Really? CV Needs to be this close?

[Crash Orange]

When a carrier was supporting an invasion it wasn't the carrier's escorts that were rushing in to blast the hell out of the target, so why should it be any different here?

Because this isn't a naval game, it's an air game with some ships thrown in for variety.

Any attempt at even remotely realistic rules/sim for the ships in this game would be doomed. The main reason is the time frame: no one is going to want to take four hours or more to embark and land troops, or half a day for surface fleets to maneuver to within sight of each other, or an hour or two to form up a strike and hit an enemy CV 100+ miles away. Not to mention hours or even days of bombardment and airstrikes before landing troops. The numbers are also way off, you'd need dozens of pilots to simulate a proper attack on a CV group.

IMHO the CVs should have to stay a bit further out than they do now, but because it would improve game play, not because it's more realistic. The biggest problem currently is the ability to have puffy ack over the enemy airfield, that should never be allowed. Puffy ack should also be less effective against maneuvering fighters and more effective against bombers flying straight and level.

[Bruv119]

I think that the CV commander should be able to set the speed of the ship.

[Spikes]

I think that the CV commander should be able to set the speed of the ship.

Can cause more ways fot the spies to take control...set the speed to 2kts and its a sitting duck...
Another idea just sprouted...how about different Modes, if Sax's thing doesn't go through. If it's in bombardment mode, it slows down, but no aircraft are able to launch.

[Saxman]

Any attempt at even remotely realistic rules/sim for the ships in this game would be doomed. The main reason is the time frame: no one is going to want to take four hours or more to embark and land troops, or half a day for surface fleets to maneuver to within sight of each other, or an hour or two to form up a strike and hit an enemy CV 100+ miles away. Not to mention hours or even days of bombardment and airstrikes before landing troops. The numbers are also way off, you'd need dozens of pilots to simulate a proper attack on a CV group.

Would you mind explaining just WHERE in my post I said any of this?

[JunkyII]

Would you mind explaining just WHERE in my post I said any of this?

dude, you cant argue with that guy hes just gunna say retarded things

[Anaxogoras]

  Thanks for reminding me why the main arena is rarely worth the time.

[sandwich]

When the carrier is that close i always try to move it out.

The only problem is that my rank isnt very good and some idiot with a better score than me takes control and turns it right in line with the shore battery.

[CAP1]

When the carrier is that close i always try to move it out.

The only problem is that my rank isnt very good and some idiot with a better score than me takes control and turns it right in line with the shore battery.

we had someone in mw doing that last night. a squaddie that outranked him, took it, and moved it towards a more reasonable place to try to make a fight.

[Crash Orange]

Would you mind explaining just WHERE in my post I said any of this?

You didn't. What I'm saying is that I think the requirements of playability make the naval game so inherently unrealistic that any attempt to make it closer to RL is futile - it's going to be wildly unrealistic no matter what you do, because the pace and scale of the game is designed around small-scale and spontaneous air-to-air fights rather than something as methodical as an amphibious invasion or fleet action. Everything in the game other than those small AtA fights is just a mechanic to give them a focus and objective.

For example, getting the CV as close as in this example is silly, but IMO the basic fact that you have to bring one of our expendable CVs in close enough to risk it sinking if you want to launch LVTs is good for game play because it results in more intense and hard-fought battles.

[Chalenge]

There is not much danger of losing the fleet when nearly EVERYONE in the arena is afraid of losing 300 bomber perks and the RANK associated with a single death (this is EW remember). I have tried explaining to them that a few deaths dont make that much difference but someone has spread the false rumor already that it does. In some cases upping a bomber will have everyone defecting so they can take a shot at you. Its not like LW at all.

[usvi]

There is not much danger of losing the fleet when nearly EVERYONE in the arena is afraid of losing 300 bomber perks and the RANK associated with a single death (this is EW remember). I have tried explaining to them that a few deaths dont make that much difference but someone has spread the false rumor already that it does. In some cases upping a bomber will have everyone defecting so they can take a shot at you. Its not like LW at all.

This explains the reason that CV group is so close...undefended bases,EW dwellers favorite target.
A flight of JU-88s would put that Cv group down no problem.

[Saxman]

You didn't. What I'm saying is that I think the requirements of playability make the naval game so inherently unrealistic that any attempt to make it closer to RL is futile - it's going to be wildly unrealistic no matter what you do, because the pace and scale of the game is designed around small-scale and spontaneous air-to-air fights rather than something as methodical as an amphibious invasion or fleet action. Everything in the game other than those small AtA fights is just a mechanic to give them a focus and objective.

For example, getting the CV as close as in this example is silly, but IMO the basic fact that you have to bring one of our expendable CVs in close enough to risk it sinking if you want to launch LVTs is good for game play because it results in more intense and hard-fought battles.

That's a load of BS. It is NOT good for gameplay to bring the CV in that close for the reasons already stated. Defenders can't climb out because the instant they take off they come under AAA fire.

Separating out the fleet types would NOT negatively impact playability. Rather it would encourage more variety by having different fleets that serve different purposes. Do you keep your fleets together? Do you let your CA/BB gunship group range out on their own to attack an enemy CV and risk losing them to air attack? Do you support your landing group with the carrier, or try to run it in with help from land-based aircraft?

We have different base types that serve different functions, so why not different fleets as well?

[Getback]

Was hitting the cv with a manned ack. Hoped my flashes would show up. My timing was off though. Someone else sunk the cv. After seeing me take down many guns on the BB one friendly asked, "are you doing that?' Yep.

[4deck]

LOL

What i mean is there a name for a CV that dam close.  Kind like we have "spawn capers", "alt monkeys" "ram tards" "ack huggers".  surly we can come up with a name for the CV 50 yrs from the base.

A Dredger

[CAP1]

Can cause more ways fot the spies to take control...set the speed to 2kts and its a sitting duck...
Another idea just sprouted...how about different Modes, if Sax's thing doesn't go through. If it's in bombardment mode, it slows down, but no aircraft are able to launch.

stop spies from taking control? easy. it can be timed before you switch sides again. link cv control the same way.

 you just switch from knights to rooks? no ability to control cv's for 1 hour.