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.
Certainly can't move away from CAGs being represented as escorts, I rather like that.

My only issue is was the seemingly out of wack cost. Lets remember that flattops like USS Saratoga and USS Lexington,, and Akagi and Kaga were "conversions"... 30,000+ ton, 30+ knot, 90+ Aircraft conversions that were certainly extraordinaly capable and would have (and did in Saratoga) been able to launch and recover the most advanced carrier based aircraft during the war.

I have no issue with the sea/air attack values of Conversion Carriers being roughly the same as even late war carriers. The advantages should come in more robust defense values (to simulate onboard AAA and generally better and more stout construction),,,better morale and org,, longer range, etc... things that Paradox and seemingly CORE already do. The cost increments should however not be drastic but fairly gradual and small.

I haven't played CORE since HOI-1,,,,and I don't have HOI2 so I look foward to seeing what they do with DD as I enjoyed CORE for HOI-1 to the point where I could not play vanilla.
 
I believe the correct value for the build time for Conversion carriers is something like 790 days, not 90 days. It is just an unfortunate typo that slipped through, alas - but never fear, it will be corrected in the next version.

Tim
 
What about the introduction of aviation cruisers? A sort of half carrier? CORE had them for HoI I am pretty sure.
 
Sir Humphrey said:
What about the introduction of aviation cruisers? A sort of half carrier? CORE had them for HoI I am pretty sure.
Click to expand...

At the moment there aren't plans for a light cruiser carrier, but they haven't been ruled out completely.
 
Sweet.
 
What about the tendencies for IJN carriers to have less aircraft than allied carriers? Usually 50-60 planes vs. 70, respectively? Can this be addressed in the DD version?
 
Bullfrog said:
What about the tendencies for IJN carriers to have less aircraft than allied carriers? Usually 50-60 planes vs. 70, respectively? Can this be addressed in the DD version?
Click to expand...

Due to the limitations of the game, no.
 
it may have already been said, but it was my understanding that the earliest carriers were just merchies with no superstructure and some extra deck laid out, thus the only problem with the CV1 is that it is slightly overpowered.
 
Right some of the early IJN carriers could only carry a few planes, so they would be next to useless if represented correctly in game.
 
Hi,

Most of the really weak early CV "experiments" are gone by the game timeframe. Probablly the oldest one still in use is the Argus, and it could carry 20 aircraft. Re: the Japanese their "worst" CV is the Hosho. This was the first purpose built CV and it would be a bit better than the Argus in many respects. Both of these units spent a lot of time serving as training carriers during the war. Almost all of the other JAP CV units are actually quite modern vessels and they compare very well with the typical British CVs.

mm
 
You still had the USS Langley which was fairly getting on a bit.
 
Sir Humphrey said:
You still had the USS Langley which was fairly getting on a bit.
Click to expand...

By the timeperiod covered by the game, the Langley had already been coverted into a seaplane tender. Half of her flight deck had been removed and she was unable to operate as a carrier.
 
I stand dutifully corrected. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back