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.
-
-
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
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 -
-
Colonel Waffles wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Colonel Waffles wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
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.
The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().
-
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.
-
Colonel Waffles wrote:
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
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.
-
KFGauss wrote:
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.
-
KFGauss wrote:
Colonel Waffles wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
Colonel Waffles wrote:
KFGauss wrote:
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. -
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 playerRunning 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. -
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).The post was edited 2 times, last by WalterChang ().
-
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. -
WalterChang wrote:
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.
-
Job_ee wrote:
npa used correctly in mass numbers are extremely deadly to anything that isn't a frigate.
-
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
-
WalterChang wrote:
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. -
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.
The post was edited 4 times, last by Job_ee ().
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Users Online 1
1 Guest
-
Tags