Taking and retaking ports/CVs

[oTRALFZo]

99.9999999% of the time, port gets taken, and captured CVs get driven out 5000 miles to be added as some dweeb's bathtub toy collection rendering the port and cv "useless". Most of the time, this strategy is used mostly when people are not as much online which is kind of gamey.

I propose thatif the port and CV belongs to country A, Country B captures the port, sinks the cv they get the CV.

Country A then attacks that port and if recaptured, propose a "rebuild" time that they get a CV for that port if held onto for say 45 mins without sinking CV, 10 mins (like now) if they do sink it.

Country B still has a "ghost ship", that is still a functioning platform to use for attack if they choose to, but if that gets sunk, it does not respawn.

Lets keep things interesting here, would make for some nice defense and offense to capture and recapture ports. Too many times if the freindly country has the CV being brought out too far to be sunk, noone wants to defend that port anyways.

[guncrasher]

switch countries find it then let your friends know and have a mission to sink it.  hiding cv's is crappy, but it's not going to change.


semp

[grumpy37]

I like his idea.  He isnt trying to stop them from hiding it, he is making it pointless to do so.  Makes sense that a port could produce a new ship within a certain length of time regardless if the other ship is sunk or not.

[SlapShot]

If a country re-takes a port that they had originally owned, 60 minutes after capture, the position of the CV should show on the map.

This would prevent the hiding of a CV for an unlimited time.

This would allow the current owner of the CV some stealth and time to reposition the CV for a possible attack/re-take.

This would make the original owner of the CV (who just re-took their port) have to sink the CV (work for it) rather than have it automatically scuttle and return ownership.

[RTHolmes]

-1  

CV groups only do 30mph. if they get hidden the only reason is because nobody can be bothered to sink em.



edit:

hiding cv's is crappy

... but not as crappy as spying.

[Lusche]

-1  

CV groups only do 30mph. if they get hidden the only reason is because nobody can be bothered to sink em.

It's often not that simple. A country is on the roll, completely overwhelming another by numbers & huge missions and taking a lot of bases in short time, among them port & CV. And while still having the superiority on the whole front, they go and hide the CV without any problem (and without any need too).
When the country that's been rolled finally can get some initative back, the CV is usually already far away, location unknown. Particularly on Tagma I have seen a lot of CVs, sometimes all of one country, being hidden for a week. And it was not simply because "nobody did sink them".


On the original suggestion: I'm not sure if this may bee too complex from a coading point. After all, the TG is another base, and I do not know how difficult it would be to have a dynamic number of bases. Personally, I'd prefer a simple timer - CV can only survive for 3(4? or whatever) hours without it's port.

[RTHolmes]

well if the port and all the bases near it are captured by a rolling horde it will be difficult. still, even 3h later the CV has only moved 3 sectors diagonally. this is where mossie XVIs and Ar234s are useful ...

[oTRALFZo]

It's often not that simple. A country is on the roll, completely overwhelming another by numbers & huge missions and taking a lot of bases in short time, among them port & CV. And while still having the superiority on the whole front, they go and hide the CV without any problem (and without any need too).
When the country that's been rolled finally can get some initative back, the CV is usually already far away, location unknown. Particularly on Tagma I have seen a lot of CVs, sometimes all of one country, being hidden for a week. And it was not simply because "nobody did sink them".


On the original suggestion: I'm not sure if this may bee too complex from a coading point. After all, the TG is another base, and I do not know how difficult it would be to have a dynamic number of bases. Personally, I'd prefer a simple timer - CV can only survive for 3(4? or whatever) hours without it's port.

That idea would work too. Although it may seem too complex and hard to explain, breaking it down would mean that each port would have 2 cvs assigned max. That is counting on the port being recaptured and held for a significant amount of time,
Setups on a port (minus the soft guns) can be shut down by 1 jabo. IMO..its ashame that once ports are captured (and you know they are wanting to take that cv so far out), it not only renders the CV useless, but also the port unless of course it has a GV spawn to another base.
Often time, if its a freindly country that has the cv within a safe distance and the port is attacked, noone bothers to even up knowing there is really no need for it. So why not bring in some urgency to attack, hold then defend them at ALL time?

I think this would also put a new level of strategy in the game and I think there would just be alot more action on the map.

[oTRALFZo]

well if the port and all the bases near it are captured by a rolling horde it will be difficult. still, even 3h later the CV has only moved 3 sectors diagonally. this is where mossie XVIs and Ar234s are useful ...

You still have the option of doing that ( if you want your CV within 10 mins of capturing port and dont feel like defending) is what Im proposing.

Its not about not wanting to work for my CVs thats the issue here. Unless Im doing laundry between sorties, I dont have the will nor the want to fly 1 hour in buffs to sink a boat for the fatherland.

Im just thinking of bringing in a new dynamic to our port setups and get more action on the map

[falcon23]

submarines are the answer which you seek grasshopper..