Escort Carriers

[Chalenge]

I wish we had a new group to play with. Four Casablanca-class CVE's with four Fletcher-class destroyers. SBD's, TBMs, F4F's/FM2's, and A6M's (TBD's if we ever get them) as active aircraft. LVT's and PT Boats of course.

[lunatic1]

what class CV do we have now.

[Chris79]

Essex class

[Chalenge]

CVEs were mostly tasked with anti-submarine missions. The TBMs onboard carried depth charges and/or torpedoes; sometimes 100 lb bombs. The primary mission was screening for the Essex class, or assault fleet. CVEs are vulnerable to a single torpedo, but at the same time took quite a beating in the largest Naval battle of WWII between US and IJN (Battle of Samar). I recommend Dogfights, Episode 8, Death of the Japanese Navy. Dogfights got a lot wrong, but it tells the story fairly well despite that.

[Chalenge]

The task groups were actually a little larger than my wish (6 CVEs and 8 DDs), but I thought the numbers I chose had a better chance of making it into the game.

[Ack-Ack]

CVEs were mostly tasked with anti-submarine missions. The TBMs onboard carried depth charges and/or torpedoes; sometimes 100 lb bombs. The primary mission was screening for the Essex class, or assault fleet. CVEs are vulnerable to a single torpedo, but at the same time took quite a beating in the largest Naval battle of WWII between US and IJN (Battle of Samar). I recommend Dogfights, Episode 8, Death of the Japanese Navy. Dogfights got a lot wrong, but it tells the story fairly well despite that.

In the Atlantic the CVE's were primarily tasked with air-support for ASW operations, while in the Pacific it was just one of the many roles the CVE played.  In the Pacific, since the CVE's couldn't keep up with the fast carriers, the ships were used in the invasion fleet task forces to provide air support and air cover for the invasion fleet.  CVE's sometimes even escorted the fast carriers and provided emergency landing strips and provided CAP over the task force while the fast carriers launched/refueled/rearmed their own planes.  CVEs were also used to transport planes and spare parts to the fleets.

[AKKuya]

Increase the size of the fleet to include the escort carriers.

[bustr]

It's nice that you want them, how do they get implemented? The special events team would retrofit them on all of their maps that they are appropriate in a few days. How do you propose getting them into the MA where for the most part existing terrains are fixed products? Unless Hitech has an initiative going that I'm unaware of, do you see any BB task forces being retrofitted to converted AH2 MA terrains? Take NDisles for an example, if Hitech made the project files available to me, yes I could add a BB task group to each port. At the same time every field sitting on the water would need at least two shore batteries added or NDisles would be a 16in turkey shoot. Every single HQ and strat would be sitting ducks to 16in fire no matter how many shore battery.

As for smaller carriers, it wouldn't be much different than attaching two CV task groups to each port at which point terrains that stable game play was designed around single task groups would have their stability dynamic changed. And a direct swapping, then you give up the real purpose for the large carrier and the force it projects as the package size it is designed for. And when one side leaves the CV\BB together as a super fleet, in some strategic ways it's almost cheating the other side to how it projects force inside of a sector with the smaller numbers we have these days, until they realize a super fleet is hard to not see by bombers. Massing task groups together seems to inspire dropping everything and bombing the whizz out of them versus a single task group is often ignored until it picks a nice balanced fight with an enemy field. I've had a lot of reasons to observe how my terrains get utilized, this being one of them since I introduced the BB task group onto my terrains and into the game by Hitech's request.

My last two terrains for 10x10 are packed to about the max for play stability with task groups and what their package is projecting as force. My next terrain is an experiment with the smallest pond you can stuff a CV\BB task group from each country into and have the fastest reasonable ship to ship contact with no real place to run. Thank world of warships for giving me some clues about that.

The core CV task group is a well balanced package for base capture initiatives. Expanding it with an extra mini carrier, why. Now you have two mobile flack barges to expand the suppression area around a single airfield and basically parking two airfields at a minimum 3 miles away from a single airfield by design. All of you have experienced the occasional misfortune of two even three CV task groups moved next to a single airfield. Not a very fair and balanced game in the Melee arena at that point but, it's "rare enough" to be acceptable. Two as a standard would not be a balanced package in the MA where balance is the primary concern when building terrains.

[Volron]

A CVE Fleet consisting of 2 CVE's, one for fighters and one for bombers?   The problem is, how terribly easy it is to sink a Fleet CV, let alone a CVE.

[bustr]

You are not looking at the object configuration related to all other objects and how they are put together to effect self defense and force projection. As you add floating airfields\flak barges to each other you are increasing their ability to self defense and project force. Bombers are not the end all until enough imbalanced damage has been done to PO players. You are only communicating "I want", while you want someone else(Hitech) will figure out how to make it work.

I'm asking as the guy who has built this stuff the most recently and had to balance it for game play, how do you propose to shoe horn it into the Melee arena as it is configured now? Even when Hitech introduced the BB, he didn't have it shoe horned into all the existing terrains the next week. He requested I put it in my new terrain at the time, I suspect to watch it for a year or so to see if it would ultimately imbalance the game play. New objects and functions either blow chunks during their first week live or it takes time for the community to get used to them and "eventually" discover how to make them an unhappy fit for the Melee arena. Rides turn into hanger queens while functions and persistent active objects are loathed and avoided over time.

The Melee arena is not a SEA arena where we are forced to use WW2 tools like WW2. Right now the CV task group is well balanced to defend itself and project force and is not a De-stabalising entity. When the rare occasion happens where two or three CV groups are brought together, you multiply self defense and force projection by that. And it tends to make a lopsided fight for the single shore field being over whelmed by them. That is part of why you space out multiple ports so several CV groups cannot be brought together easily. So you are left with either replacing an existing CV with a sub par CV for the force projection or what, add more ports and flood the arena with miscellaneous ships just becasue. How many miscellaneous ships before one weenie per ship swamps the ability of a country to defend it's shore bases? How many ships is that and why does Hitech not place single ship instances controllable by a player versus the equivalent of a small floating airfield that travels at 30mph. Why is there a balanced reason for the average number of airfields on 10X10 terrains? You guys never try to determine these factors then give Hitech some options to help balance for the whole community using the Melee arena. 

[Volron]

Oh?  I want it?  In which part of my post did I say I wanted this?  I just threw out a very simple idea in regards to the fleet setup and nothing more.  I also pointed out the issue that is current in the game, how so very easy it is to sink ships, especially the CV's.  If this wish is implemented, awesome.  If not, oh well.

Ultimately, it IS on HiTech to find out how to get something to work in his sandbox.  Feedback and idea's from us help, but in the end he is the one that makes the call on something.

[Chris79]

The Casablanca class CVE being 40% shorter then the Essex, and 33% slower would making taking anything off other then a lightly loaded Japanese plane difficult.

[Ack-Ack]

The Casablanca class CVE being 40% shorter then the Essex, and 33% slower would making taking anything off other then a lightly loaded Japanese plane difficult.

Incorrect.  The Casablanca Class of escort carriers had a single launch catapult because of the shorter flight deck then the fast carriers.  The "Jeep" carriers, CVE's built on Liberty ship hulls, also had launch catapults.  Even the front line carriers of the Essex class had flight deck launch catapults and USS Hornet (and I think some other Essex class ships) had hanger bay catapults that would launch the planes out of the side of the carrier from the hanger decks.

[Chalenge]

@bustr, my wish is for CVEs as the best option for the replenishment mission, AND anti-submarine missions. This is actually an early to mid war request where the latest fighter would be the F6F. I do not believe that the BB is appropriate for all maps either, but having this object (and subs too) would allow greater mission diversity. My next wish would be for DDs that have active torps and depth charges. This is just an item to add to the list, rather than "oh, we have to have this now" type thing.