Originally posted by Overlag
this thread is another one that proves very little people defend stuff...much like the harden barracks thread....Kweassa is totaly right on that fact.
Saying that, it would be fun if CV groups had more ships. I like the idea of the troop ships, i like the idea of maybe more cruisers with carriers (like trinity) or more DD's for AA fire maybe. Suicide tards in B17's or lancs need to be stopped though. But thats more of a "bug" with level bombers being able to dive bomb, this effects EVERYTHING in the game not just cvs.
I like the idea of a damaged CV not being able to up planes too.... But we would need 2 cvs in each group then......hmmm
I hear what you're saying, and I'm not sure I'd harden the carriers themselves, but I think you're forgetting one very important thing -- THIS IS A GAME.
People play games to have fun. AH is a realistic game, that tries very effectively to faithfully reproduce flight combat . But, people do not pay money to essentially sit in a cubicle and "make a very important contribution to the company." That's what work is for.
So don't demand that people either circle the carrier at 13k, or pay the price by seeing the darn thing die. We dont fly AH to be drones, just cause it might help other players. We want to fly and fight.
I know that in AH1 some of the miost fun I had came in defending a CV group from waves of low Ju88s, low lancs, and some of their fighter cover. High buffs could be spotted and the CV would be turned. All in all, a CV defense might last hours.
In Ah2, whether from the killable acks or from tactical innovations, I see very few of those extended fights. Now most carrier kills seem to come from single high jabos doing dive runs. You cant turn the carrier from a dive attack, and you often cant kill the plane because the 5"s are dead (or unmanned because players dont have the target density they used to). Carrier dead. While we're not trying to model an entire CV group's AA lethality, it shouldn't be THAT easy to wipe out a TG.
As to being too soft -- last night I saw a single pony finish off a damaged carrier with partial ordindnce drop, zoom up and do a dive run on the cruiser to kill it too. (The guy then went on to the nearest base to BnZ the troops until he was finally killed, but I'll refrain from comments on his parentage.)
So again, the issue is gameplay. Dead carriers don't add to game play, and soft acks speed the death of carriers. I don't suggest that HT should compensate for player incompetence, but this combination of features seriously damages CV's gameplay values. The features were coded not to create a WW2 tactical training tool, but to add to the gaming experience in AH. So changing them isnt a sign of weakness, guys. And suggesting an improvement doesn't mean I'm "little", overlag.
I'd suggest hardening the 5" guns to reflect reality (2.5" armor stopped at least one kamikaze hit according to one of my older friends, who was in the turret at the time), and to add to gameplay value.
I'd also suggest tweaking the lethality of high altitude puffy ack to simulate the effect of CAP drones, and to push the attacks down to where the players actually are -- remember, it's a (very fun and hopefully realistic) GAME.
