Question about pre-war carriers

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
mfisher12
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 223
Joined: Aug 23 2008

Question about pre-war carriers

Post by mfisher12 »

I'm still playing around with my "thin end of the wedge" experiments, seeing what happens when technology outraces the game design. (Already found out some of the post-1950s aircraft do not have movement allowances, which BG already knew, so I'm getting there).

My motto from over 20 years of gaming and beta testing: "If the rules allow players to do something, they will do it." :D

At any rate, it occurs to me that the pre-war Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga model US carriers originally had narrow wooden decks. The Enterprise underwent a major refit in '43 which added 12 ft. to the beam, but the angled flight deck designed specifically for jet aircraft was not created until late 1944 and first appeared on the British HMS Triumph, then the USS Midway.

So here's the in-game quandry: in a hypothetical game where, say, the Allies manage to produce jet aircraft before war's end, how are they supposed to operate on the surviving wooden-decked pre-war carriers? If the Japanese have not sunk those carriers, they will be available for the deployment of jets. Like I said, if the rules allow it, the players will do it.

I realize this is a minor deal in some ways, but to me any game which pretends to emulate history ought to have something in the mechanics (like, say, an aircraft size similar to the old missile size) that limits which aircraft can operate from which carriers. Alternatively, would there be a way to retrofit old carriers with the angled deck to bump their aircraft size limit?

(Edit: if this should be in the discussion board, please go ahead and move it.)
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

mfisher12 wrote:I'm still playing around with my "thin end of the wedge" experiments, seeing what happens when technology outraces the game design. (Already found out some of the post-1950s aircraft do not have movement allowances, which BG already knew, so I'm getting there). My motto from over 20 years of gaming and beta testing: "If the rules allow players to do something, they will do it." :D

At any rate, it occurs to me that the pre-war Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga model US carriers originally had narrow wooden decks. The Enterprise underwent a major refit in '43 which added 12 ft. to the beam, but the angled flight deck designed specifically for jet aircraft was not created until late 1944 and first appeared on the British HMS Triumph, then the USS Midway.

So here's the in-game quandry: in a hypothetical game where, say, the Allies manage to produce jet aircraft before war's end, how are they supposed to operate on the surviving wooden-decked pre-war carriers? If the Japanese have not sunk those carriers, they will be available for the deployment of jets. Like I said, if the rules allow it, the players will do it.

I realize this is a minor deal in some ways, but to me any game which pretends to emulate history ought to have something in the mechanics (like, say, an aircraft size similar to the old missile size) that limits which aircraft can operate from which carriers. Alternatively, would there be a way to retrofit old carriers with the angled deck to bump their aircraft size limit?

(Edit: if this should be in the discussion board, please go ahead and move it.)
Historically, you have some errors in the above. Let me try and take each one:

1. USS Enterprise: the major change in the CV was in 1944, when it became a night-specialized carrier, with appropriate aircraft for operations.
This upgrade involved improved radars, extensive anti-aircraft upgrade (40mm and 20mm AA), more aviation gasoline storage, and several other changes. The ship operated with these improvements until hit by a kamikaze in the forward elevator, subsequently returning the state for repairs - the war ended, and ENTERPRISE went into reserves (never to be used again).

ENTERPRISE was the only survivor of the Yorktown class - and even in a world wide Cold War conflict - the age and limitations of flight deck size, etc. limited the potential for conversion with a angle-deck configuration...due to size, practicality, etc.; given the number of Essex Class ships available. In a ahistorical arena, it might be she could be converted to an ASW carrier, operating Guardian fixed-wing and ASW helicopters in the 1950s. In reality, for ENTERPRISE, it never would have happened because of the plethora of aircraft carriers available for conversion to ASW operations (including smaller Independence and Saipan class CVLs, and gazillion CVEs).

2. Angled-Deck issue, late-war (1944-45). The first issue, is that jet aircraft operated from medium and large CVs for several years before the technology of angled decks came about - and you are right, it began with a limited British conversion....only later supplanted by the UK to 8.5-degrees. [Your reference to "Midway" CV is incorrect].

If the SR game technology for Angled Deck conversion comes about as early as 1945, the U.S. could have deployed the FH-1 Phantom I jet fighter and Ryan FR-1 piston/jet interceptors - hundreds of both were cancelled at war's end. It was more a matter of the launch ability of existing hydraulic catapults (H-4 model) and arrester cables. Britain could have used medium-size carriers (Centaur, etc.) - as well as larger Ark Royal/Eagle and planned Malta classes) with Sea Vampire jets and Wyvern turbo-props (along with several other, increasingly weighty prop designs). Even a modernized USS Saratoga (with 1944 upgrades - with its new, squared bow-area flight deck) could have operated these fist-generation jets. Historically, as with "Yorktown" class, unlikely a angled-deck configuration would ever have been undertaken, due to material condition of the ship in 1945, design origins (narrower hull as ex-battlecruiser design), etc.

On the smaller carrier size, remember the Colossus Class (almost a Light Carrier) could operate jets, after steam catapults were added - remember Argentina's (ARA) carrier flew F9F-5 Panthers; Brazil, India and HMAS Sydney flew jets, the latter two A-4 Skyhawk into the Cold War.

Thus, at the point of 1944-46, there was no problem operating from "Straight Deck" carriers, with first-generation jets. This is represented in the new ship entries on my SR-35 mdb, as well as technologies (that I believe Bathagor is implementing). Several other first-generation aircraft are included so that other than the U.S. & UK can develop to this level.

Throughout the Korean War (1950-53), US "Essex" Class CVs operated jet fighters, what might be called 2nd-Generation...F9F Panther, F3H Banshee interceptor and fighter-bomber versions, all as "Straight Deck" carriers. This was accomplished by having "Improved Hydraulic Catapults"...basically the H-8 (originally designed by the Brit's and adopted and improved by the U.S.N., IIRC).
A suggested technology: - Improved Hydraulic Catapults - was suggested (required for some late-war heavy attack aircraft and 2nd-Gen. jets to have as a pre-req), appears to not have been included in SR-36 techs....
jumping right to:
1950 - Steam Catapult Systems

IN SR, all "straight deck" carriers are considered as "Short-Deck Carriers"....it is important to note, because they are therefore restricted from operating some 3rd Gen. aircraft - the Mach 2 jets, heavy attack bombers (A3D, etc.)......

3. Angled-Deck - Angled deck technology allowed the navies to take fullest advantage of the new launch capability of Steam Catapults,
which raised by 10-20,000-lbs the launch ability over earlier generation Hydraulic catapults. Thus, the US Navy could begin using heavy attack aircraft (twin-engine), such as the AJ-1 Savage from even smaller, older "Essex" Class CVs. While it took away some of the anti-aircraft weapons on the port-side, the trend was already reduced anti-aircrat weapons in preference to relying on carrier-based aircraft for interception missions.

4. The whole progression described above is included in new UNITID#s, where late-war "Carrier Modernization" allows for improved AA, new radars, etc.(as Straight Deck and as Short-Deck CVs), followed by Angled Deck CVs, which become Long-Deck CVs....and can therefore handle larger and supersonic jets (F8U Crusader, A3D Skywarrior, Buccaneer, Scimitar, some Russian, etc.) - even before the super-carriers (United States, Forrestal, etc. emerge on the scene).

I would suppose the issue of technology progression could advance enough to have 1st Generation carrier-based jets in 1944, if one pushed the technologies in this direction throughout the game. Not earlier, I would think, because several of the jet designs would also face tech hurdles in getting developed by that date, and you would therefore likely have to give up a lots of other technologies for this one objective.

Hope that answers your questions.
redindus
Warrant Officer
Posts: 39
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by redindus »

They could be refit or remodel to support later jet aircrafts, but not very effective though. Since the jet aircrafts started to get bigger and heavier. The aircraft carriers depending on class/model would reduce stowage of later design jet aircrafts.
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

redindus wrote:They could be refit or remodel to support later jet aircrafts, but not very effective though. Since the jet aircrafts started to get bigger and heavier. The aircraft carriers depending on class/model would reduce stowage of later design jet aircrafts.
I'm not sure what carrier class you are speaking of when you say "They..." - but I can tell you that the master data base used for compiling individual unit types has this covered, as I tried to summarize in the above missive, including changes in the number of squadrons that a given class could carry as it transitioned from a wartime, straight-deck carrier, to stages of modernization post-war, and eventual angled-deck conversions that followed, as applicable for those historical classes that began this process after the Korean War.

The designs are covered, including some USSR and French designs that some of the players probably never knew of....stand-by.
redindus
Warrant Officer
Posts: 39
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by redindus »

Like using the old Yorktown Class (USN) to operate Korean era jet aircrafts.
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

redindus wrote:Like using the old Yorktown Class (USN) to operate Korean era jet aircrafts.
There is the original build (1934), the 1944 anti-air modernization, and a 1953 ASW conversion included in the master data base (MDB) work copy,
though no UNITID# are yet assigned to the last two modernization. The 1953 conversion to an ASW specialized carrier is based on the historical example of the CVS and CVL conversions, done in the post-Korean War period of the Cold War. It does keep them active, long-past what otherwise would surely have ended their careers due to size, conversion limitations & cost, etc., for a class smaller than the "Essex" design.

As you operate 1st & 2nd generation aircraft from them, I would personally not want to land anything more advanced than a F3H-2 Banshee onboard! Even then, an upgrade would have to have been included with stronger arresting wires and a barrier net amidships... 8_
User avatar
mfisher12
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 223
Joined: Aug 23 2008

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by mfisher12 »

geminif4ucorsair wrote:Historically, you have some errors in the above. Let me try and take each one:
There were no errors in my post. You simply did not answer my concern accurately.
1. USS Enterprise: the major change in the CV was in 1944, when it became a night-specialized carrier, with appropriate aircraft for operations.
This upgrade involved improved radars, extensive anti-aircraft upgrade (40mm and 20mm AA), more aviation gasoline storage, and several other changes. The ship operated with these improvements until hit by a kamikaze in the forward elevator, subsequently returning the state for repairs - the war ended, and ENTERPRISE went into reserves (never to be used again).
I'm aware of all that (there are several naval history books on my shelves that outline the progression). But that still does not answer the concern I have.
2. Angled-Deck issue, late-war (1944-45). The first issue, is that jet aircraft operated from medium and large CVs for several years before the technology of angled decks came about - and you are right, it began with a limited British conversion....only later supplanted by the UK to 8.5-degrees. [Your reference to "Midway" CV is incorrect].
No, the "Midway" class was indeed the first ground-up angled deck large fleet carrier in the US Navy. (Other ships like the Ticonderoga sub-class of Essex were converted later from straight decks). The purpose of the angled decks was to increase the sortie rate of the ships' complement. It also gave the aircraft more room on the deck for staging and landing.
Thus, at the point of 1944-46, there was no problem operating from "Straight Deck" carriers, with first-generation jets. This is represented in the new ship entries on my SR-35 mdb, as well as technologies (that I believe Bathagor is implementing). Several other first-generation aircraft are included so that other than the U.S. & UK can develop to this level.
I have no problem with the first-gen jets. But the tech tree allows for the possibility, however remote, of a player building more advanced and much larger aircraft such as the A-5 (wingspan 53 ft) and the F-4 Phantom. While it may have been possible to land and launch an A-5 from the old Essex ships, it would have severely limited the number of aircraft they could carry and the speed at which they could rearm/repair the planes. I have my doubts that an A-5 could even fit on the ship's elevator.

The problem I'm trying to convey here isn't that future modifications can't be built in newly launched ships. The problem is that the older first-gen carriers can still be in operation and flying A-5s and F-4s as if they were F4Fs. We cannot put those ships into dry dock and upgrade them. It's an extremely unrealistic thing, even for a game. This is why I think carriers should have not only a plane number limit but also an aircraft size limit similar to missile size. BG never allowed helicopters to carry MOAB missiles, why allow a small WW2 carrier to operate large 3rd gen jets?

The original Enterprise had a wooden deck. I highly doubt that would stand up to the wheel load of F-14 Tomcats or F/A-18 Hornets conducting hundreds of landings. We cannot send those ships into drydock to upgrade. We must build new ones. In a long war, I don't usually send my older ships into reserve if they still are capable of carrying aircraft.
IN SR, all "straight deck" carriers are considered as "Short-Deck Carriers"....it is important to note, because they are therefore restricted from operating some 3rd Gen. aircraft - the Mach 2 jets, heavy attack bombers (A3D, etc.)......
I've played the tech tree in SR36 all the way through F-14s and F/A-18s, and I haven't noticed that limit. My old first-gen Lexington and Enterprise-class carriers were flying A-5s against Japan just as if they were F4Fs.
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

mfisher12 wrote:
geminif4ucorsair wrote:Historically, you have some errors in the above. Let me try and take each one:
There were no errors in my post. You simply did not answer my concern accurately.

There are INDEED ERRORS in your post. If anything, you have the sequence of Angled-Deck conversion in reverse, with regard to the "Essex" class - which came first - and much later, followed by the "Midway" class conversions....both USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVA-42) preceded USS Midway (CVA-41).

Did you ever see USS Midway at Mare Island Naval Shipyard during its conversion? Did you ever serve onboard a "Midway" class CV?....in both
cases, I did!
1. USS Enterprise: the major change in the CV was in 1944, when it became a night-specialized carrier, with appropriate aircraft for operations. This upgrade involved improved radars, extensive anti-aircraft upgrade (40mm and 20mm AA), more aviation gasoline storage, and several other changes. The ship operated with these improvements until hit by a kamikaze in the forward elevator, subsequently returning the state for repairs - the war ended, and ENTERPRISE went into reserves (never to be used again).
I'm aware of all that (there are several naval history books on my shelves that outline the progression). But that still does not answer the concern I have.

I don't see a specific concern in your post....what is it, if you would be kind to state it for all of us again?
2. Angled-Deck issue, late-war (1944-45). The first issue, is that jet aircraft operated from medium and large CVs for several years before the technology of angled decks came about - and you are right, it began with a limited British conversion....only later supplanted by the UK to 8.5-degrees. [Your reference to "Midway" CV is incorrect].
No, the "Midway" class was indeed the first ground-up angled deck large fleet carrier in the US Navy. (Other ships like the Ticonderoga sub-class of Essex were converted later from straight decks). The purpose of the angled decks was to increase the sortie rate of the ships' complement. It also gave the aircraft more room on the deck for staging and landing.

NO, again. "Midway" class was built - all three ships - as "straight-deck" carriers and served from the early post-war period in that configuration, long after the "Essex" class conversion were begun, in part from experience during the Korean War, in which F9F and F2H jets continued down the flight decks and missed barrier arrests, destroying and damaging parked aircraft forward of amidships.
Suggest you re-read you books on the shelf......maybe you would provide a list of those books (and the relevant passages)?
Thus, at the point of 1944-46, there was no problem operating from "Straight Deck" carriers, with first-generation jets. This is represented in the new ship entries on my SR-35 mdb, as well as technologies (that I believe Bathagor is implementing). Several other first-generation aircraft are included so that other than the U.S. & UK can develop to this level.
I have no problem with the first-gen jets. But the tech tree allows for the possibility, however remote, of a player building more advanced and much larger aircraft such as the A-5 (wingspan 53 ft) and the F-4 Phantom. While it may have been possible to land and launch an A-5 from the old Essex ships, it would have severely limited the number of aircraft they could carry and the speed at which they could rearm/repair the planes. I have my doubts that an A-5 could even fit on the ship's elevator.

The problem I'm trying to convey here isn't that future modifications can't be built in newly launched ships. The problem is that the older first-gen carriers can still be in operation and flying A-5s and F-4s as if they were F4Fs. We cannot put those ships into dry dock and upgrade them. It's an extremely unrealistic thing, even for a game. This is why I think carriers should have not only a plane number limit but also an aircraft size limit similar to missile size. BG never allowed helicopters to carry MOAB missiles, why allow a small WW2 carrier to operate large 3rd gen jets?

The original Enterprise had a wooden deck. I highly doubt that would stand up to the wheel load of F-14 Tomcats or F/A-18 Hornets conducting hundreds of landings. We cannot send those ships into drydock to upgrade. We must build new ones. In a long war, I don't usually send my older ships into reserve if they still are capable of carrying aircraft.

Not sure what the relationship of MOAB and helicopters has to do with the discussion - MOAB was too heavy for any U.S. helicopters to carry.

Regards the above sentences, the existing SR design was not mine, but dates back to SR-2010. After SR-2020, I pointed out the same problem with "size and weight" issue on various classes of carriers (that were not all "big deck" carriers then in service, as the original straight deck "Essex" and dozen of other carrier designs in other navies. One solution - credit Crezy - was to create a "Long-Deck" and "Short Deck" category which applies as part of the data block of every carrier class. Long-Deck category represents most angled-deck CV, as long as the class had the capacity to carry jets and heavy attack aircraft (based on other considerations, too). "Short Deck" category was for all straight deck carriers.

To compliment this, carrier-capable aircraft are also marked as either Long-Deck Takeoff or Short-Deck Takeoff....if not marked Short-Deck Takeoff, it should not be able to operation from straight-deck and some smaller, minimal angled-deck carriers (Colossus class, for example).
IN SR, all "straight deck" carriers are considered as "Short-Deck Carriers"....it is important to note, because they are therefore restricted from operating some 3rd Gen. aircraft - the Mach 2 jets, heavy attack bombers (A3D, etc.)......
I've played the tech tree in SR36 all the way through F-14s and F/A-18s, and I haven't noticed that limit. My old first-gen Lexington and Enterprise-class carriers were flying A-5s against Japan just as if they were F4Fs.
The F9F-6 Cougar (UNITID# 9838), is for example marked as a Long-Deck Takeoff aircraft. I checked all F-14 Tomcat versions and A-5A Vigilante heavy attack aircraft (the RA-5C will be added to SR-36) in the master data base (MDB) and they are all checked Long-Deck Takeoff......hence, neither should be able to operate from a straight-deck (Short-Deck) carrier in the game.

I also checked the CV-5 Yorktown class and all three CV-5 data sheets are not marked as Long-Deck carriers (on my work copy), so they should not be able to operate other than 1st Generation (FH-1 Phantom, Sea Vampire, Sea Venom, etc.) and 2nd Generation (F9F Panther, F2H Banshee, etc.).

IF that is the case, then it is something you should make a separate short Forum post to BG to check.....
User avatar
mfisher12
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 223
Joined: Aug 23 2008

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by mfisher12 »

followed by the "Midway" class conversions....both USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVA-42) preceded USS Midway (CVA-41).
The Coral Sea and FDR are listed as ships of the Midway class. That's why I specifically said "Midway class".
NO, again. "Midway" class was built - all three ships - as "straight-deck" carriers and served from the early post-war period in that configuration, long after the "Essex" class conversion were begun, in part from experience during the Korean War, in which F9F and F2H jets continued down the flight decks and missed barrier arrests, destroying and damaging parked aircraft forward of amidships.
Maybe you missed my point that the Midways were the first US carriers to sport the angled flight deck? (actually, the Antietam was the first operational test bed). Upon further checking, you are correct the Midways were originally launched after the war as straight-decked designs but refitted as angled decks. I don't think that detracts from my original point: that modern supersonic aircraft should not be able to operate freely from pre-war (Tech 31-37) narrow deck carriers.
geminif4ucorsair wrote:The F9F-6 Cougar (UNITID# 9838), is for example marked as a Long-Deck Takeoff aircraft. I checked all F-14 Tomcat versions and A-5A Vigilante heavy attack aircraft (the RA-5C will be added to SR-36) in the master data base (MDB) and they are all checked Long-Deck Takeoff......hence, neither should be able to operate from a straight-deck (Short-Deck) carrier in the game.

I also checked the CV-5 Yorktown class and all three CV-5 data sheets are not marked as Long-Deck carriers (on my work copy), so they should not be able to operate other than 1st Generation (FH-1 Phantom, Sea Vampire, Sea Venom, etc.) and 2nd Generation (F9F Panther, F2H Banshee, etc.).

IF that is the case, then it is something you should make a separate short Forum post to BG to check.....
Well, I think we've come around to the exact problem, here then. I just relooked at a saved game from my last USA run-through and while the mouseover pop-ups of the Yorktown/Saratoga and Ranger class of "straight deck" carriers show them as short decks, the tech readout does not, and here are a couple of screen captures showing those alleged "short deck" carriers operating gen3 heavy supersonic jets. (I either put my Enterprise into reserve or she was sunk, I don't recall).

Yorktown short deck mouseover:
Image

Yorktown tech readout showing long deck:
Image

CV4 Ranger has the same mouse-over and tech readout designations. Here I'm operating A5A Vigilante, F/A18 Hornets and F-14A Tomcats from her deck:
Image

I will repost this data in the Issues section, though I would think this is just as much of a development issue.
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

Sent a query to BG to see to look into this....but my thanks for showing the game pages and pointing this glitch out.

My conclusion from this is that the download by BG on the beta was done as a 'quicky' and that all blocks were not completed on the Unit data sheet, and since BG was in the habit of having modern CVA/CVNs that generally were all super-carriers, it was overlooked. Am sure it will get corrected on the beta, even before my MDB is transferred to BGs master data base. All carriers for the game are done on my work copy and hope it will appear in the next change or two to the beta, as game time proofing is always good!
User avatar
mfisher12
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 223
Joined: Aug 23 2008

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by mfisher12 »

geminif4ucorsair wrote:Sent a query to BG to see to look into this....but my thanks for showing the game pages and pointing this glitch out.

My conclusion from this is that the download by BG on the beta was done as a 'quicky' and that all blocks were not completed on the Unit data sheet, and since BG was in the habit of having modern CVA/CVNs that generally were all super-carriers, it was overlooked. Am sure it will get corrected on the beta, even before my MDB is transferred to BGs master data base. All carriers for the game are done on my work copy and hope it will appear in the next change or two to the beta, as game time proofing is always good!
Thanks gemini. I appreciate the hard work you do on this game. Can't wait for more updates :)
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by Balthagor »

I'm going to post the reply in this thread, because the answer is going to bring us full circle to the OP
geminif4ucorsair wrote:...IN SR, all "straight deck" carriers are considered as "Short-Deck Carriers"...
This is incorrect. Short Deck is only used for Seaplane Tenders in the WWII era units. All "carriers" from Colossus to Enterprise are set as "long deck". It is true that this creates an oddity that jets can potentially fly off of carriers that should not actually support them. Gemini had submitted some good information about this issue and when we look at it all, we agreed with the comment in the OP by mfisher12 that this is a minor issue.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
mfisher12
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 223
Joined: Aug 23 2008

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by mfisher12 »

Balthagor wrote:I'm going to post the reply in this thread, because the answer is going to bring us full circle to the OP
geminif4ucorsair wrote:...IN SR, all "straight deck" carriers are considered as "Short-Deck Carriers"...
This is incorrect. Short Deck is only used for Seaplane Tenders in the WWII era units. All "carriers" from Colossus to Enterprise are set as "long deck". It is true that this creates an oddity that jets can potentially fly off of carriers that should not actually support them. Gemini had submitted some good information about this issue and when we look at it all, we agreed with the comment in the OP by mfisher12 that this is a minor issue.
Ok then. I won't carry a massive guilt trip around for launching enormous F/A-18s from my Lexingtons, even though my deck crews have to use shoe horns to get them down to the hangar :D

Will the incorrect pop-up info be fixed?
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Question about pre-war carriers

Post by Balthagor »

I've noted the other thread, I'll investigate that issue.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: pre-war carriers

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

Balthagor wrote:I'm going to post the reply in this thread, because the answer is going to bring us full circle to the OP
geminif4ucorsair wrote:...IN SR, all "straight deck" carriers are considered as "Short-Deck Carriers"...
This is incorrect. Short Deck is only used for Seaplane Tenders in the WWII era units. All "carriers" from Colossus to Enterprise are set as "long deck". It is true that this creates an oddity that jets can potentially fly off of carriers that should not actually support them. Gemini had submitted some good information about this issue and when we look at it all, we agreed with the comment in the OP by mfisher12 that this is a minor issue.
Mia culpa on my part, for I was under the impression that this issue had been resolve with BG....essentially to avoid just what our Dear Posters [no.....I'm not North Korean.... :lol: ] have provided us as examples of the abuses of the game system that can happen without changes. Again, my thanks for brining up the example.
And yes, I do eat humble pie.....

Any forum posters who wish to discuss this further off-line/off-Forum or other game design/creation can contact me at: geminiad@whidbey.com.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”