Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Swervenkill

French Carrier Line

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

215
[CUDA]
Members
562 posts
9,171 battles

Tier 4: Dixmude, a British escort carrier loaned to the French for 5 years after WW2. 

Tier 6: Bearn, the first French carrier, built on a battleship hull. Survived WW2.

Tier 8: Bios Belleau, an American Independence class light carrier on loan for 10 years during the Cold War

Tier 10: Joffre, a carrier that reached 20% completion. This ship would have to be buffed for tier 10 but WG is creative enough to do that. Extend flight deck to end of hull, use deck storage to increase plane capacity.

So, three out of four real ships and historical interest.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,249
[PISD]
Members
1,994 posts
6,542 battles

I would argue that the next line should be the alternative American and Japanese line.

missing Essex, Yorktown, Akagi and Taiou is leaving a massive gap.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
36 minutes ago, Swervenkill said:

Tier 4: Dixmude, a British escort carrier loaned to the French for 5 years after WW2. 

Tier 6: Bearn, the first French carrier, built on a battleship hull. Survived WW2.

Tier 8: Bios Belleau, an American Independence class light carrier on loan for 10 years during the Cold War

Tier 10: Joffre, a carrier that reached 20% completion. This ship would have to be buffed for tier 10 but WG is creative enough to do that. Extend flight deck to end of hull, use deck storage to increase plane capacity.

So, three out of four real ships and historical interest.

 

This is a terrible line with horribly overtiered ships. There was a similar thread a couple of weeks ago. Read that and you'll figure out that there's no need to put American and British hand-me-downs in a French CV line and it'd be a travesty to do so (hand-me-down ships are usually reserved for Premiums, not tech-tree ships. Examples are Murmansk, Anshan, Loyang, Fenyang, Nueve de Julio, Admiral Makarov...). The French had their own CV designs (actual historical designs) and don't really need to use hand-me-downs.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,005
[WOLFG]
Members
34,338 posts
10,584 battles
47 minutes ago, Swervenkill said:

Tier 4: Dixmude, a British escort carrier loaned to the French for 5 years after WW2. 

Tier 6: Bearn, the first French carrier, built on a battleship hull. Survived WW2.

Tier 8: Bios Belleau, an American Independence class light carrier on loan for 10 years during the Cold War

Tier 10: Joffre, a carrier that reached 20% completion. This ship would have to be buffed for tier 10 but WG is creative enough to do that. Extend flight deck to end of hull, use deck storage to increase plane capacity.

So, three out of four real ships and historical interest.

 

I would drop Joffre down to T8, and put Arromanches at T10.

Wouldn't be a huge buff needed, she carried 48 planes, compared to 50 and 60 for the Audacious-class (T10 RN CV) Ark Royal and Eagle. I would expect the smaller squadron sizes 

They would have planes for up to T8, but T10 would probably require USN/RN planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
3 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I would drop Joffre down to T8, and put Arromanches at T10.

Wouldn't be a huge buff needed, she carried 48 planes, compared to 50 and 60 for the Audacious-class (T10 RN CV) Ark Royal and Eagle. I would expect the smaller squadron sizes 

They would have planes for up to T8, but T10 would probably require USN/RN planes.

Joffre is a T6 ship, not a T8 and carried 40 planes. It was a class of light CVs, not fit for T8. Just like Bearn isn't fit for T6 but rather is a decent T4. The response I linked above explains all this and goes into the historical designs that should be used. Plane-carrying capacity isn't all that matters for CV tiering.

Arromanches is yet another hand-me-down ship when they actually had T8 & T10 designs ready for production just after the war. Which is also why France also has T10 planes without needing USN/RN planes.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
751 posts
19,884 battles

uh, no. Bearn is a pure t4 and Joffre is a t6. there is no need to put lend lease ships in this line, as France had MANY indigenous CV and plane designs which could easily fill out the high tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[CUDA]
Members
562 posts
9,171 battles

So you are limiting the real ships because they are real but are fine making up stats for drawing board ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
6 minutes ago, Swervenkill said:

So you are limiting the real ships because they are real but are fine making up stats for drawing board ships?

Let me remind you that the "drawing board" ships are as real as the Montana battleship you have in the game. So I'm going to go with "If the country actually attempted to order/build them and we have the blueprints for them, then they're fine." Especially since none of the ships that France had prior to 1950 would be considered to be fit for T8 or T10. They were either escort or light carriers which show up in other tech-trees as T4s and T6s. So your solution doesn't work, and since you yourself propose a "let's make up a Joffre variant" for T10 in your original post, then you also don't seem to have any issue with "drawing board ships" as you put it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,005
[WOLFG]
Members
34,338 posts
10,584 battles
15 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

Joffre is a T6 ship, not a T8 and carried 40 planes. It was a class of light CVs, not fit for T8. Just like Bearn isn't fit for T6 but rather is a decent T4. The response I linked above explains all this and goes into the historical designs that should be used. Plane-carrying capacity isn't all that matters for CV tiering.

Arromanches is yet another hand-me-down ship when they actually had T8 & T10 designs ready for production just after the war. Which is also why France also has T10 planes without needing USN/RN planes.

What planes for T10, besides the Alize?

I only suggested RN/USN planes, because that's what they used later on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

What planes for T10, besides the Alize?

I only suggested RN/USN planes, because that's what they used later on. 

No need to use the Alize, it's from 1956 and normally considered to be outside of the time of the game. The T10 planes are basically the planes that were planned for the PA-28 Clemenceau, which are SNCASO SO.8000 Narval or SE582s, and Nord 1500 Noreclair or SNCAC NC.1070.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[CUDA]
Members
562 posts
9,171 battles
19 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

Let me remind you that the "drawing board" ships are as real as the Montana battleship you have in the game. So I'm going to go with "If the country actually attempted to order/build them and we have the blueprints for them, then they're fine." Especially since none of the ships that France had prior to 1950 would be considered to be fit for T8 or T10. They were either escort or light carriers which show up in other tech-trees as T4s and T6s. So your solution doesn't work, and since you yourself propose a "let's make up a Joffre variant" for T10 in your original post, then you also don't seem to have any issue with "drawing board ships" as you put it.

Just looking at the Joffre, if she'd been built and had a normal career I expect she'd have been enlarged significantly. I mentioned the deck extensions, this was done by the Japanese and British, and even the US in one case IIRC. Also with deck parking she'd be able to carry more planes than the 48 listed, the British significantly increase their air wings with deck parking. I agree it's a stretch but at least the Joffre had her keel layed which is more than I can say for any of the Russian ships.

And while the Dixmude and Boi Belleau were foreign ships, neither class is in the game so making them for the French would allow them as premiums for the other countries, and Dixmude is about as capable as Langley was, considering one was a WW2 ship and one a ww1-era ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
1 minute ago, Swervenkill said:

Just looking at the Joffre, if she'd been built and had a normal career I expect she'd have been enlarged significantly. I mentioned the deck extensions, this was done by the Japanese and British, and even the US in one case IIRC. Also with deck parking she'd be able to carry more planes than the 48 listed, the British significantly increase their air wings with deck parking. I agree it's a stretch but at least the Joffre had her keel layed which is more than I can say for any of the Russian ships.

And while the Dixmude and Boi Belleau were foreign ships, neither class is in the game so making them for the French would allow them as premiums for the other countries, and Dixmude is about as capable as Langley was, considering one was a WW2 ship and one a ww1-era ship. 

Joffre was never listed to carry 48 planes, she was listed for 40. Deck extensions aren't going to add armour plating for the ship, nor are they going to increase its aircraft capacity by such a large amount (especially since aircraft got larger and larger as the war went on). The problem with Joffre being more than a T6 is that it doesn't have protection, plane capacity, displacement nor AA to make it suitable for a higher tier. Strawmanning by calling in the Russian ships is not useful since we're talking that the French had their own CV designs that were ORDERED and materials started being gathered which at the very least which means that their designs were finalized and ready to be laid down. Bearn is a T4 (HMS Eagle analogue), Joffre is a T6 (USS Independence analogue) and then T8 and T10 can be drawn from one of the CV designs from 1940-1946.

As for Dixmude, Bois Belleau and Arromanches, as foreign ships they would be implemented as Premiums, not tech-tree ships (that's what has been done in every single previous instance). They are a T4, T5 and a T6 respectively, so they'd be using up the same tiers as the Bearn and Joffre and thus are not needed.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[CUDA]
Members
562 posts
9,171 battles

Deck parking raised HMS Illustrious' air wing from 36 to 57 planes (Why can't WG make her?), so it is a significant increase, but I agree Joffre would be hard-pressed to reach tier 10. Obviously you've put a lot of thought into this, hopefully WG will listen to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[VRR]
[VRR]
Members
1,444 posts

This.....this will not work . There is not enough information to make these paper ships . Can't make them without information on.....wait OHHH. French CVs .. thought these were Russian CVs. Lol.:Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[WHARF]
Members
482 posts
19,760 battles
4 hours ago, Swervenkill said:

So you are limiting the real ships because they are real but are fine making up stats for drawing board ships?

that right...thats how WG works...get use to it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[FFG33]
Members
553 posts
23,920 battles

I prefer real ships to paper what ifs.  Nearly every ship design has alternate plans that were not selected or were design exercises never intended to be implemented; and, all this information is readily available on the internet with a simple google search so lets not pretend this is special information only known to a special few.  WoWS already takes a great deal of liberty with ship balancing impacting historical reality.  No idea what planes you put on them but I am sure that can be done just fine and the planes are the real distinguishing factor anyway.  I like this line and it seems well constructed at a high level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
1 hour ago, NavySWO said:

I prefer real ships to paper what ifs.  Nearly every ship design has alternate plans that were not selected or were design exercises never intended to be implemented; and, all this information is readily available on the internet with a simple google search so lets not pretend this is special information only known to a special few.  WoWS already takes a great deal of liberty with ship balancing impacting historical reality.  No idea what planes you put on them but I am sure that can be done just fine and the planes are the real distinguishing factor anyway.  I like this line and it seems well constructed at a high level.

We all prefer real ships to paper ones, but it is not possible to fit real ships to all tiers for every nation (ships can normally be fudged a bit to lift or drop them a tier, but France had no CVs in service that could even be stretched into T8, much less T10) and thus we need the paper ships. There's a big difference between making something up (as WG does quite a lot like in the case of Venezia, Marco Colombo, Max Immelmann...) and using an actually planned & designed ship. Try finding accurate data on French aircraft carrier designs on the internet and come back to me on that as sadly it is a very complex topic to find information for. American ships are easy to research, French ships & projects not so much. This is one of the reasons why I'm in contact with French naval historians and have lined up a research expedition into the French Naval Archives, because I want to use proper designs instead of making stuff up.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[FFG33]
Members
553 posts
23,920 battles
19 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

We all prefer real ships to paper ones, but it is not possible to fit real ships to all tiers for every nation (ships can normally be fudged a bit to lift or drop them a tier, but France had no CVs in service that could even be stretched into T8, much less T10) and thus we need the paper ships. There's a big difference between making something up (as WG does quite a lot like in the case of Venezia, Marco Colombo, Max Immelmann...) and using an actually planned & designed ship. Try finding accurate data on French aircraft carrier designs on the internet and come back to me on that as sadly it is a very complex topic to find information for. American ships are easy to research, French ships & projects not so much. This is one of the reasons why I'm in contact with French naval historians and have lined up a research expedition into the French Naval Archives, because I want to use proper designs instead of making stuff up.

This took me a single search and about 30 seconds....

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/french-aircraft-carrier-never-were-designs-and-proposals.35123/

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
2 hours ago, NavySWO said:

You do realize you've quoted MY OWN topic on another forum back to me, right? And that thread is proof of how hard it is to find detailed data, as most of the designs only have general information.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[FFG33]
Members
553 posts
23,920 battles
43 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

You do realize you've quoted MY OWN topic on another forum back to me, right? And that thread is proof of how hard it is to find detailed data, as most of the designs only have general information.

Of course.  You asked a question in a forum and your 'source' material flowed in from other users.  It  is sort of like publishing the notes you took in your calculus classes as proof of your in depth research.  Lots of good stuff in there but it all comes from other sources.  Once again...cut...paste...claim it as your own.  This is all well know information and not groundbreaking research.

A link to your 'articles' would have been compelling and a useful gathering of internet sources.  The original post has merit and I applaud the user for having the courage to post their ideas.  Build on those ideas instead of trashing them and declaring yourself awesome and everyone else unworthy.

Edited by NavySWO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
Members
460 posts
4,325 battles
13 minutes ago, NavySWO said:

Of course.  You asked a question in a forum and your 'source' material flowed in from other users.  It  is sort of like publishing the notes you took in your calculus classes as proof of your in depth research.  Lots of good stuff in there but it all comes from other sources.  Once again...cut...paste...claim it as your own.  This is all well know information and not groundbreaking research.

A link to your 'articles' would have been compelling and a useful gathering of internet sources.  The original post has merit and I applaud the user for having the courage to post their ideas.  Build on those ideas instead of trashing them and declaring yourself awesome and everyone else unworthy.

I provided a link to the reasoning behind the criticism above and explained each and every point I've made throughout. What you claim is "source" material is in all cases (and after gathered the primary sources from which they came) still very general. There's a lack of blueprints, a lack of details and only general data which is why I called the topic as "complex" to research (there's even a lack of French books on the subject). There is too much lacking in the data gathered in most cases so as to get them implemented without significant amounts of making stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,473
[SPTR]
Members
27,681 posts
18,256 battles

What national flavour/consumables you guys think french CVs will get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×