aircraft carriers

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

    • Tactical bombers AND strategic bombers are both pushing it. I think if you really want to be able to bomb something from an aircraft carrier, you should introduce fighter-bombers, (which wouldn't do nearly as much damage as any bomber) which are the only ones that fit into the aircraft carrier.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • I was think b25s would be usable because of the Doolittle raids, but most strategic bombers would be b29s, 17s and Lancaster bombers so I think 4 engined bombers designed to bomb Germany from some airfield in France would to big of dimensions to fit on the flight deck of a carrier, so like I said before I would prefer dive bombers or torpedo planes
      British=best. Duh!


    • Could be small Maine Bombers, like the Dauntless and the Devastator and later the Avenger...

      That would make sense... But anything bigger would be unrealistic or would be too complex to implement in the game... If we think about the B25s launched from a Carrier to bomb Tokyo. Those took off from a Carrier but could never actually get back to it... This would be something very hard to simulate in a game...
      Saludos Cordiales, / Liebe Grüße, / Sincerely,

      -= BenjB =-
    • BenjB wrote:

      Could be small Maine Bombers, like the Dauntless and the Devastator and later the Avenger...

      That would make sense... But anything bigger would be unrealistic or would be too complex to implement in the game... If we think about the B25s launched from a Carrier to bomb Tokyo. Those took off from a Carrier but could never actually get back to it... This would be something very hard to simulate in a game...
      I understand what you mean but they could do what they do with rockets make it a 1 time attack even the Nuclear Bomber does this. My own is opinion is against having those. But i would love to see aircraft carriers since USA can't really use Airplanes unless defending. To me the 2 planes should be Naval Bombers and Fighter- bomber that is balanced since it is a game.
      If the king doesn't move, then his subjects won’t follow.

      Do you know why snow is white? Because it forgot what color it was.

      Strength that knows no boundaries is merely violence.

    • Let's make it realistic. Aircraft carrier´s role in WW2 was definitely not bombing cities. The roles of the ACs were the following:
      1. Escorting convoys, using their planes to spot enemies and if need be attack them.
      2. Supporting amphibious landing and use their planes as air support for the infantry on the ground.
      3. In naval battles, fighters were used to patrol and inform, and torpedo bombers and fighter-bombers would try to sink enemy ships.
      4. There were also cases of battle groups with ACs in them using naval bombers to try and destroy submarines.
      This is why I think having SBs would be extremely unrealistic, and using TB's is arguably not too realistic either. I not, we get the typical player that puts a nuclear bomber in his AC, nukes your capital, bombs your troops with TBs and destroys your buildings with SBs, which will eventually defeat you.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • Pablo22510 wrote:

      Let's make it realistic. Aircraft carrier´s role in WW2 was definitely not bombing cities. The roles of the ACs were the following:
      1. Escorting convoys, using their planes to spot enemies and if need be attack them.
      2. Supporting amphibious landing and use their planes as air support for the infantry on the ground.
      3. In naval battles, fighters were used to patrol and inform, and torpedo bombers and fighter-bombers would try to sink enemy ships.
      4. There were also cases of battle groups with ACs in them using naval bombers to try and destroy submarines.
      This is why I think having SBs would be extremely unrealistic, and using TB's is arguably not too realistic either. I not, we get the typical player that puts a nuclear bomber in his AC, nukes your capital, bombs your troops with TBs and destroys your buildings with SBs, which will eventually defeat you.
      Exactly the main reason for Aircraft Carriers was Naval Combat. Normally BBs were sunk by Aircraft from Carriers than Subs.
      If the king doesn't move, then his subjects won’t follow.

      Do you know why snow is white? Because it forgot what color it was.

      Strength that knows no boundaries is merely violence.

    • Another problem we have with AC is, which type do we use?

      British AC's had better armour than the US and Japanese AC, but this stopped them having alot of aircraft. US Carriers tend to have alot of planes- a huge amount.

      So we need to decide on a fix amounted of planes: i agree with fighter bombers, which should fit nicely between Interceptors and TB.

      Also, how expensive should these be? The US was pumping out AC like it as nothing during WW2, so are we going for a cheap unit or expensive?

      But I think we can agree that all AC will need to have escorts from other ships. I would hate to see an AC be able to hold its own in a ship-to-ship engagement without its planes.
      "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian

      "Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher

      "The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher

      Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW

      Game Username: LordStark01