signs point towards maybe
A clarification: In order to avoid any new mistakes: If you'll do that, the up-to date suggestion is here and the list in the initial post is notably outdated, many things were added (and some were changed) thanks to input from the community (Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread!). But we think if you want to do the rework, all you would need to do is assign a coder to implement the guide.
Here, let's hope it's not pointless.
And the Devs aren't saying that either. What they are saying is that of the countries involved in this DLC (Italy, Ethiopia, and Switzerland), they only one that used them was Italy. Another way of saying that is that they don't have the time or resources (the biggest limiter on DLCs seem to be art assets for them) to add them for every country that built them (or studied them).
If art assets are the problem, they could make (and use) a generic midget sub art for all countries.
they are in-between, but making them a tier 1 normal sub would make them upgradeable and therefore more capable than they were historically.
While illogical upgrades is an issue so is that a rather global problem as a lot of ships could not be upgraded the way they are in the game. I don't think they should be considered midget subs just for that reason. One possible change would be to make it cost significantly more to add torpedoes to an existing sub while keeping it possible to upgrade the type of tubes for a reasonable price. It's also a minor problem as all you have to do to avoid it is not to upgrade them.
Rather not. That would be a terrible design, while this is actually pretty decent.
As far as we figured it out, a deck armour was planned (at some point) but was not installed (and the Aquila was unfinished historically)
25mm, that's a 1" deck, that's not armor, you're looking at something like 3" in that caseAs far as we figured it out, a deck armour was planned (at some point) but was not installed (and the Aquila was unfinished historically)
Here's the armor scheme for a completed Aquila from World of Warships
But if you all agree that a deck armour module would be unrealistic we'll drop that.
DS/planes: multiple Carrier classes
US:
Lexington
Ranger
Yorktown
Wasp
Japanese:
Akagi
Kaga
Soryu
have 3 deck modules (60 planes) but a fourth module can't be added to their hulls. These CVs had a plane capacity of 70 to 100 IRL. Some here think the Aquila should not be as big (should be smaller than them) ingame?
Wouldn't we be able to feed the abstractions of the design company adding hangar space, and the allowance of base strike doctrine to crowd hangars with less penalty as some sort of loose justification to why they could historically carry more planes than the base model can in game? Aquila being italian, who in this game aren't use base strike and don't currently have access to design companies.
Between an armored flight deck, 60 hangar capacity or an empty slot what do you reckon would be better? Personally if she is deliberately inferior by having an empty hangar/deck slot I'd reckon that'd discourage people to build her even if they take the focus.It's important to be careful when interpreting those plane capacity figures, as they often relate to interwar biplanes that were smaller than the aircraft operated during WW2. That being said, as @Corpse Fool well points out, doctrine can help Japan and the US (who generally use Base Strike) stack those carriers higher, while Italy is unlikely to go down that path. More generally, the approach taken in this thread (and my preferred approach) hasn't been to nerf a design because another design might be underpowered (particularly given the theme of this thread).
There is an argument to be made for a 40 aircraft Aquila though, and a reasonable one (of that 51 air group planned, some were spares hung from the top of the hangar deck, and as noted above the hangar floorspace was on the smaller side). I might err on the side of 60, but there's nothing wrong with arguing for 40 as well - I couldn't say with confidence which is the "more right" position
The devs went with 60 hangar capacity (at least at the current beta version). The question is: is that good enough or do we need to suggest something different?
