Larger Carrier Task Groups

[AKKuya]

A single carrier, single cruiser and four destroyer escorts are not enough.  They should be remodeled with 3 carriers, 2 cruisers and 8 destroyer escorts.

When all 3 CV's are sunk, then they respawn back at home port.

[Ack-Ack]

A single carrier, single cruiser and four destroyer escorts are not enough.  They should be remodeled with 3 carriers, 2 cruisers and 8 destroyer escorts.

When all 3 CV's are sunk, then they respawn back at home port.

I'd rather have an invasion task force be modeled as opposed to a battle task force we currently have. 

ack-ack

[MK-84]

How about variety of what spawns?  and in various amounts?

[Butcher]

How about variety of what spawns?  and in various amounts?

I always have been curious by this, I don't think its possible however in the future I'd love to see this.

A Variation of what spawns at a port, the possibilities could be endless, for example:

Cargo Convoy, which would simply run a course and return to port after a set time period in which something else spawns.
Why? It gives more strat targets to look for, and adds some variety.
CA Taskforce - Primary using heavy Cruisers with possible light cruisers and destroyers.
Air Taskforce - Carrier group, could compose of Cruisers and destroyers with a set number.
for example in the variation of this:
1-2 Fleet Carriers are an option, while the Variation of Cruisers would be one in this case, If there was only one Carrier, then possibly 2 heavy cruisers.

If HTC ever added Escort Carriers, they could be used to escort convoys, given the options of what aircraft take off it would likely be Wildcats, Zeros, FMs2, not heavier planes like Corsairs or Hellcats (following WW2 guidelines).

Escorts could provide some aircover to ship convoys, which generally would be considered a strat target.

/Wishlist, just throwing my ideas - I know htc is far overworked to add new warships from scratch.

[EagleDNY]

How about variety of what spawns?  and in various amounts?

I'd +1 that - random generation of 1-2 CVs and 1-4 Cruisers would be a great way to start. 

[MK-84]

I'd +1 that - random generation of 1-2 CVs and 1-4 Cruisers would be a great way to start. 

I seem to remember seeing 2 cruisers a few years back occasionally spawn with the CV group.  Did that actually happen, or is it my imagination?

[bacon8tr]

Still happens occasionally unless my eyes deceived me just last week.

[thndregg]

I'm all for something a bit more challenging than what is readily sinkable now. With a little patience & planning, the current CV is very easy to destroy with one flight of medium bombers (such as my favorite B26's)- and I do mean by legitimate LEVEL bombing methods. The only way I get stopped is with an established aerial defense over the fleet, or there is a very good gunner manning a 5".

[prowl3r]

I seem to remember seeing 2 cruisers a few years back occasionally spawn with the CV group.  Did that actually happen, or is it my imagination?

still happens but only on 1 map

[Greebo]

From a terrain builder's point of view there are limits as to how many ships can be put into an MA terrain. IIRC three standard fleets per side was the limit for a small MA terrain, more for a larger terrain. Also their ports had to be spread across the map, not grouped together. This is because too many ships in one spot can cause issues for slower PCs. Smaller fleets (one CV two CAs etc.) was a way to have more fleets on the map, as the resource issues relate to the number of ships on the map rather than the number of fleets.

Personally I'd like the puffy ack to be made a bit more "intelligent". It should be made much more effective against any aircraft that are more of a threat to the fleet, particularly those that are heading straight for it rather than those that are either flying a parallel course, turning or heading away from it. This would be the case in RL, the gunnery officer would throw everything at a plane that was inbound the CV, not on something that was turning circles five miles away.

[EagleDNY]

Smaller fleets (one CV two CAs etc.) was a way to have more fleets on the map, as the resource issues relate to the number of ships on the map rather than the number of fleets.

Personally I'd like the puffy ack to be made a bit more "intelligent". It should be made much more effective against any aircraft that are more of a threat to the fleet, particularly those that are heading straight for it rather than those that are either flying a parallel course, turning or heading away from it. This would be the case in RL, the gunnery officer would throw everything at a plane that was inbound the CV, not on something that was turning circles five miles away.

If the destroyers count against that resource issue, one quick suggestion I would make is just replace all the DDs with CAs - that would certainly lead to some epic sea battles!  We have no submarine threat, so having destroyers is pretty worthless.  Having 5 cruisers show up with a CV on the other hand would certainly make shore bombardment more of a threat to an airbase. 

Also agree with you on the "intelligence" of CV ack - it would make much more sense if it concentrated on inbound bombers instead of fooling around with circling fighters.  It might not be an issue if EVERY plane within a certain radius of the CV got puffy acked though.

[Rob52240]

I'd rather have an invasion task force be modeled as opposed to a battle task force we currently have.  

ack-ack

+1

[AKP]

If there were going to be "invasion" task groups along with the ones we have now... then the CV in those should be replaced with a BB.

And I would agree about not changing the size of the CV Battle group we have now.  Leave those as they are.  If someone wants 3 CV's to attack somewhere, then send 3 CV task groups and coordinate their arrival.

But a big +1 to adding an invasion fleet.  If that were done, you could remove the LVT from the CV's hangar.