Since the “Heavy Cavalry” I couldn’t help but notice that Gaijin changed aircraft carriers (at least) at 9.0. Before the update catapults were launching my F3H2 as usual, but recently the ramp-based carriers took over. It is completely illogical and unhistorical, since to my knowledge no operational US Navy aircraft were designed for that specific launch type. Therefore it often occurs in match, that someone is bound to sink while attempting to takeoff.
Moreover, after the updates carriers are now facing away from the battlefield, causing pilots to turn 180 degrees,slowing down both acceleration and climb.
In combination both of these aspects make aircraft carrier takeoff obsolete and risky, compared to conventional airfield variant. Moreover Gaijin completely missed the most substantial benefit of aircraft carriers: airplanes can be launched closer to the battlefield, allowing them to flank and catch enemies by surprise.
Summing up, using catapult-based aircraft carriers and facing them forward to the battlefield would be both better gameplay wise and more historicaly accurate.
Well before aircraft carrier spawn gave you a clear advantage by providing you with extra acceleration from the catapult, and why should naval planes just get that for free? Maybe they thought the ramp carrier and 180° turn would be necessary to negate the advantage in position you’d otherwise get out of the spawn.
And on the other hand, them facing the other way will make landing approaches simpler too.
its not that its just the Russian ramp carriers, on some maps, depending if you are on the defending or attacking team (ie the side with the iron cross, or the US star which is shown top center on the score board) will determine if you get the Russian ramp carrier or the US steam powered catapult carriers, and some maps, if they are big enough, will have both, but it won’t tell which is which in the spawn menu
Ramp carrier itself does not give any acceleration benefits, on contrary it endangers takeoff for heavier planes. Turning 180 would seem reasonable if only the carriers weren’t located behind the main field whilst moving away from the battlefield. Since the carriers move away, there is no point in landing on them.
Appreciate the info on game mechanic. However the fact that choosing carrier as spawn option presents risks with essentialy 0 reward is both illogical and not historical.
I was purely speaking from the perspective of still having the catapult carriers in place. Having additional options for a naval plane to rearm or spawn on is welcome variety even if it doesn’t confer you any advantage, or the opposite even. But keep in mind that you can easily land most non-naval planes on carriers and get a free airspawn after the repair time (which, in the case of mig-25, is at 1800kph IAS! lol).