|
Post by zardoz on Oct 5, 2017 7:03:36 GMT -6
To be honest, I play the smaller countries if I want a greater challenge. To play them is for me something like choosing a higher difficulty level in other games.
I thought that being able to blockade someone should increase the prestige , too. However, I think that neither the Uk admirals nor the RN got additional prestige from being able to blockade the central powers in WW1. So, I my opinion is it is ok as it works now.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 6, 2017 14:39:58 GMT -6
Well, certain Alliances have stood the test of time, the British and US has always stood the test of time, even in the 1920's no one seriously thought we would ever go to war with England. There are many different solutions, all good ones. Nobody thought it was likely but the army was still funding airport construction near Ontario just in case... The problem with your idea is that it is not possible for a country like Spain, CSA, Italy, Austria-Hungary or even Japan to match the British or USA or France and possibly Russia. It isn't anywhere realistic, unless you just want fantasy. Now maybe that is how the game is designed and if so, then you idea is valid. But if it is based on actual economic data or at least realistic limitations, then these countries cannot possibly match the others. But the Italians were set at parity with the French in the 1922 naval treaty. Surely that indicates they were considered a realistic competitor for the French. Yes the Italian economy was smaller then the French economy but the French needed much higher expenditures on their land army.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 6, 2017 16:53:25 GMT -6
Well, certain Alliances have stood the test of time, the British and US has always stood the test of time, even in the 1920's no one seriously thought we would ever go to war with England. There are many different solutions, all good ones. Nobody thought it was likely but the army was still funding airport construction near Ontario just in case... The problem with your idea is that it is not possible for a country like Spain, CSA, Italy, Austria-Hungary or even Japan to match the British or USA or France and possibly Russia. It isn't anywhere realistic, unless you just want fantasy. Now maybe that is how the game is designed and if so, then you idea is valid. But if it is based on actual economic data or at least realistic limitations, then these countries cannot possibly match the others. But the Italians were set at parity with the French in the 1922 naval treaty. Surely that indicates they were considered a realistic competitor for the French. Yes the Italian economy was smaller then the French economy but the French needed much higher expenditures on their land army. The French economy was exhausted after the First World War, although they wanted to build battleships, they could not afford it. They had about seven battleships and the Italians had six. The French were not happy at all about the results of the Treaty. They had security obligations around the world and an obsolete fleet and now could not replace this old fleet due to the treaty and finances. The recognition of equality for the Italians with the French made them very happy. This is the basis for the simulated equality.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 10, 2017 19:28:38 GMT -6
see what I think when I say hybird carrier is something that can fight Von Der Tann like ships and win, and can duel light carriers in a carrier engagement
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 12, 2017 18:15:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 12, 2017 18:18:29 GMT -6
Here is an interesting one for the Russians that... is really interesting, though if they have the hanger under the flight deck then it's gonna get hit by enemy fire and all the explodies stored there...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 12, 2017 18:22:48 GMT -6
Here is an interesting one for the Russians that... is really interesting, though if they have the hanger under the flight deck then it's gonna get hit by enemy fire and all the explodies stored there... Here is another, for the French Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 12, 2017 18:41:24 GMT -6
That's the problem with the hybrid concept. You have something longer and heavier than the largest battleship ever built that carries a CVL's worth of aircraft. So that CVE flight deck in the middle of the citadel means that the armor citadel has to be stretched around it reducing effective protection for the weight of armor carried.
You could build something like the Wasp CV-7* at less than 20K tons that could carry twice that number of aircraft and a Montana would eat that thing for lunch in a gun duel at two-thirds the displacement.
In fact if you add up the Wasp and Montana you get almost the same tonnage as that... fascinating... idea. A much more economical use of resources.
*Yes I realize the Wasp itself was a bit of a kludge because it was designed to squeeze out a fleet carrier from the very last of the allowable treaty tonnage but you could design a super-CVL on less than the 19K tons of the Wasp that wouldn't carry as many planes as a fleet carrier but would be far more capable than anything that hybrid could carry and wouldn't have the Wasp's structural and design weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 12, 2017 19:17:27 GMT -6
Some ideas never die - Look familiar? Attachment DeletedThe problem with these hybrids was they only carried twelve fighters and sixteen to twenty helo's. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, say goodbye to these. What about the Amphibious assault ship, hybrid?
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 13, 2017 13:38:19 GMT -6
Some ideas never die - Look familiar? The problem with these hybrids was they only carried twelve fighters and sixteen to twenty helo's. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, say goodbye to these. What about the Amphibious assault ship, hybrid? The Kiev-Class is a special case, to be fair. The USSR had a limited ability to build warships and the Kiev's were obsolete as gun cruisers, so turning them into 'aviation cruisers' was deemed a worthwhile project: it saved having to build two new ships (or one new dedicated carrier). Also, to my knowledge these ships did not retain their guns (although I am aware they did receive ASMs). As for AAS's...: HMS Ocean
Often these are what we'd consider helicopter carriers, not hybrids. Heck, the Kiev-Class was often used during the '80s as an ASW helicopter carrier, rather than carrying fast jets. Ocean does not have an anti-ship armament. To my knowledge, no Amphibious Assault ship does: their main mission is to carry landing craft and provide helicopter support; shore bombardment is performed by frigates, destroyers or littoral combat ships.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 13, 2017 13:56:40 GMT -6
Some ideas never die - Look familiar? The problem with these hybrids was they only carried twelve fighters and sixteen to twenty helo's. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, say goodbye to these. What about the Amphibious assault ship, hybrid? The Kiev-Class is a special case, to be fair. The USSR had a limited ability to build warships and the Kiev's were obsolete as gun cruisers, so turning them into 'aviation cruisers' was deemed a worthwhile project: it saved having to build two new ships (or one new dedicated carrier). Also, to my knowledge these ships did not retain their guns (although I am aware they did receive ASMs). As for AAS's...: HMS Ocean
Often these are what we'd consider helicopter carriers, not hybrids. Heck, the Kiev-Class was often used during the '80s as an ASW helicopter carrier, rather than carrying fast jets. Ocean does not have an anti-ship armament. To my knowledge, no Amphibious Assault ship does: their main mission is to carry landing craft and provide helicopter support; shore bombardment is performed by frigates, destroyers or littoral combat ships. I am 90% certain that the Kiev class was not a conversion, as they were 45 Kilotons in displacement, which is solidly in the Battleship range and there were more Kiev's then Gardunt's
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 13, 2017 14:36:33 GMT -6
Let's first examine the definition of "hybrid" - A thing made by combining two different elements; a mixture
The Kiev class had eight anti-ship missiles in the forward half. That is a missile ship. She also had a six degree landing angled flight deck that covered two thirds of the overall length of the ship. She was capable of carrying twenty-two Yak-38 fighters and a dozen or so KA-25 helicopters. There you have it; a mixture of a missile ship with a carrier deck; a hybrid.
For amphibious assault ship, we have a basic light carrier with an complement of about 12 MV-22B, six F-35B's, four CH-53K and seven UH-1 gun ships and two MH-60's for rescue. That complement is adjustable to its mission. It also has a well deck for carrying amphibious vehicles. A mixture of carrier and amphibious landing ship; a mixture; a hybrid.
The Kiev's were actually a larger version of the Moskva class ships and designated as a heavy aviation cruiser.
Just a note: The Kiev is now a luxury hotel part of a military themed park based in east Tianjin. Funny.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 13, 2017 17:13:43 GMT -6
Hybrid assault ships are like, the USN's bread and butter of our light carriers
|
|
|
Post by imperialist on Oct 21, 2017 20:32:09 GMT -6
Two things: 1) when designing a ship, maybe you can set a tonnage limit even if your docks are much larger. For example, you want a 20k ton ship, but your docks are 25k, set that limit to what you want, and the auto designer comes up with something for you. 2) Maybe not have the turrets in the top down view look like circles after a certain time period when trying to design/rebuild, because imo they look kinda ugly than the given turret scheme
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 13, 2017 13:57:26 GMT -6
I'm a bit muddle-headed to write this terrribly well, but I've started reading Friedman's 'Network-Centric Warfare', and was struck at the level of use of radio/rdf/intelligence in the first world war (and it reinforces the importance of this in the second), as well as the way intelligence lead to fleet coordination at the 'whole of fleet' level (so in WW2, signals intelligence playing a large role in BdU vectoring U-boats to convoys, the RN vectoring all sorts of things all over the place). Things like Japan having 'dummy' radio signals for its carriers prior to Pearl Harbor, so that US signals intelligence people wouldn't think they were up to something (Friedman argues that US confidence in signals intelligence meant they didn't do things like station subs outside of Japanese harbours to monitor traffic, one of the reasons they were caught out - I've only read this here, so don't know the veracity of the argument). I'm afraid I don't have a concrete suggestion, but something to help represent the importance of signals intelligence (perhaps 'intelligence' tracks on the operational map?) could help - and having missions generated with signals intelligence in mind would also be cool. In the background, perhaps have a signals intelligence 'mini-game' players are weighing the costs of changing their codes vs the benefits (for example, the Germans didn't change their codes even after they'd been cracked for some time, which caused them all sorts of trouble, the British as well, but code changes could lead to a substantial reduction in signals intelligence for months (if not years), as it had to fall back on RDF/HF-DF and other 'signal analysis' techniques (Friedman mentions range estimation, Serpentina and radio finger-printing). Suspect oldpop2000 would know a whole lot more. As always, ignore if not of interest or useful .
|
|