Author Topic: Carrier Hardness (Read 586 times)

RATTFINK · « **on:** February 02, 2007, 01:30:30 PM »

Could we make 'em harder to kill? Being in a Naval squad & keeping a our base (CV) from sinking is pretty hard sometimes. Makeing the CV a harder object to take down would be nice.

tedrbr · « **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2007, 02:34:16 PM »

Recurrent theme.

Carrier hardness is not the problem.
The way carriers are used in this game by the players is.

* TG's are run right up onto bases that still have ord, onto the spawn points of PT's with torps, and into easy range of operational shore batteries. Boom. I've seen a full court vulch off a CV that was repeatedly getting hammered by SB's, and no-one would lift ord to kill the SB. Usually ends in: "oh...the CV just went down.....awwww...."

* Combat operations are run with no high, middle, or low CAP over the CV while everyone flies off to vulch and furball to the nearest enemy base. Of course bombers are more effective vs CV's than in WWII.... no opposition.

* TG commanders will send a CV deep to "sneak" a base, while some yahoo will lift from it way early and give away it's position on dar.

The best solution to help CV's that' I've seen would be adding 3 picket destroyers with their own radar rings at distance from the CV.... holding station, and doing their best to avoid closing on land. To do this, they would have to be fast, and pivot around the CV group at some distance, keeping as far from land as they could manage in the process, as well as maintaining a minimum distance between each other around the picket line.

This at least extends dar without having to increase dar for airfields too, or separating the two radars in game to allow CV pilots *some* chance at interception of the incoming bombers, since few are ever willing to patrol for them.

RATTFINK · « **Reply #2 on:** February 02, 2007, 03:00:08 PM »

I agree w/ ya on the way carriers are used (mainly land luvers). My squad the VF-31 “Tomcatters” keep CAP while others furball.

We wish that Naval squads could have control over the carriers (seeing, it is our base).

I would luv to see your ideas applied to AHII. I would also like the CV hardened though.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:19:08 PM »

I suppose it would not be terrible if they were harder to sink, IF sinking the carrier was not the ONLY way to keep planes from launching. Hitting a carrier should AT LEAST slow or stop air operations for some period of time, say 5-15 minutes, AND possibly slow the carrier group.

The ships should really have a more complex damage model, so that simple tonnage wouldn't be the determining factor on whether it sank or not.

Attacking ships should require special bombs, for example armor piercing 1K pounders or better, and not GP bombs. It should also be impossible to sink a large ship with cannons. Taking out guns (open top) is one thing, but sinking a ship with cannons is pretty goofy. But if you can put a couple of 1K# AP bombs on a carrier in a dive from 10K it should put it out of commision for a good period of time at the least.

RATTFINK · « **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2007, 06:30:46 PM »

By our wishes combined

hmm, hmm... did anyone notice that Captain Planet had a mullet?

Helrazr1 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2007, 06:44:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RATTFINK
By our wishes combined

hmm, hmm... did anyone notice that Captain Planet had a mullet?

So does Rattfink!

RATTFINK · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2007, 06:52:56 PM »

lol baldy

tedrbr · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2007, 07:56:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I suppose it would not be terrible if they were harder to sink, IF sinking the carrier was not the ONLY way to keep planes from launching. Hitting a carrier should AT LEAST slow or stop air operations for some period of time, say 5-15 minutes, AND possibly slow the carrier group.

The ships should really have a more complex damage model, so that simple tonnage wouldn't be the determining factor on whether it sank or not.

That could be interesting. Having a CV listing hard from torpedo hits. Fire and damage control parties simulated --- sort of an accelerated resupply effort on-board ship. Can the CV reduce it's damage before it gets hit again for more damage, and possibly be sunk? Heck, add a LSO on the deck too. Flight ops suspended due to deck damage for 10 to 15 minutes from enough bomb hits.

Quote

Attacking ships should require special bombs, for example armor piercing 1K pounders or better, and not GP bombs. It should also be impossible to sink a large ship with cannons. Taking out guns (open top) is one thing, but sinking a ship with cannons is pretty goofy. But if you can put a couple of 1K# AP bombs on a carrier in a dive from 10K it should put it out of commission for a good period of time at the least.

Don't think we need to complicate the ordnance selection with AP, GP, proxy fuse, altimeter, and other detonating systems for an online game. Too many players don't get the difference between AP and HE in GV's as it is. Tonnage numbers enough for the purpose at hand.

I would agree that cannon rounds sinking a CV is a bit off.... but I'm not sure the damage model can adjusted for that.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2007, 10:03:57 PM »

It would not complicate the ordnance situation. It's a simple choice, AP or GP, unless of course you add napalm. You either want GP for buildings and GV's, or you want AP for ships. Theoretically, of course, napalm would be extremely effective against CV's, as fire is actually their worst enemy, being full of avgas and munitions. However, I know of no instance where napalm was used against shipping. If you cannot figure out what type of bomb you need for your objective, then you don't deserve to take out your objective.

The reason tonnage is a joke is it allows medium or heavy bombers to be loaded up with a bunch of mid weight GP bombs and flown into the CV like a kamakazi. One person can easily sink a CV IF he can get a decent dive with a formation. If you set it to require the correct type bombs, delivered correctly, you'll solve a lot of issues, and it'll almost surely take more than one person to sink a CV.

EagleDNY · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:43:26 PM »

You don't even have to kamikaze in buffs to get a CV kill - plenty of times I just come cruising by at 5K in B17s, let my load out and BOOM - dead CV. I may take a few ack hits, and I may lose a drone or two, but I usually get my bombload off and that is usually the end of the CV.

If a few people mounted a serious CAP over the CV, my chances of getting through to the CV with a set of buffs would be a lot less. The biggest problem is lack of defensive coordination at the CV, and a lack of warning time on inbound contacts. We aren't going to harden a CV enough to take a 42,000 lb Lanc-load of bombs, so the only realistic solution is to give the potential defenders more warning time and at least a chance of making an intercept by increasing the radar range.

Again, let me suggest that the radar range be upped to 25 miles - I understand that this would affect all dar circles in the game at the present time, but is that really a bad thing? All we get now from dar is a contact point - we get no idea of the size of inbound contacts, or their altitude. Having a longer range would give defenders a better chance to intercept incoming buff raids, which should cut down on the suicide buff CV killing.

Just from an overall gameplay perspective, longer radar ranges should also provide more and larger furballs as more players would see where the action is and would have a better vector to it than the "dar bar" provides. I'd like to lose the dar bar entirely in favor of longer tactical radar ranges and maybe a few strategic "uber radars" that would pinpoint contacts 100 miles out. It would make the radars themselves more of a target (and more of an asset to be protected), and IMHO would both improve gameplay and make it more realistic.

EagleDNY
$.02

bzek74 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:53:07 PM »

Three words : Need force field

tedrbr · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:19:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by EagleDNY
You don't even have to kamikaze in buffs to get a CV kill - plenty of times I just come cruising by at 5K in B17s, let my load out and BOOM - dead CV. I may take a few ack hits, and I may lose a drone or two, but I usually get my bombload off and that is usually the end of the CV......

Yeah, not sure why people bother to Heavy-Dive-Buff anything in the game. F6 view is very accurate.

I usually up Ki-67's or flights of Ar-234's to kill CV's... 5-7K altitude coming in a full speed. I take hits. I will sink CV more often than not. But I should not be able to approach like that.

Longer dar reach or picket ships needed by CV's..... but in the end, if players refuse to defend the CV, the CV is an easy target..... unless we want to upgrade them to Nimitzclass .... or Battlestar.... capabilities......