Deck Parking on Aircraft Carriers

[Amur_Tiger]

What are you arguing here? That they shouldn't use deck parking? Well they did, regardless of losing them in a storm or not, it seems all navies with carriers eventually got around to practicing it.

The paragraph briefly discussing deck parking is to vague to encompass the entire practice when in reference to the Japanese deck parking. When were they short of aircraft to fill the requests? In 1942-1944 before the battle of Saipan I cannot see them not having enough, but afterwards, yes. Especially when their industry began to be bombed. It just doesn't go into enough detail. What carriers did they practice deck parking with? Could the Japanese aircraft carriers carry enough on the top deck to park them, like the American carriers?

I'm arguing that the gameplay change you're proposing

I think that the USA should start with this ability to use more aircraft than what would normally be allowed because as far as I know all their aircraft carriers operated this way. Outside of the Ranger, or other light/escort carriers, it was typical for them to carry 90+ instead of what would normally be 70-80.

Shouldn't happen.

It's specific to the US and pays no mind to the issues with using deck parks, if deck parks are implemented it should be like all of the doctrinal changes available to everyone and it should probably include the downsides to putting planes permanently on the deck.

As far as Japanese deck parks go, there's no characteristic of their carriers, specifically the Shokakus, that would have kept them from using a deck park. However their industrial capacity and their logistics both would have made it more challenging for them to fill out their carriers then it was for the US. Japan started as the weakest major combatant in WWII and the industrial capacity was a huge part of why that was the case, the consequences of that can be seen everywhere.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Hard? Not really, but it did take a carrier out of commission for anywhere from >1 to 3 years for the Essex-class, and 3 years for the Midway-class. I don't know if it could 'fit' in the game (as none of this started until 1953(?) but maybe the final carrier model could have them.

A refit that takes a carrier out of commission for a year or more is pretty hard compared to doctrinal shifts that require a few weeks to fit some new equipment like the lensed landing lights.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Japan started as the weakest major combatant in WWII and the industrial capacity was a huge part of why that was the case, the consequences of that can be seen everywhere.

Nah, Italy was way weaker.

If you check the "warmaking potential" as analysed by postwar US military Japan was almost 50% stronger then Italy.

(source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm )

Japan also had without doubt the strongest fleet of all Axis nations.


But if you compare to USA all nations were weak so...

 

[Daelyn75]

It's specific to the US and pays no mind to the issues with using deck parks, if deck parks are implemented it should be like all of the doctrinal changes available to everyone and it should probably include the downsides to putting planes permanently on the deck.

As far as Japanese deck parks go, there's no characteristic of their carriers, specifically the Shokakus, that would have kept them from using a deck park. However their industrial capacity and their logistics both would have made it more challenging for them to fill out their carriers then it was for the US. Japan started as the weakest major combatant in WWII and the industrial capacity was a huge part of why that was the case, the consequences of that can be seen everywhere.

Incorrect. The size of their deck was smaller. Even the Shinano had only 839 feet of deck. I even quoted the Zuikaku sending off 66 of it's aircraft at the battle of Leyte. I don't think 10 more carrier fighters would be an impossible task for Japan to submit for their Shokaku carriers. It's the size of their top deck that would matter more than not being able to give them a few more aircraft.

Even if aircraft numbers are taking out of the equation, the US carriers had larger top decks than their Japanese counterparts and would be able to park more. I've already quoted and linked the size difference.

When the British put it into practice they could hold more, yes of course. Yet they still couldn't match the numbers the US could because their carriers simply had a larger deck. Each major nation gets their own focuses and bonuses in the game. All I am advocating is that something be taken into consideration to represent that the US carriers could hold more with deck parking. Or top decking what have you. That is all. It's not a huge deal here, but it is something that would better resemble reality.

If the Japanese had larger flight decks and practiced deck parking from the go, then I'd be all for them to have it. All I want is for the US to get what they historically had when it came to larger numbers of aircraft on their carriers.

 

[King Of Heroes]

A Doctrine that removes the hangar overload penalty mentioned earlier up to a certain percentage of the hangar space in good weather could cover this probably.

 

[Daelyn75]

A Doctrine that removes the hangar overload penalty mentioned earlier up to a certain percentage of the hangar space in good weather could cover this probably.

I'd even go for that. The US should start with it. Even when everyone practiced it however, it still doesn't reflect that the US carriers could just carry more by parking them on their deck because their decks were larger.

Anyhow, a doctrine could work here. If you want a larger deck, then just build a carrier with a larger one. Any of the carrier building nations could, so it's not impossible.

In this picture, we can enlarge them, but even so I think that deck parking for all nations needs to be put into consideration. Just remove the deck space efficiency penalty to anything below 25-30% over the maximum.

 

[Axe99]

When the British put it into practice they could hold more, yes of course. Yet they still couldn't match the numbers the US could because their carriers simply had a larger deck. Each major nation gets their own focuses and bonuses in the game. All I am advocating is that something be taken into consideration to represent that the US carriers could hold more with deck parking. Or top decking what have you. That is all. It's not a huge deal here, but it is something that would better resemble reality.

Aye, it's likely the only British carrier that would have come close would have been the Ark Royal, but it went and got sunk before the Brits got into the whole deck park thing. This could still be modelled doctrinally as a percentage increase in base carrier capacity. Flight deck size aside, the US carriers had more capacity for aircraft than British carriers because the British CVs were more heavily armoured (and armed, 8" converted US BCs aside), and generally carried more aviation fuel, so having the US carriers with a 25 per cent (or so, I'd need to look more closely at the numbers to get a precise figure) more capacity, and then have a doctrinal boost that the US can get more easily early than the UK or Japan, and wouldn't that do the job?

 

[Daelyn75]

By the same token, because the British constructed armored carriers, they should (the ones already in the game in 1936) have a higher armor rating, but lower flight deck size to take into account what I quoted on page one:

"The addition of armor to the hangar forced a reduction in top-weight, so the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads. The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck aircraft carrier."

 

[Axe99]

By the same token, because the British constructed armored carriers, they should (the ones already in the game in 1936) have a higher armor rating, but lower flight deck size to take into account what I quoted on page one:

"The addition of armor to the hangar forced a reduction in top-weight, so the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads. The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck aircraft carrier."

Aye, sorry, that was pretty much what I was trying to say - more armour, less aircraft capacity even in the hangars - so when you apply some kind of doctrinal "+ X %" (somewhere between 30 and 50 would be my guess, without looking at the numbers) the boost to the US ships is larger because it's got a larger base figure to begin with. Was talking about starting ships, as once the game starts players can go variant crazy, so not possible to control after that.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Nah, Italy was way weaker.

If you check the "warmaking potential" as analysed by postwar US military Japan was almost 50% stronger then Italy.

(source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm )

Japan also had without doubt the strongest fleet of all Axis nations.


But if you compare to USA all nations were weak so...

Italy wasn't a major combatant in my book, I'm more thinking of the following.

Japan was weaker then the US, USSR, Germany and UK.

Their fleet, while strong amongst the Axis would have only surpassed the USSR's fleet amongst the allies.

Incorrect. The size of their deck was smaller. Even the Shinano had only 839 feet of deck. I even quoted the Zuikaku sending off 66 of it's aircraft at the battle of Leyte. I don't think 10 more carrier fighters would be an impossible task for Japan to submit for their Shokaku carriers. It's the size of their top deck that would matter more than not being able to give them a few more aircraft.

Even if aircraft numbers are taking out of the equation, the US carriers had larger top decks than their Japanese counterparts and would be able to park more. I've already quoted and linked the size difference.

When the British put it into practice they could hold more, yes of course. Yet they still couldn't match the numbers the US could because their carriers simply had a larger deck. Each major nation gets their own focuses and bonuses in the game. All I am advocating is that something be taken into consideration to represent that the US carriers could hold more with deck parking. Or top decking what have you. That is all. It's not a huge deal here, but it is something that would better resemble reality.

If the Japanese had larger flight decks and practiced deck parking from the go, then I'd be all for them to have it. All I want is for the US to get what they historically had when it came to larger numbers of aircraft on their carriers.

List of American Carriers with less deck length then a Shinano:

USS Ranger
USS Yorktown Class
USS Wasp
...

So unless you want to exclude these specifically I suggest you reconsider this being particular to the US, especially since there's already game mechanics in game for differentiating designs.
An across the board bonus just isn't suitable for the design-specific benefits and penalties that represent the reality of the practice and the design choices that enabled it.

 

[Daelyn75]

Aye, it's likely the only British carrier that would have come close would have been the Ark Royal, but it went and got sunk before the Brits got into the whole deck park thing. This could still be modelled doctrinally as a percentage increase in base carrier capacity. Flight deck size aside, the US carriers had more capacity for aircraft than British carriers because the British CVs were more heavily armoured (and armed, 8" converted US BCs aside), and generally carried more aviation fuel, so having the US carriers with a 25 per cent (or so, I'd need to look more closely at the numbers to get a precise figure) more capacity, and then have a doctrinal boost that the US can get more easily early than the UK or Japan, and wouldn't that do the job?

It could. Even if one disagreed with the US only getting the bonus, I would like deck parking to be a part of the game. I no longer think that the US should be the only one, since my own research has informed me that the British later on also practiced it as well. The issue then being that each of these carrier classes were quite different from one another. With the US still holding more aircraft numbers but then that could be negated by the type of variant that is put into place. A higher armor rating should cut into number of aircraft carried, even when top decking.

 

[Daelyn75]

Italy wasn't a major combatant in my book, I'm more thinking of the following.

Japan was weaker then the US, USSR, Germany and UK.

Their fleet, while strong amongst the Axis would have only surpassed the USSR's fleet amongst the allies.



List of American Carriers with less deck length then a Shinano:

USS Ranger
USS Yorktown Class
USS Wasp
...

So unless you want to exclude these specifically I suggest you reconsider this being particular to the US, especially since there's already game mechanics in game for differentiating designs.
An across the board bonus just isn't suitable for the design-specific benefits and penalties that represent the reality of the practice and the design choices that enabled it.

Armor is also taken into consideration here. Please read the comments about that on this page.

 

[Axe99]

It could. Even if one disagreed with the US only getting the bonus, I would like deck parking to be a part of the game. I no longer think that the US should be the only one, since my own research has informed me that the British later on also practiced it as well. The issue then being that each of these carrier classes were quite different from one another. With the US still holding more aircraft numbers but then that could be negated by the type of variant that is put into place. A higher armor rating should cut into number of aircraft carried, even when top decking.

Aye - maybe if there was something like the impact on reliability by increasing other factors on capacity - so an increase in armour on the CV, all else being equal, decreases aircraft capacity, so a variant maxed out on armour and hangar space would never have as much capacity as a variant maxed out on hangar space alone?

Edit: I'm also not sure how to discourage the Japanese from getting a deck park early on as well, or whether this is even appropriate (although I think it is) - like the rest of the game, don't want to put 'hard' blocks in place, but historically plausible challenges.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Armor is also taken into consideration here. Please read the comments about that on this page.

Yup, as with deck size this should be handled by the variants system, though ideally there'd be a way to increase the amount of 'points' available though increases in displacement but this is sorta diving down the rabbit-hole a bit.

To be clear I don't have any issue with different carriers having different abilities, I'd love to see that, I just take issue with nation-wide bonuses being used to represent something that really should be present in the specific unit. UK carriers shouldn't all get armor bonuses, but the Illustrious class should have a lot of armor, likewise with US carriers and their air wings.

 

[Daelyn75]

Aye - maybe if there was something like the impact on reliability by increasing other factors on capacity - so an increase in armour on the CV, all else being equal, decreases aircraft capacity, so a variant maxed out on armour and hangar space would never have as much capacity as a variant maxed out on hangar space alone?

Edit: I'm also not sure how to discourage the Japanese from getting a deck park early on as well, or whether this is even appropriate (although I think it is) - like the rest of the game, don't want to put 'hard' blocks in place, but historically plausible challenges.

True. It's really difficult to gauge how it all worked without actually getting the dimensions of the decks, and how the carrier itself was designed. There were many different kinds. So even if the Japanese did deck park, they just might not have had the room of the initial US carriers that they entered the war with, minus the Ranger of course.

The Japanese tended to store spares that were disassembled in their lowest deck. I have no idea how that could be put into the game. Maybe in that case, just don't even touch on it.

Unless they come out with a very in depth carrier DLC in the future, getting all these things down to something that resembles historical accuracy would be very difficult.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yup, as with deck size this should be handled by the variants system, though ideally there'd be a way to increase the amount of 'points' available though increases in displacement but this is sorta diving down the rabbit-hole a bit.

To be clear I don't have any issue with different carriers having different abilities, I'd love to see that, I just take issue with nation-wide bonuses being used to represent something that really should be present in the specific unit. UK carriers shouldn't all get armor bonuses, but the Illustrious class should have a lot of armor, likewise with US carriers and their air wings.

I think to help with that, the existing carriers that start the game should all be variants with something close to how they worked. The Yorktown was finished late in 1936, and the Enterprise the next year. It's a Yorktown class carrier, so they should be the same variant. The Hornet was also of the same type and was completed in 1940.

So I think that the US should start the game with the Yorktown and the Enterprise under construction. The Soryu was completed by december of 1935, so that should be in the game as well. Traditionally PDS games have always given Japan the Akagi, Kaga. I am not sure if they start with the Soryu. They began constructing the Hiryu in the middle of 1936, so that is up to the player.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

I think to help with that, the existing carriers that start the game should all be variants with something close to how they worked. The Enterprise was finished late in 1936, and the Yorktown the next year. It's a Yorktown class carrier, so they should be the same variant. The Hornet was also of the same type and was completed in 1940.

So I think that the US should start the game with the Enterprise and the Yorktown under construction.

It certainly should in theory, we'll see how careful they are about putting these things together but given how easy that should be to mod I'm not terribly worried about that. Mostly I want to be sure that the variants system is robust and capable. On the DLC note some past threads on the subject of naval affairs have outlined some of my and Axe's desires on that front: linky

 

[Daelyn75]

It certainly should in theory, we'll see how careful they are about putting these things together but given how easy that should be to mod I'm not terribly worried about that. Mostly I want to be sure that the variants system is robust and capable. On the DLC note some past threads on the subject of naval affairs have outlined some of my and Axe's desires on that front: linky

My fear is this -

Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, Kaga, are all level I carriers, and all get the same thing, and deck parking won't be in the game. Worse, they will hold way below their historical aircraft count, and instead base it upon the European carriers which held way less for reasons of armor or size. They've shown the Lexington as a level 1 carrier that holds 30 aircraft, and they've shown the British, and the German carriers with similar capacities.

The Pacific ones generally held many more, and were less armored. In this case, one size doesn't fit for all level 1 carriers. For that reason, they really should begin them all as variants. I suppose if they do not, then we'd have to mod it in. But that shouldn't be necessary, since capital ships were the pride of their navies, and they should all be unique.

 

[alanschu]

Yes, that is also what I thought of after I read what you had wrote.

I think the confusion here (since I also was initially confused) is that in your original post you reference the Lexington and how it would hang planes from the ceiling.

I didn't realize you were talking about putting planes on the flight deck at first either, after reading your initial post.

 

[Daelyn75]

I think the confusion here (since I also was initially confused) is that in your original post you reference the Lexington and how it would hang planes from the ceiling.

I didn't realize you were talking about putting planes on the flight deck at first either, after reading your initial post.

It was based on the original quoted info from Wikipedia. Top decking was all I had to go on from that. More research showed it was deck parking.