Use Allied Aircraft Carriers

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

    • This has been discussed before and as then it prevents the kidnapping of aircraft which could otherwise happen.
      In the Second World War, how many times did this even happen? Only Britain, the USA, and Japan had meaningful numbers of aircraft carriers and carrier pilots would generally need to be familiar with a specific vessel class (a weakness of unique Japanese carriers) hence a particular navy.
      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

    • You're looking way too deep into this, there are only 4 doctrines. I don't care if my planes get "kidnapped." The carriers can only hold 2 or more planes at a time, which is almost nothing. If you are allied with someone and you failed to notice betrayal or inactivity, that's honestly a skill issue. These carriers aren't for high speed jets that need landing hooks and cables and other knickknacks, they are literally just runways on water, not as difficult to operate compared to modern carriers.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Commander Schleicher ().

    • Commander Schleicher wrote:

      You're looking way too deep into this, there are only 4 doctrines. I don't care if my planes get "kidnapped." The carriers can only hold 2 or more planes at a time, which is almost nothing.
      IDK what doctrines has to do with it.
      2 or more can mean 12. Like most units except capital ships, each "plane" is an entire squadron so while it's true that e.g. Akagi could carry 20 each of fighters and dive-bombers, and 30 torpedo-bombers, this is accurately replicated in-game.

      Commander Schleicher wrote:

      If you are allied with someone and you failed to notice betrayal or inactivity, that's honestly a skill issue. These carriers aren't for high speed jets that need landing hooks and cables and other knickknacks, they are literally just runways on water, not as difficult to operate compared to modern carriers.
      They lacked catapults on the main deck but were still highly sophisticated. Have you read about e.g. Midway, Ceylon, or Taranto?
      Modern carriers are more complex but still the skills required for each ship were different and this played a part in IJN tactics after Midway.
      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

    • Please elaborate how complex these aircraft carriers were. Doctrines have a lot to do with what you're saying because that means there is only 4 types of aircraft carriers. And though the upgrades change the ships, the planes don't need to upgrade to use them. I expected my haters to come here and make some random ass excuses to my suggestions. This game is nowhere near realistic, and it likely won't be for a long time. Planes are cheap, and it's a pain in the ass I can't even use them without spending thousands more resources to connect airstrips.

    • I'm struggling to see what different types of aircraft carriers have to do with it.

      Commander Schleicher wrote:

      If you are allied with someone and you failed to notice betrayal or inactivity, that's honestly a skill issue.
      I have to say that's a pretty compelling argument. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • In my opinion, we should not be able to use allied airfields either. They don't have the parts or ammo necessary for your planes. For that matter, it should not be possible to rebase by air, because there is too much support staff and equipment at the original base to just load up on fighters and carry them long distances. Planes are far too free to roam and combine into mega air forces at will.

    • I quite like being able to use allied airfields myself, but I can see how being able to use them but not allied carriers comes across as inconsistent.
      To be clear, I don't support the idea of making it possible to use others' carriers; I'm just saying the 'stealing other peoples' planes' argument isn't a very good one. I'd welcome the ability to do that, and you can already do that by declaring war on a shared-map ally who happens to have planes in your territory.
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!

    • Lady Aragosta wrote:

      I quite like being able to use allied airfields myself, but I can see how being able to use them but not allied carriers comes across as inconsistent.
      To be clear, I don't support the idea of making it possible to use others' carriers; I'm just saying the 'stealing other peoples' planes' argument isn't a very good one. I'd welcome the ability to do that, and you can already do that by declaring war on a shared-map ally who happens to have planes in your territory.
      Exactly. You can shit on an entire Air Force of 50 planes in your land at will if you want. Britain and the US used each others carriers at times during the war, so there is a bit of historical precedent. Since it’s a game, I think this would not be a bad idea, might as well go all the way.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • The difference is that airfields have unlimited capacity.

      A well meaning ally who forgets their planes on your carrier could make your fleet useless.

      And there's no way to get rid of them.

      Also, think of it this way. You haven't researched carriers. Your pilots don't know how to take off and land on carriers. Research them, build your own, and use them if you want them.

      They're not that useful anyway....

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The difference is that airfields have unlimited capacity.

      A well meaning ally who forgets their planes on your carrier could make your fleet useless.

      And there's no way to get rid of them.

      Also, think of it this way. You haven't researched carriers. Your pilots don't know how to take off and land on carriers. Research them, build your own, and use them if you want them.

      They're not that useful anyway....
      Good points there. Perhaps a carrier setting to “allow allied planes” can be added? Even if you didn’t research them, you may still be able to use it. Many US allies have operated from US carriers, even if they did not have the ability to build them…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • I don't think I've ever had a serious conflict in the Americas before.

      Probably because I always play as East Asia.

      The Pacific islands, though, are great. Especially in WaW where there are all those sweet grab-and-run capital offensives you can do without your sudden gain in victory points showing up on the map itself unless someone else is doing the same thing...
      Her Ladyship Aragosta
      A.K.A. "The Backstab Person"

      Pan-Asian is a better doctrine than Axis when played correctly and you cannot change my mind.

      You just lost The Game.

      Join the Madness here:
      CoW Forum Players! Unite!