Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?

[Commodore Sandurz]

17 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

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

Escort carriers are far too slow to keep up with battleships and if you seriously think one or two escort carriers (~20 ac each) are going to be sufficient to keep multiple fleet carrier airgroups away then there's really no point arguing further.

 

17 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

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

Upwards of 100 fighters and bombers per carrier is "very little firepower"? You cannot be serious.

[Mycophobia]

Just want to also note that most times "good battleship AA" is more a result of a much more comprehensive AA system with radar early warning, fighter CAP, and ship formations. Ship AA is already the last line of defence, and not an particularly effective one by any stretch.  It was not until radar firecontrol and proximity fuse did ship borne AA really became somewhat effective at stopping air attacks. This coincide with Japanese use of kamikaze tactics and their loss of experience pilots, and us air superiority.

This is a good source for AA performance.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

^Also bear in mind while the kill rate seems very high, this is mostly against kamikaze pilot whose method of approach makes them more vulnerable to shipborne AA(and may still crash into ships anyway even if they are downed).

While US battleship likely have one of the best AA system in the war, they alone still remain a important, but ultimately last resort in stopping incoming aerial attacks. This is also against a foe who have lost both its experienced pilot, uses rather dated aircrafts, and have lost control of the sky. 

 

Lastly, as many above have said, even if the particular battleship can resist air attack with proper system of defense, It cannot strike back against Carriers and it does not contribute anything meaningful to a carrier battle. (US BB are used in AA role because they are available, not because they are idea compared to dedicated DD or CL for that role)

Edited November 1, 2019 by Mycophobia

[Commodore Sandurz]

17 hours ago, SiWi said:

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.

You do realize the amount of oil 1100 u-boats used up let alone the amount of steel they used up? Of course not.

Just in Type VIIs alone: 700 x 770 tons = 539,000 tons combined displacement. H-39 displacement: 53,400 tons. So 1/10th of that spent on VIIs. Let alone the amount of steel, eh?

 

17 hours ago, SiWi said:

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.

At no point have I argued that KM "stooping" BBs is a reason why CVs can't be in the game... where the heck did you even come up with that?

 

17 hours ago, SiWi said:

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.

So in your scenario Japan wouldn't have desperately converted BBs that they no longer had? You don't say! Hey maybe they could raise them from the seafloor...

I was going to respond to the rest of your post but those last two statements of yours speak for themselves. I suspect you'd again ignore what I post and just go off arguing against things I haven't even said.

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 10/25/2019 at 2:57 PM, Illya von Einzbern said:

Type 3 ammo was considered as fireworks (white phosphor does not burn metal planes).

Nitpick, Type 3 used "Rubber thermite", a mixture of phosphor, and other chemicals which made it burn much, much nastier. Enough to cause damage to planes easily.

The lesser known "Type 4" shells used generic phosphor as far as I can find, but they were not as common.

Germany in late WW2 used a shell similar to Type 3, "Brandshrapnell", and it was judged to be superior to traditional rounds, as the flaming shrapnel set more fires and caused more damage.

Type 3's design was sound. The issue is hitting your targets, firecontrol.

With Type 3, you have to detonate the round a bit before your target, exploding to the side or behind your target causes no damage.

Assuming the round detonated where it was supposed to, it would have caused extreme damage to any plane.

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 10/30/2019 at 8:07 AM, sRuLe said:

You forgot the H-51 design with 3x3 53 cm/52 (21") Gerät 36.

No such design exists as far as I can tell.

Even a number as low as "H-45' was never even written up.

[SiWi]

2 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

You do realize the amount of oil 1100 u-boats used up let alone the amount of steel they used up? Of course not.

Just in Type VIIs alone: 700 x 770 tons = 539,000 tons combined displacement. H-39 displacement: 53,400 tons. So 1/10th of that spent on VIIs. Let alone the amount of steel, eh?

Except that it those BB's wouldn't archive anything because unlike the sub they couldn't move without getting seen.

Is it really that hard to grabs for you the situation germany was in during WW2?

Can't you understand that for Geramny IN WW2 it simply makes no sense to keep invensting in a surface fleet? With having like 3 BB at the best times and UK having more BB then you have cruisers?

2 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

At no point have I argued that KM "stooping" BBs is a reason why CVs can't be in the game... where the heck did you even come up with that?

You were arguing that CV would make BB's obsolete in game as they did in real life and then arguing that everyone, including the KM.

Remember that?

2 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

So in your scenario Japan wouldn't have desperately converted BBs that they no longer had? You don't say! Hey maybe they could raise them from the seafloor...

They wouldn't do that to the 3rd Yamato class either, besides you didn't list all Japan BB's (aka the ones never converted) and I was very obviously referring to them.

But hey never miss a good strawmen right?

2 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

I was going to respond to the rest of your post but those last two statements of yours speak for themselves. I suspect you'd again ignore what I post and just go off arguing against things I haven't even said.

Well given how you argue you do you keep yourself a favor not responding back,.

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

No such design exists as far as I can tell.

Even a number as low as "H-45' was never even written up.

it would of looked like this.

https://www.deviantart.com/leovictor/art/The-KM-FUHRER-99684464

[ThatZenoGuy]

8 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

it would of looked like this.

https://www.deviantart.com/leovictor/art/The-KM-FUHRER-99684464

An interesting concept, but sadly one which never was historically made.

I wish it was though, its insane.

[Cptbarney]

21 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

An interesting concept, but sadly one which never was historically made.

I wish it was though, its insane.

Maybe we can convince bill gates to lend a few bil? lmao.

If i was that rich i would have these things built just so peeps could see what they actually look like.

Oh dear that wouldn't end well for me lol.

[sRuLe]

12 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

No such design exists as far as I can tell.

Even a number as low as "H-45' was never even written up.

H-44/D-44 (year of project 1939)... displacement 135,800 long tons(empty) and 142600 long tons full.  4x2 SK 53cm/52, 10-12x2 128mm and etc.

D-51/H-51 (year of project 1940) ...displacement 140k log tons(empty) and 165k long tos full... 3x3 SK 53cm/52, 8x2 128mm, 3x3 SK C/25 15cm/60.

 

How many people can tell if they know?

[sRuLe]

21 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Oh dear that wouldn't end well for me lol.

And who can dare to abuse Barhnew when he got such "things"? Pirates of Caribbean? Oh-ho-ho... H-44 can easy kick Kraken back to his mom.  🎃🎃🎃

Edited November 1, 2019 by sRuLe

[ThatZenoGuy]

8 hours ago, sRuLe said:

H-44/D-44 (year of project 1939)... displacement 135,800 long tons(empty) and 142600 long tons full.  4x2 SK 53cm/52, 10-12x2 128mm and etc.

D-51/H-51 (year of project 1940) ...displacement 140k log tons(empty) and 165k long tos full... 3x3 SK 53cm/52, 8x2 128mm, 3x3 SK C/25 15cm/60.

 

How many people can tell if they know?

Any pictures and sources? ;V

First time I've heard of this design.

[Lobokai]

I’m clearly the odd duck, but a game with Dreadnaughts and pre war designs seems to clash with carriers. If they’re in, I hope there’s a setting to shut them off or they’re really sad 20s CVs 

[DarkTerren]

6 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

I’m clearly the odd duck, but a game with Dreadnaughts and pre war designs seems to clash with carriers. If they’re in, I hope there’s a setting to shut them off or they’re really sad 20s CVs 

You might as well then have a setting to shut off any ship class.

[Steeltrap]

1 hour ago, DarkTerren said:

You might as well then have a setting to shut off any ship class.

And what exactly would be the problem?

Let me turn it around:

The game defaults to NO attack aircraft at all, land based or CVs. The only aircraft are abstracted with respect to search, both on the campaign map and also the tactical view.

Those who want more could have attack aircraft, too, with a simple "enable attack planes" options.

People who don't want that, however, not only want the game to default to no attack planes, they don't even want the option to turn them on.

How do you think the people who want them might feel about that? Being denied the opportunity to experience what THEY would enjoy because others are for some reason opposed to an option those doing the opposing would never use.

Denying others the enjoyment of an option that has no effect on anyone who chooses not to use it strikes me as hugely selfish. Why should I care how others want to play the game, let alone think I ought to deny them their preferred option?

The ONLY issue I see is how effectively can the devs manage the AI etc to handle the implications of attack planes v no attack planes.

That's one reason why I don't want them UNTIL the devs can manage BOTH.

Once they can, fine. Turn them on or off according to taste. Everyone wins.

But what if the devs decide they don't wish to spend the time and effort that inevitably involves? There's the rub.

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Steeltrap

[DarkTerren]

3 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

And what exactly would be the problem?

Let me turn it around:

The game defaults to NO attack aircraft at all, land based or CVs. The only aircraft are abstracted with respect to search, both on the campaign map and also the tactical view.

Those who want more could have attack aircraft, too, with a simple "enable attack planes" options.

People who don't want that, however, not only want the game to default to no attack planes, they don't even want the option to turn them on.

How do you think the people who want them might feel about that? Being denied the opportunity to experience what THEY would enjoy because others are for some reason opposed to an option those doing the opposing would never use.

Denying others the enjoyment of an option that has no effect on anyone who chooses not to use it strikes me as hugely selfish. Why should I care how others want to play the game, let alone think I ought to deny them their preferred option?

The ONLY issue I see is how effectively can the devs manage the AI etc to handle the implications of attack planes v no attack planes.

That's one reason why I don't want them UNTIL the devs can manage BOTH.

Once they can, fine. Turn them on or off according to taste. Everyone wins.

But what if the devs decide they don't wish to spend the time and effort that inevitably involves? There's the rub.

 

problem is your literally asking for a ship class to be ignored just because you don't like it. the game takes place between 1890 to 1940+ carriers were in serives in the 1918s. 2nd how are you turning it around i literally said you might as well have an option to turn off any class of ship. So im even giving more options. Everyone wins.

If the devs dont want to add it then that ok but people saying that we should ignore carriers becuse the game is called dreadnought is just plain stupid.

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Steeltrap]

1 hour ago, DarkTerren said:

problem is your literally asking for a ship class to be ignored just because you don't like it. the game takes place between 1890 to 1940+ carriers were in serives in the 1918s. 2nd how are you turning it around i literally said you might as well have an option to turn off any class of ship. So im even giving more options. Everyone wins.

If the devs dont want to add it then that ok but people saying that we should ignore carriers becuse the game is called dreadnought is just plain stupid.

 

If the argument is CVs shouldn't be present because they aren't mentioned in the name, I agree that's no argument at all. It certainly isn't something I've ever raised, and I don't recall seeing anyone else do so either, although I might have dismissed it had I done so.

I was asked in the poll should they include CVs. The question inherently asks whether or not CVs as a class "ought to be ignored". That I am giving one of 3 answers (don't know/care wasn't included, however) should only bother anyone who insists there is only one valid answer and isn't interested in discussing it. If that's their attitude I'm not sure what the point of a forum is, but whatever.

I'm "turning it around" in the sense that there are people who are saying CVs need to be in the game, yet for some reason arguing those who don't want it ought not be able to turn it off.

I changed it so that the position is reversed and that those who do want them ought to miss out even when there's an option for me to turn it off so their inclusion does not affect me.

It's as bad for those who don't want attack planes (which is my main concern, I've no problem with scouts) to deny the opportunity to have them to those who do as it is for those who do to deny the chance for those who don't to turn it off.

Trying to insist on either version is inherently selfish IF there can be an option to make it able to be chosen by each player according to that which they most want to play. That's it, pure and simple.

If that's not the case I invite anyone to explain how they reached their conclusion.

I will add that I'd not be surprised if some even would find it interesting to play with AND without so as to compare how things go.

As an aside, I suggest it's somewhat disingenuous to argue turning off any ship is the same as turning off the one ship that changed the very nature of naval warfare more than any other in their ability to project lethal force against multiple types of opponents on land, sea and air over distances unheard of.

And even if it were, I fail to see the problem other than work for the devs. Mind you, I can't see them considering it for any class other than CVs for exactly the reason I said immediately above.

I'm not trying to tell other people how they have to play, and that their definition of "fun" is inherently incorrect. Yet others appear to be, as though they should be the arbiter of "fun" for everyone rather than solely themselves.

I'm not trying to say others ought not enjoy CVs. MY preference is not to have them, or to be able to turn them off. Why does that seem to get some people so worked up? The devs will decide, and probably have, yet some people seem to think those who have a different opinion are somehow "wrong" and ought to STFU.

Regardless, I think the devs will have to address it pretty soon because they'll need to be definitive about it before opening it to mass sales. Just like WoWS and Navy Field, how air power is to be incorporated can have either minor or huge effects on game play and I believe one way or another it ought to be made clear to potential buyers the extent to which it matters.

Cheers

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

I should add that it's possible I could change my mind.

The game is shaping nicely for this stage of development as far as I can tell. My biggest concern is the extent to which air power might upset that, as I don't think anyone can seriously say it doesn't have the potential to do so.

Given that, until there are serious levels of detail about all the relevant factors of strike aircraft be they land based or CV, I am not inclined to support them.

Which is why, absent those details, if I have to choose now I'll say no thanks.

Give me serious details and I might view it differently. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Steeltrap

[DarkTerren]

we already got a semi answer from a dev

We are considering to simulate aircraft carries as abstract function in the campaign. It is too early to promise something <--- from dev on their form

sry from the color change coming from a forum i posted it in before.

cannot find the orginal post anymore since it nolonger pinned

found it  

 

page 2

Edited November 2, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Steeltrap]

3 minutes ago, DarkTerren said:

we already got a semi answer from a dev

We are considering to simulate aircraft carries as abstract function in the campaign. It is too early to promise something <--- from dev on their form

sry from the color change coming from a forum i posted it in before.

cannot find the orginal post anymore since it nolonger pinned

Thanks.

Doesn't tell us much, does it, although that's certainly understandable at the moment.

Everything from can't control their design or how many to build and they automatically spot and attack things if included in your fleet (but never appear in combat) through to total control in design and numbers built and ability to select targets when detected in range on campaign map might be true.

Plus presumably them being additional tech items (hulls, catapults, AA, aircraft, air dropped weapons).

We'll just have to wait and see.

[DarkTerren]

Yeah its veg. But i have faith in this team to do a good job one way or the other. 

[Mycophobia]

My two cent on CVs. Since this game, like RTW, is one that tries to explore alternative historical possibility rather than exact historical progression, I don't see the problem if we have a game going into the late 20s without CVs really entering the stage (In the 20s many IRL navy are not all that committed to the ideas of CVs in anycase). 

Thus CV 's introduction should just be a stage of tech development in the game, which may come earlier, later, or on time. I don't think there is harm in having a RTW-esque "Varied tech" or "Delayed CV" option to reduce the influence these things had to make for interesting scenarios. I like the idea of exploring possible alternative historical development, so options to jumble up tech progress and CV development would both be nice options to have. 

Personally I want CV included if they can be done appropriately, more than just strategic element with very little player input, which does not make for good gameplay. However for a good chunk of the game (1890-late 1920s), CV's influence on most navy are extremely limited, and if we are limiting our scope to that period, CV can be safely excluded even if they are present in some form. But if the game wants to cover into the 30s and 40s, I very much would like to see CVs becoming part of the game, and even if I'd like an option to delay/turn off their appereance for that one "what-if" campaign, I think they are too crucial to the period to ignore.

All that being said, the game's priority right now should still be getting the campaign and combat smoothed out and working. I am more than happy to pay for a CV expansion or DLC later down the line.

[Cptbarney]

8 hours ago, Lobokai said:

I’m clearly the odd duck, but a game with Dreadnaughts and pre war designs seems to clash with carriers. If they’re in, I hope there’s a setting to shut them off or they’re really sad 20s CVs 

Could have an option to turn them off or limited so like this.

Option 1: No CV's.

Option 2: Limited CV's (so 1918-1926 cv's).

Option 3: Full CV's (1918-194X Whenever the lastest date is for this game).

Since this game will cover into the 1930's at least and the 1940's at most i guess we will expect carriers in one way or another, i have feeling it will probs be a major update or optional DLC.

Eitherway this gives both parties the options to include CV's in campaigns, custom battles, Admirals college, naval academy. Etc. Without comprimising player expectations and fun i guess.

EDIT: Last few words added in.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Cptbarney

[Illya von Einzbern]

To be fair. If we get CVs we should also then get BBV and CAV respectively.
Yes there are not only carriers..... Aviation battleships and cruisers are among the plane carrying ships.
Which i would absolutely love to see. Think about it. Spotter planes and small compliment of catapult fighters... makes me moist

Any ways i do hope we get to see those sweeties 

[sRuLe]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:36 AM, Commodore Sandurz said:

Upwards of 100 fighters and bombers per carrier is "very little firepower"? You cannot be serious.

 

Yorcktown max is 82 planes, Essex - 85 planes, Enterprise - 80.... okay Midway 95 planes and at least 40 of them is, Hellcats or Bearcats, and only the rest are TBD Devastators(payload max 700kg) or SBD Dauntless(payload max 1080kg). What a Hellcat payload is? Oh dear... 1025kg same as Bearcat, Mark7 16" shell - 1200kg,Yamato's 18,1" shell even heavier - 1460kg.

Max plane in flight operation for a carrier, 42. From which just a half is strike force what means 20 tons max against 22 tons of guaranteed steel from BB. Hit accuracy rate - 11,8% against 18% of an BB's heavy armament.

Plus to that... poor overall protection, high weather dependency, high target detection dependency, high risk of target detection interruption, high chance of weapon deploy interruption in all parts of payload delivery path. 

 

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Edited November 4, 2019 by sRuLe