It can't be much of a suprise when a single infantry unit equates to a 1,000 or so men
"Honor? Glory? There's no point in speaking to a killer who indulges in such nonsense."
"It's a crime we call victory, paid for by the pain of the defeated"
I know. everyone wants carriers. except the people who don't, of course, but that goes without saying. And there are many threads on the forum... but I'd like to add my 30 or so cents into the bucket.
Aircraft carriers should start at day 12 on the naval tech tree, requiring the pre research of Battleships. Their building and research costs would be almost the same as BBs, though requiring 100-200 more men. They would require a factory lvl 1 and a naval base lvl 3 to build, and would take the same amount of time to build as a BB.
Aircraft carriers would have another stat, in addition to HP, strength, and speed: hangar capacity. This would dictate the number of interceptors and naval bombers that could be carried on board (each aircraft taking up one capacity each). The hangar capacity should, in my opinion, advance as follows:
| lvl1 | lvl2 | lvl3 | lvl4 | lvl5 | lvl6 |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
or the lvl +2. The lvls would each be re searchable the day the BB one lvl above them became available, with lvl 6 carriers accessible on day 40, with the rest of the highest-accessible level stuff.
The strength's of the carrier should run somewhat as follows:
| lvl1 | lvl2 | lvl3 | lvl4 | lvl5 | lvl6 |
| defending | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 |
| defending | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.7 |
Aircraft carriers would have no value against subs, land units, or in any attacks.These values are taken from the destroy of the same lvl; assuming that the "time period" in which each of these machines was developed is determined by the day unlocked, not the lvl, then this is not to far fetched.
Aircraft carriers would have 45 hp, and their speed would be equal to the cruiser on lvl above them. They could not carry out ranged combat, except with their aircraft. As with airfields, aircraft on the carrier would act as if they were flying when attacked, representing the "scramble" that would occur in real life. This would, of course, not happen when the aircraft was refueling.
I do find it kind of silly that flying boats will be taking off from these guys, but hey, they do it with inland airfields, which is even less realistic, considering there were seaplane tenders, which could be represented be carriers as well.
in a day or two ill post my idea's about tank destroyers, then marines and paratroopers. PLEASE, if you have criticism, voice it below. I don't feel I'm being taken seriously without criticism.
Please log in to post a reply.
It can't be much of a suprise when a single infantry unit equates to a 1,000 or so men
Don't you just hate it when 10,000 German troops give you a surprise Anschluss?
In WWII they did start building them from scratch, but the first ones were usually converted from cruisers. Jacob has since informed me that there was indeed a carrier or two built from a Battleship hull, but that was done barely after the keel was laid down.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
We said they were built from scratch, which they were in WWII, then you went on your silly rant.eruth wrote:
no, i was not the one who added in the trivia bit that most carriers were converted cruiser hulls
to clear up a bunch of confusion: i left out tactical bombers and strategic bombers because they could not operate from carriers. Think of the doolittle raid: the b-25s were barely able to take off, and unable to land. And this was a one of a kind scenario. SO, tactical, strategic, and nuclear bombers cannot operate from carriers. And as to the cruiser thing that I'm getting flak about for no reason: I added the idea of battleship pre requirement because, in real life, every nation that had carrier had BBs. I later retracted it after i was shown that it did not make a whole lot of sense, because those carrier that were converted from other ship types were usually cruiser hulls. I am very aware that most carrier were built from scratch. Now, can we please move on?
Uhm, have you heard of a super carrier? Basically just a beefy carrier. It lets big stuffz take off from it.
um, have you heard of history? there were no super carriers until the 60s, i believe. And even those have their limits; have you ever heard of a b52 taking off from a nimitz class? no. a b-17 might manage a takeoff from a modern carrier, but that's the thing: a MODERN carrier, not a world war 2 one.
Dur dur dur dur I am history. This game has the Leopard 1 which was made in 1965. Educate yo'self fool(wink Dave wink).eruth wrote:
um, have you heard of history?
well i do not play germany, so i have not seen the leopard one. every other vehicle i have seen is from the 50s of before. anyway, any carrier from any age can only carry small aircraft. YES, a nimitz might be able to use B-17s, if they had arresting hooks. But are there Nimitz era tings in game? no. Now, is everyone sufficiently aware of the fact that twin-and quadruple engined aircraft (represented by tactical and strategic bombers, respectively) cannot operate from aircraft carriers? good. Let's move on.
many naval bombers are twin engined, and the fw 2000 condor is quadruple, but whatever. Back to scrambling, i believe instead of this chance business, the planes have defense value weaker than their attack one, so when the carrier is ambushed by subs or goes into melee with a fleet, the planes will have a limited attack with friendlies and enemies being so close
But this game can't account for everything, so a 'chance' factor for surprise is a simple enough calculation that can add some realism to the game without over-thinking it.
It is just a game, not a tactical war room with dozens of men and women giving you the latest data on enemy positions and allied readiness.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.wasn't le leopard designed in 1942?Butter Ball Bill wrote:
Dur dur dur dur I am history. This game has the Leopard 1 which was made in 1965. Educate yo'self fool(wink Dave wink).eruth wrote:
um, have you heard of history?
Nevermind, I was thinking of a different Leopard tank.
This is still a sort of simulation of sorts, and having a *chance* to scramble is not accurate in the least bit. In life, they WILL be sent out, but what you can't control is their ability to attack, which should be very limitedDiabolical wrote:
But this game can't account for everything, so a 'chance' factor for surprise is a simple enough calculation that can add some realism to the game without over-thinking it.It is just a game, not a tactical war room with dozens of men and women giving you the latest data on enemy positions and allied readiness.
scrambling: I think it should be the same combat mechanics as patrolling: attack 4 times every hour at 25% attack value each time (so, if the enemy is able to send two waves of attack, with different aircraft units, of course, in less than 15 minutes, only the first would be attacked.) Also, about the german multi engined naval bombers: The germans only ever started building one carrier and they never finished it, so they didn't have real carrier aircraft. We will operate off the basis of nations that did have carriers at the time (Britain, US, and Japan) also, i believe britain should have it's own "faction" with nation specific unit names (A.K.A. spitfire, warspite, ark royal, I don't know the names of any British tanks, etc.) like the US, USSR, and Germany do
I'm down for some variety in units, though, that should be put last in priority for now. Couple Brit tanks I'm looking forward to seeing are my personal favorites of the Cruiser series and the Cromwell. But again, last priority. The scrambling here seems even more controversial than the one currently in place with the land equivalent, putting far too much damage output to the planes, making it pretty much unnecessary to launchthem out at all in terms of naval bombers, as just leaving them on the carrier and running into the subs is far more effective.
Actually, the British and Soviets had lots of American war units from the Lend-Lease Act which would be easy to identify.eruth wrote:
scrambling: I think it should be the same combat mechanics as patrolling: attack 4 times every hour at 25% attack value each time (so, if the enemy is able to send two waves of attack, with different aircraft units, of course, in less than 15 minutes, only the first would be attacked.) Also, about the german multi engined naval bombers: The germans only ever started building one carrier and they never finished it, so they didn't have real carrier aircraft. We will operate off the basis of nations that did have carriers at the time (Britain, US, and Japan) also, i believe britain should have it's own "faction" with nation specific unit names (A.K.A. spitfire, warspite, ark royal, I don't know the names of any British tanks, etc.) like the US, USSR, and Germany do
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Aircraft can find their targets very easy. Happened all the time in the Battle of Britain.
This idea of scrambling is stupid. When you scramble a squadron, they take off. Then they have to be vectored. So stop discussing it, you are making yourselves look silly with every new post.
I think we should have carriers.
You should also be able to name them, and faction-specific skins should be adopted.
-for the western allies (US, UK...), it should be the Essex-class
-for the axis it should be the Graf Spee
-for the eastern bloc it should be the Moskova class
(I know that didn't come into service until the 60's, but it was the first Soviet aircraft carrier)
Please log in to post a reply.