People who have just switched countries should not be allowed to control cv

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Widewing
Technically, neither can a Cruiser or Carrier. What we need are 2 or 3 LSTs as part of the task force. Sink them and no troops. To prevent the porkers from having a party, respawn them after 15 minutes. Oh, and increase the number of manned 5" turrets to four on the CV and Cruiser to offer additional protection for the LSTs. According my 1945 Janes, the USN had several types of landing ships, all armed with two 5"guns and 8 40mm bofors in four dual mounts.

My regards,

Widewing

So long as the LST's respawn at the port and only when a new Task Group spawns (like all ships spawn now), that's great.

However, they'd have to create new ships.

Right now, there are other pressing matters, and changing the code somewhat without trying to create new ships SEEMS to be faster, easier, and more simple.

I'm not at all opposed to getting new ships, just like I'm not oppsed to getting new planes or vehicles, regardless of whether I happen to like the ship, plane, or vehicle in question.

I'm just looking for a solution to the problem that they can implement faster and easier.

Also, having the LST's does not solve the problem that started all of these threads.

Theoretically, you COULD kill the LST's, and leave the rest of the Task Group up, to prevent a new Task Group from spawning with new LST's. However, that leaves the planes and the guns on the rest of the ships. You'd have to knock down all the AAA on the ships so you could cap the Task Group. That all assumes no one sinks the CV, accidentally, or on purpose.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Widewing
Technically, neither can a Cruiser or Carrier. What we need are 2 or 3 LSTs as part of the task force. Sink them and no troops. To prevent the porkers from having a party, respawn them after 15 minutes. Oh, and increase the number of manned 5" turrets to four on the CV and Cruiser to offer additional protection for the LSTs. According my 1945 Janes, the USN had several types of landing ships, all armed with two 5"guns and 8 40mm bofors in four dual mounts.

My regards,

Widewing

That would be an interesting solution. It would also add more survivability to the TG in general. Further it would make both attacking and defending them more interesting and realistic. There's some very good suggestions in here for solving the core problem. I have a feeling since HiTech changed the hardpoints on TG's ships to be selectively killable and added TG's that have multiple cruisers that the TG composition is of fairly flexible design. It shouldn't take too much coding to institute a fix of this nature.

Zazen

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Zazen13
That's an excellent idea. Puts more emphasis on air combat and make things more realistic.

Realistic, we are talking AH2 here, aren't we?

How many times in hisory you heard of tanks firing at and hitting CVs?

Fine - if entire fleet is sunk no LVT's should be available
CV boats should only be able to damaged by rocks or eggs.
Do something to stop the dive bombing Lancs etc.
Add a lot more mannable 5" and AI ack

The current task force group is only a representaion, if we had a full one there would be a hell of a lot of ships out there!
So tieing LVTs to a single ship is not viable given the current task force composition.
Imagine the ack and frame rate hit with 100+ boats floating around.

RE LVT spawn: CV has to be really close to spawn on land, and I mean really close. Only had it happen to me once, you could have stood on the shore a hit it with a thrown brick.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Murdr
We should also be able to shoot the planes avalible to fly that are parked at the airfield, and be able to shoot unoccupied naval birds parked on the flat top, and there needs to be a finite number of planes avalible from the CV too according to your logic.

You can kill the planes that are available to fly at an airfield. It's called "take out the hangars". Same thing with a CV, it's called "sink the CV".

Actually, limiting the number of planes, and for that matter PT boats and LVT's available from a CV isn't too bad an idea, especially if the CV is damaged. Currently, a CV has the same endless supply of logistics as a base, right up until you sink it. Plus, a CV can be moved to wherever you want it on water. Until you sink the CV, which is protected by a lot more AAA than any airfield, vehicle base, or port, ALL CV planes and vehicles are available, unlike an airfield or vehicle base, where the hangars can be taken out. Damage to the CV, or for that matter, the entire Task Group, does not affect plane or vehicle operations at all. Maybe it should.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You can kill the planes that are available to fly at an airfield. It's called "take out the hangars". Same thing with a CV, it's called "sink the CV".

Actually, limiting the number of planes, and for that matter PT boats and LVT's available from a CV isn't too bad an idea, especially if the CV is damaged. Currently, a CV has the same endless supply of logistics as a base, right up until you sink it. Plus, a CV can be moved to wherever you want it on water. Until you sink the CV, which is protected by a lot more AAA than any airfield, vehicle base, or port, ALL CV planes and vehicles are available, unlike an airfield or vehicle base, where the hangars can be taken out. Damage to the CV, or for that matter, the entire Task Group, does not affect plane or vehicle operations at all. Maybe it should.

Makes about as much sense as limiting planes at an airfield based on it's size.

You sink at CV it's gone. You drop the FHs at a field they rebuild.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Realistic, we are talking AH2 here, aren't we?

How many times in hisory you heard of tanks firing at and hitting CVs?

Fine - if entire fleet is sunk no LVT's should be available
CV boats should only be able to damaged by rocks or eggs.
Do something to stop the dive bombing Lancs etc.
Add a lot more mannable 5" and AI ack

The current task force group is only a representaion, if we had a full one there would be a hell of a lot of ships out there!
So tieing LVTs to a single ship is not viable given the current task force composition.
Imagine the ack and frame rate hit with 100+ boats floating around.

RE LVT spawn: CV has to be really close to spawn on land, and I mean really close. Only had it happen to me once, you could have stood on the shore a hit it with a thrown brick.

Tanks could hit a CV if it were close enough. Realisticly, no one was stupid enough to keep a CV close enough to shore to have tanks shooting at it. Of course, planes didn't sink CV's with guns either. So there are plenty of problems with the current Task Groups and how they can be used.

If the entire fleet is sunk, the Task Group respawns at its port in a few minutes, often very few minutes. The problem is, a Task Group, or a CV, especially with serious damage, should not have unlimited logistics, planes, and vehicles available for launch. After a certain percentage of damage, a CV, and/or a Task Group should NOT be able to mount an offense, and only a reduced defense. And that percentage should be a lot closer to 50% damage than 100% damage.

LVT's should NEVER be able to spawn from a Task Group or CV onto land, nevermind anywhere close to or on a town or base. That's no more realistic than having a CV close enough to hit with a tank gun.

Oh, and I agree, shooting CV's with guns until they sink is absurd. Dive bombing heavy bombers is just as bad.

However, if you increase the amount of AAA available to defend a Task Group, the effectiveness of the individual AAA gun will have to be reduced in both accuracy and power. Unless your intent is to create an invulnerable Task Group. AND, people manning ship or field guns when the ship is sunk or the gun destroyed should be KILLED, and not given a successful landing and have their kill tally posted.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Makes about as much sense as limiting planes at an airfield based on it's size.

You sink at CV it's gone. You drop the FHs at a field they rebuild.

You sink a CV and it respawns just like hangars rebuild, as soon as the Task Group is sunk. It just respawns in its own territory. Having a Task Group/CV as a floating, mobile, never ending supply of offense, until it is completely sunk is bizarre and unrealistic.

ONE relatively well placed 500# bomb stopped a REAL CV from launching and retrieving. In AH II, 4-5 1000# bombs do not. They don't even reduce its speed or ability to launch and retrieve. They MIGHT knock out some AAA and the radar. Hitting a CV with TWO 1000# bombs right on the flight deck, especially considering they'd be dropped from a plane diving at 400MPH, SHOULD reduce the capacity of the CV to launch and retrieve, and probably to maneuver.

Honestly, if you could ACTUALLY hinder a CV's ability to operate by hitting it with a couple of bombs from a plane that would have actually been used to attack a CV in the war, you might not see as many of the dive bombing heavy bombers. The biggest reason you see them used is because nothing short of SINKING the CV has ANY effect on it. Nothing but a heavy can sink a CV in one pass.

[Alpo]

   Talk about a change of thread subject matter... oh well.  I can say I've seen it before where every ship in a task group was down.  However, the respawn had not taken place yet.  This effectively leaves a country with an invisible, mobile spawn point for LVTs.

When this has happened, I steam the "fleet" directly into shore.  Granted there often isn't a lot of time before the respawn hits, but the opportunity is there for a capture that, in essence, shouldn't happen.  Before you ask, yes... I've pulled off the capture doing it.

IMHO, if you kill all the ships, it's the same as killing barracks, albeit much tougher than flying around in a Typhoon from base to base, but that's for another wishlist item

Now... for the side switching argument... see my wish for that

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Alpo


Now... for the side switching argument... see my wish for that

That's an excellent solution!

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Honestly, if you could ACTUALLY hinder a CV's ability to operate by hitting it with a couple of bombs from a plane that would have actually been used to attack a CV in the war, you might not see as many of the dive bombing heavy bombers. The biggest reason you see them used is because nothing short of SINKING the CV has ANY effect on it. Nothing but a heavy can sink a CV in one pass.

That's a very good point, as it is now CV's are an all or nothing proposition. Nothing prevents a TG from launching LVT's laden with supplies and/or troops or PT Boats. Only the total destruction of the CV prevents launching of planes. What if each bomb hit knocked out the flight deck for say one minute? Consider that time required to clean and repair the flight deck. That would make CAP'ing the CV against dive bombing fighters a far higher priority. This would again put more of the focus on air to air combat.

Zazen

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm after.

Let's say you pop the flight deck of a CV with a 500# bomb.
That would stop launch and retrieve operations for say, 5 minutes, like dropping the fighter hangars, only for less time.
Zero affect on speed and maneuvering.

If you drop TWO 1000# bombs on the flight deck. That stops launch and retrieve for say 15 minutes, like dropping the fighter hangars, and slows the CV to 1/2 speed, and the Task Group has to slow down as well.

Hit the CV with 3-5K pounds and it stops launch and retrieve for 15 minutes, like dropping the fighter hangars, slows the CV to 25% speed, AND stops deployment of LVT's for 15 minutes as well, like dropping the vehicle hangar.

Now a CV battle isn't all or nothing. It MAY slow down the dive bombing heavies to some degree. And it changes the strategy of Task Group use.

Keep the LVT's to spawning no further than 500 yards from the center of the Task Group, and never closer than 500 to 1000 yards from shore.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Zazen13
That's a very good point, as it is now CV's are an all or nothing proposition. Nothing prevents a TG from launching LVT's laden with supplies and/or troops or PT Boats. Only the total destruction of the CV prevents launching of planes. What if each bomb hit knocked out the flight deck for say one minute? Consider that time required to clean and repair the flight deck. That would make CAP'ing the CV against dive bombing fighters a far higher priority. This would again put more of the focus on air to air combat.

Zazen

Years ago I offered a suggestion that HE bombs be relatively ineffective against ships. SAP (semi-armor piercing) or AP bombs would not lose any effectiveness. The caveat was that only naval aircraft will have access to SAP and AP bombs. If HE was only 25% effective against a ship (when compared to SAP and AP), than 8,000 pounds would be required to sink a Cruiser and 32,000 pounds of HE bombs would be needed to kill a CV. This will seriously cut into the dive-bombing buff behavior.

My regards,

Widewing

[Murdr]

I still dont see the problem.  You have been told time and time again that there is not a bug, and not an exploit.  The LTV's are vulerable during their trek from the shore to the tarmac.  Things are the way they are for gameplay consessions.  You cant expect players to be willing to chug along at a couple knots for a half hour in the water as a sitting duck in the MA enviroment.  The LTV would not be worth using for its ineffectiveness.

The TG also has consessions to make it useful in the game.  It can take a long time to direct the CV to the objective, and that also would not be worth it if its effectiveness via troops or other resources could be porked by the first ******* toolsheder that comes along.  It is bad enough at times on a big map were one can visit every front line field and not find the resources avalible there that they are looking for.  You can find posts in this forum where people brag about spending all evening just porking troops, ord, ect.  It appears to me that you want the TG to be subject to the same kind of porking.  I only want to make sure the in game resources HT gives us are worth using in the MA enviorment.

As far as Im concerned you are only looking at it from the point of view of fighting aginst a TG, and not the effect it would have on fighting with it.  

Many a ship was lost to secondary damage as opposed to direct enemy action.  Many a ship was lost to lucky (or unlucky as it were) hits with weapons that otherwise wouldnt have been effective.  I dont care to have a super detailed damage model for ships.  So what if you cant straif a ship and sink it in real life.  All that was needed to take a ship out of action in real life was a fire getting out of control.  If in AH the ship sinks, same difference, it is out of action.  No you couldnt take bombs on the deck and continue launches and traps, but the air defense screen was more comprehensive in real life.  There still needs to be a balance for gameplay.

A whole invasion TGs hopes were not pinned on the manpower or materiels residing in one craft out of the entire group, and I dont see the benefit to game play to make it that way in AH.  For that reason alone it is stupid to allow for troop/supply porking for a TG.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Murdr
I still dont see the problem.  You have been told time and time again that there is not a bug, and not an exploit.  The LTV's are vulerable during their trek from the shore to the tarmac.  Things are the way they are for gameplay consessions.  You cant expect players to be willing to chug along at a couple knots for a half hour in the water as a sitting duck in the MA enviroment.  The LTV would not be worth using for its ineffectiveness.

[/B]

No, no one from HTC has said that LVT's should spawn on dry land, much less spawn ON a base. NOR has anyone at HTC said that what was done was NOT an exploit. IN FACT, they've already fixed part of this problem because this was being done before, and it WAS considered an exploit.

 And yes, you can expect players to go 500 to 1000 yards in an LVT, I've DONE it. So much for your idea that I don't fight from or with a Task Group.

It appears to me that you want the TG to be subject to the same kind of porking.

As far as Im concerned you are only looking at it from the point of view of fighting aginst a TG, and not the effect it would have on fighting with it.  

[/B]

And you couldn't be more wrong. You have NO idea what you are talking about with regards to my wishes or intentions.

[Murdr]

I dont see where I specifically addressed my post to Hilts, but feel free to be snippy about it if you like.  Why not?  After all this thread was clearly about CV command and at the same time on page1 of the forum there was a duel CV issue thread but people felt the need to jump this thread and hijack it.