Shipborn Aircraft

[Desertfox]

Seeing as how we have quite a bit of granularity in misc weight for stuff like ASW, torpedoes, ship boats, and troops, and seeing how aircraft are going to start being more important, I feel we should look into also adding more granularity to aircraft. Right now a Sopwith Pup and a Grumman TBF Avenger take up the same 25t. How about something like this:

10t: 1 small aircraft, minimal facilities. Examples: U-Boat autogyros, Sopwith Pup + turret fly-off platform, MAC ships, observation balloons on destroyers, helicopter landing platforms
20t: 1 small aircraft, more extensive facilities and/or spares. Examples: Small floatplane + catapult/crane, light carrier-borne aircraft
40t: 1 heavy aircraft, or very extensive facilities. Examples: Multi-engine flyingboat cranes/tenders, HMS Unicorn, heavy (WWII) carrier-borne aircraft
120t: 1 zeppelin docking tower or small blimp hangar

[snip]

At the risk of stepping on Kirk's toes, part of the reason why ASW equipment is being given such a granular treatment is so ASW systems can be applied to smaller ships in meaningful ways and allow for more flexibility under the 2% rule for the creation of ASW ships under auxiliary standards. I'm not sure we need the same innate flexibility within the aviation rules.

[Desertfox]

I thought part of the reasoning behind the auxiliary rule was to prevent ASW ships being built under than standard. Both torpedoes and ship boats (MTBs) tend to fall outside that area as well and have significant granularity. Also the current aircraft rule can not handle zeppelin docking towers and blimp hangars at all. 

[Desertfox]

I have a separate but related question as well. I want to build a flying boat transport/tender. No catapult, no capability to use crane to load/unload in open waters. Would that fall under 1910 or 1915 tech? I see the 1915 tech as allowing crane usage of floatplanes in open seas.

Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture:
Baseline: None
1910: Experimental aviation ships. Requires and is automatically granted upon completion of the 1910 Aircraft tech.
1915: floatplanes; flying-off decks for wheeled aircraft. Primitive Air-Launched torpedoes
1918: gunpowder catapults for floatplanes; separate landing and taking-off decks for wheeled aircraft. Early Air-Launched torpedoes. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs limited to single aircraft.
1922: hydraulic catapults; full length decks for wheeled aircraft; arrestor wires. Primitive Anti-Shipping Bombs. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs limited to single squadrons

[Kaiser Kirk]

The reasoning behind the Auxiliary rule was Snip had cut them out entirely, and I thought there should be provisions for a fleet train of sorts.
So to get me to shut up, Snip included an Auxiliary rule with substantial moderator flexibility to avoid end runs.

Overall, I'm trying to draw the line between sensors/reconnaissance assets and weapons systems used to attack things. 
Hydrophones, kite balloons, etc are reconnaissance. 

Things that can attack like mines/ DC / torpedoes, or weapon systems that include them and extend their range - MTBs/torpedo float planes, etc - definitely fall under armament.

there is a bit of a line in that the difference between a recon plane and a plane carrying a torpedo is nebulous as the way we account for both is simple misc weight.
In reality, they weighed different, and there were armories to hold bombs/torpedoes. 
I do realize that a hand grenade can be dropped from a recon plane, but frankly it's pretty darn irrelevant.

So HOW it's listed under miscellaneous weight really matters in defining which category it falls under, and why a refit will be required to change it.

The simple route would be to simply ban any launchable craft of any type from anything auxiliary.
I'm *trying* to allow a more expansive take, but I'm getting tired of having to spend time on auxiliary questions.

As for the 1910/1915 aircraft question :

Zeppelin and Blimp docking towers would fall under Experimental 1910. As far as I've read, they were tried and generally extremely limited, and not found to be sufficiently useful to be brought into regular service.

Seaplane carriers/tenders fielding floatplanes / flying boats would seem to fall under the 1915 tech. 
With the tech completing in 1917, that puts them behind the historical timeline, but we also don't have a global war and a superpower with the ships and funds to push it.
It would probably be appropriate to see the Historical Royal Navy as paying the additional research cost to start this Tech in 1913 (HMS Hermes trials) and finish it in 1915,




When I put up my proposed rebuild to make an experimental carrier/seaplane tender, I started looking at the tech and rules.
Snip and I realized the aircraft rules never got brought from N3 to N7.
Snip and I are in the process of working on those, we're mainly keeping Rocky's work.
Though we've indexed it to lexington and Arc Royal pretty well.
Anyhow, that should be done with before the end of the weekend.

[Desertfox]

Overall, I'm trying to draw the line between sensors/reconnaissance assets and weapons systems used to attack things.
Hydrophones, kite balloons, etc are reconnaissance.

Things that can attack like mines/ DC / torpedoes, or weapon systems that include them and extend their range - MTBs/torpedo float planes, etc - definitely fall under armament.

there is a bit of a line in that the difference between a recon plane and a plane carrying a torpedo is nebulous as the way we account for both is simple misc weight.
In reality, they weighed different, and there were armories to hold bombs/torpedoes.
I do realize that a hand grenade can be dropped from a recon plane, but frankly it's pretty darn irrelevant.

So HOW it's listed under miscellaneous weight really matters in defining which category it falls under, and why a refit will be required to change it.

An alternative simpler suggestion for dealing with this particular issue for aircraft in particular. Instead of a flat 25t per plane, how about 20t for recon assets (aircraft limited to self-defense weapons only) and 30t for weapon capable aircraft (including fighters), the additional 10t being for armories? 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I kinda like that one.
I'll include it in the ongoing discussion with Snip.
Thanks