OK, so we all know the carriers are sized out of proportion. I think the devs should resize the carriers to be realistic. The USS Tiny (Average ww2 aircraft carrier) should be 700ft long, or a bit longer than the current USS beast, and the new USS beast should be 1000ft long, or 500ft longer than the current USS Beast.
Tell me what ya think
USS Beast is a Nimitz Class Heavy Carrier
And
USS Tiny is a Bogue Class light carrier
@Feanor You're right!
@ICESX The St. Low is the most famous jeep carrier.
In fact,the main problem is there are too few ships...
stick two more at maywar with escorts and subs
@Brields95 I said generic, I don't know WW2 ships....Except the famous ones
The Tiny is a St. Low class carrier. Try again.
I see what you mean, but as GINGER01 pointed out, it would prove less about the aircraft and person flying it.
Also, the destroyers should be a little larger since they look like little toy boats.
I agree with that. @SlowJet
by doubling the size of the carriers, it will make it easier to land on them. There is no challenge in that. That is why there are challenges to land on both the carriers. If you want to hark on the realism of the carriers then you should also hark on the realism of crosswinds. No plane would ever fly through 200 mph of crosswind. The crosswind isn't 100% realistic. These carriers are not supposed to be realistic as well.
The entire point of the USS Tiny is to be tiny, so it would defeat the purpose.
They should both be around twice the current size. Not to mention that I have a corvette that's almost the size of "destroyers" escorting USS Beast