Puffy

[grizz441]

Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.

:facepalm

[Tank-Ace]

Melvin, yes they would. That the entire fleet is coming close to shore isn't the source of the issue. The issue  comes from poor (perhaps bordering on lazy), coading of the puffy ack. Not nessicarily HTC's fault, they might have been unable to figure out a better way to coad it at the time. But the fact remains that our current auto-puffy has outlived its usefullness, and is in need of an update.


I can deack most of the carrier or cruiser with a single 190F8. I can probably completly deack a destroyer. But no less puffy is shooting at me or my friends.

I can destroy all but 1 ship and even deack that last one, and the puffy wouldn't stop.

I can hide behind a mountian, and that won't stop the puffy ack.


As for getting off lightly, be thankfull that your ships can fire through each other and not even scratch the paint. Its entirely possible that a salvo from a triple 8" gun batter would tear a destroyer in half in real life.

[IrishOne]

except for the p38, now that is a man's plane.  now you really gotta have some skill to get that large piece of junk in the middle of action get kills and back to land them.  rest of the plane set is just for noobs and those who want to make themselves feel important.

you talk like your lips don't fit.  

[Melvin]

Melvin, yes they would. That the entire fleet is coming close to shore isn't the source of the issue. The issue  comes from poor (perhaps bordering on lazy), coading of the puffy ack. Not nessicarily HTC's fault, they might have been unable to figure out a better way to coad it at the time. But the fact remains that our current auto-puffy has outlived its usefullness, and is in need of an update.


I can deack most of the carrier or cruiser with a single 190F8. I can probably completly deack a destroyer. But no less puffy is shooting at me or my friends.

I can destroy all but 1 ship and even deack that last one, and the puffy wouldn't stop.

I can hide behind a mountian, and that won't stop the puffy ack.


As for getting off lightly, be thankfull that your ships can fire through each other and not even scratch the paint. Its entirely possible that a salvo from a triple 8" gun batter would tear a destroyer in half in real life.

Now you see, I was always under the impression that the more guns you hit in a TG, the less ack would be sent up.

Perhaps there is a fundamental flaw to some of my argument.

However, I still contend that if we had the ability to drive DD's into the littoral zone, very few aircraft would survive a brace of manned guns.

Think about it this way: If you are going against auto ack, you stand a far better chance of getting your B-25 in close enough to be effective, as opposed to going up against a manned gun which will surely smoke you quickly. (I'm talking about "on the deck" here. For some strange reason the ack is ineffective against buffs at alt.)

[JUGgler]

:facepalm

Thank you Grizz, I knew there had to be at least one other person to see the EYE-ROW-KNEE in melvins statement!



There is hope yet  



JUGgler

[pervert]

The way I see it, the folks that are whining because they have a 3000 ft. cap should perhaps pause to think that they are getting off lightly.

I would love to see a WW2 CV anti aircraft team anticipate a manoeuvring plane pop over 3000 ft and insta pwn a plane travelling at 420 mph at 6k distance the second it pops up, let alone track 20 or 30 aircraft.

What guns on the task group are firing these? They aren't firing them its a random number generator in a given box around your aircraft. There is no guns pointing at me when I get pwned by puffy ack, if like field ack they had to split their fire to individual aircraft they are tracking puffy ack from CVs would be pretty harmless.

 

[JUGgler]

you talk like your lips don't fit.  

OK Irish I had to return and give you much deserved props here  

 
Now that is funny right there!



JUGgler

[grizz441]

I will say though, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the puffy ack only shoots at one person above 3k now, since Hitech fixed that aspect of it a few months ago. 

[Scotty55OEFVet]

I concur with the line of thought here.  If puffy ack can reach over the air field then the CV is too close to shore.  Not sure of the solution... 

Solution-Towns and Airfields have AA, Vehicle Bases have AA and AT guns for defense...what about coastal bases having an imaginary belt of Magnetic Anti-Shipping Mines? I am not quite sure of how effective these mines were over the course of the war, but they were used. How about a belt of them anywhere from 5-10k offshore. I am one of the many who loves to fend off a CV Attack but HATES trying to get that little xtra alt before engaging and then gets destroyed by ack before you can even meet the attackers lol. These mines would be a great deterrent from running CV Groups close to shore...thoughts?

[Peyton]

Naval support
USS FrankfordThe only artillery support for the troops making these tentative advances was from the navy. Finding targets difficult to spot, and in fear of hitting their own troops, the big guns of the battleships and cruisers concentrated fire on the flanks of the beaches. The destroyers, however, were able to get in closer, and from 08:00 began engaging their own targets. At 09:50, two minutes after the McCook destroyed a 75 mm gun position in WN-74, the destroyers were ordered to get as close in as possible. Some approached within 1,000 yards (900 m) several times, scraping bottom and risking running aground.[49] An engineer who had landed in the first wave at Fox Red, watching the Frankford steaming in towards shore, thought she had been badly hit and was being beached. Instead, she turned parallel to the beach and cruised westwards, guns blazing at targets of opportunity. Thinking she would turn back out to sea, the engineer soon saw that she had instead begun backing up, guns still firing. At one point, gunners aboard the Frankford saw an immobilized tank at the water's edge, still firing. Watching the fall of its shot, they followed up with a salvo of their own. In this manner, the tank acted as the ship's fire control party for several minute

[Saxman]

Solution-Towns and Airfields have AA, Vehicle Bases have AA and AT guns for defense...what about coastal bases having an imaginary belt of Magnetic Anti-Shipping Mines? I am not quite sure of how effective these mines were over the course of the war, but they were used. How about a belt of them anywhere from 5-10k offshore. I am one of the many who loves to fend off a CV Attack but HATES trying to get that little xtra alt before engaging and then gets destroyed by ack before you can even meet the attackers lol. These mines would be a great deterrent from running CV Groups close to shore...thoughts?

I'd rather push out the distance CVs are mechanically allowed to approach. IMO, block CVs from getting any closer than 20 miles from an airfield. However the main problem with any solution that limits how close the TG can get to shore is going to be the LVTs. So long as the only TG is the carrier and it can launch LVTs, it HAS to be allowed to get close enough to allow the LVTs to spawn.

That's why I support having a separate "Invasion" task group with an LST, escorted by a couple DEs and MAYBE a CVE with perhaps only the auto ack for point defense and manned 5" guns, with no Puffy Ack. The LST can launch LVTs, and once sunk LVTs are no longer available and it triggers the TG respawn. The CVE can only launch F4Fs/FM-2s, SBDs, TBMs, A6Ms, B5Ns, D3As, and Seafires. The Invasion group can approach to the same range as the task group can now, while the CV group is restricted to outside 20 miles of a base.

[mthrockmor]

In reading all of these responses I think the general theme is the task force needs to be modified to more accurately reflect reality and remove the arcade nature of it.

I agree!

Boo

[Peyton]

Tank, with all due respect, please stop using "to the best of your knowledge" statements and do some research.
Also when someone posts links of information, read them instead of commenting on their post with Armchair General statements.

Lastly, let me clarify here Tank as you are taking this verbatim.  .50s and AA were used in aircover support. Main guns were used in support of ground troops.  The whole point is the ships came close enough to shore (if you read my links) that they could cover a base or provide aircover. The 50’s probably would not be used unless the ship was being attacked and in range of enemy aircraft (once again in my link you apparently did not read) what happened at Anzio. In this game we cannot separate the fleet so CVS and HVY Cruisers will come close to shore when ordered to do so along with the destroyers.

[Melvin]

.50s and AA were used in aircover support. Main guns were used in support of ground troops.  The whole point is the ships came close enough to shore (if you read my links) that they could cover a base or provide aircover. The 50’s probably would not be used unless the ship was being attacked and in range of enemy aircraft (once again in my link you apparently did not read) what happened at Anzio. In this game we cannot separate the fleet so CVS and HVY Cruisers will come close to shore when ordered to do so along with the destroyers.

Bingo 

[Tank-Ace]

Bingo 

And therein lies the problem. We have 2 solutions to these issues (and the ARE issues, contrary to Petyon's questionable oppinion):

1) fix auto puffy to be more realistic. Shells fired from auto guns, guns have realistic rate of fire, total volume of fire decreases as guns are destroyed, guns reevaluate their lead on a target ever 5 seconds and adjust accordingly, and shells cannot be fired though objects (hills, other ships, etc).

2) allow the Destroyers to be 'detached' from the Carrier group so they can come in close to shore and provide AAA support, and do everything listed in #1 as well.


As I've said earlier, regardless of if the ships did what they do in real life, the puffy ack is behaving unrealisticly and needs to be fixed. #1 would help aleviate the issue, since an estimated 1/3rd of the guns will be unable to fire on a target most of the time, and destroying individual guns will help remove the problem. #2 just gives us the bonus of being able to use the ships that could come in close to shore (destroyers) to provide close support, and leave the Carrier and Cruiser back at a more historical distance.

Both would help, #1 would likely be much quicker to coad (to say nothing of easier), #2 would allow for more additions and changes to the fleet in the future. Since #2 would still require us to do everything listed in #1, I say we use option 1 and leave #2 for a later date.