Carrier Numbers

[earl1937]

  Now that we have the carriers country ID on the CV, how about putting the ship number on it so that we can tell which port it is from! Of course,  , that is not going anywhere with this suggestion.

[Lusche]

If you hit a CV you know it's number 

[Arlo]

I'd like more than that. I'd like a Japanese carrier modeled to enhance events.

[Rino]

     No carriers in the Spanish Civil War 

[Arlo]

     No carriers in the Spanish Civil War 

Doh!

[Saxman]

I'd like more than that. I'd like a Japanese carrier modeled to enhance events.

I'd love to see more carrier types all around for events. Imagine having actual Yorktown-class carriers for the Allies during the Midway scenario.

There's also gameplay mechanics that could be done with CVLs or CVEs in the Main Arenas. I've mentioned this before but...

CV Group

* Ships as current: 1 CV, 2-3 DDs, and the CA
* Remove all vehicles and make them aircraft-only
* Extend their closest approach to land to 25 miles

CVE Group

* 1 CVE, 2-3 DEs, and an LST or two
* CVE launches aircraft, (limit to F4Fs, Seafires/Hurricanes, SBDs, TBMs, Vals and Kates) vehicles launch from the LST
* Knocking out the LSTs disables vehicles for that task group
* Allow closer approach to land for LVT launches

[Arlo]

I'd love to see more carrier types all around for events. Imagine having actual Yorktown-class carriers for the Allies during the Midway scenario.

There's also gameplay mechanics that could be done with CVLs or CVEs in the Main Arenas. I've mentioned this before but...

CV Group

* Ships as current: 1 CV, 2-3 DDs, and the CA
* Remove all vehicles and make them aircraft-only
* Extend their closest approach to land to 25 miles

CVE Group

* 1 CVE, 2-3 DEs, and an LST or two
* CVE launches aircraft, (limit to F4Fs, Seafires/Hurricanes, SBDs, TBMs, Vals and Kates) vehicles launch from the LST
* Knocking out the LSTs disables vehicles for that task group
* Allow closer approach to land for LVT launches

Not bad. Now, carriers are terrain features. Existing terrains would have to be modified (I'm not sure how extensive this would be - progabaly varies with terrain). If we had, lets say, one US CV fleet, two US CVE fleets, one IJN CV fleet, one UK CV fleet per side then we're talking about 15 fleets, evenly distributed (prior to port capture) on a large map. Custom event maps may be more the key, of course, when it comes to carrier skinning. CV vs CVE fleet composition could be accomplished for the MA without such.

[Fish42]

Not bad. Now, carriers are terrain features. Existing terrains would have to be modified (I'm not sure how extensive this would be - probably varies with terrain). If we had, lets say, one US CV fleet, two US CVE fleets, one IJN CV fleet, one UK CV fleet per side then we're talking about 15 fleets, evenly distributed (prior to port capture) on a large map. Custom event maps may be more the key, of course, when it comes to carrier skinning. CV vs CVE fleet composition could be accomplished for the MA without such.

I like the idea of different CV groups on the map. But I think they should be a random chance of each popping when they spawn. IE. the CV for port 85 is the current US model... then after it is sunk a Brit CV group replaces it.

Each CV group could have unique attributes. Ie.

The Brit CV has an Armored Deck. So it would require AP or SAP bombs to damage it, but it also lacks the  LW US Heavy anti-air cover, this would be provided by HMS Bellona, fitted with ether EW or Mid-Late War arms. (could be dictated by the arena or CMs). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bellona_%2863%29

So the Brits would be better Vs Aircraft as the Carrier needs a special bomb and the Bellona would have heavy AA fire for its size. The fleet might lack a heavy CR or BB so it would struggle to deal with the current US fleet.

[Arlo]

I like the idea of different CV groups on the map. But I think they should be a random chance of each popping when they spawn. IE. the CV for port 85 is the current US model... then after it is sunk a Brit CV group replaces it.

As attractive as that sounds, it complicates matters as a coding issue. If fleets are terrain features can they be randomized in this manner? For instance, wouldn't that be kind of like a small airfield being destroyed but rebuilding as a large one?

[Fish42]

As attractive as that sounds, it complicates matters as a coding issue. If fleets are terrain features can they be randomized in this manner? For instance, wouldn't that be kind of like a small airfield being destroyed but rebuilding as a large one?

True, but atm we have a whole city that can pick up its skirt and run, so swapping in a different CV now an then does not sound that hard. also the Airfields don't blowup and sink under the land then pop back up 50 miles away, so not quite the same thing.

[Arlo]

True, but atm we have a whole city that can pick up its skirt and run, so swapping in a different CV now an then does not sound that hard. also the Airfields don't blowup and sink under the land then pop back up 50 miles away, so not quite the same thing.

Being aware of the differences, I'm not sure about how the similarities affect the coding and how hard it would be to randomize different fleet/terrain compositions via respawn. IF such wasn't much harder than reskinning fleets and shifting the vehicle spawn options to CVEs only, I'd like it, as well.

[smoe]

How about a double cv for some attack fleets.

[EagleDNY]

I'd like to see all the CV fleets go back to at least the double cruiser variant.