|
Post by aeson on Feb 25, 2020 14:25:37 GMT -6
There's also the option of designing a small, unarmored, and slow CVL which is at least conceptually little different from taking a merchant hull and converting it into a CVE:
Granted, in reality building an unarmored, slow, and small carrier doesn't necessarily mean building the hull to mercantile rather than naval standards, and depending to some degree on how much you have to do to it taking an existing merchant ship and putting a flight deck on it could probably be a bit faster than building an entirely new ship.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 25, 2020 15:12:51 GMT -6
I feel like representing the whole thing down to detail would be overcomplicated. I'd nail it down to hangar capacity (complement reduces with time) and lift power (dictates hard limit on size of airframe that can be operated). Furthermore I'd quantify both values, as well as the size of aircraft, with single abstract size value. For example: Carrier A has 60,000 hangar capacity as well as 3,000 lift power. Aircraft B has size rating of 3,000. Carrier A can fit 20 Aircraft Bs into it's hangar and Aircraft B is also the largest possible aircraft Carrier A can operate. In pracrise these values would represent multiple real life issues, e.g. lift power would also represent hangar ceiling, catapult limitations, folding wings enabling an aircraft to fit on a lift dimensions wise and so on. This is easy solution but does not solve issue that old carriers are in game as efficient as new ones. So if you have 2 carriers with speed of 30 knots having 80 aircrafts, one designed in 1928, the second designed in 1948, both has the same efficiency, which in history was not true as there were a lot of things that involved through time which are not represented in game.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 25, 2020 16:57:54 GMT -6
I feel like representing the whole thing down to detail would be overcomplicated. I'd nail it down to hangar capacity (complement reduces with time) and lift power (dictates hard limit on size of airframe that can be operated). Furthermore I'd quantify both values, as well as the size of aircraft, with single abstract size value. For example: Carrier A has 60,000 hangar capacity as well as 3,000 lift power. Aircraft B has size rating of 3,000. Carrier A can fit 20 Aircraft Bs into it's hangar and Aircraft B is also the largest possible aircraft Carrier A can operate. In pracrise these values would represent multiple real life issues, e.g. lift power would also represent hangar ceiling, catapult limitations, folding wings enabling an aircraft to fit on a lift dimensions wise and so on. This is easy solution but does not solve issue that old carriers are in game as efficient as new ones. So if you have 2 carriers with speed of 30 knots having 80 aircrafts, one designed in 1928, the second designed in 1948, both has the same efficiency, which in history was not true as there were a lot of things that involved through time which are not represented in game. I am going to experiment with my older carriers and change the air wing to dive bombers then put them on trade protection. I am going to duplicate the VS squadrons the US carriers used during the Pacific War. They are two place, fly at higher altitudes, can carry a bomb and are generally faster. They were used for inner patrols in many battles. My dad said they were very effective for scouting and inner patrols.
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Mar 11, 2020 20:42:38 GMT -6
- I like the idea of adding an abstract "Size" attribute for aircraft and replacing the current mechanic of carriers being able to carry X number of aircraft with an overall hangar size capacity. Then when aircraft are developed, there would be a column for size and it would be one of the things we have to consider when we choose which prototype to produce. Thus, the number of aircraft a carrier could carry would vary depending on the size of the different aircraft chosen.
- I also like the idea of some sort of flight operations efficiency modifier that improves, making newer carriers more efficient. I would suggest giving it an experience component, so it's not simply based on the passage of time. For example, your nation could gain experience by using carriers in battles, which provides a boost to this modifier.
- I think the way the flight deck armor is modeled should be changed. This has been discussed quite a bit by many people elsewhere.
- Making long and extreme range provide a tangible benefit for carriers would be great.
|
|