Land based aviation

[goduranus]

Seeing there is a hot debate in the Carriers thread, I want to bring your attention, once again to land based aviation.The game is about ships, but ships of the period had to confront the reality of land-based guns, land-based torpedoes, land based radar, and land based aviation, which could be far more threatening than carriers because air groups are far more mobile over land, and land-bases can have so many more planes than a carrier could carry. (Germany used something like ~250 land based aircraft to cover Scharnhorst over the English Channel)

In the enclosed seas of Europe, and the island chains of Asia, where carriers would not strictly be needed, air planes launched from land bases would act as recon, drop bombs, drop torpedoes, drop mines, launch rockets at warships, or at least wear the warships down by keeping them on alert as the warships advanced.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Valid point.
Also if this game has similarities to the age of sail version. We might have naval landings (i do hope for them).
Age of sail in the end was sail boats ^^ (enough side track)
Own carriers would be your only defense against these planes. Also you would need army's presence to occupy these airfields or just nuke em with Type3 ammo.

[SiWi]

true, land aviation was important especially in Europe.

But I can already tell you that the people against CV would also complain about land base planes because "oh no my BB was hit by something not being a BB".

 

Thou I'm afraid that land base planes could be an abstract mechanics, like Sub.

CVs would be a more active part of the game since you would design them yourself.

[Illya von Einzbern]

True.
It's kinda sad that there is so much crying for BBs getting a minor hit from CV plane when BBs already can eat torps fro breakfast be okay.
Not having CVs is like limiting your self to one style of combat. Land aviation could be used as tactical asset to fight in more favorable conditions.
Limiting these out reduces the nuances of tactical flexibility 

[SiWi]

personal I would like it as "call in" abilities during battle, like general powers of C&C Generals

Aka, you are in range of your land base heavy bombers, you can call them in from the "border" of the map and they you can order them to a traget they then try to bomb.

[Balu0]

I don't get the hate on CVs and planes. Adding AA to your ships would be a cool customization option. Missions to hunt CV groups in your BB would be an absolute blast. Supporting landing troops with offshore bombardment with your 14"+ guns would be awesome. Land based aircraft would add a lot I think.  

[sRuLe]

7 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Own carriers would be your only defense against these planes

Rrrrrrr....

 

... bang!

 

R.I.P.

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by sRuLe

[goduranus]

Quote

In the early hours of 13 June 1940, two Beauforts found the German cruiser Lützow off Norway. The first was mistaken for a Junkers Ju 88 and was able to torpedo the Lützow without return fire, putting her out of action for six months

Edit: Ah, I forgot the other example of attack by land based aviation, the sinking of Force Z

Edited October 31, 2019 by goduranus

[sRuLe]

12 minutes ago, goduranus said:

 

 

Beaufs are ground based planes as Mosquitoes. But can carry up to 3000kg bomb or two fine torpedoes. These things can put end to your escort forces. Only worst if there is pack of Do-217 up your tail. And the big slow, well armed sailing target lovers we have extremely BAD NEWS... Some times on airfields graze some B-17, B-24, B-29, Avro Lancasters, Pe-8 and so on big flying cows that can carry an up to 12 tons heavy goo, which hit is equal to 50k instant red damage.🎃

Edited October 31, 2019 by sRuLe

[goduranus]

Hmm Lancaster

 

[LeBoiteux]

• The first submarine sunk by seaplanes may be the French Foucault on 15 sept. 1916 by Austro-Hungarian planes :

 

• Bases of the French Naval Air forces in 1918 (certainly shared with the Allies) against enemy submarines/bases/ships :

(dark blue : airships ; light blue : seaplanes ; red : captive balloons)

Info (in French) and source

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by LeBoiteux

[Tousansons]

6 hours ago, Balu0 said:

I don't get the hate on CVs and planes. Adding AA to your ships would be a cool customization option. Missions to hunt CV groups in your BB would be an absolute blast. Supporting landing troops with offshore bombardment with your 14"+ guns would be awesome. Land based aircraft would add a lot I think.  

I'm not sure there is any "hate on CV's or planes". The CV topic show that at least those reading the forums want them. However there is probably some concerns about "how" will they work in the game environnement. For now we are fighting with wonky pathfinding, busted armor resulting in underwhelmind AP shells, weak low caliber guns and so on. The "dreadnought" game does not work that well (even if its pretty, promising and obviously only in alpha)

In my opinion I need a more fleshed out UI and an early version of the campaign playable before "wanting or not" the whole aviation thing. For exemple: If there is no minimap in game, there is no way we can play with planes and carriers. If we can't organise our TF's and their engagement range (or scouting actions) on the strategic map, there is no way carriers will ever work, too. And what about AA screens, or pickets DD's for early plane spotting? And after that how do we make land based aviation then? Fighting against them could be "easy enough" to do (just waves of planes, after all). But what about retaliation? Without some way of fighting an airbase on land (worst if it's INland), I don't see how we could knock them out. Certainly not with carriers, as we all know it was temporary at best, inefficient most of the time.

As a comparison, fighting in the mediteranean sea in the first versions of Rule the waves 2 was an absolute nightmare past 1940+. Waves and waves after waves of shitty land based aircraft from both sides and everywhere in any conflict with a major presence in the area. Night battles and bad weather where a blessing for all of your remaining non-AA heavy surface ships.

Sure it could be cool to have planes, seaplanes, CV's, CAV/BBV, airbases and the more respectable AV too, it's an important step in naval warfare. But if Rule the waves 2 needed another game to make them work. I'm pretty sure UA:D will need the same, it's a whole different beast, from a technical and gameplay perspective. I can wait, boats firing at each others with a strategic layer is good enough if its done well.

[SiWi]

41 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

I'm not sure there is any "hate on CV's or planes". The CV topic show that at least those reading the forums want them. However there is probably some concerns about "how" will they work in the game environnement. For now we are fighting with wonky pathfinding, busted armor resulting in underwhelmind AP shells, weak low caliber guns and so on. The "dreadnought" game does not work that well (even if its pretty, promising and obviously only in alpha)

I find this description of the thread a bit disingenuous. There are absolutely people who don't want CVs in the game "because that would make BB's obsolete and this game is suppose to be about them". 

 

As for the reasoning that "it takes another game", I found that pretty unconvincing since RTW isn't the only game out there.

Many before have mange to show both BB and CV combat in game.

That doesn't mean that the strawmen of "having CV rush into game" applies. 

Just that they should be added in general.

may this be with a later patch (far later) or even a DLC, would for me less important. Important would be that this important part of challenging in ship design won't be ignore eventually. 

[Tousansons]

I should have been more precise, I agree. "According to the poll on the CV topic, the majority of the people reading the forum wants CV's/plane."

However:

There is not that much RTS games with pretty realistic naval battle and aviation. I know the recent Victory at sea, they are pretty arcade and the second one is.. Not that good. Pacific Storm is another attemps with nice ideas and a poor execution, it need some extensive modding before starting to be enjoyable. Rule the waves 2 (my personnal favorite) does this in a simple yet elegant way, even if the graphics are.. Well. I found it a good (and fun) depiction of aviation in a naval environment. I would like to know if I missed some, I mostly looked "recent" titles and my searches never really showed anything more.

The others naval RTS I know doesn't include aviation. And after that there are plethora of turn based wargames, or strange hybrids like battlestation but they are not the subject of UA:D (an RTS)

In the end we both agree on one point. "Yes, but not now."

Edited October 31, 2019 by Tousansons

[Steeltrap]

13 hours ago, SiWi said:

I find this description of the thread a bit disingenuous. There are absolutely people who don't want CVs in the game "because that would make BB's obsolete and this game is suppose to be about them". 

 

As for the reasoning that "it takes another game", I found that pretty unconvincing since RTW isn't the only game out there.

Many before have mange to show both BB and CV combat in game.

That doesn't mean that the strawmen of "having CV rush into game" applies. 

Just that they should be added in general.

may this be with a later patch (far later) or even a DLC, would for me less important. Important would be that this important part of challenging in ship design won't be ignore eventually. 

If the devs put them in the game, I for one would like the option to disable them. Those who want them can have them, those who don't can avoid them. We're all happy.

Plus I have the ONLY reason I need to have: for me, it will NOT be fun having them there. That's it, pure and simple. It's NOT what I want, and I play games for fun (silly me).

I've been reading naval military history for close on 40 years. I can assure you my attitude is not based on ignorance.

How about you go read what I took the time to write in the CV thread and respond to it constructively. You'll even see me talk about a well known CV computer game that was developed when a lot of players here were probably less than 10yo, lol.

I can assure you of one thing, and that's if you badmouth people who take the time and effort to write a pretty cogent set of reasons as to why they're not keen on attack aircraft being in the game, as I did, you're not going to do much to convince them of anything other than you have a rather snotty attitude to people who disagree with you.

Just a thought.

Cheers

[LeBoiteux]

21 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

If the devs put them in the game, I for one would like the option to disable them. Those who want them can have them, those who don't can avoid them. We're all happy.

See Steel division's solution for aircrafts : airbases outside the map (delay to arrive), ability to call them in, timer between each call (refueling/repair time), decks (allowing to pick them up or not)...

[Diabolic_Wave]

2 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

If the devs put them in the game, I for one would like the option to disable them. Those who want them can have them, those who don't can avoid them. We're all happy.

Plus I have the ONLY reason I need to have: for me, it will NOT be fun having them there. That's it, pure and simple. It's NOT what I want, and I play games for fun (silly me).

Seconded. I'd personally like to have the choice to fight with and without aviation. Maybe a choice between 'on-battlefield', 'abstracted' and 'absent'. I'd probably enjoy all styles personally, but switching it on and off is probably the best way to appeal to the most players possible.

[SiWi]

5 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

If the devs put them in the game, I for one would like the option to disable them. Those who want them can have them, those who don't can avoid them. We're all happy.

Plus I have the ONLY reason I need to have: for me, it will NOT be fun having them there. That's it, pure and simple. It's NOT what I want, and I play games for fun (silly me).

I've been reading naval military history for close on 40 years. I can assure you my attitude is not based on ignorance.

How about you go read what I took the time to write in the CV thread and respond to it constructively. You'll even see me talk about a well known CV computer game that was developed when a lot of players here were probably less than 10yo, lol.

I can assure you of one thing, and that's if you badmouth people who take the time and effort to write a pretty cogent set of reasons as to why they're not keen on attack aircraft being in the game, as I did, you're not going to do much to convince them of anything other than you have a rather snotty attitude to people who disagree with you.

Just a thought.

Cheers

oh I have read your comment but believe it or not you are not the only poster in that thread and if someone describes a behavior you don't show, then perhaps it wasn't about you..

But you rather want to play the victim.

 

Also I don't buying your reasoning for them not being fun. But that is a different topic.

 

[SiWi]

18 hours ago, Tousansons said:

I should have been more precise, I agree. "According to the poll on the CV topic, the majority of the people reading the forum wants CV's/plane."

This I can agree  with.

A solid 2/3 majority does want CV's in game.

18 hours ago, Tousansons said:

However:

There is not that much RTS games with pretty realistic naval battle and aviation. I know the recent Victory at sea, they are pretty arcade and the second one is.. Not that good. Pacific Storm is another attemps with nice ideas and a poor execution, it need some extensive modding before starting to be enjoyable. Rule the waves 2 (my personnal favorite) does this in a simple yet elegant way, even if the graphics are.. Well. I found it a good (and fun) depiction of aviation in a naval environment. I would like to know if I missed some, I mostly looked "recent" titles and my searches never really showed anything more.

The others naval RTS I know doesn't include aviation. And after that there are plethora of turn based wargames, or strange hybrids like battlestation but they are not the subject of UA:D (an RTS)

In the end we both agree on one point. "Yes, but not now."

Victroy at sea is arcardy sure but it does have things like "armor penetration" and such. So its not as if its impossible to have realistic elements and both CV and BBs.

Pacific Storm is probably the worst game I played the most. Partly because it has the same "does not die" problems as this game now sometimes had (mind you that reloading would sink those ships), thou the far bigger problems where campaign wise... the stupid lose conditions, a cheating and bad AI and most importantly the crashes the game tended to when saving in battle.

Among a host of other things.

Fun fact:

I'm almost sure that the Dev made Sub an abstract mechanic , because playing PS made them realize that subs are hard to add and make to be fun in a game like that.

 

RTW I honestly never heard of before i found this game.

 

But back to the more important point:

sure adding CV's right now may be a mistake, maybe adding them before the campaign works well would be a mistake.

But not to add them at all I would also view a mistake.

AA is an important design factor for all ships once the air plane is invented and it would feel like missing a very important aspect of design.

And because CV's are a bit different as other ships, designing them would be a different challenge then cruisers and BB who are closer to each other in terms of design.

 

So yeah we both do agree on that.

[goduranus]

On 11/1/2019 at 5:48 AM, Tousansons said:

The others naval RTS I know doesn't include aviation. And after that there are plethora of turn based wargames, or strange hybrids like battlestation but they are not the subject of UA:D (an RTS)

In the end we both agree on one point. "Yes, but not now."

This PTO is a pretty good naval game, with decent Ship/Air interaction imo. And it's got at least workable armor/penetration mechanics.

Edited November 2, 2019 by goduranus

[Steeltrap]

12 hours ago, SiWi said:

oh I have read your comment but believe it or not you are not the only poster in that thread and if someone describes a behavior you don't show, then perhaps it wasn't about you..

But you rather want to play the victim.

 

Also I don't buying your reasoning for them not being fun. But that is a different topic.

 

Playing the victim? Really? I'm not 12yo you know.

A simple statement such as "some have pointed out concerns that reasonably will need to be managed" or whatever, while not necessary. takes little effort and vastly changes the apparent intent. 

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, which is fine.

I suggested the ability to turn off attacking air elements as an easy way out for everyone for exactly that reason, as that way all involved can choose what works for them.

You might just as easily have addressed that.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Steeltrap
minor additions/amendments

[DarkTerren]

3 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Playing the victim? Really? I'm not 12yo you know.

A simple statement such as "some have pointed out concerns that reasonably will need to be managed" or whatever, while not necessary. takes little effort and vastly changes the apparent intent. 

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, which is fine.

I suggested the ability to turn off attacking air elements as an easy way out for everyone for exactly that reason, as that way all involved can choose what works for them.

You might just as easily have addressed that.

As i stated in the cv thread you might as well have an option to turn off anything and everything that way we can all have what ever work for us.

[Steeltrap]

1 hour ago, DarkTerren said:

As i stated in the cv thread you might as well have an option to turn off anything and everything that way we can all have what ever work for us.

Indeed, and I've replied to that.

If such a thing were possible, and I'm sure it won't be, I still fail to see the problem.

Unless, of course, one adopts a somewhat puritan view that there's only ONE acceptable version and no other ought to be offered even if a yes/no toggle were possible.

[Cptbarney]

23 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

Seconded. I'd personally like to have the choice to fight with and without aviation. Maybe a choice between 'on-battlefield', 'abstracted' and 'absent'. I'd probably enjoy all styles personally, but switching it on and off is probably the best way to appeal to the most players possible.

You could have these options.

Option 1: No Avation of any kind.

Option 2: Limited Land based avaiation (so spy planes, scouts, interceptors and light bombers maybe).

Option 3: 1/2 Land based avaiation (the above choices of planes with, medium bombers, light torp bombers, attackers and smoke laying planes).

Option 4: Full Land based avaiation (same as above but with every type of plane reasonable, heavy bombers, heavy fighters, dive bombers etc.)

Same can be applied to CV's too!

'w'

fun for all!

[Steeltrap]

@Cptbarney Yes, I imagine it really will come down to the dev's schedule, resources and priorities.

In fact I'd like to see them offer a variety of aircraft options, both land and sea, so the maximum number of people can enjoy the game in the ways they like, not to mention the added replay variety such a design would bring.