Multi-purpose Post

[Gary26]

I like what patches said, but keep the cv hardness the same. I think cv's are  a big grey area in this game. They are effective and fun to use but to easily sunk. The reason for this post in the first place is, the other night I and sevral others were defending a cv. While cap planes were attacking 4 sets of buff there was a set of 26's that slipped through. I started hiiting them from the 5inch from 3.5 out. they started to dive ALL 3 on fire and lead plane missing a wing still was able to lob a volley of 1k eggs and sink it. I think there shoud be alot of changes to a TG. I think after a certain point you should be able to disable ords on a cv. In real life didnt bombs find there way into the ord hold on the ship. Bases can get tough  to defend against a steady stream of ords only minutes away.

[SlapShot]

Airplane gun ammo should not count towards the "total damage" applied to CVs and its escorts. Airplane guns should be able to take out gun turrets, but not be able to sink a vessel.

Wanted to cry last week when a single suicide NOE 110 sunk a CV with its cannons ... that is beyond ridiculous.

[4XTCH]

Originally posted by Patches1

Here is a suggestion:

Instead of hardening the CV more...reduce it to 3k tonnage to sink it.
But! Before the CV takes any damage,  ALL of her escourts must be sunk first! Destroyers take say...1K to sink...and the Cruiser 2K to sink...and this BEFORE the CV incurs ANY damage at all.

Thus, to sink the CV you must first sink four (4) destroyers at 1 K each (total of 4K tonnage) AND the Cruiser (CA) at 2K, for a total of 6K of tonnage upon the Fleet and the CV is then pretty much defensless except for her fighter groups, and should go down with 3K tonnage upon it, or, at the very  LEAST, DISABLE its air and amphipbious operations for a very minumum of  30 minutes, and require an additional 3K of ordnance to positively sink it.

What this does is allow CVs to operate with near impunity until her escorts are gone...and then she must rely upon her airarm to protect her. It also gives JABOs the chance to fullfill missions they really flew, and bombers can still sink undefended CVs.

As for the ack...it's deadly enough for the 8K of tonnage being currently required to sink a defended CV. It's effectivity should be reduce by a factor of each escorts' ability to defend.

Just some thoughts.

Well Done Patches..... Well done:aok
4XTCH

[Patches1]

Cvs already continuously repair themselves while underway. This replicates the repair parties aboard ships. From the first damage ships begin immediate repair. Once hit, CV's are in a continuous state of repair.

50K of bombs to sink a CV, Storch?  

CVs should be vulnerable...that's why Fleets are built AROUND them. The FLEET should protect the CV, not artificial 50K hardness. CV's depended upon the surrounding Fleet, and it's own Air CAP,  to protect the CV. The Battle of Midway proved how vulnerable CVs were...and how effective dive bombing (JABO) could be even in heavy ack.

In my opinion...CVs are waaayyyy over-hardened as they are.  Consider the Japanese attack upon Pear Harbor...did the USS Arizona require 50K of bombs to sink it?

I will vote for 50K of damage being done to my Corsair before I spring an oil leak, though!   :-)

Just some thoughts....

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Patches1

I will vote for 50K of damage being done to my Corsair before I spring an oil leak, though!   :-)
 

LOL

Bring the IL2 bug to the corsair.


Bronk

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by SlapShot
Airplane gun ammo should not count towards the "total damage" applied to CVs and its escorts. Airplane guns should be able to take out gun turrets, but not be able to sink a vessel.

Wanted to cry last week when a single suicide NOE 110 sunk a CV with its cannons ... that is beyond ridiculous.

We agree on something almost.

No way should aircraft rounds have any effect on CV or cruiser 5" or 8" guns.
The small AA guns yup, but not the main.

Although most are sunk with buffs it's usually AFTER most of the main guns have been taken out by suicide aircraft.

If you consider it, this is a issue connected with the damage system which is almost unchanged since AH1.
It's one of two things (strat being other) that haven't kept up with 'game'.

[storch]

my thinking is that since the level bombers can pretty much get through at will given all the gamey advantage they possess and in the case of the lancasters hauling 14k lbs of bombs 50k is a reasonable number.

[Patches1]

I concur...

Against armored vessels aircraft guns should count perhaps 1/4 of their designed effectivity.

 On the other hand... allied .50 caliber strafing runs on Japanese barges and troop transports were highly effective, often ending in horrible carnage for the Japanese.

So, in game, since the Fleets are armored, I agree that straffing Fleet ships should produce little effect; but straffing offshore supply tugs and barges should still have maximum value.

Your thoughts, Sir?



 Patches

[Patches1]

Storch, Sir,

I made a proposal to support my thoughts that I feel CVs are already artificially hardened.

I am at a loss to understand your last post which states that Bombers... "can pretty much get through at will given all the gamey advantage they possess..." Considering your wishes to harden CVs to 50K of ordnance in order to sink it, isn't that a bit "gamey" in itself?

I'll play the game no matter how it is built. But, continueing to build in hardness against ordnance takes us back to Medeival times when Castle walls were built high and thick to withstand arrows.

Do you have a proposal to change the way Fleets and CVs are modeled, or do you simply not like the way Bombers are modeled?



Patches

[Kev367th]

Anyone given thought to the fact that this is just a symptom of the somewhat basic damage system, unchanged since AH1.

It was suggested a long time ago that a complete overhaul was needed to take into account what the target was made of, and what was being used to damage it.

For e.g.

Ammo bunkers -
IMO should only be damaged/destroyed by rockets or bombs.
Currently even a pilot firing a .45 can do a minute amount of damage. Extreme example but shows up the flaw in the current setup.

[storch]

patches sir how many carriers were sunk by direct enemy action in WWII?

in answer to your questions

yes.  bomber modelling needs to be looked at.  bomb calibration is rediculously easy and bomb accuracy is better than with current Jdam munitions.  during the big one, WWII it took 1000 level bombers to get 10 bombs on target.  we should strive for 100 for ten hits as opposed to 1 bomber for 1,000,000 hits.

 I won't even broach the topic of the defensive armament.

the CVs were devilishly difficult to hit because of the amount of ack put up.  in the case of the commonwealth CVs with their armored flight decks bombs did not penetrate.

sinking a CV was very very difficult.  given that the best fights, therefore the most enjoyment gained by players per game hour revolve around the CV they should be nearly impossible to sink.

having said that they should also not be able to come with 15 miles of the shore either.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by storch
patches sir how many carriers were sunk by direct enemy action in WWII?

in answer to your questions

yes.  bomber modelling needs to be looked at.  bomb calibration is rediculously easy and bomb accuracy is better than with current Jdam munitions.  during the big one, WWII it took 1000 level bombers to get 10 bombs on target.  we should strive for 100 for ten hits as opposed to 1 bomber for 1,000,000 hits.

 I won't even broach the topic of the defensive armament.

the CVs were devilishly difficult to hit because of the amount of ack put up.  in the case of the commonwealth CVs with their armored flight decks bombs did not penetrate.

sinking a CV was very very difficult.  given that the best fights, therefore the most enjoyment gained by players per game hour revolve around the CV they should be nearly impossible to sink.

having said that they should also not be able to come with 15 miles of the shore either.

Wow!  I agree with Storch!

[hubsonfire]

They shouldn't be able to get in close enough to vulch the airfield with their defensive armaments.

[Clifra Jones]

good points Storch!

The problem with CV's is really the unrealistic tactics we are forced to use. Tell me there is a naval officer anywhere in the world who would support bringing your most valuable asset, your CV, within 15 miles of the enemy shores, just to land LVTs? I doubt it! What we need is a landing assault group. A separately controlled group of ships that can be brought to the attack zone while the CV stay at a relatively safe distance to launch aircraft. These Assault Groups would tag along with the CV group when not under player control.  Obviously not something that can be done quickly but it would really make the CV war much more accurate.

Also, most CVs in WWII were not sunk by aerial bombing. Rendered unusable yes but not sunk. Most were sunk by either torpedo planes or subs. Make it so if you hit the flight deck with enough bombs you cannot launch planes until the desk is repaired. Time it the same as fighter hangers.

[GooseAW]

I love Patches' idea of requiring the escorts to be sunk first!

Keep the 8k weight for the CV and leave the others the same. Ack would be reduced as each escort is sunk because their guns will no longer be firing. Leave all else the same so as to keep it simple and mayhaps HTC can do it now!....Put an end to the days when a lone 234 can sink/destoy in effect, an entire field! I LOVE IT! BIG to Patches!