|
Post by sloanjh on Jul 11, 2019 17:34:31 GMT -6
Anyone play the old 'Carriers at War' from SSG? The AI was brilliant and the searching, report/false report/muddle was a commander's nightmare. Loved CAW - always wished that they had ported more of the add-on scenarios when they redid the game. The suspense coming from fog-of-war was wonderful, in terms of having no idea what the enemy OOB was and where they might be coming from - really reminiscent of walking into the deep dark woods at night and not knowing where or when the monsters might jump out. Another thing I recall from it is how performing just a few strikes would wreck most air groups (in terms of disabled planes).
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 11, 2019 22:10:19 GMT -6
I wasn't going by the movies - but from what I remembered of accounts from the war. I remember that on several occasions the Americans and Japanese attempted to redirect strikes but could not contact pilots; I believe I remember from Coral Sea that pilot chatter was one of the causes.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 12, 2019 8:38:32 GMT -6
I wasn't going by the movies - but from what I remembered of accounts from the war. I remember that on several occasions the Americans and Japanese attempted to redirect strikes but could not contact pilots; I believe I remember from Coral Sea that pilot chatter was one of the causes. I understand that but Coral Sea was the first carrier battle and the first battle where the fleets never saw each other. The pilots were new and had no combat experience. After this, the air group commanders began to clamp down on chatter but in combat, the excitement and danger of the moment will override a little training. Radio discipline did improve over time.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 18, 2019 5:51:22 GMT -6
current experience with carriers is mostly
deck armor honestly does not matter unless its light bombs (below 500 lbs)
only bomb which i roughly know penetration of is the 1400 lb bomb which has a penetration of around 6.5 inches (it penned 6.5 inches but cant pen 7 inches not 7.5 inches of turret roof) these were dropped from dive bombers these are full on ap bombs
2000 lb bombs dropped from torpedo bombers will not go through 7 inches of deck armor
tests i have done are still not complete and im still working on testing both gp sap and ap bombs (i will not be able to test level bombing pen)
il probably post the tests later now that i actually have time to do them
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 5:55:59 GMT -6
only bomb which i roughly know penetration of is the 1400 lb bomb which has a penetration of around 6.5 inches (it penned 6.5 inches but cant pen 7 inches not 7.5 inches of turret roof) these were dropped from dive bombers these are full on ap bombs It seems too much penetration ability. I have only this 2 as i start too late and in my next playthrough I have not yet any carrier battle (quite strange in 1944).
year 1944 - 1400 lb bomb Engine room hit D * (Kestrel from CV Glorious, AP) - 5.5" deck - 1500 lb bomb Engine room hit D (Typhoon D from CV Victorious, AP) - 5.5" deck
In one case 5.5" of deck was enough to defeat 1500 lb AP bomb.
Right now I have carrier with 5" armour on flight deck but it is small fleet size and there is some problem with AI. As I will finish playthrough I will report it but there would be needed some finetunning for small fleet as it seems there is no fun after aroun 1930.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 18, 2019 11:11:42 GMT -6
What would you all think about having an escort carrier class added to the game? Probably a war-time only short build cycle like AMCs. The battle generator could add them to convoy and coastal defense missions and they would have decent ASW value.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 12:52:54 GMT -6
What would you all think about having an escort carrier class added to the game? Probably a war-time only short build cycle like AMCs. The battle generator could add them to convoy and coastal defense missions and they would have decent ASW value. I'm not aware of any particular reason why a CVE should perform better in an ASW role than a CVL with a similar air group would, so if by a 'decent ASW value' you mean something better than what a similar CVL would have then I'm against that. CVEs are good for ASW work because they're just about big enough and fast enough (at least with catapults) to operate an adequate air group for the task while being much cheaper and more expendable than 'proper' CVLs or CVs, not because they're somehow inherently better at it than the more expensive carriers.
As to the suggestion of adding a specific class for it, I'm not against that, but I also don't see much point to doing so; you can already build small, slow, unarmored CVLs if you want a cheap disposable carrier to put on TP during a war.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 18, 2019 13:39:19 GMT -6
I do not mean that they would be better at ASW than a CV or CVL, should be a little worse. Couldn't really be better at anything.
The big difference in the CVE would be the type of battle they appear in. I don't want my real carriers babysitting convoys, but it would be nice to have some cover. Would also be cool if they got thrown into invasion battles as support for the transports.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 13:57:53 GMT -6
You can have CVE. But DDs and corvettes are probably more efficient. 12 ASW points could be later from CVE. But I do not know how much from 5 aicrafts.
For CVE the weight is quite small as even CVE with 16 aicrafts and speed and armament as real CVEs is much lighter.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 18, 2019 14:22:01 GMT -6
The reason for the separate class would be so the game engine knows what to do with it. I understand that I can design a low cost CVL, but it will get treated like a CVL.
I haven't even sold myself on the CVE idea, which is why I didn't start a suggestion thread. Just percolating, and getting feedback.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 14:35:40 GMT -6
The reason for the separate class would be so the game engine knows what to do with it. I understand that I can design a low cost CVL, but it will get treated like a CVL. I haven't even sold myself on the CVE idea, which is why I didn't start a suggestion thread. Just percolating, and getting feedback. Try to use "TP" and I think it could work.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 15:06:29 GMT -6
I cannot recall ever seeing a ship on TP status show up for a battle in a player-controlled force except during raider interceptions, and if you keep the ships on RF/MB status in peacetime they shouldn't show up for a start-of-war engagement that isn't a surprise attack, either.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 18, 2019 15:48:11 GMT -6
TP isn't going to make the "CVE" show up in convoy defense battles as support for the merchants, or invasion battles as support for the transports. It completely misses the "E".
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jul 18, 2019 16:11:35 GMT -6
CVEs, often converted from merchant hulls, were cheap slow <20kt aircraft carrying ships which made them great for escorting convoys, as well as escorting troop ships and supporting amphib landings
they could perhaps be useful on TP when you get convoy tech to better protect groups of merchants from subs and raiders, and perhaps could provide a bonus for invasions
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 18, 2019 18:39:21 GMT -6
I was definitely thinking about merchant convertions, that's what I meant with the AMC comparison in my first post on the subject. They would be cheap rebuilds sold after the war.
An "Escort" role would be half of the solution, but the merchant rebuild part is why I think we need the separate class. Ideally I would like to have both, an escort role I could assign to any ship I wanted to, and a CVE class that was a merchant rebuild.
The escort role could give reduced TP and ASW value compared to a ship on TP duty. It would appear in convoy defense and invasion battles as an AI controlled subordinate unit of the convoy.
|
|