Buffs vs. CVs need to be nerfed

[frosty]

I mentioned this in the "triple buffs" thread but it's really a different topic.

CVs are too important a target to be so easy to take down.  Just a little while ago I watched a flight of 26s come in, make a single (diving!!) run, and destroy a completely undamaged CV.  

Yeah, I know, fighters need to defend, but with the triple buff config it's pretty impossible to stop them on short notice.  

Why do we even have torpedo planes if people can just carpet bomb the CV?  The CVs need to be hardened.  Up the power of the torpedo ordinance to compensate.

If not, why not just replace the torpedo planes with other models, since they're useless anyways?  I've never seen ANYONE organize a torpedo run.  Why would you, when you can just up a buff formation and kamikaze the CV within 5 minutes?

I know it's just a game, but in real life no one carpet bombed carriers.  If we're going with the "it's just a game" argument, then perhaps we should be able to bring goons in to repair the CV.

I dunno.  Any fix would be great.  CVs offer so much to the game, but they are far too easy to kill and so much potential is wasted.  

They should be as difficult to take down as any other field.

[Nilsen]

All bombers that you can up in formation should have to be above 5 or maybe 10k when they drop to get the bombs armed.

my 5 cents

[moot]

That would kill NOE runs.

How about realistic flak shell travel, so that you can maneuver out of them (instead of the present box flak), and more accurate AI flak against bombers?
If bombers had the more difficult bombsight modifications mentionned in the 3-ship thread in addition to that, it could be enough.
 
Plenty of torpedo runs do happen.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by moot
That would kill NOE runs.

And killing NOE runs in buff formations would be a bad thing?

[Bruv119]

Frosty usually porking the ord before the enemy know its there does the trick.

If the buffs have to fly from a further base to kill the cv that gives ample time to setup a fighter CAP above the CV.

People use cvs as quick base grabs and a quick vulch.  These fights can swing either way and I guarantee that if the porking hasnt been done or if the cv driver is using the SB firing line as a parking lot it will get sunk!

My favourite map was the very large one where each team had about 6 cv's plus.  If one got sunk it was all aboard the next one lol

constant action!


Bruv
 ~S~

[Bruv119]

The balance is ok in my eyes gameplay wise the dive bombing formations are a bit retarded.  But there are many skilled CV killers who level bomb very well.  

I learnt to play in a diff game where CV's were too hard to program into the equivalent main arena to be used at all.   Are there any other online sims that offer CV based action that we have in AH???

30 guys a side furballing, CV burning, PT boats, SB firing, puffy ack everywhere, tracer rounds shooting at kamikaze nutjobs, lvts getting strafed,   tanks camping the shoreline, torps in the water,  Turn the ship buffs inbound!!!   what more can you ask for.  (apart from a better machine)

[Tilt]

We focus constantly on buffs in this way and I am beginning to think we miss the point.

I wonder if the balistic effects of the HE bombs dropped from Buffs should be re considered.

I start by looking at the very accurate bomb sight we have.

It is very easy to ensure pin point accuracy using the bomb sight in combination with E6B. However even if we are to be gifted with such a fantastic bomb sight surely we should not also be gifted  with bombs that drop plum down the cross hair track as if lazer guided.

I would suggest that from say 20.000 ft an error of some hundred yards could occur. I doint have any expertise to offer on the subject.  But I would say that simplifying the bomb sight has removed an element of human error. So it may be simple but why should it be error free?

Hence I would argue that we can keep it simple but "model" some error  with a significant random drift factor around the target.

The 1st added error can be due to slight random inaccuracies in the release mechanism (.05 sec +.1/-0 sec?)

The 2nd added error can be a  delay incurred in release between the lead bomber and drones of a formation. This delay would also be subject to random variance simulating the practice of drone bomb aimers releasing their bombs only upon seeing bombs falling from the lead aircraft.

The 3rd added error would be drift due to the bombs not dropping true. Hence if they were to drift randomly upto 10 ft per thousand above target we would see a 400 ft diameter error  zone around the cross hair release point when dropping from 20,000ft.

With such bombing accuracy reduced, HTC could then look at the ballistic model with a view to more accurately modelling the  blast radius and subsequent peripheral damage incurred to objects.

This should be done with the terrain mind.

I would expect the blast radius in water to be virtually zero.

On concreted facilities the blast radius may be at its maximum.

On soft farm land or in dense woodland it would be reduced from maximum.

What would the effect of all this be?

Level bombers hitting fleets would be far less certain of success. The accuracy with which they can hit a weaving boat is additionally impeded by the  new errors effecting accuracy with which their bombs drop. Further near misses count for almost nothing in water.

Level bombers hitting air fields and trying to target independant buildings would also be less certain of success than now, however near misses will count for far more and ,whilst not sure of success, the more random destruction around the target will bring reward whilst not totally eliminating the chance of actually destroying the independant buildings targeted.

Level bombers hitting Strat facilities and towns would still be in their element......able to carpet bomb many buildings within a "bracket".

So

it would be much harder to hit CV's with level bombers.........as it was.

It would be difficult (but not impossible) to target a series of individual buildings.... as it was.

carpet bombing large areas of densely packed buildings would be quite easy.......as it was.

[quintv]

Sort of off topic but I think TBMs and B5Ns and other single engine torpedo bombers should be formation capable.

[frosty]

Bruv, I agree that if the CV is not capped, it's gonna get hit and deservedly so.  It's a problem.  But still, for every individual with a buff formation, it's likely gonna take a at least 2 people to stop him.  With enemy fighters to deal with, the math just doesn't work out.  With fields, it's not a real big imbalance because it takes a LOT of coordination to take down a field.  With CVs, it's a huge imbalance, as 1 run does the trick.

Again, a single successful run should not be enough to sink the thing.  It's just too important a target to be so fragile.  OK, maybe if they get direct hits with ALL of their ordinance, but that **should** be nearly impossible.  Maybe make it so bombs won't release from buffs below a certain angle of attack would work.

I agree with moot than better AI flak shells vs. buffs might be a good solution.

I agree with Nilsen that NOE runs in buffs are silly.  Use 110s and such for that stuff.

[Brooke]

Bomb accuracy could be significantly altered if AH typically had some wind.  I'd like it if the MA had more-realistic wind settings all of the time.

[Tilt]

WHere wind is set in an arena I would add it to the above suggestions to make accuracy even harder. Presently the MA has no wind but you can always add it to SEA event settings.

But the point above adds error but also addresses blast radii such that periferal damage is more accurately modelled on hard ground.

[FiLtH]

Ive asked for the tuffer CV and stronger torp warhead before. Make it so if you want to kill a CV, you need torps. Bombs would kill dar and guns on it, but to make it sink you need torps. Or a whole lot of bombs.

[frosty]

Filth, exactly!  No problem with items on the deck being blown to hell, but it should take a ridiculous amount of ordinance hitting the surface of the deck to sink it that way.

[FALCONWING]

CVs are kind of silly imho...what major air to air battle ever occurred off a cv?  and what CV ever captured a land target???

also PT boats are helpless vs cvs...silly

and finally you can kill ack/ord/vh easily at an airbase but cv continues to have monster ack..endless gvs and planes and ord....since when was a cv more powerful than an airstrip????

so anyway that allows cvs to die is ok with me....

oh and let shorebatteries cover all water...or give an airfield on the shore about 6 more shorebatteries to keep the cv at bay...

[Hornet33]

I'd like to know just how armored do you guys think a WWII class CV was?? A carrier, even todays modern Nimitz class CV's, are very vulnerable to attack. The deck on a WWII CV wasn't that thick. A 500lb bomb would go through it very easily.

Take the USS Forestal incident for excample. A single zuni rocket accidently fires and hits anouther plane that is fully loaded with 500lb bombs, rockets, and fuel. The fuel leaks out of the damaged plane and starts a huge fire on deck. The bombs start cooking off while laying on the deck and ends up blowing several very large holes in the deck that allows even more fuel to drain into the lower decks, spreading the fire. They came very close to loosing that ship from just a few blast and those bombs were just sitting there, NOT falling and penetrating into the ship.

Now considering that a CV is loaded with several hundred tons of ordiance, bunker fuel, and avaition fuel and doesn't take all that many bombs to do some serious damage. Now if a bomb finds a magazine it's all over. HMS Hood is a good excample of this. 1 shell from the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen blew that ship in half by hitting a magazine. Hood was a heavy crusier and more armored than any CV ever was.

Anyone who has ever served in the Navy or has worked in the marine industry understands just how vulnerable a ship is, and what can happen due to fire or explosions onboard.

Lets look at the battle of Midway. The Japanese lost 3 out of 4 carriers to light dive bombers of the US Navy. Those planes weren't carrying thousands of pounds of bombs per plane. At most they were armed with 500lbrs but those few bombs that did hit penetrated down into the ship before blowing and caused massive damage. Damage bad enough to sink those ships.

Now in the game it requires 8000lbrs of ordinace to sink a CV. In reality that much ordinace is overkill because no CV in WWII took that much damage and lived. The game is actually harder than it should be to kill a carrier.

Now as far as heavy bombers hunting CV's in the game, it's not that hard to have the CV avoid being hit. Just turn the thing, but then you have the idiots that complain about the CV turning and they can't take off on auto takeoff mode. These are the same idiots that turn around and complain when the CV gets sunk because no turned it in time to avoid the bombs raining down on it.

If you guys don't want to loose the CV's in the game then do something that is tacticaly sound and provide an extended CAP around the CV to fend off the bombers, pork the feilds near the CV so the enemy can't bring bombs to the CV, and keep the thing manuvering.