|
Post by doxsroxs on Nov 23, 2019 4:34:03 GMT -6
Why the 34 aircraft limit? The British Colossus CVL had up to 52 aircraft during WW2 at 13 200 tons. In game I have CVL tech, but not CV tech, so Im thus limited to 34 aircraft despite having a design that could technically fit 42. I think it would improve game immersion and the experience if hardcoded rules like this are not used. Instead practical and economic rules could be used to impose soft limits on the player. Currently the game says my CVL design is illegal, turns it into a CV, tells me twice that my CV design is illegal and then tells me its identified as a CA, at which point it tells me my CA is not allowed to have a flight deck... The Colossus class light aircraft carrier, was in fact only about 1000 tons lighter than the Yorktown class produced before the war. Both used deck park and hangar for storage of aircraft. The Yorktown class could carry 90 aircraft but the Colossus could only carry 52 aircraft. She was slower by seven knots and shorter also. I can only wonder if you have researched as far as deck park and that is why you can't store more than 34 aircraft. The 34 aircraft limit is similar to the HMS Eagle built in 1924. She could only carry about 25-30 aircraft. There is no reference to her using a deck park. A deck park does require more equipment and procedures must be developed to bring up the birds and park them astern. I don't know but I think you could look at that, the deck park. Just for reference: the Independence class light carriers could carry about 33 aircraft. The Saipan class were designed to carry about 42. This was their planned airwing size but they only lasted about six years so there is no way to know whether they could have actually conducted operations with that size. Jet's did away with the light carriers Yes, but my point was that the game seems to have a hard cap of 34 aircraft for a CVL, above 34 its called a CV. So no matter what tech I research, if I understand it correctly, the game can never have a CVL with more then 34 aircraft, which I find a bit limiting I actually think this is something of an issue with the research system and strict ship class rules, personally I would like to have a research system that is less random while still having plenty of actions outside your control to introduce the random effect. Id like to see an upgraded research system where you get some choices for each field, or the possibility to focus the research more on specifics. For example, if the Germans see the British have developed triple turrets, they tell the scientists to get it as well, today there is a chance, but its completely random, never focused. This should have a cost of course. To ensure its not so easy to control, add political whims and other events that force you to go down a different path then the one you might want to focus on with your historical hindsight. This could be from politicians, other admirals etc. and failure to do so could have negative effects on prestige etc. After all, a big part of the arms race was prestige and political whims. As for the ship classes, Im fine with controlling max tonnage and setting weight limits and technical limits etc. But I think its better to tell the player they cannot have more then 34 aircraft on their carrier because they cannot construct a heavy or large enough ship or that operating that many aircraft would incur other penalties to general aircraft use due to it being to cramped. Currently the game lets me design a CVL with 40+ aircraft, then tells me I cannot build it since its classified as a CV that I have not researched. To me that breaks immersion a bit Basically, it feels weird.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2019 10:10:56 GMT -6
The Colossus class light aircraft carrier, was in fact only about 1000 tons lighter than the Yorktown class produced before the war. Both used deck park and hangar for storage of aircraft. The Yorktown class could carry 90 aircraft but the Colossus could only carry 52 aircraft. She was slower by seven knots and shorter also. I can only wonder if you have researched as far as deck park and that is why you can't store more than 34 aircraft. The 34 aircraft limit is similar to the HMS Eagle built in 1924. She could only carry about 25-30 aircraft. There is no reference to her using a deck park. A deck park does require more equipment and procedures must be developed to bring up the birds and park them astern. I don't know but I think you could look at that, the deck park. Just for reference: the Independence class light carriers could carry about 33 aircraft. The Saipan class were designed to carry about 42. This was their planned airwing size but they only lasted about six years so there is no way to know whether they could have actually conducted operations with that size. Jet's did away with the light carriers Yes, but my point was that the game seems to have a hard cap of 34 aircraft for a CVL, above 34 its called a CV. So no matter what tech I research, if I understand it correctly, the game can never have a CVL with more then 34 aircraft, which I find a bit limiting I actually think this is something of an issue with the research system and strict ship class rules, personally I would like to have a research system that is less random while still having plenty of actions outside your control to introduce the random effect. Id like to see an upgraded research system where you get some choices for each field, or the possibility to focus the research more on specifics. For example, if the Germans see the British have developed triple turrets, they tell the scientists to get it as well, today there is a chance, but its completely random, never focused. This should have a cost of course. To ensure its not so easy to control, add political whims and other events that force you to go down a different path then the one you might want to focus on with your historical hindsight. This could be from politicians, other admirals etc. and failure to do so could have negative effects on prestige etc. After all, a big part of the arms race was prestige and political whims. As for the ship classes, Im fine with controlling max tonnage and setting weight limits and technical limits etc. But I think its better to tell the player they cannot have more then 34 aircraft on their carrier because they cannot construct a heavy or large enough ship or that operating that many aircraft would incur other penalties to general aircraft use due to it being to cramped. Currently the game lets me design a CVL with 40+ aircraft, then tells me I cannot build it since its classified as a CV that I have not researched. To me that breaks immersion a bit Basically, it feels weird. Let me see if I can provide some numbers and you calculate how many aircraft can fit in the hangar. Double that number and that is how many the carrier can hold with a deck park. Here is a chart of hangar sizes for typical WW2 aircraft carriers. Now, find the typical fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bombers. Use their wing span with/without folding wings and their length. For an F6F, i.e. , that would be 33 ft. 6.3 inches. Now calculate the square area it will occupy. Now, remember you have to have space between the aircraft to move the ground equipment and remove engines. From this you should be able to find the number in the hangar. Independence had a hangar area of 1313 square meters at 10,622 tons. That is about 14133 sq. feet, if my math holds. Soryu had a hangar area of about 5647 square meters at 15,900 tons. That is about 60,783 sq. feet. Now, Independence throughout the war carried about 33-34 aircraft. Soryu carried about 63 + 9 reserve. Now you have the basic facts. Note: FYI the square area of the wings on the F6F were 334 square feet, 250 with the wings folded. The length was 33.7 feet. Now you can calculate how much square area she would occupy.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 23, 2019 11:51:57 GMT -6
Sorry to stray from the OP's original subject, but I want to address the reasoning for the various restrictions on the construction of carriers, since some players have expressed frustration at the restrictions.
The reason for the hard restrictions on carriers is to nullify the player's historical knowledge that carriers were viable weapons of war and that bigger carriers were better. Historically, there was no agreement at the time that either was the case. In playtesting, prior to implementing the restrictions, players would immediately jump to very large carriers well before these were historically considered reasonable. Various other methods of preventing an ahistorical premature introduction of large carriers were tried; the methods in place now were found to cause the least disruption and restrictions to the player and gameplay while promoting a reasonable rate of introduction of carrier technology into the game.
The restrictions that differentiate CVLs from CVs largely disappear in the game once you are able to build CVs. In the game, the difference between a CV that can carry 42 planes and a CVL that carries 34 is negligible, as it was historically. Once you are able to build CVs you can add air capacity above 34 to a CVL, which will convert it into a CV with no substantial difference in ability in the game.
However, there is one fairly noticeable difference in how the game treats CVLs vs. CVs that should be taken into account. The game tends to prefer to place CVLs in a division assigned to the Main Force. In that role their primary function is to provide CAP for the Main Force. Given this primary role, I tend to stuff my CVLs with fighter squadrons. They typically carry only a small squadron of bombers for use primarily as scouts. Even if placed into the Carrier Force, such a CVL still provides a useful function by increasing that force's CAP and freeing other fighters for escort duty.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 23, 2019 12:04:53 GMT -6
I am curious. I went to build a light carrier but I now see that you can install flight deck armor, but there is no ability to put hangar deck armor, just side armor. Did I miss this or is it somewhere else. Please educate the old guy. We should have the ability to install flight deck and hangar deck armor by at least 1940. The main armor deck is assumed to be at the level of the hangar floor. If you want hangar deck armor, use deck armor.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2019 12:21:58 GMT -6
I am curious. I went to build a light carrier but I now see that you can install flight deck armor, but there is no ability to put hangar deck armor, just side armor. Did I miss this or is it somewhere else. Please educate the old guy. We should have the ability to install flight deck and hangar deck armor by at least 1940. The main armor deck is assumed to be at the level of the hangar floor. If you want hangar deck armor, use deck armor. Ok, my assumption was correct. Thanks for confirming to all.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 24, 2019 10:50:42 GMT -6
First lets remember there is the in game affects for the RTW simulation vs the real world. There is similarities just keep in mind some are looking for what happens in the game. Youtuber Drachinfel has a should-be-famous video on Armored vs Unarmored carrier decks. Lots of pros and cons. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dHdGHP8hCgA brief summary is that it has a lot to do with the theatre of war and expected enemy. The USA looking more at the wide oceans of the pacific where finding each other is more significant favored unarmored to have more planes, more running engines to warm them up* and better ventilation. The UK looking at Europe with lots of land based planes realized some hits would get through so they favored an armored deck to survive the inevitable hits. They also turned out to be in a way immune to Pacific kamikazes that are described sliding off their decks. Likewise the armored decks also tended to have enclosed hangers for structural reasons and this meant doing much better than the USA carriers in heavy seas like the North Sea by England or Typhoons of the Pacific. * = Engine warming for planes is not as simple as a modern car. They metal changes sizes as it heats up and oil changes its thickness. The airplanes in some cases are described as needing 20 minutes of warm up time. Very different from turning the car's key in your driveway and seconds later heading off for milk and eggs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 24, 2019 12:36:29 GMT -6
…... * = Engine warming for planes is not as simple as a modern car. They metal changes sizes as it heats up and oil changes its thickness. The airplanes in some cases are described as needing 20 minutes of warm up time. Very different from turning the car's key in your driveway and seconds later heading off for milk and eggs. You are entirely correct depending the engine type. Inline, glycol cooled engines don't need warm-up, but radial's do. Now, you can develop and the British did, engine oil heaters so the engine warm-up could be done in the hangars. The German's had a similar device for their aircraft in Russia. The warm-up time for Hellcat, Avenger or Corsair was about 15-20 minutes. For US carriers with open hangars, the engine warm-up could be done in the hangar, then the engine shutdown, the planes brought up on the deck, put into takeoff position. Now the strike would be ready immediately. However, in times of emergency, those warm-up times were not always followed.
|
|