|
Post by Airy W on May 30, 2018 15:24:23 GMT -6
Would there be an option to research steam catapults that early? Rockets would most likely be simpler, I wonder if they could be rushed in time time to put rocket assisted airplane launchers on dreadnoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 30, 2018 15:26:38 GMT -6
What about converting steam liners? They are pretty big and really fast, not a bad choice for early fleet carriers, also it should be slightly faster to build than a purpose-build carrier. Will there be any option for this? I would really like some Graf Zeppelin, Sparviero or Aquila for sure I don’t think most liner converted carrier like hiyo and Aquila is actually faster than purpose built carriers but they are better than most converted carrier for sure. Graf zeppelin I am pretty sure is purpose build.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 15:36:29 GMT -6
What about converting steam liners? They are pretty big and really fast, not a bad choice for early fleet carriers, also it should be slightly faster to build than a purpose-build carrier. Will there be any option for this? I would really like some Graf Zeppelin, Sparviero or Aquila for sure I don’t think most liner converted carrier like hiyo and Aquila is actually faster than purpose built carriers but they are better than most converted carrier for sure. Graf zeppelin I am pretty sure is purpose build. IIRC They are not faster in terms of ship speed, but in terms of build time. Yes, GZ was purpose build, I meant Wesel but I mistakenly changed it for GZ.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 30, 2018 15:40:08 GMT -6
What about converting steam liners? They are pretty big and really fast, not a bad choice for early fleet carriers, also it should be slightly faster to build than a purpose-build carrier. Will there be any option for this? I would really like some Graf Zeppelin, Sparviero or Aquila for sure I don’t think most liner converted carrier like hiyo and Aquila is actually faster than purpose built carriers but they are better than most converted carrier for sure. Graf zeppelin I am pretty sure is purpose build. The Hiyo class carriers were originally ocean liners and could rarely do above 23 knot. Their machinery was out of date and therefore they were not useful as fleet carriers. They could be useful escorting a battle squadron as long as they were not battle cruisers with 30 knot speeds. The Aquila had enough speed but was too small for regular carrier operations. However, for the Italian's operating in the Mediterranean, having land based air for support, they would work. Italy, Sweden, Russia might be able to use smaller carriers like the Aquila.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 30, 2018 15:41:32 GMT -6
I don’t think most liner converted carrier like hiyo and Aquila is actually faster than purpose built carriers but they are better than most converted carrier for sure. Graf zeppelin I am pretty sure is purpose build. IIRC They are not faster in terms of ship speed, but in terms of build time. Yes, GZ was purpose build, I meant Wesel but I mistakenly changed it for GZ. It depends on if the liner is fully built and in service, then it takes a little longer. A ship like a heavy cruiser or light cruiser, whose hull is finished but nothing else can be converted quickly and launched. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 30, 2018 15:55:42 GMT -6
To be clear, I was talking about legacy ship aircraft carriers in jest (although it could be fun to see what's possible) . That said, while WW2-era carrier aircraft would, of course, struggle to operate from a slow-moving vessel, it was only in the second half of the 1930s (and well into it) that carrier aircraft moved from biplanes to monoplanes. The Swordfish, which was a perfectly reasonable mid-1930s carrier strike aircraft, could operate from Merchant Aircraft Carriers (small, slow and loaded with grain - so a legacy ship converted into an aircraft carrier for the late teens/1920s might be feasible, if not financially sensible (I'd expect it to be pretty expensive and result in a sub-standard carrier) . Also - and call me an armour geek - but I'm going to say it again - box magazine protection .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 30, 2018 16:03:45 GMT -6
To be clear, I was talking about legacy ship aircraft carriers in jest (although it could be fun to see what's possible) . That said, while WW2-era carrier aircraft would, of course, struggle to operate from a slow-moving vessel, it was only in the second half of the 1930s (and well into it) that carrier aircraft moved from biplanes to monoplanes. The Swordfish, which was a perfectly reasonable mid-1930s carrier strike aircraft, could operate from Merchant Aircraft Carriers (small, slow and loaded with grain - so a legacy ship converted into an aircraft carrier for the late teens/1920s might be feasible, if not financially sensible (I'd expect it to be pretty expensive and result in a sub-standard carrier) . Also - and call me an armour geek - but I'm going to say it again - box magazine protection . There is nothing wrong with the concept of converting other types of ships to carriers provided you understand the negative effect of their dimensions and machinery. A good carrier conversion would be submarine tender as they generally have the speed but not the size needed for a complete air group. However, it depends on the mission. For an escort mission of merchants and tankers, fighters and a few level bombers to carry small bombs and depth charges can be useful. However, I think cost is one aspect that is important. A liner is generally owned by a private company and would have to be purchased then converted if the country has enough yards. In wartime, yards are busy repairing fleet ships so they might not have enough dock space to perform the conversion. The optimal hull would be a heavy cruiser or even a light cruiser. Addendum: Kaiser managed to built fifty escort carriers in two years. They were used to escort convoys and when combined, could provide air cover and ground support for amphibious operations.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 30, 2018 18:49:33 GMT -6
Now I'm wondering if late generation armored cruisers, like Blucher, or early battlecruisers, like Invincible, would be good carrier conversion choices. An old battleship carrier, without a machinery replacement, would probably only be useful when operating biplanes. But with a faster ship you could get a decent second-rate carrier to last the course of the game.
Maybe early pre-dreads could be converted into seaplane tenders...
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on May 30, 2018 19:11:15 GMT -6
Now I'm wondering if late generation armored cruisers, like Blucher, or early battlecruisers, like Invincible, would be good carrier conversion choices. An old battleship carrier, without a machinery replacement, would probably only be useful when operating biplanes. But with a faster ship you could get a decent second-rate carrier to last the course of the game. Maybe early pre-dreads could be converted into seaplane tenders... That's what they wound up doing. Lexington and Saratoga were battlecruiser conversions, and the Independence-class carriers were built off Cleveland-class CL hulls. Since you need both volume and speed a battlecruiser is ideal for conversion.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on May 30, 2018 19:22:50 GMT -6
Devs, question (if you can answer it). How will light/medium/heavy AA be designed? Can you specify it's effectiveness, or is it just a generic "Everyone has generic AA gun" sort of deal? IIRC the effectiveness of your AA guns, relative to other nations AA guns, will mostly depend upon your nations tech ability with that type of AA gun (light,medium,heavy). So your AA guns can/will vary somewhat in effectiveness from other nations. Ahh, that makes sense. Similar to how torpedoes work in RTW. How do you decide how many AA guns are on the ship?
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on May 30, 2018 19:47:53 GMT -6
Now I'm wondering if late generation armored cruisers, like Blucher, or early battlecruisers, like Invincible, would be good carrier conversion choices. An old battleship carrier, without a machinery replacement, would probably only be useful when operating biplanes. But with a faster ship you could get a decent second-rate carrier to last the course of the game. Maybe early pre-dreads could be converted into seaplane tenders... The entire navy doesn't need to be preserved I think that there should be plenty of more recent hulls available for conversion.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 30, 2018 20:02:08 GMT -6
Now I'm wondering if late generation armored cruisers, like Blucher, or early battlecruisers, like Invincible, would be good carrier conversion choices. An old battleship carrier, without a machinery replacement, would probably only be useful when operating biplanes. But with a faster ship you could get a decent second-rate carrier to last the course of the game. Maybe early pre-dreads could be converted into seaplane tenders... The entire navy doesn't need to be preserved I think that there should be plenty of more recent hulls available for conversion. I Agree, at some point these old ships will have weaken hull structures and they will not be cost effective to be rebuilt. The conversions in WW2 were accomplished for a specific set of purposes or no one would have done it. It wasn't done during the pre-war until around 1940 when it became obvious that war for us was looming. The escort carriers, initially were built upon older merchant and tankers, but the fifty produced later, were new hulls.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on May 30, 2018 20:12:04 GMT -6
Now I'm wondering if late generation armored cruisers, like Blucher, or early battlecruisers, like Invincible, would be good carrier conversion choices. An old battleship carrier, without a machinery replacement, would probably only be useful when operating biplanes. But with a faster ship you could get a decent second-rate carrier to last the course of the game. Maybe early pre-dreads could be converted into seaplane tenders... The entire navy doesn't need to be preserved I think that there should be plenty of more recent hulls available for conversion. Speaking of preserving the entire navy, wouldn't it be cool if "scrapping" an elite ship (maybe one with multiple battles? involved in a notable battle?) gave you an option to preserve it as a museum to give +prestige instead of +cash?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 30, 2018 21:44:10 GMT -6
The entire navy doesn't need to be preserved I think that there should be plenty of more recent hulls available for conversion. Speaking of preserving the entire navy, wouldn't it be cool if "scrapping" an elite ship (maybe one with multiple battles? involved in a notable battle?) gave you an option to preserve it as a museum to give +prestige instead of +cash? They should be careful with implementing this, as it could lead to balance issues. +Prestige is going to be worth more than a little bit of cash, as A: that's your score, and B: You can cash out prestige for additional budget in some events, and that additional budget is likely worth more than the returns for scrapping that ship. So if they implement something like this, there should be diminishing returns. Maybe something more like a "donation hold" option where ships still have to be maintained until someone submits a reasonable proposal to buy the ship. I would think that nations like the US would have a greater chance of preserving a ship while European nations would generally have a lesser chance of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 30, 2018 21:54:40 GMT -6
Personally, I suspect that carrier conversions are going to be in a similar spot to extensive reconstructions in RtW - it's completed faster and is usually more economical in the short term than new construction, but new construction would give you a better ship and is probably more economical in the long term.
The 20 or so knots of a late predreadnought or early dreadnought is probably adequate for an early carrier - USS Langley was only capable of about 15.5, HMS Argus 20, and French Bearn 21.5 knots, after all. It's only in the 1930s that carriers really start to need to be capable of ~30 knots or be equipped with catapults to launch modern fully-loaded aircraft. Since it's unlikely that you'd be considering predreadnought or semidreadnought battleships for carrier conversion much after 1920 or early dreadnought battleships for carrier conversion much after 1925, that's probably ten to fifteen years where such a vessel would make an adequate fleet carrier. Not a great fleet carrier, mind you, but an adequate one.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, the Bogue-class escort carriers were only capable of about 18 knots and none of the other American or British escort carriers were good for much over 20 knots. Perhaps you meant the Saipan-class light carriers, or maybe one of the Japanese carriers?
It should be noted that Lexington, Saratoga, and the Independence-class carriers were converted while in a fairly incomplete state and so could receive fairly extensive design changes without requiring significant reconstruction. Furious and Eagle were converted while much closer to completion while Glorious and Courageous were converted after completion, and so were not as extensively redesigned (at least partly due to the cost of rebuilding the upper part of the ship), with the result that they had fairly small air wings for their size.
Steam catapults were a fairly late development, only being introduced in the 1950s, though I'm not aware of any particular reason why they could not have been developed earlier. However, gunpowder catapults and flywheel catapults had been under development or in service since at least the '20s, and weight-and-derrick catapults since the early days of aviation.
RATO systems were under development from the '20s, but I don't think any entered service before WWII.
|
|