Submarine Aircraft Carrier

Japan didn’t gain any strategic use and I bet that all the planes they had on those subs combined wouldn’t be the same size as an in game air unit. No need.

The wingspan of the Aichi M6A was almost 8 ft longer than that of a Bf-109. These things are very strategic, I think they would add a cherry on top to a late game navy. A lot of this game is kinda boring because it's just the same thing over and over again, if Bytro isn't gonna fix that by fixing the UI or other important issues then we'll just keep suggesting units for them to add. We got a limited flamethrower tank and some cards that almost broke the game, but having an advanced submarine or a functional aircraft carrier is out of the question?

You liked this guy's idea but not the same exact one I said?

Will take realism out.

I like random posts, learned that from @Donk2.0. Your suggestion still sucks.

Commander Schleicher wrote:

The Japanese had these submarines which could carry small planes. Maybe an upgrade of a submarine unit that could deploy an expensive naval bomber or interceptor. Maybe just have the same feature for an aircraft carrier instead since it's a bad idea to have them be useful.

Commander Schleicher wrote:

You liked this guy's idea but not the same exact one I said?

Carking the 6th wrote:

Japan didn’t gain any strategic use and I bet that all the planes they had on those subs combined wouldn’t be the same size as an in game air unit. No need.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Japan didn’t gain any strategic use and I bet that all the planes they had on those subs combined wouldn’t be the same size as an in game air unit. No need.

Exactly that. An aircraft carrier like the USS Enterprise (lets call that an L2) could carry almost 100 planes, and is represented in the game as 4 air units. What do you want, a stack of 25 of these submarines could carry a single plane unit?

Seems to me that if you want to add more complexity to this game in terms of units, there's more worthwhile ways to do it than this.

People oftentimes forget the alt-history aspect of the game. I say it's fair to implement it. It's up to the player to decide whether or not it's worth making. Also, I've already discussed this in a previous suggestion I made, adding doctrine-specific secret units. My suggestion for Pan-Asian was this. @Carking the 6th do what you're best at and find it if you can.

Donk2.0 wrote:

People oftentimes forget the alt-history aspect of the game. I say it's fair to implement it. It's up to the player to decide whether or not it's worth making. Also, I've already discussed this in a previous suggestion I made, adding doctrine-specific secret units. My suggestion for Pan-Asian was this. @Carking the 6th do what you're best at and find it if you can.

6thDragon wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Japan didn’t gain any strategic use and I bet that all the planes they had on those subs combined wouldn’t be the same size as an in game air unit. No need.

Exactly that. An aircraft carrier like the USS Enterprise (lets call that an L2) could carry almost 100 planes, and is represented in the game as 4 air units. What do you want, a stack of 25 of these submarines could carry a single plane unit?

I couldn’t agree more, but just to play devil’s advocate, this game has railroad guns and they had as much of an impact in WWII as the Japanese submersible aircraft carriers. Who knows, one day these might be the next unit to dominate the game.

This opens up the door for a much wider and more useful force that could actually have an effect on the game. Submarine planes never had or could follow an impact of this level, and physically were not able to hold enough planes to be even considered a unit.

I would also argue the propaganda effect and the minor damage they dealt on Stalingrad and France was worth more, but I rest my case.

Made a new thread that includes this, based off of what I wrote those years ago.

Unique Doctrine Units

Honestly I don't really think Bytro cares about what their playerbase wants. I don't recall anyone asking for a limited flame tank, and if they did a long time ago it's lame that it's taken months just for it to be implemented. All the popular suggestions I see go right under Bytro's nose and they don't even add any good updates anymore. The only reason I started this thread is to spark discussion and see what people want, then wait for Bytro to add the unit 2 years from now.

Commander Schleicher wrote:

I don't recall anyone asking for a limited flame tank,

Rocket subs would be good, at level 5