Carrier capacity

[Jack8765]

I know you guys are busy chasing big bugs at the moment but when things quieten down could you consider revising the way squadrons and carriers work please.

Right now the old WW2 Midway class carriers can field 6 squadrons as opposed to the 4 a Nimitz class can carry.

An F4U Corsair was only 33 feet long and its wings folded up nice and neat but a modern F18 is 60 feet long and only the tips of its wings can be folded.

The volume of a ships hanger needs to relate to the size of any given aircraft, otherwise neither I nor the AI is ever going to give up on those old tubs!

[Jack8765]

Ok the solution for this problem has just struck me and its dam obvious really.
All early aircraft carriers are essentially short deck carriers, it’s not until the addition of steam catapults in the 50’s that large heavy jets can be launched from a carrier deck.
So just make the ww2 vintage carriers and their piston engine aircraft short deck only.
It will mean putting a few refitted carriers in as a new class or two, but it’ll solve the problem.

[Chesehead]

Right, and on the CV america class, they compensated squad capcities based on the expected number of planes, which a large amount were to be large twin engine bombers instead of small carrier fighters.

I like the idea of prop aircraft being VTOL, and perhaps for bigger aircraft, you could simply make them take up more room? I.E a squad of A-3's will take up 2-3 squads worth instead of 1.

[way2co0l]

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to give aircraft "sizes" in much the same way missiles already have. That way you might be able to fit more of the old WW2 types on, but fewer of the newer models and like cheesehead stated, the really heavy bomber planes would have a much higher weight than the smaller fighter types.

[italianguard135]

I like that idea Way2cool. In SR2020 i honestly only used carriers as a stepping stone across the ocean, i never used them to actually form a battlegroup. I think what you guys suggested would make carriers more useful.

[SGTscuba]

way2cool has the ideal way in my opinion

[Hakuren]

+1 for way2cool idea.

But I think game require serious rework of how carriers work.

Worst thing about carriers now is not how many planes you can stack up there, but how dumb air groups are. Lets take simple example from my current game. Playing UK, built 20 Midways and loaded them with planes (F2-Cs). Attacking ground targets planes doing usual things vs tanks and then returning home, but instead returning to proper carrier they all want to land on the same one. Leave these planes out of sight for a minute and you will lose 90% of them. Idiots will crash without fuel.

I had to reload and rebase planes to land (fine if you can do that). ATM Carriers are best used as massive tankers/amphibious transports when traveling through oceans. Most useless (oh irony!) at being aircraft carrier, if you ask me.

[mfisher12]

The same problem happened in the HOI games, Hakuren. Modeling the actual power of aircraft carriers is not simple in a computer game.

The strength of aircraft carriers lies in their ability to control large areas of ocean and coast when there aren't any (or many) available air fields. You can do that to an extent, manually, in SRCW but you can't assign CAP or ASW patrols automatically. As you said the aircraft forget which carrier they belonged to and will end up on airbases or other carriers at random.

As anyone can tell you who has flown with a VF or knew someone who did, the squadrons are organic to specific carriers and will only use alternate decks in emergencies or if they're formally reassigned.

[Chesehead]

The same problem happened in the HOI games, Hakuren. Modeling the actual power of aircraft carriers is not simple in a computer game.

The strength of aircraft carriers lies in their ability to control large areas of ocean and coast when there aren't any (or many) available air fields. You can do that to an extent, manually, in SRCW but you can't assign CAP or ASW patrols automatically. As you said the aircraft forget which carrier they belonged to and will end up on airbases or other carriers at random.

As anyone can tell you who has flown with a VF or knew someone who did, the squadrons are organic to specific carriers and will only use alternate decks in emergencies or if they're formally reassigned.

Perhaps you could have an assighn to carrier button that would make it part of the carrier, and that would also atomatically have the planes do patrols around the carrier as well.

[Hakuren]

As anyone can tell you who has flown with a VF or knew someone who did, the squadrons are organic to specific carriers and will only use alternate decks in emergencies or if they're formally reassigned.

I really don't care about what plane pick which CV. If they could they can land all on one, but that is not possible. Problem with aircraft carriers in SR (as a whole) is that AI is completely incapable of choosing alternative aircraft carrier.

Try fighting Argentina during Falkland War only with CVs and - fairly large - air groups. You will shot monitor after 20 seconds (unless using Falklands as a massive aircraft carrier).

And please for the love of god do not bring real world aircraft procedures into this (I'm more than familiar with those). It has nothing to do with the game. That is the problem with a lot of guys. SR (as a whole series) have nothing to do with reality apart from real map, real country names and some fairly accurate models and resources. It is just fun war-game based on a big ball or arithmetics but with extremely limited economics [matter for a different discussion] for a world simulator.

Already waiting for new game engine (CW is very sluggish). And maybe SR 2030 or SR CW Reloaded.

[mfisher12]

And please for the love of god do not bring real world aircraft procedures into this (I'm more than familiar with those). It has nothing to do with the game. That is the problem with a lot of guys. SR (as a whole series) have nothing to do with reality apart from real map, real country names and some fairly accurate models and resources. It is just fun war-game based on a big ball or arithmetics but with extremely limited economics [matter for a different discussion] for a world simulator.

"A lot of guys"? Do you hear how that comes across? It's like you're the only one with the answers. And to think I was actually trying to agree with you.

I'm hardly the first one to bring up real world military operations - virtually every thread ever posted to the BG forums has brought them up at some point.

The fact of the matter is that, while this is a computer game, if the AI doesn't make some attempt at imitating real world behaviors and history you might as well play Pokemon or Super Mario.

The trade-off in any computer wargame simulation is always between "realism" and playability. The closer a game can get to simulating real world behavior, the more enjoyable it's going to be for most of us.

[geminif4ucorsair]

There are several observations regarding the "carrier design & capacity" issues; try to catch several of them in this post:

1. First, BG did not want to change from using Squadron's to use Numeric Aircraft numbers (a proposal was made and considered to undertake this, which by the way, really hurts the smaller British aircraft carriers).

2. Squadron Numbers - new vs older carriers - one of the postings compared the newer CVN's with four squadrons and older Midway class of late-40s, with six.

First, the Midway class at the time of 1949-50 carrier @ 100 carrier-based aircraft, though the proven capacity was 137.
While peacetime deployment of the period for all three Midway class units - Coral Sea, Midway, and Franklin D. Roosevelt -
in the Atlantic & Mediterranean became more warlike as the CW heated up in the 1950s, they rarely deployed with this many aircraft, even as new jets (F9F Panther, F2H Banshee, and first generation of nuclear-weapon delivery bombers (AJ-1 Savage)
were deployed, there were operational limits with "straight deck" carriers.

Thus, as carrier navies moved into the era of supersonic jets, largely replacing smaller subsonic jets and props, there were operational safety and other considerations of conducting safe carrier operations. It's the reason the navies began major rebuild of both Midway, Essex, Victorious, etc. classes, most of these rebuilds cost more 'by several factors' to the ships original costs.
Hence, as noted, some of the newer jets were significantly larger (take a F4U Corsair vs F4b/J Phantom II) as noted.

There were also technology issues that involved in the evolution between 1949-50 and the post-Vietnam War period. These included the demand for longer and more powerful catapults (going from wartime hydraulic to new-generation steam cat's) to mention just one issue. As such, with longer catapults, "straight deck" carriers had the increased need for the angled deck (largely a UK invention but significantly improved / enlarged by the US Navy).

Thus, a combination of these factors also kept the "Essex" class - even the modernized, angled deck upgrade - from operating F-4B/J Phantom jets during the Vietnam War, as one example. It's why they kept flying F-8 Crusader's for the intercept and escort mission, along with RF-8 Crusader for reconnaissance. Consider that the average Essex straight-deck carrier in 1949-50 could carrier up to 90 aircraft, the same carrier during '60-70s Vietnam War carried only @ 70....

"Size" of aircraft was always an issue. It was recommended that each Aircraft unit type (F4U Corsair, F3H Demon, F4B Phantom II, bigger AJ-1 Savage and A3D Skywarrior) were all to be rated for their respective "size"...thus, a F4 Phantom II, AJ-1 Savage or a A3D Skywarrior could not fly from a British-design Colossus CVL (or any CVL for that matter).

3. In Supreme Ruler, the standard aircraft Squadron size is 18 aircraft. Thus, you all can do the math.....there were also lots of Detachments onboard these aircraft carriers - usually only four aircraft each of early warning, ASW, aerial refueling etc. types.
Those aircraft also went from props-to-jets...and kept getting larger.

There was some consolidation of these Detachment units and it appears some of this resulted in formation of "one"-equivalent squadron to the carriers, in some cases (larger carriers). BG was given the "historical" squadrons and Det's for all 1949 ships,
so it was BGs call as to what to do with the information.

4. The Goat's would not make the change from a fixed Unit size Squadron to a "numeric number" that average players could easily count, re-organize (sub-divide) units easily, etc. Whether this was insufficient time before release to do the programming,
or whatever, this was recommended and rejected.

The one BG change was to clarify whether a large "flat-top" type ship was capable of fixed-wing aircraft or now [defined as a 'long-deck' carrier], which would identify in the programming as to whether the ship was limited to Helicopters or could fly fixed-wing aircraft from its decks.

5. Also recommended was inclusion of Conversions - the angled deck modernization of Essex and Midway classes for the game, but also rejected by BG. During the Vietnam War, the USS Midway and USS Coral Sea squadron size was normally @ 72 aircraft -
only about one-half of 1949! (And, for very good reasons)

The result is you have a straight-deck carrier that has more Squadron capacity than a Nimitz CVN, as the example referenced.
As noted above, there are no Conversion (or Upgrades) for ships in the game, and there is only the older straight-deck Midway and Essex classes, unmodified as they were (Oriskany class) beginning in the early-1950s.

6. Hopefully, you get a better feel for the game, understand the need sometimes to "split" squadrons to meet the maximum squadron capacity of the carrier, and why some carriers are not properly rated.