Development Diary #18 - 25th of February 2009

[Thracian]

it seems radar will really make difference this time

if your ships locate enemy fleet, will they have to attack them? or will there be an option like "run if enemy is stronger than you"

 

[vertinox]

A Carrier is a carrier, you equip it with a CAG. We don't want that level of micromanagement.

Can CAGs attack land targets?

I know you can't have 4 engine bombers on deck, but US and Japan did attack ground targets with fighters when their bombers were out of range.

 

[Merrivale]

I have to agree that this system brushes up against greatness, but would do better to allow more granularity in CAG construction and if a mission applies to the whole CAG or just parts of it. The big problem with the system as described is that it cannot replicate some of the reasons behind the US victory at Midway. Planes equipped with the wrong bombs, the carrier runways tied up by the need to land returning aircraft, and the cat-and-mouse game of what you choose to strike with and what you choose to leave in reserve. As Midway showed, there is a big difference between having aircraft on a carrier ready to strike a land target and ready to strike a naval target and making the wrong decision can cause major problems. Sure this is somewhat covered by having the whole CAG group assigned to one mission and have it be the wrong one, but I think that concept misses out on a potentially better way.

If I understand the system as presented correctly, players have an all or nothing choice: strike with the whole CAG and leave the carrier undefended or focus on defending the carrier and not be able to strike at all, except at the opposition's CAGs which may or may not be striking. Imagine a scenario where both parties decide to focus on defense and a carrier naval battle occurs without anyone launching any planes. In such a case I think you've created more micromanagement, not less, by forcing the player to constantly change the mission of his entire CAG group as the situation changes rather than giving orders to 1/2 to stay behind and defend the carrier and 1/2 to strike and potentially return focus to say, the massive land battles raging on the Eastern front. And I think you're somewhat needlessly losing the ability to follow your mantra for this game and give more control to the players, if they want it. Just mimic what you're already doing with other units where composition is something that has defaults, but that the player can monkey around with if they want.

This is all from a player who doesn't like micromanagement and never got into Vicky--the way described would, I think, give me more micro headaches than giving me the ability to fine tune my CAG composition and orders before engagements and not have to worry that every hour I'm not watching what is going on I'm blowing the whole battle by not switching around naval attack order to defend.

 

[dpdlc]

Since CAGs are separate and are treated like an air unit stationed on on Aircraft carrier.

Does that mean, CAGs will loose ORG/STR from AA fire on defending ships?

 

[aphrochine]

What about CVL's/CVE's? Will they also have cag's? For example could my taskforce of 8 cv's and 2 cvl's use the cvl cags for barcap while sending the cv cags on an alpha strike?

@ General Schuerman: CVE's could easily transport replacement aircraft to CV's at sea. I see no reason to return to port to replace damaged aircraft. For that matter, the planes could just fly to the carrier from nearby bases.

In most cases, CVs returned to port to replentish their air group.

The real loss wasnt the planes, but was the pilots to fly them. Most CVs carried a small hand full of dissembled aircraft for parts and so had spare planes on board already. CV trained pilots didnt just fall off trees either. The pool of CV trained pilots was a small group and those pilots where never transported along side a CTF as replentishment. They usually resided at larger naval bases, the same bases replacement aircraft would be readily available. In some cases, usually when another CV was heavily damaged, pilots transfered to another CV and operated from that deck.

CVE's where horribly slow, being mostly converted transports. An so a main combat force would never include them. Which doesnt mean the possibility of the replentishment fleet couldnt have been organized and trailed the main force, this just wasnt a common practice. Only the US late in the war actually had sufficient carrier decks to actually provide that level of replentishment.

 

[kstanb]

If I understand the system as presented correctly, players have an all or nothing choice: strike with the whole CAG and leave the carrier undefended or focus on defending the carrier and not be able to strike at all, except at the opposition's CAGs which may or may not be striking.

Another possibility (which I am not sure if it is feasible),

let say that when you launch your CAG, you choose an "aggressive" stand, then you will use your entire CAG as a strike force, so it is an all or nothing, leaving your carrier undefended

if you choose a "conservative" attack, your carrier will gain some air defense, modeling that some planes were left to defend, while at the same time your CAG attack values will be reduced,

 

[unmerged(34050)]

Another possibility (which I am not sure if it is feasible),

let say that when you launch your CAG, you choose an "aggressive" stand, then you will use your entire CAG as a strike force, so it is an all or nothing, leaving your carrier undefended

if you choose a "conservative" attack, your carrier will gain some air defense, modeling that some planes were left to defend, while at the same time your CAG attack values will be reduced,

Problem with this is that a CAP should protect the entire fleet, not just the carrier.

Now if a carrier gave all ships in the task force a bonus in air defense (a la radar in a province in HOI2), whether the CAG was present or not (simulating the idea that there will always be some fighters left home for CAP), that might be a workable solution...

 

[Napalm Eddie]

It was stated a long time ago that the AI will play by the same rules as human players.

I know that in most games I play, the AI never follows the rules that the humans do. It would be nice to see them somehow work out a way to keep the AI navy as close to realistic as possible. I trust that they will do their best.

 

[Nilmerf]

I assume CVLs can be built by clicking the aircraft carrier button. But will they become obsolete and unbuildable when you advance in tech? It would be nice to build some cheaper carriers to act as spotters and escorts for your surface fleets.

 

[Myth]

This looks quite excellent

 

[unmerged(61311)]

I didn't read all of the posts, so forgive me if this has been mentioned all ready.

--But, I noticed that the ships in the combat window have 2 turrets on the front and 1 in the back, is that purely aesthetic, or does it have any actual effect? That is, if you chose to disengage, then your ships would turn the other direction(away from combat), and thus only the single back turret would be able to fire. I know not all ships had a 2-1 turret configuration, but i think its reasonable to assume most had a similar configuration.

I think that would be a good way to model a fighting retreat of sorts.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

With this system, it seems to me that they will have to bunch up smaller carriers to allow them to accommodate the one-size-fits-all CAG.

In other words, you buy one fleet carrier because it can accommodate 1 CAG. On the other hand, CVL's in the game represent two ships and CVE units represent 3 or 4 CVE's.

At least that's the only way I can see to have one CAG be able to work with carriers of different capacities.

 

[Fielding]

I didn't read all of the posts, so forgive me if this has been mentioned all ready.

--But, I noticed that the ships in the combat window have 2 turrets on the front and 1 in the back, is that purely aesthetic, or does it have any actual effect? That is, if you chose to disengage, then your ships would turn the other direction(away from combat), and thus only the single back turret would be able to fire. I know not all ships had a 2-1 turret configuration, but i think its reasonable to assume most had a similar configuration.

I think that would be a good way to model a fighting retreat of sorts.

It's just a graphic - no relation whatsoever to the mechanics of naval combat.

 

[unmerged(34050)]

With this system, it seems to me that they will have to bunch up smaller carriers to allow them to accommodate the one-size-fits-all CAG.

In other words, you buy one fleet carrier because it can accommodate 1 CAG. On the other hand, CVL's in the game represent two ships and CVE units represent 3 or 4 CVE's.

At least that's the only way I can see to have one CAG be able to work with carriers of different capacities.

Actually, the CAGs "efficiency" will be modified by the quality of the carrier's "hanger" tech, so that a CAG in a big US carrier (bigger "hanger" tech") would operate at maybe 100% efficiency, while a CAG in a British armored carrier or a CVL (smaller "hanger" tech) would operate at maybe 50% efficiency to reflect the smaller air wing + the less efficient operational qualities of the ship.

 

[kstanb]

Problem with this is that a CAP should protect the entire fleet, not just the carrier.

Now if a carrier gave all ships in the task force a bonus in air defense (a la radar in a province in HOI2), whether the CAG was present or not (simulating the idea that there will always be some fighters left home for CAP), that might be a workable solution...

Yes, in principle, but that will be more difficult to implement, also, notice that we are not talking about a carrier defense patrol, it would be just a very small number of fighters left to defense in case of surprise attack, so their main focus would be in defending their carrier

 

[unmerged(58571)]

... but a CAG for a small CVE would still cost exactly as much (implying the same amount of equipment and pilots) as a CAG for a full-size CV. On the other hand, a super-size CV with >100% hangar space would get more than the nominal combat values for the same cost.

 

[Chilango2]

I'd like to see some screens of the provine layout in North America. It's not the most important theather in the world, but fighting a war there felt stupid because of the bad province design, especillay if you had the confederarte states in and were playing something like HMS Enterprize's T-191 mod.

It also comes up in late end games for the USSR or Axis where they decide to conquer the sleeping giant so...

 

[Chief Savage Ma]

Teehee. Assmann. Looks great. I never really got into navy in HoI2, I always preferred land and air-based forces which means I never really enjoyed playing as the UK, Japan or USA that much.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

Actually, the CAGs "efficiency" will be modified by the quality of the carrier's "hanger" tech, so that a CAG in a big US carrier (bigger "hanger" tech") would operate at maybe 100% efficiency, while a CAG in a British armored carrier or a CVL (smaller "hanger" tech) would operate at maybe 50% efficiency to reflect the smaller air wing + the less efficient operational qualities of the ship.

I'm not sure if it will work this way or not. It seems to me that the carrier hangar tech value would apply to all of your carriers the same way...unless each type of carrier has a different modifier value, as you imply. In any event seems a cumbersome system which is forced upon us by the designer's insistence upon making all CAG's generic and unvarying.

All the changes to the naval combat system are nice and helpful, but in the end I am left with the impression that the Paradox designers are much more interested in land battles to the exclusion of anything else, and the air and sea battle systems are pretty much of secondary interest and concern - and as a result, they merit these unrealistic, simplified work-arounds.

 

[unmerged(34050)]

Agree with gunnergoz very much. I'd love to be able to (for example) define HMS Illustrious' CAG as 12 Fulmars + 24 Albacores and be able to send the 24 Albacores on a strike mission while the Fulmars perform CAP over the fleet, but we'll never get that level of "granularity." Unless HOI3 is as easy to mod as has been hinted at in which case all the naval/carrier geeks will have a ball.