MattBooth25 wrote:

This is one of the largest reasons why me and other players think the aircraft carrier is a sad excuse for what it is in real life, not only can you not use allied aircraft carriers to refuel, but you cant even house troops on the aircraft carrier. Imagine in real life the USA army transferred all their troops in tiny little coastal assault boats across open oceans when there is an aircraft carrier next to them. How many aircraft can a Gerald Ford class carrier carry in the real world? 60-90 planes depending on size while the in-game aircraft carriers house 15. Pretty much most of the units in this game are fairly accurate and balanced in their real-world capabilities yet the aircraft carriers are figments of what carriers truly are. Modern heavy cruisers armed for anti-ship displace 20-30k tons. Gerald ford class carriers displace over 100k. Ingame cruisers have 75hp and carriers have 150hp. For carriers to be useful they would need to have 3x more hp, hold 3x the planes as well as be able to carry maybe 20-30 infrantry, and cost around 3x more. The only carriers that are acceptably accurate are the old soviet era kiev carriers which looked like floating oil rigs.
edit: 5 helicopters for a kitty hawk class...come on dorado jeff bezos can fit 5 helicopters on his private yacht. We might have to call him up to reinforce our navy. Do better!

MattBooth25 wrote:

. . . Pretty much most of the units in this game are fairly accurate and balanced in their real-world capabilities . . .

KFGauss wrote:

MattBooth25 wrote:

. . . Pretty much most of the units in this game are fairly accurate and balanced in their real-world capabilities . . .

Weren't you recently an active part of a thread that included people saying that using CoN Towed Artillery Air Assaults is a good tactic?
On what planet is that a fairly accurate representation of Towed Artillery capabilities?

That's just one of many, many ludicrously inaccurate CoN game-play examples - There are plenty more.

Actual realism (instead of simply behaving the way your intuition expects them to behave in a game) is way down the list of units' important features in a game like CoN.

Now . . . If you can make a good game-play-based argument for changing carriers, Dorado might listen.

But . . . You aren't even remotely close to being the first to suggest the sorts of things you described.

If you want to avoid wasting your time advancing Dead-On-Arrival arguments, search through the existing forum threads to learn about the justifications that have already failed.

MattBooth25 wrote:

How many aircraft can a Gerald Ford class carrier carry in the real world? 60-90 planes depending on size while the in-game aircraft carriers house 15.

Hakville wrote:

MattBooth25 wrote:

How many aircraft can a Gerald Ford class carrier carry in the real world? 60-90 planes depending on size while the in-game aircraft carriers house 15.

I think of each "unit" representing a small squadron, so one plane ingame would be 4-6 irl.You should definitely think of troops that way too, you would never send just one man in a truck that's ridiculous...

There are many units missing, the actual carriers in game are probably not super-carriers,
irl we have Escort carrier · Fleet carrier, etc.
Ref en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W…ircraft_carries_chart.svg

Also when a unit dies, that means the officer core was killed (think Ukraine war).
That's harder to replace than some grunts.

Hakville wrote:

MattBooth25 wrote:

How many aircraft can a Gerald Ford class carrier carry in the real world? 60-90 planes depending on size while the in-game aircraft carriers house 15.

I think of each "unit" representing a small squadron, so one plane ingame would be 4-6 irl.You should definitely think of troops that way too, you would never send just one man in a truck that's ridiculous...

There are many units missing, the actual carriers in game are probably not super-carriers,
irl we have Escort carrier · Fleet carrier, etc.
Ref en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W…ircraft_carries_chart.svg

Also when a unit dies, that means the officer core was killed (think Ukraine war).
That's harder to replace than some grunts.

MattBooth25 wrote:

...

Hakville wrote:

as for etymology this game is basically a glorified version of risk

Hakville wrote:

MattBooth25 wrote:

...

I’ve noticed that you will still lose a small amount of troops in news even if only a portion of the hit points are lost, confirming your post.

that's an interesting observation,
as for etymology this game is basically a glorified version of risk

KFGauss wrote:

Hogwash

MattBooth25 wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

Hogwash

You are honestly such an annoying person.

KFGauss wrote:

MattBooth25 wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

Hogwash

You are honestly such an annoying person.

I notice that you didn't write that my comment is incorrect, only that it annoys you.

Dealer of Death wrote:

Actually, he said YOU annoy him, not your comment.