Killing a Carrier

[Chalenge]

This would make it easier to hunt 'spoilers' down but sometimes 'spoiling' is called for.

[Babalonian]

Since I have rarely seen anyone single-handedly take on a carrier (it's usualy a joint operation of a few pilots) I don't think it should announce their name.

However I agree that sinking a CV is a big deal, you just sunk an entire airbase, and in that light I would like to see a message similar to the other base capture messages currently displayed.  Something like "The Rooks have sank CV123".

[caldera]

I once sunk a carrier with two 250 kilo bombs from a Ki-84 (and lived... somehow).   
Does that mean I deserve a WTG? I don't think so.

[Saxman]

I sunk a CV with a pair of HVARs from a D-hog...

[Race]

I'd like it if bombs destroyed dar and guns, but it took torps to sink it.

Why?

      The WW2 carriers in general are thin skinned and lightly armored above the waterline. I think there have been reports of bombs going clear thru the deck and nearly to her keel. Certainly bombs are fully capable of sinking a CV. The real problem lies in how they are used.

      Right now people practical park the cv off shore of any enemy base and launch massive suicide runs on any target they choose. How much you think that is going to happen if they increase the hardness? My guess would be they temper the hardness level with the likelyhood of misuse. To me carriers shouldnt be allowed within 25 MILES of land. In real life it simply never happened near enemy territory. If you kept them offshore then by all means I would support increasing the hardness. Right now its simply ridiculous to see a carrier 5 miles from shore with tanks firing HE rounds at the task force. Its times like that they DESERVE to get sunk. Keep it off shore and make it a respectable target and one that behaves (somewhat) like a carrier does. Anymore hardness under are current form is asking for the TF to take anchor at the end of the runway.

Race

[uptown]

System:Uptown just bailed and shot admiral in face...CV destroyed.


i like the sound of that 

[AWwrgwy]

when an individual kills a carrier I think he should be rcognized in the chat box, this is certainly more noteworthy than shooting down two aircraft, since in essence he has destroyed an entire airbase. I hope most of you agree and will support me to get this done.

Yeah.  When you LAND





wrongway

[Saxman]

Why?

      The WW2 carriers in general are thin skinned and lightly armored above the waterline. I think there have been reports of bombs going clear thru the deck and nearly to her keel. Certainly bombs are fully capable of sinking a CV. The real problem lies in how they are used.

      Right now people practical park the cv off shore of any enemy base and launch massive suicide runs on any target they choose. How much you think that is going to happen if they increase the hardness? My guess would be they temper the hardness level with the likelyhood of misuse. To me carriers shouldnt be allowed within 25 MILES of land. In real life it simply never happened near enemy territory. If you kept them offshore then by all means I would support increasing the hardness. Right now its simply ridiculous to see a carrier 5 miles from shore with tanks firing HE rounds at the task force. Its times like that they DESERVE to get sunk. Keep it off shore and make it a respectable target and one that behaves (somewhat) like a carrier does. Anymore hardness under are current form is asking for the TF to take anchor at the end of the runway.

Race

Agreed.

Task forces should not be allowed within a SECTOR of an enemy field.

[Becinhu]

Unless their is an actuallt CAP on the cv, a good shot is manning the 5-inchers,  or someone who knows what they are doing is steering it, CVs are just another static target. Do you realize how insanely easy it is to hit a non-turning carrier from 15k down. Also, I level-bomb normally at around 6.5-8k.  salvo all bombs...delay .15....BOOM!

[hubsonfire]

Since I have rarely seen anyone single-handedly take on a carrier (it's usualy a joint operation of a few pilots) I don't think it should announce their name.

However I agree that sinking a CV is a big deal, you just sunk an entire airbase, and in that light I would like to see a message similar to the other base capture messages currently displayed.  Something like "The Rooks have sank CV123".

I disagree. A single pass with a formation of B-26s is all that is required. It may be more of a challenge for the inept, or if the fleet is well defended, but comparing it to taking out an airfield is stupid- it's the equivalent of taking out a single FH and radar.

[thndregg]

Since I have rarely seen anyone single-handedly take on a carrier

I can show you how it's done.