|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Feb 8, 2020 16:33:04 GMT -6
Does this game hate carriers? Carriers were the central force on the Pacific in the 1940s and have been till now and probably will be for a long time into the future as well. Fleet Carriers are classified as capital ships and should be just as important as Battleship and Battle Cruisers if not more. However, in this game Carriers can not be used to blockade enemy sea zones and can not fight a battle on its own. For example, When my twenty 84000-ton fleet carriers are on active fleet while the enemy has only DDs and KEs, I still cannot blockade them? And if I have only carriers in a sea zone, the game will never allow a battle to take place in that sea zone? Why is this? Why does the game think Carriers are useless without BBs and BCs and that they can not fight a battle on their own? During the Battle of Midway, Carriers were pretty much the only active participants of the battle and no BBs or BCs saw any action period. This game prides itself on realistic naval strategy and actions and I love this game dearly. But can someone please explain to me this odd and strange phenomenon? Much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Feb 8, 2020 18:00:29 GMT -6
I am not sure that the game hates carriers as such. Rather the challenge of modelling the transition to carrier warfare has been rather more difficult than anticipated. I have to ask what patch version you are on as for some time CVs aka fleet carriers have had a blockade strength of 14 equivalent to dreadnought battleships and CVLs or light carriers a strength of 7 meaning they contribute more than a heavy cruiser.
I have had a carrier dominated actions in which the surface fleets never came within sight of one another but while there is a specific carrier battle scenario the AI has always refused those against me so far. I have managed to sink a number of enemy carriers by carrier strike but so far only once by deliberate intent. I think this is due to the current issue with the lack of shadowing. This is not such a problem against most ship types but carriers are constantly manoeuvring into the wind to launch and recover aircraft which means they are often well off their predicted course.
I think in time carriers will become better at not blundering into gun actions...they all seem to think they are the real HMS Formidable but obviously have an unfortunate tendency to not always be as smart or as lucky.
Carriers are often devastating and given the game's current tendency to park big chunks of your fleet in range of hostile land based air their CAPs are vital. However it will probably be a few patches yet before carrier warfare is fully developed....a but like IRL World War 2 come to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Feb 8, 2020 19:15:35 GMT -6
I am not sure that the game hates carriers as such. Rather the challenge of modelling the transition to carrier warfare has been rather more difficult than anticipated. I have to ask what patch version you are on as for some time CVs aka fleet carriers have had a blockade strength of 14 equivalent to dreadnought battleships and CVLs or light carriers a strength of 7 meaning they contribute more than a heavy cruiser. I have had a carrier dominated actions in which the surface fleets never came within sight of one another but while there is a specific carrier battle scenario the AI has always refused those against me so far. I have managed to sink a number of enemy carriers by carrier strike but so far only once by deliberate intent. I think this is due to the current issue with the lack of shadowing. This is not such a problem against most ship types but carriers are constantly manoeuvring into the wind to launch and recover aircraft which means they are often well off their predicted course. I think in time carriers will become better at not blundering into gun actions...they all seem to think they are the real HMS Formidable but obviously have an unfortunate tendency to not always be as smart or as lucky. Carriers are often devastating and given the game's current tendency to park big chunks of your fleet in range of hostile land based air their CAPs are vital. However it will probably be a few patches yet before carrier warfare is fully developed....a but like IRL World War 2 come to think of it. I am currently on Version 1.0, I bought this game shortly after it came out. Thank you for pointing out that CVs do have blockade strength because on Version 1.0, CVs do not even have the numbers denoted after them on the Maps View like every other ship class does, for example when I have 20 CVs in the Sea Zone of Northern Europe, and move my mouse cursor on to the corresponding Northern Europe sea zone in the Map View, there's no number after it, if I move a BB into the sea zone, immediately the game recognizes my BB but only my BB, while ignoring my CVs completely. Should I redownload the newest version of the game then?
|
|
|
Post by cdnwinter on Feb 8, 2020 22:09:47 GMT -6
Yes, you should definitely get the latest version when possible, there's been a lot of improvements and adjustments over the various versions.
Although if you're updating from 1.0, it'll likely break old save games.
So it's up to you to decide when to update.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 8, 2020 22:10:33 GMT -6
Yeah, if you're playing 1.0 you're playing a game the better part of a year out of date, the current version is 1.17. Check the pinned thread at the top on the board.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 9, 2020 11:14:44 GMT -6
The game, as such, does not "hate" carriers and neither does its developer. Warfare simulations, even with all conditions established as per real history cannot duplicate historical paths. The issue is human intervention and unless the game is human versus human, human mistakes are not duplicated. The simulations, even the war college simulations take us down the "path not taken". They are virtual history. Even if we eliminate the Washington Naval Treaty and the economic depression of the 1930's, we cannot exactly duplicate the path navies took in developing carriers. The game cannot duplicate a mistaken message sent to the Yorktown, detailing "Two Carriers and Four Cruisers" when the actual message was "two Cruisers and Four Destroyers". This was sent during the initial phases of the Battle of Coral Sea. This led to Fletcher sending out an air strike against a mistaken target. He would never have sent an air strike against two cruisers. There are many of these.
The path the game takes in the development of the carrier is entirely possible, and might have happened. I am certain the developer and the team know this better than all of us. Take heart, this is a good game and you should enjoy playing it like I do.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 9, 2020 15:37:50 GMT -6
For those of you interested, here are some interesting books on carrier development and the Fleet problems associated with that development. Aircraft Carriers by Norman Polmar Warships After Washington by John Jordan Testing American Sea Power by Craig C. Felker Military Innovation in the Interwar Period To Train the Fleet For War by Albert A. Nofi Kaigun by David C. Evans These are ebooks but there are books available by Norman Friedman like US Aircraft Carries. There many individual articles and monographs available, I hope this helps. Military Innovation and Carrier Aviation An....pdf (818.26 KB) Military Innovation and Carrier Aviation.pdf (244.15 KB)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 9, 2020 15:41:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 9, 2020 18:50:19 GMT -6
The game, as such, does not "hate" carriers and neither does its developer. The path the game takes in the development of the carrier is entirely possible, and might have happened. I am certain the developer and the team know this better than all of us. Take heart, this is a good game and you should enjoy playing it like I do. Generally, when someone says that a game "hates" something, it is usually an implication that a creators perspective, bias or even an arbitrary choice on a matter leads to a particular in-game/simulation option performing in a manner that discourages it's use. This can often lead to some contention among people who have a different understanding of the matter at hand. To give an example, early in RtW2's development, I found that dive bombers were consistently outperformed in nearly all tasks by torpedo bombers. Even very early torpedo bombers performed spectacularly, while dive bombers were subpar at best. As a result, I myself had to come to the conclusion that RtW2 "hated" dive bombers. Even the few tasks the dive bombers did perform better meant little, because those tasks (hitting DDs/very fast CLS) were of a very low priority in RtW2. However, over the last several patches changes have been made to the simulation that gives dive bombers a worthwhile role.
I would argue that such a mistake can and is simulated. Often spotting reports on the map are wildly inaccurate, presumably not only to over exaggerated reports but also malfunctions of equipment.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Feb 9, 2020 19:34:09 GMT -6
The game also simulates attached ships going off on their own due to miscommunication.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 10, 2020 0:17:54 GMT -6
I am not sure that the game hates carriers as such. Rather the challenge of modelling the transition to carrier warfare has been rather more difficult than anticipated. I have to ask what patch version you are on as for some time CVs aka fleet carriers have had a blockade strength of 14 equivalent to dreadnought battleships and CVLs or light carriers a strength of 7 meaning they contribute more than a heavy cruiser. I have had a carrier dominated actions in which the surface fleets never came within sight of one another but while there is a specific carrier battle scenario the AI has always refused those against me so far. I have managed to sink a number of enemy carriers by carrier strike but so far only once by deliberate intent. I think this is due to the current issue with the lack of shadowing. This is not such a problem against most ship types but carriers are constantly manoeuvring into the wind to launch and recover aircraft which means they are often well off their predicted course. I think in time carriers will become better at not blundering into gun actions...they all seem to think they are the real HMS Formidable but obviously have an unfortunate tendency to not always be as smart or as lucky. Carriers are often devastating and given the game's current tendency to park big chunks of your fleet in range of hostile land based air their CAPs are vital. However it will probably be a few patches yet before carrier warfare is fully developed....a but like IRL World War 2 come to think of it. I am currently on Version 1.0, I bought this game shortly after it came out. Thank you for pointing out that CVs do have blockade strength because on Version 1.0, CVs do not even have the numbers denoted after them on the Maps View like every other ship class does, for example when I have 20 CVs in the Sea Zone of Northern Europe, and move my mouse cursor on to the corresponding Northern Europe sea zone in the Map View, there's no number after it, if I move a BB into the sea zone, immediately the game recognizes my BB but only my BB, while ignoring my CVs completely. Should I redownload the newest version of the game then? I would very much recommend updating the game; not only has a number of bugs/issues been resolved, but the AI and other systems have been added to and tweaked to make a better game, plus a number of additional features (many requested by players like yourself) have been added to the game as well.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 10, 2020 16:06:07 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind is that the player very often ends up fighting wars in the IRL interwar period. Aircraft technology was rapidly developing, and if WWII had happened 5 years earlier, carriers would likely not have been the dominant fleet element. If it had happened 10 years earlier, carriers likely would have been strictly support vessels to the battle line, except maybe in the late war (that is, 1934 to 1935 in that scenario). Through the 1920s and early to mid 30s, the game "hates" carriers because they still need time to grow into their dominant role. By the time you get into the WWII timeframe, I've found that carriers tend to do quite well for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Feb 11, 2020 5:20:02 GMT -6
The bigger the carrier I build the more likely I am to get bad weather or night battles.
The game doesn't hate carriers, it hates me.
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Feb 11, 2020 10:21:11 GMT -6
True, in many scenarios carriers are useless. I also found out that the hindsight bias tempts the player (at least me) to build carriers too early, and/or too many of them, and expect them to be game changers immediately. Actually until well into the 40s my DDs and BBs tend to do the main work, with the occasional air torp success. Not more than realistically modelled, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 11, 2020 14:30:04 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind is that the player very often ends up fighting wars in the IRL interwar period. Aircraft technology was rapidly developing, and if WWII had happened 5 years earlier, carriers would likely not have been the dominant fleet element. If it had happened 10 years earlier, carriers likely would have been strictly support vessels to the battle line, except maybe in the late war (that is, 1934 to 1935 in that scenario). It should be borne in mind that part of that comes down to the availability of useful carriers. Whether you have adequately-powerful aircraft or not, you cannot fight a carrier war without aircraft carriers, and five or ten years before the generally-accepted start dates for the Second World War a significant number of the early-WWII carriers simply did not exist in a usable form, though some of them could have been brought into service by the middle of a ~5-year war.
If the Second World War starts in 1934 with historical fleets:
- Hiryu, Wasp, the Illustrious class, Hornet, the Shokaku class, and the Zuiho class don't yet exist except possibly on paper.
- Yorktown, Enterprise, and Soryu have only recently been laid down or perhaps are about to be laid down; Ark Royal won't be laid down for another year or so. If additional fleet carriers are built during the war, they're probably sisterships to or somewhat-improved versions of these. - Ryuho exists as the submarine tender Taigei, either recently or about to be commissioned; Chitose is about to be or may have just been laid down as a seaplane tender.
- Kaga is either in reserve pending commencement of or actually undergoing the 1934-1935 refit that gave her a full-length flight deck, extended the hangars, and removed the hangar-level flying-off decks; Akagi's similar refit won't historically begin for about another year, in November 1935. - Ryujo may be about to have, be undergoing, or have recently completed its historical mid-1934 refit to strengthen its structure and improve stability.
- Ranger either is or is about to become the newest commissioned carrier in the world. - Langley is in the last two years or so of its time as an aircraft carrier by real-world history.
- Argus has spent five or six years in the reserves and hasn't yet begun the historical 1936-1938 refit for service as a training ship and target drone carrier. - As to other carriers, the US has Lexington and Saratoga; Britain has Courageous, Glorious, Furious, Eagle, and Hermes; France has Bearn; and Japan has Hosho.
If the Second World War starts in 1929 with historical fleets: - Ryujo is either about to be or has just been laid down. - Ranger won't be laid down for another two years or so.
- Argus is about to be placed into reserve, or may have just recently been placed into reserve. - Kaga, Courageous, and Glorious are the most recently completed aircraft carriers in the world. - Hosho and Hermes are still the only completed purpose-built aircraft carriers. - As to other carriers, the US has Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga; Britain has Eagle and Furious; France has Bearn; and Japan has Akagi.
A player-built fleet could have considerably more carriers than that by the 1930s, if the player elects to build them, and so would be in a better position to wage a carrier war in the 1930s than historical navies were - as long as an adequate strike aircraft is available.
|
|