Author Topic: Japanese carrier  (Read 962 times)

Offline jimson

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7202
      • The Axis vs Allies Arena
Japanese carrier
« on: December 06, 2013, 01:08:28 PM »
I wish for a working version of this:







Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2013, 01:13:53 PM »
It would be fun to have different kinds of carrier groups represented.  Similar to what we have now in the larger maps, some of the groups have the CV, a cruiser, and 4 destroyers.  Some have no cruiser, some have fewer destroyers, some have just the CV only.

That would be a good place to have naval groups with NO cv, and just cruisers and destroyers.  Use them for support and bring in the ground based aircraft.  Also, having Japan, Britian, and US carriers represented would be nice.  Ditto for the cruisers and destroyers.   :aok 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline surfinn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2013, 10:05:35 AM »
Taking off from a britt CV might be very tough.

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7482
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2013, 10:42:15 AM »
Ark Royal

JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10

MW148 LW301
"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2013, 10:58:20 AM »







Offline cobia38

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2013, 06:33:28 AM »
 to easy to sink, japan  did not have proxie fuse AAA    :D


  Harvesting taters,one  K4 at a time

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10909
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2013, 10:22:50 AM »
to easy to sink, japan  did not have proxie fuse AAA    :D

Yeah but it's purrty.

And, the proxie fused AAA isn't as important outside the MA.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 10:25:40 AM by Easyscor »
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2013, 02:18:26 PM »
Rather than CV's having #'s, historical names would be superior.

Offline bortas1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2013, 02:26:23 PM »
 :salute how about germen's  only aircraft carrier?

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7482
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2013, 02:51:15 PM »
Incomplete and in dry dock
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10

MW148 LW301
"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2013, 04:45:32 PM »
Would love to see RN and IJN CVs.  Of course, they're not equivalent in several ways, most notably the lack of twin 5" turrets, armored deck for RN flattops, etc, I'd still love to see this.  Heck, it would be cool if the type rotated each time it respawned (though as with most things players could game this).  The one we have represented the high-point of CV development in the war, but I'd love to see some of the earlier ones, too.  I was always found of the Lexington and Saratogo. Originally laid down as battlecruisers, both was converted into the Navy's first fleet aircraft carriers during construction, to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.  As such, they were fast and rugged, though initially somewhat weak in the air defense department. However, that was steadily upgraded through the war. In 1942, for example, in late May, her armament consisted of 16 five-inch guns, nine quadruple 1.1-inch gun mounts and 32 Oerlikon 20-millimeter (0.79 in) guns.  After the ship was damaged in August 1942, her 1.1-inch gun mounts were replaced by an equal number of quadruple Bofors 40 mm mounts while she was under repair at Pearl Harbor. Her light anti-aircraft armament was also increased to 52 Oerlikon guns at the same time. In January 1944 a number of her 20 mm guns were replaced by more Bofors guns, many of which were in the positions formerly occupied by the ship's boats in the sides of the hull. Saratoga mounted 23 quadruple and two twin 40 mm mountings as well as 16 Oerlikon guns when she completed her refit  The Saratoga was one of only three USN CVs that were in service from the beginning to the end of WWII, the Enterprise and Ranger being the other two.  She became a dedicated training ship after the war, and in mid-1946, the ship was a target for nuclear weapon tests during Operation Crossroads. She survived the first test with little damage, but was sunk by the second test.  

BTW, I'd also love to see Enterprise in AH, as it saw more action and participated in more battles than any other CV in history.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 04:58:37 PM by Sabre »
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10909
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2013, 06:52:48 PM »
An IJN CV would be fine, even for the MA if it's TG had two CA with it and the same hardness as our current CV.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2013, 08:22:39 AM »
My preferred method would be to have Ports/CVs added in threes for each side, on US, on Japanese and one UK.  For balance purposes perhaps make the UK carrier much tougher to reflect its armored deck and give the Japanese group a BB (Nagato or Yamato) ahead of the carrier and a Takao CA behind the carrier.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2013, 11:37:19 AM »
My preferred method would be to have Ports/CVs added in threes for each side, on US, on Japanese and one UK.  For balance purposes perhaps make the UK carrier much tougher to reflect its armored deck and give the Japanese group a BB (Nagato or Yamato) ahead of the carrier and a Takao CA behind the carrier.

It's a thought (and not to bad a one). It may even be a start, if it sparked more ship to ship interest, for adding a BB type of fleet for each AH national ship set (sans the USSR). That would constitute three types of CV task forces (sorry Germany, Italy and Russia) and the Iowa, King George V, Bismark and Littorio (Russian battleships were antiquated WWI left-overs) added to the Yamato for five types of BB task forces.  :cool: (Who will bravely man the Littorio against the Yamato?).

Offline 49Boob

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Japanese carrier
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2014, 05:58:21 PM »
I lovers it!!!! BBs should be in the game and all guns should be mannable the DDs have 3 extra 5"s that could be used for killing town and other task groups~ +1 for each of the BBs and the IJN RN CVS maybe even the smaller escort carriers?

In the TGs with BBs have an escort carrier with 2 CCs and 6DDs
TGs with CV 1CC 8DDs

BB TGs would be great for field suppression and GV landings (M4s M3s M8s Jeeps ect...)
CV TGs for aerial assaults. :)