No Pre-Dreadnought BB or Aircraft Carrier?

[HarkovAdm]

Is there a good reason for the omission of these ships? I hope the reason isn't 'to dumb down the game'.

Also I hope that the naval units of same type are not all equal. Customization is always fun.

 

[Orinsul]

because its not a wargame?

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

One of the betas mentioned the types in the manual are only the base classes, and there's more to it that will allow things like battlecruisers. We've not heard much else though.

 

[byzantium43]

because its not a wargame?

And for that reason there shouldn't be essential, obvious things like aircraft carriers?
Hate to break it to you but a large part of geopolitics, especially in this period is war. Not having aircraft carriers would be a huge omission. You might as not have dedicated cavalry units and say they are abstracted into infantry because its "not a wargame."

 

[Hardcore_gamer]

There are things like oil fueled inter-war period Battleships in the game as far as I know unless I am mistaken, but I fail to see how aircraft carries would fit into the game mechanics. Victoria 2 isn't a war game so there is no real use for aircraft carries. Not to mention that aircraft carries did not really become effective weapons until World War 2.

 

[Orinsul]

i think from the victoria example, all of one type of warship in one country are the same but ones from other countries would be different due to tech
but there wont be customised warships in the HoI-manner, because this isnt a wargame

and why should there be aircraft carriers?
are there even aircraft? It seems the game no longer has attachments so will the game even have aircraft?
and either way they come in in the last year of the game, not really an essential thing
especially as the game is not a wargame

 

[semaphore]

And for that reason there shouldn't be essential, obvious things like aircraft carriers?
Hate to break it to you but a large part of geopolitics, especially in this period is war. Not having aircraft carriers would be a huge omission. You might as not have dedicated cavalry units and say they are abstracted into infantry because its "not a wargame."

Where and how was aircraft carriers used in prior in the 19th century? Omitting something that did not see any use during virtually the entire timeframe of the game is not a 'huge omission' by any standards.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

TheLand,

The major ship classes you list above (from the Tech Guide) are basic "holding" classes. Those are further modified by Tech into the various classes you're used to seeing. All the old styles are still there, as far as I can remember. They're just represented differently.

Rensslaer

The quote I mentioned.

Where and how was aircraft carriers used in prior in the 19th century? Omitting something that did not see any use during virtually the entire timeframe of the game is not a 'huge omission' by any standards.

I'm fairly sure that was their reasoning. In Revolutions CVs were mainly there for conversion into a HoI game. It would be nice to have the early fleet carriers at game's end, but it wouldn't be worth an entirely new system.

 

[brisduv]

The game goes to 1936, the first aircraft carriers were 20 years or so before then. And yeah I consider V2 a wargame just like V1 was or I'd not be playing it. I am a wargamer not an economist.

 

[Projekt 919]

Is there a good reason for the omission of these ships? I hope the reason isn't 'to dumb down the game'.

Also I hope that the naval units of same type are not all equal. Customization is always fun.

Regular Battleships are Pre-Dreadnoughts, There is a Seperate class called "Dreadnoughts"

CV's were not important in the Vicky Timeframe although they had been introduced by the end of it

I Doubt they would all be the same Particularly in the case of the transition from coal to Oil fired ships and the rapid evolution of Warships post 1890 beyond broad classes

I would love to see some differential in Ship production, however, so say Im playing as Japan, I Have no real need for heavily armored ships due to the general lack of other powerful navies in the area, but a class of Powerfully armed, Lighter armored ships with good propulsion would be benificial For example

Japanese Battleship Circa 1905 in my theoretical game

Armament: 8 X 12 Inch Guns
Eingiene: Steam Turbine
Armor: Lighter (Probably Late Pre-Dreadnought Level)
Hull: Watertight Compartments

Plus Guessing By the Structure of the Technology screen and knowing each Section has Five Catagories, Light Ship, Big Ship, Doctrine and two unknowns, possibly engiens and Armament?

Yes I know I Cant Spell the word Eingiene

 

[Van Diemen]

The game goes to 1936, the first aircraft carriers were 20 years or so before then. And yeah I consider V2 a wargame just like V1 was or I'd not be playing it. I am a wargamer not an economist.

Well you know this already: Victoria II is not a wargame its a more a political and economic game where (as in real life) war is often an extension of diplomacy.

However I do think these elements will be in if a beta already mentioned that they are lacking in the manual. I also saw nothing about submarines, but I'm hopeful that they will be in. I think they won't leave anything out considering military units if it was present in Victoria I.

 

[Projekt 919]

Well you know this already: Victoria II is not a wargame its a more a political and economic game where (as in real life) war is often an extension of diplomacy.

Correction, Politics are the Coninuation of war by other Means - Bismark

 

[Van Diemen]

Correction, Politics are the Continuation of war by other Means - Bismark

If the Victorian age was to be mostly in war then I would agree with Bismark, however IMO most countries were not at war most of the time, so I consider diplomacy to be the more dominant factor. This is just my personal view on the Victorian period .

However I do hope that you also agree that Victoria II is not a wargame, alike the HoI series, otherwise anyone hoping for that will be hugely disappointed.

 

[Projekt 919]

If the Victorian age was to be mostly in war then I would agree with Bismark, however IMO most countries were not at war most of the time, so I consider diplomacy to be the more dominant factor. This is just my personal view on the Victorian period .

However I do hope that you also agree that Victoria II is not a wargame, alike the HoI series, otherwise anyone hoping for that will be hugely disappointed.

I Agree, it is not a wargame, but war was not unimportant, Relativly few wars occured but the ones that happened were hugely important and often decided by the tiniest of factors

A.K.A Japan beating the Beiyang Fleet because china failed to maintain it properly I.E. put enough money in its military slider

 

[ozmono2005]

Correction, Politics are the Coninuation of war by other Means - Bismark

Well it's actually Clausewitz but close enough I guess.

 

[Alex_brunius]

If there is a WW2 that starts in 1930? Why shouldn't Aircraft Carriers be Important then? By 1930 there should be about 10-20 operational aircraft carriers off various sizes in the worlds navies depending on your definitions.

The worlds first naval launched airraids were conducted in 1914 from a Japanese Seaplane tender by the way.

The worlds first dedicated Aircraft carrier was ordered in 1917, and that design was competetive well over 20 years later in WW2.

Both these events give the Aircraft carrier at least 20 years or 1/5:th of the gametime. Omitting them would be like omitting man-o-wars just because they were only useful for the first 20 years. If conversion to HoI3 will be possible at a later stage being able to build CVs is also very important.

If there is an ahistorically early aircraft invention and aircraft industry we might even be talking about 25-30 years of useful CVs. And in Gameterms I think CVs should be very resilient (to reflect their range and difficulty to get close to) but deal low damage.

 

[ozmono2005]

Both these events give the Aircraft carrier at least 20 years or 1/5:th of the gametime. Omitting them would be like omitting man-o-wars just because they were only useful for the first 20 years.

I disagree with that comparison. The difference is at the beggining of the game those ships importance were at their peak while aircraft carriers effectiveness isn't something that is considered of major importance by major nations except mabye Japan until after the 1930's and in many cases not until they are proven in the second world war.

In any event it's a minor detail. Not huge ommision.

 

[Alex_brunius]

In any event it's a minor detail. Not huge ommision.

To my knowledge no or extremely few Battleships or Battlecruisers were built in the Interwar period up until 1936.

But alot of Aircraft carriers were, and the British even started building them earlier during WW1.

So you can argue all you want, but about 100% of the Capital warships built in the game period after 1919 were in fact Carriers.


Finally they were in V1 and worked. So why would they suddenly make the game less detailed now?

 

[ozmono2005]

So you can argue all you want, but about 100% of the Capital warships built in the game period after 1919 were in fact Carriers.

Can you back that up?

Afterall it only takes one Bismark to bump it down from 100%

 

[Alex_brunius]

Can you back that up?

Afterall it only takes one Bismark to bump it down from 100%

Well almost, if we stretch the period to 1922 instead the argument holds (or include the two nelsons as a minor exception).

USAs most modern Battleship in 1936: Colorado class, ordered 1917
UKs most modern Battleship in 1936: Nelson class, ordered 1922
Japans most modern Battleship in 1936: Nagato class, ordered 1918
Italys most modern Battleship in 1936: Andrea Doria class, ordered 1914
Germanys most modern Battleship in 1936: Deutschland class, ordered 1903