Aircraft carriers.

Aircraft Carrier can only receive 2 planes at level 1.

After that, it is +2 planes/level if you play 1.5, and +1 plane/level if you play Classic.

In addition, in Classic, only Fighters, or Tactical Planes above level 3 or 4 can embark on a Carrier. In 1.5, any Tactical, Assault or Fighter plane can embark on a Carrier

Chimere wrote:

Aircraft Carrier can only receive 2 planes at level 1.

After that, it is +2 planes/level if you play 1.5, and +1 plane/level if you play Classic.

In addition, in Classic, only Fighters, or Tactical Planes above level 3 or 4 can embark on a Carrier. In 1.5, any Tactical, Assault or Fighter plane can embark on a Carrier

ok thanks!

On that note what do you guys normally put on your carriers? I tend to aim for 4% tactical bombers, 20% attack bombers, 20% naval bombers and 20% interceptors.

No that is not right.

The number of aircraft that can be carried varies accoring to the quality of carrier.

Look it up in the i function in research and it will tell you. Also in aircraft can tell you what can be carried on carriers.

whowh wrote:

On that note what do you guys normally put on your carriers? I tend to aim for 4% tactical bombers, 20% attack bombers, 20% naval bombers and 20% interceptors.

According to your math, there is 36% of unused space on your carriers

Seriously though, how can you have a set formula? The mix has to depend on:

1) What kind of resistance do you expect?

Do you expect a lot of subs? You might need to go 100% naval bomber. Maybe the whole point of the carrier will be to carry naval bombers for ASW duty, to protect the rest of your navy.

2) What is the carrier's final destination?

Are you trying to land an invasion against an enemy who knows how to use his air force? In that case, you need to carry a lot of interceptors, to protect the landing against enemy bombers. There's no space for bombers. You need as many interceptors as you can carry.

Bombers are often a luxury. If you're carrying a lot of bombers, it means you're not afraid of enemy subs, not afraid of enemy bombers.... then why exactly are you building carriers?

You could load your air force on transports and land on the enemy's coast 5-10 days earlier. No need to research, build, or position carriers. No need to wait for the enemy to gain strength. Just go in and get it done.

z00mz00m wrote:

Seriously though, how can you have a set formula? The mix has to depend on:

And I meant 40% there, not 4%. I'll change it now.

I tend to end up using carriers for coastal bombardment and landings. Thats why I do mainly bombers. And also if you have a large enough air force bombers aren't much of a luxury.

Also I assume you're not much of a carrier person off the last part?

whowh wrote:

I tend to end up using carriers for coastal bombardment and landings. Thats why I do mainly bombers. And also if you have a large enough air force bombers aren't much of a luxury.

A real opponent will send more air force than you could handle with carrier-based planes.

If you can sit off shore with no fear of enemy bombers, it means the enemy is not a real threat.

And if that's the case, then just land, build an air base, and forget the carrier.

Your bombers will have to move inland to follow your army, and you'll build more air bases.

The carrier will be abandoned on the coast.

Are you going to wait for the carrier to sail back and forth to bring more planes?

No way! Why double your travel time? The next batch of planes arrives by transport.

So why didn't the first batch arrive by transport?

What was the point, really?

whowh wrote:

I Also I assume you're not much of a carrier person off the last part?

I've used them for fun and I'll keep building them for fun.

I also build nuclear missiles and bombers and ships (in 1.0 maps).

Not because they help me to win.

On the contrary, I have to delay the end of the game to play with all my toys.

The quickest victories are the ones where I land a superior air force and army directly by boat.

The air base goes up and the planes are airborne before the enemy can come close.

From there on, it's just a standard land war.

The trick is to pick the right time and place for the invasion.

Doing that is much easier when you don't have to plan around carriers.

They are a nuisance, these big slow expensive ships you have to protect.

All you really need is subs.

They do all the scouting, they sink the enemy navy, and then you just land and you win.

Even on Pacific maps, if my objective is to win ASAP, my whole navy is subs.

Carrier croup can be flexible, carriergroup is more safe to rocketattacks than local airfields, Carriers can build inercontinental carrierbridge. Move carrier middle or high level to next area of war is more quickly then build airfields in provinces with low moral.

Seatransport of airforces are striktly prohibited for players who pretend to be good one. Exeptions due to the situation on battlefield only consolidate the rule.

Fullarmed group of carriers are most powerfull navy, only level of airforces limit their power.

With carriers you can fight on other side of globe against bad boys and gain global popularity.

With carriers you can breake speed of expansion of your enemies, and enjoy game longer.

Even small map can have use of carriers for some goals.

Carriergroup need some decent numbers and decent escorts to be used. Lowest battlegroup of Carriers should have at least 10 spots for airforces squadrons.

Carrierbridge can be used even by 2 spots, but time is money, also 6 spots are prefered. Carrierbridge need at least basic escort of 1 destro+1cruiser.

True battlegroup of Carriers should have at least 24 spots, prefered as much as possible, even 60 spots can be usefull. True Navy of carriergroup need several escortfleets triangling on sea connect points with Carriergroups (escort of carrierfleet is must have anyway) in between.

Escortfleets delete not a need of escorts in carrierfleet. But escortfleets are overkill option on safity class.

With decide for carrierbased warfare you make every round to rpg for you own.

You can win every game without, but you get only one true feeling of WW2 with it, if you use it right.

All points I was just about to type, Last Warrior. A wise post indeed. Sailing a strong carriergroup into a place like the Mediterranean or the Phillippines/Indonesia/Chinese Sea region can be a deadly blow to an enemy.

And carrier bridges are SO useful, especially between America and Eurasia/Africa... I wonder why so few people use them.

Yes, very strong points indeed. Protection from missile shenanigans, especially versus big paying users, is underestimated.

In 1.0 I would usually escort carriers, because a submarine group, a fleet or even a bunch of naval bombers can sneak on it while you are inactive, and every carrier you lose lose its planes.

I would escort typically with cruisers which can kill planes and tank damage, IMO the most important threat to carriers.

In 1.5 I have not had much opportunities to use carriers against a dangerous opponent, but I suspect it is less of an issue as you don't start losing carriers until your stack is seriously damaged.

Another item : I don't know what kind of game you guys are doing, but I have never had the use of massive carrier fleets with 60 spots. Maybe in the Pacific Map which I never played, but embarking 24 planes is already a huge number in my games.

Typically in my Let's Play below, my raid day 25 is only 2 carriers

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/lets-play-the-yellow-peril-in-call-of-war.132309/page-3#post-6677186

And the conquest of Madagascar is also only 2 carriers.

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/lets-play-the-yellow-peril-in-call-of-war.132309/page-4#post-6677189

I just don't have the economy even in end-game to have 60 planes on a carrier fleet AND ground force AND planes back home in reserve. Maybe in a game where I have 4 or 5 icons of oil in my core ?

Chimere wrote:

Another item : I don't know what kind of game you guys are doing, but I have never had the use of massive carrier fleets with 60 spots. Maybe in the Pacific Map which I never played, but embarking 24 planes is already a huge number in my games.

.....

I just don't have the economy even in end-game to have 60 planes on a carrier fleet AND ground force AND planes back home in reserve. Maybe in a game where I have 4 or 5 icons of oil in my core ?

But you probably would not have any reserves of airforces soil stationated.

With minor power it still be possible one week later with weakener land strikeforces. With SU (plus conquered countries) after day15 could recruit 60 units a day.

In teamfight 50vs50 event i had 30 spots full armed carriergroup on day15 and i had several 5er and one 10er airforces stacks on soil. Not a Single penny gold paid. I could build 30 till 40 units a day after two weeks of expansion.

ah yes I don’t play world power in historical. Too easy.

On 100 players map you can’t really I guess.

I played mostly land-locked nations in 1.5 for some reason, but having 60 planes around day 15 is pretty easy to achieve on the 100p map as well (given a swift and steady expansion) . I figure putting the carriers and their escorts underneath at the expense of the big continental land armies wouldn't be too hard either.

I've personally never had the problem dealing with carrier groups.

Assuming you're on par, meaning you can match your opponent in research and production.

Take the same resources your opponent invested in the carrier group, and build subs.

You can have enough subs to EASILY sink 1-2 carrier groups of equivalent value.

And that's assuming the carrier group is being driven by an expert player.

Subs are just too cost-efficient compared to surface ships.

Add some land-based interceptors to negate the carrier's naval bombers and it's a slaughter.

I made a quick spreadsheet to do the math.

Let's assume all units are level 5 (possible on day 1.

Let's assume a carrier group has 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 6 destroyers.

This is equivalent to about 15 subs, in terms of resource costs.

The carrier group has an HP ratio of 0.88 and a damage ratio 0.49 compared to the subs.

Meaning, for every 1.00 sub HP, the carrier group has 0.88 HP.

And for every 1.00 HP the subs do to the surface ships, the ships do 0.49 HP damage to the subs.

In a head to head fight, the subs win decisively.

If you include the research costs, and amortize over your whole fleet, the subs pull further ahead.

The research costs don't begin to make sense on small maps.

You need to level up 3 different types of surface ships, each more expensive than submarine research.

Maybe on a large map where you build 10+ carriers, the research starts not be as much of a factor.

If you include build time, it's not even close.

We're talking 1 ship yard versus 4-5 ship yards.

So please go ahead everyone, build your carrier battle groups, and approach my shore line!

First my interceptors will sink your naval bombers, if they venture out to look for subs.

Once they are out of the picture, my subs come in and torpedo anything that floats.

You can build an air base in a few hours. And an air base can service infinity war planes.

I know things are different in the real world, but in CoW, carriers don't make sense.

Without checking the math - you cannot really count like this to decide if an unit is worthwhile or not.

As often, if the enemy has litterally hundreds of subs, I will have hundreds of destroyers . But if he has hundreds of destroyers, I ll bring carriers

In addition : you can only build as many subs at the same time as you have ports, while you can build planes in as many cities as you have.

Planes are not an issue. Of course you have planes. The question was always how to bring them across to another continent. Are carriers essential tools? Are they at least useful tools? Or are they just interesting toys?

My claim is that they are not worth the resources or the time required to build them. Even stacked with cruisers and destroyers, they are vulnerable to subs. A stack that has 9 support ships for every 1 carrier is easily killed by a submarine stack that's faster to build and easier to use. You can try increasing the DD:CV ratio to the point where the stack starts to scare away subs. But that takes you to DD:CV ratios that approach 20:1. This is not a sustainable strategy. And you're getting into wasteful/ineffective stack sizes.

In a game where you can build a cheap, unsinkable air field in a few hours, there is simply no good reason to drag an expensive, vulnerable air field with you from the other side of the world. Especially when the cheap, easy to build air field services infinity air wings, and carriers have limited capacity. It just doesn't add up.

You need to be online all the time to use subs; if you're not, the dessies can kill them from range in 1.5 since they can spot them now, and the subs go down without doing any damage at all.

Even in an ideal world where both opponents are online 24/7, the subs have trouble catching their prey if the dessies withdraw "scoot and shoot" as the subs approach; they're just faster.

Apart from those tactical considerations, there's hardly a strategical situation where both opponents just decide "oh lets spend 100k res on a fleet"; heck you often don't know who your opponent will be when you build stuff. Yeah carrier groups require (local) naval superiority to operate optimally; the point is if they DO, they can exert their power on landmasses in places the opponent doesn't expect to even be vulnerable.