Aircraft in UAD, thoughts?

[JustDakota]

I was playing this game, and a thought came into my mind: What if there were functional aircraft, and more specifically AA guns in this game? It could be an interesting idea, and even without aircraft carriers and just having stuff like catapults for floatplanes and such.

You could implement a lot of interesting features in the game. Dual-purpose batteries, adding in 1 inch guns, managing your own squadrons just like you manage your fleet in battles. Stuff like that would be cool. I know it's a lot to implement, so I don't wish to push the devs on this issue. Which speaking of, this game is great. One of my favorite things to do is trying to make ships to the exact specs, as realistic as possible.

But yeah, that's all I really had in mind. If you guys have any other ideas that you could add on, talking about it would be fun.

[markhunter]

the Problem with Planes is, that they make BB`s and BC`s pointless,
Planes are (for me) not that important,
as a DLC down the line, mayby but not now

But for the implementation,
my idea would be to do it like with subs ( the CV)
and as a module ( for floatplanes ) with just stat boost for the Ships ( like deepth charges)
binde the Air Modules to Hull/Tower

[GlebvoskiOnceAgain]

I think game need aircraft carriers, without it feels not finished. I see two options how it can be implemented.
1) Air attack from carrier when player control air group if he attacks or attacked fleet with maybe some planes from CAP if there is friendly carrier.
2) Full scale carrier combat with 200 * 200 km map with 50-100x time compression and zoom out to 2D map.

Designing carrier with different option like armored deck additional space and air group composition would be great addition to the game, as well as proper AAA on the other ships.

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Dave:

This game disables friendly ramming damage so AI fleets won't immediately sink themselves. There is NO WAY the pathfinding could handle carrier launches and landings!

It is so sad how true this comment is.

[FizzyElf]

Originally posted by Dave:

This game disables friendly ramming damage so AI fleets won't immediately sink themselves. There is NO WAY the pathfinding could handle carrier launches and landings!

You would never set up planes in the same way ships are set up here when it comes to take off and landing, the system that would be used is far more similar to that used in other strategy games with aircraft carriers like red alert or games with static airfields like R.U.S.E. where the take off and landing is on rails, preventing the aircraft from running into collision and clipping issues (of course if your game even applies collision to aircraft in the first place, if not then it merely prevents clipping and path finding problems.).

However, aircraft carriers are not coming to UAD, it was an idea that got bounced around but no real moves were made to add them in for aircraft carriers or for CA's - BB's to make use of scout planes. The game is in maintenance mode now, it is no longer in active development so any major features that the community might want would need to come in the form of DLC a few years from now or else go completely ignored. Aircraft carriers (and planes in general) would have been cool and would have added a lot to the game including the ability to have a proper fog of war and scouting system but we will not see them any time soon if ever.

[BanzaiCharge]

Carrier engagements were much bigger distance than gunnery battles. It wouldn't fit into the current gameplay. Spotter aircraft is okay htough if it increases hit chance.

[vanDyck]

Spotting planes arent a big thing, adding a bit of recon and a bit of accuracy for a nice good source of a big fire as burning fuel from the damaged plane flows through your ship...
Also they are quite fragile an easy damaged beyond repair even from a to harsh landing in even calm weather...

Carrier planes are for scouting and air cover mostly until the end of the 30s/beginning 40s. Then aircraft engines got strong enought to carry a payload that can deal serious damage to a modern BB. But then the carrier is superiour to the BB in every way as its cheaper on easier to build an repair, has larger weapon range and damage and can scout for itself.

The real "game breaking" stuff are land based planes. They are mostly better then carrier planes and get a threat earlier. In the beginning to middle 40s guided bombs and Tallboys will be the death of a (not air covered) ship. Or i simply send 1000 4 engines bombers and bomb your shipyards and harbours... or a single one with a nuclear bomb.

As you see air war would be much more then just carriers. And just put them into the game woulnd make much sense. With modern knowledge and focus research you can got some of these things earlier... Air war would be a complete new level of warfare needing so much... a bit much for a little dlc...

[Mobzonk]

Planes would be interesting but require big changes to the fame, for which development is nearly finished.

Just for example a few things...The battle UI would need to be able to cope with task forces being 100+ miles apart. Battles would have to start with task forces even further away to allow scouting and positioning forces. We would need a clock and a compass with info on when night would start and end (which we should probably have anyway)

Wish the developers would post on the 6 months development plan to say clearly what is and is not possible in the time remaining. There are so many posts there and in other threads that bear no resemblence to the time available.

[DyonisX]

I would absolutely love to see planes in this engine, just thinking about ships having tertiary guns makes me all giddy

[Khan]

Building warships in the post-WW1 era without needing to worry about air defense is a blatant cheat. Also, introducing up to WW2 era aircraft (as opposed to for example 1970s ere aircraft) would not make BBs and BCs totally obsolete unless one side already has an overwhelming advantage in resources anyway.

Guided missiles, on the other hand....

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Khan:

Guided missiles, on the other hand....

What about a Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X radio controlled glide bomb sinking Italian battleships in 1943?

Or Japanese ships being sunk by the radar guided ASM-N-2 Bat in 1945?

[Vikes7to14]

Yes, but doesn't aircraft defeat the whole purpose of Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts?

[Khan]

Originally posted by Kuma:

Originally posted by Khan:

Guided missiles, on the other hand....

What about a Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X radio controlled glide bomb sinking Italian battleships in 1943?

Or Japanese ships being sunk by the radar guided ASM-N-2 Bat in 1945?

Those were very early semi-experimental weapons, introduced near the very end of the era, in limited numbers, with very limited engagement range, requiring guidance from the launching aircraft (not fire-and-forget), very heavy for aircraft of the day (medium bombers could only carry one, and most carrier planes couldn't carry them at all), and mostly unpowered and had to be dropped from a plane rather than launched from a ship. By that logic the Kamikaze (the only true self-powered, long range, self-guided AShM of that era) should have been even scarier than they actually were. But they were absolutely the harbinger of things to come...

[GlebvoskiOnceAgain]

I think aircraft would be problem to battleships only close to the end of timeline. And still battleship could defend themselves with good AAA and CAP from friendly carrier. Musashi was sunk after concentrated attack from 5 carriers and got 10-20 hits from bombs and same amount from torpedoes, as you can see battleship could be a very tough target for aviation even in 1944 witch is the end of big battleship. And who knows what would be outcome of this attacks if Musashi would have better AAA and CAP from near airbase.

[vanDyck]

Forget about AA. It worked, well against badly trained pilots attacking large TFs (that we dont have with the TF crew limit). Look at some statistics how many shells you need to down a plane, for the smaller calibers its thousands... Anything around 2cm caliber will be only effective at ranges were the attacking plane has or will still be able to drop its payloads. They were called revenge guns...

And again. Why should i invest into battleships or even cruisers if i have a:
-Long range scout and fighter plane (like the lightning)
-Long range bombers (B17, superfortress, lancaster etc)
and build them in large numbers and bomb your shipyards and harbors and bases with thousands of them, maybe even with nuclear bombs? Air war would add a complete new layer to the campaign, and planes will do almost everything better then ships...

Remember if you focus research (what is not effective, but could be then) i can get techs about decades earlier... Throwing Fritz X or tallboys on AI WWI era BBs...?
At least it was possbile in earlier versions to get radar about 1905-1910....

[le baton]

I think they should be in the game. Maybe not land-based, but carriers are so cool. And to me Japan and US feel incomplete without. However, when i'm playing i.e. Italy, Germany and building super BBs, i wouldn't want planes to sink them right away (like Tirpitz). So i think there should either be DLC, or an option to enable planes when starting Campaigns.