Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?

[Illya von Einzbern]

you forgot the Egusa squadron which had the highest dive bomb hit ratio of all carrier born dive bombers (loses to stukas by 12%)....
Then again pilot skills maters the most and quite a few murrican pilots had limited air xp than IJN CV pilots (yeah sorry murrica but you need to train more).

But yeah planes are more or less trust worthy as AP shell fired from radar guided fire control from 36km....
which one was OP again?

plane that you can counter with AA or shell that you have to dodge.
I put my money on the radar guided shell
A spotter plane could even the table against radar orbital bombards than simply being blind and bend over.
Adding planes would even up some really frustrating scenarios (specially the mission where 1 BB has to fight against a fleet with said radars...) Will the ship be accurate with spotter plane compared to radar?
More or less on the same area but getting the aim to right post code will take more time.
At night radars would dominate while spotter planes would be more or less pointless (exept the night recon planes).

CVs are good balancer and yet i need to point out. To counter CV have your own CV simple as that.
it's like complaining in a gun fight where every one uses a gun instead of a fist. (wouldn't that be a fist fight?)
Adapt, learn, overcome = Planes, AA, escort

CV dominates.... right it really doesn't matter how many TDBs you have or hellcats if the enemy has it's own fighters (Combat air patrol)

CV op hurr me refuse to use CV durr....

if you spot the CV with planes or radar just nuke it with AP shells. It's not like CV has armor that can hold up against 16" AP or HE...
We already have radars in the game that spots ships from 36km so what harm would CV do?
(help spot ships in equal manner as radar. Gasp planes OP please nurf. how about remove radar from BBs to "counter orbital bombardment"?? no? why not? Coz muh BB needs to be dominatrix with superior tech...).
You know the modern BB mission? That mission itself proves that while you have radar and can blind fire enemy fleet with out ever getting shot back seems really fair. A spotter plane would help there perhaps? No?
You can by the way do that mission with out getting shot at all (except when killing the DDs)

[Lobokai]

Let's not drop 1941+ Pacific War top tier carrier ops into a game more centered on Falkland or Jutland.  A historically accurate carrier war game is basically nothing like a dreadnaught centered one.

[DarkTerren]

4 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Let's not drop 1941+ Pacific War top tier carrier ops into a game more centered on Falkland or Jutland.  A historically accurate carrier war game is basically nothing like a dreadnaught centered one.

In sorry why would we not drop 1940s + into this game is from 1890 to 1940s+ we know this for a fact.

One of the academy mission stats the enemy is using 1940s tech. We also know the starting dates you can choose from 1890,1900,1910,1920 1930.

2nd carriers will be in it sounds like one way or the other. Wether that is us controlling them or them being abstract. Which was to early for them to say.

Edited November 4, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Lobokai]

I thought they said 1930+ was the cut and that planes and subs would be abstract. Is there a newer dev post I missed?

[DarkTerren]

First i have to ask do you actually have the game @Lobokai. 2nd they said they werent sure if carriers were going to be abstract or not they havent decided it was too early.

In the new mission from this last parch

New Mission “Numbers don’t matter”. Your main adversary is a huge battleship with technologies of the 1940s. You will be outgunned, outperformed in every way, but you have the numbers!.

we know starting dates becuse we can actually access the campaign faction select screen which has starting time period select  there

 

they werent sure if they would be abstract or not on the carrier.  Since it too early to tell. This is when asked if carriers were in game

Edited November 5, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Fishyfish]

I really hope carriers if implemented stay as an abstract or a really really fleshed out DLC. Float planes and catapult scouts, fine, can't argue against and I won't argue against but carriers are just going to massively and I mean massively change core game play in the late campaign. As of course they did so historically. But I rather see this game focused around the battleship task force for the entirety of the games campaign, and not suddenly have the last fifth of the game dramatically change to that of an admittedly and functionally vastly superior carrier task force. The game play goes up into the 1940s, but how much longer than that, what doors might that open up? The Soviet Union was interested in fielding a Nuclear Torpedo as early as the late 40s and if we're going into WWII we are going into the atomic era so why can't that be a thing too. Nuclear weapons and Nuclear powered warships? Nautilus was launched in 1958 and if there's going to be an "advanced tech early" what ifs then why not nuclear power late game too? I'm being absurd I know but does anyone see my point?

It's a hard and abrupt gearshift. 

What if you're playing one of the worse off nations in the campaign and you suddenly have to deal with carrier ops? I can only imagine that Great Britain will be the easiest nation to play and wouldn't have any trouble in doing so but some of the 10 nations available have a downright horrible (but fascinating) naval history during the late 19th and early 20th century. Unless the game goes full fledged pants on head alt history and makes every nation start off equal in it's naval footing and capabilities that carriers for strong carrier able nations would be such a huge jump in power as to be almost absurd. Would China be able to stand up to the might of Japanese carriers? Could Spain handle American carriers? 

Remember, you as the player are suppose to be the head of your perspective countries Admiralty. You're not controlling the country, you're not making the big choices on the world scene, sure you're influencing them, but when you play as Russia you're just their navy, this isn't HoI. Some of you say to balance carriers have carriers, well could China, Spain, Russia, Austria-Hungry or Italy realistically field carriers in any magnitude in any sort of scenario that's not totally unrealistic. I understand "what if" but, is that "What if China had the industrial, financial and resource might of the United States in 1920?" that seems too much a level of absurdity to be feasible. Short of it being in a mod, because hell Modders can do all they please and I fully support them. 

Besides, it's almost like this game is focused on something specific in naval history so much so that it was named as such.. what was it's title again? Darn, I can't remember. Well I'll call it Ultimate Admiral: South Carolina for the time being until it comes back to me. I guess few of you have any interest in playing in the 1890's or 1900's.. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Fishyfish

[Lobokai]

@DarkTerren yes I have the game. But a 1940 start could be a zero research, all things go start. 1940s tech could easily just be showing all the plans disrupted in 1922 taken to completion... because they have pointedly said that playing out the what-if of no treaty was part of their plans. These plans are famous and a big part of endless discussions in naval history academic circles. So I don’t know, but I see 1922 on as more alternate history than history. 

[Mycophobia]

12 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Let's not drop 1941+ Pacific War top tier carrier ops into a game more centered on Falkland or Jutland.  A historically accurate carrier war game is basically nothing like a dreadnaught centered one.

I don't think a game cant successfully combine both, and the transition period is extremely interesting and fun as well. Look at RtW2 for example, the system at Victory at Sea also allows for both.

That said, rather than abstracted carrier content or somewhat rushed carrier ops, I much rather have a highly flushed out dreadnought era, with some additional content for what-if (or even realistic) developments past the 20s. We are dealing with somewhat alternative historical development in a game like this anyways, its not like we are modelling the pacific war but leaving out the carrier content. The game was never advertised as one that is carrier centric, and I am okay with that. If carrier is going to be included at all, it deserves more attention than a kind of abstracted system.

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, Mycophobia said:

I don't think a game cant successfully combine both, and the transition period is extremely interesting and fun as well. Look at RtW2 for example, the system at Victory at Sea also allows for both.

That said, rather than abstracted carrier content or somewhat rushed carrier ops, I much rather have a highly flushed out dreadnought era, with some additional content for what-if (or even realistic) developments past the 20s. We are dealing with somewhat alternative historical development in a game like this anyways, its not like we are modelling the pacific war but leaving out the carrier content. The game was never advertised as one that is carrier centric, and I am okay with that. If carrier is going to be included at all, it deserves more attention than a kind of abstracted system.

Too be honest carriers will most likely be in the game anyways, but it makes sense for them to focus on everything else before hand since carriers will introduce new mechanics.

Also i wouldn't mind building muh waifu yorktown (yorkie!) in-game and having her beat toineh boutes into submission.

I think they should test the waters by releasing maybe 4 academy missions that showcase 1920-1929 carriers and then 1930-1935 carriers and see what peeps think.

Thats if they are going to release carriers by open beta.

[DarkTerren]

3 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

I really hope carriers if implemented stay as an abstract or a really really fleshed out DLC. Float planes and catapult scouts, fine, can't argue against and I won't argue against but carriers are just going to massively and I mean massively change core game play in the late campaign. As of course they did so historically. But I rather see this game focused around the battleship task force for the entirety of the games campaign, and not suddenly have the last fifth of the game dramatically change to that of an admittedly and functionally vastly superior carrier task force. The game play goes up into the 1940s, but how much longer than that, what doors might that open up? The Soviet Union was interested in fielding a Nuclear Torpedo as early as the late 40s and if we're going into WWII we are going into the atomic era so why can't that be a thing too. Nuclear weapons and Nuclear powered warships? Nautilus was launched in 1958 and if there's going to be an "advanced tech early" what ifs then why not nuclear power late game too? I'm being absurd I know but does anyone see my point?

It's a hard and abrupt gearshift. 

What if you're playing one of the worse off nations in the campaign and you suddenly have to deal with carrier ops? I can only imagine that Great Britain will be the easiest nation to play and wouldn't have any trouble in doing so but some of the 10 nations available have a downright horrible (but fascinating) naval history during the late 19th and early 20th century. Unless the game goes full fledged pants on head alt history and makes every nation start off equal in it's naval footing and capabilities that carriers for strong carrier able nations would be such a huge jump in power as to be almost absurd. Would China be able to stand up to the might of Japanese carriers? Could Spain handle American carriers? 

Remember, you as the player are suppose to be the head of your perspective countries Admiralty. You're not controlling the country, you're not making the big choices on the world scene, sure you're influencing them, but when you play as Russia you're just their navy, this isn't HoI. Some of you say to balance carriers have carriers, well could China, Spain, Russia, Austria-Hungry or Italy realistically field carriers in any magnitude in any sort of scenario that's not totally unrealistic. I understand "what if" but, is that "What if China had the industrial, financial and resource might of the United States in 1920?" that seems too much a level of absurdity to be feasible. Short of it being in a mod, because hell Modders can do all they please and I fully support them. 

Besides, it's almost like this game is focused on something specific in naval history so much so that it was named as such.. what was it's title again? Darn, I can't remember. Well I'll call it Ultimate Admiral: South Carolina for the time being until it comes back to me. I guess few of you have any interest in playing in the 1890's or 1900's.. 

If the end date is 1940 the carrier was still around for almost 45% of the time period of the game not 1/5.  Yes china is going to be able to stand up to the might of Japanese carriers why else include them they didnt have shit for a navy during almost this entire time period. This whole game is probably going to be a what if campaign otherwise why would we even have a say in designing the ships. Tech will not likely be locked between the different nation and your income will probably be based off the colonies you own and your tension with the different nation like rule the waves. There will probably be no Straight up ww1  or ww2 and naval treaties can be joined or ignored. if you want to have any idea on what the camp will propbably be like you should take a look at Rule the waves 2.

[DarkTerren]

1 hour ago, Lobokai said:

@DarkTerren yes I have the game. But a 1940 start could be a zero research, all things go start. 1940s tech could easily just be showing all the plans disrupted in 1922 taken to completion... because they have pointedly said that playing out the what-if of no treaty was part of their plans. These plans are famous and a big part of endless discussions in naval history academic circles. So I don’t know, but I see 1922 on as more alternate history than history. 

The whole game will be more alternate history than history. 1940s tech is tech that was developed in the 1940s there will probably be the abilty to learn some techs a little early while you will learn others really late.

Edited November 5, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Illya von Einzbern]

Why in the blue blazes should we shun off 1940+?
The pinacle of naval wars with "modern" ships?
It would be utter madness to stop on 1890s coz dreadnoughts. You know that battleships are dreadnoughts all tho that classification turned into more generic (battleships). Why stop on such small time period when you could easily go thru whole life and evolution of naval warfare.

when reading thru all these nurf CV BB cries there are really no game play reasons why they should not be there. Balancing issues? There were no solid reasons. Counters to them where suggested which BB (Big Babies) seems to completely ignore. CVs, BBV (proper cultured battleships) and CAVs should be in the game and it would allow the game have more content and be more interesting story telling of evolution of naval warfare, more varied tactics and the best of all. It would be a logical game. (Amazing right?)

Currently there is very limited strategies you can use. Best so far is to have as many guns you can fit and snipe from distance with spotting advantage. You can just slug it out with 5x time and just rinse and repeat.
This would become really common and boring guaranteed victory in campaign mode if you always keep having advantage in tower and radar tech.

Just slightly salty for the nonsense of peeps going against CVs.
If CVs were to have jet planes with air to ship missiles then it would be broken.
We are talking here of simple propeller planes that were more concern staying alive than yoloing (not that Hollywood agrees on that).

sheesh... gets my blood pressure up. Not good for health nor for life.

[Cptbarney]

19 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Why in the blue blazes should we shun off 1940+?
The pinacle of naval wars with "modern" ships?
It would be utter madness to stop on 1890s coz dreadnoughts. You know that battleships are dreadnoughts all tho that classification turned into more generic (battleships). Why stop on such small time period when you could easily go thru whole life and evolution of naval warfare.

when reading thru all these nurf CV BB cries there are really no game play reasons why they should not be there. Balancing issues? There were no solid reasons. Counters to them where suggested which BB (Big Babies) seems to completely ignore. CVs, BBV (proper cultured battleships) and CAVs should be in the game and it would allow the game have more content and be more interesting story telling of evolution of naval warfare, more varied tactics and the best of all. It would be a logical game. (Amazing right?)

Currently there is very limited strategies you can use. Best so far is to have as many guns you can fit and snipe from distance with spotting advantage. You can just slug it out with 5x time and just rinse and repeat.
This would become really common and boring guaranteed victory in campaign mode if you always keep having advantage in tower and radar tech.

Just slightly salty for the nonsense of peeps going against CVs.
If CVs were to have jet planes with air to ship missiles then it would be broken.
We are talking here of simple propeller planes that were more concern staying alive than yoloing (not that Hollywood agrees on that).

sheesh... gets my blood pressure up. Not good for health nor for life.

Yeah and also game labs can just add them options i that posted in other topics if they want for those who either want to test the waters with carriers, dont want them full stop and want them in full in general.

Think the lack of dev communication plus reinforcement of the fact that choices with be taken into consideration (so the option to sort of customise what you want/don't want in the game in general.

But either i want to make miss booooooooooogue and yorkie!

Although i think they should focus on the barebones and quality of life stuff first before moving on to moar game mechanics (also gud to have stuff fleshed out).

[Tousansons]

38 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Why in the blue blazes should we shun off 1940+?
The pinacle of naval wars with "modern" ships?
It would be utter madness to stop on 1890s coz dreadnoughts. You know that battleships are dreadnoughts all tho that classification turned into more generic (battleships). Why stop on such small time period when you could easily go thru whole life and evolution of naval warfare.

when reading thru all these nurf CV BB cries there are really no game play reasons why they should not be there. Balancing issues? There were no solid reasons. Counters to them where suggested which BB (Big Babies) seems to completely ignore. CVs, BBV (proper cultured battleships) and CAVs should be in the game and it would allow the game have more content and be more interesting story telling of evolution of naval warfare, more varied tactics and the best of all. It would be a logical game. (Amazing right?)

Currently there is very limited strategies you can use. Best so far is to have as many guns you can fit and snipe from distance with spotting advantage. You can just slug it out with 5x time and just rinse and repeat.
This would become really common and boring guaranteed victory in campaign mode if you always keep having advantage in tower and radar tech.

Just slightly salty for the nonsense of peeps going against CVs.
If CVs were to have jet planes with air to ship missiles then it would be broken.
We are talking here of simple propeller planes that were more concern staying alive than yoloing (not that Hollywood agrees on that).

sheesh... gets my blood pressure up. Not good for health nor for life.

We can shun off 1940+ because the scope of this game is 1895-1930. It's not the presence of one or two puzzle with a yamato hull that suddenly make Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought becoming Ultimate Admiral:WW2. The vast majority of the missions and probably the campaign will be focused on surface engagement without planes, for now.

Let's not forget the scope of this game, it's scale and overall feasability with an engine like unity. It would be utter madness to inject a whole new dimension and scale of warfare in a game who still have a tendency to crash with 8km engagement. We don't even know how the strategic map in the campaign will work.

Like all people with at least an ounce of reason in those topics: Make the dreadnought game work before asking for a vastly different game with carriers/planes. Stop "wanting" things when the basics of a naval wargame are barely here. I don't want 300km+ engagement range without a working minimap. I don't want carriers when my freakin' DD's are not even able to sail properly in formations. I don't want floatplanes when my secondaries are not able to hit a thing past 1.5km. I don't want naval aviation when game balance is not even in question at this stage of development.

And finally I don't want some poor abstraction of carrier/air warfare. Make them work like true carriers/planes or don't make them at all.

Make poll, show interest in the class/type of warfare you want. Make suggestion, ect. But I don't see the point of blaming the other asses about something not in the game when we are barely three patch in.

There, is your blood pressure okay?

Edited November 5, 2019 by Tousansons

[DarkTerren]

4 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

We can shun off 1940+ because the scope of this game is 1895-1930.

scope of the game is 1890-1930+ and we can asume its actually 1890- 1940 at least

starting camp dates to choose are 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, we know this for a fact so far unless the devs say otherwise

[Illya von Einzbern]

2 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

We can shun off 1940+ because the scope of this game is 1895-1930. It's not because there is one or two puzzle with a yamato hull that suddenly Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought is becoming Ultimate Admiral:WW2. The vast majority of the missions and probably the campaign will be focused on surface engagement without planes, for now.

Let's not forget the scope of this game, it's scale and overall feasability with an engine like unity. It would be utter madness to inject a whole new dimension and scale of warfare in a game who still have a tendency to crash with 8km engagement. We don't even know how the strategic map in the campaign will work.

Like all people with at least an ounce of reason in those topics: Make the dreadnought game work before asking for a vastly different game with carriers/planes. Stop "wanting" things when the basics of a naval wargame are barely here. I don't want 300km+ engagement range without a working minimap. I don't want carriers when my freakin' DD's are not even able to sail properly in formations. I don't want floatplanes when my secondaries are not able to hit a thing past 1.5km. I don't want naval aviation when game balance is not even in question at this stage of development.

And finaly I don't want some poor abstraction of carrier/air warfare. Make them work like true carriers/planes or don't make them at all.

Make poll, show interest in the class/type of warfare you want. Make suggestion, ect. But I don't see the point of blaming the other asses about something not in the game when we are barely three patch in.

There, is your blood pressure okay?

After some blood pressure medicine it got better. Thanks for the concern

it still makes absolutely no sense to skip odd 10 years of naval history.
From logical point it would be more coherent with the theme. Birth of dreadnoughts and end of the dreadnoughts / battleships. Carriers can be in the game and the poor AI can always be fine tuned.
Secondaries have more than enough ammo and seldom relied on something better than Mk.1 eye ball for aim. Proper range finders and computing were allocated to main battery. Naturally dual purpose secondaries had systems for aim but this would require that there are carries. How else would you justify dual purpose guns which are more accurate than casement Mk.1 eyeball system guns or 4" deck guns.
Range finders did exist but it still relies on said Mk.1 eyeball to see the splash. Secondaries are perfectly fine and the main guns are really accurate.

We have no clue is there tech that would improve secondaries nor anything that would boost the ships performance and it all goes down to lack of communication and small "leaks".
We are really working here on assumptions. There must have been reason for secondary battery nerf and it really did not hurt anything.  

[TAKTCOM]

All concern about how terribly effective aircraft carriers will be, in fact, is based on a projection of the realities of the 1940s into the 1930s or even the 1920s. 

Shocking news: 

Aircraft carriers 1920s =/= Aircraft carriers 1940s =/= Aircraft carriers 1930s

In 1935 Isoroku Yamamoto may tell cool stories about how obsolete battleships and aircraft carriers are the future of the fleet, but the fact is that all the famous  deck aircraft entered service later than the mid 30s. In fact, even such a flying archaism as Fairey Swordfish began to be operated only in 1936. So no Perl Harbor in 1920 - you planes slow,  have too low range and built from percale and wood.

 

I OK with CV and aviation. Deck seaplanes! Carrier cruisers! Carrier battleships! Awesome.

Edited November 5, 2019 by TAKTCOM

[Christian]

On 11/4/2019 at 2:20 PM, sRuLe said:

 

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?

essex is 90 planes i have no idea which essex you are looking at 

this is essex in 1943

36 F6F-3 Hellcat

36 SBD-5 Dauntless

18 TBF-1 Avenger

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_essex.htm

and here is the 1944 loadout

54 F6F-3/5 Hellcat

24 SB2C-3 Helldiver

15 TBM-1C Avenger

 

midway is 137 planes with this loadout

64 F4U-4, 4 F6F-5N

64 SB2C-5

4 F6F-5P

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_midway.htm

only with postwar planes which included twin engine fighters and the a2d attackers was it around 90 planes

 

Quote

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.

at what range are you getting 18% hitrate with battleship main guns lol

hello kittying 7km combat ranges ?

 

usual hitrate at combat ranges would be 7-3% and closing to sub 15km range it would increase to 10+%

Quote

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. 

1 no need for protection when you arent getting fired at kinda like artillery units in ground combat

there is ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a carrier being gunned down and said carrier had no recon planes or carrier capable planes

2 and non carriers dont have high dependancy on good weather for proper combat ?

3 and battleships also have high target detection dependancy the only diffrence is their scouting abilities are shite

what happends if you dont detect your enemies

see surigao strait

4 if your target detection is interupted in a BB you cant do much the carrier will just steam away while launching recon after recon the second it sees something it bombs the hell out of it the battleship will need to wait until the target is picked up again and if its a dd cv or CA it will most likely be out run

5 does it matter ? no once the BB is detected the aircraft carrier can just harras it from 200km + range and shit all over it

 

sure a fleet might survive a 40+ aircraft attack a single ship wont

wait until you get pincered by 20 torpedo bombers and 20 dive bombers 

 

[DarkTerren]

If your that scared of what planes can do then put anti air equipment on your ships or build 1 carrier with nothing but fighters.

This would also give reason to use dual purpose secondarys

Edited November 5, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Lobokai]

Once carriers hit normal production levels this game goes from one thing to something radically different... it becomes Pacific War 1942 instead of Age of Dreadnaughts... combat is over the horizon and in the air.  I'd love to do the Pacific War sans CVs, now that's a fun game "what if" for sure... but WW2 carrier wars? That's been done/will be done a hundred times... night now UA:D has the potential to be something different than the rest of the crowd (as long as the fans don't drive it to the sheep herd) 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Lobokai

[DarkTerren]

Then they might as well end the game before ww1 there were sea planes making raid during it.

[Lobokai]

Once this happens, I'm out. Already have a dozen games to scratch my carrier itch... And you know seaplane raids are a whole lot different than this (nor do seaplanes require carriers)

[Hellstrike]

I feel that leaving Carriers out would be a massive waste as a lot of naval development was influenced by them. Even if we are just looking at interwar refits. Which would actually be an interesting mechanic. Upgrade the superstructure, strap on DP guns instead of casemates and, if you have a lot of money to spare, change the powerplant. Maybe bore out the guns like the Italians did with some of their BBs. And when you get to WW2, install more AA every time your capital ships return to port.

As for controlling planes, it shouldn't be that difficult. Imagine the tactical map from the Battlestations series and that should be enough. Or old WoWs carriers (RTS) without the gimmicks such as heal or manual drops at suicidal ranges. A carrier would be limited to maybe 50 take-offs during a 2 hour battle, so it wouldn't be nearly as much plane spam as in WoWs. Either one big strike or a few planes at a time, but not 100 within 20 minutes.

[DarkTerren]

The first strike from a seaplane carrier against a land target as well as a sea target took place in September 1914 when the Imperial Japanese Navy carrier Wakamiya conducted ship-launched air raids from Kiaochow Bay during the Battle of Tsingtao in China.

[The Fundamentalist]

2 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Once this happens, I'm out. Already have a dozen games to scratch my carrier itch... And you know seaplane raids are a whole lot different than this (nor do seaplanes require carriers)

Agreed. I'm sure there's ways to implement carrier squadrons without it turning into Navyfield or something