CVs

[grizz441]

Yeah, the CV will after it is sunk.  Maybe a different argument?  I would compare the CV to a field not an individual plane.

So you agree that a single guy should be able to sink a CV if he is willing to die a few times.

I'd like to see a single guy sink a CV that has manned 5".  Show me that first.   

[The Fugitive]

Maybe the 8000 lbs to sink the CV should only take out the fighters for 15 minutes. An additional 8k would be needed to sink it. Put the guns on 15 minute repair timers so they have to keep hitting them to keep it down. Make it so a group effort is needed to sink it much like a group effort is needed to capture a base.

[CptTrips]

Two questions:

1.  What is the difference, in this context, between a CV and an airfield?  Are you willing to make the same argument for undestroyable ack for airfields too?  If not, why not?  Airfields can't even change course.  So surely that would be the next argument.  Its the thin end of an unappealing wedge.

2.  Why are threads like this showing up in the General Forum lately instead of the Wishlist Forum?

Regards,
Wab

[vafiii]

Every good CV fight ends prematurely with heavy bombers hitting the CV from 10K or above, thus ending a good fight. There's no way a B-17 can hit a moving, turning carrier from 10K. Why not leave carrier attacks to dive bombers and torpedo planes like in WWII? I also agree the CV should be able to withstand more damage.   

[Zoney]

So, you don't want 1 guy to be able to take out a CV but you want one guy to be able to defend it?

Get some friends then, if the CV dies go do something else.

[grizz441]

Make it so a group effort is needed to sink it much like a group effort is needed to capture a base.

It takes a group effort to destroy a defended CV, just like it takes a group effort to capture a defended airfield.

[oTRALFZo]

Yeah, the CV will after it is sunk.  Maybe a different argument?  I would compare the CV to a field not an individual plane.

So you agree that a single guy should be able to sink a CV if he is willing to die a few times.

If you see how many guys run to feild ack, you would think that most players real lives were at stake. They die a million times, you get a million deaths, you print out your score and head over to the pub and use it as a pick up line  

Some dont care about K/Ds and those are the people that keep the game alive. Making the guns indestructable will then give that guy no reward for sacraficing his AH life so why would he want to up if the 5 incher is just going to keep plowing him?

[waystin2]

I have only one problem with current CV setup and it is not it's ability to be killed.  That I consider a non-issue.  However, the ability to drive it so close to shore that it's puffy ack can reach onto or over a land base is just not right.  The distance that it has to stay from the shore still needs to be increased.  By the way Dedalos, this will cut down on the above described suicide dweebs as it would require longer and hopefully more dangerous flights to their intended CV target.

 

Way

[dedalos]

It takes a group effort to destroy a defended CV, just like it takes a group effort to capture a defended airfield.

Grizz can aim a tater, therefore, he is an expert in every aspect of the game    Listen to him.  The fact that it happened twice yesterday means nothing because I have to show it to him 

[grizz441]

Grizz can aim a tater, therefore, he is an expert in every aspect of the game    Listen to him.  The fact that it happened twice yesterday means nothing because I have to show it to him 

I don't believe you.

[dedalos]

Two questions:

1.  What is the difference, in this context, between a CV and an airfield?  Are you willing to make the same argument for undestroyable ack for airfields too?  If not, why not?  Airfields can't even change course.  So surely that would be the next argument.  Its the thin end of an unappealing wedge.

Actually yes.  If not indestructible at list meaningful.  If the CV or field ack meant something to the incoming planes then yes.

2.  Why are threads like this showing up in the General Forum lately instead of the Wishlist Forum?

Does it really bother you that match?    

[dedalos]

I don't believe you.

Do you have film of not believing me? 

[grizz441]

Do you have film of not believing me? 

 

[Krusty]

I just wish the fershlugginer CVs couldn't come within 50 miles of shore. No way in Hades would you find a war-time CV doing circles 1 mile off the shoreline of a base that's also positioned on the beachfront, where the 5" puffy ack can and does vulch planes.


If you're tired of losing the CV to bombers that suicide multiple times, don't park it offshore of an enemy field.

The CV regenerates so much points over so many minutes. The ONLY way that the same guy can up quickly enough and hit it again and again to sink it is if you're 20 seconds away from him taking off. Otherwise by the time he gets back to it, it has regenerated its hull damage.


I'd love it if you run a CV aground it would stop. Just stop. It would be beached and stay there until sunk. Or it explodes and puts the name of the person that did this to shame: "C47 was ran aground by dedalos" (for example)

[CptTrips]

Actually yes.  If not indestructible at list meaningful.  If the CV or field ack meant something to the incoming planes then yes.

Does it really bother you that match?    

Are you asserting that the ack for a CV group (CV + escorts) is signifigantly less effective than for an average airfield?  

If the CV or field ack meant something to the incoming planes then yes.

I'm not sure I'm parsing your response correctly.  Are you saying that field ack should be indestructable too?

Wab