« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Multi-purpose Post  (Read 1245 times)

Offline Gary26

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
Multi-purpose Post
« on: January 24, 2007, 07:17:36 PM »
I dont want to say HT has gotten lazy, but come on. We used to have weekly resets by staff when we had 1 MA. I say we go back to that. What good is having 2 new maps if it is 2 weeks before we can see them. Really getting burned out of the same 2 maps.
#2
Is there anything we can do to disrupt the Uberjabobuffs from dweebing cv's? Make ack harder? Add another carrier to task group? Do something.:O
Logged
C.O. VMF-213 Hell Hawks
                                          
  VMF4

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2007, 07:21:52 PM »
Move the bases in to minimum spacing; then the fragile carriers are not the only place to find a decent fight.

This may have been mentioned once before.
Logged
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2007, 01:28:15 AM »
Yup. Maps with 30-40 mils between airfields suck :o
Logged
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline SkyRock

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7758
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2007, 01:32:33 AM »
Very easy to rectify our problems,let DREDger reset the maps as they grow boring!  He is teh l33t mishun planner IKE strategy guy fellow! problem solved!:aok
Logged

Triton28 - "...his stats suggest he has a healthy combination of suck and sissy!"

Offline Patches1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 668
Ords...
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2007, 02:14:13 AM »
If you don't want CVs sunk, kill the ords at the fields near the CVs.

No ords...no "Uberjabobuffs".

Simple.
Logged
"We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem."- Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, General, USMC

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2007, 02:39:58 AM »
Dont work actually. As everybody know the best way to sink CV is level bombing :rolleyes: You cannt kill ords at every fields in 60 mil around CV.
Can make CV's life a little longer though.
Logged
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline Coshy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2007, 05:35:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gary26
#2 Is there anything we can do to disrupt the Uberjabobuffs from dweebing cv's? Make ack harder? Add another carrier to task group? Do something.:O


I'm no tactician, but I'm guessing  2 or 3 fighters flying around the CV looking for incoming Uberjabobuff threats would probably do the job.
Logged
Currently flying as "Ruger"

Offline The Fury

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2007, 06:21:48 AM »
LOL i agree think the TG (Task Group) needs to be made harder to sink it seems its 100% garenteed to get sunk especially with dive bombing 234s, me and a friend have been up trying to protect TG from getting bombed we killed 3 sets of buffs think they were ju88s and another set comes along and sinks it in one pass and then thats it we have to find somewere else to fly.

I think personally there needs to be more puffy ack or make it more lethal because you could fly loops in that stuff for a hour and it wouldnt hit you or if it did hit you it wouldnt do that much damage i meen was it really this easy to avoid puffy ack in WW2? Was it really this easy to sink a TG in ww2?

When puffy ack was in towns it was more affective than puffy ack on a TG you could say 3 times outta 10 the puffy would get me at town but over a TG it just looks nice and isnt very affective.

Logged
The Few
England    www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
The Few  (Tour 77)                                                                                            Currently Flying as Fury

Offline rod367th

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2007, 06:54:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by The Fury
LOL i agree think the TG (Task Group) needs to be made harder to sink it seems its 100% garenteed to get sunk especially with dive bombing 234s, me and a friend have been up trying to protect TG from getting bombed we killed 3 sets of buffs think they were ju88s and another set comes along and sinks it in one pass and then thats it we have to find somewere else to fly.

I think personally there needs to be more puffy ack or make it more lethal because you could fly loops in that stuff for a hour and it wouldnt hit you or if it did hit you it wouldnt do that much damage i meen was it really this easy to avoid puffy ack in WW2? Was it really this easy to sink a TG in ww2?

When puffy ack was in towns it was more affective than puffy ack on a TG you could say 3 times outta 10 the puffy would get me at town but over a TG it just looks nice and isnt very affective.

only reason cv's get sunkl is noobs taking off before town or vhs dead a good cv gunner kills entire town in 5 mins and kills vh and fh next 5. but more than not a noob takes off cv 15 miles from base or just as you start killing town. suicide bluffs only work if no one in 5". i bet i have 30 kills of bombers trying for cv this tod. and have had good 100 to 200 in tod.



But on same maps htc not lazy, They made new war system where u need 90% ur fields and 40 % of both other teams. better this way then 2 sides not ganging out numbered team. want to win war u have to beat both.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2007, 06:56:41 AM by rod367th »
Logged

Offline Patches1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 668
Ords....
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2007, 07:34:12 AM »
It takes a bit of forethought to kill the ords in the immediate area, and a bit more to think that bombers may come from a sector or more away. So, yes, and no....depending upon the map. Maps do make a difference.

Hardening CVs more, or increasing it's ack coverage more would do more harm than good. As it is, Jabos are ineffective unless massed, or following upon near misses by bombers, and thats only if they don't get picked off at 15K by the CVs ack. It wasn't Bombers that killed CVs in WWII...it was Dive Bombers...JABOs...Level bombers like the B24s, B17s, Lancs, etc, proved to be ineffective. In Aces High, the reverse seems to be true; level bombers effective...Jabos...ineffecti ve.

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.

Logged
"We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem."- Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, General, USMC

storch

  • Guest
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2007, 07:43:07 AM »
ya gary you nailed that.  the Cvs are far too easily killed.  the CV itself could be hardened to say 50k of bombs also it should be repairable while underweigh.

also what toad said.
Logged

Offline bzek74

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2007, 07:59:43 AM »
It seems like it takes more ord to kill a Tiger than it does a CV. They need to be made harder if all the aaa flying from the group cant even manage to kill or deflect the odd bomb or rocket here and there.

Also cv's should be coded to where the person in command of the cv MUST be in range of cv. The knights had same person lose like 4 cv's in 3 hrs lastnight.

                                                                      90prf
Logged

Offline Helm

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2007, 08:09:58 AM »
CV hardness is fine....a good 5 inch gunner can keep a CV safe ....I've seen whels kill 30 planes w/ it and CV was fresh as a daisy.
Logged
XO of ^"^Nazgul^"^
Proudly serving since campaign #13
"No Rain?" ...."No Rainbow, baby!" ....Bootsey Collins 2009

Offline TexInVa

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2007, 08:24:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
.....also it should be repairable while underweigh...


Massive[/i] agreement here.
Logged

storch

  • Guest
Multi-purpose Post
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2007, 09:51:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Helm
CV hardness is fine....a good 5 inch gunner can keep a CV safe ....I've seen whels kill 30 planes w/ it and CV was fresh as a daisy.
okay riddle me this then.  how many CVs are sunk from direct comabt for these combatants?

IJN
Commonwealth
USN
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »