Are CVs too soft??

[mars01]

I agree Furious, I think they should up the poudage to sink em too.

[BlueJ1]

I think cvs are fine the way they are. But, I would like to see more ack of all kinds on them. It would be alot more fun trying to dodge all that ack trying to get an pesky seafire that keeps running to the ack.

[CMC Airboss]

How many carriers in WW2 could sustain seven (7) 1000lb bomb hits to the flight deck without any impediment to flight operations?  I would argue that our carriers are much "harder" than their WW2 era counterparts.  

Here is the USS Franklin after just 2 bomb hits to the flight deck

That damage took the "Big Ben" out of the war.

MiG

[mars01]

Point made on the Real Life side Airboss, but I do agree comparing our carriers to real life does not apply.

I think it is important to look at the playability aspects.  Currently it is so easy for a few guys to sink a carrier that the carrier fighting does not last very long.

Just last night, I think it was the Rooks, had three carriers in the same area all sunk within a half hour.  What's the point?  

It would be cool if they had a troop ship that if killed would eliminate LVTs.

[Dead Man Flying]

If I'm flying from a CV against hordes of enemies intent on destroying it, it's too soft.

When I'm warding off hordes of enemies from a base under siege from a nearby CV, the damn thing is way too tough to sink.

Fix this immediately, HTC!

-- Todd/Leviathn

[DoKGonZo]

True enough.

But there are some real peculiar imbalances in the Jabo environment. For instance, it's easier for an Me110 to shoot down an aircraft carrier than shoot out a Panzer.

It's really a gameplay issue. To get the right "feel" a CV should only be sinkable by 1000 pounders or torpedos. One plane can still do it, it just gets harder to do. Likewise, tank-busting planes (Sturmi and Hurri IID) should be able to load AP ammo and be able to shred tanks and damage ships (at the expense of having HE ammo for air-to-air and field suppression). Maybe cruisers can be taken down by 500 pounders and DD's by 250's.

Not completely realistic or historicly accurate, but right now you have people shooting down gigantic fleet carriers with light cannons, and flocks of panzers running around with basically no need for air cover. And that's just messed up.

[kevykev56]

Two nights ago our CV had all of its guns destroyed. There was no way to defend it. We couldnt up planes because of the vulchers overhead. And there was no way to stop the planes with ACK. The Ammo was destroyed at the base we were attacking. This was all done with 110s. They eventually sank the boat.

It seems to me that this shouldnt be able to happen. I really like the idea of dropping the larger guns on the carrier. However IMHO the smaller guns should be left up. When that last gun is out the boat should be sinking.


RHIN0

[Soulyss]

I think historically cv's (especially Essex class ships) were very tough to actually sink.. but relatively few hits could knock them out of the battle, and/or make flight operations impossible.

[VWE]

I shot down 23 incoming planes in the aft 5 incher last night before the CV was sunk... I wouldn't exactly call that soft.

[Reschke]

Airboss while you are right that it put the Ben out of the rest of the war you also have to look at where those hits were. They hit the unarmored flight deck and went into the hangar deck causing huge amounts of damamge.

I say up the CV hardness and make it so a gun toting plane (110) can't kill one.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
If I'm flying from a CV against hordes of enemies intent on destroying it, it's too soft.

When I'm warding off hordes of enemies from a base under siege from a nearby CV, the damn thing is way too tough to sink.

Fix this immediately, HTC!

-- Todd/Leviathn

Well put.
I've been making ALOT of runs on CVs lately and
I have definately  seemed to notice one thing though. AA fire from a CV that has people upping from it seems to be alot more intence then if you happen to find a Cv thats  undefended (player wise)


I've dived in on a Cv that only had one plane upping form it and managed to hit it, get away then turn around and strafe the ships.

Then when I attack a CV that has alot of people upping from it the fire seems ALOT more intence and Im lucky if I survive through the first pass.

Anyone who doesnt think that a hail of AA fire doesnt come up on diving planes especially when its being defended is either attacking undefended CV's or doesnt do it all that often

I think the hardness of it  when defended is fine.
Oh and I agree when someone said "Cvs are fine. its some of the operators that need a checkup"

Turning the CV to avoid level bombers is fine.
 Turning the CV to avoid divebombers is pointless and only makes things more difficult for your gunners to aim and any planes that might be trying to take off.
  You will NOT avoid even a semi skilled  divebomber by turning the CV.
  Im speaking fomr experiance. I'f Im diving on your Cv and you turn it it accomplishes nothing it is an effort in futility. Not only can I still hit your CV, but I can still choose an exact location on any of the ships as to where I want to put my bombs.
Man one of the guns instead, they are FAR more effective.

[DREDIOCK]

BTW a single 110 CANNOT kill a Cv by itself unless it was already pretty soft to begin with.

I agree that the Carrier itself should not be able to be sunk with bullets but the smaller support ships could.

Smaller ships sometimes were sunk during WWII with guns alone  usually by hitting something important and causing it to blow up.

which reminds me. when something is blown up I think we should visually have a much bigger explosion then we currently do

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
True enough.

.

Not completely realistic or historicly accurate, but right now you have people shooting down gigantic fleet carriers with light cannons, and flocks of panzers running around with basically no need for air cover. And that's just messed up.

but to be able to run around and "shred" Tanks with guns would be equally unrealistic.

Very few confirmed instances of Tanks being destroyed outright by guns alone from an aircraft. Damaged, yes, sometimes
 Destroyed(shreded) no.
 The Vast majority of tanks killed by airpower were done from bombs  not guns.
 
But I will agree CV's should never go down from gunfire

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but to be able to run around and "shred" Tanks with guns would be equally unrealistic.

...

I already said it wouldn't be totally realistic (well, Ju87G's did quite a number on Soviet tanks ...  I remember somewhere reading Rudel's account of how he used the 7.92 MG's to sight in on the rear of a tank and when they hit he'd fire both 37mm's and goodbye tank ... but anyway ...).

The point is what do you want the gameplay to be like? Right now if a field loses ORD it takes an inordinate number of planes to shoot approaching tanks to a standstill - even open-topped Osties - because there is no one plane which is a specialised tank-buster. So 4 or 5 people have to deal with dumping 1000's of rounds of ammo at a tank hiding under the kevlar trees - yeah, that's real damn exciting.

Sure, you can "up a tank" ... but if I wanted to play tanks I'd be playing a different game.

More often than not a tank rush on a base has no air cover. Where is the realism in operating a platoon of tanks with no air cover and 20 hostile fighters within 5 miles?

I'm not suggesting that one burst from a Sturmi should kill a Tiger. But right now the situation is asymmetrical.

Just as it is for CV's.

[Morpheus]

CVs are too easy to kill.

Some of the greatest fights are to be had at or near a CV.

Last night more than half a dozen of these great fights were shut down by fight wreckEring CV sinking players.

I say add a few extra thousand pounds of ord needed to sink one. But who cares what I have to say. 8)