Why can't I use my ally's Aircraft Carrier? Both of us can use each other's airbases and airstrips, how is this any different? Let's see what excuses you people make up this time.
Please log in to post a reply.
I'm curious now...
I can go into more detail later on. Maybe I should make a thread for this..Lady Aragosta wrote:
I'm curious now...
something I agree with
If your ally is "well meaning" then just ask them to move the planes. I would rather be able to have me and my allies use each other's carriers versus not even with the consequences. More and more excuses from everyone, not surprised at this point. Carriers make all the difference in a battle, have you not heard of Strategic Bombers? In Operation Barbossa we lost all airfields in Ukraine from nonstop Russian bombers. Italy's Aircraft Carrier in the Azov Sea made all the difference during the Battle of Karkhov where we made a huge turning point in the war. It would've been made 10x easier if I could've supplied some planes to the carrier. It pains me how many times I have to say that this game is not realistic...
Still should add this
Yes, they certainly should!
Why do the devs never check things like this that people actually want? Maybe we need some kind if pinned message or thread that gets added on to with notable suggestions that are viable and the majority wants.
Please replace "what people actually want" with "what I actually want". For me, I'm perfectly happy with the way it works now. I can also understand some of the complex issues in coding; carriers have been buggy for literally YEARS after introduction and most of these bugs have finally been rooted out now. No need to introduce new bugs because of this fringe issue.Commander Schleicher wrote:
Why do the devs never check things like this that people actually want? Maybe we need some kind if pinned message or thread that gets added on to with notable suggestions that are viable and the majority wants.
Look at the replies, most people who have replied on here agree with this. And your statement is hypocritical because you then start talking about what you are happy with yet you expect me to do the opposite. Not really a fringe issue either if you actually read some of the situations people had with carriers. I know you're a pro at the game but not everyone is competing for the top 100, of course I'm not advocating for everything to be easy but this one thing is just retarded especially considering aircraft carriers are expensive early game and are one of the most valuable navy assets when used properly. It just doesn't make sense anyways since you can use every aspect of your ally's infrastructure including railroads, ports, and airports but somehow not an aircraft carrier even though every single one is identical but rebranded for different doctrines.
Using a slur can kinda kill your argument, in my eyes. It’s not very hard to use normal language.
What slur? Negating everything I said just because of a single word that I don't even know is offensive.
Commander Schleicher wrote:
but this one thing is just retarded especially considering
My bad if you find it offensive, wasn't directed at anyone.
Of course. Bad word tho
Ok just trying to spread a message about the aircraft carriers. If this was an actual feature I probably would've beaten the Russians.
I made it perfectly clear that it was me who prefers this; while you used the generic "people" which usually means "everyone", and I specifically don't want to be included in your "people" then. And as I read in this thread, there were multiple people who didn't agree with you either, raising valid arguments why this would not be wanted or possible. And even is there WAS consensus on this on here, we are just a group of MAX 100 active people talking here, with millions playing the game, so we're not even very representative to be labelled "people".Commander Schleicher wrote:
Look at the replies, most people who have replied on here agree with this. And your statement is hypocritical because you then start talking about what you are happy with yet you expect me to do the opposite. Not really a fringe issue either if you actually read some of the situations people had with carriers. I know you're a pro at the game but not everyone is competing for the top 100, of course I'm not advocating for everything to be easy but this one thing is just retarded especially considering aircraft carriers are expensive early game and are one of the most valuable navy assets when used properly. It just doesn't make sense anyways since you can use every aspect of your ally's infrastructure including railroads, ports, and airports but somehow not an aircraft carrier even though every single one is identical but rebranded for different doctrines.
Taking this one step further, there should actually be separate carrier versions of most planes (i.e. attack bomber vs carrier attack bomber), because regular planes were generally unable to operate from carriers, they needed modifications/special versions for that. I'm not advocating that, but beware of what you wish for when "historical accuracy" is mentioned as a reason.
This forum is where the devs look for suggestions, and everyone with Internet has the ability to join for themselves. Since we have taken the initiative, we represent the people who play the game in the sense of suggestions. I also never mentioned anything in my original thread or recent messages about historical accuracy. And of course I can see how you think people = everyone, so sorry for that, but my point still stands that the majority support this, and you are free to reject it if you wish.
Speaking for myself, I think carriers are already OP. They can handle all kinds of planes that have no business operating from carriers. They can take a ton of damage while remaining operational. They can carry unlimited fuel and ammo, like air bases, which are also OP. And allowing foreign planes to operate from friendly carriers is a terrible idea. It would mean 1 player can build a carrier navy while the rest of the team can focus on airplane research. That would make air power even more OP than it already is. Just a terrible idea making an unrealistic and bordering on game breaking situation even worse.
I mean, they could also be debuffed and larger aircraft can be removed from the list of planes it can carry. However, they're not really that OP from what I know. Unless you have a large enough navy to defend the ship with multiple units on top of your maritime borders then the unit can be sunk easily with some cheap subs. I agree though that if the planes are on the ship and have unlimited resources to regroup then the operating costs should be much higher. Having a team effort to win is good also I see no issue in that, and it would become inevitable mid game when players would strengthen all areas of their military. This is mainly for the early to mid game where units like the aircraft carrier are actually expensive, but often times they can barely be used by their own country since many I have seen don't make any more planes other than the singular interceptor that spawns by default. In my last game if I were able to use my ally's carrier then I honestly think we could've won the war sooner and then win the map.
I agree with the Commander, to put it in short, they can be countered and the power of there planes is a little overblown INHO. Sea warfare is just not that important. You can ignore them, bait them to your mainland, then use land based planes (which unlike carriers can have more than 30 minutes cooldown if push comes to shove) and wipe them out. Cost isn’t the best either…
Please log in to post a reply.
