Carrier/Aircraft Rework Proposal

[noshurviverse]

The following is a proposal of mine to increase the complexity of carrier design, as well as abstracting many issues that real life carriers dealt with as they aged.

Carrier/aircraft rework

• Aircraft receive a new value: size
    ◘ Aircraft size is partially year/tech based, increasing steadily
    ◘ Aircraft size is partially unique to each plane design
    ◘ Aircraft size will be the primary limitation on how many aircraft a ship can carry


• Carrier air capacity is based off of tonnage, minus certain design aspects (armor, engines, ect)
    ◘ However, air capacity is not based of off weight, nor does addition of these element decrease air capacity to the same extent as they would based on weight
    ◘ Carrier air capacity is a measure of internal volume, not aircraft number
        ○ Example: CVL Example has a “aircraft volume” of 100 units. With a squadron of aircraft of size 5, the carrier can embark 20 aircraft. If a new model of aircraft is size 6, the carrier will be restricted to 17 aircraft (rounding up from 16.6).

• New component added: flight deck elevators
    ◘ Elevators are centerline (or wing once deck edge lifts are researched) components that are placed similarly to turrets or torpedo tubes
    ◘ At least one elevator must be on a carrier for it to be legal
    ◘ At least one elevator must be functional on a carrier for it to conduct air operations
    ◘ Additional elevators increase speed of spotting air groups
    ◘ Additional elevators reduce air capacity (deck edge lifts less so)
    ◘ Elevators may be damaged, destroyed and jammed
    ◘ Elevators will represent "weak spots" in armored carriers
    ◘ Elevators have different sizes (small, medium, large, heavy)
        ○ The larger an elevator is, the larger an aircraft it can accept
    ◘ Larger elevators are restricted by tech
        ○ If an aircraft is adopted that is larger than the current level of elevator tech allows for, it will be automatically researched

•New carrier option: Open hanger vs. Closed Hanger
    ◘At carrier construction it must be specified whether the carrier has an open or closed hanger
        (At the moment I am still determining what advantages and disadvantages each option would entail. As American, British and Japanese carriers incorporated different elements into their designs it is in some cases difficult to directly attribute traits to the nature of an open/closed hanger, as opposed to other design elements.)
        ○Currently considered open hanger characteristics: improved spotting time (eventually partially negated by oil immersion heaters), possible bonuses to firefighting if other ships are nearby?
        ○Currently considered closed hanger characteristics: improved aircraft capacity for tonnage(?), possible resilience to fires spreading/being started, separated hangers(?)

• Updated spotting mechanic:
    ◘ A carriers spot value will be determined by a combination of it's tonnage, as well as it's max speed. A higher max speed will allow a carrier to create a greater headwind over it's flight deck, permitting the spotting of a larger airgroup
        ○ALTERNATIVELY or IN ADDITION: Spot value will become a more abstract number, rather than a specific number of planes. Larger and heavier aircraft will take up a larger spot value.

The end goal of this is to make carriers “age” more than in the current state of the game, as well as increasing the attractiveness of armored carriers. Currently, purpose built CVs are a 1926 tech. By that time the following techs will also be available:

• All “HP reduction” hull techs (minus one in “ship design”)
• Torpedo protection IV
• All “weight savings on armor” techs (armor tree)

A result of this is that a carrier built in 1926 is largely as capable as a carrier built in 1945. By causing aircraft to increase in size, as well as requiring larger elevators, older carriers will become gradually less effective, encouraging their replacement or at least major refits. The addition of "size" to aircraft stats will also increase the options to be weighed when considering which aircraft to accept from manufacturers. If an aircraft has superior stats but a larger size, the decision must be made whether air group size or aircraft effectiveness will be prioritized. Of course, a player may select "size" as a design focus request.

---

Notes
From Shattered Sword (pg 46): "Junyō was larger and had better aircraft handling facilities, but she was hampered by her low speed of twenty-five knots. This meant that she was not considered capable of operating torpedo aircraft, because in light wind conditions she wasn’t fast enough to create the relative wind over her bow necessary to launch them. Kakuta’s flagship, Ryūjō, was faster, but she was plagued by small elevators, meaning that she could not operate the burly Type 99  dive-bomber."

Hōshō (commisioned 1922) participated in the Battle of Midway, but only provided auxiliary duties such as scouting and ASW patrols as she was only equipped with a small number of biplane torpedo bombers.

From Wikipedia article on HMS Argus (I49): Argus was the only British carrier serving in the Second World War capable of striking down (stowing away) aircraft with non-folding wings because of her wide lifts and tall hangar ceiling.

Armoredcarriers.com has a pair of documents from the British Navy, 1943 discussing the merits of open and closed hangers
www.armouredcarriers.com/opensided-versus-closed-hangars-in-aircraft-carriers
www.armouredcarriers.com/-document-2-opensided-versus-closed-hangars

[dia]

I was waiting for this post. I really like your system and hope the devs give it some consideration. I'm not a fan of the current system where the weight/size of aircraft is a hidden figure that results in carriers being drastically overweight when you bring them into a refit. Your size value would actually make you think hard about designing your carrier.

Regarding closed hangers, I believe another characteristic could be one similar to how seaplane hangers work. A closed hanger will result in less damaged aircraft at the start of the battle if operating in sea zones with rough weather, say northern Europe. I also think closed hangers should be an early requirement for a fully armored carrier, at least until tech progresses to the point that Midway-style carriers can be built - by that I mean ones that benefit from both a large air wing and armor. I like the idea that once purpose-built carriers come into play, there would be a period of development where navies would have to decide on closed-hanger armored carriers with smaller air wings vs open-hanger unarmored carriers with larger air wings. Unfortunately this also would require other changes to FD weight and bomb penetration to make armored carriers feasible in this game.

Also I would love not having to draw elevators on the superstructure. And making them mountable would mean they'd disappear if moved or removed - which is not possible when drawn on. And the obvious of being an actual competent.

[aquelarrefox]

the elevators could be a good add. Affect the time from ready-fly time.
the spotting is an interesting feature too.

[noshurviverse]

Sept 4, 2020 16:24:15 GMT -6 dia said:

Regarding closed hangers, I believe another characteristic could be one similar to how seaplane hangers work. A closed hanger will result in less damaged aircraft at the start of the battle if operating in sea zones with rough weather, say northern Europe.

I had considered that, but as the USN operated their open hangers with shutters that could close to keep out the elements, as well as claims that open hangers allowed for some elements of maintenance to be performed easier (engines could be tested without needing to go to the flight deck, improved ventilation) I decided not to mention increased reliability as an effect of closed hangers.

[dia]

Was just throwing out some ideas. Without fixing armored carriers I don't see much reason to ever use a closed hanger. Believe me I would love to have the option to choose a closed vs open hanger.

[oldpop2000]

Just my three cents (accounting for inflation). My desired definition for a fleet carrier is

An aircraft carrier designed from the keel up, as an aircraft carrier. A minimum of 30 knots. Three squadrons minimum either 12 planes or 18 planes to each squadron. The flight deck would either be part of the superstructure or the hull, this would define whether she had an armored deck and sides, or not.

Light carriers should based on warship hulls like heavy and light cruisers. Same minimum speed with at least two squadrons.

Escort carriers should be based on non-warship hulls like ocean liners, tankers or merchant ships, speed minimum of 22 knots, two squadrons. No armor.

The fleet carrier should be the only carrier allowed to an armored deck, sides, and belt armor. Light carriers should be allowed to have belt armor and hangar deck armor since they would be based on cruisers.

Fleet carriers can have three elevators; forward, midship and aft. All other carriers have two, forward and aft.

All carriers can have deck spot which should be calculated based on the tonnage of the carrier. 

On the issue of seaplane carriers, in most cases they were almost useless but if someone wants to waste money on them, go for it. They should be restricted to non-warship hulls and less than 20 aircraft. 

Someone will bring up the Lexington's, the Courageous class and other conversions. Those should be limited to three or less battlecruisers. Speed 30 knots and a minimum of 30 aircraft in two or three squadrons.

How many aircraft can be calculated except we don't have the L X B dimensions. For the Yorktown, 770 x 83.3 divided by 750 equals 85.5 aircraft. She normally carried about 90, all things being equal. 

[seawolf]

Sept 5, 2020 12:35:56 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Just my three cents (accounting for inflation). My desired definition for a fleet carrier is

An aircraft carrier designed from the keel up, as an aircraft carrier. A minimum of 30 knots. Three squadrons minimum either 12 planes or 18 planes to each squadron. The flight deck would either be part of the superstructure or the hull, this would define whether she had an armored deck and sides, or not.

Light carriers should based on warship hulls like heavy and light cruisers. Same minimum speed with at least two squadrons.

Escort carriers should be based on non-warship hulls like ocean liners, tankers or merchant ships, speed minimum of 22 knots, two squadrons. No armor.

The fleet carrier should be the only carrier allowed to an armored deck, sides, and belt armor. Light carriers should be allowed to have belt armor and hangar deck armor since they would be based on cruisers.

Fleet carriers can have three elevators; forward, midship and aft. All other carriers have two, forward and aft.

All carriers can have deck spot which should be calculated based on the tonnage of the carrier. 

On the issue of seaplane carriers, in most cases they were almost useless but if someone wants to waste money on them, go for it. They should be restricted to non-warship hulls and less than 20 aircraft. 

Someone will bring up the Lexington's, the Courageous class and other conversions. Those should be limited to three or less battlecruisers. Speed 30 knots and a minimum of 30 aircraft in two or three squadrons.

How many aircraft can be calculated except we don't have the L X B dimensions. For the Yorktown, 770 x 83.3 divided by 750 equals 85.5 aircraft. She normally carried about 90, all things being equal. 

There’s just so many exceptions to these I don’t think you could be that strict.
For example, Eagle, Béarn, Kaga, Ranger, Wasp, Hosho, Hermes, Ryūjō, Unicorn, Colossus, and Shinano would be illegal under these definitions
In addition, most Escort Carriers were slower than 22 knots, with some maxing out under 15

[oldpop2000]

Sept 5, 2020 18:41:48 GMT -6 seawolf said:

Sept 5, 2020 12:35:56 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Just my three cents (accounting for inflation). My desired definition for a fleet carrier is

An aircraft carrier designed from the keel up, as an aircraft carrier. A minimum of 30 knots. Three squadrons minimum either 12 planes or 18 planes to each squadron. The flight deck would either be part of the superstructure or the hull, this would define whether she had an armored deck and sides, or not.

Light carriers should based on warship hulls like heavy and light cruisers. Same minimum speed with at least two squadrons.

Escort carriers should be based on non-warship hulls like ocean liners, tankers or merchant ships, speed minimum of 22 knots, two squadrons. No armor.

The fleet carrier should be the only carrier allowed to an armored deck, sides, and belt armor. Light carriers should be allowed to have belt armor and hangar deck armor since they would be based on cruisers.

Fleet carriers can have three elevators; forward, midship and aft. All other carriers have two, forward and aft.

All carriers can have deck spot which should be calculated based on the tonnage of the carrier. 

On the issue of seaplane carriers, in most cases they were almost useless but if someone wants to waste money on them, go for it. They should be restricted to non-warship hulls and less than 20 aircraft. 

Someone will bring up the Lexington's, the Courageous class and other conversions. Those should be limited to three or less battlecruisers. Speed 30 knots and a minimum of 30 aircraft in two or three squadrons.

How many aircraft can be calculated except we don't have the L X B dimensions. For the Yorktown, 770 x 83.3 divided by 750 equals 85.5 aircraft. She normally carried about 90, all things being equal. 

There’s just so many exceptions to these I don’t think you could be that strict.
For example, Eagle, Béarn, Kaga, Ranger, Wasp, Hosho, Hermes, Ryūjō, Unicorn, Colossus, and Shinano would be illegal under these definitions
In addition, most Escort Carriers were slower than 22 knots, with some maxing out under 15

You are correct but this is a game. You cannot hope to duplicate history exactly. There were exceptions but I don't believe the game needs to duplicate one of a kinds, do you? Everyone of those ships was a one-off experiment that did not work or at least survive to work. Hosho was Japan's and world first purpose built carrier and things changed after her. Shinano was supposed to be a super battleship and was modified after Midway's loss of carriers. The rest were as I said, one of a kind. I don't think it is necessary to duplicate all the experiments in carriers prior to WW2 which was the proving grounds for carrier warfare. As to the escort carriers, change the speed to 18 knots to be more exact, but it probably would not make much difference. Again, this is not real history.... it is a game.... a simulation.

[seawolf]

Sept 5, 2020 19:05:42 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Sept 5, 2020 18:41:48 GMT -6 seawolf said:

There’s just so many exceptions to these I don’t think you could be that strict.
For example, Eagle, Béarn, Kaga, Ranger, Wasp, Hosho, Hermes, Ryūjō, Unicorn, Colossus, and Shinano would be illegal under these definitions
In addition, most Escort Carriers were slower than 22 knots, with some maxing out under 15

You are correct but this is a game. You cannot hope to duplicate history exactly. There were exceptions but I don't believe the game needs to duplicate one of a kinds, do you? Everyone of those ships was a one-off experiment that did not work or at least survive to work. Hosho was Japan's and world first purpose built carrier and things changed after her. Shinano was supposed to be a super battleship and was modified after Midway's loss of carriers. The rest were as I said, one of a kind. I don't think it is necessary to duplicate all the experiments in carriers prior to WW2 which was the proving grounds for carrier warfare. As to the escort carriers, change the speed to 18 knots to be more exact, but it probably would not make much difference. Again, this is not real history.... it is a game.... a simulation.

I get that, but in the early 1930s those one off experiments made up 7 out of the 15 total flattops, and ignoring their historical impact would make the game quite inaccurate.  You'd basically be making half of historical 1920s designs illegal.  Additionally, there's no gameplay reason why you should make it illegal to have slow Fleet Carriers, Battleship Conversions, or purpose built CVLs.  It would only serve to frustrate players

[generalvikus]

More to the point, I don't see any justification for such restrictions; if there is any additional restriction to be added, it is the separate class of 'escort carrier' which might be any carrier below a certain speed and displacement and perhaps capacity, and be handled differently by the battle generator than the other two types. But I don't see what's to be gained by further restricting the parameters of the other two types.

[aeson]

Speaking for myself, I am against an explicit size statistic for aircraft because I don't see any good way to implement one without creating a micromanagement nightmare for rich nations and large fleet sizes; you can be rolling out new aircraft types every six or eight months and have well over a dozen large carriers by the mid-'40s, if not earlier, as a big power like the USA on the larger fleet sizes, and squadrons are not instantly reequipped with the newest aircraft type so you'd have to be constantly resizing squadrons or at the very least checking up on carrier air groups regularly to ensure that any automatic squadron resizing algorithm didn't make undesirable decisions about how planes are added or subtracted from a carrier air group when one or more of the squadrons convert to a differently-sized aircraft.

[generalvikus]

Sept 5, 2020 19:47:34 GMT -6 aeson said:

Speaking for myself, I am against an explicit size statistic for aircraft because I don't see any good way to implement one without creating a micromanagement nightmare for rich nations and large fleet sizes; you can be rolling out new aircraft types every six or eight months and have well over a dozen large carriers by the mid-'40s, if not earlier, as a big power like the USA on the larger fleet sizes, and squadrons are not instantly reequipped with the newest aircraft type so you'd have to be constantly resizing squadrons or at the very least checking up on carrier air groups regularly to ensure that any automatic squadron resizing algorithm didn't make undesirable decisions about how planes are added or subtracted from a carrier air group when one or more of the squadrons convert to a differently-sized aircraft.

I think the solution would be to have templates which the player can edit, save, and then apply to multiple carriers at once. 

[dorn]

generalvikus

I agree with @eason here. Templates can partially decrease micromanagement but still you need manage templates and it would be still nightmare as you will need update them every several months and it push player to uniform his carrier force to decrease this micromanagement.
Your post is really in top hierarchy and solving this operational issues and spending a lot of time on that will not enhance the game but probably opposite. 

If there is some easy solution without or with minimal player input, it can bring something otherwise it is more annoyance. 

[aeson]

Sept 6, 2020 4:29:40 GMT -6 generalvikus said:

I think the solution would be to have templates which the player can edit, save, and then apply to multiple carriers at once. 

Templates only work if you assume a high degree of commonality between carriers, but between a system where no two carrier classes are likely to have exactly the same aircraft capacity and the way reequipping squadrons with new aircraft types works it's entirely possible that the composition of each carrier's air group would be unique for most of the carrier's service life even if for example all of your CVs have three fighter, two dive bomber, and one torpedo bomber squadrons and all of your CVLs have two fighter squadrons and a flight of dive bombers.

[oldpop2000]

For what my opinion is worth KISS is the watch word for me. I agree with the team about micromanagement. The evolution of the aircraft carrier and its aircraft prompted a whole new set of problems ranging from navigation techniques for aircraft, radio communications, landing on and taking off from small flight decks, managing large numbers of aircraft on the flight deck and in the hangar. There were formation flying issues and the execution of coordinated attacks. The simple idea of just finding your enemy was a primary problem. It took many years and a war to finally work out the details. Enjoy