With the use of rail guns and laser cannons, that actually could be a thing in the near future, you never know in this day and age.
Aircraft Carrier; Reimagined
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
You kind of contradicted yourself there. You are right; CoN is a game and not a simulation, so why does it matter if my aircraft carrier can carry a whole bunch of stuff on the inside it wouldn’t be able to carry in real life? Pick a side: Is the game realistic or arcade?
KFGauss wrote:
1) CoN is a game not a simulation.2) Three WW3 carriers in one location - Yeah, that's realistic
Colonel Waffles wrote:
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!KFGauss wrote:
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???
Job_ee wrote:
Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .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
That ain't 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.
Yee Haw -
I’ll have to think about thatYee Haw
-
Nah, instead I kinda think I consistently contradicted any notion that your imaginary carrier (made of unobtanium) is realistic, along with any notion that the imaginary units that are in the game are realistic.
Colonel Waffles wrote:
You kind of contradicted yourself there. You are right; CoN is a game and not a simulation, so why does it matter if my aircraft carrier can carry a whole bunch of stuff on the inside it wouldn’t be able to carry in real life? Pick a side: Is the game realistic or arcade?KFGauss wrote:
1) CoN is a game not a simulation.2) Three WW3 carriers in one location - Yeah, that's realistic3) 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.Colonel Waffles wrote:
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!KFGauss wrote:
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.Job_ee wrote:
Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .
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.
-
This is the point in the exchange where either extreme sarcasm, or moving on to something more productive is appropriate.
Job_ee wrote:
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.
-
Preach it. They only pursue weapons that are fake. They don't know what it's like to know *true* military prowess.
Colonel Waffles wrote:
You kind of contradicted yourself there. You are right; CoN is a game and not a simulation, so why does it matter if my aircraft carrier can carry a whole bunch of stuff on the inside it wouldn’t be able to carry in real life? Pick a side: Is the game realistic or arcade?KFGauss wrote:
1) CoN is a game not a simulation.2) Three WW3 carriers in one location - Yeah, that's realistic3) 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.Colonel Waffles wrote:
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!KFGauss wrote:
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.Job_ee wrote:
Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .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
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.
-
Says the guy criticizing someone for trying to make a game realistic, and just better in general. Please stop criticizing him until you reach the rank of 40
KFGauss wrote:
This is the point in the exchange where either extreme sarcasm, or moving on to something more productive is appropriate.Job_ee wrote:
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.
-
Imaginary carrier eh, yes because no carrier, or naval strike force in the world has ever carried troops or would plan to in the outbreak of WW3, oh wait, I'm wrong. The US would actually do that to Russia? Oh, I guess carriers are capable of housing troops and Special Ops are capable of operating off of them.
KFGauss wrote:
Nah, instead I kinda think I consistently contradicted any notion that your imaginary carrier (made of unobtanium) is realistic, along with any notion that the imaginary units that are in the game are realistic.Colonel Waffles wrote:
You kind of contradicted yourself there. You are right; CoN is a game and not a simulation, so why does it matter if my aircraft carrier can carry a whole bunch of stuff on the inside it wouldn’t be able to carry in real life? Pick a side: Is the game realistic or arcade?KFGauss wrote:
1) CoN is a game not a simulation.2) Three WW3 carriers in one location - Yeah, that's realistic3) 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.Colonel Waffles wrote:
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!KFGauss wrote:
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.Job_ee wrote:
Please! Yes!!!!!! This is very realistic . . .
4) Please - Almost nothing in this thread is remotely realistic. It might be fun, but it's not realistic.
At this point, with all of your opposition for a good- I mean realistic depiction of WW3, maybe I could just make a carbon copy of the game, change the units so that they're more accurate, add units that are actually used in warfare, and then watch and see all of the people who serve/ed in the military play it, because it's actually realistic and funner. People wouldn't play this game if it didn't have a degree of realism. People like my alliance agree that it needs to be more realistic if it is to improve in quality. There are plenty of high ranking players that agree with me. -
Please read more carefully - I criticized the notion of "realism" that someone claimed the wholly-unrealistic and wholly-imaginary proposed game unit would introduce.
Have a nice day. -
My point is that the unit proposed is extremely realistic and is supported by players with more XP than you. And as a game that claims to use realistic units in their creepy adds on social media, it should make strides to actually do so.
KFGauss wrote:
Please read more carefully - I criticized the notion of "realism" that someone claimed the wholly-unrealistic and wholly-imaginary proposed game unit would introduce.
Have a nice day.
-
Aircraft carrier only needs 1 change to make it very powerful. It should be able to carry airborne infantry that can deploy from the carrier and conquer territory. It is true that the carrier is not used often but it actually is a very powerful naval asset when used properly. If you like your carrier to go faster the solution is simple....add the renowned skipper to a stack of 4 carriers. Now you will be moving along at a nice 4.375 and still have enough missile defense to be immune to cruise missiles. The carrier should roll with naval air superiority fighters, asw choppers and naval awacs. With this setup you have a mobile base that can support your other naval units. ASW can detect and kill subs while naval air sups take down npa and launch missiles at unprotected cruisers. High level asw are also able to deal good damage to frigates stacks.
-
I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the game is realistic, because it's marketing tries to sell it as "realist" to an audience that, by design, has a limited understanding of reality.
My main complain with the Carrier is more about its genetics in the game economy : The legitimate players can only deploy it in mid-late game where the map is already done. By that time, the aircraft carrier is less "a strategic option", and more a show of dominance.
And when the aircraft carrier is deployed in power in early-mid, well, we all know what it means from the player
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. -
I think this is a good idea.
Colonel Waffles wrote:
Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry
But to me, the best way to bring Aircraft Carriers into the game more would be to make fixed wing aircraft a little less fucking useless against navy stacks. If air units were a genuine threat to fleets (they aren't, currently) it'd become as important to control the airspace above your fleet as it is to control the airspace above your ground forces, and suddenly you'd see people wanting to have ASFs cover their navy in order to provide protection from NSF and NPAs - currently they just don't need this. And then you'd want Carriers to bring NASFs with you for defence and NSFs to provide offensive power (against ships). -
I understand your second point, but then I could make the same point against missiles. It's a mid-late game weapon and once chemical warheads are researched, everyone in the game knows what you're up to and needs to be used very wisely if it is to be an effective weapon and can be very costly and time consuming, and yet there's a whole research branch for it.
Opulon wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the game is realistic, because it's marketing tries to sell it as "realist" to an audience that, by design, has a limited understanding of reality.
My main complain with the Carrier is more about its genetics in the game economy : The legitimate players can only deploy it in mid-late game where the map is already done. By that time, the aircraft carrier is less "a strategic option", and more a show of dominance.
And when the aircraft carrier is deployed in power in early-mid, well, we all know what it means from the player
And with your first point, so you're saying what CON is doing is actually click baiting? And for a game that says it doesn't try to be realistic, shows many attempts to do so and that's clear as day. Why have research doctrine, doctrine advantages, specific names of units, radar range, attack range, armored/soft target damage/health, splash damage, stealth, and many more of these game characteristics? The game could make the same amount of money with a lot less effort if this were the case? Also, realistic game play is *always* more popular than fake. Why are virtual reality head sets so popular these days for example? Because it feels more life like, even if the game itself can seem childish. How about another example, modern day first shooter games usually make huge strides to make the game very lifelike an accurate to war in real life, while still trying to make the game fun. I and some very high ranking members in my alliance, and discord servers highly suggest trying to harp on making the game more lifelike like the rest of the gaming community. -
I get that NSF and NSF are often overlooked, but npa used correctly in mass numbers are extremely deadly to anything that isn't a frigate.
WalterChang wrote:
I think this is a good idea.Colonel Waffles wrote:
Aircraft Carrier: Can accommodate up to 10 of the following units: ASWH, NASF, NSF, HG, AH, NAWACS, UAV, SSF, all types of Infantry
But to me, the best way to bring Aircraft Carriers into the game more would be to make fixed wing aircraft a little less fucking useless against navy stacks. If air units were a genuine threat to fleets (they aren't, currently) it'd become as important to control the airspace above your fleet as it is to control the airspace above your ground forces, and suddenly you'd see people wanting to have ASFs cover their navy in order to provide protection from NSF and NPAs - currently they just don't need this. And then you'd want Carriers to bring NSFs with you for defence and NSFs to provide offensive power.
-
How often do you get to attack fleets that don't have frigates with them?
Job_ee wrote:
npa used correctly in mass numbers are extremely deadly to anything that isn't a frigate.
-
Also question, how did you get your current game stats? According to your game account, you have more than a 32:1 kill ratio for infantry and very similar with armored. Heavies is also a 32:1 kill ratio. What are you doing to get these game stats? Melliodas for example doesn't have stats that come close, and he's an expert.
Opulon wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the game is realistic, because it's marketing tries to sell it as "realist" to an audience that, by design, has a limited understanding of reality.
My main complain with the Carrier is more about its genetics in the game economy : The legitimate players can only deploy it in mid-late game where the map is already done. By that time, the aircraft carrier is less "a strategic option", and more a show of dominance.
And when the aircraft carrier is deployed in power in early-mid, well, we all know what it means from the player
-
Quite often. Not always, but often. many players go for destroyers and cruisers. How is it for you?
WalterChang wrote:
How often do you get to attack fleets that don't have frigates with them?Job_ee wrote:
npa used correctly in mass numbers are extremely deadly to anything that isn't a frigate.
-
I find that frigates are common enough for NPAs not to be very viable. The fact that it's difficult to ascertain the composition of a naval radar contact without getting your reccy unit shot to bits compounds the problem - you often don't know what you're attacking until you do it, and if there is a frigate there your planes get utterly wrecked.
Even without frigates, 5 NPAs can't generally kill a stack of 5 other ships, because of the HP disparity. Because you need to massively outnumber the ships with your NPAs, this makes them an expensive, inefficient solution to fighting against a strong navy - you might as well just build ships of your own for that cost. -
Problem is it's never just 5 npas. For example, in the last game I was in, I had a sub frigate combo. I was attacked by ASWs against my frigates and then the NPA did the rest. I was fortunate max level ballistic subs have 50 hp each. Plus, with a decent economy, npa's can be extremely cheap and time effective instead of making a fleet the same size as a potential opponent. As long as you're making more than 200 comp and 100 electronics a day, it's really not that hard to make a fleet of 15-20 npa. After that, upgrade them. I've seen it done to me and have used it myself. It's really just a game of economics. If you keep a tight track record of your economy and make the right investments to keep it flourishing, you can make anything you want. Heck, I've made a 10 + max ballistic sub fleet and over 170 warheads in a matter of real days without golding and still had plenty of time and resources to invest in other troops. A few stacks of npa's are nothing in comparison. Oh, and with that firepower, I flattened half a continent. And my coalition still lost, granted not by much. It was shear luck I lost. Europe looked like a Christmas tree. XD
WalterChang wrote:
I find that frigates are common enough for NPAs not to be very viable. The fact that it's difficult to ascertain the composition of a naval radar contact without getting your reccy unit shot to bits compounds the problem - you often don't know what you're attacking until you do it, and if there is a frigate there your planes get utterly wrecked.
Even without frigates, 5 NPAs can't generally kill a stack of 5 other ships, because of the HP disparity. Because you need to massively outnumber the ships with your NPAs, this makes them an expensive, inefficient solution to fighting against a strong navy - you might as well just build ships of your own for that cost.
-
Share