CVL-s in Armageddon?

[unmerged(54763)]

CVL-s with CAG in Armageddon?

Will CVL-s in Armageddon have their CAG brigades?.There was once strong debate about this isue.Even in one battle scenario of current Doomsday CVL-s have CAG.

I would like in Armageddon to see CVL-s with their distinctive CAG-s(weaker than CV- CAG,with short fireing distance to match BBs).

Any news,comments?

 

[son of liberty]

Sounds good, but I want cags to be aircraft.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Will CVL-s in Armageddon have their CAG brigades?.There was once strong debate about this isue.Even in one battle scenario of current Doomsday CVL-s have CAG.

I would like in Armageddon to see CVL-s with their distinctive CAG-s(weaker than CV- CAG,with short fireing distance to match BBs).

Any news,comments?

If PI does anything for armageddon I want to see the ingame 'CVLs' given their correct tags of 'CVE' (You can actually see the beginnings of this in the game files but then PI for some reason stopped calling them the correct name and switched to the incorrect CVL!??!?)

The CVL's in the game are CVEs! There are a world of differences between the 2, much more than simply the missions they were tasked to carry out.

Id also like dedicated CVLs along with the existing 'CVE' and a new CVL CAG, keeping CVE as a unit that comes with a CAG built in.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

I will be realy dissapointed if they dont introduce CAG for light carriers in Armageddon. Becouse obviously much effort is done to ad brigades to ships( 5 brigades),so leaving CVLs without natural CAG-s will be somehow strange.

Actualy becouse there is no ofitial response to my question I am worried that they forgoted to ad apropriate CAG-s to CVL-s ?

 

[unmerged(34050)]

Well, I think the CVE is modeled OK as is, without a CAG, as CVE air wings were quite small and their role was ASW and in some cases to provide fighter cover for amphib landings. The problem is that they're named CVL, which is a whole other thing. If the name was just CVE throughout the files and the model names corresponded to CVEs (rather than CVLs), I think everyone would wrap their heads around it OK.

That said, I don't know if there's much point to having a seperate CVL unit (with a CAG with 1/2 the combat stats of a CV--but the same firing range-- to simulate the smaller airwing). It might become the equivalent of the BC--if you can afford to build a CVL, then you really should just build CV instead.

I mean, I suppose if you made a CVL cheap enough (4 IC x 200 days = 800 IC days?) it might be a reasonable thing to build... but then again maybe not.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

^I know what you mean but then there was some strategic desire/need for the CVL, considering how many the US churned out. Perhaps it was also something to do with available shipyards and the size of the ships...this being something that isnt modelled in HOI2, where you can just parallel run 20 large fleet CV if you so desire.

Perhaps fleet CV could do with a small cost increase to make a real CVL more desireable. This would also help smaller navies produce CV's of some sort.

But in answer to OP, I doubt CVLs (CVEs! ) will begetting CAGs. And as stated, since they are technically CVEs anyway, a CAG isnt really warrented.

 

[Ulsterman]

IIRC they want to completely overhaul the naval war system for armaggedon. Just sit back and wait what comes next

 

[noobermenschen]

Well... to play Devil's Advocate:

1) Older CVLs/Es like Long Island or Audacity would not have been able to handle the Hellcats, Corsairs and Avengers the late war CVLs did, and did not carry nearly as many. Yes I know this is also true of CVs like Hermes and Hosho, but my proposed solution would be to limit CAGs no more than three tech levels above their CV.

2) CVL models get pretty fast once you get to the '41-'43 techs, more closely resembling the Independence or Colossus classes than the Commencement Bays (which were very good late war CVE's, giving yeoman service in the Korean War).

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Maybee I am stupid but any aircraft carrier by definition means a ship carrieing planes.What the role,composition,or number of planes is it is not so important.

What is important is that planes can be aeasy replaced with new tipes.In case of Light carrier very very simply replaced,becouse ususaly those are fighter class machines.


One can imagine Americam light carrier in 1940 with biplanes(300 HP) on it,and this same carrier with birds in 1944 ,mighty Wought Corsairs(2600 HP)flying 740 km/h each one capabe to destroy a ship,plane or any other target by will.
In 1940-1944 this carrier was drasticaly changed becouse change of its CAG.
A drastical change of power of CVL,historicaly.
Now lets talk about game.

Tell me.In Armageddon we will have brigades for ships to modernise some important aspects of ships.
Even as they are, CVL-s are obviously crippled in their inaability of modernising their non-egzisiting CAG-s.
In Armageddon the difference will be even more drastic becouse other ships will modernise some of their freatures,but most important single feature of CVL,its planes,will stay as allways.
??

 

[unmerged(42723)]

What's the advantage of having CAGs similar to CVs on CVLs? If then the only diff is probably the stats of both types then you can just build only CVs (or, as a new exploit start spamming the cheaper CVLs with those new CAGs, like some do with lvl 1CVs now)

 

[unmerged(54763)]

What's the advantage of having CAGs similar to CVs on CVLs? If then the only diff is probably the stats of both types then you can just build only CVs (or, as a new exploit start spamming CVLs with those new CAGs, like some do with lvl 1CVs now)

First .advantage is,(damn people do you read)-modernising.

Seccond. is to at last CVL become a carrier.Today CVL in game is just capital ship with telepathic line of sight and from perspective of game mecahanism with lon range guns(representing short range planes in atack )and quite good antiair guns(representing thise same planes in defence)

Third.Well Americans concluded in ww2 that it is better to have many cheap small carriers to cover the seas than just fiew big ones.DuringWW2 USN comissioned 100 carriers,of which around 70 were light carriers.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

IIRC they want to completely overhaul the naval war system for armaggedon. Just sit back and wait what comes next

I hope ,I hope,actualy I know they will do the best they can.
But I think it is allso good from our side to tell them,or at least point them to some problems.Just I am hoping they will not forget Light carriers in this overhaul of the naval war.

 

[noobermenschen]

First .advantage is,(damn people do you read)-modernising.

Seccond. is to at last CVL become a carrier.Today CVL in game is just capital ship with telepathic line of sight and from perspective of game mecahanism with lon range guns(representing short range planes in atack )and quite good antiair guns(representing thise same planes in defence)

Third.Well Americans concluded in ww2 that it is better to have many cheap small carriers to cover the seas than just fiew big ones.DuringWW2 USN comissioned 100 carriers,of which around 70 were light carriers.

First - Yes we read. Stop being so condescending.

Second - BeBro is asking if we're going to treat CVL's just like CV's then what's the point of having them as a seperate class? A legitimate question IMO.

Third - the USN came to the opposite conclusion, namely that CVs had to be bigger to survive. Which means that promising ships like the CVC (a return to a 50,000 ton conventionally powered carrier) or the SCS (Sea Control Ship, a return to the Escort Carrier. Spain actually built it as the Princepe de Austurias) met mysterious and disturbingly violent ends in the dark hallways of the Pentagon, and the Navy got 90,000 ton CVNs

 

[son of liberty]

This cvl/cv mess is easily fixed. Turn cags into aircraft. Make each indiviual "brigade" 1 squadron. Let cve carry 1 squadron. Let cvl carry 2 squadron. let cv carry 4-8 squadrons depending on class/size. I think this would eliminate most of the issues. Except lvl 1 carriers having turbojets.

 

[theokrat]

First .advantage is,(damn people do you read)-modernising.

Not sure if this would be an advantage in the current system. This would just copy the problem of the Carriers as they are right now- incredible rise of power without building any new ships. If you can do this for the much cheaper CVL then this is almoust bound to lead to exploits.

For Armageddon: Well by now we know that there will be upgradeable naval "brigades" (or better equipment), so propably we will see something upgradeable about CVL as well. Wether it will be worth to do it, wether it will be realistic or balanced- we will have to see. I can hardly imagine that there is any way that they are going to change somthing in the design of the Armageddon system just two or so weeks before the release. Well gues once we have the game at hand and played a couple of times we will have a good idea where some changes might be necessary- and then we can hope to get a patch fixing that- but without knowing much about it and so close to the release there is really no point complaining about or demanding anything...

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Second - BeBro is asking if we're going to treat CVL's just like CV's then what's the point of having them as a seperate class? A legitimate question IMO.

Third - the USN came to the opposite conclusion, namely that CVs had to be bigger to survive...

They are obviously vessels of wide & divergent capabilities- that is reason enough to have them treated as a seperate class.

I would also sugest that strictly in the WW2 timeframe the US most certainly favoured many smaller cariers (at least for CVE's). The numbers built of each type are evidence enough of that.

Granted, things change again after WW2 but that is a different issue.

This cvl/cv mess is easily fixed. Turn cags into aircraft. Make each indiviual "brigade" 1 squadron. Let cve carry 1 squadron. Let cvl carry 2 squadron. let cv carry 4-8 squadrons depending on class/size. I think this would eliminate most of the issues. Except lvl 1 carriers having turbojets.

A method such as this, with a few tweeks would be a good way of improving the system. It could be taken further by allowing the player to customise flight groups...the ratio of bombers to fighters changed drastically from start to end of war)

This could further allow players to tailor their carriers for their fleets- do you favour a SAG- which probably means you want heavier fighter cover or an carrier attack fleet- a greater proportion of bombers for example...would be very interesting...

 

[noobermenschen]

I would also sugest that strictly in the WW2 timeframe the US most certainly favoured many smaller cariers (at least for CVE's). The numbers built of each type are evidence enough of that.

Granted, things change again after WW2 but that is a different issue.

Very true, the main issue is money. The US Navy had an unlimited budget during WWII, and built 30 CVs in addition to all the CVEs, which were incredibly useful (they were used as aircraft transports well into the 1960's). Once the peacetime budgets came back into effect, there was not enough money for small carriers and large, and the USN decided to stick with its "gold watch" to use Pentagon jargon.

Now I'm not saying this was the correct choice, as CVEs were critical to the war effort (off topic, so was mine warfare, but the USN also chose to completely ingore this as well when budgets got tight). But a larger Carrier is of course easier to upgrade over many years, and CVEs could be built in a comparitavely very short time. This was also the reason CVEs were not built before the war. The Royal Navy had considered that "mercantile", or "auxilliary" carriers would be very useful for trade protection as early as the '30s, but put their money into fleet carriers for the same reasons as the USN.

As far as the game goes, treating CAGs like aircraft squadrons is intriguing (I keep picturing those little plastic planes from Axis and Allies sitting on the little plastic carriers :rofl: ) but I suspect that is a very major change in the code, one that would have to wait for HoI3 if then. You're also talking about making air units smaller and more numerous, and running the risk of micromanagement hell (which some already complain about in air campaigns).

 

[son of liberty]

Air units would not need to be smaller. remember these are brigades. So you could have a ftr brigade, a bomber brigade, a torpedo bomber brigade, helicopter bragade, scouts, asw aircraft etc... extreme customization would be possible. Then equiping cvl's with fighters to escort your fleets makes sense even in a ctf.

 

[son of liberty]

Imagine among other things the positioning bonus from a scout plane brigade. Leading to a "search" fleet spotting for a "combat" fleet. Or a squadron of s-3 vikings catching german subs napping, and helping to vector in your asw fleet.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

First - Yes we read. Stop being so condescending.

Second - BeBro is asking if we're going to treat CVL's just like CV's then what's the point of having them as a seperate class? A legitimate question IMO.

Third - the USN came to the opposite conclusion, namely that CVs had to be bigger to survive. Which means that promising ships like the CVC (a return to a 50,000 ton conventionally powered carrier) or the SCS (Sea Control Ship, a return to the Escort Carrier. Spain actually built it as the Princepe de Austurias) met mysterious and disturbingly violent ends in the dark hallways of the Pentagon, and the Navy got 90,000 ton CVNs

Light carriers are carriers.Primary goal was escort ,ASW...But they were used also for atack duties, espetialy landing supports in Pacific.
So deviding Carriers is artifital,and rigid military practice.It is administrative question.

Light carrier should be able to do mayority of duties of big carriers if necesary.Primarily of corse they should escort etc..

Well yor argument that Americans tought diferently than I sad :Why do you think they built so many Light carriers?

I would ask one general question:

There was spetial naval fighter-bombers constructed for Light carriers,or they are the same as machines on Fleet carriers?
They were the same(just in small numbers on light carriers).They carried guns, bombs,and torpedoes.
Conclusion about capabilities of Light carriers and their diverstiy of use is obvious.
Hypothetical situation: You are captain of Light carrier that have asingment of escorting some ships .Your reconscience plane locates enemy cruiser fiew miles of your fllet!Will you run away, or will you alarm your fleet( "possitioning of your fleet"), and then send all 10-20 of your planes to try to sunk this ship?
What would do captain of Big carrier?
Same thing.Only diference is that Big carrier was not ususaly in such tactical role.

Or I am again wrong?