Fuel capacity Max flight times CV Airplanes

[shoy07]

Shouldn’t CV aircraft have a definite fighter flight time? Or does it already? 

Extra flight time is fine for CVs due to external tanks. Spotter planes and fighter aircraft launched from ships have time/fuel limits.  Why don’t Cv aircraft? 

[cometguy]

They should, but the distances travelled and the duration in the air are no where close to being an issue, since CVs hate being within 100 miles of the enemy.

Edit added example: the Zero had a range of 1600 miles.

[RipNuN2]

Cv's are complicated enough for most users to utilize, we don't need to add more items to pay attention to.

[Brhinosaurus]

For realism's sake, carrier planes should probably be allowed to stay in flight for no more than a several hours.  Shorten that a bit if they see combat conditions.

Float planes have a time limit because they are a consumable, and all consumables have a time limit because it's a game and that's how consumables work.  You think real-world radar sets could only operate for 30 seconds at a time?  

[cometguy]

2 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

For realism's sake, carrier planes should probably be allowed to stay in flight for no more than a several hours.  Shorten that a bit if they see combat conditions.

Float planes have a time limit because they are a consumable, and all consumables have a time limit because it's a game and that's how consumables work.  You think real-world radar sets could only operate for 30 seconds at a time?  

Squadrons aren't consumables.

[Brhinosaurus]

3 minutes ago, cometguy said:

Squadrons aren't consumables.

I didn't say they were, I'm saying the opposite of that.  OP is saying float planes have time limits, therefor squadrons should as well.  I'm saying one is a consumable and one is not, so they're different game mechanics.

[cometguy]

Just now, Brhinosaurus said:

I didn't say they were, I'm saying the opposite of that.  OP is saying float planes have time limits, therefor squadrons should as well.  I'm saying one is a consumable and one is not, so they're different game mechanics.

Ahh, gotcha. My mistake.

[Brhinosaurus]

4 minutes ago, cometguy said:

Ahh, gotcha. My mistake.

All good!

Too many people wanting to inject a single dose of realism ("Destroyers couldn't reload their torpedos!") into a game that has clearly tweaked many things on every class of ship in the aim of creating a competitive, interesting game.  I mean... how often in all of World War II was a functioning carrier even within gun rage of an enemy surface combatant?  Battle off Samar is the only time I can think of.  

[psmobius1]

Not sure a fuel limit is really an issue as fighters already have to return for ammo after engaging one or two groups of planes. I've had to bring my fighters back many times to restock ammo.

[JToney3449]

Its just an unnessary mechanic.  Would it add anything to the game? Nope.  Planes are almost constantly on the attack or on their way back, and as others have said the planes have way more then enough fuel for the distances in this game.  100 x 100 km map vs 1000+ miles worth of fuel.  CV are already a multitask nightmare at high tiers adding more stuff will just make for information over load.  CV if anything need to be 'dumbed down' aka made easier to handle so that the player skill gap is not so massive.

 

Right now if you have a good CV vs a bad one the bad CV gets wiped off the map and then the enemy CV wrecks that team.  Truthfully i think CV shouldnt be player controlled and each team should have AI CV to protect every single game.  Cause atm you get games with 0 CV making the balance point of AA ratings worth 0, its why I say WG shouldnt use AA for game balance on ships.  But since that will never happen they need to drasticly over haul the CV interface, remove manual drops and adjust the drop patterns to lead and drop a bit closer to target.  That way you still get some of the boosted effect of a good manual drop but with more of a chance to dodge so that you dont see as many massive 4-5 torpedo strikes per drop.

Cross drop i think should still be a thing, as a more advanced carrier tactic.  AP bombs need to be adjusted some so that they are more effective vs non german bbs, and tone down the dmg spike so that you arent instant deleting german BB.  Silly to watch a bomb strike on a T8+ german BB delete the poor bastard out right.  Id say play with the fuse timers and the pen values so that they pen more armor but blow up a bit sooner so less cits but much more pen dmg, allowing them to go after more targets.

AA through out the game needs to be made more equalized because T8-10 AA scales up massively this leads to a lot of games where CV cant attack hardly anything basicly taking them out of the game.  CV plane HP and enemy AA need to be made more to match at each tier so that this doesnt happen.  I would also reduce the number of high tier squadrons 4 is enough for most people to manage instead increase the planes per squadrons at the higher tiers but reduce the dmg per bomb/torpedo by that extra plane.  The goal is to do slightly less damage per bomb and torp but you will be landing more often, lets say you go from 5 planes at 2000 dmg for the squadron bomb load, thats 400 dmg per bomb, adding in a 6th bomber you change it to 333 dmg per bomb.  While this doesnt sound all that awesome, you now have an extra chance to cause flooding/fire/cit dmg.  

Also by going this route you can start to get rid of the squadron disparity between USN and IJN carriers, making the overall CV gameplay in the game more uniform and balanced.  It will take a LOT of work to get the CVs in this game truely balanced.  WG really needs to get on this issue, longer it goes the more work will have to be done, every new ship is more AA to adjust, every new CV is then another CV that will need another major balance pass.

[jason199506]

idk, dont real world airplanes fly for more than 20minutes???

[Brhinosaurus]

1 minute ago, jason199506 said:

idk, dont real world airplanes fly for more than 20minutes???

 

Not once WG makes a Tier X german carrier with ME 163 fighters!

[awiggin]

Reality, meet Arcade game......

[Hurlbut]

Same reason you don't have ammunition limit on your guns and torpedoes.

[Kizarvexis]

2 hours ago, shoy07 said:

Shouldn’t CV aircraft have a definite fighter flight time? Or does it already? 

Extra flight time is fine for CVs due to external tanks. Spotter planes and fighter aircraft launched from ships have time/fuel limits.  Why don’t Cv aircraft? 

 

2 hours ago, Brhinosaurus said:

For realism's sake, carrier planes should probably be allowed to stay in flight for no more than a several hours.  Shorten that a bit if they see combat conditions.

Float planes have a time limit because they are a consumable, and all consumables have a time limit because it's a game and that's how consumables work.  You think real-world radar sets could only operate for 30 seconds at a time?  

 

Float planes could fly for hours in RL and have timers in the game for balance reasons.

[JToney3449]

41 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

Same reason you don't have ammunition limit on your guns and torpedoes.

you do have an ammunition limit on your planes guns

[TugboatCommander]

4 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

Cv's are complicated enough for most users to utilize, we don't need to add more items to pay attention to.

I can relate to this, I already sometimes lose track of a squadron here and there. Having it just be gone because they pulled a Flight 19 and ditched somewhere out of fuel would add to my confusion.

[JToney3449]

4 minutes ago, TugboatCommander said:

Having it just be gone because they pulled a Flight 19 and ditched somewhere out of fuel would add to my confusion.

HA! We all know they were kidnapped by aliens!

[Hyyena]

Lets put maximum ammunition for shells and torpedos to ships too!

[Hurlbut]

16 hours ago, JToney3449 said:

you do have an ammunition limit on your planes guns

Reason for not having ammunition limit on guns on the ships; match does not last long enough for that to happen (plus the torpedo having reloads, in GENERAL, is artificial .)

Hence the same reason for not having a "loitering" limit on the CV planes.

[K1ra_Yoshikage]

18 hours ago, jason199506 said:

idk, dont real world airplanes fly for more than 20minutes???

BA 349 and the Wright brothers want to have a word with you... but it’s debatable if the first one isn’t more like a rocket then a plane.

If you want more CV realism let’s add real times that the carriers need to spot a.deck and recover planes 

[wtfovr]

On 1/25/2018 at 11:48 AM, jason199506 said:

idk, dont real world airplanes fly for more than 20minutes???

About hour and a half for cyclic ops.   Some planes can double cycle but have to hit the tanker to remain airborne for 2 cycles.

But in real world when you’re running a surface battle scenario, it runs about 4 hours long and maybe you get to launch missiles, depending if you got all your data.   Anti air battles are quick, you can run a few air defense scenarios in about 2 hours.  And anti submarine scenarios are sleepers they are so painful, it’s like stabbing your eyeballs out.

[VTAdmiral]

Sure.

 

On a quarter tank the average carrier-based aircraft could be in the air for 1-3 hours.

 

That'll certainly affect the game the way you want it to.