• 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.

Hayden

First Lieutenant
97 Badges
May 30, 2004
260
21
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Supreme Ruler: Cold War
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • March of the Eagles
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
So I was doing some thinking about how aircraft carriers could/should work, and I have a couple suggestions.

CAGs: Make these groups of about 30 planes and divide them into three classes: Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber, and Fighter. Torpedo bombers would be useful against ships, but less so against ground and flying targets. Dive bombers would be useful against ground but less so against ships and planes, whereas fighters would be useful against aircraft but little else. Each group would represent around 30 planes. Research could then be contingent upon the various other classes of aircraft, rather than based off the carriers. These attachments would also have their own status bar, rather than using the carrier's morale bar.

Carriers: Carriers would work similarly to how they do now, except they would carry different numbers of fighters. For example, a "Great War" type carrier (Like the HMS Argus) would only carry a single GAC, as outlined above, whereas a more modern carrier, like the USS Enterprise, would carry 3 such CAGs. The largest carriers would perhaps carry up to 4.

Escort Carriers: These would act as cheaply produced carriers that work similar to the way regular carriers, the difference being that they never carry more than one CAG. They would be quick to produce, frail and quite expendable.

Conversions: Many ships were converted to the carrier role from other classes. What I was leaning toward with this was Battleship and Battle Cruiser conversions would change to carrier one level lower than converted ship. Heavy Cruisers would convert to two levels lower. Therefore, a Battleship of the first level would be unable to convert, as would level two Heavy Cruisers. Smaller ships would not be converted.

Battleship/Battle Cruiser Carriers: Some ships, principally the Japanese IJN Ise, were converted to a hybrid role. These ships would be have some advantages. Perhaps this could be done with an "Attachment" (like the Improved hull or flak guns) that reduces attack ability by about half, while allowing the ship to carry a single CAG.

Float Planes: This would be an attachment which represents float planes seen on many ships. Representing only 1-3 planes, rather than effecting the attack power, they would instead assist the ships in finding targets. Perhaps attachable to Heavy Cruisers and above?
 
Upvote 0
Hayden said:
CAGs: Make these groups of about 30 planes and divide them into three classes: Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber, and Fighter. Torpedo bombers would be useful against ships, but less so against ground and flying targets. Dive bombers would be useful against ground but less so against ships and planes, whereas fighters would be useful against aircraft but little else. Each group would represent around 30 planes. Research could then be contingent upon the various other classes of aircraft, rather than based off the carriers. These attachments would also have their own status bar, rather than using the carrier's morale bar.

Why make three different CAGs? AFAIK no carrier was equipped with only torpedo bombers, or only fighters or dive bombers.


Carriers: Carriers would work similarly to how they do now, except they would carry different numbers of fighters. For example, a "Great War" type carrier (Like the HMS Argus) would only carry a single GAC, as outlined above, whereas a more modern carrier, like the USS Enterprise, would carry 3 such CAGs. The largest carriers would perhaps carry up to 4.

Indeed. Larger and more modern carriers should house larger and more effective CAGs. Whether this is done by adding multiple CAGs or by changing a carrier's stats itself doesn't matter.


Escort Carriers: These would act as cheaply produced carriers that work similar to the way regular carriers, the difference being that they never carry more than one CAG. They would be quick to produce, frail and quite expendable.

Again, this doesn't make sense if every CAG consists of only one type of planes. No carrier would leave without fighters, and I doubt there were carriers with fighters alone.


Conversions: Many ships were converted to the carrier role from other classes. What I was leaning toward with this was Battleship and Battle Cruiser conversions would change to carrier one level lower than converted ship. Heavy Cruisers would convert to two levels lower. Therefore, a Battleship of the first level would be unable to convert, as would level two Heavy Cruisers. Smaller ships would not be converted.

NO. A semi-modern battleship would be converted to an advanced carrier? You've got to be kidding. If conversion would be implemented, perhaps then there should be a separate class for "converted carriers" whereby each converted carrier could retain stats like speed and range from its original model, but whose effectiveness would be far below a regular carrier, even one from several models older.


Battleship/Battle Cruiser Carriers: Some ships, principally the Japanese IJN Ise, were converted to a hybrid role. These ships would be have some advantages. Perhaps this could be done with an "Attachment" (like the Improved hull or flak guns) that reduces attack ability by about half, while allowing the ship to carry a single CAG.

I don't know about the historical practice, but I think improved hulls and extra AA guns should be available to all carrier types.


Float Planes: This would be an attachment which represents float planes seen on many ships. Representing only 1-3 planes, rather than effecting the attack power, they would instead assist the ships in finding targets. Perhaps attachable to Heavy Cruisers and above?

Wouldn't these be automatically assigned to each capital ship? Making them a separate attachment would be too much hassle for something so simple. Perhaps make them a researchable tech, whereby each level gives bonuses to sea detection or something.
 
Draigh said:
Why make three different CAGs? AFAIK no carrier was equipped with only torpedo bombers, or only fighters or dive bombers.

I don't know about the historical practice, but I think improved hulls and extra AA guns should be available to all carrier types.

1. I think Hayden might mean that each single cag represents 30 aircraft of each type (90 altogether).

2. I remember from watching some history channel show about the USS Enterprise getting better AA guns and an improved hull in '43 to at least partially keep it up with Essex class carriers.
 
Hayden said:
Dive bombers would be useful against ground but less so against ships

Wrong. I suggest you read again what happend at the battle of Midway.

Dive bombers were extremly useful in sinking Carriers and they were the best aircraft at sinking screens because of their precision bombing.

While not able to directly sink Battleships they could knock out their Bridge, AA and cannons reducing them to a big useless burning pile of floating metal.


Experienced divebomber carrier wings could score a 80-90% hit rate vs ships and thats much much more than other aircraft types.
 
Hayden said:
So I was doing some thinking about how aircraft carriers could/should work, and I have a couple suggestions.

CAGs: Make these groups of about 30 planes and divide them into three classes: Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber, and Fighter. Torpedo bombers would be useful against ships, but less so against ground and flying targets. Dive bombers would be useful against ground but less so against ships and planes, whereas fighters would be useful against aircraft but little else. Each group would represent around 30 planes. Research could then be contingent upon the various other classes of aircraft, rather than based off the carriers. These attachments would also have their own status bar, rather than using the carrier's morale bar.

Name me a carrier that had just one type of plane.


Carriers: Carriers would work similarly to how they do now, except they would carry different numbers of fighters. For example, a "Great War" type carrier (Like the HMS Argus) would only carry a single GAC, as outlined above, whereas a more modern carrier, like the USS Enterprise, would carry 3 such CAGs. The largest carriers would perhaps carry up to 4.

Age did not effect the planes. Size did. But its not exactly fair, HMS Courageous and the bunch could have just as many aircraft as Ark Royal.

Hermes, Argus, and Eagle had more then just fighters or dive bombers etc. It was just smalller, HOI shows this badly. Those three were fleet carriers, just very small ones.

Escort Carriers: These would act as cheaply produced carriers that work similar to the way regular carriers, the difference being that they never carry more than one CAG. They would be quick to produce, frail and quite expendable.

USS Bogue and HMS Attacker, the symbol of escort carriers, they're roles? ASW/convoy escort. Theres a reason they're called escort carriers. Very few escorts carriers were designed for fleet action, and when they were employed against fleet carriers, they preformed poorly.

Keep escort carriers as they are.

Conversions: Many ships were converted to the carrier role from other classes. What I was leaning toward with this was Battleship and Battle Cruiser conversions would change to carrier one level lower than converted ship. Heavy Cruisers would convert to two levels lower. Therefore, a Battleship of the first level would be unable to convert, as would level two Heavy Cruisers. Smaller ships would not be converted.

The only cruisers converted to carriers were Pre-WWII, so why put it into a WWII game?

Battleship/Battle Cruiser Carriers: Some ships, principally the Japanese IJN Ise, were converted to a hybrid role. These ships would be have some advantages. Perhaps this could be done with an "Attachment" (like the Improved hull or flak guns) that reduces attack ability by about half, while allowing the ship to carry a single CAG.

The Ise carried 9 (?) Sea planes. In no way was she a carrier, she was more like HMS Iron Duke, who carried seaplanes aswell, rather then HMS Illustrious

Float Planes: This would be an attachment which represents float planes seen on many ships. Representing only 1-3 planes, rather than effecting the attack power, they would instead assist the ships in finding targets. Perhaps attachable to Heavy Cruisers and above?

The role they preform is simply added to Cruiser detection level, no point in confusing the game even more.
 
Gigalocus said:
Very few escorts carriers were designed for fleet action, and when they were employed against fleet carriers, they preformed poorly.

Hmm I only know of one fleet action where escort carriers took part and in that one, they kicked ASS together with their escorting destroyers :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Samar


When you say keep them the way they are, do you mean they should be just as broken as now and give all gunships free ability to close range to carriers within 1hour in HoI3 aswell?
 
Alex_brunius said:
When you say keep them the way they are, do you mean they should be just as broken as now and give all gunships free ability to close range to carriers within 1hour in HoI3 aswell?

No, I meant keep them as historical escorts. Chaning them to disposable fleet carriers doesn't make any sense.

You can change them, but aslong as they stay in an escort role, making them just like cheap level 1 carriers is well ... silly.
 
In the Pacific, the escort carrier planes were used for remplacing fleet carrier planes which were lost.

Escorts carriers would have to be integrated in the convoy system, but this system needs changes.

It would be fun that CAG become independant squadrons and not a brigade for carrier.
 
Hm, yes, the whole discussion is actually kinda moot as long as we're stuck with guns instead of planes.
 
I kinda like this idea. It gives you the option to customize your CVs. Granted, as some people have mentioned that most carriers always carried a mix, but wouldn't it be fun to experiment? You can build pure militia armies, so why not be able to mix and match CAGs the same way. Some ideas probably wouldn't work that well (e.g. pure fighter or pure bomber), but then we would have the ability to weight certain CTFs and customize them for certain roles. I know that's not how things work in reality all the time, but this game is not necessarily about slavishly following history - a quick browse through the AAR section should convince you of that.
 
A big area that Cvs need to be improved is there anti air defences. To simple have mass stacks of naval bombers sinking countless CVs is wrong and annoying. Land based planes should certainly be capable of sinking CVs, but CV anit-air defences should be far greater. Perhaps land based planes would sustain such large losses unless escourted to make more the one mission immpossible or those units would be destroyed.

Escourt CVs do need to be reivsed, they simply make surface fleets very powerful when used correctly.
 
mike8472 said:
A big area that Cvs need to be improved is there anti air defences. To simple have mass stacks of naval bombers sinking countless CVs is wrong and annoying. Land based planes should certainly be capable of sinking CVs, but CV anit-air defences should be far greater. Perhaps land based planes would sustain such large losses unless escourted to make more the one mission immpossible or those units would be destroyed.

Escourt CVs do need to be reivsed, they simply make surface fleets very powerful when used correctly.

Well, as I said before, there's not much point in tweaking CAGs until carriers actually have planes stationed on them. as of now, they're simply very long-range guns which can't attack (or protect from) other planes at all.