forum.conflictnations.com/inde…craft%2Bcarrier#post30516

Another thread. Boy I seem to be posting links to existing threads today huh.

Regarding the topic: I would really like airborne infantry to be able to take off from aircraft carriers. Take one of my earlier games: I declared war on Bermuda only to realise that my Mot. Inf couldn't take it. Now I had airborne infantry and 3 aircraft carriers (yes I was that mad in earlier times) but I couldn't reach Bermuda. Giving Airborne Infantry the ability to use aircraft carriers would single-handedly raise the usage of both aircraft carriers and airborne infantry in one go.

I generally use aircraft carriers for helis, but i agree i would love to have some more troop space and airmobile infantry compatiable

Ok this might be one of the longest things i write cause i failed a game cause of this but yes we need way more space on aircraft carriers and why not make every aircraft able to get on carriers and add differ kinds of fighters like bomber fighters that have the speed of a fighter but like way less defense or a torpedo bomber thats good on ships cause it would give aircraft carriers out there way more in 90% of games you will never see one if you make a aircraft carrier able to hold more planes and without specific types of planes you would see them a lot more and navy would be more popular you would see people just going around with aircraft carriers ready to launch attacks then about the air mobile infantry YES YES YES! we need them to be able to launch from carriers cause then we dont have any way of getting them across the sea and able to launch just like that you could suprise attack anyone you wanted with out them having a clue and i dont see lots of air mobile infantry any way i personally dont use it cause special forces are way better faster and that but when i dont feel like going through all that building yeah i strait away with them but they would be way more popular if yes you could put them on carriers i would also like to see a new navy unit maybe bring back a better battleship not for a seasonal unit but as a regular unit cause they could destroy any kind of ship but like in real life need sub protection

this took me like 30 mins so yeah thanks for reading

Well interesting view and some of your points are valid, but a few problems with CON being modern:

1. Some fighters simply can't land on aircraft carriers. Take the F35A for example.
2. Bombers are actually outdated nowadays. Strikes are far better. And multirole.
3. Battleships are also outdated, the only one which was actually modern enough for this game being the Iowa class which only really served as fire support for land-based troops. It was retired in the 1990s if im right?

Otherwise yes I support more aircraft carriers
Another way is to lower requirements, but that ain't realistic.

Carriers are actually being viewed as obsolete by many military planners. Time will tell if they are right or not, just like with battleships in the thirties/fourties. This said, they are used by players and have a role.

The fact, as often communicated, why we don’t have an abundance of types of carriers is due to legacy code and I can foresee us working on new carriers once the mobile launch is over. We all want modern helicarriers, amphibious carriers with troops etc.

Is it possible to bolster them back up to 10 units at max level? The 8 is an awkward number.

i'd be already happy if they'd get increased capacity with each level instead of tier
as they're right now they're kinda similiar to icbms - expensive but fun toys

in my personal analysis, I largely agree with these assessments. Carriers in their modern form are currently essential, but in a few decades they will be relegated to minimal roles or forced to dramatically shift their form. Missile truck ships are much more practical and flexible, capable of executing the role of every ship in the fleet simultaneously. Imagine a ship in CoN that could launch three cruise missiles every twelve hours. RIP Carriers.

What are those ?

A category comprising missile boats and arsenal ships. Missile boats are a fast-attack type craft equipped almost exclusively with a number of missiles, generally short range, intended to rapidly approach in a swarm and overwhelm enemy forces with their own numbers and a barrage of missiles to saturate the opposing air defenses. Arsenal ships are based on a similar concept, but operate less like ancient fire boats and more like the evolution of modern aircraft carriers. Their philosophy is to have a few ships that carry an enormous quantity of missiles. For reference, an Ohio class SSBN has 22 tubes with about 150 cruise missiles, while the arsenal ship initial concept called for up to 500 launch tubes, capable of carrying 500-3000 cruise missiles, and perhaps larger cells carrying ballistics and ICBMs. This is the reason why my analysis leans toward arsenal ships succeeding aircraft carriers particularly as AI develops, but in a role acting less as a replacement and more as an evolution of the carrier. The progression and fading of the traditional carrier into obsolescence will rather be gradual as opposed to current like projected, as their role is taken over while the concept matures.

I believe the foundational innovation for this technological advancement is “armed missiles,” essentially the next stage of warhead equipped recon drones, much like a smaller, cheaper, smarter, warhead equipped X-47 variant. This is a concept that I have been working with since 2013. Some would be recoverable, others not and forming a full complement. In this way, they could be the next evolution of the carrier in supporting air operations, albeit with much larger units of MUCAVs as opposed to manned aircraft. As technology advances, I believe this evolution is inevitable according to the aforementioned metrics and foundational technological progressions include in the consideration of my analysis. Of course, that exposition just scratches the surface, but that’s the overview of the basic concept.