Carrier- vs Land-based Aircraft

[LordOfWar16]

@BattleMoose again, we are not talking about reallife, we are dicussing about ingame. It is an game where things get abstracted, so i doubt they will take into account stuff like stronger undercarriages etc. They are most likely simply more expensive and harder to produce than regular versions. If you bump up the range your speed will drop with variants, so that is taken care of.

Note that this screenshot is pretty old by now but mostly only the layout has changed. For example the categorization into Light, Medium and Heavy Airframe rather than Light, Medium and Naval Fighter, Tactical Bomber and Strategic Bomber.

My point is, that there arent specific carrier planes in the game. They are all variants of the regular planes. Remember that names and 3d models are only cosmetic. In the End an BF109 has the same stats as an Spitfire or an P40 Warhawk, if you not take the design companies into account which alter their stats and the variant system.

 

[BattleMoose]

If you actually read the OP, specifically stated about historical precedent. And then also stated "I was also interested in finding out what history says the game mechanic should be".

Also from the OP, "Should there be a production or stat difference between the two?"

Yes, because of all the reasons I have given.

Of course this game is abstracted. Incorporating carrier aircraft worse maneuverability into worse "air defence" and "air attack" is a piss easy way of abstracting it. It would be a foolish oversight to allow carrier fighters to compete with land based interceptors, all else being equal.

 

[BattleMoose]

Well, I guess the jokes on me for assuming there would be carrier variants of aircraft in HOI4. We had CAGS in hoi3. Flying aircobras off of carrier decks, just, just feels so wrong... Been playing too much "war in the pacific" I guess. :/

 

[LordOfWar16]

Well, I guess the jokes on me for assuming there would be carrier variants of aircraft in HOI4. We had CAGS in hoi3. Flying aircobras off of carrier decks, just, just feels so wrong... Been playing too much "war in the pacific" I guess. :/

We have to see. It could of course be similar to the tanks, where the variants of course have their propper names and models, but i doubt that they would transform an landbased p40 into an carrier-based f4u corsair.

 

[BattleMoose]

Actually, the icon on the bottom right of the graphics, looks like an aircraft taking off of a CV, the hoi wiki mentions that light aircraft can be navalised. Hopefully that comes with a nerf to performance.

 

[steve213]

I know this is a little of topic but I would like the A1 skyraider to be the late tire strike and torpedo bomber. (unifying the CAS and NB lines).

 

[EntropyAvatar]

In HoI4, TD's are researched as variants of regular tanks. They obviously don't need to have the same base stats as the tanks, so I don't see why naval aircraft, researched as variants of land-based aircraft, need the same stats.

 

[Denkt]

You research carrier based aircrafts because they can be based on carriers and that is the only reason you do so. So same stats is correct.

 

[Acaios]

Hmmm any Japanese land based interceptor as good as a F4U-4? This seems to be a naval design that is not inferior to a land based counterpart (even allies best land-based fighters), I suppose this is the exception to prove the rule?

Oh there is another one! In it's day the Zero was also a cut above it's land based counterparts.

almost every japanese design is better than a f4u

 

[steve213]

almost every japanese design is better than a f4u

thats bullshit.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_F4U_stats.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_kawasaki_ki-61.html (beat by the hellcat)
http://www.classicfighters.org/content/chance-vought-f4u-4-corsair-history

 

[Acaios]

from your link:

"
the Ki-61s were left to face Hellcats, Corsairs and P-51s. Although the Ki-61 could sometimes perform well against these aircraft, its pilots were almost always massively outnumbers and losses were very heavy"

and the ki-61 was one of the design with less success.
a6m2, a6m5, a7m2, n1k2, j2m, ki-84...
a more powerful engine does not mean a better plane.

 

[steve213]

it does mean that its faster.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gsBSi7vOalEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=KI-61 performance stats&ots=fb5pncEtC1&sig=dq-rt6D9judbZYktf7XoaiILnKA#v=onepage&q=KI-61 performance stats&f=false
http://markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html
http://search.proquest.com/openview/3e68837851d5d3cf64d34cd6084288a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
also the Ki-61 was the best japanese fighter of that stage of the war. the corsair was faster than every japanese fighter it was not better in every way but it was definitely better and absolutely faster.

 

[Axe99]

You research carrier based aircrafts because they can be based on carriers and that is the only reason you do so. So same stats is correct.

Have we been told this though? I didn't think we'd got any detail on that side of things? (That's not a criticism of the devs - they've told us a heap - there's just a lot to the game). It sounds like the kind of no-brainer decision that the devs have said they wanted to move away from (ie, anyone with carriers will just build carrier-capable aircraft, because it makes no sense to produce both - ie, no brainer), so unless it's been confirmed I'm not sure we should be assuming this.

Either way, hopefully it's moddable so that if carrier aircraft are the same as land based planes, we can sort that out, to add depth to both gameplay and historical plausibility, if it's necessary.

 

[Acaios]

it does mean that its faster.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gsBSi7vOalEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=KI-61 performance stats&ots=fb5pncEtC1&sig=dq-rt6D9judbZYktf7XoaiILnKA#v=onepage&q=KI-61 performance stats&f=false
http://markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html
http://search.proquest.com/openview/3e68837851d5d3cf64d34cd6084288a6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
also the Ki-61 was the best japanese fighter of that stage of the war. the corsair was faster than every japanese fighter it was not better in every way but it was definitely better and absolutely faster.

faster still not means better.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Either way, hopefully it's moddable so that if carrier aircraft are the same as land based planes, we can sort that out, to add depth to both gameplay and historical plausibility, if it's necessary.

I'd be astounded if this wasn't moddable. Essentially the variant links are just another tech to unlock a different piece of equipment. You could probably make the carrier links in the aircraft tech tree unlock a submersible aircraft carrier, if that's what you wanted.

 

[steve213]

faster still not means better.

it kind of dose.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-energy-so-important-in-an-aerial-dogfight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–maneuverability_theory

 

[Acaios]

and since when energy fighting is the only way to do aerial fighting?

according to your vision, the f-104 had to be the best fighter of his time.

 

[BattleMoose]

The thing is, when you have the energy advantage, you get to control the entire engagement. You get to choose when and how to engage and when to disengage. Its impossible to exaggerate the advantage this gives.

"and since when energy fighting is the only way to do aerial fighting?"

The zero was much more maneuverable than the allied fighters. It would win in a dogfight. So, they just didn't dogfight it. They were able to do this because they generally would have an energy advantage. Come in fast, shoot, leave, repeat.

 

[bcoop1701]

As a couple of people pointed out, one of the big drawbacks to developing a navalized version of every light aircraft is each naval version needs to be researched separately which slows down technological progress by some amount.

In-game stats for early naval models should probably be slightly lower than land based versions because the extra weight was more of a factor due to the lower engine power of early models. Late war models like the Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury are at least roughly the equal of non-jet land-based designs for most roles because of the increased power of their engines.

In real life, one other difference between naval fighters and land based fighters is, with the exception of designs directly descended from land based designs (i.e. Supermarine Seafire), that naval aircraft were almost exclusively radial engine designs where you see both radial and inline engine designs for land based aircraft. Radial designs were considered more reliable which is an important consideration for single engine aircraft flying over vast ocean distances.

and since when energy fighting is the only way to do aerial fighting?

according to your vision, the f-104 had to be the best fighter of his time.

I believe that every conflict from WW1 to Vietnam has shown that maneuver fighters are ultimately beaten by energy fighters once the energy fighters' pilots adopt the correct tactics for the reasons that BattleMoose pointed out.

 

[steve213]

and since when energy fighting is the only way to do aerial fighting?

according to your vision, the f-104 had to be the best fighter of his time.

it was.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=113