Can anyone give me an actual WWII statistic on the effectiveness of level bombers vs CV's?? I can't seem to recall a single CV lost to level bombers, yet in AH the SOP to take down the carrier is to launch a set of Lancs, B-17s, B-24's, etc etc.
Fist this is a classic hidden attempt at wanting the game to be changed to fit the OP playing style. The reason it is classic is because it is an attempt to use a "Realism" argument to justify a change. The problem with the basic argument is that it is a very selective form of realism. I.E. level bombing was not very effective. But the OP does not begin to analyze why they were less effective in real life, but immediately wants the bombers role limited.
The answer is obvious to most people why they were less effective.
1. Low and level bombing a task group made for easy pickings by gunners, and does also in the game.
2. High and level bombing , all a boat would have to do is turn, and a bomber would miss.
So what is different in the game than real life?
The most important factor is the Maneuvering.
Now here is where the selective realism comes in, the OP does not even consider the possibilities of 1, forcing someone to be on the bridge at all times.This is an example of a post exactly as the OP makes.
I think all boats should be maned at all times, or should automatically be sunk, because real boats always had a crew at the helm.
The only option I could see would be to make the CV auto maneuver. But this also has a large draw back, manly of the CV turning more often during take offs.
2 do to the way CV's work, it would create more of a discrepancy of how all people would see the CV differently.
What do I think the real answer is?
1. Don't change a thing. You already have the option of manning the CV to keep it from being sunk if you desire.
2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
HiTech