|
Post by bastard2k on Sept 3, 2019 20:08:27 GMT -6
Heya, just curious if there are any ideas to create Battlecarriers, Flight-Deck Cruisers or Seaplane Tenders? I am speaking about actual hybrid designs here, akin to this: s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/warisboring.com/images/1-Qg75qREf8eJG1PbiqhsGZg-768x348.jpgObviously I have no idea if it is feasible or well-balanced, and there was a reason why it was not used in RL but, my reasoning for suggesting these: - The game is already an alternative take on certain events (rng and whatnot) - Due to the semi-random research speed, you get some wonky/weird designs at times in your ships - As such, a possible battlecarrier could just be a design born out of circumstances which can be tried out? What do you guys (or the devs) think? Is that an idea which is actually worthwhile?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 3, 2019 21:02:15 GMT -6
They're not exactly what you're asking for... ... but if you're looking for a BB-CV hybrid you could try something like one of these.
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Sept 3, 2019 21:14:29 GMT -6
I think it's a terrible idea, but the game will let you build one...mostly. (The 'mostly' being because you can't have centerline turrets with a flight deck. But you can have big heavy wing turrets with cross deck shooting, if you really want to.)
Why is a battlecarrier a terrible idea? Because carriers are inescapably vulnerable. The aircraft hanger is a large, difficult to protect hit location which is both mission critical and has potential to outright knock out the ship entirely by uncontrollable fires. It also doesn't help that the maneuvers carriers are forced to perform to launch aircraft would tend to be undesirable when engaged in gun combat.
Seaplane carriers, obviously, are already in the game. They're somewhat useful if you want lots of non-flight-deck recon assets in your fleet. I don't think it's worth building them to double as serious surface combatants, though a big one might want the firepower of a light cruiser or so to show off ambitious destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Sept 4, 2019 3:25:11 GMT -6
I hope battlecarriers with centreline turrets would be added later, would love to try them out. Cruisercarries are easier, as you can easier conceptualise those small guns in side turrets After all, Lexington (4x2 8in) or Graf Zeppelin (8x2 6in) were close to cruiser carriers
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 4, 2019 9:54:13 GMT -6
I have used the change type confirmation bug with CVL designs to experiment with battlecarriers. They can be quite useful early on when carriers are more rare and the Carrier Division is part of battleforce. Armored and heavy gun armed battlecarriers can, as a whole division of 2-3, fend for themselves against CA's and single early or damaged BC's so they are less of a concern in chaotic close battles. I had two of my 1x3x11inch armed and 8inch armored battlecarriers sink a damaged 35kton BC for once where I would have lost two "conventional" carriers.
Those experiments were pre-1.07 so I do not have any pics, sorry.
Battlecarriers could actually be truly useful if one could classify them as BC, CL or CA (with a 20 plane squadron of fighters for CAP only) so that you would get them spread over the forces and divisions and your "true" carriers would focus on the "strike" mission. In that case I would like to experiment with having the flight deck and hangar sides unarmored (or 2" only) of armored CA-like (4-7") and, of course, epseriment with the gun armament etc. I tried to edit in a flightdeck and air complement to a BC and used the change type confirmation but to design a CL in this way but the game does not recognise non CV/CVL as "airbases" for squadron assignment, so that is not connected to a "flight deck y/n" but to a "CV/CVL y/n" check.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Sept 4, 2019 10:49:54 GMT -6
No flat deck nonsense, give me a proper hybrid...
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Sept 4, 2019 12:18:13 GMT -6
What? USS Spurious?
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 4, 2019 12:21:37 GMT -6
Mobeer, the "recipe" is as follows: 1) Start a BC, CA or BB design LARGER than 16000tons 2) provide it with all the centerline turrets, secondaries and tertiaries you want 3) switch to CVL type and name the design 4) add flight deck and planes 5) finalize design with armor, torpedo defence etc. 6) when you try to save the design a dialogue will tell you that the design does not conform to CVL characteristics and asks whether you want to adjust type and continue 7) choose "No" in the dialogue 8) the design will be saved and you are asked whether you want to pay for the full design process 9) you will be able to build this "CVL" and put aircraft on it, it will be selected for battles and operate in them wiht CVL AI
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 4, 2019 12:44:08 GMT -6
Something I whipped up quickly:
|
|
|
Post by Super Trouper on Sept 4, 2019 14:38:02 GMT -6
Because of the 8inch gun requirement for the first CV I usually overzealously up gun the first carrier I build.
This particular design was an attempt to fit the largest caliber while not making the carrier totally useless as a result.
However the huge guns are rarely used; so far I have only sunk merchants and corvettes with battlecarriers.
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Sept 6, 2019 1:06:36 GMT -6
Reposting from Discord...
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 6, 2019 1:15:12 GMT -6
Reposting from Discord... [fighter pilot hat] Well, *I'm* not going to try landing on that thing! [/fighter pilot hat]
|
|
|
Post by iasach on Sept 6, 2019 4:05:06 GMT -6
Reposting from Discord... This must be the most impractical design I've ever seen. Every, everything is baffling about it.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Sept 6, 2019 4:34:09 GMT -6
This must be the most impractical design I've ever seen. Every, everything is baffling about it. I mean it's a german carrier, so nothing less is expected.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Sept 6, 2019 6:19:38 GMT -6
[fighter pilot hat] Well, *I'm* not going to try landing on that thing! [/fighter pilot hat] I'm afraid that's entirely out of character for a fighter pilot. A real hotshot pilot would want the elevators in the down position before he'd feel truly tested. Also, the design is sliiiightly less insane if you assume the fore and aft guns are placed below the flight deck, which can telescope retract during surface engagements.
|
|