Naval Air
I am not sure if this is the correct spot for this I did not see a thread on aircraft. Anyway, it has been kinda of disappointing that HOI lacks real carrier air. I think this can be changed though.
I think the torpedo bomber needs to be modified.
These bombers mainly existed only in carrier based versions. First, rename this carrier bombers. These would have much lower cost to produce, about 1/3 this is the number of planes a carrier wing would represent compared to a land based wing. So carrier bombers would cost about 1/3 of what they do now. Also there would be two models, a dive bomber and a torpedo bomber (Kate and Val or TBD and SBD)
However, there would be a balance here. The stats would not stay the same. Naval attack would not change carrier air was very strong against navies. For some reason the basic torpedeo bomber a higher air defense than a basic tactical bomber. This is ridiculus. These were very slow moving aircraft that were much smaller than a tactical bomber.
So I would propose the torpedeo bomber tech would look like this.
model = {
cost = 3
buildtime = 140
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 250
surfacedetectioncapability = 2
airdetectioncapability = 0
surfacedefence = 3
airdefence = 1
airattack = 1
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 0
navalattack = 5
range = 200
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
}
# 1 - Basic Torpedo Bomber
model = {
cost = 4
buildtime = 140
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 350
surfacedetectioncapability = 3
airdetectioncapability =1
surfacedefence = 5
airdefence = 2
airattack = 1
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 0
navalattack = 7
range = 300
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
}
# 2 - Improved Torpedo Bomber
model = {
cost = 5
buildtime = 140
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 2
maxspeed = 400
surfacedetectioncapability = 3
airdetectioncapability = 1
surfacedefence = 7
airdefence = 3
airattack = 1
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 0
navalattack = 9
range = 400
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
}
# 3 - Advanced Torpedo Bomber
model = {
cost = 6
buildtime = 140
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 450
surfacedetectioncapability = 3
airdetectioncapability = 1
surfacedefence = 9
airdefence = 4
airattack = 1
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 0
navalattack = 11
range = 525
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
The divebomber would look the same expect have slightly faster speed and maybe a little less naval attacks and maybe slight higher air and surface defence, they could have a chance at running away.
It also struck me as odd that torpedeo improvements do not affect torpedeo bomber stats. The US had a decent torpedeo bomber in the TBD but their torpedeos were crap making them totally ineffective. Perhaps naval attack could be lowered some and torpedeo advances could boost naval attack ratings.
The other problem is a lack of carrier based fighters. I have thought about this some and 2 things came to mind. Either adding a carrier based prototype in a basic, improved and advanced form or getting rid of the MR fighter and replacing it with carrier based fighter. If the latter occurred there could a multirole interceptor and a multirole escort tech. Fairly cheap but would allow a new unit that had slightly lower air attack and higher ground attack, maybe a little more range for interceptors, a little less range for escorts.
Again the carrier based fighter would be 1/3 of the size of a normal fighter wing. Therefore less attack, defence, and cost.
The fighter file would look like this. Where MR fighter is carrier based.
model = { # Early carrier fighter
cost = 4
buildtime = 150
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 350
surfacedetectioncapability = 3
airdetectioncapability = 1
surfacedefence = 2
airdefence = 1
airattack = 1
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 0
navalattack = 0
range = 200
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
}
model = { # Basic Carrier Fighter
cost = 5
buildtime = 150
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 500
surfacedetectioncapability = 4
airdetectioncapability = 3
surfacedefence = 3
airdefence = 2
airattack = 2
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 1
navalattack = 0
range = 450
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
model = { # Improved Multirole Fighter
cost = 6
buildtime = 150
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 600
surfacedetectioncapability = 6
airdetectioncapability = 6
surfacedefence = 4
airdefence = 3
airattack = 3
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 1
navalattack = 1
range = 600
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
}
model = { # Advanced Carrier Fighter
cost = 20
buildtime = 150
defaultorganisation = 30
manpower = 1
maxspeed = 650
surfacedetectioncapability = 8
airdetectioncapability = 8
surfacedefence = 5
airdefence = 4
airattack = 5
strategicattack = 0
tacticalattack = 2
navalattack = 2
range = 800
supplyconsumption = 1
fuelconsumption = 1
}
Like the bombers these have defense, attack, and supply values due to smaller size. So LBA would tear up any carrier based squadron due to larger size while carrier based fighters would be very effective against carrier based bombers but not as effective against Land based bombers.
Another thought is to leave the defense the same. The US did routinely engage Japanese LBA and win but these contest, early in the war were bloody, unlike the Marianas Turkey shoot later in the war. The change would also allow the US and Japan to equip their carriers much easier. Humans could use carrier based squadrons for patrols on islands where only carrier based air could reach. So the Japanese and US AI might be able to be programmed to place carrier based air to defend island posessions.
o We can make the Ranger a small fleet carrier in the next release. There is a category already there for them (actually called Wasp IRC 
