NO Need To Buy HOI 3.....Get Arsenal of Democracy Instead

[Agelastus]

Neil, you forgot Ryujo, sunk 24th August 1942 by US aircraft.

[Ideologue]

Well, fuck this shit.  CAGs are apparently going to stay indestructible, making shipborne AA or CAG air attack values absolutely fucking useless.  I didn't realize WWII aircraft carriers were really just battleships with 400-klick range magnetic rail guns.

I don't understand what they're actually doing to change the core game.  It seems more and more like a glorified mod.

[I Killed Kenny]

why are you saying that?

[HisMajestyBOB]

Well, fuck this shit.  CAGs are apparently going to stay indestructible, making shipborne AA or CAG air attack values absolutely fucking useless.  I didn't realize WWII aircraft carriers were really just battleships with 400-klick range magnetic rail guns.

I don't understand what they're actually doing to change the core game.  It seems more and more like a glorified mod.

Still better than HoI1's carriers.

[Neil]

Well, fuck this shit.  CAGs are apparently going to stay indestructible, making shipborne AA or CAG air attack values absolutely fucking useless.  I didn't realize WWII aircraft carriers were really just battleships with 400-klick range magnetic rail guns.

I don't understand what they're actually doing to change the core game.  It seems more and more like a glorified mod.

Still better than HoI1's carriers.

Indeed.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Out of curiosity, is there any strategy game that models the Pacific War decently and isn't WitP (or isn't at the WitP-level of complexity?)

[Ideologue]

Well, fuck this shit.  CAGs are apparently going to stay indestructible, making shipborne AA or CAG air attack values absolutely fucking useless.  I didn't realize WWII aircraft carriers were really just battleships with 400-klick range magnetic rail guns.

I don't understand what they're actually doing to change the core game.  It seems more and more like a glorified mod.

Still better than HoI1's carriers.

And it's better than swallowing glass, too, but that doesn't make it good. :p

[Tamas]

Out of curiosity, is there any strategy game that models the Pacific War decently and isn't WitP (or isn't at the WitP-level of complexity?)

"WWII Pacific Theater" from Battlefront. It is not as simplistic as it looks.

[Josquius]

I hate CAGs, they're utterly useless sans carriers. They should be just regular air units (albeit of special, inferior, carrier types) and usable on land too

[Neil]

I'm surprised that Ide likes the HOI style of carrier better.  Why would he like a system where the Hosho is functionally identical to the Midway?

[Ed Anger]

I'm surprised that Ide likes the HOI style of carrier better.  Why would he like a system where the Hosho is functionally identical to the Midway?

he is clearly a jap lover.

[dps]

The problem (which turns up in a lot of other WWII games that aren't focused on the tactical level) is that in-game air units are too large to accurately show carrier operations.  You really need a unit size around 12 planes for carrier groups, but that results in waaaay too many air units if you have portray land-based air units at the same scale--and if land-based and carrier-based air units aren't shown at the same scale, you have other problems.

[Ideologue]

I'm surprised that Ide likes the HOI style of carrier better.  Why would he like a system where the Hosho is functionally identical to the Midway?

Neil, I can surely hate both.  Iirc, in HoI1, the Hosho wasn't just the equivalent to the Midway--you could park Betties on it...

The problem (which turns up in a lot of other WWII games that aren't focused on the tactical level) is that in-game air units are too large to accurately show carrier operations.  You really need a unit size around 12 planes for carrier groups, but that results in waaaay too many air units if you have portray land-based air units at the same scale--and if land-based and carrier-based air units aren't shown at the same scale, you have other problems.

I dunno.  I don't see why it'd be hard to scale cost and stats to carrier size, so that a CAG built for a specific carrier can represent the value of that carrier, and is as large and powerful as it should be.  Heck, just have a rule like this:

1)CAG production shall be directly tied to CV production;
2)the game shall calculate the maximum air complement of the CV to which the CAG is tied and the CAG will always cap out at this strength, and hence fight at this percentage of its "maximum" power, unless the CAG's CV is sunk, in which case the CAG shall either:
     a)be tied to a new CV production of equal or greater capacity, discount determined by the difference between ideal CAG size and current CAG size, and I guess returned to the capital; or
     b)removed from CV duty entirely, becoming a land-based unit, and permitted to grow to "maximum" size

I'd also like to see a distinction between torpedo attacks (deadlier, more dangerous to accomplish against AA, maybe less accurate but more disruptive of fleet positioning), dive attacks (less deadly, less dangerous to accomplish against AA, maybe more accurate but less disruptive of fleet positioning), and level bomber attacks (nearly completely safe, semi-useless)... hell, I'd like BBs to actually stick by a CV and provide AA cover and a model for CLs that doesn't assume they're all CLAAs and then have them go chasing off after the enemy battleline, but I know that's probably too much to ask too.

Fuck, if Paradox even knew what a "naval bomber" was supposed to represent, I'd be pleased.  (Is it a Betty?  Is it a Privateer?  Is it a Focke-Wulf 200?  Is it a Lockheed Goddamn Hudson?  Or what?  These aircraft are similar in the sense they all have wings, I guess.)

[dps]

I'm surprised that Ide likes the HOI style of carrier better.  Why would he like a system where the Hosho is functionally identical to the Midway?

Neil, I can surely hate both.  Iirc, in HoI1, the Hosho wasn't just the equivalent to the Midway--you could park Betties on it...

The problem (which turns up in a lot of other WWII games that aren't focused on the tactical level) is that in-game air units are too large to accurately show carrier operations.  You really need a unit size around 12 planes for carrier groups, but that results in waaaay too many air units if you have portray land-based air units at the same scale--and if land-based and carrier-based air units aren't shown at the same scale, you have other problems.

I dunno.  I don't see why it'd be hard to scale cost and stats to carrier size, so that a CAG built for a specific carrier can represent the value of that carrier, and is as large and powerful as it should be.  Heck, just have a rule like this:

1)CAG production shall be directly tied to CV production;
2)the game shall calculate the maximum air complement of the CV to which the CAG is tied and the CAG will always cap out at this strength, and hence fight at this percentage of its "maximum" power, unless the CAG's CV is sunk, in which case the CAG shall either:
     a)be tied to a new CV production of equal or greater capacity, discount determined by the difference between ideal CAG size and current CAG size, and I guess returned to the capital; or
     b)removed from CV duty entirely, becoming a land-based unit, and permitted to grow to "maximum" size

IMO, there shouldn't even be an air unit type called a "CAG".  Oh, you should have carrier-capable aircraft distinguished from land-based air, but there should be seperate carrier-borne fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes.  And you'd have to decide on what mix of planes to base on a carrier.  Using 12 planes or so as the basic size, even the crappier, smaller carriers could (with a little fudging) carry a fighter squadron and either a dive bomber or torpedo squadron.

And if a carrier is sunk, its planes should almost certainly be considered eliminated (at least in games that aren't at the tactical level).

[Ideologue]

I dunno, I'm not wedded to the ability of CAGs to rebase.  12-plane formations could work, I suppose.

One of these days, Languish should make its own game.