Gentlemen,
I apologise for my ignorance. Although I'm talking only in knots, I mede a big confusion regarding the CV models used in AC, thinking they were Wasps class and beeing Essex class afterall: it's a different ball game, totally.
E25280, you're right, we posted simultaneously, I only saw your post after replying...
Yes, I am aware - and as a skipper I would do that - that in a war zone you sail as fast as your boilers, wind and waves let you, I mean, flat out and nose in the wind for take-offs!
I agree with NHawk, Task Group configuration is distorting the use of fleets, as the possibility to sail them to shallow waters is totally non-sense...
Although several improvements could be made towards TG control, formation, speed, heading, etc, the solution may be in introducing another frequent request, the Battleship.
Add to the BB, a complement of DDs and the "special" DDs for LVTs and Troop transport. Call it a mini-assault group.
Also, limiting CV TG to deep water, could help, too.
About the bridge control, my opinion is the following:
Who takes control of a TG stays in the chair. Leave the chair, Otto - a much more reliable skipper - takes command of the TG. His orders: protect the TG but maintaining operational capability.
To OOZ, I would like to say that that is not what I meant. Yes, I've flew many times for 20 minutes to reach target, and I'm not a buff guy...But I wouldn't mind to have airfields a bit more spread out and far apart...I like an instant fight like anyone who has little time to fly online and the "need for a fight" sindrome...What I meant was, if the planes and GVs travel at realistic speeds, the TG and the torpedos should also do that accordingly.
I had a few figures wrong, my fault. I'm not looking at the whole picture, I admit. But all I wished was to be able to hit the fleet with torpedos...Should I have asked for those new pesky supercavitation torps that can do 300knots/hour?
We should get our Naval Wishes in one single Mega-Post. Meanwhile, thank you all chaps!
Cheers,