Author Topic: CV hardness (Read 3034 times)

tedrbr · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2007, 12:20:31 PM »

storch, the problem with a second task group for amphibious operations is either it is not sent in close proximity to the carrier task force, and thus is a very easy kill with no air cover, or you tie it into the CV task group --- sort of maneuvering around the periphery, closest to shore --- but then it's movements are predictable as compared to the CV movement, and possibly an easy kill.... and then there is the catch up speed of such a landing force group when compared to the CV's movement speeds.

BB's with 16 inch guns and their air defense seem like overkill.

And we're still left with players misusing TG's and getting them killed.

PanzerIV, IFAIK, the carrier in the game now is already modeled after the Essex class carriers. I'm not positive about the scale.

whiteman · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2007, 12:36:50 PM »

IQ test before gaining control of a TG might help. Tried to warn a guy last night and he wouldn't have any thing to say but don't move it so he and 2 others could attack a large field, in shore battery range. Another guy and i flew medium and high cap but that didn't matter. jet sking buffs hit it 5 mins later.

EagleDNY · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2007, 11:36:20 AM »

I think level bombers would have a much tougher time if they could be detected and intercepted at a more realistic distance. The 12 mile radar coverage on a CV is just too small to give the defense time to up and intercept incoming buffs when the CV starts flashing. CVs (and I would argue bases too) need larger radar circles - 25 miles would be a good start, and it would encourage the use of torpedo planes coming in under the radar to make attacks.

If the buffs come in at 5K, which a lot do, even turning the CV isn't enough to prevent getting hit. If the buffs had to come in at a more realistic altitude because they are getting intercepted, a decent CV driver can usually do some zig-zags and turns that can make the bombs miss, assuming there is someone at the helm. If there isn't, why not have an AUTOEVADE that will do some zig-zags or something along the base course?

Also - puffy ack and 5" auto-guns should automatically target buffs first as a matter of course. Having all the ack in the fleet follow one diving fighter or blasting at a parachute is silly.

I don't think it would be a bad idea in the interim to make all the CV groups the type with the 2nd cruiser so that you have additional ack support. Frankly, in my mind you could double the CV group up (2 CVs, 4 CAs, 8 DDs) and really improve things, but I gather from our other threads on this subject that it causes a frame rate hit that some folks just cant handle.

EagleDNY
$.02

Soulyss · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2007, 01:01:32 PM »

What about changing the ord properties?

Right now we have bombs and torpedo's... with torpedo's doing I believe twice the poundage in damage as a similar bomb. How about level bombers have HE/general purpose bombs which work fine for bases, factories, etc. but not so well against hardened/armored targets like warships. While dedicated ship killers like the SBD and other plaens get armor piercing bombs. Set a different multiplier for each type of weapon. Make it so it takes more bombs from a level bomber than a divebomber/ship killer.

At any rate it's just a thought.

Sketch · « **Reply #19 on:** June 10, 2007, 01:11:25 PM »

Raise the 5" guns up some on the cruiser. If your heading straight at a target you can't get the gun down because you shoot the back of the 8" guns. Nice explosions in your face though...

Mr No Name · « **Reply #20 on:** June 10, 2007, 01:18:12 PM »

I still say that since ports are such an easy capture that a single pilot should not be able to put a CV group out of commission like they can now. YES I know in real life that if a formation of lancs bombed a CV, it would surely sink. This is a GAME, hence there should be 2 or 3 CVs, 4 cruisers, 12 destroyers. If you had 3 cvs the take-off points would work like the runway system and could be labeled "Enterprise" "Hornet" "Yorktown" ETC. ETC. This means a greater team effort will have to be made to shut it down just like a regular airfield. Even with these improvements it is a soft target.

The CV should also require "deep water" areas no closer than say...5 miles?... no parking the group 1K offshore. The purpose of this isn't to make it a "Battle of Midway" game as someone suggested earlier but to simply prevent 1 player from shutting it down with 1 run. To balance this out and make wise use of the carrier group more important, after a carrier group is sunk, increase the time it is out of action to 30 minutes or even an hour. I would like to see the fleet be a more important component of AIR COMBAT in the game. Greater Striking power for the fleet, and a greater importance to coordinate attacks on a battle group... all are forms of air combat and will encourage a fight in the air to accomplish this goal.

Oleg · « **Reply #21 on:** June 10, 2007, 01:36:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr No Name
YES I know in real life that if a formation of lancs bombed a CV, it would surely sink.

First of all, they wouldnt hit it. In battle for the Midway dozen B-17s tried to sink transports and CVs and didnt score single hit. Level bombers was absolutely useless agains ships in RL, no matter how much bombs they can carry.

scottydawg · « **Reply #22 on:** June 10, 2007, 02:01:00 PM »

Maybe some AI code that takes control of the CV group when a bomber comes within range. It would do evasive maneuvers while that bomber is in range but resume course when it either drops its bombs or leaves the area.

Of course all the guys trying to take off would probably whine, but...

Mr No Name · « **Reply #23 on:** June 10, 2007, 02:07:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oleg
First of all, they wouldnt hit it. In battle for the Midway dozen B-17s tried to sink transports and CVs and didnt score single hit. Level bombers was absolutely useless agains ships in RL, no matter how much bombs they can carry.

Agreed, I meant IF they hit it.

EagleDNY · « **Reply #24 on:** June 10, 2007, 05:09:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr No Name
The CV should also require "deep water" areas no closer than say...5 miles?... no parking the group 1K offshore.

LVTs need to be able to spawn onshore, and the 8" guns on the cruisers and shore batteries need to be able to engage each other. 5 Miles (8.8K) doesn't sound bad for the guns - but what is the LVT to off-shore spawn range?

EagleDNY · « **Reply #25 on:** June 10, 2007, 05:48:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oleg
First of all, they wouldnt hit it. In battle for the Midway dozen B-17s tried to sink transports and CVs and didnt score single hit. Level bombers was absolutely useless agains ships in RL, no matter how much bombs they can carry.

The B17s that attacked the Japanese at Midway came in at 20,000ft. At that altitude, an evading ship is almost impossible to hit with an unguided bomb.

If you figure the terminal velocity of a bomb at 300mph (an estimate), it takes over 45 seconds for the bomb dropped to hit the target from 20,000 ft. During that time, an evading ship moving at 30 knots has moved 3/8 of a MILE away. Given that your bomb sight was targeting a point on the water out in front of the ships and not on a stationary target, any serious turn by the ship causes a clean miss. This doesn't even take into account the inaccuracies caused by wind from 20,000 ft, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that level bombers were not very effective against ships not tied up to a dock someplace.

The problem we have in AH is that the bombers come in a 5K, have a 11-12 sec bomb drop time, and know exactly how far the CV is going to travel in that time. Even if there is evasion, laying a pattern across the bow will score plenty of hits, and I've sunk plenty of CVs in this manner. At 10K, its tougher, but still quite possible if the CV is not actively evading - if the CV is violently maneuvering it is dicey at best. At 15K, I've watched half my squad miss a violently maneuvering CV. The reason we have the water skiing buff problem is because that is the tactic that works best - changing ack targeting priority to level buffs (especially low ones) and extending the radar range so that the cap can get interceptions as the low buffs come in would help change that.

EagleDNY
$.02

Mr No Name · « **Reply #26 on:** June 10, 2007, 06:50:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by EagleDNY
LVTs need to be able to spawn onshore, and the 8" guns on the cruisers and shore batteries need to be able to engage each other. 5 Miles (8.8K) doesn't sound bad for the guns - but what is the LVT to off-shore spawn range?

Not sure but this too seems like just a setting that could simply be adjusted for gameplay. Meaning that If the distance is currently 3 miles, extend it out to 5 or even a little more... I don't think it could hurt at all. I dont think it would require much effort to make it happen.

Oleg · « **Reply #27 on:** June 11, 2007, 01:07:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by EagleDNY
The B17s that attacked the Japanese at Midway came in at 20,000ft. At that altitude, an evading ship is almost impossible to hit with an unguided bomb.

According to Sherman F. ("The American Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific Wars") they attacked transports from 8k, 10k and 12k feet, no hits achieved. CV groop was attacked from 20k - 23k later, no hits either.

FiLtH · « **Reply #28 on:** June 11, 2007, 08:22:14 AM »

wow I forgot about this post. I know a fully loaded heavy bomber could probably wax a CV in real life, but they never hit that good from altitude. If nothing else the arena should have winds aloft to make the bombing harder. Something. Anything.

I do like Whels idea of having a separate bombardment group with a CA or two for getting in close to bombard and invade. Having the CV in that close isnt a good idea.

Having winds aloft would make bombing a fleet from 10k higher really hard to do, and would make it more realistic. This would make the need for Vals and SBDs, and since they are used, maybe even some TBMs w/ torps thrown in as well.

As far as bombing from 20k in post above...it is possible to hit. Hit and sink. At 20k lead the CV by 2.5 carrier deck lengths. it its turning, gauge your lead by the wake of the CV. If its turning left, lead the CV 2.5 lengths and at a curve that matches the wake. Its just too easy as it is now.

MstWntd · « **Reply #29 on:** June 11, 2007, 12:30:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FiLtH

Having winds aloft would make bombing a fleet from 10k higher really hard to do, and would make it more realistic. This would make the need for Vals and SBDs, and since they are used, maybe even some TBMs w/ torps thrown in as well.

I've been using stukas lately, gotten lots of successes

I'd like to see them being used more.