Quick Thought on Early Carriers

[OutsiderSubtype]

In HOI2 and Darkest Hour the CVI model (1920s converted BBs and BCs like Lexington or Akagi) had worse Sea and Air Attack values than the CVIII (1937ish, e.g. Yorktown-class).

That never sat quite right with me. Given same tech CAGs, converted CVs like Lexington or Akagi should be just as good at attacking ships as Yorktown or Soryu. If anything they should be slightly better given their higher displacement and larger CAGs. Instead, early model CVs should be worse than late interwar CVs in one or more of these ways:

• Time and industrial cost efficiency to build
• Speed
• Defense against subs
• AA defense

Now this might not hold true for later models like Essex, those should just be all around better than everything before them.

 

[YellowMoonshine]

I'd add to that list:

• Aircraft capacity
• Aircraft organisation regain rate(if applicable to HOI4)

 

[Denkt]

Everything you can ask for is handeled by the variant system, read dev diary 8 if you haven't.

 

[Dunbal]

Defense against subs? Seriously, a massive hulk like an aircraft carrier has no defense against subs. It's a massive bullseye saying "sink me" to any submarine in the same ocean. First, it will never hear the sub because it is so noisy. Second, it will never be able to maneuver to avoid incoming torpedoes - these hulks don't turn on a dime and they don't lose their speed almost instantly when the engines are slammed into reverse like a destroyer can. Think momentum. p = mv. And there is a lot - a LOT - of "m".

The only defense against subs a carrier had or even has nowadays is via its aircraft. That, and the fact that carriers usually are going full pelt or close to it, making it very very hard for a WW2 sub to catch up to them and set up an attack. Since aircraft and air patrols are modeled separately I think that CV's should always have ZERO as a "defense against subs" characteristic. In fact if this value could be negative (ie, a sub magnet) even better

 

[Issac1709]

Defense against subs? Seriously, a massive hulk like an aircraft carrier has no defense against subs. It's a massive bullseye saying "sink me" to any submarine in the same ocean. First, it will never hear the sub because it is so noisy. Second, it will never be able to maneuver to avoid incoming torpedoes - these hulks don't turn on a dime and they don't lose their speed almost instantly when the engines are slammed into reverse like a destroyer can. Think momentum. p = mv. And there is a lot - a LOT - of "m".

The only defense against subs a carrier had or even has nowadays is via its aircraft. That, and the fact that carriers usually are going full pelt or close to it, making it very very hard for a WW2 sub to catch up to them and set up an attack. Since aircraft and air patrols are modeled separately I think that CV's should always have ZERO as a "defense against subs" characteristic. In fact if this value could be negative (ie, a sub magnet) even better

I want to point out that momentum is no mv but mv(squared)/2. There really isnt much v on an aircraft carrier and the (squared) only applies to v if you know your physics. But then you are right that carriers are useless at sub defence

 

[LostAlone]

It's a difficult thing to model these things. Essentially, if CVIs are even marginally better than later carriers then players won't build new carriers. The downsides of cost and speed of build are clearly downsides, but considering these are fairly big ticket items (ie you build ten or fifty of them, not thousands) so unless the mark-up is absolutely huge it's not big enough to worry about.

And that's the problem with making a game instead of just modeling the real world. In the real world a carrier built from the ground up has all kinds of benefits that won't show up in it's stats in a game that's on the level of abstraction as HOI. It's also worth pointing out that 'sidegrades' are really unsatisfying for players - they make tech progression feel meaningless and uninteresting and don't push players to ever mess with their existing units.

I totally get what the OP is saying. In a perfect game we'd see this kind of stuff reflected but it seems unlikely that PDS will make older units even arguably better than new ones. It's just bad game design. Maybe they'll find a way and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt if they try but I'd imagine they'll reflect what we as players expect rather than the real history of carriers.

 

[pheonicia]

I want to point out that momentum is no mv but mv(squared)/2. There really isnt much v on an aircraft carrier and the (squared) only applies to v if you know your physics. But then you are right that carriers are useless at sub defence

No, you're thinking of kinetic energy, momentum is mass times velocity.

As for something not totally off-topic, I think the OP makes a good point.

 

[Issac1709]

No, you're thinking of kinetic energy, momentum is mass times velocity.

As for something not totally off-topic, I think the OP makes a good point.

Well I might want to steal my physics exam from the teacher and make some corrections to it..

 

[SchwarzKatze]

It's a difficult thing to model these things. Essentially, if CVIs are even marginally better than later carriers then players won't build new carriers. The downsides of cost and speed of build are clearly downsides, but considering these are fairly big ticket items (ie you build ten or fifty of them, not thousands) so unless the mark-up is absolutely huge it's not big enough to worry about.

And that's the problem with making a game instead of just modeling the real world. In the real world a carrier built from the ground up has all kinds of benefits that won't show up in it's stats in a game that's on the level of abstraction as HOI. It's also worth pointing out that 'sidegrades' are really unsatisfying for players - they make tech progression feel meaningless and uninteresting and don't push players to ever mess with their existing units.

For such important assets such as aircraft carriers, if PDX can't even make the benefit outweight the cost, then it's clearly a design flaw. What is it you have in mind that can't be represented in game by the aforementioned plus reliability? I can only think of 1) top-heaviness 2) habitability 3) deck length, affecting Ryujō, Kaga and Akagi, Hōshō respectively, which are treaty-limited, BC conversion, BB conversion, experimental design respectively.

IMHO they should just be make unavailable, since nations who had them had newer designs already, and those who don't were unlikely to design new carriers for biplanes anyway.

 

[Mitsugi]

Resilience, for one thing. The problem with adapting a design to a completely different purpose is that in many cases the systems are placed where they can fit, whether it's a good place or not. For example, Kaga's backup generator for her firefighting pumps was mounted on the upper hangar deck. Why, yes, that is the location most vulnerable to bomb hits (and, for that matter, fires). Because she was not designed to be an aircraft carrier, and that was where space could be found for it. A competent keel-up design would never have put such a vital piece of damage control equipment in such an exposed location.

Some of the problem was also that these ships were 10-15 years old, and were simply designed with less experience and knowledge. So Akagi's rudders were rigidly braced to the hull, which meant the shock damage from the near miss at Midway disabled them. And the Lexingtons (as well as the Japanese carriers) had just port and starboard fire mains, which meant that a broken pipe knocked out firefighting for half the ship. The Yorktowns had much more finely divided fire protection. The older ships also used cast iron pipes, which were much more brittle than the steel used later.

 

[Dunbal]

Well I might want to steal my physics exam from the teacher and make some corrections to it..

Yeah, you're thinking of KE which happens to be the integral of momentum...

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Everything you can ask for is handeled by the variant system, read dev diary 8 if you haven't.

People seem to have ignored this post. I see no reason why most or all of the shortcomings of earlier generations of HOI alluded to by the OP can't be handled reasonably well in the game, at least as far as we know it now.
And although the details of conversion described by Mitsugi here cannot be represented in the game, clearly the "reliability" rating will some of the work of showing why the Akagi and Lexington were easier to sink than later CV's.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Yeah, that's what reliability means precisely.

Reliability - This stat is a little more complicated than the others. The other 3 upgrades all reduce Reliability a little while this upgrade counters the effect. Could also be thought of as "systematology" or "ship-shapedness", it's basically how well put together the ship is. A low Reliability makes the ship more vulnerable to critical hits in combat.

 

[DocMorningstar]

In HOI2 and Darkest Hour the CVI model (1920s converted BBs and BCs like Lexington or Akagi) had worse Sea and Air Attack values than the CVIII (1937ish, e.g. Yorktown-class).

That never sat quite right with me. Given same tech CAGs, converted CVs like Lexington or Akagi should be just as good at attacking ships as Yorktown or Soryu. If anything they should be slightly better given their higher displacement and larger CAGs. Instead, early model CVs should be worse than late interwar CVs in one or more of these ways:

• Time and industrial cost efficiency to build
• Speed
• Defense against subs
• AA defense

Now this might not hold true for later models like Essex, those should just be all around better than everything before them.

I think this is a problem with trying to match history with gameplay.

Historically, some of the very early carriers, which were BB or BC conversions turned out to be very capable ships - like the Lexington and Saratoga; CV-2 and CV-3 turned out to be amazingly good fighting ships.

The 'lower performing' next classes of ships, the Ranger, Wasp (which is a real oddball), and Yorktowns, are more a feature of the Washington naval treaty than any sort of inherent reversion to bad design.

You will notice the same thing in the BB and CA classes, all of a sudden, everyone's warships stagnated, without any major advances (and often degradation) on a ship-by-ship basis.

But that is due to the treaty, not overall ship designing capabilities - and on a by-the-ton basis, the treaty carriers represented a huge jump forwards in capability. They are just smaller overall.

Compare the following ships:

Langley (CV-1)

• 14,000 ton displacement
• 36 plane CAG
• 16 knot speed
• 389 tons / plane

Lexington (CV-2)

• 48,000 ton displacement
• 80 plane CAG
• 33 knot speed
• 600 tons / plane

Ranger (CV-4) (new treaty carrier)

• 18,000 ton displacement
• 80 plane CAG
• 29 knot speed
• 225 tons / plane

Yorktown (CV-5) (new treaty carrier)

• 26,000 ton displacment
• 90 plane CAG
• 32 knot speed
• 289 tons / plane

Essex (CV-9) (post-treaty carrier)

• 37,000 ton displacement
• 100+ plane CAG
• 33 knots
• 370 tons / plane

Midway (CV-41) (post-treaty carrier)

• 45,000 ton displacement
• 130 plane CAG
• 33 knot speed
• 345 tons/ / plane

If you look at those numbers, it's fairly clear that there is a nice progression from Ranger -> Midway. It's only the 2 Lexington class ships (and the odd duck Wasp) that are 'weird' in terms of progression.

If anything, the US, and a few other nations that had odd-duck treaty ships should just get a heavily variantized early-class ship in their already produced aresnal, something that is very capable, but also very expensive to produce.

And taking a step further on, the US stopped producing Lex class ships both because they were ridiculously expensive compared to their strike power AND they had some fundamental layout issues that couldn't really be fixed without a huge redesign.

You can also compare the Royal Sovereign, N3 (planned) and Nelson (actual) class battleships. N3 would have been significantly more powerful than either Royal Sovereign or Nelson/KGV, while Nelson/KGV was a relatively modest step up in combat power.

IF the washington treaty had never come into play, we'd have seen quite a few SHBBs and CVB designs floating around....

 

[ccruler]

Defense against subs? Seriously, a massive hulk like an aircraft carrier has no defense against subs. It's a massive bullseye saying "sink me" to any submarine in the same ocean. First, it will never hear the sub because it is so noisy. Second, it will never be able to maneuver to avoid incoming torpedoes - these hulks don't turn on a dime and they don't lose their speed almost instantly when the engines are slammed into reverse like a destroyer can. Think momentum. p = mv. And there is a lot - a LOT - of "m".

The only defense against subs a carrier had or even has nowadays is via its aircraft. That, and the fact that carriers usually are going full pelt or close to it, making it very very hard for a WW2 sub to catch up to them and set up an attack. Since aircraft and air patrols are modeled separately I think that CV's should always have ZERO as a "defense against subs" characteristic. In fact if this value could be negative (ie, a sub magnet) even better

I'm fairly sure it's intended as some defences against submarines such as anti-torpedo blisters on ships

 

[Dunbal]

I'm fairly sure it's intended as some defences against submarines such as anti-torpedo blisters on ships

Already modeled under "armor".

 

[Secret Master]

In HOI2 and Darkest Hour the CVI model (1920s converted BBs and BCs like Lexington or Akagi) had worse Sea and Air Attack values than the CVIII (1937ish, e.g. Yorktown-class).

Since carriers in HOI3 do not even have sea attack, and instead the CAGs have their own stats, I'm not sure what the issue is here. I'm guessing it will be the same in HOI4; carriers will just, ahem, carry their aircraft, and the planes will have all the ship sinking firepower based on their numbers and tech.

 

[gregor_mendel]

Since carriers in HOI3 do not even have sea attack, and instead the CAGs have their own stats, I'm not sure what the issue is here. I'm guessing it will be the same in HOI4; carriers will just, ahem, carry their aircraft, and the planes will have all the ship sinking firepower based on their numbers and tech.

Yes, but will the carriers have different CAG compositions or will I able to rebase a state-of-the-art modern CAG from a Midway class to a Langley class? The only reason to advance CV techs in HoI3 was to improve range and even that was broken since rebasing a fleet was very simple and unrealistic.

 

[Caesar15]

Defense against subs? Seriously, a massive hulk like an aircraft carrier has no defense against subs. It's a massive bullseye saying "sink me" to any submarine in the same ocean. First, it will never hear the sub because it is so noisy. Second, it will never be able to maneuver to avoid incoming torpedoes - these hulks don't turn on a dime and they don't lose their speed almost instantly when the engines are slammed into reverse like a destroyer can. Think momentum. p = mv. And there is a lot - a LOT - of "m".

The only defense against subs a carrier had or even has nowadays is via its aircraft. That, and the fact that carriers usually are going full pelt or close to it, making it very very hard for a WW2 sub to catch up to them and set up an attack. Since aircraft and air patrols are modeled separately I think that CV's should always have ZERO as a "defense against subs" characteristic. In fact if this value could be negative (ie, a sub magnet) even better

In all fairness, the Ark Royal evaded a torpedo from a U-boat by simply turning in the right direction when they saw it.

 

[Denkt]

You can probably rebase your modern aircrafts on your old carrier. However a modern carrier will be afloat after the battle while the old carrier (and its aircrafts) will be sunk. And I expect repairation to be very cheap compared to building a new ship, even with very heavy damage taken.