Looks like a similar thing to Garbon's EU2 thing.
ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY - A "Hearts of Iron" Game
The ultimate World War II simulation arriving this December
NEW YORK – September 8, 2009 – Paradox Interactive are excited to unveil a brand new Hearts of Iron game entitled Arsenal of Democracy, set to release on PC in December.
Developed by BL-Logic, a development studio made up by fans of the Hearts of Iron series and active member of the modding community, Arsenal of Democracy is the ultimate World War II simulation and is described by Project Leader Lennart Berg as "Hearts of Iron II on steroids!"
Describing the idea and process behind the creation of Arsenal of Democracy, Berg goes on to say, "During the years of the Hearts of iron II lifecycle, I made a list of improvements in the forums and these became the guidelines to the new game. So we went ahead and implemented these along with many more ideas until we had pretty much replaced and enhanced everything from the original. The end result, in our very humble opinion, is the ultimate World War II simulation."
KEY FEATURES
* Increased resolution and windowed mode freely selectable
* Totally reworked combat mechanics, new missions and realistic combat behavior and losses
* Several new technologies
* New espionage interface and reworked espionage system
* One of the most detailed economy and production system found in any Hearts of Iron game
* Realistic logistics system
* Everything is moddable
* AI reworked and now poses a genuine threat, even to experienced players
* 4 new battle scenarios
Did they add PBEM????
Looks interesting.
QuoteDid they add PBEM????
No.
No hexes, either.
Or cards.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 08, 2009, 09:18:01 AM
Looks interesting.
QuoteDid they add PBEM????
No.
No hexes, either.
Or cards.
Neither hexes or cards are necessary for it to be "the ultimate World War II simulation", but awesome PBEM is, sadly.
Still, I love HOI2, and by all accounts HOI3 sucks ass, so even if it isn't the "the ultimate World War II simulation", it is still probably pretty awesome.
Ooh, sounds cool. I love HOI 2.
Is this Paradox new thing? They are going to flood the market with a bunch of crap home made stuff?
Quote from: Jaron on September 08, 2009, 03:50:55 PM
Is this Paradox new thing? They are going to flood the market with a bunch of crap home made stuff?
I have a lovely home. <_<
Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2009, 08:51:23 AM
* One of the most detailed economy and production system found in any Hearts of Iron game
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 03:52:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 08, 2009, 03:50:55 PM
Is this Paradox new thing? They are going to flood the market with a bunch of crap home made stuff?
I have a lovely home. <_<
It is in the city..can't be that good unless it costs millions...
Quote from: PDH on September 08, 2009, 07:02:15 PM
It is in the city..can't be that good unless it costs millions...
Home is where the heart is and my heart is in a great place.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 08, 2009, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2009, 08:51:23 AM
* One of the most detailed economy and production system found in any Hearts of Iron game
:lol:
That isn't exactly a high bar they set themselves, is it? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 08, 2009, 07:02:15 PM
It is in the city..can't be that good unless it costs millions...
Home is where the heart is and my heart is in a great place.
Don't let 'em give you any crap about your home. Jaron is a troll, so you know his home is a dump (I mean, how well can you fix up the underside of a bridge?) and PDH is an acedemic/egghead type, so he's probably so absent-minded he's lucky if he remembers where his home is.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 08, 2009, 07:02:15 PM
It is in the city..can't be that good unless it costs millions...
Home is where the heart is and my heart is in a great place.
Your...chest? :huh:
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2009, 08:10:04 PM
Don't let 'em give you any crap about your home. Jaron is a troll, so you know his home is a dump (I mean, how well can you fix up the underside of a bridge?) and PDH is an acedemic/egghead type, so he's probably so absent-minded he's lucky if he remembers where his home is.
I take back every harsh word I ever said about you. :hug:
Their success depends on how they simulate strategic bombing.
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 09, 2009, 12:45:30 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
:yes:
Hopefully they don't take the P'dox stance on navies.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2009, 08:10:04 PM
Don't let 'em give you any crap about your home. Jaron is a troll, so you know his home is a dump (I mean, how well can you fix up the underside of a bridge?) and PDH is an acedemic/egghead type, so he's probably so absent-minded he's lucky if he remembers where his home is.
I remember exactly where my home is - my ex wife has it.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 09, 2009, 12:45:30 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
So far from the FAQ thread, we have:
Ships designs are heavily centered around "brigades", thus ships are very customizable (ie., America's Basic Heavy Cruiser will likely be different from Germany's Basic Heavy Cruiser).
Also, retreating ships must increase their distance from the attacker before they retreat.
Both sound pretty good.
They've also improved the AI. If the Japanese AI can somewhat competently take over the Phillippines and Dutch East Indies within a few months, and seek out and attempt to destroy the American fleet at the outset of war, I'd be extremely happy.
Success depends on how well they simulate naval invasions
Quote from: Habbaku on September 09, 2009, 12:45:30 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
Indeed. Especially dreadnoughts.
Quote from: Josephus on September 09, 2009, 07:08:25 AM
Success depends on how well they simulate naval invasions
Or rather how well they can get the AI to perform them.
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 09, 2009, 12:45:30 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
Indeed. Especially dreadnoughts.
Carriers are more important. They're quite useless and always get themselves blown up in vanilla <_<
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 09:22:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 09, 2009, 12:45:30 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
Indeed. Especially dreadnoughts.
Carriers are more important. They're quite useless and always get themselves blown up in vanilla <_<
By dreadnoughts. :)
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 09:22:47 AM
Carriers are more important. They're quite useless and always get themselves blown up in vanilla <_<
Yeah I had this big battle against the Americans and I lost FOUR CARRIERS as the Japanese. Like that could ever happen in real life.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:36:31 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 09:22:47 AM
Carriers are more important. They're quite useless and always get themselves blown up in vanilla <_<
Yeah I had this big battle against the Americans and I lost FOUR CARRIERS as the Japanese. Like that could ever happen in real life.
Were those 4 carriers fighting a group of destroyers and submarines?
As that happens...
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 10:44:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:36:31 AM
Yeah I had this big battle against the Americans and I lost FOUR CARRIERS as the Japanese. Like that could ever happen in real life.
Were those 4 carriers fighting a group of destroyers and submarines?
As that happens...
:bleeding: Tyr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 10:52:22 AM
:bleeding: Tyr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway
:huh:
The Americans had carriers too there.
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 10:52:22 AM
:bleeding: Tyr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway
:huh:
The Americans had carriers too there.
You have missed: Teh Joke. Obviously, the Japanese losing 4 carriers against the Americans could happen in real life, since it did; Valmy was being sarcastic.
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 10:44:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:36:31 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 09:22:47 AM
Carriers are more important. They're quite useless and always get themselves blown up in vanilla <_<
Yeah I had this big battle against the Americans and I lost FOUR CARRIERS as the Japanese. Like that could ever happen in real life.
Were those 4 carriers fighting a group of destroyers and submarines?
As that happens...
A group of submarines and destroyers would annihilate any four carriers I can think of, if they were in range.
Subs stealing carrier kills is fine and good--Ark Royal, Shinano, Saratoga (iirc), and so forth. But DDs or other surface combatants should rarely be in a position to strike at a carrier. I can only think of one time that's ever happened, at Samar, when CVE Gambier Bay was sunk and the rest of Taffy 3 heavily damaged.
Has there been another instance of a carrier being sunk or heavily damaged by anything other than aircraft or opportunistic submarines?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 11:25:08 PM
Subs stealing carrier kills is fine and good--Ark Royal, Shinano, Saratoga (iirc), and so forth. But DDs or other surface combatants should rarely be in a position to strike at a carrier. I can only think of one time that's ever happened, at Samar, when CVE Gambier Bay was sunk and the rest of Taffy 3 heavily damaged.
Has there been another instance of a carrier being sunk or heavily damaged by anything other than aircraft or opportunistic submarines?
Not quite Neil's BBs but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are either Heavy Cruisers or Battle Cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious_%2877%29
QuoteGlorious was part of a troop convoy headed for Scapa Flow, also including the carrier Ark Royal, but in the early hours of 8 June Glorious requested and was granted permission to proceed independently, and at a faster speed. It is believed this was because D'Oyly-Hughes was impatient to hold a court-martial of his Commander (Air), J. B. Heath, who had refused an order to attack certain shore targets on the grounds that his aircraft were unsuited to the task, and had therefore been left behind in Scapa to await trial.[1] While sailing through the Norwegian Sea, the carrier and her two escorts, the destroyers HMS Acasta and HMS Ardent, were intercepted by the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The carrier and her escorts were sunk in two hours, roughly 280 nautical miles (510 km) west of Harstad,
Quote from: Viking on September 10, 2009, 02:03:11 AM
Not quite Neil's BBs but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are either Heavy Cruisers or Battle Cruisers.
Don't start it again, please.
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 09:36:39 PM
A group of submarines and destroyers would annihilate any four carriers I can think of, if they were in range.
Range is all important and its I think where carriers fail in the game. They seem to just go storming forward to meet the enemy shooting at it with their deck guns.
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 09:36:39 PM
A group of submarines and destroyers would annihilate any four carriers I can think of, if they were in range.
My point was that carriers were in fact very fragile and vulnerable things. That is why the US and Japanese were so obsessed with protecting them.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 11:25:08 PM
Subs stealing carrier kills is fine and good--Ark Royal, Shinano, Saratoga (iirc), and so forth. But DDs or other surface combatants should rarely be in a position to strike at a carrier. I can only think of one time that's ever happened, at Samar, when CVE Gambier Bay was sunk and the rest of Taffy 3 heavily damaged.
Has there been another instance of a carrier being sunk or heavily damaged by anything other than aircraft or opportunistic submarines?
Well it would require the carrier to be out alone without escorts and with its planes distracted elsewhere...
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:46:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 11:25:08 PM
Subs stealing carrier kills is fine and good--Ark Royal, Shinano, Saratoga (iirc), and so forth. But DDs or other surface combatants should rarely be in a position to strike at a carrier. I can only think of one time that's ever happened, at Samar, when CVE Gambier Bay was sunk and the rest of Taffy 3 heavily damaged.
Has there been another instance of a carrier being sunk or heavily damaged by anything other than aircraft or opportunistic submarines?
Well it would require the carrier to be out alone without escorts and with its planes distracted elsewhere...
The Glorious was ambushed and sunk by two Battle Cruisers hiding in a fjord.
Quote from: Viking on September 10, 2009, 02:03:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 11:25:08 PM
Subs stealing carrier kills is fine and good--Ark Royal, Shinano, Saratoga (iirc), and so forth. But DDs or other surface combatants should rarely be in a position to strike at a carrier. I can only think of one time that's ever happened, at Samar, when CVE Gambier Bay was sunk and the rest of Taffy 3 heavily damaged.
Has there been another instance of a carrier being sunk or heavily damaged by anything other than aircraft or opportunistic submarines?
Not quite Neil's BBs but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are either Heavy Cruisers or Battle Cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious_%2877%29
QuoteGlorious was part of a troop convoy headed for Scapa Flow, also including the carrier Ark Royal, but in the early hours of 8 June Glorious requested and was granted permission to proceed independently, and at a faster speed. It is believed this was because D'Oyly-Hughes was impatient to hold a court-martial of his Commander (Air), J. B. Heath, who had refused an order to attack certain shore targets on the grounds that his aircraft were unsuited to the task, and had therefore been left behind in Scapa to await trial.[1] While sailing through the Norwegian Sea, the carrier and her two escorts, the destroyers HMS Acasta and HMS Ardent, were intercepted by the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The carrier and her escorts were sunk in two hours, roughly 280 nautical miles (510 km) west of Harstad,
I think it is safe to call Scharnhorst and Gneisenau battleships. They were properly armoured, and clearly intended to be surface combattants.
Quote from: Viking on September 10, 2009, 09:59:10 AM
The Glorious was ambushed and sunk by two Battle Cruisers hiding in a fjord.
:lol: I love how history gets all mashed together until the Germans were hiding in a fjord!
Gniesenau and
Scharnhorst rode down
Glorious in poor weather with Glorious's deck crammed with extra fighters evacuated from the Narvik campaign.
In clear weather, this wouldn't have happened, but no one can guarantee the weather.
I thought the Brits were supposed to be good at the naval warfare thing.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 09, 2009, 10:33:05 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 09, 2009, 09:22:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 08:08:57 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 09, 2009, 12:45:30 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate naval warfare.
Indeed. Especially dreadnoughts.
Carriers are more important. They're quite useless and always get themselves blown up in vanilla <_<
By dreadnoughts. :)
that's like, beautiful
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2009, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 10, 2009, 09:59:10 AM
The Glorious was ambushed and sunk by two Battle Cruisers hiding in a fjord.
:lol: I love how history gets all mashed together until the Germans were hiding in a fjord!
Gniesenau and Scharnhorst rode down Glorious in poor weather with Glorious's deck crammed with extra fighters evacuated from the Narvik campaign.
In clear weather, this wouldn't have happened, but no one can guarantee the weather.
It also wouldn't have happened if the British had spared a single R-class battleship to escort the Glorious. Despite the theoretical superiority of the two German ships, they were risk-averse.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:44:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 09:36:39 PM
A group of submarines and destroyers would annihilate any four carriers I can think of, if they were in range.
My point was that carriers were in fact very fragile and vulnerable things.
They were fragile and vulnerable but mostly vulnerable to opposing air wings. Though of course a sub can be a danger for anything that floats if it gets lucky.
In the pre-missile era it would take unusual circumstances for a carrier to face significant danger from gun-firing surface combatants. Assuming vaguely competent handling and appropriate escorts and screening.
Quote from: Viking on September 10, 2009, 02:03:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 11:25:08 PM
Subs stealing carrier kills is fine and good--Ark Royal, Shinano, Saratoga (iirc), and so forth. But DDs or other surface combatants should rarely be in a position to strike at a carrier. I can only think of one time that's ever happened, at Samar, when CVE Gambier Bay was sunk and the rest of Taffy 3 heavily damaged.
Has there been another instance of a carrier being sunk or heavily damaged by anything other than aircraft or opportunistic submarines?
Not quite Neil's BBs but Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are either Heavy Cruisers or Battle Cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious_%2877%29
QuoteGlorious was part of a troop convoy headed for Scapa Flow, also including the carrier Ark Royal, but in the early hours of 8 June Glorious requested and was granted permission to proceed independently, and at a faster speed. It is believed this was because D'Oyly-Hughes was impatient to hold a court-martial of his Commander (Air), J. B. Heath, who had refused an order to attack certain shore targets on the grounds that his aircraft were unsuited to the task, and had therefore been left behind in Scapa to await trial.[1] While sailing through the Norwegian Sea, the carrier and her two escorts, the destroyers HMS Acasta and HMS Ardent, were intercepted by the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The carrier and her escorts were sunk in two hours, roughly 280 nautical miles (510 km) west of Harstad,
Ah, that's right. I knew there was one I was forgetting.
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 01:07:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2009, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 10, 2009, 09:59:10 AM
The Glorious was ambushed and sunk by two Battle Cruisers hiding in a fjord.
:lol: I love how history gets all mashed together until the Germans were hiding in a fjord!
Gniesenau and Scharnhorst rode down Glorious in poor weather with Glorious's deck crammed with extra fighters evacuated from the Narvik campaign.
In clear weather, this wouldn't have happened, but no one can guarantee the weather.
It also wouldn't have happened if the British had spared a single R-class battleship to escort the Glorious. Despite the theoretical superiority of the two German ships, they were risk-averse.
Well, that's my point--a whole chain of mistakes have to be made, bordering on negligence, for a carrier to be sunk by a surface combatant. With the Glorious example, it seems like a combination of bad weather/visibility, closeness to shore or at least the enemy, a preoccupied commander, a defenseless resulting from overcrowding the deck, and a lack of real escorts all combined to seal her fate.
Gambier Bay was sort of the same thing, to a much lesser degree--I don't know if I'd call it negligence, but in Glorious' case, it seems so.
If the opposing point is that at close range a carrier is meat against a dedicated surface combatant, or even a torpedo-armed DD, I wouldn't disagree--I'm just saying that something has to break down badly to get to the point that a surface ship can strike with a probability of killing a CV.
And to get back to this quasi-mod thing... I saw a screenshot for it posted on their forum the other day...
Now you guys know I love strategic bombers. Some would say too much (Neil :P ). But even I balked at what I saw, which was a screenshot displaying the feature they've added that IC damaged by bombing (or other means, I guess) has to be repaired with additional IC. Germany had to spend something like 20% of its IC on repair to its IC! To some degree, I guess this is fine, but even I, carpet bomber and night fighter, know good and well that the larger portions of the damage done, especially by the RAF, was disruption, which made itself felt, and certainly accomplished the worthy goals of terrorizing and killing Germans, but which also was usually rather quickly healed. Hell, if the RAF hit an actual factory, it was by accident.
I do dig the inclusion of synthetic oil and rubber (rares, whatever) plants, that are targetable. I just hope that night area bombing, or daylight precision bombing without air superiority, isn't retarded overpowered. The air war's only fun when the Nazis fight back.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2009, 03:41:59 PM
Well, that's my point--a whole chain of mistakes have to be made, bordering on negligence, for a carrier to be sunk by a surface combatant. With the Glorious example, it seems like a combination of bad weather/visibility, closeness to shore or at least the enemy, a preoccupied commander, a defenseless resulting from overcrowding the deck, and a lack of real escorts all combined to seal her fate.
Gambier Bay was sort of the same thing, to a much lesser degree--I don't know if I'd call it negligence, but in Glorious' case, it seems so.
If the opposing point is that at close range a carrier is meat against a dedicated surface combatant, or even a torpedo-armed DD, I wouldn't disagree--I'm just saying that something has to break down badly to get to the point that a surface ship can strike with a probability of killing a CV.
Agreed on that, something had to go wrong, or really adverse conditions, for a CV to even be targeted by surface ships. Even in the case of Gambier Bay and Taffy 3, I think the route the Japanese used was supposed to be covered by heavier forces, but the covering forces were drawn off by a Japanese Carrier fleet decoy.
The trouble with a sub sinking a carrier is in game this is modelled as being part of a battle.
Subs are just handled wrong in the game...they're normal warships that get into normal battles.
They should be different to regular ships...say like sea-born partisans that you have some sort of control over and enemy destroyers don't just supress but destroy.
And of course singular enemy ships without destroyer export run the risk of being sunk in sub zones too.
Not exactly what we're looking for, but according to the British, if the the Argentine cruiser Belgrano hadn't fallen victim to a sub during the Falklands conflict, the Belgrano and its escorts were 10 minutes away from intercepting the British carriers, which were apparantly unaware that there were Argentine ships anywhere near them. How the British let that happen, I don't know. Good thing the Argentine destroyers didn't have better anti-submarine gear.
question: How many Carriers were sunk in the WW2? Can anyone tell me by nation?
I did: Search but did not find anything.
Quote from: dps on September 11, 2009, 08:24:46 PM
Not exactly what we're looking for, but according to the British, if the the Argentine cruiser Belgrano hadn't fallen victim to a sub during the Falklands conflict, the Belgrano and its escorts were 10 minutes away from intercepting the British carriers, which were apparantly unaware that there were Argentine ships anywhere near them. How the British let that happen, I don't know. Good thing the Argentine destroyers didn't have better anti-submarine gear.
British: not good at carrier warfare?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 12:36:47 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate strategic bombing.
Hmmm, massively expensive and oversold as the silver bullet to victory?
Methinks they had it pretty close in the HoI II vanilla. ;)
In all seriousness, it would be a nice addition to the strat bombers to hit military factories (resulting in delays, same as industrial espionage actions) or to bomb oil refineries (mess with the energy -> oil, deplete oil stocks).
That would make the strategic bombers more of a viable investment, but AT ALL COSTS raising dissent should
be avoided. Of all the effects of bombing, the 'erosion of the will to fight' was so far off it's not even funny.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on September 12, 2009, 08:07:54 AM
question: How many Carriers were sunk in the WW2? Can anyone tell me by nation?
I did: Search but did not find anything.
HMS Glorius was gunned down by a German battlecruiser during the Norway campaign...
That's the only carrier I can think of off the top of my head that was sunk by surface action.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on September 12, 2009, 08:07:54 AM
question: How many Carriers were sunk in the WW2? Can anyone tell me by nation?
I did: Search but did not find anything.
UK:
Courageous - Sunk by German submarine - 1939
Glorious - Sunk by German dreadnoughts - 1940
Hermes - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1942
Eagle - Sunk by German submarine - 1942
Ark Royal - Sunk by German submarine - 1941
Audacity - Sunk by German submarine - 1941
Avenger - Sunk by German submarine - 1942
Dasher - Sunk by internal explosion - 1943
Japan:
Akagi - Sunk by American aircraft - 1942
Kaga - Sunk by American aircraft - 1942
Soryu - Sunk by American aircraft - 1942
Hiryu - Sunk by American aircraft - 1942
Shoho - Sunk by American aircraft - 1942
Chuyo - Sunk by American submarine - 1943
Shokaku - Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Zuikaku - Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Hiyo Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Taiho - Sunk by American submarine - 1944
Unryu - Sunk by American submarine - 1944
Shinano - Sunk by American submarine - 1944
Zuiho - Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Ryuho - Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Chitose - Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Chiyoda - Sunk by American aircraft - 1944
Taiyo - Sunk by American submarine - 1944
Unyo - Sunk by American submarine - 1944
Shinyo - Sunk by American submarine - 1944
Amagi - Sunk by American aircraft - 1945
Kaiyo - Grounded and destroyed by British air attack - 1945
USA:
Langley - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1942
Lexingon - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1942
Yorktown - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1942
Wasp - Sunk by Japanese submarine - 1942
Hornet - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1942
Princeton - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1944
Liscome Bay - Sunk by Japanese submarine - 1943
Block Island - Sunk by German submarine - 1944
Gambier Bay - Sunk by Japanese dreadnoughts - 1944
St. Lo - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1944
Ommaney Bay - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1945
Bismarck Sea - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1945
So that's 23 sunk by aircraft, 15 by submarines, 2 by dreadnoughts and one accidentally. The Germans sank 7, the Japanese 12, the British 1 and the Americans 20. The British lost 8, the Americans 12 and the Japanese 21.
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 10:37:35 AM
Langley - Sunk by Japanese aircraft - 1942
Langley was converted into a seaplane tender in 1937.
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 10:37:35 AM
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on September 12, 2009, 08:07:54 AM
question: How many Carriers were sunk in the WW2? Can anyone tell me by nation?
I did: Search but did not find anything.
UK:
Dasher - Sunk by internal explosion - 1943
I looked this up but didn't see much, does anyone know what caused the explosion?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 13, 2009, 05:14:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 10:37:35 AM
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on September 12, 2009, 08:07:54 AM
question: How many Carriers were sunk in the WW2? Can anyone tell me by nation?
I did: Search but did not find anything.
UK:
Dasher - Sunk by internal explosion - 1943
I looked this up but didn't see much, does anyone know what caused the explosion?
Shoddy American construction.
No, nobody knows. Probably something to do with aviation fuel leaking.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 13, 2009, 09:32:57 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 12:36:47 AM
Their success depends on how they simulate strategic bombing.
Hmmm, massively expensive and oversold as the silver bullet to victory?
Methinks they had it pretty close in the HoI II vanilla. ;)
In all seriousness, it would be a nice addition to the strat bombers to hit military factories (resulting in delays, same as industrial espionage actions) or to bomb oil refineries (mess with the energy -> oil, deplete oil stocks).
That would make the strategic bombers more of a viable investment, but AT ALL COSTS raising dissent should
be avoided. Of all the effects of bombing, the 'erosion of the will to fight' was so far off it's not even funny.
Didn't the survivors of Hamburg almost lynch Goering? :p
I'd say it eroded the Japanese will to fight as well, especially if you consider the atom bombs the logical extension of conventional bombing. (Yes, I know, the Soviets and the blockade helped, and these things should be modeled as perhaps more important.) But perhaps the biggest moral effect of strat bombing should be on one's own population--bombing enemy cities should help with morale at home, especially if you're being bombed yourself.
I agree that it should not be overstated--the late-war fruits of the strategic bombing campaign came from the oil and transportation offensives, particularly the former on its own merits, and the latter in conjunction with the Red Army bearing down on Germany. I must say that I rather like the fact that oil plants will be on-map and bombable.
Of course, no effective daylight bombing campaign would have been possible without escort fighters, and it is vitally important that daylight strategic bombing should be effective
only with near-total air superiority. The principle industrial effect during the early years should be the need to devote resources to defend from the bombers, not the damage caused by the bombers themselves.
Quote from: Neil on September 13, 2009, 10:37:35 AM
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on September 12, 2009, 08:07:54 AM
question: How many Carriers were sunk in the WW2? Can anyone tell me by nation?
I did: Search but did not find anything.
-zip-
So that's 23 sunk by aircraft, 15 by submarines, 2 by dreadnoughts and one accidentally. The Germans sank 7, the Japanese 12, the British 1 and the Americans 20. The British lost 8, the Americans 12 and the Japanese 21.
thanks man, I didn't find any info
Neil, you forgot Ryujo, sunk 24th August 1942 by US aircraft.
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. :rolleyes:
I don't understand what they're actually doing to change the core game. It seems more and more like a glorified mod.
why are you saying that?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2009, 04:37:35 PM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 19, 2009, 11:54:39 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2009, 04:37:35 PM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
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?)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 19, 2009, 11:54:39 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2009, 04:37:35 PM
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. :rolleyes:
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
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 19, 2009, 12:39:20 PM
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.
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 <_<
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?
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 07:18:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 07:18:00 PM
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... :bleeding:
Quote from: dpsThe 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.)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 21, 2009, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2009, 07:18:00 PM
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... :bleeding:
Quote from: dpsThe 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).
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. :shifty:
We already aborted Keewie.
Point.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2009, 09:26:32 PM
Point.
That said, you can pretend that I'm Languish and support my release. :goodboy:
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2009, 09:39:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2009, 09:26:32 PM
Point.
That said, you can pretend that I'm Languish and support my release. :goodboy:
Does your game have stupid carrier air groups? :p
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2009, 09:44:06 PM
Does your game have stupid carrier air groups? :p
Nope. No carrier groups at all. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2009, 09:59:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2009, 09:44:06 PM
Does your game have stupid carrier air groups? :p
Nope. No carrier groups at all. :lol:
Good. The Official Game of Languish doesn't have submarines or carriers. Those are cowardly.
Quote from: Neil on September 23, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2009, 09:59:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2009, 09:44:06 PM
Does your game have stupid carrier air groups? :p
Nope. No carrier groups at all. :lol:
Good. The Official Game of Languish doesn't have submarines or carriers. Those are cowardly.
It doesn't have dreadnoughts, either.
The new DD lovelly: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=438046
It's out, apparently. :huh:
Has anyone tried it yet?
I bought it and played as UK for a little bit, but haven't had time to play past 1937 yet.
The changes to production will take a bit getting used to, I think. And there's the Naval Brigades, too, although I think the UK can just get away with spamming Fire Control DDs and CLs, rather than trying to have specialized ASW, etc. escorts.
I did try the Korean War battlescenario. It sucks like most battle scenarios, but the US did stage an impressive amphibious assault on Pyongyang that I was only barely able to repulse. Although, it did pull its units out of Busan to do that, so perhaps that wasn't the best move. And for some reason, South Korea is inexplicably Market Liberal in that scenario.
I purchased it--I can only assume because of the low price point and lingering impulse-control problems.
Naval, particularly CV, combat doesn't work; it's almost completely bloodless, even after I trebled the sea attack values. The naval brigade idea is a good one, but it doesn't really matter if six CAGs in tandem can't sink anything, unless the enemy AI turns into a spaz and keeps running its org-broken fleet into yours. It's not totally unfun, of course, but all the fundamental problems HoI2 had are, probably predictably, replicated fully here.
I really like the way they've changed production and research, though. Balancing between research, production, etc. is more interesting than just maximizing both.
Or it would, if Germany didn't get so much IC.
I'm playing as the US now, and it's 1940. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Pacific War plays out (or fails to). Apparently the Japanese AI is gun-shy and also fails to build up its fleet. I, on the other hand, have a nice but not overly large fleet, but failed to build enough escort ships for those battlewagons and carriers. :blush:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 08, 2010, 10:25:08 PM
I, on the other hand, have a nice but not overly large fleet, but failed to build enough escort ships for those battlewagons and carriers. :blush:
:huh:
You have carriers and WHAT?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Ne8ccO7Xe0I%2FSiOovXnt6NI%2FAAAAAAAAAGs%2FnJ1850LYvsE%2Fs1600%2F14689_md-Deff%252BRolla%2C%252BHumor%2C%252BOrks%2C%252BPoster%2C%252BTrukk.jpg&hash=269dff9a4841cec0395ddfe65eba77b08798e7ae)
Battleships. :contract:
Ide, in this thread (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=464988) on EU forums someone suggests modding the naval damage multiplier (Naval - Naval Combat STR damage) from 0.5 to anything from 0.8 to 1.4+