CV's and thier usefullness/uselessness as it is now.

[whels]

As it stands right now are about totally useless. if u get total surprise on the enemy and strike fast u can get bases. but
if they see ur there CVs are way to easy
to kill with a lone 2 1ks fighter, level bomber or Shore batteries.

CVs represent a standard small/medium base but is mobile.

some possible fixes addons for CV ops.
requirement for Fleet destruction is way too low, 2 1ks will sink a Carrier.

Damage required needs to be upped drastickly, say equaling total # of eggs required to close a small or medium base which is 26 eggs for small base to kill
all its hangers, fuel, ammo and radar.
after all it takes anywhwere from 1 hour to
5 hours + to get to the combat lines usually and only 5 mins for someone like me to alt a 2 1k fighter and end the CV strike.
if u dont want to make the Carrier that hardened then require all taskforce shipe to be sunk before it will respawn.

Taskforces need to be porkable like regualr bases. have the destroyers represent
fuel, ammo, troops, dar, GVs like other bases have. and we also need supply cargo
ships to resupply the taskforce if ships
sink. say u get your cV or CA sunk or some
destroyers(fuel ..ect) sunk, but u retreat the TF safely.  Cargo ships would be like the
C47, m3 or truck convoys used for bases and could spawn from nearest friendly base. each crago ship could repair 1 ship in order of
priority(CV #1, CA#2, then DS's)

cargo supply ships would give PT drivers something to hunt   and TBM and other Torp planes. Cargo ships would lightly defended
(30cal 50cal, maybe 1 or 2 20mms) and require 1 torp or 1 1ker to sink or even gunned down.


is it possible as more damage is done to the
TF that ack and main bombardment guns
become inoperable?


just some thoughts while DLing 1.08.4  

but TFs need to beefed up.

whels

[LePaul]

I dunno....ships don't require a huge amount of ordinance to sink....what's-his-face proved that (dang, can't think of that General's name who wow'd the world sinking a ship witha force of biplanes and bombs).

Lately I've been seeing Arados zapping CVs.  One got in and out fast while last night another got zapped by ack on his eggress out.

It would be cool if CVs could take damage, imagine flying around and seeing a huge cloud of smoke out to sea!

But tactically, if the CV has been spotted, their stealth is gone and are a big target.  Adding what it takes in poundage to sink it isnt the solution.  Its more a matter of maximizing the CV attack force before they are found.

I'm still in awe that fast moving targets get hit by the Fleet AI ack, while a slow moving one lining up over it remains unscaathed.  Frustrating to watch a dive bomber get setup and dive without taking hits in the process.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]

[Yeager]

Would be nice for CV captain to be able to manually steer CV.

CVs definately need to be harder to kill except with torpedoes.

I love CV ops and I like your ideas whels.

Y

[CRASH]

Oh no, we cant do that! What will all the suicide p47 dweebs do when they couldnt get to sink the carrier that took 3 hours to get into position and 100 other people are having fun flying off of and fighting. NO CHANGES!!..especially one that takes us away from the Quake arena.

CRASH  

 

Originally posted by whels:
As it stands right now are about totally useless. if u get total surprise on the enemy and strike fast u can get bases. but
if they see ur there CVs are way to easy
to kill with a lone 2 1ks fighter, level bomber or Shore batteries.

CVs represent a standard small/medium base but is mobile.

some possible fixes addons for CV ops.
requirement for Fleet destruction is way too low, 2 1ks will sink a Carrier.

Damage required needs to be upped drastickly, say equaling total # of eggs required to close a small or medium base which is 26 eggs for small base to kill
all its hangers, fuel, ammo and radar.
after all it takes anywhwere from 1 hour to
5 hours + to get to the combat lines usually and only 5 mins for someone like me to alt a 2 1k fighter and end the CV strike.
if u dont want to make the Carrier that hardened then require all taskforce shipe to be sunk before it will respawn.

Taskforces need to be porkable like regualr bases. have the destroyers represent
fuel, ammo, troops, dar, GVs like other bases have. and we also need supply cargo
ships to resupply the taskforce if ships
sink. say u get your cV or CA sunk or some
destroyers(fuel ..ect) sunk, but u retreat the TF safely.  Cargo ships would be like the
C47, m3 or truck convoys used for bases and could spawn from nearest friendly base. each crago ship could repair 1 ship in order of
priority(CV #1, CA#2, then DS's)

cargo supply ships would give PT drivers something to hunt   and TBM and other Torp planes. Cargo ships would lightly defended
(30cal 50cal, maybe 1 or 2 20mms) and require 1 torp or 1 1ker to sink or even gunned down.


is it possible as more damage is done to the
TF that ack and main bombardment guns
become inoperable?


just some thoughts while DLing 1.08.4  

but TFs need to beefed up.

whels

[Kweassa]

I believe he was Billy Mitchell, LePaul. He proved the future of warfare lies in the sky, not sea or land.. by sinking a submarine, a destroyer, a light cruiser and finally the "unsinkable" battle ship Ostfritzland(or was it 'Osfrizland'?) in 1921, in front of the eyes of Navy top-hats. The B-25 was named "Mitchell" in honor of him.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Kweassa:
I believe he was Billy Mitchell, LePaul. He proved the future of warfare lies in the sky, not sea or land.. by sinking a submarine, a destroyer, a light cruiser and finally the "unsinkable" battle ship Ostfritzland(or was it 'Osfrizland'?) in 1921, in front of the eyes of Navy top-hats. The B-25 was named "Mitchell" in honor of him.

They (the upper naval brass) still wouldn't believe him though.  After he was de-moted in rank, he retired, went on to write several books about it, and his minions took up the cause in the 30's, thankfully, just in time for WW2.

[DamnedATC]

Hi-Tech

I agree with Whels and westy.   The CV's are way to easy to eliminate.    Having CV's are a great feature, make it much harder to take out the TF.

ATC

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: DamnedATC ]

[Westy MOL]

"...I agree with Whels."    

 I also agree they are too easy. Increasing the ack lethality I do not believe to be the best answer but removal of all escort ships and maybe a combo of xx bombs and xx torpedoes is the trick to sink a CV.

 A lot could be done with the fleets. Perhaps it would be ok "up" the ack lethality but cause each bomb or torpedo hit to destroy "x" number of ack positions on the ship hit.  Also, allow the CV to be hit enough so that the CV lists heavily after 80% damage has been incured. With a "no damage incurred" time period of, say, 30 minutes it could right itself level again. Listing would force players to make a CV withdrawal from the action instead of having a total loss and it would still prohibit flight ops due to an inability to take off.

  Westy

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

[SKurj]

Beef up the CV against Bombs!!  But not torps...


SKurj

[LePaul]

Ok, how many perkies for an Exocet?  

[Apache]

I'm with ya whels.

It's irrelevant what a real CV can or could take. We have suicide pilots who's goal is to take out the cv whether they make it out alive or not.

[R4M]

Mitchell's tests were shamefully cheated. The fact that he was right on his vision doesnt deny that he cheated.

[Buzzbait]

S!

Reason #1 CV`s get sunk easily is that the bozo who is commanding them maneuvers them to within Visual distance of enemy bases.  Any TF commander who did that in RL would get his butt busted to Boston so fast he`d be yanked out of his gaunche.

Even in the closing days of the Pacific War, when the Japanese Air force wasn`t a real threat, Halsey didn`t take TF58 in close to the Japanese Home islands.

Half the time I come into the MA and find a TF plotted to head right inshore to an enemy target, and there are ZERO friendlies manning it.

Same thing with enemy CV`s.  I came across one the other day, headed for a friendly base, no CAP at all.  I was able to put up 3 Tiffie missions, and sink both the CV and Cruiser with absolutely no hindrance from aircraft.  Only lost 1 Tiffie to flak, and that was more due to my own bad flying.

Reason #2 is that the guy who sends them in close, then doesn`t make sure there is CAP over them protecting against suicide Jabos.

If you are going to go into harms way, then you have to take pracautions.  If you use the CV`s offensively, then make sure you have 3-6 other players operating out of the CV.  Ideally you have one continuous CAP over the TF, a guy manning AA and maneuvering it, and 4 guys doing the strikes at the target. These last can be converted into CAP if you get a big threat.

The fact is, history tells us Capital ships are very vulnerable to aircraft.  If you accept that as a given, and take steps to counter threats, then you don`t have a problem.

I think the CV`s should be pretty much as they are.  

What I would like to see is the reduction in accuracy of the level bombers against fleet or other targets.  No way in the world in RL were level bombers as accurate as they are in AH.

You should have to kill a ship with a dive bomber or torpedo plane, the way it was in RL.

[BD]

I would vote for increasing the amount of ordinance needed to sink a ship, any ship.

[MiG Eater]

I agree with whels that it is too easy to kill a carrier and its associated fleet.  Two bombs can effectively knock out six ships. However, I have different reasons.

It is reasonable to expect that two 1000lb bombs would damage a carrier's flight deck enough to prevent air operations.  With the high probability of hitting fuel and/or ordnance, secondary explosions would cascade throughout the affected areas.  Such damage would require a trip back to its homeport for repairs if the ship wasn't abandonned or sunk outright.  Except for the instant return to a port base, that is what we have in the way the CV fleet is modeled.  

There are two main factor for ease of CV kills. I believe that it is far too easy for an aircraft to get within bomb release range.  Single airplanes, with every anti-aircraft gun focused on them, need to have a survivability rate far lower than what we see now.  Our ships are very difficult to maneuver as well.  It is too difficult to input ship's course changes to produce a difficult-to-hit target.  I can't imagine a captain waiting for his navigation crew to calculate a new heading when bombs are raining down or torpedoes are in the water.  

Could we possibly see the implementation of a helmsman's wheel that offers the option to steer a single waypoint instead of using a mouse to click/submit a point on the map?  If that is not implementable, how about a series of present course deviations like "ease/turn/hard to port" with a slewed waypoint that results 30°, 60°, or 90° turns, for instance.  I can picture a series of these preset course change buttons at the bottom of the ship's control chart.  With an airplane in the groove (for landing), however, lockout the course-change function to enable it to land.

As far is damage; Would there be a way to limit the number of airplanes that can be flown from a carrier whose elevators are damaged?  Without the ability to bring fresh airplanes "to the roof," a CV would be limited to the aircraft on the deck or in the air.  I'm not sure how you would model destroying the ammo locker in a ship.  The resultant explosion in a confined space would place a ship out of commision in a matter of minutes.

MiG