Initial aerial technology advantage bonus for superpowers?

[admiralhood]

This is something I am longing to ask for a long time.

When aircraft technology is available around 1910, will all country start from the same level, or will some fraction like UK, USA and Germany enjoyed a initial advantage because of their stronger industry power and advanced scientific and education level in the real history?

[dupe]

I figure everyone starts off even, but the nations will have additional bonuses to research in areas they were stronger with, in addition to their bonuses now from RTW 1. Germans obviously get a bonus in the lighter then air department, American and England perhaps to plane design and Japan, perhaps to carrier operations wich will come into effect later, bonus techs and such would be a good way to simulate quick and early breakthroughs for each nation as well.

[galagagalaxian]

That sort of thing is already factored into RtW, all three of those nations you listed have the "Technology Leader" trait, which according to the RTW manual, gives them an advantage in research and encourages the AI to spend as much as it can on research. So that, combined with their normally higher budgets, means they will always be at or near the front of most research categories with smaller nations matching or exceeding them only through focus on specific categories.

[archelaos]

Early on, everybody could build aircraft, as it was comparatively very cheap (compared to ships). It fact, it was Italy who used aircraft in war for the first time. So there is no point to give starting advantage to some powers. Early on, it was mostly result of few talented individuals willing to start aircraft construction.
For example, at early 1930s Poland had arguably the most advanced fighter plane in the world (PZL 7 and PZL 11) due to work of just a few talented engineers. Only in mid 1930s the actual race began where only countries capable of developing cutting edge engines had the chance in the aircraft development.

A bit like computer games - in 1990s many AAA titles were made by a few or even just one man, while today you need massive investments and tens to hundreds of people to make AAA title.

[christian]

do keep in mind the japanese were the first to build purpose built aircraft carriers everybody elses carriers were either converted warships or cargo ships

in addition to this japan very quickly worked to build and advance their torpedo bomber and aircraft technology and also were some of the first to develop proper attack doctrines for their aircraft carriers

in addition to this their aircraft designs later in the war even when they were getting bombardet and destroyed proved to be quite good although in the limited number they were made

(b7a1 d4y4 and a7m1)
the japanese doctrine for carriers was very much torpedoes and range first bombs second which led to a heavely focused torpedo doctrine and very long range planes

[akosjaccik]

Yes, buuut... most of these facts won't have much to do with RtW2, as history is the basis of the series, not it's leading chain. That Japan made the Hosho first will have the same impact in the game flow starting with 1900 as GB built the Dreadnought first - absolutely nil.

That said, I am not at all against some historical-ish flavour, exactly as it's already in the game with specific nation traits like surprise attack, underdeveloped industry, rapidly expanding economy etc., and Japan already has a torpedo technology bonus in RtW I think - it "simply" needs to be applied to aerial torpedoes as well, and maybe they should get some bonus tech for carrier doctrine.

But back to the OP, I fully agree with archelaos; it is far more applicable to ships where a seriously advanced industry (especially when it comes to guns and armor plates and to machinery to some extend) is indeed needed. Not so much for early aircrafts, these were even manufactured by hand for some time, and while the bottleneck was the engine, I am not aware of any wild difference I would point at and say "See, this is the clear sign of this nation's greatness!". Whereas for ships, one could make an argument.

[christian]

it would lead to japan maybe unlocking the carrier earlier than everyone else and making them highly efficient at researching carrier technology

diffrent nations could also have diffrent carriers unlocked earlier for example britan would get their low capacity highly armored carriers they sacrifice aircraft capacity for survivability 

while for example japan would get the first high capacity armored carrier and the us would follow leaving britan with the large armored carriers last 
(how it went historically) 

[dorn]

Feb 27, 2019 5:37:51 GMT -6 christian said:

do keep in mind the japanese were the first to build purpose built aircraft carriers everybody elses carriers were either converted warships or cargo ships

in addition to this japan very quickly worked to build and advance their torpedo bomber and aircraft technology and also were some of the first to develop proper attack doctrines for their aircraft carriers

in addition to this their aircraft designs later in the war even when they were getting bombardet and destroyed proved to be quite good although in the limited number they were made

(b7a1 d4y4 and a7m1)
the japanese doctrine for carriers was very much torpedoes and range first bombs second which led to a heavely focused torpedo doctrine and very long range planes

Do not forget HMS Hermes, she was the first ship to be design as carrier from drawing board, however end of war and lot of changes postpone her completion.

[pirateradar]

Feb 27, 2019 6:34:36 GMT -6 christian said:

it would lead to japan maybe unlocking the carrier earlier than everyone else and making them highly efficient at researching carrier technology

diffrent nations could also have diffrent carriers unlocked earlier for example britan would get their low capacity highly armored carriers they sacrifice aircraft capacity for survivability 

while for example japan would get the first high capacity armored carrier and the us would follow leaving britan with the large armored carriers last 
(how it went historically) 

I don’t think the technology model in RtW and RtW2 supports things like unlocking ship patterns and design templates for some nations before others, nor do I think there’s a good reason to make the game work like that. The fact that that’s how things went historically doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how things should go in the game. If I’m the US and want to go with armored carriers, that should be my choice.

[bcoopactual]

Feb 27, 2019 7:31:27 GMT -6 pirateradar said:

Feb 27, 2019 6:34:36 GMT -6 christian said:

it would lead to japan maybe unlocking the carrier earlier than everyone else and making them highly efficient at researching carrier technology

diffrent nations could also have diffrent carriers unlocked earlier for example britan would get their low capacity highly armored carriers they sacrifice aircraft capacity for survivability 

while for example japan would get the first high capacity armored carrier and the us would follow leaving britan with the large armored carriers last 
(how it went historically) 

I don’t think the technology model in RtW and RtW2 supports things like unlocking ship patterns and design templates for some nations before others, nor do I think there’s a good reason to make the game work like that. The fact that that’s how things went historically doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how things should go in the game. If I’m the US and want to go with armored carriers, that should be my choice.

Well, I would say it does if it's part of the tech tree.  Not representing a tech necessarily but a doctrine that needs to be accepted.  Nations can also be given bonus techs or research area advantages.  One of the really nice things I think about the RTW tech system is that it's designed to give certain advantages based on history but it's also designed to keep even smaller nations within shouting distance of larger, richer nations and even match them in one or two specific areas.


Having said that, I don't necessarily think that one nation needs to be given an advantage in early carrier ops.  WW1 drove much of that innovation and WW1 isn't scripted into the game.    

[akosjaccik]

Feb 27, 2019 6:50:34 GMT -6 dorn said:

Do not forget HMS Hermes(...) however(...)

Do not forget IJN Satsuma, she was to be the first dreadnought (...) however (...)

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I am not too interested on the "who did what first" playground. It might be a matter of prestige, but honestly, without context, nothing more.

[imryn]

I agree with the comments about historical events having no influence on RTW events and technologies and would like to point out that IF any such historical events were to be considered Japan would get no advantages whatsoever.

Japan had no great doctrine for carrier operations, they were seen as a support for the battle line just the same way as every other nation (except USA) saw them.
Japan had some good carrier based aircraft however they had no idea how great losses of pilots would be and had no way to replace them.
Japan had a limited number of carriers that were no better and no more advanced than any other nations (except USA).

At the beginning of WW2 the USA was far more advanced than Japan in its ability to conduct and sustain carrier operations - all they needed to do is build more carriers. It is no coincidence that the US built basically one class of fleet carrier for the entire war; they had perfected the technology through extensive war-gaming and experimentation years before WW2 broke out and the mish-mash of different carriers they started the war with was the aftermath of that experimentation - ships that had been used to prove or disprove various concepts and technologies and were thus flawed but too new to be replaced.

Before the war the US had developed; lightweight hangers and decks to facilitate rapid repair, arrester gear at both ends of the flight deck, deck parking to increase air groups size, a huge pilot replacement program. The list goes no and on.

By the end of WW2 no other nation had even caught up with where the USA was BEFORE the war.

I am not saying that the US should get any advantage, I am saying that IF any country gets an advantage it HAS to be the USA.

[akosjaccik]

Unfortunately I do not have time currently for a detailed answer, but I have to disagree with a fair amount of your claims. "Japan had no great doctrine for carrier operations" - yes, they saw the battleships as the main force, and yet on april 10, '41 they formed the First Air Fleet. With the addition of the CarDiv5, formed the Kido Butai; and ultimately, successfully attacked Pearl Harbor. Second claim is true, but it stems from a horribly twisted martial culture, take a look at interviews for example - if I recall correctly - Saburo Sakai. This was an error in the entire system, not in carrier doctrine alone. Japan had arguably a better idea of what to do with their carriers and how to do it than any other nation at that time, aided by for example the experience of the sino-japanese wars as well.

Anyway, pretty uuh... harsh claims, to say the least.

[dorn]

Mar 6, 2019 5:38:12 GMT -6 imryn said:

I agree with the comments about historical events having no influence on RTW events and technologies and would like to point out that IF any such historical events were to be considered Japan would get no advantages whatsoever.

Japan had no great doctrine for carrier operations, they were seen as a support for the battle line just the same way as every other nation (except USA) saw them.
Japan had some good carrier based aircraft however they had no idea how great losses of pilots would be and had no way to replace them.
Japan had a limited number of carriers that were no better and no more advanced than any other nations (except USA).

At the beginning of WW2 the USA was far more advanced than Japan in its ability to conduct and sustain carrier operations - all they needed to do is build more carriers. It is no coincidence that the US built basically one class of fleet carrier for the entire war; they had perfected the technology through extensive war-gaming and experimentation years before WW2 broke out and the mish-mash of different carriers they started the war with was the aftermath of that experimentation - ships that had been used to prove or disprove various concepts and technologies and were thus flawed but too new to be replaced.

Before the war the US had developed; lightweight hangers and decks to facilitate rapid repair, arrester gear at both ends of the flight deck, deck parking to increase air groups size, a huge pilot replacement program. The list goes no and on.

By the end of WW2 no other nation had even caught up with where the USA was BEFORE the war.

I am not saying that the US should get any advantage, I am saying that IF any country gets an advantage it HAS to be the USA.

I disagree with that. USN was ahead of general thinking using carriers however USN was far from what you describes and there was a lot of fields where USN need to learn from others. I do not Japan carrier strategy so much but I do not think it was behidn as you mentioned. May be somebody with good knowledge will write short summary.

At start of war 1939 only fleet carriers (comparison in 12/1941 has no sence as UK has been already more than 2 years in war with casualties.

USN - Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise | Hornet, Wasp under construction

Japan - Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, (Hosho), (Ryujo) | Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiyo, Junyo under construction

UK - Ark Royal, Glourious, Courageous, Furious, (Eagle), (Hermes) | Illustrioius, Victorious, Formidable, Indomitable, Implacable under construction

I will just mentioned several topics where USN was behind:

- night operations (RN was years ahead USN)

- torpedo bombers usage (both IJN and RN was ahead)

- passive defence designs (RN was quite ahead and only after war Midway was superior design in that field)

- fighter interceptions (RN due to RAF)

- ASW

If you look after war, angled deck, steam catapults, optical landing systems were British innovations.

USN with resources much larger than anybody else during war can project force much further and stronger than anybody else. But if you look on fleet strength, it was not till 1943 when USN Essex class start to be ready and surpassed IJN and RN by power.

[imryn]

Mar 6, 2019 6:41:42 GMT -6 dorn said:

Mar 6, 2019 5:38:12 GMT -6 imryn said:

I agree with the comments about historical events having no influence on RTW events and technologies and would like to point out that IF any such historical events were to be considered Japan would get no advantages whatsoever.

Japan had no great doctrine for carrier operations, they were seen as a support for the battle line just the same way as every other nation (except USA) saw them.
Japan had some good carrier based aircraft however they had no idea how great losses of pilots would be and had no way to replace them.
Japan had a limited number of carriers that were no better and no more advanced than any other nations (except USA).

At the beginning of WW2 the USA was far more advanced than Japan in its ability to conduct and sustain carrier operations - all they needed to do is build more carriers. It is no coincidence that the US built basically one class of fleet carrier for the entire war; they had perfected the technology through extensive war-gaming and experimentation years before WW2 broke out and the mish-mash of different carriers they started the war with was the aftermath of that experimentation - ships that had been used to prove or disprove various concepts and technologies and were thus flawed but too new to be replaced.

Before the war the US had developed; lightweight hangers and decks to facilitate rapid repair, arrester gear at both ends of the flight deck, deck parking to increase air groups size, a huge pilot replacement program. The list goes no and on.

By the end of WW2 no other nation had even caught up with where the USA was BEFORE the war.

I am not saying that the US should get any advantage, I am saying that IF any country gets an advantage it HAS to be the USA.

I disagree with that. USN was ahead of general thinking using carriers however USN was far from what you describes and there was a lot of fields where USN need to learn from others. I do not Japan carrier strategy so much but I do not think it was behidn as you mentioned. May be somebody with good knowledge will write short summary.

At start of war 1939 only fleet carriers (comparison in 12/1941 has no sence as UK has been already more than 2 years in war with casualties.

USN - Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise | Hornet, Wasp under construction

Japan - Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, (Hosho), (Ryujo) | Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiyo, Junyo under construction

UK - Ark Royal, Glourious, Courageous, Furious, (Eagle), (Hermes) | Illustrioius, Victorious, Formidable, Indomitable, Implacable under construction

I will just mentioned several topics where USN was behind:

- night operations (RN was years ahead USN)

- torpedo bombers usage (both IJN and RN was ahead)

- passive defence designs (RN was quite ahead and only after war Midway was superior design in that field)

- fighter interceptions (RN due to RAF)

- ASW

If you look after war, angled deck, steam catapults, optical landing systems were British innovations.

USN with resources much larger than anybody else during war can project force much further and stronger than anybody else. But if you look on fleet strength, it was not till 1943 when USN Essex class start to be ready and surpassed IJN and RN by power.

Japanese carrier strategy was not so much "behind" as it was "short sighted". They had a good idea of what they wanted to achieve in the opening phases of WW2 but had no realistic long range plan, and thus no plan for any type of sustained operations, carrier ops included. The US had a realistic workable plan for the entire pacific war before it started and they had identified the need for overwhelming numbers of carrier based aircraft a decade before the war started. Through gaming and experimentation they had developed technology and doctrines for carrier operations more advanced than any other nation:

Lightweight hangers and flight decks allowed a far larger air group to be embarked and were far easier to repair if damaged. Blast damage in the hangers was much reduced in this design over armoured hanger carriers, and damaged flight decks could be repaired very quickly, often by the ships crew with no need even to dock. Armoured hanger carriers are often reported as being more resilient to bomb damage but this is incorrect as it took the same amount of damage to make the flight deck unusable and they had to be docked for repair which took much longer. In addition the shocks on the armoured decks actually warped the hulls making almost all of the GB carriers unfit for service long before their US counterparts.

The US implemented arrestor gear and barriers allowing flying on with aircraft deck parked. They implemented arrestor gear and barriers at both ends to allow flying on with the ship steaming astern in the event of a damaged flight deck. they developed doctrine that allowed simultaneous flying on and off while also having planes deck parked.

The US developed the circular fleet formation which facilitated carrier operations whilst providing maximum protection and simplified heading changes.

Critically, the US had correctly predicted the level of attrition that would occur to navy aircraft and pilots and had a system in place to replace those pilots in the numbers needed. Japan had no such system, and that had nothing to do with an "martial tradition" it was simple lack of foresight and planning.

The US navy was aware of the need for a large number of big carriers years before WW2 started. They had well developed war plans that required a large number of big carriers, and they had no alternative plans that DID NOT need those carriers so why they failed to build them is strange. Partly it is due to US isolationism and the politicians strange desire to follow the various disarmament treaty limits even after the treaties had lapsed. Partly it is due to several strong advocates for air power in the USN retiring and being replaced by battleship admirals. Even when war with Japan broke out US ship building was favouring battleships over carriers before President Roosevelt intervened directly. In the lead up to the war the US maintained parity with the UK in carriers and this meant that because all of their carriers were fairly new none could be replaced under treaty restrictions.

In short, although the actual numbers and types of carriers in service were not great, the US was far in advance of all other nations in its knowledge of how to build and maintain large numbers of carriers in an extended campaign. The US knew exactly what types of ships it needed and had developed the technology and doctrine to get the most out of them over an extended campaign.

No other nation was even close to them in this regard.

As for those other topics you mentioned:

- Night Operations - True, but of no relevance whatsoever to carrier operations
- Torpedo Bomber usage - The US underestimated the ability of air power to sink battleships and placed an emphasis on dive bombing as a way to mission kill an enemy carrier (essential for the Pacific campaign).
- Passive defence designs - RN armoured hanger carriers were inferior to USN lightweight hanger carriers in every way. The Midway class was not a copy of the RN armoured hanger carriers; if anything it was a scaled up Essex class with an armoured flightdeck on a lightweight hanger. The strength deck remained below the hanger just as it did on the Essex's.
- Fighter interceptions - You realise that the RN and the RAF are two completely different services? Also, the USN operated far beyond support of land based fighters and had no way to use the huge array of radar stations that the RAF benefited from.
- ASW - The RN was superior to the USN, but again no relevance to carrier operations.

The RN was the first navy to introduce carriers and in many ways was the world leader in carrier development throughout WW2 and beyond. What the USN had and what the RN lacked was a clear idea of the role of the carrier in an overall strategy. The RN's adoption of smaller carriers with much smaller air groups and armoured hangers and flight decks was in many ways a mistake, however it was driven by constraints that the USN did not have. In GB the RN and the RAF was in conflict for the whole interwar period over who would operate aircraft, and for some of that time the RN lost all aircraft completely to RAF control. At no time was the RN given funding to develop large numbers of carrier borne aircraft and therefore the RN designed carriers around smaller air groups. I don't think this was seen as the best choice, but as the only one available.

The USN and USMC could not have achieved what they did in the Pacific without the huge resources available to the USA, but that is only part of the story. The US developed the ability to project power on a scale never seen before during the interwar years by detailed realistic war gaming, planning, Fleet Exercises and Fleet Landing Exercises. No other nation did this. The US could have been far better prepared for war in terms of fleet composition than it was, in fact it should have been, but once war broke out it knew exactly what to build and those ships were pretty much the same at the end of the war as they were at the beginning. For the US this was fully mature technology and doctrine, they were not "figuring it out as they went along" the way every other navy was.