Hiding Carrier - why?

[crazyivan]

Because they are dweebs.  

Being in a Naval Squad it is VERY frustrating to see a carrier way behind our homeland.


The carrier is there to be used and used it will be when we are in the game.

   I seem to rememmber meeting you while (cough) hiding cv late night. hehe <S>reddawn.. vf-31tomcatters

[soupcan]

Knights dont use them right  all they do is just give the bish/rooks a good furball

And we thank them for it.
(the good furballing)

[mechanic]

because... if they destroy carrier.. and take port.. they get carrier..


-BigBOBCH

sure, but whats the point of having the extra carrier if it is not aiding your own forces somehow?

thats like hiding all the rifles in a bunker incase your soldiers dont win and the enmy get the rifles.

[LLogann]

Ah Ha... But here is the interesting thing there... Actually it's like hiding rifles in a base that the enemy cannot find(ie...most NE NW SE SW, or N S W E corner of map).  And when you have nothing left, you can fall back on those rifles to make your last stand... Ya Know?   

thats like hiding all the rifles in a bunker incase your soldiers dont win and the enmy get the rifles.

Just saying.... That's what it is.  Not that I agree with it..... 

[kvuo75]

Ah Ha... But here is the interesting thing there... Actually it's like hiding rifles in a base that the enemy cannot find(ie...most NE NW SE SW, or N S W E corner of map).  And when you have nothing left, you can fall back on those rifles to make your last stand... Ya Know?   

Just saying.... That's what it is.  Not that I agree with it..... 

hiding cv's in this game is idiotic, because all it takes 1 spy to report where the cv is hidden..

[mechanic]

LLogann, i can understand hiding excess rifles, but not sending the troops in without rifles so as not to lose them and seeing as we never have more than a handfull of task groups there is never what could be accurately called excess.

[Kev367th]

In the era we are currently in of rampant NOE raids to vacant bases and the "win at all costs, fun be damned" mantra, it's perfectly reasonable for this behavior to continue and be considered acceptable...

Been going on since I joined AH2, so its not "In the current era".

Whether you agree with hiding CVs depends on if you play the game strategically or not.

[1pLUs44]

Maybe, we'll hide the carriers because the Carrier is to an enemy port.

[LYNX]

I have only been playing for about a year and a half now so I am really kind of new. 

I am trying to understand why would one want to hide a carrier far far away from the action?  Why would one want to hide 3 carriers far far away from the action, and together so a couple of lancs could destroy all of them.

I tried to move one this morning and was called all sorts of names including a spy for trying to get a cv into the action. 

Will one of you wise sages in the game help me understand?

If your a strat player it makes sense to capture and hide Cv's.  1) it's a percentage to capture criteria 2) if the baddies get it back they'll use it against you.  This makes capturing other bases harder because you have to watch your back for this marauding Cv.

There is a time and place to use captured Cv's but not alot of strat players have the slitest incling as to when and by default mentality run the Cv.  As to parking them in pretty patens your guess is as good as mine.

[Hap]

Been going on since I joined AH2, so its not "In the current era".

Whether you agree with hiding CVs depends on if you play the game strategically or not.

Kev, good to see you.  Was just thinking about you yesterday, and hoping all is well.

There's a couple posts that capture the "don't hide the CV" opinion: 1) We pay $15 a month to fight, and the 2nd being that "lack of confidence" drives the decision. 

Forcing one's enemy to have an airfield less is a good move in my book.  Used to be the de rigeur of AH years and years ago.  With the changes towards fur and away from plans of action devised to win the war, capturing and hiding a CV happens less frequently.

AH was multidimensional, challenging, and more fun formerly.

[lambo31]

I'll be honest here. Considering this is a game it's kind of lame to remove a potential source of fun from play. But from a military strategy point of view it's right out of Sun Tzu's, "Art of War". Denying an asset to your enemy permanently even if it means denying it to yourself temporarily is sound strategy. That does not mean it's the most fun strategy, but it's undeniably the smart play. It would only be correct to return the CV to play if the port were re-secured and able to be adequately defended. In the era we are currently in of rampant NOE raids to vacant bases and the "win at all costs, fun be damned" mantra, it's perfectly reasonable for this behavior to continue and be considered acceptable...

 I agree Zazen!  And this is a game for entertainment!  What some seem to miss is that without the engagements whats the purpose in doing any of it. If some one wants to take bases with no resistance and little effort they can do it all they want as far as I care. But when these things deny others of their enjoyment that they pay for is very immature. CV's being hid falls in to this catagory for me. If a country can take the port and kill the CV then they would use it to attack another base creating more engagements, and more entertainment. I fly knights on a regular bases and if I see knights hiding CV's they won't be hiden long. I'm not trying to grief any of the griefers or anyone else, but I think it's hindering game play to do that.

 Lambo

[Scca]

I agree Zazen!  And this is a game for entertainment!  What some seem to miss is that without the engagements whats the purpose in doing any of it. If some one wants to take bases with no resistance and little effort they can do it all they want as far as I care. But when these things deny others of their enjoyment that they pay for is very immature. CV's being hid falls in to this catagory for me. If a country can take the port and kill the CV then they would use it to attack another base creating more engagements, and more entertainment. I fly knights on a regular bases and if I see knights hiding CV's they won't be hiden long. I'm not trying to grief any of the griefers or anyone else, but I think it's hindering game play to do that.

 Lambo

I am with you 100%, but try to move it into the action and country text will light up with calls you are a spy, noob, dweeb etc from all the arm chair generals.

[lambo31]

 LOL I know Scca. I guess I can go overboard when I feel justified, it's one of my faults.


 Lambo

[JunkyII]

And we thank them for it.
(the good furballing)

I need to get a good snapshot that shows what most of the planes that up are when there is a cv around. I can up an LA7 and just BnZ with little threat to my plane other then an occasional 4 hog running me down. Im not saying that its just the bish/rooks who do it but CV planes are easily outmatched if you dont get a good advantage in numbers right off the bat. And this is hard because cv mission/sightings are a big dealby the armchair generals

[pluck]

Kev, good to see you.  Was just thinking about you yesterday, and hoping all is well.

There's a couple posts that capture the "don't hide the CV" opinion: 1) We pay $15 a month to fight, and the 2nd being that "lack of confidence" drives the decision. 

Forcing one's enemy to have an airfield less is a good move in my book.  Used to be the de rigeur of AH years and years ago.  With the changes towards fur and away from plans of action devised to win the war, capturing and hiding a CV happens less frequently.

AH was multidimensional, challenging, and more fun formerly.

what did HTC change to make the game more furball friendly?  

In the grand scope of things, hiding CV doesn't really do anything.  I guess yes it does prevent the "enemy" from having it...but really... when a CV shows up to a base, it can be sunk in a matter of minutes, if the players there want to.  Any extended fight and it is toast.  Maps, from what I see are not reset very often (then again I don't play a whole lot) and when they are, it's not because someone hid the CV, it's because one team has enough players to swarm and put up missions against the defenders, and defend what they have.  That's about it.

I guess it comes down to if you think the process of fighting from and sinking the CV is more fun/important, than, potentially losing one, of many bases.  As far as a weapon, CV is great, if there isn't a large force defending, or if no one notices you, but as it is, it is quite fragile, and imho, not a serious force that could turn the tide of war.  If your team is in a situation where actually hiding the CV is your last hope of winning/prevention of reset, I don't think it's going to make a big difference either way.

Personally, I don't think the CV itself should be counted as a base, count the port, and let the CV serve as only a weapon.....or count it as a base, and somehow increase it's survivability, making it something to actually be "feared." not just a target for a set of lancs.