Aircraft Carriers - WT Discussion

[Shadow_CZ]

@Motherhen357

One of the devblogs for that featured the now-removed low-poly IJN Akagi:
Hard to imagine that this was once considered as being detailed enough to be a player vessel …

It is interesting but my own guess would be that these were just ilustrative images made for devblog and actual player controled units would get more detailed models.

But it is very very interestion to look at these images and wonder what were their ideas after all the rank 12 is upper mid tier.

@Motherhen357

Not really sure what this is meant to mean, since Ground doesn’t have that either - like here it 's always based on capability. It 's less obvious there since they have far fewer dissimilar vehicle types to progress between vertically, but present nonetheless. Esp. w/ the vehicles possessing lower-than-average damage resistance - that part stays in common.

What I meant with this that currently we have TT and BRs set up in a way that progression works this way: (even if it has lot of exceptions)

WW1/Interwar DDs (bad AA) >> Late WW2/modern DDs (good AA) >> Interwar cruisers (bad AA) >> WW2 cruisers (good AA) >> WW1/Interwar BBs (bad AA) >> WW2 BB (good AA)

With this kind of BR structure I have no idea how CV of any kind would fit, IMO it would be impossible.

If we got gamemodes which would have “Additional objectives to allow differing classes of ship to have a purpose in the short-form Random Battle 's alongside eachother would be most welcome” would allow new BR structure with parraler progression across line from WW1 designs at lower BRs to high BRs with WW2 ships with good AA.

This way scaling the CV to different BRs would be much easier.

@Motherhen357

HMS Argus(I49) and USS Langley

I actually completly forgot what actual airwing Langley got, but then it was response to idea that small and early experimental CVs would be more suitable. In this case the US basically has no suitable early CV (the only relevan early CV is Lexingtons which is larger fleet carrier)

In case of Argus that is what I mean the armament isn´t an issue but I still don´t think that it is possible to fit them into current BR structure. As I described above.

@Motherhen357

I think there 's a misunderstanding here, I’m describing a setup where the carrier 's aircraft are separated into groups by their loadouts, like WTM - but the player has choice of what aircraft models are employed in those groups, unlike Mobile 's lack of a selection( at present ).
The F6F is therefore given as an example of an aircraft which could be employed in all slots even if they are divided by the ordinance carried, the question being if players should be allowed to choose to carry an entirely homogeneous aircraft selection despite division across loadouts, and the availability of other aircraft types which do not have this universality.

I didn´t exaplain it clearly but in my suggestion player wouldn´t be necesarly be choosing what suspended weaponry each plane carries but they are choosing combination of plane and the weaponry as in this image:

In my opinion giving option of having one plane in all functions isn´t good for gameplay, but if for some reason gaijin wants to make some kind of unique event/premium CV by giving it an option for one type plane complement (for example USS Princeton (CVL-23) with “Cat Mouth” Hellcats) I have no problem with it.

@Motherhen357

The ammo cost is applied when the round is launched, whether or not it hits anything to overcome it, surely " aircraft costs " could do the same ? Having the cost only be applied when they fail to make an attack or maintain the ability to make attacks doesn’t make much sense compared to that - it 's actually less penalizing for successful AC players compared to their gun-armed counterparts !

This is Econ stuff anyway, why should it have any bearing on the actual Gameplay ? The real penalty is the loss of an aircraft to use.

You are correct, maybe have the cost split into 2 tiers launch and destroyed. I am not sure or maybe couple the lost planes into the repair cost? Any way the loss of planes IMO needs to have bigger impact then just loss of small amount of combat potential game (since it wouldn´t really matter as long as it wouldn´t eat into the amount of planes in the air)

And yes econ isn´t directly influencing gameplay but IMO it still havily influences balance and gameplay. So I believe that it really needs to be discussed.

@Motherhen357

Not really understanding why you’re against this, it 's in line w/ the modelling of other ship 's armaments and their limitations. And it gives a reason for that ammo to be in the DM beyond being an instant kill button.

Because I think it is just needless complication with next to no impact on gameplay. Like for example fuel in ships/tanks.

@Motherhen357

What exactly do you mean by this ? Arrestor cables are already present to the full degree they need to be functional, and aircraft elevators could come, analogous to the ones for ammo. But what abt catapults needs to be present ?

We also already have working catapults in form of boost. But we were talking about modules. In that case the ammo (which I think can be there just for DM purpose) the elevators, arrestors and catapults don´t have DM modules.
And I think it would be very important for gameplay to have those present and modeled for gameplay and DM.
So damage to elevators would make moving planes in/out of the hangar slower/impossible, damage to arrestors would prevent landing and damage to catapults would slow down launching of the planes even though it wouldn´t have big impact but for example hangar catapults could have some gameplay use.

@Motherhen357

I disagree wholly w/ the notion that an AC would, or should be in a position to itself ignore the other ship types it 's rated to face. That would be massive failure of mission design, to allow non-engagement between players like that - and it doesn’t make sense from a balancing perspective either.

Again, " playing the Aircraft Carrier " - not just the AC 's airgroup.

Of corse putting CVs completly evay isn´t good solution but forcing CVs in melee fights isn´t great idea eighter. Some kind of compromise needs to be made but then there are also options of CV players camping behind islands and other cover. So that is something which needs to be taken into account.

The CVs by design can attack other ships without risking the ships itself so there needs to be some kind of counter play for the surface ships and the best way how to implement it is to treat the planes also as part of the CVs.

@Motherhen357

I think you’re overestimating the damage potential of this kind of weapon, which can be avoided entirely when employed at longer ranges and increases the vulnerability of the launching aircraft when employed closer, by obliging them to give up speed and altitude to use it - limitations not shared by bombs.

I might be thats why I said that I am open to increasing number of wignmates based on testing. As for the bombs, currently the bomb are extremly overperforming and if they are fixed the damage output of dive bombers will be much smalle then that of torpedo bombers.

@Motherhen357

I won’t disagree w/ damage output of single attacks, but from the perspective of limiting damage overall what worries me more is the absolute precision across many attacks that controls of every individual plane( and their potential to make attacks ) given to the player would allow. That scenario maintains the possibility of keeping the player of the defending ship under threat for an extended period of time using far fewer aircraft once the air group is standing close, which in turn provides the attacking AC player more tools for making attacks on others later in the match. Until the AA defense is powerful enough that the number of aircraft attempting to make the attack fades in relevance compared to having hard cover available for them.
Having instead single strong attacks, preceded and followed by greater waits as the full group moves to attack and retires to rearm together, comes closer to reducing the total damage output a carrier can make imo.

Maybe it 's the ability to select orbiting locations for airgroups which would allow the former situation to occur, actually. Removing that to have " Orbit Carrier " and " Move to Attack X Vessel " only would disallow the possibility of having players " store " their aircraft in covered locations to make lengthy, individual precision attacks on nearby enemy players.

While I wont disagree that my system will keep surface ships under threat for longer because that is partly the objective.
In current DM system it is much more dangerous to get hit by multiple torpedoes/bombs in span of few seconde then it is to get hit by overall greater number of torps/bombs spread out over longer time.
Also the system of rest of the squad orbiting over the target gives the ship much much more time to shoot down the planes and also allow to use more of the AA armament.

I truly believe that this is preferable but I am open to being prooven wrong with some testing.

@Motherhen357

I’m just not seeing what option it provides, it 's not as if clean fighters are going to be a primary weapon against ships. Having it unusable until unlocked just seems to mean fighters couldn’t be used to make preemptive attacks against enemy air - just orbit and hope they’re in position to respond.

It provides option to have planes ignore when player doesn´t want them to angage when they don´t want to. Which can be really helpful if you would want to quickly intercept key squadroon.

[Shadow_CZ]

@Blogaugis

I don’t think it is impossible. Techtree and various oddities in it will have to be fixed eventually.
If it’s Fleet carriers we are talking about, yeah, they don’t fit even in rank 5, which probably requires them to be on rank 6 at least.

But for seaplane tenders, escort and light carriers? I think they can, with some success, even be implemented now in warthunder.

Rank 3 could see seaplane tenders added, as a first serious attempt of having aircraft as it’s main tool: … These could be hybrids between regular combat ship and a carrier, similar to some of the cruisers in game, just higher emphasis on it’s planes.

Rank 4 introduce the early experimental and escort carriers: … Bogues, Casablancas, Hōshō’s and similar ones can go here.

Rank 5 would be the light carriers, which to some extent does make these small yet capable vessels appear… not as powerful, owing to that 1-plane restriction, but it can still to some degree have a point with this mechanic.
Since most of examples here are of more modern approach, here would be the classic example:
While the fleet carriers that were used in examples in this thread, would belong in rank 6, if not 7.
Assuming Naval Forces tree will be exanded further into the cold war and jet plane age, I am not sure if this example:
Would be rank 7 or rank 8…

But, either way, with ranks above 5, we get serious problems with 1-plane control restriction. Mostly in the form of aircraft carrier appearing as a complete joke with it’s in-game capabilities.

Returning to the smaller aircraft carriers, All it would take, is to expand existing smaller maps, by, like, 5 Kilometers to every direction, add a CV spawn point in these new areas, and we have a cheap and quick implementation of aircraft carrier in the game. With that 1-plane restriction in mind.

So seamplane tenders with their aircraft facing things like Sumner, Gearing or even AA cruiser like Atlanta (just US examples)? That way they are completly irrelevant even if you allow them to attack these ships with full air arm.

Same applies to the escort carriers even if you would allow attack of whole squadroon against the US CLs.

And light CV on rank 5? Where on one hand even with every possible limitation would just trash any WW1 BB or be crushed by modernised BBs like Nevada.

Also where should CVs like USS Lexington in early refit be placed? Or we just ignore these exist?

@Blogaugis

Oh, so, no more than 5, aircraft controlled by the player in the air from a single carrier. Sigh…
I don’t think many play the simulator… For me, realistic is enough.

No, 5 in one squad and up to 5 squads in total so 25 planes in the air at one time. These really arent that small and unrealistic numbers.

@Blogaugis

It seems to me, like the player will have to manually land each plane after an attack run…
In other words, player has to choose a specific loadout pre-battle and try to do the best with it, no attempts to adapt to the changing conditions of battle…
With that, I am positive that multi-role planes will be the most popular option.

It doesn´t work like that in game. If you are changing armament mid battle the game respawns the plane as if was new one. Which would be extremly complicated for CV gameplay since for this to work the CV would need to have all possible layouts of each plane saved at all times which would make it extremly server heavy.

@Blogaugis

1. Price. While inelegant and of limited effectiveness solution, making torpedoes expensive is a way to encourage a player to choose a different weapon.

Doesn´t actually solve the issues just makes it occur less. Which isn´t good option.

@Blogaugis

2. Space requirements. I am in favor of giving the player as much options as possible, and filling the CV to the brim with torpedoes should be among it. However, torpedoes would be the ones that take up the most space, and by having the space limited, it would naturally make torpedoes the least numerous option.

Again I don´t think it actually fixes the problem just makes it occur less often.

@Blogaugis

3. Control not giving an option to ‘fire at area’. Basically, you can not have AI wingmen attack an empty area and set torpedo traps (Like old WoWs alt-targeting attack). Granted, this creates an issue with minelaying aircraft, that could possibly be added in the future, but that can be tackled later I suppose.

I don´t think I understand what you mean here. Because one way it desn´t fix the issue and other way it works same as system I suggest

@Blogaugis

4. Torpedo bomber number/squadron size limitations. I suppose this is self-explanatory, basically, restrictions the the maximum amount of torpedo-carrying aircraft, if it comes to that.
5. Ticket costs. Introducing a higher ticket costs to higher-payload planes can also be a way to keep the bomber rampage in check.

Again I don´t think it actually fixes the problem just makes it occur less often.

[Motherhen357]

@Shadow_CZ

What I meant with this that currently we have TT and BRs set up in a way that progression works this way: (even if it has lot of exceptions)

WW1/Interwar DDs (bad AA) >> Late WW2/modern DDs (good AA) >> Interwar cruisers (bad AA) >> WW2 cruisers (good AA) >> WW1/Interwar BBs (bad AA) >> WW2 BB (good AA)

With this kind of BR structure I have no idea how CV of any kind would fit, IMO it would be impossible.

The exceptions are so prevalent that imo they’re the actual rule. All of these ship classes overlap in BR, and there 's no consistent application of ship age as a factor towards BR structure w/in ship classes either. The actual progression, as in other vehicle branches, is by capability - specifically to engage similar vehicles in PvP, relative to their ability to survive an engagement. Era, tonnage, hull classification - all of these work as generalizations for a level of capability but they’re not intrinsically tied to it, as we can see from the actual implementation of the NF TT 's.

W/ that in mind, here 's my rough ( very rough ) impression of where Carrier 's might be placed BR-wise, compared to existing Bluewater ship types:

Spoiler

( Even though we can safely ignore CV 's operating planes below the ingame standard of performance, imo there 's still a large MM range they could potentially appear w/in prior to jet-operating " CVA " 's )

@Shadow_CZ

In this case the US basically has no suitable early CV (the only relevan early CV is Lexingtons which is larger fleet carrier)

In case of Argus that is what I mean the armament isn´t an issue but I still don´t think that it is possible to fit them into current BR structure. As I described above.

The USN also has USS Ranger(CV-4) and USS Wasp(CV-7), despite being younger than the Lexington-classe they’re not improvements over them, so they could probably fill that less-capable-fleet-carrier position ahead of them.

As for HMS Argus(I49), again, in the form she’d be game-relevant in she 's little different from the much-newer escort carriers in capability. So she would likely occupy a similar position to those.

@Shadow_CZ

I didn´t exaplain it clearly but in my suggestion player wouldn´t be necesarly be choosing what suspended weaponry each plane carries but they are choosing combination of plane and the weaponry

Yes, that 's what I’m describing: the WTM system of having fixed slots for aircraft groups organized by payload, w/ the addition of player selection as to the aircraft which compose those groups( when options exist ).

@Shadow_CZ

You are correct, maybe have the cost split into 2 tiers launch and destroyed. I am not sure or maybe couple the lost planes into the repair cost? Any way the loss of planes IMO needs to have bigger impact then just loss of small amount of combat potential game (since it wouldn´t really matter as long as it wouldn´t eat into the amount of planes in the air)

And yes econ isn´t directly influencing gameplay but IMO it still havily influences balance and gameplay. So I believe that it really needs to be discussed.

I’m still not seeing the purpose of having a cost applied for the destruction of aircraft: the costs of other weapons is just a progression bottleneck, not meant as any kind of in-match balancing tool. Those costs are applied when the weapon is employed, whether or not they cover their costs striking a target - the same can be done w/ aircraft. There 's no situation where an opponent destroying a carrier 's aircraft has an equivalent cost, unless you’re already on some future game version where getting a compartment blacked-out adds a compounding penalty to the repcost.

I’m also not understanding what you mean by " as long as it wouldn´t eat into the amount of planes in the air ", where are you expecting aircraft to be when an enemy player destroys them ?

@Shadow_CZ

Because I think it is just needless complication with next to no impact on gameplay. Like for example fuel in ships/tanks.

It 's not any more complicated than the equivalent modelling of shell/torp/charge etc. stores, the necessary vulnerability of taking them aboard is paired w/ the fact that they can be depleted in combat.

@Shadow_CZ

the elevators, arrestors and catapults don´t have DM modules.
And I think it would be very important for gameplay to have those present and modeled for gameplay and DM.
So damage to elevators would make moving planes in/out of the hangar slower/impossible, damage to arrestors would prevent landing and damage to catapults would slow down launching of the planes

Aircraft elevators I can see being functional, they’re similar enough in purpose to the ones for ammo on ships currently ingame. I’m not sure how arrestors and catapults could, though: there might be a way to represent the below-deck equipment, but there 's no real way that the cables/rails could be in the DM that doesn’t make them HE/shrapnel magnets for anything striking the deck - while they’re also p much the only part a player directly notices when operating the ship.

@Shadow_CZ

Of corse putting CVs completly evay isn´t good solution but forcing CVs in melee fights isn´t great idea eighter. Some kind of compromise needs to be made but then there are also options of CV players camping behind islands and other cover. So that is something which needs to be taken into account.

The CVs by design can attack other ships without risking the ships itself so there needs to be some kind of counter play for the surface ships and the best way how to implement it is to treat the planes also as part of the CVs.

If the carrier is to be tucked away somewhere that makes the planes the only part which other players can interact w/, there’s been no implementation of a carrier. It 's just an airgroup w/ an additional abstraction.

" Melee " ranges for a carrier can still be at the edges inside of what conventionally-armed warships can make attacks at, and they retain their advantage of attack accuracy over them regardless of range. So the counterplay of a conventional ship need not be made different from what they would use on a more similar ship - and those ships could use expanded ranges as-is.

@Shadow_CZ

As for the bombs, currently the bomb are extremly overperforming and if they are fixed the damage output of dive bombers will be much smalle then that of torpedo bombers.

There 's a number of fixes which might reduce the ability of bombs to hurt ships, but even w/ them the torpedo still doesn’t have the same potential to hurt ships - due to it 's limitations it 's much more likely not to hit at all, in comparison.

@Shadow_CZ

While I wont disagree that my system will keep surface ships under threat for longer because that is partly the objective.
In current DM system it is much more dangerous to get hit by multiple torpedoes/bombs in span of few seconde then it is to get hit by overall greater number of torps/bombs spread out over longer time.
Also the system of rest of the squad orbiting over the target gives the ship much much more time to shoot down the planes and also allow to use more of the AA armament.

I’m not understanding at all what your objective for managing carrier damage output is, now.

Keeping an enemy ship under threat for longer gives it less opportunities to respond to that threat - they’re not free to set up a comprehensive defense while defending.
The greater danger of a single group 's attack is in response to the limitations of airgroup attack, namely the much longer " shelltravel " and " reload " in comparison to more typical primary armaments. That 's a balancing factor, per-minute attack potential is far reduced, so damage potential w/in each attack makes up for it. And now that the defending ship is faced w/ fewer attacks overall, they can respond better to the ones they do face.

Having the group orbit over the target while only one aircraft makes an attack at a time removes the advantage of having the group - the mass of the attack is no different from having only one aircraft in the group, so defending is no different either.

@Shadow_CZ

It provides option to have planes ignore when player doesn´t want them to angage when they don´t want to. Which can be really helpful if you would want to quickly intercept key squadroon.

It is helpful, which is why I don’t understand why it 's being proposed as a modification - w/o it the player doesn’t have any options in the deployment of clean fighters.

@Shadow_CZ

Also where should CVs like USS Lexington in early refit be placed? Or we just ignore these exist?

Since both of the Lexington 's specifically are represented ingame as being in later refits, might as well.

[Blogaugis]

@Shadow_CZ

So seamplane tenders with their aircraft facing things like Sumner, Gearing or even AA cruiser like Atlanta (just US examples)? That way they are completly irrelevant even if you allow them to attack these ships with full air arm.

Same applies to the escort carriers even if you would allow attack of whole squadroon against the US CLs.

And light CV on rank 5? Where on one hand even with every possible limitation would just trash any WW1 BB or be crushed by modernised BBs like Nevada.

It’s in either way unbalanced, as You admitted. I don’t know what were You expecting with the advanced CVs-only being included in higher tiers.
But that’s a cheap and easy implementation that would be possible, even if it’s not the balanced one but let’s admit it - even now naval forces are unbalanced. So, any kind of inclusion of CV into the game would upset the balance even more anyway. In other words, it’s already a mess, so, why not go all in?

And I don’t think that seaplane tenders would be completely irrelevant - seaplane tenders could use their planes to (un)capture points and otherwise annoy the enemy. If anything, they should be at least be somewhat armed themselves, so that they would go to battlefield, rather than sit on the edge of the map.

@Shadow_CZ

Also where should CVs like USS Lexington in early refit be placed? Or we just ignore these exist?

With a lower BR, or perhaps lower rank and BR, if putting the 2 into folder is, for some reason, impossible.

@Shadow_CZ

No, 5 in one squad and up to 5 squads in total so 25 planes in the air at one time. These really arent that small and unrealistic numbers.

Okay.
But I don’t see them as impressive, if the player can attack with only 1 plane. Cheerleaders and emotional support is nice, but only if the player does not have to pay for it. At least the ship that is being attacked will have a pinata to play with (expect credit and exp nerfs).

@Shadow_CZ

It doesn´t work like that in game. If you are changing armament mid battle the game respawns the plane as if was new one. Which would be extremly complicated for CV gameplay since for this to work the CV would need to have all possible layouts of each plane saved at all times which would make it extremly server heavy.

Oh well.
I wonder when we’ll get warthunder 2.0?

@Shadow_CZ

Again I don´t think it actually fixes the problem just makes it occur less often.

Well, then how about making that CVs don’t have bombers at all?
That way, the problem surely will be fixed.
Though, then we have questions regarding the point of an aircraft carrier.

Last option would be to limit the amount of bomber planes (who have large bombs/torpedoes) possible on carriers.

Either way, we’d need to… test a bunch of stuff.

[Motherhen357]

Blink and you’ll miss it; the Ki-48 missile testing mission in the ongoing crafting event features the low-poly IJN Soryu, which sits just behind the aircraft air spawn location ( War-Thunder-Datamine/mis.vromfs.bin_u/gamedata/missions/events/ki48_logic_template.blkx at master · gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine · GitHub )

[Motherhen357]

( crossposting from here for future reference purposes )

The Vertical-Launch-System of Pr.1143.4 Baku, since the 9M330 SAM it uses has been discovered in the files

[Cavethug]

I can see the point of having carriers in World of Warships. The reason it makes sense is because there’s no mechanic to actually spawn a plane in a naval game. On the other hand in this game, you can spawn any plane within the battle rating limitations. So it would lead to a couple things that would need to be addressed before it even became logical. After all, why add carriers, if you don’t need a carrier, which is literally the case at this point in time.

That said, the first thing that would need to be addressed is why? Why add carriers? What makes the relevant. So if you’re going to create the conditions which would make carrier relevant, namely making maps where the only way to spawn planes would be from carriers, how would the playerbase response to it? And what kind of limitation would be present? Clearly you’re not going to be spawning heavy bombers from carriers. So will planes that can be launched have some kind of limitation or restriction? If so, would that mean a reclassification of planes because currently there are planes designated as naval attack roles, however I don’t think there are any planes with “naval fighter” roles assigned. Without that my assumption would be that any fighter could be launched from a carrier, and we all know that large fighters, or twin engine fighters wouldn’t be placed on a carrier generally speaking.

So I think the obvious solution to this would be to classify some planes as naval fighters, then to further flag any planes that would have filled the role as naval attack craft. To have maps where these planes can only be launched from carriers, no heavy planes at all, and some maps where there is an existing runway, in which all aircraft can be spawned. However add some kind of a mechanic where airbases, just like carriers, can be destroyed, or rendered inoperable, eliminating the ability to spawn aircraft altogether.

The other thing would be limiting carriers to only being spawnable at the start of a map, and only a specified number.

The other thing would be… what would be the enticement for people to actually spawn them? There’s have to be some kind of mechanic where the carrier an aircraft was launched from would get some kind of credit for the damage the plane did.

That’s the only feasible way I see carriers working. I don’t think there’s any way the you add them like World of Warships has. Planes are already a problem as it is. With some ships essentially lacking any real anti aircraft capability, putting in a carrier which could spawn a squadron of planes the player could control, would most likely convince a lot of people to just stop playing. If you have a hard enough time taking out one plane which can kill you, occasionally… how are you going to deal with a guy controlling half a dozen at the same time? One carrier could decimate the entire enemy fleet, now if you’d end up allowing 3, which is the mechanic for AI carriers now… no one will be playing the naval game.

Personally I think carrier should be added, around 2030, when they’re introducing missile cruisers, etc… they should only be tier 8 and above.

[LamawDoniczce]

It’s nice, but in my opinion the current mode with ships is very badly done, it has poor maps and zero balance, and for years gaijn hasn’t fixed it and won’t fix it because it doesn’t pay off for them, especially adding aircraft carriers and their balance, probably not an option, and even more so controlled by AI, it doesn’t pay off financially, It’s a nice idea, but Gaijn has it in…

[Motherhen357]

@Cavethug

if you’re going to create the conditions which would make carrier relevant, namely making maps where the only way to spawn planes would be from carriers

@Cavethug

Clearly you’re not going to be spawning heavy bombers from carriers.

Hi ! I’m not really sure what this is supposed to mean, since all naval maps already have an air-spawn location for player aircraft which have an SP cost - carrier capable or not.
There are a few maps which have a carrier to land on / rearm and refuel afterwards for those players using aircraft which have that ability, though. Mostly in the NFEC weekend events.

@Cavethug

currently there are planes designated as naval attack roles, however I don’t think there are any planes with “naval fighter” roles assigned.

There 's an overarching " Naval Aircraft " classification ingame( Category:Naval aircraft - War Thunder Wiki ), but it 's mostly an abstraction - it determines if a player aircraft is allowed to spawn from a Carrier on the Air mode maps which feature one.

@Cavethug

To have maps where these planes can only be launched from carriers, no heavy planes at all, and some maps where there is an existing runway, in which all aircraft can be spawned. However add some kind of a mechanic where airbases, just like carriers, can be destroyed, or rendered inoperable, eliminating the ability to spawn aircraft altogether.

Something similar to this is present in NFEC, airfield structures there can be damaged to the point of not allowing player aircraft to be rearmed similar to how it works in the Air SBEC mode.

@Cavethug

There’s have to be some kind of mechanic where the carrier an aircraft was launched from would get some kind of credit for the damage the plane did.

That 's how it works for catapult-launched aircraft( Shipboard reconnaissance aircraft - War Thunder Wiki ) currently, the aircraft being another " weapon " of the launching vessel means that any actions the player makes using it resulting in rewards are counted as being actions taken by the ship - the aircraft is not an independent vehicle in that regard.

You might be interested in reading my breakdown of how Aircraft Carriers work in WTM, as that might have similarities to how they’d be implemented here in the base game - some of the aircraft carriers already here came from there, after all !

[Cavethug]

Yeah, I’m not going to go back and basically retype everything I wrote because you can’t think rationally. Try approaching the post exactly as it was stated from the beginning. What would need to be done if you put carriers in, AND altered existing mechanics to suit it. There’s literally a section that says “maps with only carriers, and maps that would function as the currently do.” In maps with only carriers, clearly the existing “you can spawn whatever you want, you just can’t land” model would not be in effect.

Actually that’s on me, for figuring most people would get that, and that I wouldn’t have to be OVERLY nitpicky in my post.

Now if you can only spawn planes that can be carrier launched, because there is no airfield on a map, and only carriers, then wouldn’t that require more planes to carry the designation? Yeah, I kind of thought so.

Then how “shipboard recon planes” currently work… can other players spawn those planes and launch them? No? Huh… so how’s that going to work if the only planes that can be spawned, are from player controlled carriers? Okay, thank you.

In my opinion, there’s no need for carriers, absolutely zero. At this stage in the game you can spawn any plane you want, on complete open ocean maps you could spawn a B29 if it was within the BR. So… why carriers? It would destroy what little population plays the naval side of things here. If your goal is to ensure that the only opponents on the other side are AI, then if you’re lucky they’ll put carriers in tomorrow. If you enjoy playing against other people, then keep hoping and praying that they don’t add them for years to come.

[Motherhen357]

@Cavethug

Try approaching the post exactly as it was stated from the beginning.

I’ll try to explain why I put what I did in the previous reply, then. There 's a few areas where I addressed your new questions, apparently not clearly enough.

@Cavethug

In maps with only carriers, clearly the existing “you can spawn whatever you want, you just can’t land” model would not be in effect.

There are maps already ingame which do only have aircraft carriers as landing zones, in Naval these are mostly the [Conquest] open-circle cap maps* such as Midway or Jungle.

How they work is, aircraft which cannot land or take off from them have the normal airspawn location, or can choose to be air-spawned at speed, approx. 100m above sea level directly above the carrier. Much the same is found in those Air maps which, too, only have carriers to start and rearm from - for one or both teams. Examples: [Operation] Wake Island(light vehicles), [Operation] Malta. That 100m airspawn is also automatically applied if a non-carrier-capable aircraft 's player crash lands on the carrier and is not so critically damaged as to prevent airfield repair.
*an aside, other open-cap maps such as La Manche used to not have any kind of rearm zone for aircraft, only the airspawn to start from.

I brought those up previously bc I did not understand where the idea that a player spawning a plane for SP would be somehow restricted from using it if the map only featured AI carriers as rearm zones - these already exist ingame but do not have any such limitations.

I see now that you’re talking abt this from the perspective of how a playable carrier might be implemented ?( or atleast it seems like that, correct me if I’m wrong ) The idea where a carrier would be controlled by a separate player from those using it 's aircraft mostly fell out of these discussions w/ the introduction of catapult seaplanes, since - as you noted - there 's not much relevance to playing a carrier if the carrier player cannot perform actions, i.e. directing carrier-based aircraft in offense. The seaplanes showed that having aircraft under the direct control of the player of the ship which launches them, rather than needing to be controlled each by other players, was indeed possible w/in the framework of WT.

@Cavethug

Then how “shipboard recon planes” currently work… can other players spawn those planes and launch them? No? Huh… so how’s that going to work if the only planes that can be spawned, are from player controlled carriers? Okay, thank you.

As above. I brought these up as they exemplify how a WT aircraft carrier 's player might be able to control the aircraft their ship carries, w/o needing other players to control those.

It 's also why I pointed you towards how we’ve found playable carriers to work in War Thunder Mobile - codewise, theirs work much the same as our catapult seaplanes do, simply extending on that mechanic to allow employment of multiple aircraft at once and adding a few more basic controls on top of " orbiting " to allow those aircraft to be used in an offensive capability while the player retains direct control of the launching ship.

And, as WT and WTM share the fruits of eachothers development - including some of the carriers currently implemented here - knowing how theirs work might have some relevance to how our future additions could.

[Kernow1346]

@Cavethug

Now if you can only spawn planes that can be carrier launched, because there is no airfield on a map, and only carriers, then wouldn’t that require more planes to carry the designation? Yeah, I kind of thought so.

Possibly not. You can spawn from carriers in Air EC and, as far as I’ve found, only RL carrier-based aircraft can do this; land-based can only select airfields. It’s probably due to possessing the arrestor hook, which the game already ‘knows’ is found on certain aircraft, even though there is no player control for it. So, it seems the game already knows what can and can’t operate from a carrier.

However, as you noted, whether players will be happy with such realism in Naval Realistic Battles is another matter.

[Motherhen357]

!! Aircraft Carrier control inputs have been added to the files !!

gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine/blob/master/gui.vromfs.bin_u/wt/config/hud.blkx#L2580

[Shadow_CZ]

Very very interesting and it looks remarkably similar to the suggested/speculated functions. I am also interested in the difference between attack and hunt.

My main takeaway is that it looks like that it will support multiple planes/squads in the air.

[Fireraid233]

Thats interesting are they actually planning playable CVs hmmm

[Motherhen357]

@Shadow_CZ

I am also interested in the difference between attack and hunt.

It will probably become clearer when it 's iconography and especially it 's localization is added, but to me it seems like that would be to set the selected aircraft group to automatically attack targets which enter their proximity, rather than the player manually selecting targets for them ( which is probably the purpose of the _attack / _add_attack keys ) or the aircraft group waiting for a target to enter the aircraft carrier 's proximity to attack it ( which might be what the function of _defend is ).

[Shadow_CZ]

@KhorneFlakez1337

Well, I don’t know how you would make carriers just being carriers fun gameplay wise, but having them be remote control stations for fighter swarms seems kinda out of place to me.

I’ll just wait and see what gaijin has planned for naval, I don’t play it much anyways. I’ve got plenty of questions going through my mind when thinking about playable carriers, but those shall be questions that gaijin is gonna be answering when the time comes.

Just me rambling, no need to answer

Do you run out of aircraft at some point? What happens then?
Do you control more than one aircraft at a time? If so, do you just point the squadrons at targets while sitting at the edge of the map? Doesn’t naval just turn into a RTS for the carrier players then?
Would the amount of carriers per team be limited? If not, how would you go about making people use other ship classes?
Would carriers even be useable on all maps?
Wouldn’t carriers enable even more botting than regular ships?
What eras would carriers be available to? Do all Bluewater nations have fitting carriers?

I and others also pondered about many of the thing you bring up. I will just link and quote my post in the CV discussion thread. Feel free to ramble I am happy to discuss the ideas and after all this thread is for the CV discussion:

Aircraft Carriers - WT Discussion

The WT Mobile indeed provied a lot of interesting informations. Of corse the CVs are long way evay because of the gameplay but I really think the CVs could be implemented with no major modifications to existing mechanic. With all the new info and especially the progress made from the 2016 I decided to ponder how the CVs could look like based on the new knowlege this is what I have comeup with.

New CV gameplay idea based on the new knowledge

The first thing that needs to be said is that for CVs …

@Shadow_CZ

The first thing that needs to be said is that for CVs to be implemented current gameplay/objectives should change since currently the game isn´t able to acomodate the CVs.
Another thing which must be considered is vehicle and nation balance so the CVs can not be too powerful and the loss of planes should have serious SL consequences.

Looking at the current in game mechanics and the gameplay contrains. I believe that best approach is to allow CV player comand limited amount of planes in several squads and then give the player ability to take control of one of the squads for attacks against the surface combatans. Since this approach would both limit the damage output and give player to prepare and perform several tasks and objectives simultaneously.

The gameplay would basically combaign both old and current WOWS style CV gameplay.

---

In battle the CV player would have acces to up to 3 different types of squads to which player could assign numbers of planes based on their preference in same way as with ammo for guns.
EDIT As with ammo they could decide to carry less then the 3 different types or not to carry all planes. The selection of the planes would depend on the researched modification so the fully spaded CV would have acces to more options then just one dive bomber, one fighter and one torpedo bomber.

For example in case of the USS Saratoge I though about these options:

1. F4F Wildcat with no suspended weaponry
2. F6F-5 Hellcat with no suspended weaponry
3. F6F-5 Hellcat with Tiny Tims
4. TBD-1 Devastator with Mk. 13 torpedo
5. TBF-1C Avenger with Mk.13-6 Case Torpedo
6. Maybe TBF-1C Avenger with 2000 lb bomb
7. SBD-3 Dauntless with 2 x 100 lb and 1 x 1000 lb bombs

From these seven the player would choose up to three.
But even if player chooses the F6F-5 and F6F-5 (Tiny Tim) the numbers wouldn´t be interchangeable between these two.

Like this

End of edit

The CV would also have new “weapon control group” replacing the main battery with “aircaft command”. There they would have acces to launching the 3 different squads, command view and switching between squads.

The command view would be the main way how to command the plane squads.

Command view

• On the left, next to the the DM view is an overview of the state of the aircraft complement showing destroyed, rearming/repairing and ready for flight planes divided into the 3 types the player chose.
• Above the DM view is the deck/hangar overview. Which displays the progress of launching and landing of the squads. This action would take time based on the number of lifts, plane catapults the deck arresting gear and deck layout.

For example in case of the USS Saratoga used in the example she has only one elevator which will slow down the deploying of the planes to the deck / from the deck. But she has two aircraft catapults so the lanching will be quite fast.
And as all WW2 carriers she has straight flight deck so she can´t land and launch planes at the same time.

Squad launching view

• On the right is the squad overview which shows current number of squads in the air, the type of plane in the squad and its main armament and also current task and remaining fuel time.

It also highlights the selected squad and shows the actions which can be done with it.

• In the centre is the sommand map. Which would show locaition of each squad and the point where the squads is heading to and in case of the patrol also the area which the squad patrols.

To send squad to specific point on the map the player will choose the squad which they want to give command to with the cycle button [V] simmilarly to the cycling between the gunners. And then by clicking on the map with LMB to place pin on the map to wich the squad will now fly. Player can also decide to send the squad back to CV [Z & +/1], make it patrol the area around the pin [Z & ě/2] or to take direct control over the squad [ř].

The amount of planes and squad would be limited to only 5 squads with 5 planes per squad. This is done to limit the server impact and also to limit the disparity betweent he different CVs. And to make the controls easier.

---

In the direct control the the player would control only 1 plane from the squad while the other planes would fly after it / circle around.

Direct control

Dive bomber squad

Torpedo bomber squad.

• In the hotbar player has option for quick switch to “Comand view” and to “Ship control”
• There would be also button to switch between different planes in the squad simmilarly to the squad cycle function in the “Command view”. Next to it is dispay of the state of the other planes in the squad and if the plane still has the main weaponry.

After the player performs the attact with the plane they can switch to different plane in squad to perform the attack again. This is done to allow player to precisely place attecks and to limit the possible damage of completly RTS gameplay and if the AI planes would attack with the player. If the damage output and or the planes would be too easy to shoot down (even despite the distraction of other planes) the player can be given one ore more wingmen to perform the attack too.

---

The modification for CV would consist of two types.

1. These would be new armament/plane modification which would allow the use new planes or new armament.
2. These are more general amrmament upgrades which would improve the performance of the air arm.

Modification screen for the USS Saratoga

New armament/planes

• F6F-5 Hellcat and the TBF-1C Avenger these would allow to use new fighter planes / new torpedo bomber planes in the respective squads

The stock USS Saratoga would have acces to F4F-4 Wildcat, SBD-3 Dauntless and the TBD-1 Devastator

• There is also modification which allows to equip F6F-5 with Tiny Tim rockets as one of the squads (this isn´t replacement for the F6F-5 just another different squad)

Upgrades to the equipment

• Aircraft elevators would spead up the preparation/move of planes from the hangar and make the lift more resilient to damage
• The arresting gear would spead the landing procedures
• The combat air patrol would make fighter actively target enemy planes even without the patrol area command.

---

The landing/launch would be completly independent from the player, the launch would be animated just after the launch when the AI would take over. The laning would work in simmilar way where the AI would just fly into square right behind the carrier and rest would be amimated.

Both of these function are in the game but aren´t polished enough to be used in closeups on the CVs

Current AI landing

[Seahawk_2015]

There’s only one way I can image this.
So, to have carriers, they should be Ai controlled ships stationed at the back of the fleets. They’re Ai would be programmed to avoid bombs and torpedoes just like it happens in Air Battles. No there wouldn’t be much players to fly tons of planes. So, just when the battle starts, the carriers on both sides would launch Ai planes - fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers en masse. When a player selects to spawn an aircraft after getting his/her ship sunk, it would also spawn on the carrier. Landing on the carrier would be necessary to reload, refuel and rearm both player and Ai aircraft. Only one carrier would spawn each for both teams in most battles but four would spawn in open sea battles. Sinking a carrier would cause win point drop of the team which it belongs to.

[Motherhen357]

Localization for ships not yet available in WT Mobile, incl. player-controlled aircraft carriers, was briefly added and included details on the refit they’ll be represented as being in:

( https://github.com/gszabi99/War-Thunder-Mobile-Datamine/commit/eb9acb763cb36be9db76b1f9943411f588f74ecf )

[Hyrikul]

I saddly guess they gonna let France on the side (how original) when they gonna add CVs, that’s sad because even if we don’t have SO MUCH choices (like other countries), we still have somes:

Commandant-Teste, a hydroplane-carrier, could be fun for low tier:

Joffre (2 were to be built but cancelled during ww2. But one of them has been started, so it’s a possibility after the konkrast thing)

Béarn (1928)

Clémenceau (1957)

And of course the actual one, Charles de Gaulle, only nuclear powered CV outside the USA.

And here for the curious how would looks like the next CV for France, the PANG (Scheduled for 2036)

I don’t talk about all CVs, we also got some gived by Ally country for some times.