CV's STILL too blasted close!

[Saxman]

Ok, seriously. CVs are STILL able to get too close to bases. They should NOT be able to put you under auto puffy when you're over your OWN @#$%ing base.

[gyrene81]

Ok, seriously. CVs are STILL able to get too close to bases. They should NOT be able to put you under auto puffy when you're over your OWN @#$%ing base.

If you're base is on the coast line I don't see the problem...fly low and take a torpedo with you.

[Saxman]

If you're base is on the coast line I don't see the problem...fly low and take a torpedo with you.

Which does NOTHING for trying to get altitude just to meet incoming attacks. How is THAT NOT a problem?

[321BAR]

Ok, seriously. CVs are STILL able to get too close to bases. They should NOT be able to put you under auto puffy when you're over your OWN @#$%ing base.

The only reason CV groups were not allowed too near enemy fortifications in WWII was because the CV would be too exposed and would be attacked quickly. Our CV groups are also in place of landing forces for LVT operations. These operations although would not include CVs at the shoreline would in place use 50 BBs CAs DDs and manymanymanymanymany support and landing craft. In some of these Ops CVs would also be used to defend the landing forces such as Leyte Gulf away from the landing force. Therefore give us landing groups to be used in game and then ill say +1 to this.

[gyrene81]

Which does NOTHING for trying to get altitude just to meet incoming attacks. How is THAT NOT a problem?

It's only a problem if you forget it's just a game...you're not the first one to run into something like that and yet in spite of it happening all the time...people manage to fend off such attacks all the time.

[The Fugitive]

It's only a problem if you forget it's just a game...you're not the first one to run into something like that and yet in spite of it happening all the time...people manage to fend off such attacks all the time.

....and being a game it's suppose to be fair for both side. That being said, if the puffy ack aids the CV attackers by limiting the alt of the defenders, the base ack should be made to cover a wider area and limit the attackers alt over their CV.

So which would you rather have a limit on how close a CV can come to a shore base, or more ack at land bases? 

[gyrene81]

....and being a game it's suppose to be fair for both side. That being said, if the puffy ack aids the CV attackers by limiting the alt of the defenders, the base ack should be made to cover a wider area and limit the attackers alt over their CV.

So which would you rather have a limit on how close a CV can come to a shore base, or more ack at land bases? 

Well, it is fair for all sides...each side has CV groups available to them and they can park them equally as close to enemy bases.

I'm sure everyone would enjoy long range puffy ack at every single base...personally, I'd prefer it if the ship ack wasn't automated.

[Bronk]

Well, it is fair for all sides...each side has CV groups available to them and they can park them equally as close to enemy bases.

I'm sure everyone would enjoy long range puffy ack at every single base...personally, I'd prefer it if the ship ack wasn't automated.

I'd prefer all guns to be manned but once vacated they go auto.

[MachFly]

The only reason CV groups were not allowed too near enemy fortifications in WWII was because the CV would be too exposed and would be attacked quickly. Our CV groups are also in place of landing forces for LVT operations. These operations although would not include CVs at the shoreline would in place use 50 BBs CAs DDs and manymanymanymanymany support and landing craft. In some of these Ops CVs would also be used to defend the landing forces such as Leyte Gulf away from the landing force. Therefore give us landing groups to be used in game and then ill say +1 to this.