aircraft carriers

They are planning on putting it in. Although your view of it isn't the best, we should also be able to launch strat and tac bombers from it.

No, no strat bombers....even tac bombers is pushing it.

Strat bombers would be too big? Unless your talking about the B25 I think maybe dive bombers would be a nice addition

Tactical bombers AND strategic bombers are both pushing it. I think if you really want to be able to bomb something from an aircraft carrier, you should introduce fighter-bombers, (which wouldn't do nearly as much damage as any bomber) which are the only ones that fit into the aircraft carrier.

I was think b25s would be usable because of the Doolittle raids, but most strategic bombers would be b29s, 17s and Lancaster bombers so I think 4 engined bombers designed to bomb Germany from some airfield in France would to big of dimensions to fit on the flight deck of a carrier, so like I said before I would prefer dive bombers or torpedo planes

You guys ever heard of a super carrier?

In WWII? lol

Also...the Doolittle raid was a one-off, one-way raid, this isnt how they should be represented.

I never said it should be represented this way I'm just saying that, I don't know how many, B25s managed to take off the flight deck of USS hornet, bomb Tojo and land in China, like I said I'd prefer to see dive bombers, torpedo bombers and interceptors used on aircraft carriers

Could be small Maine Bombers, like the Dauntless and the Devastator and later the Avenger...

That would make sense... But anything bigger would be unrealistic or would be too complex to implement in the game... If we think about the B25s launched from a Carrier to bomb Tokyo. Those took off from a Carrier but could never actually get back to it... This would be something very hard to simulate in a game...

They couldn't get back to the ship because of the distance, I thought.

BenjB wrote:

Could be small Maine Bombers, like the Dauntless and the Devastator and later the Avenger...

That would make sense... But anything bigger would be unrealistic or would be too complex to implement in the game... If we think about the B25s launched from a Carrier to bomb Tokyo. Those took off from a Carrier but could never actually get back to it... This would be something very hard to simulate in a game...

We could totally have super carriers. The first one labelled as a SC was the HMS Ark Royal in WWII with the first proper SC made in 1952(being CV-59), the time when Mechanised Infantry ends in this game. Also, Germany's Leopard 1 is from 1965.

Let's make it realistic. Aircraft carrier´s role in WW2 was definitely not bombing cities. The roles of the ACs were the following:

1. Escorting convoys, using their planes to spot enemies and if need be attack them.
2. Supporting amphibious landing and use their planes as air support for the infantry on the ground.
3. In naval battles, fighters were used to patrol and inform, and torpedo bombers and fighter-bombers would try to sink enemy ships.
4. There were also cases of battle groups with ACs in them using naval bombers to try and destroy submarines.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Let's make it realistic. Aircraft carrier´s role in WW2 was definitely not bombing cities. The roles of the ACs were the following:

1. Escorting convoys, using their planes to spot enemies and if need be attack them.
2. Supporting amphibious landing and use their planes as air support for the infantry on the ground.
3. In naval battles, fighters were used to patrol and inform, and torpedo bombers and fighter-bombers would try to sink enemy ships.
4. There were also cases of battle groups with ACs in them using naval bombers to try and destroy submarines.

This is why I think having SBs would be extremely unrealistic, and using TB's is arguably not too realistic either. I not, we get the typical player that puts a nuclear bomber in his AC, nukes your capital, bombs your troops with TBs and destroys your buildings with SBs, which will eventually defeat you.

Another problem we have with AC is, which type do we use?

British AC's had better armour than the US and Japanese AC, but this stopped them having alot of aircraft. US Carriers tend to have alot of planes- a huge amount.

So we need to decide on a fix amounted of planes: i agree with fighter bombers, which should fit nicely between Interceptors and TB.

Also, how expensive should these be? The US was pumping out AC like it as nothing during WW2, so are we going for a cheap unit or expensive?

But I think we can agree that all AC will need to have escorts from other ships. I would hate to see an AC be able to hold its own in a ship-to-ship engagement without its planes.

We should have a US aircraft carrier. The fact that the US pumped them out doesn't matter, they could make BB's in less than a week.

Maybe you could upgrade them to give them a. Armoured flight deck like the british ones. You could also start with escort carrier before moving onto the full fleet carrier ac's

Yes, ACs would be practically defenseless by themselves. Another issue is the cost. I vote for extremely expensive. And, finally, remember, no TBs, that goes for you, Tank Buster.

No, not extremely expensive. They should be cheaper than a BB but more expensive than cruiser. You can build a flotilla for the cost of a single BB, the flotilla including an AC.

All this chatter makes me hope for a pacific theater map! Oh yes!