CVL's and CAG's

[Shadow Master]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arrrgh! I just spent several days working my way back too the point I was at 2 weeks ago in my 1936 Germany game (I had decided to try something a little different). I built a CVL, but when I click on deploy for the CAG, no options. When I click on the CVL and goto the 'attach brigade' button, it says 'no brigades can be added to this type of unit'!

Do CVL's not carry the same CAG's as CV's? Or am I missing something?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arrrgh! I just spent several days working my way back too the point I was at 2 weeks ago in my 1936 Germany game (I had decided to try something a little different). I built a CVL, but when I click on deploy for the CAG, no options. When I click on the CVL and goto the 'attach brigade' button, it says 'no brigades can be added to this type of unit'!

Do CVL's not carry the same CAG's as CV's? Or am I missing something?

CVL's don't carry CAG's. The airplane they do carry are abstracted in theirs statistics

 

[Shadow Master]

Thanks for the speedy reply!

So let me understand this, then. The CVL will have combat values such as surface ships, but will not get the 100+ 'firing range' afforded too the CV's by their CAG's?

As this massively extended range is the sole point to building any carrier, is there thus any point to building CVL's? If this is the case, that means that is a show stopper!

All my playing time for 2 weeks wasted! Grrrrr.

 

[blue emu]

As this massively extended range is the sole point to building any carrier, is there thus any point to building CVL's? If this is the case, that means that is a show stopper!

CVLs are not first-line combat vessels... they are Fleet auxiliaries. They are valuable, not for their attack factors, but for their Detection-to-Visibility ratios... they have the second-best D-t-V ratio in the game after Fleet Carriers.

Adding one or two CVLs to a Battleship task force will greatly increase their Positioning, and will boost their ability to close in to gun range when facing enemy Carrier Task Forces.

I also add two or three CVLs to each Carrier Task Force, to further improve the TF's Positioning... thus increasing the odds of holding open the range, and making my fire more accurate (better Positioning equals more hits on enemy core vessels instead of screening vessels).

CVLs are not "broken"... they are very valuable ships, if you know what they are for, and use them properly.

 

[theokrat]

There is also the thread by blue emu in the DD forums (where this thread would belong too)

 

[unmerged(54763)]

I think it is not a shame to admitt that CVL as a unit is totaly neglected during production af Armageddon.

Shadowmaster only pointed to thing on which I pointed on the first day I downloaded my Armageddon.

I was anfortunate to withness neglection of my arguments even before,and after Armageddon was released:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294189

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294214

CVL is only surface combat ship(read please again- only surface and combat ship)that has no atachment brigade. This makes CVL a dark sheep amongst all capital ships.
Imagine,you can have lvl 1 CVL(equiped with biplanes)in 1944,even in 1964?
And you cant replace its detachment of planes.You are playing and aproximate in your had-what?-that your CVL 1 still in 1964 has biplanes on its deck while all cariers posses jet planes?It hurts.
Where is logic in that?What abstractions?
The one most simple imaginable improvement of ship is-simply to replace planes on the deck of carriers with new models.
I repeat,single most simple improvement imaginable of one vessel.
And CVL is-aircraft carrier vessel.
And we cant hide from painful observation that CVL has not that most simple improvement capability.


In that very first of my Armageddon games in desperation I changed my CVL-s .I enabled atachment of-fire control.This change,however imperfect, prevents pain to my logic when all surface combat ships are improving while my CVL stays the same.And it looks better.

 

[Shadow Master]

Ah ha! Now I see where all the other HoI players make their posts, lol. Not used to being a member of such a huge message board community that it has a screen full of stickies! I kept looking at that page and thinking "where are all the HoI players?", Lol. o o o

 

[unmerged(14102)]

This makes CVL a dark sheep amongst all capital ships.

Hmmm, I would not consider a CVL a capital ship. Many of these were built on transport or light cruiser hulls. Their missions were also not as capital ships. They were used for anti-sub, convoy escort, and even as simple aircraft transports and aircraft replenishment ships.

As Blue Emu states, these were not first line ships at all. The few times they got in that role, the losses were staggering. They simply did not carry the air group complement to survive AND they were too slow.

Personally, I think that the current CVL usage in the game a bit of an exploit. As Blue Emu suggests, they are VERY powerful when put into a SAG. But IRL, I don't think that would have happened. Most of the CVL's were just too slow, too thin skinned, and too weak in terms of air groups. Comm's in this era just weren't sophisticated enough to coordinate them as the SOV's did with their CVL's in the Cold War era. Think about Midway where the JAP tried to coordinate 3 groups and just could not do it effectively.

I'll defer to the "Naval Nutjobs" on this, but until then....

PS: OTOH, I do 'enjoy' the CVL exploit because it is so fun to whoop up on the USA CV's with the KMS Bismark!

 

[Draigh]

Imagine,you can have lvl 1 CVL(equiped with biplanes)in 1944,even in 1964?
And you cant replace its detachment of planes.You are playing and aproximate in your had-what?-that your CVL 1 still in 1964 has biplanes on its deck while all cariers posses jet planes?It hurts.

If anything, I'd say the normal CV's are broken... It's more realistic to have biplanes in '64 than it is to have turbojets take off a great war carrier.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

If anything, I'd say the normal CV's are broken... It's more realistic to have biplanes in '64 than it is to have turbojets take off a great war carrier.

Have to agree. At lest the first is physically possible. An F4 off of the original Enterprise? I don't think they can make catapults that strong yet.

 

[unmerged(42794)]

Well, quite a few Mods have CVLs with a CAG, I agree. If they might not be able to upgrade to jets, they still could upgrade to modern WW2 non jet aircrafts.
Considering that Paradox mixed together CVLs and Escort Carriers, having CAGs on those ships is not unreasonable at all.

 

[th3freakie]

Well, quite a few Mods have CVLs with a CAG, I agree. If they might not be able to upgrade to jets, they still could upgrade to modern WW2 non jet aircrafts.
Considering that Paradox mixed together CVLs and Escort Carriers, having CAGs on those ships is not unreasonable at all.

Even late propeler aircraft on those old ww1s seems unrealistic... Plus they should only be flying light recon aircraft anyway.

 

[Shadow Master]

Lots of good information here. My OP was made in frustration caused by the ruining of my latest game (I thought I was improving the last games pre-war build up by researching CV's and building CVL's) so that I could make a better start on the little wars (with France/UK), and thus be better positioned for my main war with USSR. The fact that CVL's in DD are not actually carriers means that I now have to go back and restart the game from before I began too research them, change all my production, ect...

Have any of you guys run into a French DoW for doing CV/CVL research in Jan 1936? Every time I tried to play that out, I got (100%) a French DoW in 1936. Usually by early April, but once made it to June. Everything else I did as normally (for me, not historical) and never had the French DoW me then.

I've had problems with French DoW for other things, as well. Such as selecting 'Hawk' on the dip sliders on Jan 1 1936. By itself this would not matter if I played as historically, but for my variant made for a 100% French DoW as well. I solved this by selecting 'Standing Army' instead.

 

[theokrat]

Have any of you guys run into a French DoW for doing CV/CVL research in Jan 1936? Every time I tried to play that out, I got (100%) a French DoW in 1936. Usually by early April, but once made it to June. Everything else I did as normally (for me, not historical) and never had the French DoW me then.

No thats because you are either too much into the Spain thing or you play with democracies can dow enabled. Keep in mind hte French are hard coded to dow Germany at any given chance. Even in the game.

 

[Spruce]

Come again that CVL discussion !

It's very simple - a CVL unit is like "putting long range eyes to your other capitals like BB's - BC's and CA's ".

The only way to sink a carrier fleet with a battleship fleet is to have 2 CVL's grouped in the stack.

CVL's are "eyes" and not the "hammer" to knock out enemy capital ships - altough they do have a small sea attack value (and very often they sink some ships). They should not get the power from a fleet carrier.

In one of my Germany games I played a pure Bismarck strategy along with building CLV's. With this approach you can defeat the Royal Navy - and even their carriers. Battleships with CVL's are great at night ... when the enemy pilots are sleeping in their bunks ... kaboum.

The BB's+CVL are equal in strength until 1943 - from 1944 on the new generations of fleet carriers reduce your battleships to "bombardment duty".

ps = they are also great for sub hunting and IIRC also great for convoy raiding

 

[Shadow Master]

No thats because you are either too much into the Spain thing or you play with democracies can dow enabled. Keep in mind the French are hard coded to dow Germany at any given chance. Even in the game.

The SCW usually has not happened yet! I have HoI2DD v1.3a and that's it. No mods or anything. Is this what you were thinking or no?

 

[unmerged(42794)]

It is just a fact that Paradox made them the eye only, which is not what they were in RL.
Light Carriers were used in actual combat, as in their CAG (modern WW2 airplanes) taking off and attacking other ships.
And the largest bulk of light cariers was build in WW2, not in WW1.

Escort Carriers often were emergency merchant ship converts, out there only to spot potential threats against convoys, but not to function as they eye of the BB, but a weapon against submarines.
The only nation that comes close to have tried to use the CVL as it is used in this game is Germany with the Graf Zeppelin (class).

This was the classic BB escorting and defending CVL, all other nations used them for offensive operations.

 

[Micah Goodman 2]

I think 90 percent of the CVL threads would go away if they were called CVE's like they should be. Shilo, the only three countries that actually deployed CVL's were Japan, the UK, and the US. The US would normally take two fleet carriers and one CVL and group them with support units. In game CVL's (wich I will call CVE's for the sake of discussion are moddeled correctly for CVE's. The carried only fighters and divebombers. Larger torpedo bombers could not operate from them. If you group CVE's into ASW groups, socuts for surface groups or even escorts for transport fleets you will almost always perform better than without them.

If you put asside the fact that the CVE's are misnamed CVL's they work perfactly. If you want to attach CAG's to them to make them into CVL's follow the link in my sig and you can download a mod to do so.

 

[unmerged(42794)]

I think 90 percent of the CVL threads would go away if they were called CVE's like they should be. Shilo, the only three countries that actually deployed CVL's were Japan, the UK, and the US. The US would normally take two fleet carriers and one CVL and group them with support units. In game CVL's (wich I will call CVE's for the sake of discussion are moddeled correctly for CVE's. The carried only fighters and divebombers. Larger torpedo bombers could not operate from them. If you group CVE's into ASW groups, socuts for surface groups or even escorts for transport fleets you will almost always perform better than without them.

If you put asside the fact that the CVE's are misnamed CVL's they work perfactly. If you want to attach CAG's to them to make them into CVL's follow the link in my sig and you can download a mod to do so.

Exactly, Paradox either made them wrong or named the wrong, the current situation however, is not correct.
And well, Britain and Japan and the US were the only nations who build carriers in significant numbers anyways, as such, if the build CVLs, the whole world build them, who else did? Brazil, Germany? I really wouldn't count them as carrier building nations.

Edit: I think that with the current convoy system, CVEs would have no place in the game as individual units.
They are part of the escort system as CVEs were almost only used for escorting duties (by the UK and the US), they could maybe be added through techs giving better escort efficiency.

 

[xtfoster]

...Most of the CVL's were just too slow...

I think you are confusing CVL's and CVE's.

The Independence-class CVLs were built on/from Cleveland-class CL hulls and had more than enough speed (31.5 knot) to keep up with Battleships (~28 knot).
The Saipan-class CVLs were built on/from Baltimore-class CL hull and had the speed (33 knot) to keep up with both the Iowa-class (fast) Battleships and Essex-class Carriers.

Most of the Escort Carriers were built on/from converted Merchant Ships (or Fleet Oilers) but towards the end of the war (Casablanca and Commencement Bay class) were purpose built. Since they were designed as/for Convoy Escorts, they only needed to be fast enough to keep up with the convoys (~20 knots).

I guess the question is...what the CVLs in-game really are?
Are they CVLs with Fleet Carrier Speed but small CAGs (1/2 to 2/3)?
Or are they CVEs with Transport Speed and VERY SMALL CAGs (1/4 to 1/3)?