Carriers

[FiLtH]

Rather than the normal cummulative damage, Id rather see the following.

   1. Bombs only destroy guns,radar,and if enough hits acts like the fighter/bomber hangers were hit making it so it couldnt launch aircraft. If the hangers were inop the fire would be visible.
10 bombs(1000lb bombs) or equivalent to shutdown launch ability. A CV  could be sunk by bombs, but it would take an additional random 5-10 bomb hits to sink it (1000lb bombs).

   2. Torp damage would cause the CV to list if hit by 2 torps, causing it to go dead in the water. Air ops still possible.
  A third torp would cause the CV to burn, and denying air ops. A fourth torp would cause the CV to list. After that a random 1-3 additional torps would cause it to sink.


  3. Damage Control: For every 10 minutes of no further damage, the CV repairs a random 2-4 bomb or 1-2 torp worth of damage.

    Cruisers would work similar as far as damage is concerned.

   Just a thought on how Id like the CVs to work
PS I tried 3 times to post this so if 3 posts here sorry.

[flakbait]

Big Ben (USS Franklin) was an Essex-class short hull, the same type we have in AH. it was put completely out of comission by two bomb hits on the after portion of the ship. The Jeep carrier USS Princeton was blown apart by a single 250kg bomb dropped from a Val dive bomber. What you're asking for would make the carrier ten times stronger than it could possibly have been. Essex-class carriers had no deck armor except the teak flight deck itself and a single 2.5" piece of STS on the hangar deck. Neither of which would stop a 250lbs bomb, let alone a 1,000lbs bomb. The armor "belt" tapered from 4" to 2.5" thick and was lousy protection against torpedoes. It wasn't a very tough ship, and primarily relied on its aircraft and escort vessels for protection.

That being said, I'd love to see additional damage effects like fires, listing from flooding, damage that can hamper or cause flight ops to cease, etc.. as well as the ability to be repaired. Maybe a "Repair at Port" button on the CB that takes the ship back to its home port for repairs lasting xx minutes?


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School

[JB73]

also, a torpedo let alone 2 can easily sink a ship. if hit in the right place between bulkheads, there woudl eb no stopping the water comming in (even not between a 20 foot hole would be enough to slowly sink the ship)

[LtPillur]

I think this idea might make a cv the hardest target in the whole MA. But I think it is a step in the right direction. Treating a ship as if it were a vh, thus eliminating planes from upping is a good beginning. Make the CV's stronger (thought not quite as strong as your suggesting) and build in levels of damage. A torpedo would cause the ship to stop. Severl X lb bombs and it burns and no flight land or take off can take place. And harden it a bit to bombs in general. But build in all the other restrictions tha are operative at land based airports.
Peace
Pillur

[Purzel]

Hmm,

Apart from the fact that the RL carriers were not so durable, I think we must make gameplay consessions.

I dont know or have no suggestion on how to make them better gamewise (if possible) but taking the Flight-ops-capability from the sinking of the complete CV would only add one tactical oportunity: If you plan to capture the Port that is attached to the CV anytime soon, you can put it out of commision for probably a longer time than when sinking it. By sinking it would appear 10 minutes later at the very port youre trying to take, so no good option, but when flight ops are shut down for a longer period of time then the ppl can be reassigned from defending the attacked airfield to attacking the port.

Is that the reason you would like to change it? I'm not sure if that would work out well.

If thats not what you planned, everyone will be able to sink the CV relatively easily once the planes cannot up anymore. I think they are by far the greatest threat to any bomber or Jabo coming in low I think.

I dont even think it should be hardenend. 3 Divebombing P47s should always be able to kill a CV.

Hardening them would only prolong the possibillity of a close-range furball. Thats nice to have off course, but once tons of fighters are up it will mostly take very long for one side to beat the other. So you would have to make the CV really hard so that it can withstand as much as all the Fighterhangars and the VH at a medium field. Correct?

Maybe make them softer, so ppl dont always try to waste them 2 miles off shore off a base.


Dunno, just my thoughts.

[jetb123]

I like those Ideas.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by FiLtH
Rather than the normal cummulative damage, Id rather see the following.

   1. Bombs only destroy guns,radar,and if enough hits acts like the fighter/bomber hangers were hit making it so it couldnt launch aircraft. If the hangers were inop the fire would be visible.
10 bombs(1000lb bombs) or equivalent to shutdown launch ability. A CV  could be sunk by bombs, but it would take an additional random 5-10 bomb hits to sink it (1000lb bombs).

   2. Torp damage would cause the CV to list if hit by 2 torps, causing it to go dead in the water. Air ops still possible.
  A third torp would cause the CV to burn, and denying air ops. A fourth torp would cause the CV to list. After that a random 1-3 additional torps would cause it to sink.


  3. Damage Control: For every 10 minutes of no further damage, the CV repairs a random 2-4 bomb or 1-2 torp worth of damage.

    Cruisers would work similar as far as damage is concerned.

   Just a thought on how Id like the CVs to work
PS I tried 3 times to post this so if 3 posts here sorry.

cvs are ships, sometimes single bombs sink them.......you want them to fully repair in 10minutes?!?! You seem to think CV's are really strong or something....

and why did you start another thread?

[mojo55]

I like to CV's to die when I shoot them.

[Ghosth]

CV should stop when hit by enough ord that they are smoking. A CV hit by a torpedoe & listing should NOT be able to launch planes. As should any CV stopped, listing, burning, etc.

A CV hit by bombs & with open fire on deck should NOT be able to launch planes.

LVT's & PT's sure, why not.  

Last, if you really want to make cv's tougher, you need to tie them to port. With a 2 hour timer, ,so if port is taken in 2 hours you get the CV providing port is not retaken.

No more hiding CV's for days. You'd have 2 hours to use it or lose it.

[mars01]

Unfortunately when it comes to CVs we have two camps as well.  

1) Ones that see them as a threat and want to erase every single one of them as soon as they are spotted.

2) People that see them as a great place to find a fight and want to play there.

I am all for Filth's ideas.  It is too easy for a single box of dive bombing Level bombers to drop a CV, let alone two 110s .  

I think the threat of base capture from a CV should be allieviated by having troop ships supply the LVTs.  Then carriers could be hardened while still leaving their base capture ability medium to soft.

As for the real life thing - this is not real life, it does not simulate real life, this is a game, things have to be done to compensate for not having a full boat of pilots, sailors and escorts to protect the carriers at all times.  Thus we depart from real life.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by mars01
Unfortunately when it comes to CVs we have two camps as well.  

1) Ones that see them as a threat and want to erase every single one of them as soon as they are spotted.

2) People that see them as a great place to find a fight and want to play there.
.

you forgot 3 which is 1+2

i love CV battles, but my aim is ALWAYS trying to taking a base, or sinking the CV. Its fun either way, but the great fight is for a reason, to sink it or take the base. IF people dont want to fight then it will sink fast.

if i find a Cv miles away from anywhere, like on trinity, half way between the 2 shores, i will circle it for a bit, and hope someone (maybe more) up and start alittle fight out there (battles at sea are more fun than close to shore, dam SB's). If they dont bother to up and i cant get a fight out of them i will land, and get a p38/p47 and start working on it. If people dont want to defend it ON the way to the target then tough im sinking it.

[mars01]

If they dont bother to up and i cant get a fight out of them i will land, and get a p38/p47 and start working on it. If people dont want to defend it ON the way to the target then tough im sinking it.

This is a perfect example of CVs being too soft.  1 guy should never be able to take down a CV.  It should take a consorted effort to kill these things.  They should be hard enough where one guy wouldn't even think of trying to take a CV alone.

Some times there are not enough people on to defend every outpost in this game.  That is one difference between AH and real life.

[Kweassa]

As for the real life thing - this is not real life, it does not simulate real life, this is a game, things have to be done to compensate for not having a full boat of pilots, sailors and escorts to protect the carriers at all times. Thus we depart from real life.

 That's why the CV is frickin' 8000lbs tough.

 Look at the suggestion again. It requires at maximum 20 thousand pounds of bombs  to kill a CV. That's more ordnance than a 3-plane B-17 formation carries.

 That's not "compensation" - that's granting immunity. Granting immunity to not only the CV itself, but also the responsibilty of the CV-based pilots to protect its capital ship. Its practically warping, twisting and bending the reality to meet their personal selection of "wants" and "don't wants" in the game.

 Ofcourse, this is not real life.

 But some basic principles of real-life tactics and situations must stay intact for this game to have at least some kind of resemblance and immersiveness that gives this WW2 vintage aircraft combat its charm. But instead, people ask for low workload, low responsibilities, low risks and low flight time. At the same time they ask for more fun. They just might as well ask for a target drone to spawn in front of them at the runway, the way this is going.

 Well, that kind of mentality may work for a FFA arena, but as long as the MA has its general form set out as a WAR between countries, there will be always the more serious people planning deadlier, and more efficient strikes and attacks, no matter how 'dweebey' it may be.

 And when that time comes, how is anyone gonna stop them? Anybody?

 Well, judging by these opinions, people seem to want HT to stop them!

 Hello, earth to  furballers, come in furballers! You can have all the fun you want, but if that fun leaves your CV in danger, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves.

 And you certainly should not request for a system change to do the job for you.

 We should all try to remember, that sometimes, doing stupid things are much more fun than doing the right thing.

 Nobody's stopping one from doing the stupid thing. So, vice versa, don't expect doing stupid things will still yield right results. It's a very simple equation of work, responsibility, and results. No work, no responsibility? Then no results, too bad. That's how simple this is.


ps)

Some times there are not enough people on to defend every outpost in this game. That is one difference between AH and real life.

 If there aren't enough people around to defend it, perhaps the CV shouldn't have been sent into a position where it could get sunk, in the first place. Or, the CV is a mobile airfield - meaning: it moves around. It should have retreated from that spot.

 It's just common sense.

[mars01]

OK Kweassa you have had some good points but now you are just spouting off.

But instead, people ask for low workload, low responsibilities, low risks and low flight time. At the same time they ask for more fun. They just might as well ask for a target drone to spawn in front of them at the runway, the way this is going.

This is BS, common excuse when people don't like suggestions they have read.  The bottom line is the fight at the CVs dont last long enough to justify having CVs because some one easily and quickly kills them before any decent fight can start.  When three CVs are sunk in less than half an hour something is out of whack.  

You seemed to be smarter and above using this "It's easier" or "The Furballer" mentality excuse, I don't know why you are now.  That is a weak excuse and easy out.  

CVs provide a battle, when the CVs are sunk so quickly they do nothing but provide target practice.

But instead, people ask for low workload, low responsibilities, low risks and low flight time. At the same time they ask for more fun. They just might as well ask for a target drone to spawn in front of them at the runway, the way this is going.

Well, that kind of mentality may work for a FFA arena, but as long as the MA has its general form set out as a WAR between countries, there will be always the more serious people planning deadlier, and more efficient strikes and attacks, no matter how 'dweebey' it may be.

Give me a break.  Who asked for a low work load, low risk, where did anyone say that a well planned attack should be stopped.  Uhhhh no where.  

I am all for losing a CV to a consorted effort as I have said.  I am against one guy dropping a CV.  That is not some great war plan, composed by "more serious people" .

And when that time comes, how is anyone gonna stop them? Anybody?

Who cares who stops who as long as it provides a nice long decent exhausting FIGHT!

Well, judging by these opinions, people seem to want HT to stop them!

Hmmmm, your judgement on opinions read = Your ASSUMPTIONs.  No one wants to stop people from killing carriers.  That assumption is just plain silly.

Hello, earth to furballers, come in furballers! You can have all the fun you want, but if that fun leaves your CV in danger, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves.

And you certainly should not request for a system change to do the job for you.

You are completely off base here, again no one wants to totally stop CVs from being killed, I would like to see them last longer so the fight can go on and last more than five mins.  You seem to want the CVs to stay weak so you can easily kill them, perhaps it's you looking for the "low workload, low responsibilities, low risks" because as I see it hardening the carriers would only Up the workload, up the risks and up the responsibilies of those trying to kill it, thus creating more of a fight, more of a chance to successfully defend a CV etc.


As for the rest of your rant, get off the soap box.  "We should all try to remember"  that sometimes when things are hardened there is more fighting, more fun, more risk and more adventure.

BTW - How many pounds does a fully loaded Box of Lancs carry?  Most of the time that is what I see attacking a CV.

your posts are usually well thought out and make some good points, I'm going to chalk this last one up to a lapse in better judgement.

Furballer Mentality, that is one of the weakest accustations on these BBs.  I have not seen anywhere in either of these posts about carriers, anyone attack anybody for bombing the CVs, why are you attacking Furballers?  Why does someone always have to reduce these threads to such a stupid level.  Furballer Vs Building Battler.  

I have seen some good suggestions to up the carrier defenses, but I havn't seen one reason why they shouldn't increase the hardness or way a carrier is killed.

If there aren't enough people around to defend it, perhaps the CV shouldn't have been sent into a position where it could get sunk, in the first place. Or, the CV is a mobile airfield - meaning: it moves around. It should have retreated from that spot.

It's just common sense.

Yeah I really don't think that quote you copied out has anything to do with losing carriers to stupid captains here.  If you read the post and understand it in context you would realize that we are talking about open water here.

if i find a Cv miles away from anywhere, like on trinity, half way between the 2 shores, i will circle it for a bit, and hope someone (maybe more) up and start alittle fight out there (battles at sea are more fun than close to shore, dam SB's). If they dont bother to up and i cant get a fight out of them i will land, and get a p38/p47 and start working on it. If people dont want to defend it ON the way to the target then tough im sinking it.

[GuyNoir]

I think the fleet ack should take out a low-flying group of bombers no problem.  At least then, they'd have to work a little before dropping their huge bombload on the carrier.