lparkh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 To my still pretty naive eye ACs seem weakly modeled in SC2-WAW (I love the game don't get me wrong). As far as I can tell their air is treated as fighter air. Therefore when they attack ships they tend to get fairly damaged (very expensive) while doing moderate damage. It does not appear that they get combat effectiveness upgrades like tactical air from antitank. What about doing something symmetrical with them though to what is done ith TA and upgrading their air attack on ships when naval tech improves (torpedos in other words). Probably not thinking clearly here (I do understand that they improve as Advanced Air improves but doesn't seem like what happens with tac air). IF going to have a global WAW scenario do we need more modeling of the devestating impact of carriers in WWII naval combat??? Or for that matter land based air when could find the ships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 ACs are a known weakness of the game.. there have been numerous threads about this topic. One recommendation from my side: don`t use them against enemy planes, just for recon and against Subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 They are weak against ships, shouldn't be. SEE PACIFIC, USA crushing Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 My feelings is that instead of an advanced aircraft upgrade, they should have the naval warfare one. This should increase their target values for NA and reduce the corresponding damage from air attacks to simulate better taskforce cooperation(operational procedures & weaponry) in air defense and carrier operations(damage control, launch & recovery). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Torpedo armed, SEE MIDWAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If dive bombers can have both a ship and tank attack factor why couldnt carrier planes have ground,air and sea capability?Im thinking the problem would be if you also wanted longrange aircraft.Could you program carrier planes for four upgrades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 A simple solution for right now is to increase carrier's attack factor against naval units, increase percentage for naval attack and defense - that is how I mod my carriers as the present CV naval attack borders on comical. On another note, sub attack percentages should also be increased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Were carriers really a factor in the war in Europe? They were my favorite pieces in SC-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 They were quite important in fighting Uboats.Other than the raid on Taranto and the sinking of Bismark I dont recall any other major operations they were involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I guess it depends on the technology of the flat top. The Brits had those WW-1 planes on theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 In the Atlantic, where there were plentiful airbases Aircraft Carriers wouldn't be as important. In the Pacific where a base may be 1000 Miles away you can see, the range on those aircraft were limited... What could a Me-109 do? Or a Zeke? 300 miles there 300 miles back, that was probably in a straight line if... I doubt they could do that sort of range... So in the Pacific Carriers were vital to deliver units right up there, refuel, refit and attack again. I think another power of a Carrier is the fact it's a fast first strike weapon. That if anything could be reflected in SC a first strike capability and then after detection depending...weakening capabilities Taranto-Pearl-Midway all these were surprise hit and runs. Well at Midway it was supposed to be turned out the tables were turned on the Japanese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Ward Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think the most logical upgrades for carriers would be advanced air, naval attack and asw. I think these fit their general role best. They weren't suppose to engage in surface combat so the naval upgrade seems wrong. Ground support wasn't what they were designed to do as most of their bombers were made to kill ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 MartyWard I think there would be some Japanese that disagree that the Ami. carrier bombers werent designed for ground support. Your other comments all seem right.Do you think there should still be an upgrade for lonrange capability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think actually this is probably the tech that has the least variation throughout the war as applied to carrier aviation, LR. Of course there are exceptions, Zeros had a 1900 mile range, but in most cases carrier air groups had a 1000 mile max range. If SC tiles are equal to 50 miles, I believe sea tiles are greater, then taking into account, loitering to form up, time to find targets and adjust search patterns, not to mention actual combat, perhaps all carriers should have an inherent 5 tile range, no LR upgrades. As far as ground support, the size of a CAG pretty much excludes an appreciable damage pattern to corps and army size units, its fine as it is in comparison to other SC air units, the AT tech is not applicable. The CTVs for a carrier should revolve around DE, DM, AA, NA, CA, UA, BD, ND, CD and UD enhancements through tech research. So in summary the carrier techs should be AA, ASW, and NA, if only three are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Your pretty smart SeaMonkey.I never thought of it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Thanks arado, I have been called a smartass occassionally, but due to oldtimers my clarity mostly is referred to as cynical. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Ward Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Originally posted by arado234: MartyWard I think there would be some Japanese that disagree that the Ami. carrier bombers werent designed for ground support. Your other comments all seem right.Do you think there should still be an upgrade for lonrange capability? I guess it depends on how many slots are available for upgrades. Is 3 the max? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts