|
Post by lukasdietrich on Aug 20, 2019 21:16:00 GMT -6
I have played 3 games now in 1.06 and 1.07 Each time I hit the very early 1920s with 100% research and varied tech OFF and I am getting the tech for purpose built CVL to fire before AV for a seaplane carrier.
In fact, in two games I never got seaplane carrier to fire. Other nations have this and can build them.
Is this just me? Is it something I should report?
|
|
|
Post by lukasdietrich on Aug 20, 2019 21:18:17 GMT -6
I have played 3 games now in 1.06 and 1.07 Each time I hit the very early 1920s with 100% research and varied tech OFF and I am getting the tech for purpose built CVL to fire before AV for a seaplane carrier. In fact, in two games I never got seaplane carrier to fire. Other nations have this and can build them. Is this just me? Is it something I should report? I should report that I can build these in foreign yards.
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Aug 20, 2019 21:52:51 GMT -6
Probably just you. I'm pretty sure I got AV before CVL in my current 1.07 game.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 20, 2019 22:15:03 GMT -6
I have played 3 games now in 1.06 and 1.07 Each time I hit the very early 1920s with 100% research and varied tech OFF and I am getting the tech for purpose built CVL to fire before AV for a seaplane carrier. In fact, in two games I never got seaplane carrier to fire. Other nations have this and can build them. Is this just me? Is it something I should report? Pardon me for my intrusion, but an AV is a seaplane tender, not an aircraft carrier. Now they were used prior to 1914 and configured to support combat operations, but generally they provided repairs, updates etc. to seaplanes from a port where they were parked. Now they could provide the support at sea under certain circumstances but generally they were used in port. I am confused because there is no reason to get a seaplane tender before a light carrier, at least not in the game. In actual history, seaplane tenders did arrive on scene before carriers, the first carrier was the HMS Argus.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 20, 2019 22:57:57 GMT -6
To be clear: Are you able to order CVLs overseas before you develop the ability to build AVs domestically, or can you build CVLs domestically before you can build AVs domestically?
The first case should, I think, be entirely reasonable for a power that isn't putting much effort into carrier research, especially if it's an economically weaker power, and is probably within reason for a wealthy power putting as much effort as it can into carrier research if it gets a bit unlucky.
As to the second case, it looks like the first unskippable tech in the carrier line is Large Aircraft Carriers (c.1926, allows purpose-built CVs), so skipping over AVs straight to CV(L)s should - at least in theory and to my understanding of the research system - be possible, though as it appears as though the two AV techs each have only a 30% chance of being skipped doing so ought to be moderately unlikely. Within the game, AVs generally appear to be employed more like the seaplane carriers of the First World War than the seaplane tenders of the Second World War. They operate as a semi-detached reconnaissance element of the fleet during engagements, and the aircraft that the game gives to AVs are single-engine floatplanes of types such as might operate from battleships and cruisers rather than flying boats along the lines of the PBY.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 21, 2019 3:03:54 GMT -6
in my experience i'v always researched both AVs before getting CVL, but variable tech and/or tech stealing can change the order you get tech - especially if you are playing a smaller economy
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 21, 2019 10:29:23 GMT -6
Here is a question for anyone. Will the game allow you to convert an armored cruiser, pre-dreadnought to a seaplane tender? This was accomplished by removing the aft turrets and installing a catapult aft.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 21, 2019 10:35:43 GMT -6
Here is a question for anyone. Will the game allow you to convert an armored cruiser, pre-dreadnought to a seaplane tender? This was accomplished by removing the aft turrets and installing a catapult aft. Adding seaplane capacity and catapult to them is definately doable, but I believe most of these ships are likely too large/well armored for the game to reclassify them as AV.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 21, 2019 11:22:20 GMT -6
Here is a question for anyone. Will the game allow you to convert an armored cruiser, pre-dreadnought to a seaplane tender? This was accomplished by removing the aft turrets and installing a catapult aft. Adding seaplane capacity and catapult to them is definately doable, but I believe most of these ships are likely too large/well armored for the game to reclassify them as AV. Ok, then that needs to be changed. Its a good use for those older battleships and cruisers which are especially equipped with good armor to protect them and keep them in combat operations.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 21, 2019 11:49:38 GMT -6
There is some confusion about seaplane carriers compared to seaplane tenders. The British operated a number of seaplane carriers early in WWI well before they had an operational aircraft carrier. These early ships were properly described as seaplane carriers as they carried all of their planes aboard and were meant to operate their floatplanes from the open sea. They also built several seaplane tenders meant to support seaplanes while anchored. Most of these ships were converted fast ferries or freighters. Great Britain largely abandoned the use of seaplane carriers/tenders after WWI. True seaplane carriers capable of carrying seaplanes and launching and recovering them at sea continued to be built in limited numbers by the French and Japanese following WWI. Most ships that were built to operate seaplanes were more properly called seaplane tenders. These ships were not intended to operate seaplanes at sea but were built to support floatplanes and flying boats while anchored in protected waters. These ships typically did not carry a large contingent of seaplanes on board and usually were not capable of launching a seaplane from their deck, though most were equipped with cranes to lift their charges out of the water and place them on deck for repairs. Many nations operated seaplane tenders through WWII. The Americans built dozens of seaplane tenders before and during WWII. Operationally, they would move into a forward area, typically to a protected bay where the ship could find cover and anchor. The supported planes, usually flying boats, would fly in independently as these tenders had little ability to transport aircraft. While anchored the tenders would provide supplies, fuel, repair services and aircrew accommodations for the supported flying boat squadrons. As you can see in this image, a typical USN seaplane tender could not hope to carry its flying boat contingent on board. This is the USS Timbalier, a purpose built seaplane carrier of 1,766 tons. She was built to support one flying boat squadron. The Japanese often operated their seaplane carriers more as tenders, anchoring in a bay to operate their planes. These carriers operated floatplane scouts and fighters as well as servicing flying boats. Floatplanes operating from Japanese seaplane carriers provided ongoing search, CAP and enemy ground troop harassment services throughout the Solomons campaign. Their large cargo capacity and fast speeds meant they were also often pressed into service as fast transports. Germany operated a number of small seaplane tenders/carriers during both wars (in WWII these were operated by the Luftwaffe rather than by the Kriegsmarine). Italy operated just 2 in WWII. Russia operated a few in WWI but abandoned them thereafter.. The French operated a true seaplane carrier between the wars and several smaller tenders. (In the Royal Navy the term tender tends to refer to a smaller type of ship that is used for tasks such as transporting aircrews to and from their planes and maintaining the waterways used by seaplanes in port. To support flying boats the British would typically deploy a depot ship.) RTW2 does not really support the USN style seaplane tender. In RTW2 all AVs are presented as seaplane carriers that can operate their planes at sea but are restricted to operating floatplane scouts and cannot be used to support flying boats. While playing the game I've developed the ability to construct CVLs prior to being able to build AVs or large AVs several times. Its a bit frustrating but I just chalk it up to ill-considered political interference. Now, not being able to build torpedo bombers - that's a real headache.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 21, 2019 12:07:35 GMT -6
Adding seaplane capacity and catapult to them is definately doable, but I believe most of these ships are likely too large/well armored for the game to reclassify them as AV. Ok, then that needs to be changed. Its a good use for those older battleships and cruisers which are especially equipped with good armor to protect them and keep them in combat operations. I don't think the game will reclassify a battleship to an AV but there is nothing to prevent you from filling that ship with seaplanes. I don't believe there is any limit on the number of floatplanes a ship of CA size or larger can carry. It is perfectly possible to create a BB/AV hybrid that is capable of carrying dozens of floatplanes. ... or an AV that has a ridiculous number of floatplanes as in:
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 21, 2019 12:50:51 GMT -6
Ok, then that needs to be changed. Its a good use for those older battleships and cruisers which are especially equipped with good armor to protect them and keep them in combat operations. I don't think the game will reclassify a battleship to an AV but there is nothing to prevent you from filling that ship with seaplanes. I don't believe there is any limit on the number of floatplanes a ship of CA size or larger can carry. It is perfectly possible to create a BB/AV hybrid that is capable of carrying dozens of floatplanes. ... or an AV that has a ridiculous number of floatplanes as in: That still means that said CA/B may appear in a cruiser force/battle line, something one would like to avoid. This is especially problematic if the AVB gets grouped with modern ships in your battleline.
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Aug 21, 2019 13:36:57 GMT -6
I'm a bit mystified as to what role the AVB is intended to fill that makes having both heavy armor and a floatplane contingent desirable.
(Though I increasingly don't see much point in building AVs of any size or configuration. They're notionally useful fleet scout platforms, but it seems common to go through a campaign without having any occasion where they'd be useful.)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 21, 2019 14:20:30 GMT -6
I'm a bit mystified as to what role the AVB is intended to fill that makes having both heavy armor and a floatplane contingent desirable.
(Though I increasingly don't see much point in building AVs of any size or configuration. They're notionally useful fleet scout platforms, but it seems common to go through a campaign without having any occasion where they'd be useful.)
We have to look back at the gradual growth of airpower and ships. Initially, the battlefleet was the king of the seas and the aircraft was developed to provide scouting and spotting. Now, a ship like a converted merchant or tanker or even a destroyer is not well protected to sail with the fleet. Now, if I can take an old armored cruiser or pre-dreadnought and remove the aft turrets then construct catapults plus possibly a small hangar, I can use this ship with the battlefleet because it is better protected. Now as we know, the growth of the aircraft carrier and better aircraft essentially eliminated that need. The carriers were built to operate with better speed, large air wings which could provide their own scouting and fleet protection but the battleships would carry their own floatplanes for spotting. For long range scouting, the seaplane with its multiple engines, stronger hulls and better range could operate from land bases or out at sea but would not need to be that close to the battlefleet. Eventually, the battlefleet lost is prowess as the king of the seas to the carrier task force. Its an evolutionary step from conversion of armored cruisers and battleships carrying seaplanes to the carriers and seaplane tenders.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Aug 21, 2019 14:28:02 GMT -6
I think the use of AV to identify a seaplane tender doesn't really help. Before the 1950s the US navy (which seems to be the source of most ship types in game) used CVS for a seaplane carrier.
As examples of seaplane carriers:
WW1 Royal Navy included lots of seaplane carriers: - Engadine operated forward of the fleet in the carrier role at Jutland - Campania was the largest at about 18,000 tons and carried about 11 planes
In the second world war the Japanese had: - Tone class, heavy cruiser with 8 8" guns and 5 float planes - Nisshin class, seaplane carrier with 6 5.5" guns and with 20 (operational) float planes
France had a seaplane carrier with 26 planes.
---- Should we also be allowed to build: - non flat deck carriers? - float fighters? - float bombers?
Might be fun
|
|