The next low-poly carrier I’ll share is IJN Ryujo
This small carrier( the smallest of them all in WT ) was built to circumvent a treaty limitation, it 's unusual island-less silhouette is also used in the WT Wiki article abt AI ship damage models ( AI Ship's Damage Models - War Thunder Wiki ) to give visual representation for the " Light Aircraft Carrier " subheading.
IJN Soryu
The first full-size Japanese carrier to be built in the 1930 's, and a return to being purpose built as such instead of being a conversion. Participated in the Pearl Harbor attack and was later sunk at Midway.
IJN Hiryu
A modified version of the Soryu design, this carrier also participated in the Pearl Harbor attack and was the only Japanese carrier to launch a second strike before being sunk at Midway
Would definitely love to see them ingame. There are two ways in which aircraft carriers from what I can see, could be added.
1: Player controlled aircraft that deploy like scout aircraft do from heavy cruisers and battlecruisers currently. However instead of instantly launching them it just spawns you as the playable aircraft on the catapult which you launch yourself like normal naval aircraft. Once you need to return and rearm you land back on your carrier and repair/rearm and can launch again.
During this process you can switch ai control between your aircraft or your carrier.
2: You can launch ai aircraft from your carrier and give them basic directional commands on what direction or target you would like them to attack, or if you want to use them as a defensive circling formation above your carrier.
No matter which of the two options occur (personally I would love the player flown aircraft as it would set warthunder apart and more realistically apart from it’s other naval competitor wow), differing aircraft with their loadouts will be unlockable as modifications and you are able to select 2 types of aircraft to have onboard at any time. Those being 1. Fighters/Heavy Fighters and 2. Strike Aircraft/Torpedo Bombers.
When you are about to spawn in you select (like you would for differing torpedos), which two aircraft types you want to take and they will either have a universal set loadout for their mission type, or one you can modify to take just rockets or bombs/clean or a combination of all 3.
Again definitely would love to see them come to the game, especially if player carriers will act like normal ai carriers do now that nomatter how you use launched aircraft, other players will be able to land on your deck and rearm, and be able to launch themselves aswell.
I think there is also third option which is something in the middle. You launch AI squadroons and can send them across the map but to attack them you need to control them directly. Something like BS:P.
I will migrate my old-forum post regarding the possible CV gameplay
A player could launch squads of planes and guide them around the map. Also player could enter “orders” by pressing dedicated button or maybe use current pie menu. These commands would be Attack, Defend, Group and direct controll.
These would work as follows:
- Attack - would make AI squadroon agressive and activelly seek enemy AI planes but wouldn´t attack ships.
- Defend - would make AI squad circle around specified area and attack any planes getting close to this area.
- Group - would allow to form group of multiple squadroons
- Control - would allow player to control a squadroon directly and would be only way to attack enemy ships.
All this could be done in special view very simmilar to arty view. With all info needed for controlling the squads and their state:
Mind you this is picture from old suggestion and so minimaps is representing suggested gamemode. And I belive that ability to choose any other ammo then the suspended armament is no longer desirable.Player could change the suspended weaponry and flight altitude as is shown, and send planes around the map. There is also state indicator for all squads:
Spoiler
- Squad is taking off.
- Squad is waiting for take off.
- Squad is waiting for order/rearming
- Squad is flying to set location.
- Squad is landing.
- Squad is under attack,
- Squad is in group with other squad
- Squad is defending area
- Squad is in agressive mode
The dirrect control would work very simmilary as it currently does for spotter planes with one difference that player plane would be followed by several other AI planes which would mirror player actions so they would drop ordenance with player.
Plese again ignore the expanded info present on the image it is no longer relevan.
The planes would replace ammo for the CVs so players could choose the number of squads and plane type like they do for shells.
I belive there is way how to solve the issue of planes landing and starting AI would just need to get into area behind carrier and rest would be just animation. Same mechanic is used to move player planes to runway start after repair although the would be needed to be more complex and have more stages.
There is outline of staging which could work.
Landing:Spoiler
Stages:
- AI planes is in “landing zone”
- Plane is now “on wire” moved behind and over deck (current system allow tilting and turning but it would need to be more fluent and natural)
- Plane on wire will perform descend and landing
- After touch down plane is slowed down and moved over elevator
- Wings are fold and plane is moved into hangar.
Start:
Spoiler
Stages:
A
- Plane is moved “on wire” from hangar and unfolds wings
- Plane is moved to catapult start
- Plane is lunched from ship and “on wire” moved into area in front of ship
- When plane enters this area wire is turned of and plane is under AI control
B
- Plane is moved “on wire” from hangar and unfold wings
- Plane accelerates and take off.
- Plane is “on wire” moved into area in front of ship
- When plane enters this area wire is turned of and plane is under AI control
To add to this - new adition in this post
Ragarding the CV and normal ship balance. I don´t think it is huge problem (if we ignore the elephant in the room - WW1 battleships) current ships have very powerfull AA which would be even stronger against squadroon of planes since hits which once missed have chance to hit another plane. And to balance the stakes even more (after all CV player doesn´t risk their own ship) each shot down plane could factor into repaircost each costing 2000-4000 SL each for example.
Uhm… why is there a Israel Tag for this? :D
Because:
@moderators (does this work or do I need to ping separately?) @TheElite96 would it be possible to add a general tag for these subsections?
It might be possible to combine your 1.type and 2.type implementations:
If you don’t remember the Imminent Breakthrough event that ran last year, it featured a command vehicle ( the Sturmtiger ) fighting alongside two groups of AT guns and one of AA guns. These could fight independently, though they were largely ineffective when doing so. There was also the option of switching to control a random member of one of the three groups directly, as if it were a player vehicle.
Something similar to that might allow the player of an Aircraft Carrier to perform direct piloting duties like catapult seaplane users do, while also making it possible to manage multiple aircraft to the target and their own ship at once. Single Missions like Retaliatory Strike show it 's already possible w/in the game framework to lead a group of aircraft while in control of one, after all. The " Directional " and " Circling " commands seem like analogues to our current weapon-group target selection and seaplane orbiting, nice ideas !
For aircraft loadouts, it might get very complex if the player must select the loadout in use for each of their individual planes. Might be more straightforward to have groups of say, four of one model of aircraft, w/ a preset loadout. Something like " F3F-2/clean, F3F-2/bombs " for fighters, and " TBD-1/bombs, TBD-1/torpedo " for the bombers. Then the player need only select how many groups of an aircraft type w/ a provided loadout they want to carry, w/in the limits of how many their ship has onboard. Sort of like the shellcount slider, or perhaps the loadout selector on Aircraft since most AC 's will still have guns and the associated menu to select ammo. Also would allow flexibility for carriers which have the capability to operate more than one kind of fighter or bomber.
Certainly agree that a player carrier absolutely must have the capability to rearm a friendly Aircraft player, it 's a necessity if they’re to fit WT !
Ah, it 's this post again ! Nature is healing :)
Though I would personally like to see more control possible from the TPS camera than a menu - I find I’m spending too much time in the bino view as is !
IJN Akagi
The second Japanese carrier to be built, by conversion of an incomplete battlecruiser which became non-compliant to the 1922 Washington Treaty terms ( which would also lead to the much smaller Ryujo 's construction ). Served as the flagship for the Pearl Harbor attack force, and ultimately would not outlive it 's predecessor Hosho - Akagi was sunk at Midway.
IJN Zuikaku
The second and final member of the Shokaku-class, this carrier would prove to be the longest-lived of those who participated in the Pearl Harbor attack: surviving until October of 1944.
All LQ carriers I’ve shared to this point have been replaced by an HQ IJN Shokaku, sistership of Zuikaku and lead of her class
Though there was advance notice HQ carriers would be coming: a playable version of IJN Zuikaku along w/ other carriers was datamined for War Thunder: Edge( but Lexington CV-2 and HMS Illustrious are the ones of those which have since appeared here to replace LQ models - more on them later ) and IJN Shokaku had previously appeared in Darkflow 's Enlisted
where, as an aside, it 's antiaircraft complement is shockingly accurate. I’ve seen them kill paratrooper transports exiting on the edge of the playable area - appearently w/o the benefit of time-fuze on their 127mm, if the killfeed message is to be trusted.
USS Wasp(CV-7)
Entering service shortly before the outbreak of WW2, this carrier had little time to fight before it met it 's fate at Guadalcanal - concessions made to it 's protection scheme w/ regard to Treaty conditions on warship tonnage proved fatal.
This is the last low-poly carrier to not have a high-poly counterpart, in WT or a related game.
HMS Illustrious(87)
Lead ship of her class, this carrier fought in the Mediterranean, then Indian Ocean, then Pacific, and became a training and trials ship post-war. Though this low-detail model has mostly been replaced by the high-detail one from War Thunder: Edge, it remains in use on the French Hydroplane testdrive - atleast for the time being.
USS Lexington(CV-2)
Second aircraft carrier of the USN, built by conversion of a partially-complete battlecruiser. Had mounted a very heavy gun battery for a carrier for most of it 's service, since there were still doubts abt the ability and effectiveness of aircraft as an offensive nd defensive armament.
While the High Quality model which replaced this one hails from War Thunder: Edge, the one which introduced sistership USS Saratoga(CV-3) to WT came from Darkflow 's Enlisted ( and appeared in the devblogs to neither, instead IJN Shokaku got extra images ¯\(ツ)/¯ )
Ingame, Lexington is represented as being in her last refit which retained the 8in guns
while Saratoga is in a later one, now using 5in 's as primary armament
This is the last low-poly carrier, USS Enterprise(CV-6)
The second member of the Yorktown-class, and the only one to survive to the end of the war. Received the most battle awards of any USN ship of WW2.
Her silhouette appears as the representative of the Aircraft Carrier on the WT Wiki page for AI Ship 's Damage Models
The HQ model which replaced this LQ one is unusual in being the only HQ carrier to not have appeared in another game before implementation to WT. An image of that model is also used in the OP of this thread :)
The LQ model was also used to represent sistership USS Yorktown in the " Counterattack " mission
Yorktown provides the squadron whose livery the TBD-1(1938) bears ingame
Though the unimplemented TBD-1(1937) 's livery is one employed by the squadron aboard USS Lexington - abt four years too early for the form the ship is now represented ingame as using ( image from Michal9787 's archive on WTLive )
You’ve heard me speak abt Carriers which previously appeared in War Thunder: Edge in my previous posts, now here they are !( https://forum.wttr.net/d/254-war-thunder-legends-guncelleme-ile-gelecek-gemiler )
If you don’t want to go picking through all the ships, the ones present in it were:
HMS Illustrious
IJN Kaga
USS Lexington
USS Essex
HMS Implacable
IJN Zuikaku
USS Forrestal
As mentioned above, this was where USS Lexington(CV-2) and HMS Illustrious(87) were first discovered to have new detailed models.
Obviously USS Forrestal(CVA-59) had appeared here first, as did the majority of non-carrier vessels in that initial selection. And perhaps not surprising that model has the capability to be reused as a playable vehicle built in, more on the finds relating to that later.
In War Thunder Mobile, which superseded WT:E as the publicly available Beta, initially none of these carriers were present. But in it 's 0.7.0.30 minor update, USS Essex(CV-9) was readded to the ingame economy, though it remained unavailable. The other carriers probably are not too far behind, and will likely see similar initial implementation in WT to the ones which have appeared here in the time since this find - w/o them there still aren’t enough HQ models to replace the LQ British and Japanese groups that appear in the Air and Naval Random Battles modes in a one-to-one fashion.
Here 's what I meant abt the new carriers showing signs of being reusable as player vehicles: discovered that their internal modelling goes beyond what 's used or needed for another AI target vessel type. It 's especially obvious on the Jet Aircraft Carriers:
USS Forrestal(CVA-59) has ammo storages not only for it 's guns, but also non-associated racks ahead of and behind her machinery
A little tame compared to what 's on the other two, but interesting nonetheless since of these she 's the ship which appeared in WT Mobile.
On the devserver ahead of modern carrier implementation in update " New Power “, Forrestal had an interesting( but ahistorical ) combination armament of 5” guns at the rear and a single octuple launcher for Sea Sparrow beside the catapults. The latter was removed before update release, but the textures for it still exist in the files, and it 's still visible in the loading screen/wallpaper featuring the ship.
HMS Ark Royal(R09) also has ammoracks, which is a little unusual since the refit she 's represented in did not have any gun armament !
As w/ Forrestal above( but more prominently on Ark Royal due to the gunlessness), these seem to be representing storage for aircraft armaments rather than being for the ship 's own weaponry. Somehow I doubt that chaff charge reloads would take up so much internal space.
Ark Royale in this fit is something of a strange choice as an in-match airbase, isn’t it ? From it 's implementation until the helipad AA changes it was the only after-landing repair/reload point which provided no defense for the player using her - and unlike helipads she 's located some distance from the objectives area of the maps where she appears.
Pr.1143.4 Baku has a completely opposite situation to Ark Royal - possessing more armament than guns
In addition to scattered storages for the CIWS turrets, there 's also large non-associated ammoracks between the fuel tanks. But the meat of Baku 's unusual features lies ahead of the bridge: it 's AShM launch tubes and antisubmarine rocket launchers are modelled, just like it 's conventional armaments. The antisub RL 's even have their reload racks
As an AI unit ( which only appears in test flights for a select few aircraft atm ) it doesn’t have a reason to need either to be modelled, it’ll never have a use for them there.
It 's more difficult to show associated/non-associated ammo on the WW2 carriers, their denser layout and more numerous AA weapons makes them difficult to distinguish. Though as USS Lexington(CV-2) 's model borrowed from WTM shows here, Aircraft Carriers have wielded notable armaments regardless of anything I’ve been talking abt
I’d like to see angled deck Midways in WT.
I’ve just gotten new info on the state of carriers in WTM
You might be in luck for that.
From discussions on similar topics before, you are probably familiar w/ the position that catapult seaplanes are similar in function to how Aircraft Carriers might operate planes in WT.
WTM 's USS Essex(CV-9) ( link broke, this one will work USS ESSEX(CV-9) )has operable aircraft as implemented now, using what appears to be an extend version of that mechanic. While that game differs mechanically in several respects to here in WT it 's possible that Carriers might find similar implementation here as there( remember the player-usable hangar technician from last fall ? Fully an Enlisted Moscow Assaulter, down to having provision for the PPD-34 submachinegun in it 's code. )
Even if not, it 's a starting point for discussion. So lets start !
First off, ships which launch aircraft are required to have this tag:
Doesn’t matter if they only have a single catapult plane or many, this is required for them to be able to trigger it 's use.
However, Essex is unique in also having the " airfield " tag, which seems to be generally used on maps rather than vehicles.
The " "catapultx " lines are also present here in WT, on AI aircraft carriers.
ship_wtm+aircraft_carrier allows the player to make use of aircraft_carrier_unit_input.das, which appears to trigger the aircraft launch when the number of available aircraft is greater than zero, and appearently after enough time has elapsed from the prev launching. It also seems to provide for switching between the plane and the ship.
All very familiar catapult plane mechanics.
However WTM expands on these: _unit_input also seems to have triggers for changing between launched aircraft, directing a group of aircraft to attack a target, and telling the aircraft to return to the ship.
This is further supported by the contents of " currentweaponstates.nut " and " weaponsbuttonsconfig.nut ", the former seems to direct the presentation of the player HUD, incl. up to four " support aircraft " buttons on along w/ the other weapons controls any ship has access to, and the latter describes the action each button performs. It appears that aircraft groups can be launched and directed to return independently of one another, but only one group attack command can be made at a time. The aircraft switch key is probably related to that.
About those aircraft groups, Essex replaces the " “supportPlane” " line found on other ships, here 's Bismarck 's:
w/ a " “supportPlanes” " line, and much extended description of the aircraft w/in:
From this, we can see that it 's multiple aircraft which can be launched together, and how they’re grouped: torpedo-bomber, bomber, and fighter. I can’t say for certain, but the " “size” " line only appearing w/ Essex 's aircraft seems to mean multiple aircraft groups of a given class can be carried. The B7A2 being it 's torpedobomber is likely an error, the SB2C-1c and TBF-1 are already in the files of WTM.
The formations and launching seems rather similar to what AI AC 's can do in some Historical Campaign missions here in WT, I’ll have to see if I can get some footage showing that.
These textures seem to be the ones used by the switch to group buttons
Ofcourse, since Essex isn’t available for player use yet all of this could change drastically before we see her in action.
We’ll have to wait and see if any of this is relevant to WT later, but it 's still useful to have something directly comparable codewise now - we’ve got something to be on watch for !
Related to this, the gun used by Midway in her earlier fits has now appeared in the files:
Still possible she might appear in an angled-deck fit, but less so for the later ones.
So if i read your post correctly essentially we sre starting to see how carrier will be able to handle squadrons and launch aircraft?
Sort of: For WT Mobile almost certainly, since that 's where this is originating from. There 's still the chance of any of/all this being reworked before USS Essex and the other Carriers become available for play there, but the more magnitude we can imagine it changing by the less likely that will actually come to pass.
For WT directly it 's a little more complicated, the two games run on a similar framework( or atleast the parts we can see do ), but still have significant differences due to the different requirements and intent for gameplay between them.
While it 's possible the mechanics for Aircraft Carriers to employ their aircraft could be translated from WTM to WT almost wholesale, like the above-mentioned hangar mechanic/Enlisted Assaulter, in my opinion it 's safer to look at WTM 's take on AC 's as a guide for the general intent of game mechanics which may appear here later that we should be watching for, as they might herald w/ them the introduction of playable Carriers( or at the very least, the use of multiple launched aircraft at once - many ships already present here could employ something like that ).
Even if it turns out to have no similarity later, it 's still useful to discuss now as possibly the closest analogue to how AC players might employ their aircraft here, being developed by a devteam just-outside-the-house of ours.
A surer bet is on the specific vehicles which would employ these mechanics, since we’ve previously seen them shared both ways between both games. But that 's not your question at hand.
In short, this is almost certainly how Carrier air groups will work in WT Mobile - it 's more likely that the mechanics here in WT would just have similar qualities to theirs rather than being the same, so it 's most useful as a hint of what to be watching for.
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.
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:
- F4F Wildcat with no suspended weaponry
- F6F-5 Hellcat with no suspended weaponry
- F6F-5 Hellcat with Tiny Tims
- TBD-1 Devastator with Mk. 13 torpedo
- TBF-1C Avenger with Mk.13-6 Case Torpedo
- Maybe TBF-1C Avenger with 2000 lb bomb
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
From what I can see when I look into the WTM datamines it looks like the WTM will have same system like current WOWS carriers. But with ability of having multiple planes in the game unless I am missing something there is no way how to command planes to fly towards some point on the map which is shame especially when WT´s engine allows that already (Enlisted AI commands, Artilery suppoer and warning marks ).
I really believe that the RTS aspect would really suit WT NF if we ever get slightly larger maps.
I didn´t explain it properly but my idea is that the CV player would have acces to for example: Fighters, Fighters with rockets, Fighters with bombs, Bombers with one type of bomb, Bombers with different type of bomb, Diffeerent bombers with torpedoes ect. and from this roster of different squads they could choose up to 3 different squads. Basically it would work same way as the ammo but with planes.
For example in case of the USS Saratoge I though about these options:
- F4F Wildcat with no suspended weaponry
- F6F-5 Hellcat with no suspended weaponry
- F6F-5 Hellcat with Tiny Tims
- TBD-1 Devastator with Mk. 13 torpedo
- TBF-1C Avenger with Mk.13-6 Case Torpedo
- Maybe TBF-1C Avenger with 2000 lb bomb
- 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.
I imagine that game wouldn´t go that in depth to also count and calculate the suspended weaponry stocks, so I imagine that as long as the CV has airframes from that squadroon it will have weaponry for it.
I first imagined that player could swap the layouts mid battle but I think that is too complex for the scale of WT NF. And would require a lot of new mechanics and it wouldn´t be that useful.
Plus limiting the options gives Gaijin more options for making more veriety.
There needs to be balance between the damage output of CV squadroon and the defensive AA armament of the surface vessels. We can´t have the attacks be too powerful or easy to do.
In my opinion if the full squadroon would attack at once it would be too powerfull and deadly for surface ships.
Same goes for the idea of fully RTS gameplay where the players could quite easily set up cross fire traps with torpedoes ect.
This is somethich which would require proper testing and could be adjusted based on the results.
That might be possible solution but I think it could be quite frustrating to both parties. For CV player when they unknowingly attack BB like USS Nevada which easily shoots down half of the squad. But also quite frustrating when the whole squads attack BB with two MGs like you said.
I am really sceptical to the RTS gameplay because I think it allows exceptionally big first strike potential and also fast get in and get out from the AA buble.
So I was suggesting system which would on one hand give player much more control but also would limit the first strike ability and make the squadroon stay in the AA buble for longer time. And secondly is easier to implement for Gaijin.
It is something which would require testing thats for sure.
If we were to have CVs on current maps I would agree but if they were to be implemented on the larger maps where the CV itself would be relatively safe I need to dissagree. Since in that scenario we would have situation where the CV player can attack other ships with no consequences.
So I think that having high SL for loosing aircraft would be fair trade when the CV itself is safe.
But the value can be adjusted based on testing same as the ammo costs for warships were in the CBT (where the it was 50-80 SL per one shell) which was changed in 1.89.
