Carrier aircraft too weak.

[Panzerleader]

Sent a Japanese carrier group with 5 Yorktown CVs(bought plans from USA) with 25 squadrons with surface attack of 6 towards Hawaii. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_ai ... rld_War_II that would be 450 aircraft. I spotted a lone battleship. I sent 10 squadrons(180 planes) to sink it and they failed to do so. They had to come back to the CVs to rearm and make a second sortie before sinking the battleship. I think that one squadron(18 planes) should have a decent chance to sink a lone BB let alone 10.

I now feel there is no point to creating CVs and their corresponding aircraft. A mixture of subs, BBs and DDs is way more cost effective and useful.

Note according the wikipedia there is room for only 4 squadrons on a Yorktown CV. In the game it has a capacity of 5.

[SGTscuba]

+1, at least on naval attack planes could do with a bit more damage.

[Balthagor]

Unit combat value balance is still being looked at across the board.

For the Yorktown, it could carry 90 aircraft. We have 18 aircraft per squadron, that rounded out to 5 sqd. If others think it should be 4, it's an easy change.

[Chesehead]

Unit combat value balance is still being looked at across the board.

For the Yorktown, it could carry 90 aircraft. We have 18 aircraft per squadron, that rounded out to 5 sqd. If others think it should be 4, it's an easy change.

Aircraft carrier capacity is at a good place now given the engine mechanics present. The problem is that most aircraft have under 50 surface attack values which make them useless against ships while ships have really good A-A values that make them highly effective against aircraft.

[Zuikaku]

Unit combat value balance is still being looked at across the board.

For the Yorktown, it could carry 90 aircraft. We have 18 aircraft per squadron, that rounded out to 5 sqd. If others think it should be 4, it's an easy change.

Aircraft carrier capacity is at a good place now given the engine mechanics present. The problem is that most aircraft have under 50 surface attack values which make them useless against ships while ships have really good A-A values that make them highly effective against aircraft.

Not all aircraft should have high surface attack values. But aircraft that were constructed for anti-ship duties, carried torpedoes or did a great job fighting ships should have. That would be aircrafts like G4M, B5N, B6N, B7N, Beaufighter, D3A, D4Y, Sm-79, Ju-87, Ju-88, Avenger, Helldiver, Albacore....

[SGTscuba]

^ The Albacore sucks at the moment, 6-8 squadrons and they couldn't sink an Italian Battleship on its lonesome.

[Jakt80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... of_Germany there's a list of what types were planned, aswell as the bf109T and ju87C's to be in service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ai ... a#Aircraft Cant find any listing of anything other than re.2001 converted into carrier duty to be used, tho, anyone know if they were to have any dive- or torpedo bombers aswell? Ju 87C's, maybe? Altho: At least one Re.2001G was under test at Perugia as a naval torpedo bomber and was given a lengthened tail wheel strut to accommodate the added height of a torpedo suspended below the fuselage.

[bvb]

Yorktown/Hornet/Enterprise historically did 5 squadrons:Eg x2 VF (wildcats), x1 VB (dauntlass), x1 VS (Dauntlass), x1 VT (Devastator).

[gavco98uk]

The overall combat strength of aircraft needs addressed, IMHO.

Last night I sent 2 helicopters up against 5-6 infantry squadrons, and they destroyed both helicopters while suffering next to no damage themselves. Surely if they were not accompanied by an AA unit,t hen they would just be cannon fodder for the helicopters?

[Jakt80]

That would depend upon what type of helicopters, early helicopters were very poor, not until Korea did they find wide military use, mainly as medical transports. It took until Vietnam era until you find the really effective attack helicopters.

[Faet]

Well, about numbers of aircraft.

Chasing Bismarck. 9 torp bombers from HMS Victorious scored 1 hit inflicting light damage. 15 torp bombers from HMS Ark Royal scored 1 hit with light damage and 1 hit with damaging rudder. None of 3 hits were lethal for Bismarck.
Battle of Kuantan: BB HMS Prince of Wales(4 torp hits, sank), BC HMS Repulse(2 torp hits, sank). About 88 japanese airplanes were in battle of those 3 destroyed, 28 damaged.
Operation Ten-Go: BB IJN Yamato (11 torps hits, 6 bomb hits, sank), LC IJN Yahagi (7 torp hits, 12 bomb hits, sank). About 386 USA planes were in battle.

All examples where BB's were without air support. I dont count Pearl Harbor because ships were anchored. Ships in battle do many evasive maneuvers and AA firing.

[Fistalis]

The overall combat strength of aircraft needs addressed, IMHO.

Last night I sent 2 helicopters up against 5-6 infantry squadrons, and they destroyed both helicopters while suffering next to no damage themselves. Surely if they were not accompanied by an AA unit,t hen they would just be cannon fodder for the helicopters?

This goes back to the thought that in 2020 and CW infantry units would include a few men with hand held AA.. that really should NOT be the case in 1936. The AA values of most early units who are not specifically AA should be inconsequential.

[Vish_Virtus]

That is really my only bitch about this game, Carrier Battle groups are pretty much useless in this game, so much work with so little payback. A carrier Battle group systems needs to be focused on. Might as well get it right in 1936 and do Cold War and 2020 once we mastered it.

[GreenGoblin]

The UK's Swordfish torpedo bomber has a naval attack rating of 7 in-game. In real life they did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

[Zuikaku]

The UK's Swordfish torpedo bomber has a naval attack rating of 7 in-game. In real life they did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

Taranto is the case of port attack - and port attacks are not even simulated in the game.