Czar Kiev Posted June 5, 2010 Report Share Posted June 5, 2010 In order of 'strength', we have a Corvette (1), Landing Ship (3), Battleship (5), Cruiser (6), Frigate (8), Destroyer (11), Submarine (12), Aircraft Carrier (15. The numbers in parenthesis are the relative strength values of the ships. That strikes me as odd, for a number of reasons. I don't know if I'm allowed to assume a period that these belong to, but since the role to be filled was that of the Aircraft Carrier, I'll assume a 1930s+ period rather safely, I think? Since the 1930s until modernity, the relative strength of surface ships to each other do not reflect the list above at all. Firstly - an aircraft carrier would never be the most powerful surface ship in the fleet. Furthermore, a landing ship (I'm assuming a [i]Wasp[/i]-class LHD) is similar to a 'light' aircraft carrier. Secondly - a Battleship and Cruiser would never be weaker than a Frigate or Destroyer. Thirdly - submarines are by most accounts the most dangerous and powerful naval vessels. What I do like is that Frigates fulfill an ASW role, in addition to being 'weaker' than Destroyers. I do like that Corvettes are the weakest ships and most 'adaptable'. So what's everyone's opinion? Is it worth it to create a more realistic 'ranking' of ships in CN, or does this serve adequately? Is it even substantively wrong? Arguably, this may be in terms of force projection which admittedly vessels like carriers and subs do the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsuki Koizumi Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 yes, it's strange but same thing with how on the aircraft screens where Apache Helicopters came after some other WW2 planes on the bomber list. Also, instead of the discussion forum, i believe suggestions like this have been brought up and always been told to post in the Suggestion box and not the discussion forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czar Kiev Posted June 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 This isn't - technically speaking - a suggestion. It's a discussion about gameplay If mods want to move it, mods will probably move it. Also, I'm hesitant to post actual suggestions because as you know, I'm quite new Would rather have people tell me I'm wrong and show me why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quigon jinn Posted June 7, 2010 Report Share Posted June 7, 2010 [quote]Firstly - an aircraft carrier would never be the most powerful surface ship in the fleet.[/quote] .... I am pretty sure that since December 7th, 1941 that has been relatively well accepted as true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of the Port Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 [quote name='quigon jinn' date='08 June 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1275954772' post='2328317'] .... I am pretty sure that since December 7th, 1941 that has been relatively well accepted as true. [/quote] And certainly not later then June 7th, 1942. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czar Kiev Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 The Pacific campaign is definitely a good example of a modern carrier battle group, but remember what we're actually comparing here. And as I said before, it may very well be the case that their "strength" measures force projection. (though shouldn't a landing ship be beneath an aircraft carrier?) The reason these naval units are used in-game are to demolish naval defenses and then support ground troops. Since airbases are obviously not an issue (in the sense that your air force can apparently circumnavigate Plant Bob), the actual power of an aircraft carrier - an air force - is moot. Unless you're telling me 4 RIM7s and CIWS are superior to the USS Missouri's 16inchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quigon jinn Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 [quote name='Czar Kiev' date='08 June 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1276014844' post='2328915'] The Pacific campaign is definitely a good example of a modern carrier battle group, but remember what we're actually comparing here. And as I said before, it may very well be the case that their "strength" measures force projection. (though shouldn't a landing ship be beneath an aircraft carrier?) The reason these naval units are used in-game are to demolish naval defenses and then support ground troops. Since airbases are obviously not an issue (in the sense that your air force can apparently circumnavigate Plant Bob), the actual power of an aircraft carrier - an air force - is moot. Unless you're telling me 4 RIM7s and CIWS are superior to the USS Missouri's 16inchers? [/quote] How many carriers have been sunk by battleships (or other surface ships)? How many battleships have been sunk by carriers? If you are saying that a carrier is not potent without its airforce is a reason it should be less powerful than a battleship for example, what makes that example any different than saying one man should be more powerful than a battleship (since the battleship without a crew cannot really do anything)? 'Course that does nothing about the Destroyer/Cruiser/Battleship discrepancy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axolotlia Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 [quote name='quigon jinn' date='08 June 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1276032716' post='2329186'] How many carriers have been sunk by battleships (or other surface ships)? How many battleships have been sunk by carriers? If you are saying that a carrier is not potent without its airforce is a reason it should be less powerful than a battleship for example, what makes that example any different than saying one man should be more powerful than a battleship (since the battleship without a crew cannot really do anything)? 'Course that does nothing about the Destroyer/Cruiser/Battleship discrepancy.... [/quote] Hes talking on a confrontation between a carrier and a battleship, not a carrier's aircraft and a battleship... Maybe you should have to designate which of your planes are on the carrier and you get bonuses according to your aircraft type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieman191 Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 [quote name='Axolotlia' date='09 June 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1276131070' post='2330904'] [b]Hes talking on a confrontation between a carrier and a battleship[/b], not a carrier's aircraft and a battleship... Maybe you should have to designate which of your planes are on the carrier and you get bonuses according to your aircraft type? [/quote] Then in that case, CV wins everytime over a BB. Carrier's have a godly range over Battleships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 [quote name='quigon jinn' date='08 June 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1276032716' post='2329186'] How many carriers have been sunk by battleships (or other surface ships)? [/quote] I believe the HMS Glorious and the USS Gambier Bay are the only carriers in history to be sunk by naval guns and both were small light carriers. [quote name='quigon jinn' date='08 June 2010 - 05:32 PM' timestamp='1276032716' post='2329186'] How many battleships have been sunk by carriers? [/quote] Oh God I don't even want to begin counting. Yamato, Bismark, Musashi, the three Italian battleships from the Battle of Taranto, USS Oklahoma, USS Arizona. And that's just off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quigon jinn Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 [quote name='flak attack' date='10 June 2010 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1276192741' post='2331817'] I believe the HMS Glorious and the USS Gambier Bay are the only carriers in history to be sunk by naval guns and both were small light carriers. Oh God I don't even want to begin counting. Yamato, Bismark, Musashi, the three Italian battleships from the Battle of Taranto, USS Oklahoma, USS Arizona. And that's just off the top of my head. [/quote] That was moreso a rhetorical question But that point is why the strength difference between carriers/battleships is quite true. The Japanese lost a lot of their battleships in WWII to carriers. British lost several battlecruiser type ships as well at the start of the Japans entrance. Very little "battleship vs carrier" success ever happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted June 12, 2010 Report Share Posted June 12, 2010 [quote name='Axolotlia' date='09 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1276131070' post='2330904'] Hes talking on a confrontation between a carrier and a battleship, not a carrier's aircraft and a battleship... [/quote] If you're going to argue that the carrier must be assumed to have no planes (which takes away the point of a carrier) then you should also assume that the battleship has no ordnance. In the real world, you'll have a hard time finding examples of countries that routinely patrol with aircraft carriers which have no aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Posted June 13, 2010 Report Share Posted June 13, 2010 (edited) ModEdit - Filter-evading picture removed. Edited June 13, 2010 by Captain Calcium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czar Kiev Posted July 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 Baldr, that's not the point. I understand that the aircraft contribute to the potency, but talking about the raw ordinance an aircraft carrier has on board it is mostly light to medium anti-aircraft capability. Even modern aircraft carriers remain barren of large bore guns and cruise missiles. Stack up a carrier to a battleship, guns only? Battleship win. This is a ranking based on littoral "strength". Stack up a carrier to a battleship, guns and planes? Carrier win. This is a ranking based on "force projection". Which brings me to my original point, which some are confusing: If "strength" is based on littoral attack power, then they are completely out of order. If "strength" is based on force projection, then they are still somewhat out of order, though markedly less. As is, the current strength ranking of ships is out of the ordinary, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Calcium Posted July 2, 2010 Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 This thread ended three weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts