Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Given that Sea Power is a combat simulation, I personally prefer the additional realism of having full capability carriers. At the same time, from the perspective of the people making the came playable and somewhat 'fair,' American carriers in game and IRL are the absolute definition of OP. I am Australian and the entire combat power of the Royal Australian Air Force can be put on board one Nimitz class ship. There are 11 supercarriers. Each one with whole nation's worth of airpower on board. I totally understand why the devs are tying a hand behind their backs!
The other reason for slowing down the cycle rate is because it is not practical to simulate maintenance availability. At this time, there is no modelling of damaged aircraft that need time to be repaired, refueled and rearmed. If a carrier and crew have all new shiny stuff and have a good couple of days warning before kicking off WW3, of course they can launch the entire air wing in 1/2 an hour or so. But that is very unrealistic. Flight operations begin when they leave port and continue almost all the time. Sustained operations are done with equipment that has to be constantly maintained by people who are very tired.
It's a really, really complicated topic and impossible to accurately simulate on a computer game. Personally, I think the dev's have balanced it fairly well.