A new modern naval RTS, scs fleet command is really the only other mondern day naval RTS. Its a great game but the graphics are showing their age now. I hope this will be as good or better.
-
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.
The game even has units that have been anounced but not entered service yet, such as the UK's new Aircraft carriers. It is detail oriented and realistic like Harpoon series, but some aspects like time compression and the fictional setting, are altered to allow more fun factor.
In this case game should be balanced somehow because Russia has just 1 aircraft vs 14-15 aircrafts of USA and UK. Let me guess what kind of superiority will Russia have ... submarines? 
Well at least the only 3D one, apart from Global Conflict Blue - which is a noble effort, but lags behind in terms of funding
I am elated to see such a game secure both its funding and a publisher. I hope games like the Red Pill will be as lucky on this chapter someday. I am putting much hope in NW:AC to give its kind the light and the boost it deserves.
In this case game should be balanced somehow because Russia has just 1 aircraft vs 14-15 aircrafts of USA and UK. Let me guess what kind of superiority will Russia have ... submarines?
Ever seen a US strike group with more than 2 aircraft carriers? Even as a decorated Admiral, I doubt that Pentagon would give you all Nimitz class carriers and ship them all to arctic.
Russians have always expressed that supercarriers are not an advantage to have and most expert agree, since a Nimitz class is to valuable to lose, so to valuable to use. That is why Russian doctrine forgoes supercarriers and instead focuses on frigates and cruisers that have overpowered missiles.
The speed of Russian missiles makes them very hard to shoot down and they give very little response time. Granit was nicknamed "shipwreck" by NATO. Moskit is also deadly. Also when fired in salvo these missiles fly in a group where the "leader" pops up to survey area while the rest are skimming sea and seeks out priority targets.
Basically where USA uses aircraft, Russians use missiles.
I really think that's just an excuse used by countries without carriers, if Russia didn't place value in carriers it wouldn't now be planning to build some. Carriers are immensely useful things and they are heavily protected against all types of threats.
That's because the comment "Most agree super carriers are not useful" is a hugely flawed comment. The use of carriers (and super carriers) has been proven time and time again. Despite everyone going on about how vulnerable they are to missiles you have to remember that platform has to be able to locate the carrier to fire... It has to do that before it IS located by AWACS, a trailing SSN, the CAP AND the Carrier escorts... Then it has to release the weapon... Once that happens the weapon must penetrate the CAP, the outer AAW umbrella, the inner AAW umbrella, the ship riding goal keeper that will have moved to take the hit instead of the carrier... that ships CIWS's, then the carriers...
IF it hits then please not the 1 missile does NOT sink a carrier. In fact missiles are generally a terrible way to sink ships, especially ships that are over 100,000 tons and designed with armour in specific places as well as a double hull configuration and other little designs to ensure they can take multiple heavy missile hits.
WHAT is a real threat to an Aircraft carrier is a submarine. Far more dangerous because you are inflicting damage below the waterline that is much more difficult to repair, to prevent and to keep operating with.
I went back to the oldest comment I could, doesn't really take that much time to clack on the last page.