Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?

[sRuLe]

4 hours ago, sarrumac said:

If carriers are a thing then the entire game changes. From a design suited for engagements between 0 to 50km we go to 50-500 km. This is a different scale and a different game. 

 

So much effort on the "going class" such as CV's. They where good at their time, today for example missile ship, or dron-carrier can obliterate modern carrier with whole his support group. Plus to that CV it's a massive floating grave for from 2500 up to 7000 sailors on board. Some one just forgot the fate of Taiho, Yorcktown and Royal Arc. CV is just a step, and not suitable for same war theaters. If in Pacific CV's done the major job, than in Atlantic they done almost nothing including Normandy Landing which where air supported on 98% from ground airfields in Britain, nor a CV's.  

If battleship can come again as Arsenal Ship/Massive Missile Ship... than CV's are going for good.

[Tousansons]

Yes, surely trading an expensive "water grave" armed with planes for another expensive "water grave" armed with missiles is the way to go in a period where the loss of one life is a tragedy.

Carriers are vulnerable, as all ships are today and before. No one is arguing against that. Back in WW2 carriers needed extensive AA and ASW escorts for protection. Today they need better anti-missiles/torpedoes systems or "stealth" technology. However I don't see what make them more obsolote than some random missile DD escorting him. Their relative weakness is compensated by other fleet element and strategic positioning in the area of operation. Carriers are not "the" fleet, they are a part of it, important or not depending on the situation.

They are designed as an asset able to extend the range of an air force who can't afford land base in an area for various reasons (hence their extensive use in the pacific in ww2). They are more versatile than any other ships because planes/helicopters/drones (unlike missiles) can fulfill a broader variety of roles and .. Be armed with missiles (yay). As long as there is a puddle of water between two country (and planes fuel can't afford them to make a round earth trip), carriers or their derivative form will exists. Be it drones, submarines or whatever progress may throw at us.

I don't see BB's coming back from their graves as glorified missile plate-formes. In our times where we want our weapons able to do a lots of things, these seems.. Limited in scope and utility when a bunch of missiles DD can perform the same job and cover more water.

 

[sRuLe]

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

or "stealth" technology.

First, "stealth" is kind a myth... if you know about such thing like Radio Wave Dispersion. If single pointed radar can be tricked, than multiple triangulated radars can't. So whats happened to few F/A-117 in sky of Yugoslavia, when they got shoot down by aged SAM-9 AA missile. There is no actual stealth at all, it depends of a length an frequency of a radio wave, and the yield of an emitter.

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

They are designed as an asset able to extend the range of an air force who can't afford land base in an area for various reasons

Exactly, CV's are just floating Airfields.

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

They are more versatile than any other ships because planes/helicopters/drones (unlike missiles) can fulfill a broader variety of roles and

Yes and No. Modern drones, and I talking about what was made by US and Soviets during period from 1965 to 1988 are already able to take more firepower than F-18 or Su-33, plus to that lost of one does not meant loss of a expensive, highly trained crew. And modern drones are actually are even more versatile than any conventional plane and helicopter. The biggest yet example of a large "attack drone-helicopter" was Ka-50, which actually is a semi-robot until project was closed. There is a "funny" moment about that, I can tell you and show you how that works, but it doesn't fit this thread.

Downside of a Unmanned Aircraft is ECM(Electronic Counter Measures) or even creation of an GEMC(Global ECM) System... just push the button and whole population of Earth gonna sit without YouTube and Facebook for a while.

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

As long as there is a puddle of water between two country (and planes fuel can't afford them to make a round earth trip), carriers or their derivative form will exists. Be it drones, submarines or whatever progress may throw at us.

Depends only by missile size and size of a missile platform. If CVN can carry only around 90 planes of all sorts, than a missile carrier of an equal size as CVN, can carry an 11 time more payload. It means... 800 to 1200 pieces of ammunition on CVN against 5000-8000 pieces of ammunition of an Arsenal Ship. And the Arsenal Ship can carry around 30-100 pieces of an full ballistic strategic missiles. What it means? It means that Arsenal Ship can destroy a few CVN's with all their escort in a single salvo even in non-nuclear configuration

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

I don't see BB's coming back from their graves as glorified missile plate-formes. In our times where we want our weapons able to do a lots of things, these seems.. Limited in scope and utility when a bunch of missiles DD can perform the same job and cover more water

Actually not. Cause missile DD can not be protected enough. Most of modern MDD's are a single shot target. That's why US an USSR got a bunch of.B-1, F-111 and Tu-22 bombers with cruise and anti-ship missiles, just to destroy "enemy" MDD not even entering the "death section" of MDD's AA arsenal. Plus to that both have a loads of Attack Nuclear Submarines to "rack and pack" MDD's by dozens. Since creation of USS Roger Moore and few years after an K-222(K-162 Gold Fish), the subs which underwater speed was from 34 up to 44 knots(faster than torpedo) MDD's become something kamikaze-alike glass cannon, powerful but fragile.

As far is known during Cold War both sides was projected and tested elements of design for an Arsenal Ships with displacement starting from 130k long-tons (empty weight).

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

Back in WW2 carriers needed extensive AA and ASW escorts for protection.

Exactly. They where operating on Pacific in a tactical groups by 3-4 CV together. Rather, their "payload per minute" was much less that any BB of same time. As example... payload of TBD's squadron was literally equal by weight to a full broad side salvo of an USS Iowa BB. If Iowa can repeat it more times, CV need to land it's planes, refuel and re-arm them. Btw, to sink a BB there where needed much more effort putted in than sunk CV... Just take a look on how many planes used to sunk Yamato, how RAF sunk Tirpitz(3 direct hit of an 12 ton heavy Grandslams and 4 near hits of them), how long it took to sunk Bismark, with what was sunk Rome(3 hit by 2 tons heavy guided bombs Fritz-X), even good old USS Arizona got 7 hits before 500kg AP Bomb struck a 14" gun turret roof and fall into magazines. And we not talking about IJN Nagato who been as a test target for Crossroads Test, which was towed away and sunk only after by US destroyer 3 torpedoes.  

 

What I'm talking about is... Some people over-estimating the CV as a class, forgetting the fate of Taiho, Yorcktown and Royal Arc where a single torpedo from the sub put a thick large cross on a class it self in the future. Cause, the opportunity of a class is evaluated by the cheapness and the effectiveness of the way to do it's end. Which actually didn't happened with BB's when torpedo boats/destroyers come out on scene since Robert Whitehead designed his torpedo.

I'm also fan of a Flattops, but I clearly know who was made to dominate the seas and who wear the crown now... and that is not a CV.

Edited October 30, 2019 by sRuLe

[Illya von Einzbern]

Silent hunters are perhaps the most scary ships in the sea.
Paranoia to max and torps are everywhere. Wears the crew down mentally and physically.
Subs are my personal faws ^^

But yeah cost and field effectiveness matters more as it is expected that the ship eventually gets damage beyond repair.

[Cptbarney]

Well lets wait and see before we start going mental on whether CV's will actually be a thing or not.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Me want my Shoukek and Zuizui and to be greedy little rascal Akagi and Kaga carriers. 1st carrier division must live on.
*very loud Kaga misaki song in the background*
 

just let it happen and make the carriers happy.

[Cptbarney]

32 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Me want my Shoukek and Zuizui and to be greedy little rascal Akagi and Kaga carriers. 1st carrier division must live on.
*very loud Kaga misaki song in the background*
 

just let it happen and make the carriers happy.

i want miss booooooooooogue and yorkie!

[sRuLe]

3 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Well lets wait and see before we start going mental on whether CV's will actually be a thing or not.

Depends of aircraft controls, amount of planes in a charge and possibility of their armament customization. If it will turn numbers like in NavyField, CV's will be deadly... cause getting an 80-100 attack planes in the air in a single go against a single target, yes they do overkill. If it'll be like in WoWS, than CV class just be a fat, large, tasty target to everything that got some gun on board. According to our "meta" these'll be pretty large CV's in game.

But I also imagine what a size subs people will make against.😹

[Cptbarney]

9 minutes ago, sRuLe said:

Depends of aircraft controls, amount of planes in a charge and possibility of their armament customization. If it will turn numbers like in NavyField, CV's will be deadly... cause getting an 80-100 attack planes in the air in a single go against a single target, yes they do overkill. If it'll be like in WoWS, than CV class just be a fat, large, tasty target to everything that got some gun on board. According to our "meta" these'll be pretty large CV's in game.

But I also imagine what a size subs people will make against.😹

Never played navy field so i have no clue what the AA there is like.

AA in wows is useless doe, if your carrier has half a brain he can just dodge the flak, shorten squads, slingshot use fighters to spot ships (mainly dd's) and focus on isolated ships hard.

AA in this game should be a mix of Light (Light machine guns to around maybe 40mm-50mm guns) MAA (51mm's to 90mm's) and HAA (91mm's-160mm's think that was the biggest).

So LAA will mostly be tracers, stealth and incendary. While the rest will be flak clouds in general.

Plane formations can be a thing to lessen AA impact but worsen drop hit rates or the opposite or in the middle same with angle of apporach and if the current AA suite is actually still alive, plus weather conditions quality of guns and planes etc.

i still want miss boooooooogue and yorkie!

'w'

[Illya von Einzbern]

5 minutes ago, sRuLe said:

Depends of aircraft controls, amount of planes in a charge and possibility of their armament customization. If it will turn numbers like in NavyField, CV's will be deadly... cause getting an 80-100 attack planes in the air in a single go against a single target, yes they do overkill. If it'll be like in WoWS, than CV class just be a fat, large, tasty target to everything that got some gun on board. According to our "meta" these'll be pretty large CV's in game.

But I also imagine what a size subs people will make against.😹

I think they will go with the max size of 12 planes and minimal 3 on fighter wings and for strikers 6 to 18.
Also the strike behavior will be affected by the stance. Safe they will maintain distance and poke in to do some damage and disengage if damaged, "normal" would go attack and run while trying to avoid AA, "aggressive" basically kamikaze and disregards of personal safety. Fighters could suppress AA from 100% effectiveness to 50 to 75% depending on the AA mounts and their protection. Ammunition would need to be counted for. Combat air patrol can't fend of planes for ever and strafe. Once out of ammo they would need to rearm and depending on plane damage just retire from battle. Pilot will not be lost and the squad would need to fight with one less plane or if there is reserve pilots and planes then those can be used to fill in the holes in the squad. Same with strike planes.
Planes would behave the same way as brigades in Ultimate general. You can assign flight leader and losses to CV pilot crews depending the squad will affect their veterancy,
Sane with ship crews. Should the crew suffer major losses this would affect the ships performance.

New recruits would lower their effectiveness.
Keeping the crews alive would be a crucial.

[sRuLe]

17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Never played navy field so i have no clue what the AA there is like.

AA in NF was manually controlled... it was just an secondary armament loaded with AA Proximity Shells. 

And by the way planes wasn't endless like in WoWS.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by sRuLe

[Commodore Sandurz]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:20 AM, SiWi said:

First of all the you are comeptllly missing the point of the german situation of germany during WW2.

After Bismarck was lost it was pretty obvious that germany had NO HOPE to defeat the UK with surface ships. It fact Hitler in one point order the surface fleet to be scrapped.

2 more BB would change nothing on germanys chances and indeed cost alot of resources, reichsmark the least important. Tehy would have simply joined the rest of the fleet in the docks being bomb day in day out.

 

Also you seem to compelty forget that germany was in a land war against the UDSSR were TANKS were more useful then BB or sub. Also you seem comeptlyl to ignore that Germany also didn't build any CV's. And for the record 1-2 CV's would have not helped germanys situation.

The H-39s were cancelled before:

- The Bismarck was lost.

- German warships were being continuously bombed in harbour.

- Germany was fighting a land war with the USSR.

Speaking of missing the point, I accounted for Germany's situation by only referencing their existing, historical naval spending. Did you completely miss that part of my post, and the entire discussion it was a small part of? I didn't forget about the eastern front as it's irrelevant to this discussion; I mentioned the numbers of Type VIIs that were built and that was despite the eastern front, so clearly sufficient resources were still allocated to the naval war to allow the construction of many battleships had they chosen to construct them instead of u-boats. With over 1100 u-boats commissioned any claim that they didn't have the resources to do so is absurd. If the Kriegsmarine had expected the H-39s to be cost effective then they would have continued their construction and built more by reducing their u-boat construction. Since they weren't, the Germans, like everyone else, ended up abandoning battleship construction.

 

On 10/29/2019 at 11:20 AM, SiWi said:

So why not list the cancellation of the Hindenburg how CV's were obsolete?

Because that cancellation did not coincide with other widespread cancellations for the same class of ship. Ships can get cancelled for any number of reasons (such as Hitler's whims), but when there is a consistent pattern of all new construction of a class of warship being abandoned by every major naval power at almost the same time during a world war, then the implication of that should be quite clear to everyone.

And since you brought it up, Graf Zeppelin's construction was actually continued for years after the H-39s were cancelled, so even the Kriegsmarine appeared to view carriers as more valuable to their war effort than battleships.

 

On 10/29/2019 at 11:20 AM, SiWi said:

And the pacific is a very unique environment for naval warfare the one were CV's are the most useful.

So effectively getting your CV force wiped out in one battle mean you do need to have fast replacements. Even it if has to be conversions.

How many BB's did the british convert to CV's after Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sunk Glorious?

See this is the problem with your argumentation you try to compeltly blend out the overall situation of the navies making the decisions.

Even if that means that you ignore the land war between 3rd Reich and UDSSR....

Not sure what you're actually trying to argue here... that battleships weren't obsolete in the Atlantic? Everyone stopped building battleships, whether their primary theatre was the Pacific or the Atlantic. And why should the British waste resources on making some questionable conversions just because Japan did it?

By 1942 every major navy had determined that they preferred new carriers or other types of warships over new battleships, regardless of each nation's particular situation - there's no "blend out" of the overall situation there.

I don't get your obsession with the land war, I have only ever referenced Germany's historical naval construction which occurred *despite* that land war, and how that historical naval spending could have been used for battleships instead of u-boats.

 

[Commodore Sandurz]

18 hours ago, sRuLe said:

Exactly. They where operating on Pacific in a tactical groups by 3-4 CV together. Rather, their "payload per minute" was much less that any BB of same time. As example... payload of TBD's squadron was literally equal by weight to a full broad side salvo of an USS Iowa BB. If Iowa can repeat it more times, CV need to land it's planes, refuel and re-arm them. Btw, to sink a BB there where needed much more effort putted in than sunk CV... Just take a look on how many planes used to sunk Yamato, how RAF sunk Tirpitz(3 direct hit of an 12 ton heavy Grandslams and 4 near hits of them), how long it took to sunk Bismark, with what was sunk Rome(3 hit by 2 tons heavy guided bombs Fritz-X), even good old USS Arizona got 7 hits before 500kg AP Bomb struck a 14" gun turret roof and fall into magazines. And we not talking about IJN Nagato who been as a test target for Crossroads Test, which was towed away and sunk only after by US destroyer 3 torpedoes.  

Some of those hit claims seem off... such as you seem to be counting "near" misses as hits which is a bit disingenuous to say the least (for example Roma was only directly hit by 2 Fritzs and probably only the second hit alone would have sunk it). Or the Nagato, do you have a source on it being torpedoed after Baker instead of sinking on its own? First I've heard that claim. Anyway, I'm not going to cover all of them. I agree that that in general battleships could obviously could take a bit more punishment then carriers, and *potentially* inflict more damage in a shorter period of time, but both of those are meaningless when:

- The carrier can locate the battleship much more easily than vice versa.

- The carrier can avoid damage by simply staying out of range of the battleship's guns.

- The carrier's aircraft (which are comparatively cheap and expendable) can attack the battleship at leisure.

- The carrier's aircraft, even if their overall firepower is less than the battleship's, are still capable of at least disabling the battleship.

- These effects are amplified the more carriers and battleships you put in the fight, since carrier aircraft can easily concentrate fire on a single battleship, return to rearm and repeat.

Being able to take more punishment than your opponent but at the same time not being able to fight back at him is a losing proposition.

[Illya von Einzbern]

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

Some of those hit claims seem off... such as you seem to be counting "near" misses as hits which is a bit disingenuous to say the least (for example Roma was only directly hit by 2 Fritzs and probably only the second hit alone would have sunk it). Or the Nagato, do you have a source on it being torpedoed after Baker instead of sinking on its own? First I've heard that claim. Anyway, I'm not going to cover all of them. I agree that that in general battleships could obviously could take a bit more punishment then carriers, and *potentially* inflict more damage in a shorter period of time, but both of those are meaningless when:

- The carrier can locate the battleship much more easily than vice versa.

- The carrier can avoid damage by simply staying out of range of the battleship's guns.

- The carrier's aircraft (which are comparatively cheap and expendable) can attack the battleship at leisure.

- The carrier's aircraft, even if their overall firepower is less than the battleship's, are still capable of at least disabling the battleship.

- These effects are amplified the more carriers and battleships you put in the fight, since carrier aircraft can easily concentrate fire on a single battleship, return to rearm and repeat.

Being able to take more punishment than your opponent but at the same time not being able to fight back at him is a losing proposition.

Build your own carriers....
Italy did not have own carriers and you can't really have land based planes constantly escort your own ships.
In game this won't be a problem as you can build crap ton of carriers like you can build crap ton of BBs.
Combat air patrols will be a counter against CVs. Carrier ironically can counter it self with ease however this depends on the skills of the combat air patrol. Should they not see/find or simply be misplaced they can't counter anything.

CVs are balanced and i see reason why not have one or two escort carrier keeping those annoying flies at bay.

Carriers don't carry infinite amount of planes, that said CVs can be really quickly disarm CV with few combat air patrol or with screening ships.
The personal safety of strike planes can be altered from safe, normal, aggressive. Safe will do it's best to save pilot lives and planes. Normal will take risks and losses are expected. Aggressive well attack with no care of personal safety = kamikaze attack and losses will be high as the pilots will try to attack regardless of losses.
Attack from planes would have % which will determine will they commit to the run or not. This will be based on treat assessment. Can they punch thru AA wall, is there a combat air patrol nearby, do they have own combat air patrol suppressing AA, ect.

Unlike battleships and cruisers carriers carries very little firepower and is really weak against enemies that are prepared for AA combat.

[SiWi]

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

The H-39s were cancelled before:

- The Bismarck was lost.

- German warships were being continuously bombed in harbour.

- Germany was fighting a land war with the USSR.

Speaking of missing the point, I accounted for Germany's situation by only referencing their existing, historical naval spending. Did you completely miss that part of my post, and the entire discussion it was a small part of? I didn't forget about the eastern front as it's irrelevant to this discussion; I mentioned the numbers of Type VIIs that were built and that was despite the eastern front, so clearly sufficient resources were still allocated to the naval war to allow the construction of many battleships had they chosen to construct them instead of u-boats. With over 1100 u-boats commissioned any claim that they didn't have the resources to do so is absurd. If the Kriegsmarine had expected the H-39s to be cost effective then they would have continued their construction and built more by reducing their u-boat construction. Since they weren't, the Germans, like everyone else, ended up abandoning battleship construction.

 

Because that cancellation did not coincide with other widespread cancellations for the same class of ship. Ships can get cancelled for any number of reasons (such as Hitler's whims), but when there is a consistent pattern of all new construction of a class of warship being abandoned by every major naval power at almost the same time during a world war, then the implication of that should be quite clear to everyone.

And since you brought it up, Graf Zeppelin's construction was actually continued for years after the H-39s were cancelled, so even the Kriegsmarine appeared to view carriers as more valuable to their war effort than battleships.

 

Not sure what you're actually trying to argue here... that battleships weren't obsolete in the Atlantic? Everyone stopped building battleships, whether their primary theatre was the Pacific or the Atlantic. And why should the British waste resources on making some questionable conversions just because Japan did it?

By 1942 every major navy had determined that they preferred new carriers or other types of warships over new battleships, regardless of each nation's particular situation - there's no "blend out" of the overall situation there.

I don't get your obsession with the land war, I have only ever referenced Germany's historical naval construction which occurred *despite* that land war, and how that historical naval spending could have been used for battleships instead of u-boats.

 

You do realize the amount of Oil the H39 would have used up let alone the amount of steel would have used up? Of course not.

And being cancelled 1939, where it was clear that "High Sea Fleet 2.0" wasn't going to happen because there was no time to build any of the ships in time and hence going for sub instead because they could have been build in somewhat timely manner (mind you never enough). Because the subs could operate successful even without having surface naval dominance. The Surface ships could not.

Also if you would have been honest, then germany change in strategy would have pointed in BB's being abandon because of subs. Because that is what germany build instead not CV's.  And Subs are Fonfirmed as coming to the game...

Indeed to argue with Germany, a nation which was once in the progress of SCRAPPING ALL F ITS SURFACE FLEET, is a bit strange.

That the also canceled Graf Zeppelin then supposedly serves to show how the KM values CV, as if it was not just an attempt to catch up in a category where Germany unlike BB's had zero, is bizarre.

On the one hand you want to use the KM as example how BB's were abandon, but you completely ignore that the KM abandon all surface ships (and arguably was abandon itself).

So if the KM stooping BB's is suppose to be a reason why CV's can't be in the game, then Submarines would be a reason to stop all ships in the game plans. And they are already in, even thou abstract.

 

And being in a war the navy programms simply took a back seat for germany since both Luftwaffe and Heer was more important. Both in terms of steele and oil.

For the british we also have the problem that after Dunkirk they desperately needed tanks and already got a number of BB's so finishing the Vangaurd was not a priority. 

Why build BB's if you already have alot of them? Especially if it becomes clear that your main enemy germany is abandoning its surface fleet more or less.

Had Italy any plans for CV'S or any more ships? Would it have matter given the oil problems?

 

So "all major power abandon BB's 1942" is something that is technically correct but ignores that some of those abandon navies all together and other had hence little reason to invest in BB's.

The only real case for this argument would be in the pacific, where both Japan and USA were in a mainly naval war, but again, if Japan would have lost all of its BB's at midway then it wouldn't have desperately converted BB's to CV's.

Because in the war BB's were still clearly useful units.

In fact the Yamato could have demonstrated this, if it had used HE round instead of AP in the battle of Samar. Then it probably would have straight out massacred the Escort carries and DD's in the area.

[sRuLe]

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

The carrier can locate the battleship much more easily than vice versa.

If weather allows (WW2)

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

- The carrier can avoid damage by simply staying out of range of the battleship's guns.

HMS Furious and KMS Scharnhorst

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

The carrier's aircraft (which are comparatively cheap and expendable) can attack the battleship at leisure.

Weather conditions, radar surveillance range, enemy sub in the waters... example HMS Royal Arc.

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

The carrier's aircraft, even if their overall firepower is less than the battleship's, are still capable of at least disabling the battleship.

Alone? Any example? IJN Yamato was sunk by 3 hour battle where 8 Heavy CV Essex class around and against that. For example attempt to sunk KMS Tirpitz via CV airstrike failed badly in good for Tirpitz AA's. Attempt of IJN Hiryu to sank USS South Dakota also failed badly in good of Dakota AA's.

6 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

These effects are amplified the more carriers and battleships you put in the fight, since carrier aircraft can easily concentrate fire on a single battleship, return to rearm and repeat.

In theory, in practice... highly depends on a "contact" range. 

 

All arguments you throw at... I mostly agree, but in theory, in practice they'r looked awful in results. IRL just two BB,s where sunk during Air Raid Action from CV's - IJN Musashi and IJN Yamato. And both in full overwhelming CV domination in  combat situation and quantities.  

[sRuLe]

14 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

I don't get your obsession with the land war, I have only ever referenced Germany's historical naval construction which occurred *despite* that land war, and how that historical naval spending could have been used for battleships instead of u-boats.

Actually if Germany started to invest more in leveling an U-Boat action range, operative depth... like in 1939 fully going to produce an Oceanic Subs in same amounts like they did with VII's... Atlantic WT would be already not operate-able and not navigate-able in early 1942 till the end of a WW2. And in this case CV turns not into an weapon, but into a tasty target for subs. Which means that only CA's and BB's would be relatively safe to operate in those water due their damage sustain option.

Plus many forgot that on Atlantic CV's does not have much effort as on Pacific, poor weather conditions and weak radars of those times.

Edited October 31, 2019 by sRuLe

[Tousansons]

I think it would be a good time to stop this mess of biased misinformation and go back on the topic of "do we want carriers into UA:D" (Nagato sunk by US DD's after Baker? Yorcktown "easily" sunk? Really?)

It's fine to downplay a little the importance of CV's and pointing their weaknesses. Doing it while omitting (once again) the main purpose of the CV (once again, projection of air power when the nation using it can't use airbases in the area. Not some kind of famed BB's only hunter killer) start to bother me, it fails to point the absolute necessity of carriers in the environment they where used the most, not only for sinking ships at sea, but also in ports. Or to scout them. Or to protect the fleet with CAP, or to transfer planes to airbases on island. It bother me even more when the so called arguments strategically omit the weaknesses of the other classes fighting against them (Do we need to talk about thoses powerfull battleboats taken out in one mine/torpedo/stray shell?)

I know internet is not really a place about exchanging unbiased point of view. But at least do it in private or in a dedicated topic.

I don't want carriers in UA:D for now. Make the base dreadnought game work first.

 

[SwaggyB]

7 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

I think it would be a good time to stop this mess of biased misinformation and go back on the topic of "do we want carriers into UA:D" (Nagato sunk by US DD's after Baker? Yorcktown "easily" sunk? Really?)

It's fine to downplay a little the importance of CV's and pointing their weaknesses. Doing it while omitting (once again) the main purpose of the CV (once again, projection of air power when the nation using it can't use airbases in the area. Not some kind of famed BB's only hunter killer) start to bother me, it fails to point the absolute necessity of carriers in the environment they where used the most, not only for sinking ships at sea, but also in ports. Or to scout them. Or to protect the fleet with CAP, or to transfer planes to airbases on island. It bother me even more when the so called arguments strategically omit the weaknesses of the other classes fighting against them (Do we need to talk about thoses powerfull battleboats taken out in one mine/torpedo/stray shell?)

I know internet is not really a place about exchanging unbiased point of view. But at least do it in private or in a dedicated topic.

I don't want carriers in UA:D for now. Make the base dreadnought game work first.

 

I agree, there has been  some utter nonsense posted in this thread. Carriers are obviously a hugely important area of naval warfare in this period but I would rather the current mechanics of the game be perfected rather than rush CV's into the game and mess up the balance.

[SiWi]

No one say "rush into the game".

But the question is if they should come at all. 

[Balu0]

I certainly would love to see aircraft and CV in the game. In RL in this time period the appearance and effectiveness of aircraft dictated a lot of design decision for ship builders and admirals. And in this game we are shipbuilders and admirals, are we not ?

[Latur Husky]

On 10/30/2019 at 2:57 PM, sRuLe said:

(...)

And by the way planes wasn't endless like in WoWS.

 

And so did AA, it also required a skill from both players.

[Felius]

11 hours ago, Tousansons said:

I don't want carriers in UA:D for now. Make the base dreadnought game work first.

The main problem with this is that I would really hope, if not strictly carriers directly in the action, some kind of airpower around, so as to give us a reason to add AA to our ships, as well as dual purpose guns. I want to both be able and have a reason to turn the sky into lead.

[Steeltrap]

 While this discussion is largely as I imagined it would be, I can't help but think it's overlooking something important when deciding whether or not someone wants CVs in the game.

 What it's missing IMO is the most important question of all: what will people find FUN?

 I suspect an abstracted system will be a fun killer.

"Fleet 4 attacked by carrier based planes: 1 x BB light damage, 1 x BB heavy damage, 1 x CA heavy damage, 1 x CL sunk" is something I personally don't want to see on my screen, ever.

You can rinse and repeat that for land based planes, although it's certainly true land based planes generally had pretty dreadful records against ships because their crews and their hardware generally weren't optimised for that mission.

So what to do? Build and design CVs? How would they work?

Conducting recon is certainly the initial, vital role as you can't hit what you can't see. Land based can do that, too, of course, and in some ways were better suited to it.

But then what? I don't see us controlling our fleets or our aircraft on screen, so that leaves us with

- detect enemy fleet, with varying accuracy as to composition, course and speed.

- make a strike from available planes where armament affects range and damage, obviously, then launch at target.

- computer determines if you find your target, adjusts for AA and weather and target types and their amour, survivability, floatation and manoeuvrability, determines results.

- in determining the results, it COULD count as resolving torp hits as it does in battle, and also count bombs as the equivalent to certain types of shells striking near vertically (remember the Pearl Harbour level bombs were repurposed 14" shells if I remember correctly). Consider the implications for ship design, especially deck thickness. Sounds remarkably, historically familiar.

 Either way, you're going to get a report as to what happened but you'll have absolutely no say in it other than choosing whether to strike at a target and with what. 

 I am a big believer in the general principle of game design that making elements that are central to primary game play mostly outside the control of the player, other than where sensible to do so to avoid 'busy work' that would quickly become tiresome (logistics being a common example), is something to be avoided.

 I loved the old version of Carriers at War, especially how each scenario carried its results into the next. As the USA you had to balance survival with stemming the Japanese. As the Japanese, you had to use your initial superiority in numbers and quality to do as much damage as possible. In short, try to knock the USA down and keep them there. Even better, there was the ability to hot seat, and I had some fantastic fun with friends doing just that. The remake of it was a sad shell of the original without the continuous campaign carry over so I didn't bother with it. 

 The point is, however, that game was about carrier warfare. It's exactly what it was designed to do, and it did it extremely well. ALL the combat was abstract, including surface combat, but that didn't detract from the fun because the game was designed such that you had to think of naval warfare from the perspective of CV issues. It had the dreaded message pop up that you might have had a ship damaged or sunk by submarine, and you didn't have any control over your subs, either. They were totally abstract.

 This game is not primarily that. It's certainly not why I bought it. AA weapons and tech will add complexity to the designer. That's more development time, more balance testing. More opportunity for error, something you don't want in a design unless absolutely an essential element. Make it as simple as possible to cover your  requirements is a good principle. Which means deciding if CVs/aircraft that can attack are essential elements.

 So the question remains: what do you consider fun?

 I played WoWS from back in Alpha all the way to a bit past release, then I quit. I was one of the few who said WG would never get CV balance correct, it would either be pretty miserable for the CV players or miserable for everyone else. I said I thought that the nature of what they were attempting to do suggested to me they ought to have covered the period from about 1890-1940s (at latest) due to the huge numbers of various ship types and the nations involved, and they could conclude with famous BBs that were built, rather than relying on piles of paper ships. 2+ years later they gave up on the original version of CVs and tried again. Was I incorrect in my prediction?

 Yes, these devs aren't WG (or I'd never have come along for the ride) and this isn't anything like WoWS (same comment applies). But that doesn't mean that the potential for issues aren't just as great. At the very least, if they were to put planes in the game for any reason other than recon I personally would want the option to disable them. That's not because I don't understand or appreciate or even enjoy CV combat; read what I said earlier about Carriers at War.

 No, it's because CVs are not on the list of reasons I am very much hoping to have many hours of fun with this game, and, worse still for me, there is at least the potential they will detract from that fun.

 Sorry for walloftext. I think it's an important topic.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Steeltrap
minor additions/amendments

[Commodore Sandurz]

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

If weather allows (WW2)

Sure, though hoping for bad weather to protect you is what I would call a "Hail Mary" strategy.

And yes I would hope it's understood we're discussing WW2 exclusively at this point unless stated otherwise.

 

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

HMS Furious and KMS Scharnhorst

Was there an encounter between those two? Or are you attempting to refer to the sinking of the Glorious by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?

 

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

Weather conditions, radar surveillance range, enemy sub in the waters... example HMS Royal Arc.

- Weather I already covered.

- Radar range? I suppose it gives more time to prepare crew for AA action, and, if in port, prepare defences around the battleships. So sure, this might increase survivability a bit. But it doesn't solve the core problem.

- What does a sub have to do with CVs vs BBs?

 

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

Alone? Any example? IJN Yamato was sunk by 3 hour battle where 8 Heavy CV Essex class around and against that. For example attempt to sunk KMS Tirpitz via CV airstrike failed badly in good for Tirpitz AA's.

Why should I care if there were any alone or not? CV airstrike on Tirpitz is a poor example, it was heavily protected by terrain and smokescreens during its stay in the fjords. Tirpitz's AA had little to do with it. On the other hand, it sat there and took damage and casualties and never managed to attack the carriers. Goes back to being able to take punishment while not being able to return it is a losing strategy.

 

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

Attempt of IJN Hiryu to sank USS South Dakota also failed badly in good of Dakota AA's.

HUH? Hiryu was sunk before South Dakota was even declared ready for active duty! Are you just randomly making this up and hoping people don't know any better?

 

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

All arguments you throw at... I mostly agree, but in theory, in practice they'r looked awful in results. IRL just two BB,s where sunk during Air Raid Action from CV's - IJN Musashi and IJN Yamato.

You omitted:

Conte di Cavour

Caio Duilio

Littorio

Arizona

Oklahoma

Nevada

California

West Virginia

Ise and Hyuga 😛

I expect your response might "but they weren't at sea" to which I would reply "I couldn't care less, why shouldn't a carrier leverage it's ability to attack a battleship in port much more effectively than a battleship could? Why attack the battleships at sea when you might have an easier time disabling or sinking them in port? How many carriers in port were sunk by battleships?"

 

16 hours ago, sRuLe said:

And both in full overwhelming CV domination in  combat situation and quantities.

Well I certainly agree that the CVs dominated but the Musashi was definitely not overwhelmed in quantity. Musashi was part of Kurita's Center Force, which consisted of (going off wiki here):

Yamato

Musashi

Nagato

Kongo

Haruna

ten heavy cruisers

two light cruisers

15 destroyers.

While sailing with this force, Musashi was attacked and sunk by aircraft from:

Intrepid

Essex

Lexington

Enterprise

Franklin

Cabot (light carrier)

So in terms of capital ships the numbers are actual equal. And if you consider tonnage, the heavy escort, and the fact that two of the BBs were really the battleship equivalent of "supercarriers", then they're not even close, the BBs are far ahead.