[Bullfrog]

Good question. I would guess the answer is yes,they need to mgo back to base,although historically,the USN used CVE's to ferry replacements to the CV/CVLs.

Perhaps the CAG can rebase to the nearest airbase to reinforce, then rebase back to the CV when it is finished?

 

[MontanaPrussian]

Perhaps the CAG can rebase to the nearest airbase to reinforce, then rebase back to the CV when it is finished?

That would be a good idea,as that too was done historically.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

That would be a good idea,as that too was done historically.

In the Pacific, light carrier were used at floating aircraft reserve pool.

So if a wing carrier CAG loss one plane, it is remplaced by one of the light carrier CAG.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Kouak, I fear you are confusing light carriers with escort carriers; as far as I know, light carriers came to be used, by the USN at least, for providing fighter cover for other ships (fleet carriers included) while aircraft transportation became an important task for the escort carriers.
A minor point, of course, but it does illustrate the fact that there were composition differences between CAGs within the same task force.

 

[son of liberty]

Kouak, I fear you are confusing light carriers with escort carriers; as far as I know, light carriers came to be used, by the USN at least, for providing fighter cover for other ships (fleet carriers included) while aircraft transportation became an important task for the escort carriers.
A minor point, of course, but it does illustrate the fact that there were composition differences between CAGs within the same task force.

Exactly, CVE's had the job of ferrying replacement aircraft. The idea of building spare cag's also has merit. You could just swap them out like we currently do with ships in our reserve fleets.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

Kouak, I fear you are confusing light carriers with escort carriers; as far as I know, light carriers came to be used, by the USN at least, for providing fighter cover for other ships (fleet carriers included) while aircraft transportation became an important task for the escort carriers.
A minor point, of course, but it does illustrate the fact that there were composition differences between CAGs within the same task force.

I think it's the opposite, fight cover for escorts carriers and reserve pool for light carriers.
But, it's theorical and these 2 types of carriers are close o
A reserve status fr some CAG in a task force would be usefull

Today, we have learned that there is a hangar caracteristics for each carrier, so may be a customization of CAG.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Today, we have learned that there is a hangar caracteristics for each carrier, so may be a customization of CAG.

Unfortunately, it was stated explicitly by King that there will only be one type of generic CAG.

 

[MontanaPrussian]

In the Pacific, light carrier were used at floating aircraft reserve pool.

So if a wing carrier CAG loss one plane, it is remplaced by one of the light carrier CAG.

Actually,no. CVLs were integral parts of CTGs(Carrier Task Groups) along with CVs. CVEs were used in 3 ways: ASW in the Atlantic,Air Cover for Amphibiou Groups and as Aircraft ferries for the larger Carriers.

 

[Alsadius]

A lot of the suggestions here are WAY too micro-heavy - great if you're playing War in the Pacific, but that's not HoI. That said, I don't like the one-size-fits-all CAG system they're actually using either. The best way of doing it, to allow specialization and still minimize micro, is multiple CAG slots per carrier - CVE 1, CVL 2, CV 3, CVN 4, or something like it. Either FTR/DIV/TOR CAG's(probably best, gives you choice of land/air focus on attack), or simplify to FTR/BOM if you prefer. Each of them would be a hugely understrength air wing of appropriate type - either a 20 strength cap, or about 1/5 the usual stats. Have them be triggered off the same aircraft skills as the land-based versions of same, but use carrier practical as a construction bonus. Either that or you could even make them like convoy escorts were in HoI1 - click a fighter/naval bomber stack, have the option to turn it into 4-5 CAG units instead, and maybe even give them the option to reform as a squadron if they wanted to be land-based again.

I know I'm talking to a wall here - the devs have flat-out said that they won't do it, so the best I can reasonably expect is modders to create multiple CAG unit types to emphasize different aspects. But it would be better, and I don't think the micro of putting 3 CAGs on a carrier instead of 1 would be unreasonable, given that carriers aren't exactly a unit most countries are overflowing with. Having proper CVLs and CVEs in the game would be a nice change, and give a lot more options to navies that aren't the big three.