Wheres the Aircraft carriers

TankBuster wrote:

BeerBelly wrote:

In WW2, Aircraft carriers were not used at all in the Atlantic theater (only supported Africa invasion/landings) and would be too OP. Additionally, most landlocked or surrounded countries (Poland, Romania, Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia) would not bother building since they need to focus on ground troops and defend or conquer Europe. There really is no need for CVs at all. Save this unit for a Pacific theater map.

I like powerful Battleships..especially since Cruisers are so wimpy and Destroyers cant bombard land (that needs to change).

Germany was building a AV, it was sunk by the Russians after the war. CV was used in the Med to support the defence of Malta and it was used to protect convoys in the Atlantic.

And Russia is not landlocked, have you ever seen a map of Russia?

Destroyers can bombard land, but due to their short range its not something tactically viable until around lvl 3/4.

And the Use of the CV would be in support landings on the USA/UK or Europe (if playing as the US/Canada)

1. Germany was building a carrier (and other advanced stuff) that wasn't used in the war...your point is moot.

2. By "OR SURROUNDED", I meant Russia has so many land targets in early/mid game and potential threats, a navy isn't the priority. I should have been more precise since you couldn't understand my meaning since Russia should fear Germany, Turkey and Sweden navies?

3. Destroyers do ZERO damage to land units or cities, period. Look at their stats even at max level...no value for cities or infantry/tanks. Only Cruisers and BBs have these values. So again, you are simply wrong.

4. Battleships support landings just fine currently...there isn't a need for an OP carrier since BBs have great AA. The fact that no carriers were used on D-Day (in France) supports this opinion.

5. The Atlantic theater had small escort carriers that had heavy losses and were more used for support of plane/cargo movement than battle. "Named" Ships like the USS Lexington/Yorktown/Intrepid were not used there.

6. Malta is just north of AFRICA so again, another moot point.

Thanks for playing, please try harder next time.

BeerBelly wrote:

1. Germany was building a carrier (and other advanced stuff) that wasn't used in the war...your point is moot.

2. By "OR SURROUNDED", I meant Russia has so many land targets in early/mid game and potential threats, a navy isn't the priority. I should have been more precise since you couldn't understand my meaning since Russia should fear Germany, Turkey and Sweden navies?

3. Destroyers do ZERO damage to land units or cities, period. Look at their stats even at max level...no value for cities or infantry/tanks. Only Cruisers and BBs have these values. So again, you are simply wrong.

4. Battleships support landings just fine currently...there isn't a need for an OP carrier since BBs have great AA. The fact that no carriers were used on D-Day (in France) supports this opinion.

5. The Atlantic theater had small escort carriers that had heavy losses and were more used for support of plane/cargo movement than battle. "Named" Ships like the USS Lexington/Yorktown/Intrepid were not used there.

6. Malta is just north of AFRICA so again, another moot point.

In this game, carriers cannot attack land targets and even if they could, they would be useless. They only have int and navs. So saying they are OP is wrong, they are basically just much stronger DD.

You are looking at them for purely attacking ground targets but that is incredibly wrong. In the Pacific the IJN was crippled in a battle where no ships fired a single shot at another ship. This is what CV are for in this game. This is why your points are moot(tee hee).

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

BeerBelly wrote:

1. Germany was building a carrier (and other advanced stuff) that wasn't used in the war...your point is moot.

2. By "OR SURROUNDED", I meant Russia has so many land targets in early/mid game and potential threats, a navy isn't the priority. I should have been more precise since you couldn't understand my meaning since Russia should fear Germany, Turkey and Sweden navies?

3. Destroyers do ZERO damage to land units or cities, period. Look at their stats even at max level...no value for cities or infantry/tanks. Only Cruisers and BBs have these values. So again, you are simply wrong.

4. Battleships support landings just fine currently...there isn't a need for an OP carrier since BBs have great AA. The fact that no carriers were used on D-Day (in France) supports this opinion.

5. The Atlantic theater had small escort carriers that had heavy losses and were more used for support of plane/cargo movement than battle. "Named" Ships like the USS Lexington/Yorktown/Intrepid were not used there.

6. Malta is just north of AFRICA so again, another moot point.

You sound pretty pissed, but your points are moot(tee hee).

In this game, carriers cannot attack land targets and even if they could, they would be useless. They only have int and navs. So saying they are OP is wrong, they are basically just much stronger DD.

You are looking at them for purely attacking ground targets but that is incredibly wrong. In the Pacific the IJN was crippled in a battle where no ships fired a single shot at another ship. This is what CV are for in this game. This is why your points are moot(tee hee).

So we now have carriers in this game...where are they exactly in the tech tree? After I read that incorrect statement, I just ignored the rest of your tripe. BTW, this game doesn't have a Pacific theater and again, no CVs (carriers)...your comments don't even apply or make sense.

Thanks for playing, try harder next time.

Ha ha, obviously you do not have the experience or pay as much attention or have the fantabulous mind I have. The CV was in but was taken out since it was so buggy.

BeerBelly wrote:

this game doesn't have a Pacific theater

BeerBelly wrote:

your comments don't even apply or make sense.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Ha ha, obviously you do not have the experience or pay as much attention or have the fantabulous mind I have. The CV was in but was taken out since it was so buggy.

BeerBelly wrote:

this game doesn't have a Pacific theater

Duh. The can't pump out maps like a sweatshop.

BeerBelly wrote:

your comments don't even apply or make sense.

Baka. I will school your ass, you shotacon.

Turn off your computer and go talk to real people.

Ehehehe, a debate is like war, it is only lost when one gives up.

That was trash talk to enrage the enemy so he does not think when in battle.

BeerBelly wrote:

You admit your Pacific comment was meaningless and then say "duh"

BeerBelly wrote:

the game doesn't have CVs currently

Two last things, do you have a superiority complex and do you want to continue this through PM's so others can't intervene?

The most important thing to be learned here, is not to argue with bill, He Will Never Give Up! This argument cannot be settled with words, but only with your skill with the game. You should both duel it out in a map 1 on 1. O_o

BeerBelly wrote:

4. Battleships support landings just fine currently...there isn't a need for an OP carrier since BBs have great AA. The fact that no carriers were used on D-Day (in France) supports this opinion.

5. The Atlantic theater had small escort carriers that had heavy losses and were more used for support of plane/cargo movement than battle. "Named" Ships like the USS Lexington/Yorktown/Intrepid were not used there.

No need for 'named' ships because there is no need to risk precious CVs against submarines.

Remember when they were actually released...Bytro got us good man.

The original concept for the aircraft carrier was to move air craft over seas. The Japanese soon changed this. Aircraft carriers in the Atlantic ocean was thought up by the U.S. and Britain to protect convoys. It at first was going to an iceberg that was going to be cut out at the north and refurbished to have the ability to launch aircraft. That was soon changed to an aircraft carrier made of an ice that had wood pulp in it to make it stronger then concrete. Thus making an invisible ship that would not sink but at huge sustain cost and build cost. It would also take a year to build, so it was canceled. Also Germany build aircraft carriers. Just a brief history.

Most of you people think that this would be op, but they would have a huge sustaining cost and would have to launch special aircraft or take forever to refuel. Plus all aircraft carriers can only hold like one or two aircraft groups that the game gives you. Plus most aircraft carriers only had about the same amount armament as destroyers. So real not that op.

We know that...

If you can take a BB out with 2 planes(Germans did it) from 100km away, that is OP. I am pretty sure the devs got around that by just giving it no range.

Did anyone notice that 'beerbelly' guy shut up across all threads?

I guess thats what happens when you mess with the forum gang *Gang signs, holding MP40s like gangsters*

I forgot about him.

Well, when the master shows up, feelings get hurt and trolls put down! Same with dreams of para.

Master by name, master by nature.

#aircraftcarrier2016

Zhucov v wrote:

#aircraftcarrier2016

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Zhucov v wrote:

#aircraftcarrier2016

Damn, you from the future?

Tell us more enlightened one, what does the future bring?

comrade dave wrote:

Tell us more enlightened one, what does the future bring?