Aircraft Carrier; Reimagined

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Aircraft Carrier; Reimagined

      Let’s face it; among the various units considered to be bad, Aircraft Carrier is one of the saddest. It’s a unit with nothing wrong with it in particular, yet it is avoided like the plague and almost never mobilized by anyone who knows what they are doing. What is supposed to be a navy powerhouse in real life, serving as a capital ship and being the core of modern navies, is a unit on the back shelf in this game. Now, one may initially think that the best CoA is to reduce the cost, but this doesn’t make sense in the context of carriers. Instead, we must further develop it to fit into the role of capital ships. This disappointment is visible in the community, who often asks for other ships to support helicopters

      Here is my proposal of new Aircraft Carrier. Assume the cost and mobilization requirements stay the same. Below is the level plan and tier details:

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 1___

      <Features>
      Cannot Conquer
      Radar Signature (Naval HIGH)
      Radar Detection (100): Fixed Wing HIGH, Naval HIGH)
      Anti-Air: Engages targets within 50 range
      Launch Missile: CM x4, 12h reload
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry

      Wait a minute… all infantry?
      Allow me to elaborate. Any infantry will be able to board an aircraft carrier in the aircraft slot. Airborne and Special Forces will recognize the CV as an airfield, and will be able to air assault from it. The reason other infantry types can board is so that they can be transported by the aircraft carrier at high speed. They may not be able to air assault, but if there is no safe airfield to ferry to at the destination, they can hitch a ride on the speedy aircraft carrier instead of a transport.

      Army Boost: +4% Speed to naval units
      Rapid Rearmament: 10 minute refuel time for aircraft

      <Stats>
      DMG vs Fixed Wing: 3.0
      DMG vs Rotary Wing: 3.0
      DMG vs Missile: 2.0
      DMG vs Surface Vessels: 2.0
      DMG vs Submarines: 2.0
      HP: 100
      Speed: 3.00
      Sight Range: 50

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 2___

      <Features>
      Cannot Conquer
      Radar Signature (Naval HIGH)
      Radar Detection (200): Fixed Wing HIGH, Rotary Wing LOW, Naval LOW)
      Anti-Air: Engages targets within 75 range
      Launch Missile: CM x4, 12h reload
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 20 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry
      Army Boost: +8% Speed to naval units
      Rapid Rearmament: 10 minutes refuel time for aircraft

      <Stats>
      DMG vs Fixed Wing: 4.0
      DMG vs Rotary Wing: 4.0
      DMG va Missile: 3.0
      DMG vs Surface Vessels: 2.0
      DMG vs Submarines: 2.0
      HP: 125
      Speed: 3.50
      Sight Range: 50

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 3___

      <Features>
      Cannot Conquer
      Radar Signature (Naval HIGH)
      Radar Detection (300): Fixed Wing LOW, Rotary Wing LOW, Naval LOW)
      Anti-Air: Engages targets within 100 range
      Launch Missile: CM x4, 12h reload
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 30 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry
      Army Boost: +10% Speed to naval units
      Rapid Rearmament: 10 minute refuel time for aircraft
      Deploy Armament: UGV x1, 12h cooldown (For the purpose of shore deployment and support)

      <Stats>
      DMG vs Fixed Wing: 5.0
      DMG vs Rotary Wing: 5.0
      DMG vs Missile: 4.0
      DMG vs Surface Vessels: 2.0
      DMG vs Submarines: 2.0
      HP: 150
      Speed: 4.00
      Sight Range: 50


      ___Special Parameters___
      Like the Elite MBT, Aircraft Carriers would have doctrine-specific changes to their stats beyond normal doctrine bonuses
      -Western Doctrine: Missile damage increased by 200% (Based on US Carrier’s Ballistic Missile Defense)
      -Eastern Doctrine: Attack range scaling with AA range (up to 100), and +300% ship damage (Based on extensive anti-ship armament of Russian Carriers)
      -European Doctrine: Sonar range scaling with AA range (up to 100). (Based on British Carrier emphasis on ASW)


      ___Other Changes___
      -Enable Stealth Strike fighters to land on Carriers. F-35s have carriers built exclusively for them
      -Add the anti-ship damage of NSF to SSF
      -Allow any dedicated aircraft to ferry to an aircraft carrier. Infantry must air assault or sail
      -Grant sonar to NAWACS, because not only do they need it, but they had it in real life! GlobalEye doesn’t count because it’s not even a NAWACS in the first place



      ___Conclusion___
      There is no denying it; Something needs to be done about the aircraft carrier. It’s a shame that such an important unit is wasted in its current state. If you don’t like my suggestion, do not hesitate to give feedback. How would you fix the aircraft carrier?
      Yee Haw
    • Man every unit can be used for a specific purpose. I am in a match as Congo on day 9 and have yet to annex a coastal city. Once africa is cleared for my coalition (already 80% ours) I'll annex a city and build a navy. The stack will be 4 frigates max lvl and 1 air craft carrier, eventually maxed or near max). This will make the stack completely immune to even maxed lvl cruise missiles. Boarded on the carrier will be 5 naval recon aircrafts,2 naval awacs and 8 naval ASFs. Now make 2 of these stacks and this will make an unbeatable naval force for invasions. All of these aircrafts can just throw down conventional CMs (at lvl 6 they have 15 hp) at every ship or bombard submarines with naval recons. The only thing that will give you difficulty is other high lvl stacks of frigates. All you need for them is one stack of attack subs.
      i havent used this set up yet but I was thinking about it as an option in the previous game that went to day 68 and I didn't have time before we won.

      Theoretically, if this works it will be very powerful and I can take out multiple stacks of max lvl cruisers, destroyers and att subs without getting any damage to my carrier or frigates because they don't do any of the fighting. They just move the aircrafts and shoot down missiles. The changes you suggest is going to make it even more powerful, also tiny side note. The speed boost makes no sense when the max speed of aircraft carrier is 4. That will just slow down the ships with speed of 4.5 to 4 but at the same time give it a speed boost of 10%, making the effective speed 4.4.


      The one thing I agree that could bring airmobile infantry or special forces used a lot more often is if they would be able to use the air craft carrier to air assault from the ocean. Currently on land, those infantry don't need to be at an airport to use it for air assault. Furthermore, they can air assault directly from the ocean even, as long as there is a friendly airfield nearby. I used them once to go over to africa with Special forces air assaulting from Saudi Arabia into Ethiopia. Scouted and got my attack ready and targeted.
      This change you won't need to bombard coastal cities near homelands and board up infantry. Then make airfield and you airlift support units and Tanks. Instead use airmobile to conquer and special forces to scout and hold down a foothold in different continents. This does the same job as infantry boarding up enemy cities but this is much faster and a huge surprise when all of a sudden 10-20 airmobile infantry fly in at all directions and taking conquered cities and special forces going after anti missile and aa units in homelands. Might even make amphibious units a viable unit.

      On this last part, can anyone confirm if this might be a feature of aircraft carrier already? I've always wondered but never made both at the same time. I will try air assaulting from ocean, using aircraft carrier this game once I get both to confirm for myself if I don't get any confirmstion
    • Admira G1 wrote:

      Man every unit can be used for a specific purpose. I am in a match as Congo on day 9 and have yet to annex a coastal city. Once africa is cleared for my coalition (already 80% ours) I'll annex a city and build a navy. The stack will be 4 frigates max lvl and 1 air craft carrier, eventually maxed or near max). This will make the stack completely immune to even maxed lvl cruise missiles. Boarded on the carrier will be 5 naval recon aircrafts,i2 naval awacs and 8 naval ASFs. Now make 2 of these stacks and this will make an unbeatable naval force for invasions. All of these aircrafts can just throw down conventional CMs (at lvl 6 they have 15 hp) at every ship or bombard submarines with naval recons. The only thing that will give you difficulty is other high lvl stacks of frigates. All you need for them is one stack of attack subs.

      Naval recon aircrafts arent carrier capable, which means they cant land on carriers.
    • Admira G1 wrote:

      Man every unit can be used for a specific purpose. I am in a match as Congo on day 9 and have yet to annex a coastal city. Once africa is cleared for my coalition (already 80% ours) I'll annex a city and build a navy. The stack will be 4 frigates max lvl and 1 air craft carrier, eventually maxed or near max). This will make the stack completely immune to even maxed lvl cruise missiles. Boarded on the carrier will be 5 naval recon aircrafts,2 naval awacs and 8 naval ASFs. Now make 2 of these stacks and this will make an unbeatable naval force for invasions. All of these aircrafts can just throw down conventional CMs (at lvl 6 they have 15 hp) at every ship or bombard submarines with naval recons. The only thing that will give you difficulty is other high lvl stacks of frigates. All you need for them is one stack of attack subs.
      “Every unit can be used for a specific purpose” is not a valid argument. You do realize, if your stacks firepower is derived solely from cruise missiles…
      -It can be completely nullified by frigates
      -NPA cannot land on your carrier on the first place
      -Having excellent range and capacity, NPA can do everything your stack intends to do by itself
      -Cruisers and subs still pose a major threat, especially if you aren’t too active
      -There is massive investment involved in this combo

      You are kind of proving my point here about the current Aircraft Carrier. It is nothing more than a late game toy to play around with when you are bored
      Yee Haw
    • tbh most of that is pretty solid; two issues tho
      - as someone already pointed out the speedboost is a bit questionable since carrier will always be the slowest ship in the stack so it will be capped below 4.5 anyway so not really much point putting it into a stack
      - the differences for doctrines are just maybe a teeny tiny bit over the top
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • I once proposed the idea that any unit that could air assault could do so off the aircraft carrier (towed art, TD, MAA, recon vehicles, special forces, airborne inf, etc). The catch would be that these units would count in terms of carrier capacity.

      But I agree, the cost of the tech, naval bases, and the carrier itself just cannot compete with the cheap airfields, not to mention the tech for the required aircraft. Makes much sense to invest in other navy vessels and cover an amphibious landing and build an airfield with the way things are now.

      But I don’t necessarily want to make the carrier cheap either… I would prefer if it’s value could be increased to match it’s cost. I think your proposition has potential to do just that.
    • Teburu wrote:

      tbh most of that is pretty solid; two issues tho
      - as someone already pointed out the speedboost is a bit questionable since carrier will always be the slowest ship in the stack so it will be capped below 4.5 anyway so not really much point putting it into a stack
      - the differences for doctrines are just maybe a teeny tiny bit over the top
      The doctrine stuff could use some work
      The speed bonus is an Army Boost, as in it boost the speed of all units in the stack, not just the carrier. So a stack of 2 Destroyer, 2 Frigate, 1 maxed CV will be moving 10% faster. The reason the carrier has a higher base speed is so it can be moved or reorganized more quickly. If you are a madman it also means a carrier-only stack can speed around the ocean at the cost of being very vulnerable
      Yee Haw

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Colonel Waffles ().

    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      tbh most of that is pretty solid; two issues tho
      - as someone already pointed out the speedboost is a bit questionable since carrier will always be the slowest ship in the stack so it will be capped below 4.5 anyway so not really much point putting it into a stack
      - the differences for doctrines are just maybe a teeny tiny bit over the top
      The doctrine stuff could use some workThe speed bonus is an Army Boost, as in it boost the speed of all units in the stack, not just the carrier. So a stack of 2 Destroyer, 2 Frigate, 1 maxed CV will be moving 10% faster. The reason the carrier has a higher base speed is so it can be moved or reorganized more quickly. If you are a madman it also means a carrier-only stack can speed around the ocean at the cost of being very vulnerable
      yes but a 10% boost doesnt even bring the carrier to 4.5 speed and the whole stack only moves as fast as the slowest unit; could have just given it 4.5 speed instead tbh
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Let’s face it; among the various units considered to be bad, Aircraft Carrier is one of the saddest. It’s a unit with nothing wrong with it in particular, yet it is avoided like the plague and almost never mobilized by anyone who knows what they are doing. What is supposed to be a navy powerhouse in real life, serving as a capital ship and being the core of modern navies, is a unit on the back shelf in this game. Now, one may initially think that the best CoA is to reduce the cost, but this doesn’t make sense in the context of carriers. Instead, we must further develop it to fit into the role of capital ships. This disappointment is visible in the community, who often asks for other ships to support helicopters

      Here is my proposal of new Aircraft Carrier. Assume the cost and mobilization requirements stay the same. Below is the level plan and tier details:

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 1___

      <Features>
      Cannot Conquer
      Radar Signature (Naval HIGH)
      Radar Detection (100): Fixed Wing HIGH, Naval HIGH)
      Anti-Air: Engages targets within 50 range
      Launch Missile: CM x4, 12h reload
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry

      Wait a minute… all infantry?
      Allow me to elaborate. Any infantry will be able to board an aircraft carrier in the aircraft slot. Airborne and Special Forces will recognize the CV as an airfield, and will be able to air assault from it. The reason other infantry types can board is so that they can be transported by the aircraft carrier at high speed. They may not be able to air assault, but if there is no safe airfield to ferry to at the destination, they can hitch a ride on the speedy aircraft carrier instead of a transport.

      Army Boost: +4% Speed to naval units
      Rapid Rearmament: 10 minute refuel time for aircraft

      <Stats>
      DMG vs Fixed Wing: 3.0
      DMG vs Rotary Wing: 3.0
      DMG vs Missile: 2.0
      DMG vs Surface Vessels: 2.0
      DMG vs Submarines: 2.0
      HP: 100
      Speed: 3.00
      Sight Range: 50

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 2___

      <Features>
      Cannot Conquer
      Radar Signature (Naval HIGH)
      Radar Detection (200): Fixed Wing HIGH, Rotary Wing LOW, Naval LOW)
      Anti-Air: Engages targets within 75 range
      Launch Missile: CM x4, 12h reload
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 20 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry
      Army Boost: +8% Speed to naval units
      Rapid Rearmament: 10 minutes refuel time for aircraft

      <Stats>
      DMG vs Fixed Wing: 4.0
      DMG vs Rotary Wing: 4.0
      DMG va Missile: 3.0
      DMG vs Surface Vessels: 2.0
      DMG vs Submarines: 2.0
      HP: 125
      Speed: 3.50
      Sight Range: 50

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 3___

      <Features>
      Cannot Conquer
      Radar Signature (Naval HIGH)
      Radar Detection (300): Fixed Wing LOW, Rotary Wing LOW, Naval LOW)
      Anti-Air: Engages targets within 100 range
      Launch Missile: CM x4, 12h reload
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 30 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry
      Army Boost: +10% Speed to naval units
      Rapid Rearmament: 10 minute refuel time for aircraft
      Deploy Armament: UGV x1, 12h cooldown (For the purpose of shore deployment and support)

      <Stats>
      DMG vs Fixed Wing: 5.0
      DMG vs Rotary Wing: 5.0
      DMG vs Missile: 4.0
      DMG vs Surface Vessels: 2.0
      DMG vs Submarines: 2.0
      HP: 150
      Speed: 4.00
      Sight Range: 50


      ___Special Parameters___
      Like the Elite MBT, Aircraft Carriers would have doctrine-specific changes to their stats beyond normal doctrine bonuses
      -Western Doctrine: Missile damage increased by 200% (Based on US Carrier’s Ballistic Missile Defense)
      -Eastern Doctrine: Attack range scaling with AA range (up to 100), and +300% ship damage (Based on extensive anti-ship armament of Russian Carriers)
      -European Doctrine: Sonar range scaling with AA range (up to 100). (Based on British Carrier emphasis on ASW)


      ___Other Changes___
      -Enable Stealth Strike fighters to land on Carriers. F-35s have carriers built exclusively for them
      -Add the anti-ship damage of NSF to SSF
      -Allow any dedicated aircraft to ferry to an aircraft carrier. Infantry must air assault or sail
      -Grant sonar to NAWACS, because not only do they need it, but they had it in real life! GlobalEye doesn’t count because it’s not even a NAWACS in the first place



      ___Conclusion___
      There is no denying it; Something needs to be done about the aircraft carrier. It’s a shame that such an important unit is wasted in its current state. If you don’t like my suggestion, do not hesitate to give feedback. How would you fix the aircraft carrier?
      Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic and would make the aircraft carrier actually useful. This is a great idea. Thank you for coming up with it. I would only add one thing. Real life aircraft aircraft carriers are really good at missile defense, so I would suggest boosting it to 6-7 damage against missiles at a max level aircraft carrier. Other than that, you ideas would make the air craft carrier a weapon to be feared again, especially mid - late game. Again, thank you for this idea. :)
    • the issue i have with carriers is not 'just' with the unit itself, but with the research. to have a navy you already need to fully research at least 2-3 complete tech trees, as no ship will survive by itself.

      Then you add the carrier research.

      then you add the naval planes research, which means that to get an upgrade to your planes you need to research 3 upgrades you won't use, and then upgrade your planes. If you go choppers, that's obviously better - and range is less of an issue because the navy would spearhead landings.

      but building a carrier, protecting it, and filling it up is just too much. that's why people build them when the game is over, because they get the fancy thingie. not resources, not useless unit, but research (in my view)
    • Job_ee wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 1___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 2___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 20 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 3___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 30 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry
      Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .
      You might want to rethink this aircraft-carrier-as-troop-carrier part of the "realism".

      Loading enough infantry to be the land component of conquering a continent (in this game) (that's the soldiers and all of their vehicles & equipment) into one aircraft carrier???

      That ain't realistic, especially if that carrier is the type Chad builds.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 1___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 2___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 20 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 3___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 30 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry
      Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .
      You might want to rethink this part of the "realism".
      Loading enough infantry to be the land component of conquering a continent (in this game) (that's the soldiers and all of their vehicles & equipment) into one aircraft carrier???

      That ain't realistic.
      Aircraft carrier mobilization is not just for a single carrier. If I were to guess, a unit consist of three of them. If they were a single one, how would it explain the massive HP pool? The ability to tank several advanced cruise missiles multiple times? The relatively powerful AA capabilities? There’s also plenty of space to cram in people and vehicles. It’s not unheard of to cover the deck in various things that aren’t carrier capable for the purpose of transport. Hell, they even put a B-52 on a carrier!
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 1___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 2___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 20 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 3___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 30 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry
      Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .
      You might want to rethink this part of the "realism".Loading enough infantry to be the land component of conquering a continent (in this game) (that's the soldiers and all of their vehicles & equipment) into one aircraft carrier???

      That ain't realistic.
      Aircraft carrier mobilization is not just for a single carrier. If I were to guess, a unit consist of three of them. If they were a single one, how would it explain the massive HP pool? The ability to tank several advanced cruise missiles multiple times? The relatively powerful AA capabilities? There’s also plenty of space to cram in people and vehicles. It’s not unheard of to cover the deck in various things that aren’t carrier capable for the purpose of transport. Hell, they even put a B-52 on a carrier!
      1) CoN is a game not a simulation.
      2) Three WW3 carriers in one location - Yeah, that's realistic
      3) Chad annexing a city and then building Aircraft Carriers - Yeah, something like that happens in the real world about 3 or 4 times every . . . NEVER.
      4) Real carriers aren't Hermione Granger's magic bag in a Harry Potter movie. They aren't bigger on the inside than they are on the outside. Despite being equipped to carry a lot of extra stuff, they simply aren't made of magic.
      4) Please - Almost nothing in this thread is remotely realistic. It might be fun, but it's not realistic.
    • I think that at T3 it should be allowed to conquer territory, because there are several ingame situations where if you put your aircraft carrier on the shore, you can clearly see that it's deck is able to crush a city under its might. Sailors can easily jump and occupy territory from that idea.


      (This incredibly stupid comment was triggered by how detailed the original post was, in regard to features and such, and couldn't help but think to myself "why would you need to precise that the aircraft carrier can't conquer ?" :D )
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 1___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 2___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 20 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry

      ___Aircraft Carrier: Tier 3___
      Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 30 of the following units: . . . all types of Infantry
      Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .
      You might want to rethink this part of the "realism".Loading enough infantry to be the land component of conquering a continent (in this game) (that's the soldiers and all of their vehicles & equipment) into one aircraft carrier???
      That ain't realistic.
      Aircraft carrier mobilization is not just for a single carrier. If I were to guess, a unit consist of three of them. If they were a single one, how would it explain the massive HP pool? The ability to tank several advanced cruise missiles multiple times? The relatively powerful AA capabilities? There’s also plenty of space to cram in people and vehicles. It’s not unheard of to cover the deck in various things that aren’t carrier capable for the purpose of transport. Hell, they even put a B-52 on a carrier!
      1) CoN is a game not a simulation.2) Three WW3 carriers in one location - Yeah, that's realistic
      3) Chad annexing a city and then building Aircraft Carriers - Yeah, something like that happens in the real world about 3 or 4 times every . . . NEVER.
      4) Real carriers aren't Hermione Granger's magic bag in a Harry Potter movie. They aren't bigger on the inside than they are on the outside. Despite being equipped to carry a lot of extra stuff, they simply aren't made of magic.
      4) Please - Almost nothing in this thread is remotely realistic. It might be fun, but it's not realistic.
      If a game wasn't realistic, only 12 year olds would ever play them. I'm starting to think you've played a first shooter game " in about never," but it usually works out best for games that are realistic vs games the claim to be realistic, but actually don't do so at all.