Jump to content


German carriers will they be added

Aircraft carrier german line premium

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

Cobia_38 #41 Posted 21 October 2016 - 09:50 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 14
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostCreepershark77, on 21 October 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

 

I said it wouldn't be 100% realistic to BALANCE it against other aircraft carriers of tiers 6-7. And what you just said isn't balanced for the game in the slightest, so the point your trying to make here is invalid.

 

The point i am trying to make is that anything that is physically impossible should not be added to the game.

Balance is a joke,and we all know it.

I have no issue with removing some things from some ships in the name of balance,but adding something that never existed is another story.

Germany never developed naval aviation,so why have it in the game.



Creepershark77 #42 Posted 21 October 2016 - 10:40 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

View PostCobia_38, on 21 October 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

 

The point i am trying to make is that anything that is physically impossible should not be added to the game.

Balance is a joke,and we all know it.

I have no issue with removing some things from some ships in the name of balance,but adding something that never existed is another story.

Germany never developed naval aviation,so why have it in the game.

 

What would you rather have as torpedo bombers? Fw-190s or crappy biplanes that were originally going to be used on the graf zeppelin?







 


Cobia_38 #43 Posted 22 October 2016 - 06:14 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 14
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostCreepershark77, on 21 October 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

 

What would you rather have as torpedo bombers? Fw-190s or crappy biplanes that were originally going to be used on the graf zeppelin?

 

crappy bi plane of course, at least its realistic and not fiction.

with your line of thinking,American CVs should have P-51 mustangs and P-47s

while the IJN could also get N1k1s and Ki 67s

ohh yeah and while we are at it

if a RN CV comes to play lets put tempests and moquitoes on it just for [edited]n giggles. :facepalm:


Edited by Cobia_38, 22 October 2016 - 06:17 AM.


DeMatt #44 Posted 22 October 2016 - 06:44 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 216
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCobia_38, on 21 October 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

with your line of thinking,American CVs should have P-51 mustangs and P-47s

 

There was a test project to navalize the P-51, but it was cancelled after the Marines conquered enough islands that they didn't need to put the long-range escorts on carriers.

 

View PostCobia_38, on 21 October 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

while the IJN could also get N1k1s and Ki 67s

 

I see no reason why the N1K4 couldn't be in-game, being a carrier-borne version of the N1K1-J land fighter, itself a variant of the N1K float fighter.

 

View PostCobia_38, on 21 October 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

if a RN CV comes to play lets put tempests and moquitoes on it just for [edited]n giggles. :facepalm:

 

You mean Sea Furies and Sea Hornets?



Creepershark77 #45 Posted 22 October 2016 - 03:50 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

View PostCobia_38, on 22 October 2016 - 02:14 AM, said:

 

crappy bi plane of course, at least its realistic and not fiction.

with your line of thinking,American CVs should have P-51 mustangs and P-47s

while the IJN could also get N1k1s and Ki 67s

ohh yeah and while we are at it

if a RN CV comes to play lets put tempests and moquitoes on it just for [edited]n giggles. :facepalm:

 

I only supposed that it would be Fw-190s because it's the only german plane that has a torpedo bomber variant that isn't a biplane, and when comparing the biplanes to the stuka and bf 109, there is a very large gap between them.







 


Creepershark77 #46 Posted 22 October 2016 - 04:18 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

View PostCobia_38, on 22 October 2016 - 02:14 AM, said:

 

crappy bi plane of course, at least its realistic and not fiction.

with your line of thinking,American CVs should have P-51 mustangs and P-47s

while the IJN could also get N1k1s and Ki 67s

ohh yeah and while we are at it

if a RN CV comes to play lets put tempests and moquitoes on it just for [edited]n giggles. :facepalm:

 

You know what, if that's how it goes, then instead of the Fw-190 torpedo bomber, what about the Ju-88 torpedo bomber?







 


TheHunter2_EAD #47 Posted 23 October 2016 - 01:02 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCreepershark77, on 22 October 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

 

You know what, if that's how it goes, then instead of the Fw-190 torpedo bomber, what about the Ju-88 torpedo bomber?

 

​I agree with Creepershark77. Ju-88 trop bomber sounds a lot better than strange looking Fw-190.
I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

TheHunter2_EAD #48 Posted 27 October 2016 - 08:28 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Can we continue talk about this subject?
I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

TheHunter2_EAD #49 Posted 30 October 2016 - 12:54 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostTheHunter2_EAD, on 23 October 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

 

​I agree with Creepershark77. Ju-88 trop bomber sounds a lot better than strange looking Fw-190.

 

​Never mind. I found Fw-190 with a torpedo and information.

The Fw 190 was fitted with a wide variety of weapons, and one of the most strange was the BT aerial torpedo bomb. This weapon was designed to replace the bombs used by fighter-bombers against shipping, but could also be used against land targets.
The bomb consisted of a long truncated nose cone with a cylindrical centre section and a tail unit which tapered towards the rear on which were positioned three fins. It was designed to enter the water on a flat trajectory and continue beneath without deviation at as fast a speed and for as greatest distance as possible.
There were several variants of the BT torpedo bomb (BT 400, 700, 1400) each one named keeping in mind the approximate weight (in kilos) of the weapon.
The Fw 190 was tested with all variants of this torpedo. As the BT 1400 was the largest type, the aircraft was modified for carrying this device. A special strong support was fitted under the fuselage, and the tailwheel leg had to be lengthened to ensure the ground clearance for the fins of the torpedo. Even so, the lower tail fin of the weapon had to be partially folded on its right side for to avoid bumping when the plane was on the ground.
This version was called Fw190F-8/U3. An aircraft carrying the radio call signs SS+GF was flown from June to October 1944 at Hexengrund, by Maj. Videbantt and Oblt. Heuer.
The following version, the Fw 190 F-8/R15, was fitted with an enlarged tail unit taken from a Ta 152.

 

 


Edited by TheHunter2_EAD, 30 October 2016 - 01:27 PM.

I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

TheHunter2_EAD #50 Posted 30 October 2016 - 01:35 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 375
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCobia_38, on 20 October 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

 

190s (any variant) would never get off a carrier flight deck,they had too high of wingload and required longer runways then the 109s

actually the only 109s that would do it would be the E or F models. maybe a G2 or K4 if it was light on fuel.

JU 87 would be the best choice for attack role,but they are slower then a school bus on cinder blocks lol

Also as a reminder to those who are ignorant of naval aviation,air cooled engines are the top preferance over liquid cooled,due to the durability and ease of maintenance.

Bottom line is that Germans never had a dedicated naval aviation program,there fore any ships that WG would add to the fleet would be loaded with fantasy planes.

Sorry Cobia_38 u were right. sry I've doubt u.


I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

Carrier_Lexington #51 Posted 30 October 2016 - 02:15 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostCobia_38, on 21 October 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

 

The point i am trying to make is that anything that is physically impossible should not be added to the game.

Balance is a joke,and we all know it.

I have no issue with removing some things from some ships in the name of balance,but adding something that never existed is another story.

Germany never developed naval aviation,so why have it in the game.

The US never built the Montana. The G. Kurberfurst, Orlan, Roon, and Hindenburg never even existed, not even as plans (Sources- Battleships: Steel, Paper, Or Fiction and Cruisers: Steel, Paper, or Fiction). The Nicholas was never made. Neither was the Phoenix, the Storozhevoi, nor the Moskva, Schors, Budyonny, Hermelin, or York. Two of the newest cruisers, the Minotaur and Neptune, also were purely paper.

 

None of these ships ever existed, yet you target the German Naval Aviation as "bogus."

 

Germany certainly had plans for naval aviation (which is a lot better than trying to justify the G. Kurberfurst), but their carriers were bombed to scrap by the RAF while still under construction.


"Heresy!"


Carrier_Lexington #52 Posted 30 October 2016 - 02:22 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostCobia_38, on 20 October 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

 

190s (any variant) would never get off a carrier flight deck,they had too high of wingload and required longer runways then the 109s

actually the only 109s that would do it would be the E or F models. maybe a G2 or K4 if it was light on fuel.

What are you trying to say here?

The Focke-Wulfes would never get off a carrier flight deck because they required longer runways than themselves? <Mind Blown>... What does this phrase even mean?

 

Second, since the plans for the large German Altantic Raider Carriers never got out of paper, then you have no idea what the length of these flight decks would be.

 

Also, WG doesn't model fuel.


"Heresy!"


Yorcke #53 Posted 30 October 2016 - 04:52 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 204
  • Member since:
    07-29-2016

I think that adding the Graf Zeppelin as a premium ship would generate a lot of curiosity and interest, along with $$$  for WG

However, I don't see that a whole line is needed, especially with UK RN CVs hovering in the background and being more significant (and at least they were 'real')



Carrier_Lexington #54 Posted 30 October 2016 - 06:39 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostYorcke, on 30 October 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

I think that adding the Graf Zeppelin as a premium ship would generate a lot of curiosity and interest, along with $$$  for WG

However, I don't see that a whole line is needed, especially with UK RN CVs hovering in the background and being more significant (and at least they were 'real')

 

If you look at the RN CVs, then you get just as many paper ships as the Russian Cruiser line, or about 3 or 4. The reason is that the war in the Atlantic was significantly shorter than the war in the Pacific AND mostly based on anti-submarine warfare, thus, there was less pressure to actually build the designs they made.

"Heresy!"


Creepershark77 #55 Posted 30 October 2016 - 06:57 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

View PostRaze_3, on 30 October 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

 

If you look at the RN CVs, then you get just as many paper ships as the Russian Cruiser line, or about 3 or 4. The reason is that the war in the Atlantic was significantly shorter than the war in the Pacific AND mostly based on anti-submarine warfare, thus, there was less pressure to actually build the designs they made.

Uh, the Royal Navy had over 10 different classes of Aircraft Carriers from world war 1 all the way the the end of world war 2, and if you don't believe me, take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy


Edited by Creepershark77, 30 October 2016 - 06:58 PM.







 


Carrier_Lexington #56 Posted 31 October 2016 - 12:06 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostCreepershark77, on 30 October 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

Uh, the Royal Navy had over 10 different classes of Aircraft Carriers from world war 1 all the way the the end of world war 2, and if you don't believe me, take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

 

So? How many of those would fit the tier system? How would you balance them? I've seen that list, but I've also seen how many of these classes were very similar to each other. And what RN carrier can hope to challenge Midway or the IJN Tier 10, other than a paper one (I don't know how to spell its name)?


"Heresy!"


Creepershark77 #57 Posted 31 October 2016 - 12:25 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

View PostRaze_3, on 30 October 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

 

So? How many of those would fit the tier system? How would you balance them? I've seen that list, but I've also seen how many of these classes were very similar to each other. And what RN carrier can hope to challenge Midway or the IJN Tier 10, other than a paper one (I don't know how to spell its name)?

 

Well, the Argus at Tier 4, the Glorious at Tier 5, the Ark Royal at Tier 6,  the Illustrious at Tier 7, the Implacable at Tier 8, the Colossus at Tier 9, and the Audacious at Tier 10. Does that work for you? Also, the Royal Navy was in the pacific, but not in large numbers compared to the USN and the IJN.

 

 

 

 








 


Carrier_Lexington #58 Posted 31 October 2016 - 12:45 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,100
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostCreepershark77, on 31 October 2016 - 12:25 AM, said:

 

Well, the Argus at Tier 4, the Glorious at Tier 5, the Ark Royal at Tier 6,  the Illustrious at Tier 7, the Implacable at Tier 8, the Colossus at Tier 9, and the Audacious at Tier 10. Does that work for you? Also, the Royal Navy was in the pacific, but not in large numbers compared to the USN and the IJN.

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that they can't field near the number of aircraft that the IJN and USN have in-reserve. The Ranger has more aircraft than the Audacious. And, at that tier, it's not about how well-armored your carrier is, it's a great deal about how many squads you can control and how many reserves you can field to replace your losses.

"Heresy!"


Creepershark77 #59 Posted 31 October 2016 - 01:28 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 335
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

View PostRaze_3, on 30 October 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

 

The problem is that they can't field near the number of aircraft that the IJN and USN have in-reserve. The Ranger has more aircraft than the Audacious. And, at that tier, it's not about how well-armored your carrier is, it's a great deal about how many squads you can control and how many reserves you can field to replace your losses.

 

That can be changed for balancing, like WG usually does when it comes to implementing new ships/tanks/planes. And can we please stay focused on german CVs please?







 


BrianDavion #60 Posted 31 October 2016 - 01:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 788
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015

View PostRaze_3, on 25 September 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

 

Germany is probably going to be like the America of the Axis. They had some very good fighter planes (like the Fw. 190 and the Bf. 109), but they were not so great in terms of torpedo aircraft (most were land-based heavy bombers). However, I expect German dive bombers to be excellent, as the Stuka was one of the most fearsome dive bombers of all time (even if it wasn't because of the bomb it carried, but the psychological warfare associated with the high-pitched demonic screech of the plane as it attacked a target. Personally, I don't think that Stukas should suffer panic circles, as the screech from the bombing should scare the AAA crews and suppress their fire. Same with the one of the US planes modified to do the same thing. I've actually listened to the Stuka, and it would be absolutely terrifying to have that coming towards you.)

 

even if it doesn't have ANY game effect the german dive bombers BETTER have the horns of Jericho! 





Also tagged with Aircraft carrier, german, line, premium

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users