Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

CV I, a bargain or have I missed something?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(37796)

unmerged(37796)

Corporal
Jan 12, 2005
26
0
The CV I carriers in core are buildt in 90 days, in contrast to a CV II or CV III, which are buildt in 700+ days. The CV I's are of course weaker, but not that much weaker, are they? I tried to build a fleet as Germany in my first CORE game, and ended up with 15 CV I's + CAG's, (with support ships of course) and they had no problems whatsoever smashing the AI contolled fleets. With modent CAG's they seem quite potent. Maybe they shouldnt be able to use anything but the first CAG's? I presume that would be hard to fix, without making a new type of brigade? Or maybe I've missed something now, since I havent tried this in multiplayer games?
 
Myrsnipe said:
The CV I carriers in core are buildt in 90 days, in contrast to a CV II or CV III, which are buildt in 700+ days. The CV I's are of course weaker, but not that much weaker, are they? I tried to build a fleet as Germany in my first CORE game, and ended up with 15 CV I's + CAG's, (with support ships of course) and they had no problems whatsoever smashing the AI contolled fleets. With modent CAG's they seem quite potent. Maybe they shouldnt be able to use anything but the first CAG's? I presume that would be hard to fix, without making a new type of brigade? Or maybe I've missed something now, since I havent tried this in multiplayer games?
Click to expand...

Code: 
# 0 - Conversion
model = {
	cost				= 4
	buildtime 			= 90
	defaultorganisation 		= 3
	morale				= 3
	manpower			= 1.00
	maxspeed			= 20
	surfacedetectioncapability	= 1
	airdetectioncapability		= 3
	subdetectioncapability		= 1
	visibility			= 30
	seadefence			= 4
	airdefence			= 2
	seaattack			= 1
	subattack			= 0
	airattack			= 1
	shorebombardment		= 0
	transportcapability		= 0
	range				= 3250
	supplyconsumption		= 2.60
	fuelconsumption			= 1.40
	distance			= 0.16
}

# 1 - Small Carrier
model = {
	cost				= 6
	buildtime 			= 755
	defaultorganisation 		= 6
	morale				= 6
	manpower			= 1.00
	maxspeed			= 30
	surfacedetectioncapability	= 1
	airdetectioncapability		= 3
	subdetectioncapability		= 1
	visibility			= 35
	seadefence			= 6
	airdefence			= 3
	seaattack			= 1
	subattack			= 0
	airattack			= 1
	shorebombardment		= 0
	transportcapability		= 0
	range				= 4750
	supplyconsumption		= 2.80
	fuelconsumption			= 1.80
	distance			= 0.17
}

I'd say the level one carriers are to slow and to weak. But id you build an Uberstack of 15, yeah, that's a different story (where you playing normal/normal?)
 
That is ludicrous.

According to the above post conversions are 360 IC/Ds while the next level up is 4530 IC/Ds.

You can build amost 13 of the Conversion Carriers for every Small Carrier.

If I had CORE and saw that I would uninstall it and label it as in the Alpha stage, I cannot imagine the people who make CORE would allow something like that into their mod, especially one that prides intself in its naval game.
 
Playing N/N.

Tried again now H/N same result. Once I reaserched CV I's, start a looooong series. Stop when there is enough. Building CAG's Early war model. They maul everything. Reaserched CLAA as well as escorts, but there is really no point, as the CLAA are the ones that should be escorted by the carriers. They are afterall the most expensive asset in the group..... Using all the DD's I've got from the start instead. Cheaper.
 
Quintis Vindex said:
That is ludicrous.

According to the above post conversions are 360 IC/Ds while the next level up is 4530 IC/Ds.

You can build amost 13 of the Conversion Carriers for every Small Carrier.

If I had CORE and saw that I would uninstall it and label it as in the Alpha stage, I cannot imagine the people who make CORE would allow something like that into their mod, especially one that prides intself in its naval game.
Click to expand...


I think you're too harch on them now. I'm still on v0.21. Long way to go to v1.0.

You dont get 13 CV I for 1 CVII, It's not really that easy. They need CAG's and they are "expensive" compared to the CV. So I can build 3-4 CV I for every CV III/V.

My idea is to make the CARRIER the powerful unit, with spesialist CAG's as a suplement. Problem would be solved. I Imagine that is easier than making newer CAG's unavailable to older ships.

Besides a CV 3 har air/sea defence 5/10 CV I has 2/4. I dont know what effect that has, but some numbercrouncher out there could proabably tell us.
 
Myrsnipe said:
I think you're too harch on them now. I'm still on v0.21. Long way to go to v1.0.

You dont get 13 CV I for 1 CVII, It's not really that easy. They need CAG's and they are "expensive" compared to the CV. So I can build 3-4 CV I for every CV III/V.

My idea is to make the CARRIER the powerful unit, with spesialist CAG's as a suplement. Problem would be solved. I Imagine that is easier than making newer CAG's unavailable to older ships.

Besides a CV 3 har air/sea defence 5/10 CV I has 2/4. I dont know what effect that has, but some numbercrouncher out there could proabably tell us.
Click to expand...

You are correct. You get something like 12.58 CV1s for the cost of 1 CVII.

If you can show me the cost of the CAGs we can do a better overall analysis, but I doubt the cost of the CAG can somehow come close to mitigating a 4170 IC/D difference in cost.

Carriers should be the most powerful unit. They shouldn't be cheap though.
 
Quintis Vindex said:
You are correct. You get something like 12.58 CV1s for the cost of 1 CVII.

If you can show me the cost of the CAGs we can do a better overall analysis, but I doubt the cost of the CAG can somehow come close to mitigating a 4170 IC/D difference in cost.

Carriers should be the most powerful unit. They shouldn't be cheap though.
Click to expand...


Here are some numbers, subject to slider settings etc

CV I 345 ICD
CAG 2001 ICD

Total 2346 ICD

CV V 5824 ICD
CAG 2001 ICD

Total 7825 ICD


3.33/1 favour CV I.
 
Hi,

This is an problem that slipped through testing (none of the testers tried to build these units) and will be fixed for the upcoming DD release. I don't recall the proper value off hand, but it is a very simple fix if you want to correct this manually for the 0.22 release. Otherwise just don't build these units. The AI normally won't build them either so that way no one is getting an unfair advantage.

mm
 
dec152000 said:
Hi,

This is an problem that slipped through testing (none of the testers tried to build these units) and will be fixed for the upcoming DD release. I don't recall the proper value off hand, but it is a very simple fix if you want to correct this manually for the 0.22 release. Otherwise just don't build these units. The AI normally won't build them either so that way no one is getting an unfair advantage.

mm
Click to expand...


OK, no bulding CV I's. Easiest thing to do.
 
dec152000 said:
The AI normally won't build them either so that way no one is getting an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...
Not quite, Mike... My American fleet is attacking the Germans, and every time we do battle I actually have an extra CV I to sink. It's hard to keep up with them at this rate... But it's an easy fix for sure, and will be corrected in DD, so in all it won't be a real problem in the long run.
 
Hagar said:
Not quite, Mike... My American fleet is attacking the Germans, and every time we do battle I actually have an extra CV I to sink. It's hard to keep up with them at this rate... But it's an easy fix for sure, and will be corrected in DD, so in all it won't be a real problem in the long run.
Click to expand...


Well, the cheap CV I problem will be solved yes, but I cant see a real difference between CV II - V eighter. Some small differences in sea and airdefence, and NO difference in striking power. I still think that the carrier itself should have higher stats, with the CAG's a bit toned down. Still a CV I will have the same striking power as a Graf Zeppelin CV V. That is not good, a conversion CV had nowhere near the same amount of planes, and logistics aboard to handle the planes as any fleetcarrier would.
 
CVs

There have been previous conversations about this and in referance to DD and the Light CVs that now exisit. Depending on available space conversion carriers could be move to the Light CV status and space permitting a Light CAG used for Light CVs while regular Cags used for normal Fleet CVs. Not sure if that is doable within the confines of the game though.
Even still CORE is excellent by camparison and My Dooms day edition is collecting dust as I can not even stand to play the normal game anymore. Take your time boys I'll gladly wait and play .22. Hats off to you all....
 
Myrsnipe said:
Well, the cheap CV I problem will be solved yes, but I cant see a real difference between CV II - V eighter. Some small differences in sea and airdefence, and NO difference in striking power. I still think that the carrier itself should have higher stats, with the CAG's a bit toned down. Still a CV I will have the same striking power as a Graf Zeppelin CV V. That is not good, a conversion CV had nowhere near the same amount of planes, and logistics aboard to handle the planes as any fleetcarrier would.
Click to expand...

I told them 5, 6 months ago. It´s the reason why I lost interest in core. moving stats to carrier unit IS necessary... *sigh*
 
Well there are some weaknesses with the CV I's though. They have absolutely rubbish defence coupled with having lower Org/Morale than the rest of the fleet. They might potent against carriers, but if I a surface fleet gets close at night they're definately toast. :)

(although they might need a severe increase in constrution time)
 
The primary difference between a treaty carrier and the large carrier is their morale rating in addition to the obvious better defense ratings. The higher morale rating will make them more likely to attack a target.

There are also more subtle differences like longer range, better detection ratings and slightly better attack ratings. With super carriers and nuclear carriers (DD) that falls off because those types of carriers had very little in terms of armament.
 
Maximilian I said:
I told them 5, 6 months ago. It´s the reason why I lost interest in core. moving stats to carrier unit IS necessary... *sigh*
Click to expand...

You mentioned moving the stats to the carriers, not the cost problem. I also explained why we chose to not move the stats from the CAG to the carrier. I am sorry that is why you chose to lose interest in CORE.
 
Myrsnipe said:
Well, the cheap CV I problem will be solved yes, but I cant see a real difference between CV II - V eighter. Some small differences in sea and airdefence, and NO difference in striking power. I still think that the carrier itself should have higher stats, with the CAG's a bit toned down. Still a CV I will have the same striking power as a Graf Zeppelin CV V. That is not good, a conversion CV had nowhere near the same amount of planes, and logistics aboard to handle the planes as any fleetcarrier would.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we are unable to make any adjustment for the size of the airgroup. The way that we have handled this is through differences in the morale and org values for the carrier. This will give a larger carrier and advantage over a smaller carrier (assuming equal doctrines) when they have the same type of CAG. Of course your larger carrier will resist damage much more than your basic conversion carrier.
 
The build time for the conversion carrier will be increased for DD. There will still be a conversion carrier model. There will be fewer of this type in the starting OOB, due to some of the less capable carriers being moved to a conversion light carrier model (British Hermes, etc).
 
MateDow said:
The build time for the conversion carrier will be increased for DD. There will still be a conversion carrier model. There will be fewer of this type in the starting OOB, due to some of the less capable carriers being moved to a conversion light carrier model (British Hermes, etc).
Click to expand...



The reduced Morale/Org is only marginal. My CV I now has 89 org I think. That means a CV5 would have 106, only 16% difference. Dont know what the sea/airdefence actually means in a practical situation. I can try to let 3 carriers sail, and see how they fare against another CV group.


Or, I can simply wait for the next version of CORE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back