|
|
Post by navalperson on Mar 1, 2021 16:04:37 GMT -6
As it currently stands there is no real incentive to build carriers that differ from the Essex model: 90-100 aircraft on 30-35,000 tons and 30kt with as much AA as will fit. You don't bother with anything beyond a conversion or two in the early 20s and then immediatly start producing CVs with no decernable difference other than weight savings and AA suits. There is no real feel of evolution in CV size and design, an old ship can carry new aircraft just as well as a brand new one with no discernible penalties. Aircraft don't really grow in size and handelling requirements over time; larger carriers with similar air groups don't offer faster turnaround times on strikes (it may exist but its certainly not communicated to the player); and beyond 90-100 aircraft additional size is wasted. The prevelance of AP large bombs makes armoured hangers worthless. Sure you can add armour, speed and AA to a carrier but that doesn't really reflect real world incentives to build bigger carriers. So I'm curious how the DLC will change the handling of CVs and incentivise evolution in carrier design whilst upgrading old carriers to handle new aircraft? Also what will change to reflect the massive impact jets had on carrier design? A Forrestal or a rebuilt Essex is very different to earlier carriers beyond angled flight decks and deck edge lifts. It would be interesting in upgrading carriers to allow heavier aircraft and give the player I better experience in that I normally don’t refit carriers but giving carriers limits on what type of aircraft would in my opinion give a lot more difficult fun factor to the game. I hope the DLC gives incite into this. |
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Mar 2, 2021 0:04:11 GMT -6
As it currently stands there is no real incentive to build carriers that differ from the Essex model: 90-100 aircraft on 30-35,000 tons and 30kt with as much AA as will fit. You don't bother with anything beyond a conversion or two in the early 20s and then immediatly start producing CVs with no decernable difference other than weight savings and AA suits. There is no real feel of evolution in CV size and design, an old ship can carry new aircraft just as well as a brand new one with no discernible penalties. Aircraft don't really grow in size and handelling requirements over time; larger carriers with similar air groups don't offer faster turnaround times on strikes (it may exist but its certainly not communicated to the player); and beyond 90-100 aircraft additional size is wasted. The prevelance of AP large bombs makes armoured hangers worthless. Sure you can add armour, speed and AA to a carrier but that doesn't really reflect real world incentives to build bigger carriers. So I'm curious how the DLC will change the handling of CVs and incentivise evolution in carrier design whilst upgrading old carriers to handle new aircraft? Also what will change to reflect the massive impact jets had on carrier design? A Forrestal or a rebuilt Essex is very different to earlier carriers beyond angled flight decks and deck edge lifts. It would be interesting in upgrading carriers to allow heavier aircraft and give the player I better experience in that I normally don’t refit carriers but giving carriers limits on what type of aircraft would in my opinion give a lot more difficult fun factor to the game. I hope the DLC gives incite into this. More aircraft types would be cool, heavy fighters, and interceptors. Maybe that'd help? Idk. I'd disagree with the first quote a bit. as Italy I actually quite like building armored carriers. But at the same time yeah large Essex style carriers are just better. There's a legit argument that irl the essex was the best carrier in WWII and the pinnacle of the design. The British had good reasons for building armored carriers and their doctrine was vindicated with Illustrious however maybe she wouldn't have taken so much damage if she'd been able to carry more aircraft, and thus more fighters for CAP. I honestly think maybe yeah. I mean she seriously had like 4 Fulmars on patrol at the time she was attacked I think. That's just pathetic really. I'd make the argument that small nations like Austria might be better suited building armored carriers. They can't build many so making them survivable makes sense. Of course a country like Austria would never need to build carriers as their operations would be confined to the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean, which are protected by land-based air, but we don't have control over where we fight inside a sea zone. |
|
|
|
Post by flemingc on Mar 2, 2021 7:03:05 GMT -6
It would be interesting in upgrading carriers to allow heavier aircraft and give the player I better experience in that I normally don’t refit carriers but giving carriers limits on what type of aircraft would in my opinion give a lot more difficult fun factor to the game. I hope the DLC gives incite into this. More aircraft types would be cool, heavy fighters, and interceptors. Maybe that'd help? Idk. I'd disagree with the first quote a bit. as Italy I actually quite like building armored carriers. But at the same time yeah large Essex style carriers are just better. There's a legit argument that irl the essex was the best carrier in WWII and the pinnacle of the design. The British had good reasons for building armored carriers and their doctrine was vindicated with Illustrious however maybe she wouldn't have taken so much damage if she'd been able to carry more aircraft, and thus more fighters for CAP. I honestly think maybe yeah. I mean she seriously had like 4 Fulmars on patrol at the time she was attacked I think. That's just pathetic really. I'd make the argument that small nations like Austria might be better suited building armored carriers. They can't build many so making them survivable makes sense. Of course a country like Austria would never need to build carriers as their operations would be confined to the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean, which are protected by land-based air, but we don't have control over where we fight inside a sea zone. I'll grant that I oversimplified a bit, other CV designs are occasionally viable, but my underlying point still stands: CVs don't really evolve in game. A late 1920s CV is basically as viable as a combat unit as one built in 1950, currently they handle aircraft just as well, are just as good at damage control and can launch and recover the same aircraft with no penalties. The major difference is that a 1920s CV comes into service with poor aircraft and the 1950s one doesn't. As for the RN's armoured carriers they were designed on the principle that it would be difficult to ensure protection against enemy air attack with just a CAP, especially without RADAR for early warning or directing interceptions. It was assumed that if operating in the Med or the confined waters between Singapore and Japan then they would always be in range of land based aircraft, which themselves were likley to be superior to any equivilent carrier borne aircraft. Armoured Carriers does a pretty good job of explaining it: www.armouredcarriers.com/projects. Trdl: the armoured carriers were built based on assumptions valid in the 1930s but by the 1940s were quickly becoming questionable. There is a lot more nuance than that and additional factors but thats the core of it. |
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Mar 3, 2021 22:06:31 GMT -6
A new expansion is cool, but I seriously hope some work is put into the battle generator. As it stands, late game (1935+) it loves to generate suicide missions for your fleet, throwing your BBs, BCs, CAs, etc, into bombardment and raiding coastal missions, where they'll be torn to shreds by the AIs air bases. And because of how unreliable it is to get CVs in battle, it's pure roulette on whether you'll have effective air cover or not for yourself. Also, the bombardment targets really need to be moved late game. When the target is half way inside the "suspected mine zone" of the enemy nation's port, I really don't see how we're going to shell it (unless we finally get the ability to shell beyond spotting range).
(edit for typos)
|
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 4, 2021 2:34:32 GMT -6
And because of how unreliable it is to get CVs in battle, it's pure roulette on whether you'll have effective air cover or not for yourself. As I have also proposed elsewhere, it would be useful to be able to choose the way to manage the aircraft of your CVs, whether at Admiral or Rear Admiral level or as a Air wing/Group commander. In the first case, the player would only have to decide when and where to launch a strike, while the AI would take care of everything else. In this way it is hoped that the aircraft of your CVs are at least as effective as the enemy or land-based ones. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Mar 4, 2021 9:51:34 GMT -6
Quick note: "Light' and 'Heavy' jet fighter types are already in the Expansion, more details later.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Mar 4, 2021 9:59:51 GMT -6
I'd love to hear if you are going to include nuclear propulsion and nuclear weaponry. Obviously outright nuclear exchanges are a bit above the navy's role, but nuclear torpedoes not uncommon in the cold war era. And what are the consequences of a nuclear carrier exploding? It'd be quite grey if the games time is extended deep into the cold war but then nuclear issues are omitted or removed for the sake of convenience. It'd be like removing planes because they ruin surface engagements. It really depends on where the bomb explodes and the type. An underwater explosion generally will create a hydrostatic wave and possible snap the keel, but an air burst will severely damage the superstructure and the deck. Hydrogen bombs are far more powerful so the crew would not survive but the ship probably would. Possibly a 250,000 ton TNT equivalent exploding about 5000 to 8000 feet above the ship, will destroy all the electronics for certain. All the ammo, missiles, fuel and equipment along with weapons would explode due to temperatures of 100000 F. It would just be a derelict hunk of steel. I know it doesn't make the crew any deader that the ship is still floating but for some reason it seems very macabre to think of the ship surviving the loss of the crew. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 4, 2021 10:22:29 GMT -6
It really depends on where the bomb explodes and the type. An underwater explosion generally will create a hydrostatic wave and possible snap the keel, but an air burst will severely damage the superstructure and the deck. Hydrogen bombs are far more powerful so the crew would not survive but the ship probably would. Possibly a 250,000 ton TNT equivalent exploding about 5000 to 8000 feet above the ship, will destroy all the electronics for certain. All the ammo, missiles, fuel and equipment along with weapons would explode due to temperatures of 100000 F. It would just be a derelict hunk of steel. I know it doesn't make the crew any deader that the ship is still floating but for some reason it seems very macabre to think of the ship surviving the loss of the crew. After a nuclear explosion, the ship will have to be sprayed extensively with water to be able to get aboard. The team will have to have geiger counters and then after the visit, will have to checked for radioactivity quite a bit. They will probably have special outfits to protect them. It was macabre even after Bikini. Most modern warships are pressurized internally and can be sealed to protect the crew if the nuclear weapon is detected as on its way. That still might not save the crew from a direct hit or near miss. |
|
|
|
Post by thejackhood on Mar 4, 2021 23:45:11 GMT -6
"Technology and game-play is setup so play through 1970 is fully supported." Does that mean we'll be able to play passed 1970? Iecause even if it didn't really serve a purpose i'd love to have an endless game, instead of having to start fresh at 1970. I want to do a world conquest game but really like taking my time, eg, a handful of wars from 1900 - 1970 becasue I spend too much time, designing, building, re-fitting lol.  |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Mar 5, 2021 1:29:07 GMT -6
Unlikely, it's more likely a contraction of 'play through to 1970', that is 1970 will be the end point in both technology and play time. Some encouragement to use higher tech rates?
Endless play will be pretty boring as designs are unlikely to see much change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2021 2:42:07 GMT -6
I know it doesn't make the crew any deader that the ship is still floating but for some reason it seems very macabre to think of the ship surviving the loss of the crew. After a nuclear explosion, the ship will have to be sprayed extensively with water to be able to get aboard. The team will have to have geiger counters and then after the visit, will have to checked for radioactivity quite a bit. They will probably have special outfits to protect them. It was macabre even after Bikini. Most modern warships are pressurized internally and can be sealed to protect the crew if the nuclear weapon is detected as on its way. That still might not save the crew from a direct hit or near miss. They also have chemical warfare defense washdown systems, and without wood decking to absorb fallout, are unlikely to be as significantly irriadiated as the Crossroads Baker ships. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 5, 2021 7:47:30 GMT -6
After a nuclear explosion, the ship will have to be sprayed extensively with water to be able to get aboard. The team will have to have geiger counters and then after the visit, will have to checked for radioactivity quite a bit. They will probably have special outfits to protect them. It was macabre even after Bikini. Most modern warships are pressurized internally and can be sealed to protect the crew if the nuclear weapon is detected as on its way. That still might not save the crew from a direct hit or near miss. They also have chemical warfare defense washdown systems, and without wood decking to absorb fallout, are unlikely to be as significantly irriadiated as the Crossroads Baker ships. That is entirely true, its complex and the navy doesn't discuss it much with the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 5, 2021 13:09:37 GMT -6
If nuclear weapons are to be included, please include the EMP or electromagnetic pulse that is generated due to the explosion and can do more damage than the blast itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Mar 5, 2021 13:24:52 GMT -6
I am more interested in the ironclad era and thus i have some important? questions.
1890s ships and those laid down in late 1880s used some turret layouts which in the game appear around the begining of drednought era.
Things such as 3 centerline turrets (Brandenburg and Amiral Baudin), Main battery wing turrets (Marceau), Cross deck fire (quite common). Aside from that some old central battery ships from 1880s should be present.
What are the plans to accomodate for this?
Another thing is importance of Spain and China which in 1890 should be present on the map, Spain was intending on building 6 battleships and is a key enemy for 1890s USA while China and Beiyang fleet is important adversary for Japan and potential western colonizers.
South american countries would be also great to see.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Mar 5, 2021 13:32:05 GMT -6
More aircraft types would be cool, heavy fighters, and interceptors. Maybe that'd help? Idk. I'd disagree with the first quote a bit. as Italy I actually quite like building armored carriers. But at the same time yeah large Essex style carriers are just better. There's a legit argument that irl the essex was the best carrier in WWII and the pinnacle of the design. The British had good reasons for building armored carriers and their doctrine was vindicated with Illustrious however maybe she wouldn't have taken so much damage if she'd been able to carry more aircraft, and thus more fighters for CAP. I honestly think maybe yeah. I mean she seriously had like 4 Fulmars on patrol at the time she was attacked I think. That's just pathetic really. I'd make the argument that small nations like Austria might be better suited building armored carriers. They can't build many so making them survivable makes sense. Of course a country like Austria would never need to build carriers as their operations would be confined to the Adriatic and Eastern Mediterranean, which are protected by land-based air, but we don't have control over where we fight inside a sea zone. I'll grant that I oversimplified a bit, other CV designs are occasionally viable, but my underlying point still stands: CVs don't really evolve in game. A late 1920s CV is basically as viable as a combat unit as one built in 1950, currently they handle aircraft just as well, are just as good at damage control and can launch and recover the same aircraft with no penalties. The major difference is that a 1920s CV comes into service with poor aircraft and the 1950s one doesn't. As for the RN's armoured carriers they were designed on the principle that it would be difficult to ensure protection against enemy air attack with just a CAP, especially without RADAR for early warning or directing interceptions. It was assumed that if operating in the Med or the confined waters between Singapore and Japan then they would always be in range of land based aircraft, which themselves were likley to be superior to any equivilent carrier borne aircraft. Armoured Carriers does a pretty good job of explaining it: www.armouredcarriers.com/projects. Trdl: the armoured carriers were built based on assumptions valid in the 1930s but by the 1940s were quickly becoming questionable. There is a lot more nuance than that and additional factors but thats the core of it. I'd say carriers irl didn't evolve a ton either. That might sound crazy but think about it. How many generations of carriers were there before the Essex? 3? 4? Various seaplane tenders turn into small converted, and fairly bad, carriers like Langely. Then there's Ranger and Lexington. Then the Yorktowns and then the Essex class. Now that's just America sure but American carriers after Langley weren't crazy different. They were different sizes, had different hanger arrangements, and that's kind of it? Different number of elevators maybe? Vastly oversimplifying it and there are probably tons of changes. But the biggest ones were folding wings for aircraft, number and placement of elevators, and hanger arrangements. I'd say the Lexington, a 1925 design, was not all that much different or worse than the Essex, a 1941 design. Perhaps we should have a say over hanger arrangement, which would make things more interesting maybe? Idk |
|
