Aircraft carriers

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Aircraft carriers

      In a different thread, a popular misconception was brought up recently - that carriers are basically a useless (or very limited-use) unit and they shouldn't be built. I don't really understand why carriers are so unpopular - they are simply a GREAT unit, and barely a 100p map goes by where I don't build them. Let me make some observations:

      - Obviously, you will need enough of them to base a complete air force on them. We're talking 20+ capacity; any group under that is, indeed, practically useless...

      - except for the carrier bridge; carriers are also very useful when there's an ocean between your main production centres and the battlefield. Bringing planes from South America to Africa, for example, typically takes 3 hours embarking, many long hours of sailing, and 3h disembarking. Not even talking about all the dangers lurking in the skies or under the water here. A single carrier (plains are typically built drip-wise, so you don't need much capacity) halfway reduces that to less than an hour flying and two refuelling stops.

      - Back to the 20+ operational carrier group. They are a mobile air base which can provide air cover when your landing forces are at their most vulnerable - those horrific 4.5 hours when they are basically sitting ducks to anything the defender throws at them. True, traditional navy can also provide this role, but air is much more versatile, for example, they can take on an enemy force inland that is coming up to the coast to defend, or take on an RRG that is out of range for ship artillery.

      - After the invasion, carriers can sail up the coast to support the part of your expansion which moves along that coast. And with "along the coast" I mean up to 3-4 provinces, which isn't an unusual range for most planes. Every air user knows about the annoying 5h wait time to build an air base in a province you just conquered to support the troops rushing further ahead; your rush screen can even be blocked by a few infantry or AT units then. Carriers can come up much faster, and clear blockers like that easily. A naval invasion doesn't even have t be involved; when you are expanding from, say, Indochina to Khabarovsk, your carriers will be there for you immediately, every step of the way. And on top of all that, your planes don't have to refuel when rebasing - their base comes with them and many more half-hours of refuelling are won.
      (and I'm not even talking here about the risk of losing arovince again (to a rebellion, a straddler unit, you name it) and having to wait for another 5h)

      - And of course, when you get too far inland, you can just build a new air base network in the occupied territories, and start using them as "normal" land-based planes again

      - A carrier group can't be gold razed like an air strip can. Nor is it vulnerable to strategic or tactical bombers; a carrier air force will never be "trucked" unless the carriers are sunk.

      - Bringing up AA to an air strip can be a real pain in the ass - and we all know how much we would want to. Or maybe we don't even know that anymore; it is simply impossible. In practice, even the most used air strips are not defended by AA. Still, there will always be a situation where you're refuelling, and vulnerable to enemy bombers - but AA takes so long to get there; and then when the main air base changes, you have to bring it there again - hours of marching even in the best circumstances. For fleets, it is easy - just send some cruisers along and your base is safe from those nuisances.

      - And all of that, you get for just an extra 17% cost for your planes - assuming you're using L3 carriers with 6 capacity, so you need one for every six planes, that's 17%. Oh it doesn't work exactly like that of course; you'll have to do research and shipyards too. But on the other hand, they don't eat goods and rares (always popular for big air people) but food and steel, which don't really mess up your aircraft production schemes.

      All hail the flat tops!
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I understand what you were saying, and you make some good points. I’m my eyes it’s just that most maps don’t really require them, usually focusing on land and taking over my general continent gets the job done. It’s only in large maps in the Americas where they are really a necessity. As you said, barely a 100p map goes by where you don’t build them. For me I usually don’t play those maps, and when I do I start in the old world, where I can gain enough points without ever crossing into the Americas. This allows me to save resources and only make airstrips, allowing me to upgrade, build and research other units. All in all, I usually take enough land in games without having to build them.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Whenever I decide to make them, the game takes longer, and they don't help enough to make up for the expense and hassle of producing them, and then using them. Give me a strong navy and max level transport research. I can always find a place to land, build an air strip, and let's go.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      - except for the carrier bridge; carriers are also very useful when there's an ocean between your main production centres and the battlefield. Bringing planes from South America to Africa, for example, typically takes 3 hours embarking, many long hours of sailing, and 3h disembarking. Not even talking about all the dangers lurking in the skies or under the water here. A single carrier (plains are typically built drip-wise, so you don't need much capacity) halfway reduces that to less than an hour flying and two refuelling stops
      Even without actually using them in naval battles or coastal attacks, this alone would justify them.
      IIRC HMS Indomitable got used as a plane ferry during WWII in the Indian Ocean... slightly different but the same basic idea.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

    • Claudio NVKP wrote:

      How? I though everyone liked carriers, at least me? It’s so useful in Indonesia or SE Asia, and others. I want to transfer my planes through sea? I want an easy bomb base? Also is helping with coastal attacks.
      Honestly air bases do the job for me most of the time, and I usually stay away from island nations. Most of the time I can win without them. They just aren’t worth the time and effort when I can have other things.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • That's an interesting thought. What if you had to invade an island nation that's armed to the teeth? You can't pick a secluded landing spot in the continent. You can't just land into heavy artillery fire. What do you do?

      1. Build carriers and establish air superiority the hard way.

      2. Bypass the island nation and go take South America instead.

      I would pick #2.

    • I’m a huge fan of planes so I agree, Hail Carriers! My fav scenario is Pacific War so there and any larger maps carriers are almost necessary as they should be. They’re also fun.

      For smaller maps like Europe Clash, they are a waste though since building air strips is faster and just as effective. Here aerial bombardment and shelling from Cruisers and battleships is better then investing in high maintenance carriers.

      It’s more about air power than carriers. They’re just a projection of the most powerful unit type in the game - planes.

      Planes are the fastest, best recon, best to kill enemy production centers and are great anti-air. Not just fighters as AA, but bombing your enemies air strips is one of the best air defenses. If you’re an attack minded player, planes speed up the game and allow a blitzkrieg type of attack. Along with Naval Power a good and active player can conquer more provinces from both bots and active players than any other unit type by clearing enemy units quickly with planes and then rolling in land units with no resistance.

      They’re ability to move across the map fastest also makes them my “go to” emergency defensive forces.

      This game is basically Risk (without dice) mixed with rock, paper scissors when it comes to Unit types. If a rival player invests in AA, Cruisers, fighters etc they are basically in a defensive mindset. All of these AA counters are just as easily overcome as it would be to counter a rival that has a lot of anti-tank units. Numbers and quality of planes along with when possible combining air, land and sea attacks/defense have been enough for me to have a 4:1 human opponent kill ratio in around 20 “real” games. Pacific, special events (team, speed) , Clash are my favs.

      So, if you’re not relying heavily on AirPower in this game where time is the most critical factor, I’d like to hear a counter argument.

      For Pacific and World at War etc Carriers are really helpful against good players as long as you have numbers and quality in terms of Planes. In Pacific, I like to play as California. Immediately conquer Hawaii, Wake and Sand Islands and immediately build a port in Hawaii and air factories in the other two. Then build cruisers/subs, battleship, destroyer (perfect stack) lots of naval bombers and then 3 Carriers. Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown. Invasion forces start arriving from Cali around day 3/4 then island hop to Papua New Guinea.

      Interested in other players thoughts. New poster here.

    • NickXXXNick wrote:

      I’m a huge fan of planes so I agree, Hail Carriers! My fav scenario is Pacific War so there and any larger maps carriers are almost necessary as they should be. They’re also fun.

      For smaller maps like Europe Clash, they are a waste though since building air strips is faster and just as effective. Here aerial bombardment and shelling from Cruisers and battleships is better then investing in high maintenance carriers.

      It’s more about air power than carriers. They’re just a projection of the most powerful unit type in the game - planes.

      Planes are the fastest, best recon, best to kill enemy production centers and are great anti-air. Not just fighters as AA, but bombing your enemies air strips is one of the best air defenses. If you’re an attack minded player, planes speed up the game and allow a blitzkrieg type of attack. Along with Naval Power a good and active player can conquer more provinces from both bots and active players than any other unit type by clearing enemy units quickly with planes and then rolling in land units with no resistance.

      They’re ability to move across the map fastest also makes them my “go to” emergency defensive forces.

      This game is basically Risk (without dice) mixed with rock, paper scissors when it comes to Unit types. If a rival player invests in AA, Cruisers, fighters etc they are basically in a defensive mindset. All of these AA counters are just as easily overcome as it would be to counter a rival that has a lot of anti-tank units. Numbers and quality of planes along with when possible combining air, land and sea attacks/defense have been enough for me to have a 4:1 human opponent kill ratio in around 20 “real” games. Pacific, special events (team, speed) , Clash are my favs.

      So, if you’re not relying heavily on AirPower in this game where time is the most critical factor, I’d like to hear a counter argument.

      For Pacific and World at War etc Carriers are really helpful against good players as long as you have numbers and quality in terms of Planes. In Pacific, I like to play as California. Immediately conquer Hawaii, Wake and Sand Islands and immediately build a port in Hawaii and air factories in the other two. Then build cruisers/subs, battleship, destroyer (perfect stack) lots of naval bombers and then 3 Carriers. Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown. Invasion forces start arriving from Cali around day 3/4 then island hop to Papua New Guinea.

      Interested in other players thoughts. New poster here.
      I’m a plane lover myself, but I never find myself needing to use carriers. Fact is they are almost never not needed since I prefer to stay away from islands, either winning without them or letting allies take them instead.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      But on the other hand, they don't eat goods and rares (always popular for big air people) but food and steel, which don't really mess up your aircraft production schemes.
      This is the biggest win in my book ^^

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      (or very limited-use) unit
      I disagree. They very much are a very limited-use unit. They're the second-most costly naval unit, and that food and steel is more worth putting into ordnance, and that fuel is being eaten up when it could be used for tanks (including ACs) and planes. Comintern air is useless anyways except spam (and with carriers having limited space, quality > quantity), and Axis carriers are way too expensive to be worth (Axis would have built subs most likely, perhaps with cruiser for naval bombardment). Past a certain day limit, they do become useful, for all the points you mention, but at best that occurs late-mid game or late game.

      Basically speaking, up until like Day 15-20 (or even more), the opportunity cost for carriers is too high, but I do agree with your point that the common misconception that carriers are useless; they're not, and have their use, but alternative methods that are cheaper are present until late-mid/late game.
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • Old thread, but have to say this: After using carriers properly, they are indeed amazing. No amount of convincing could change my mind ^^
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • Some extra info on the "purple cone" for planes when operating from a carrier, which I mistyped in some other unrelated thread... actually this subject confused me for a while until I found out how it worked. It is a bit counter-intuitive, even though strictly speaking it is perfectly logical.

      You might suspect that when you set it "before" your main sailing course, it would stay "before" it, but it doesn't work like that. When you set your first patrol from the carrier, the exact click spot you used to create your "cone" is stored, and that point keeps being considered the centre of your "cone" even after the carrier moves on. This means that when you set your point "before" your fleet, but then you actually sail past that point so the original point is "behind you" now, the cone suddenly rotates 180 degrees and it is also "behind" you now... even if the actual patrol point of your PLANES is still before it (because you changed the patrol loc after setting the initial cone). In fact the planes are no longer patrolling inside the cone at all. You cannot readjust your patrol spot to close where your planes are anymore; on the other hand, you CAN adjust it to any spot in the "new cone" you have created by sailing the carrier. This means that setting the initial cone creating point "closeby" or "further away" actually makes a big difference... even though they create the same cone when launching the planes, it will make a huge difference after the carrier sails: for exaample, when it was initially closeby, the 180 degree "flip" occurs much sooner than it would if you had set it further away.

      Of course this "flip" is an extreme case, and there are many alternative cases where the cone is set (a bit) to the side of the sailing course, and it would go too far to discuss all the scenario's and opportunities created by setting initial cones when launching from the carrier... just be aware that you can play with them, and how understanding how the mechanics of cone-setting work can help you take more value out of your carrier and its planes!
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • So if you set the patrol point right to the west of the carrier, and set it so its like a waypoint in the ocean, you can move the carrier in any direction from the waypoint to change the direction of the cone, and send your planes that way, right?
      Have an amazing rest of your day ^^

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself."

      Need support? ---> Send a ticket here!

      dxter's CoW Battle Calculator ---> Use it here!

      :tumbleweed:

      o7

    • As long as your planes don't get out of range, yes.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.