Carrier OOB - Recommended Changes

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
G

GeneralSnoopy

Guest
Below are some of my suggestions for correcting some of the inaccuracies in the game's carriers. If requested I could upload the changed game scenario files to the User Modifications forums. The attachment has some basic information on the early carriers. Most information is from wikipedia and from www.combinedfleet.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JAPAN

IJN Hosho
AoD = CV-1. Recommendation = CVL-1 (LCAG-1).
Rationale: Aircraft complement is only 15. Very similar to the HMS Hermes (CVL-1).

IJN Ryujo
AoD = CV-2. Recommendation = CVL-2 (LCAG-1).
Additionally, since CVL-2 reflects 1939 aircraft, the aircraft should be the LCAG-1 brigades. If the player (or AI) wishes to ahistorically have advanced aircraft then let them pay for the upgrade costs.
Rationale: Aircraft complement is 38. This complement is far less than other CV-2 capacities, but is in line with standard CVL aircraft complements.

Everything else seems fine.


UNITED STATES

No changes necessary, but do see the comment below.

USS Langley
AoD = Not in the game. Recommendation = CVL-2 (LCAG-1), but still keep out of the game.
Rationale: The USS Langley was the first USA carrier. She had an aircraft complement of 34. On 25 October 1936 she began conversion to a seaplane tender. The conversion was necessary since the United States wanted to abide by the Washington and London Naval Limitation Treaties which limited aircraft carrier tonnage and the USA wanted to build the USS Wasp. If for historical flavor someone wants to retain the USS Langley, then for the 1936 scenario an event should be written that removes the carrier unless the USA is at war or chooses to violate the treaty.


UNITED KINGDOM and FRANCE

HMS Eagle
AoD = CVL-2. Recommendation = CVL-1 (LCAG-1).
Rationale: Aircraft complement is 21. Complement is very similar to that of other British CVL-1 ships – Argus (18) and Hermes (15). It should not be more advanced than the HMS Hermes.

HMS Hermes
AoD = CVL-1. Recommendation = CVL-1 (LCAG-1)
Rationale: Since the British have discovered CVL-2 tech, then the planes on CVL-1 have been upgraded to the latest tech which is 1939. If the player (or AI) wishes to have ahistorically advanced aircraft, then let them pay for the upgrade cost.

HMS Argus
AoD = CVL-1. Recommendation = CVL-1 (LCAG-1)
Rationale: See HMS Hermes.

The other carriers we can leave as is, but it should be noted that the aircraft complements are far smaller than their American and Japanese equivalents. Doctrine may account for some of this, but in general it looks like the British and French carriers are overpowered relative to their contemporaries. Reclassifying the ships as CVLs, however, does not do them justice. The carrier brigade system needs an overhaul to better reflect carrier operations.
 

Attachments

  • Aircraft Carriers - Early Years.JPG
    Aircraft Carriers - Early Years.JPG
    160,9 KB · Views: 140

Balesir

AoD's Old Geezer
146 Badges
Dec 23, 2005
3.146
1.700
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • 200k Club
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Deus Vult
  • Sengoku
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • For The Glory
  • Pride of Nations
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Warlock 2: Wrath of the Nagas
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Rise of Prussia
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • East India Company
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • PDXCON 2017 Gold Ticket holder
Funnily enough, I recently had a private exchange with Rising Sun about this and reached broadly similar conclusions. Most of the ship classifications are carried over from ARMA, in fact, but I did correct some of the more egregious ones (like missing ships - although I left Langley out for reasons similar to yours). The ideal would be a revamp of the cag "brigade" system I agree - but I'm afraid you will have to ba a little patient for that! ;)

In the meantime, patch 1.5 should have some changes in this OOB department.
 

Fürstbischof

General
17 Badges
Jan 25, 2009
1.745
86
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 200k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
(...)
CVL-1 (LCAG-1).
CVL-2 (LCAG-1).
(...)

Funnily enough, I recently had a private exchange with Rising Sun about this and reached broadly similar conclusions. (...) The ideal would be a revamp of the cag "brigade" system I agree - but I'm afraid you will have to ba a little patient for that! ;)

If we could separate the design of new carriers from the development of new carrier-based planes by having separate tech trees that would be fine. Then would also be the time to introduce a second cag brigade solely for the jet age to stop the use of jets onboard of outdated carriers which were unable to operate them.
 

froglegs

Colonel
4 Badges
Mar 10, 2005
940
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
Funnily enough, I recently had a private exchange with Rising Sun about this and reached broadly similar conclusions. Most of the ship classifications are carried over from ARMA, in fact, but I did correct some of the more egregious ones (like missing ships - although I left Langley out for reasons similar to yours). The ideal would be a revamp of the cag "brigade" system I agree - but I'm afraid you will have to ba a little patient for that! ;)

In the meantime, patch 1.5 should have some changes in this OOB department.

You really then need to take a serious look at CV speeds because the current 18 and 22 knots does not jive with the US carriers. The slowest US CV was the Wasp which did 29 knots. Both the Lexington and Saratoga carried 12 or so more planes than the Ranger and were just as fast at more than 30 knots. The Ranger was basically the worst US CV. It was unstable in rough waters and therefore was deemed unfit for the Pacific. Yet it held as many aircraft as virtually any Jap carrier or Brit. Take a look at the following reference before you finalize anything.

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/carriers/index.htm
 
G

GeneralSnoopy

Guest
Carrier Tech Tree

Below are my suggestions for some minor adjustments to the Carrier tech tree. I believe it is a better reflection of the role of the Great War Air Carrier - which currently does not have a purpose. I think it also solves the problem of the Basic Light Carrier (LCAG tech of 1939) aircraft being ahistorically available too early.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great War Air Carrier:
Change performance characteristics so it is similar to a Light Carrier.
Serves as a prerequisite to Fleet Carrier and Light Carrier.
Reflects ship design/conversions of the Great War and early 1920s. Has an aircraft complement of about 20 or less.

Ship Reclassifications:
Great War Air Carrier: IJN Hosho, HMS Argus, HMS Hermes, HMS Eagle
Early Light Carrier: IJN Ryujo, USS Langley
Basic Light Carrier: IJN Zuiho, IJN Shoho, IJN Ryuho

1936 Scenario:
Japan has blueprints for Basic Light Carrier. Has tech for Early Light Carrier.
USA has tech for Early Light Carrier.
Great Britain only has tech for Great War Air Carrier.

1938 Scenario:
Same as 1936 except that Japan also has tech for Basic Light Carrier.
 

mdlusk

First Lieutenant
34 Badges
Jan 22, 2006
225
5
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Iron Cross
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Another possiblity concerning carriers and their CAGs. Have a system like this:
50 or fewer aircraft--1 brigade
50-100 aircraft--2 brigades
over 100 aircraft (Midway class)--3 brigades

obviously, I'm thinking that a CAG brigade represents about 50 aircraft.

For CVLs and their LCAGs, a different system: each brigade is about 20 aircraft. Thus you can have the Ryuho with nearly 40 aircraft with 2 brigades being superior to, say, the Hermes with only about 20 aircraft.

Of course all this requires some tweaking of CAG and LCAG stats for play-balancing, but I think it could work.

I was hoping this would a system that was going to be used (or something similar) when HOI 3 implemented a "hangar" system. Unfortunately the number of aircraft carried by CVs, CVLs, and CVEs ahs still been modeled well in any HOI game.
 

Fürstbischof

General
17 Badges
Jan 25, 2009
1.745
86
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 200k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Below are my suggestions for some minor adjustments to the Carrier tech tree. I believe it is a better reflection of the role of the Great War Air Carrier - which currently does not have a purpose. I think it also solves the problem of the Basic Light Carrier (LCAG tech of 1939) aircraft being ahistorically available too early.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great War Air Carrier:
Change performance characteristics so it is similar to a Light Carrier.
Serves as a prerequisite to Fleet Carrier and Light Carrier.
Reflects ship design/conversions of the Great War and early 1920s. Has an aircraft complement of about 20 or less.

Have you considered that a better representation of the early carrier development in the great war and the early twenties might be to have the techs "Great War Air Carrier" and "Early Air Carrier" as the first techs of the Light Carriers tech tree? The tech "Early Air Carrier" would then be the prerequisite for the development of fleet carriers, i.e. the tech "Basic Air Carriers" would then be the first in the Aircraft Carriers tech tree. The Washington naval treaty had a great impact on the development of large carriers with its cut of the existing battle fleets and the stop of planned new battleships, which allowed the larger naval powers to rebuilt some of their otherwise superfluous battleship/battlecruiser hulls as fleet carriers. We could split the better and the worse carriers between the first two models, while the third cv model would represent the purpose build carriers of the thirties. This would allow us to differentiate all the early cvs and cvls by their speed and combat value, which might lead to more historically accurate stats.

Ship Reclassifications:
Great War Air Carrier: IJN Hosho, HMS Argus, HMS Hermes, HMS Eagle
Early Light Carrier: IJN Ryujo, USS Langley
Basic Light Carrier: IJN Zuiho, IJN Shoho, IJN Ryuho

The size of the Ryujo air group indicates that she should be upped one model. Langley shares 2 characteristics with the first 4 carriers: she was very slow and had very few planes. If we give the first two carrier models nearly the same stats, we could differentiate between early conversions and first (small) purpose-build carriers.

1936 Scenario:
Japan has blueprints for Basic Light Carrier. Has tech for Early Light Carrier.
USA has tech for Early Light Carrier.
Great Britain only has tech for Great War Air Carrier.

1938 Scenario:
Same as 1936 except that Japan also has tech for Basic Light Carrier.


Another possiblity concerning carriers and their CAGs. Have a system like this:
50 or fewer aircraft--1 brigade
50-100 aircraft--2 brigades
over 100 aircraft (Midway class)--3 brigades

obviously, I'm thinking that a CAG brigade represents about 50 aircraft.

For CVLs and their LCAGs, a different system: each brigade is about 20 aircraft. Thus you can have the Ryuho with nearly 40 aircraft with 2 brigades being superior to, say, the Hermes with only about 20 aircraft.

Of course all this requires some tweaking of CAG and LCAG stats for play-balancing, but I think it could work.

As tweaking is sometimes not so easy, it seems to be easier to have both brigades of the same size, e.g. 20 planes. This would allow us also to give the later cvs more air groups: the Midway-class could then easily have 5 brigades.

I was hoping this would a system that was going to be used (or something similar) when HOI 3 implemented a "hangar" system. Unfortunately the number of aircraft carried by CVs, CVLs, and CVEs ahs still been modeled well in any HOI game.
 

mdlusk

First Lieutenant
34 Badges
Jan 22, 2006
225
5
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Iron Cross
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Have you considered that a better representation of the early carrier development in the great war and the early twenties might be to have the techs "Great War Air Carrier" and "Early Air Carrier" as the first techs of the Light Carriers tech tree? The tech "Early Air Carrier" would then be the prerequisite for the development of fleet carriers, i.e. the tech "Basic Air Carriers" would then be the first in the Aircraft Carriers tech tree. The Washington naval treaty had a great impact on the development of large carriers with its cut of the existing battle fleets and the stop of planned new battleships, which allowed the larger naval powers to rebuilt some of their otherwise superfluous battleship/battlecruiser hulls as fleet carriers. We could split the better and the worse carriers between the first two models, while the third cv model would represent the purpose build carriers of the thirties. This would allow us to differentiate all the early cvs and cvls by their speed and combat value, which might lead to more historically accurate stats.



The size of the Ryujo air group indicates that she should be upped one model. Langley shares 2 characteristics with the first 4 carriers: she was very slow and had very few planes. If we give the first two carrier models nearly the same stats, we could differentiate between early conversions and first (small) purpose-build carriers.






As tweaking is sometimes not so easy, it seems to be easier to have both brigades of the same size, e.g. 20 planes. This would allow us also to give the later cvs more air groups: the Midway-class could then easily have 5 brigades.

I like all of these ideas. I did suggest 50 per brigade for the fleet carriers to keep from having 4-6 attachments at times, but if B-L Logic is okay with that, that would be good. It would also possibly allow modders to create different kinds of CAGs. I.e. have a group of dive bombers, a group of torpedo bombers and 2 groups of fighters on a carrier, or whatever mix the person building the carrier wants. In this case it would be better to think of these "brigades" as squadrons. I would think CORE in particular would want to model this, as articulate naval breakdown has been one thing they have been known for, but it doesn't require the micromanagement of the individual ships they are thinking of eliminating (and going back to squadrons of).
 

Fürstbischof

General
17 Badges
Jan 25, 2009
1.745
86
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 200k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
I like all of these ideas. I did suggest 50 per brigade for the fleet carriers to keep from having 4-6 attachments at times, but if B-L Logic is okay with that, that would be good. It would also possibly allow modders to create different kinds of CAGs. I.e. have a group of dive bombers, a group of torpedo bombers and 2 groups of fighters on a carrier, or whatever mix the person building the carrier wants. In this case it would be better to think of these "brigades" as squadrons. I would think CORE in particular would want to model this, as articulate naval breakdown has been one thing they have been known for, but it doesn't require the micromanagement of the individual ships they are thinking of eliminating (and going back to squadrons of).

Yes, i favour various kinds of CAGs, too. :D Then our "brigades" would be the squadrons which they were orginally. And it would it allow you to customise your CVs and TFs. But the ai might not be able to do the same. Atm you also can't add a brigade twice to a ship or division. But, honestly, i don't have a hint in which direction the devs are moving. If they're adding some sort of division designer, then we'll see similar improvements for ships. We have to be patient. ;)
 

Richard Gray

Second Lieutenant
7 Badges
May 5, 2007
163
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
The Eagle

Sorry, The Eagle was alot bigger than Hermes, 26000 GRT to 12000 GRT and more capable. The fact that it had such a small complement of aircraft was not down to size - it was shortage of Aircraft and aircrew as the vets were transferredto the newer Illustrious class. The UK has always neglected Carrier aircraft and as such always has lagged behind. As an interesting footnote when the Hermes was Sunk - its aircraft complement was nil, thus amplifying my point that Historical complements are not equal to designed.