Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port

[EagleDNY]

I kill a lot of CVs - it is vastly more efficient to just up a set of TU-2s or B-26s and come in about 5K.   If a CV is manned and turning there is no way a high level bomber is going to hit it.   By coming in low we just lead it a bit and score at least few hits every time.  Only manned ack and fighter cover prevents this sort of attack.  Puffy is worthless except to alert me when I am getting near the CV. 

I kind of like this idea - having the CV group respawn where it sits unless every ship is sunk means that I can turn the group away if the CV and Cruiser gets wacked and try to hide out with the destroyers until respawn.   If we do this though the CV respawn time has to be increased - I'd say take it 30 minutes.  This also has the benefit of making it harder to capture CV and BB groups, so it might lessen people wanting to capture a CV/BB and hide it on some corner of the map in off hours. 

[pembquist]

I think it would be interesting if it respawned in one of 5 random spawn points a good distance away form the port. That way only the side that owns it would know where it is. As it stands there is a certain monotony with some port battles and if it respawned where it was sunk it would be a bit zombie like.

[Zener]

I don't favor changing anything about CVs while other options exist and simply are not chosen.  I bomb CVs a lot and maybe one in ten, one in twelve attempt do I even encounter a single plane resisting the effort.  On the other hand, the hardest CVs to sink are those where some fighters are in permanent orbit.

I think it comes down to how this game requires, in some respects, a sort of "team" effort for success.  When LVTs are inbound to a town, it helps to have some fighter cap, though they also may simply orbit with no action.  However, if they were NOT there, that LVT has almost no chance to get ashore or make town.

So if the CV is of that much value, it should take (IMHO) someone willing to protect that asset while others press the attack.  If no one is willing to, which is often the case, then what should you expect?

If a country refused to up and defend an airfield, what ought to happen?  Should we make the ack or manned guns more lethal?  Should we reduce town building down times to 5 min?  No, I think we should assess the weakness in our offense or defense and fix that with our tactics rather than tinker with the code to make up for it.

[bustr]

Have task groups respawn 1\3 of the total path distance from it's port start position back from it's last position when sunk. If sunk in the same local waters of the port, it's default start position.

This kind of negates the breathing space the enemy just earned itself on that front and the purpose of sinking task groups to get them out of that territory. From this idea, task groups become limited persistent mobile airfields that you can never get out of your territory and that once there, as long as you keep your port, you don't have to defend it and it's almost always ready for you to attack with.

One of the problems is how hard it appears to hit level bombers with the 5in versus fighters. Offline I can slaughter bomber drones in the circuit with a 5in, while online even at those ranges, there was no purpose to practicing offline. I've been on task groups where all the 5in were manned by very good shooters and they spent an hour slaughtering level bombers keeping their CV alive. The majority of the time, bombers have 5in resistant shielding and sink the CV with impunity unless the commander is well versed at turning the CV. The veteran CV sinkers today are incredible with their ability to adjust to radical CV turning and still sink them.

And the few times POTW has attempted to sink a task group where a squad decided to fly high CAP, the CV never got sunk.

[Wiley]

I don't favor changing anything about CVs while other options exist and simply are not chosen.  I bomb CVs a lot and maybe one in ten, one in twelve attempt do I even encounter a single plane resisting the effort.  On the other hand, the hardest CVs to sink are those where some fighters are in permanent orbit.

I think it comes down to how this game requires, in some respects, a sort of "team" effort for success.  When LVTs are inbound to a town, it helps to have some fighter cap, though they also may simply orbit with no action.  However, if they were NOT there, that LVT has almost no chance to get ashore or make town.

So if the CV is of that much value, it should take (IMHO) someone willing to protect that asset while others press the attack.  If no one is willing to, which is often the case, then what should you expect?

If a country refused to up and defend an airfield, what ought to happen?  Should we make the ack or manned guns more lethal?  Should we reduce town building down times to 5 min?  No, I think we should assess the weakness in our offense or defense and fix that with our tactics rather than tinker with the code to make up for it.

It's not about tactics though.  One person has to do a fair bit of work to take a base.

Simply put one person can shut down a CV attack that took a long time to set up with a time investment of 10 to 15 minutes.  For a reasonable chance of success, at least 2 fighters need to be available to defend.  Yes one can do it but he better be pretty good at it, where it doesn't take much more than a breathing human at the bomber controls to kill a CV.

Have task groups respawn 1\3 of the total path distance from it's port start position back from it's last position when sunk. If sunk in the same local waters of the port, it's default start position.

That's not a terrible idea, but the rules for coding that would be tricky to implement.

Wiley.

[bustr]

It would be another database, and Hitech probably has better things to do with his time....

Mostly this was a vehicle to point out the wish doesn't benefit everyone, just the player who wants task groups in the other countries waters when he logs on. Or when he decides he wants to do some carrier action.

[popeye]

-1

The TG already has the advantage of stealth and can shut down and WF a field before it encounters any opposition.  Even after it is discovered, I've seen the TG cruise back and forth offshore for a long time before it is neutralized - especially when player numbers are low.

Maybe increase the CV and CA hardness a bit.

[hitech]

Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?

HiTech

[puller]

+1 

Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?

HiTech

[bustr]

Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?

HiTech

Would it be from a predictable series of evasive's  that can be learned over time to know when to turn your bomber left or right? Or would it be a list of evasive's introduced visa a randomizer function like the random spawn circle? How long will it stay in effect since turning the boat gets in the way of upping fighters to play. Our armchair admirals are not known for being studious about releasing control or turning things off.

[hitech]

Would it be from a predictable series of evasive's  that can be learned over time to know when to turn your bomber left or right? Or would it be a list of evasive's introduced visa a randomizer function like the random spawn circle? How long will it stay in effect since turning the boat gets in the way of upping fighters to play. Our armchair admirals are not known for being studious about releasing control or turning things off.

Random, and go straight if someone is on deck.

HiTech

[Lusche]

Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?

HiTech

How am I supposed to get any CVs sunk then? 

[bustr]

Random, and go straight if someone is on deck.

HiTech

How can anyone ever say you don't care about your customers.....

Lately the subtlety of the clouds has been very eycandyish in a good immersion way.

[EagleDNY]

Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?

HiTech

With the tactics I use probably not.   Simply turning the CV would not be enough - I can see which way you are going because the cruiser leads the turn a bit and I drop my bombs in the direction of your turn when I lead.  It would certainly help against high level attacks, but to stop my low-level freebies you would need much tougher AAA (5" and Puffy).  AAA (puffy especially) needs to have some more intelligence as well - bombers and attack aircraft need to get priority on AAA fire.  I often get a free run on the CV because the AAA is blasting some low fighter nearby that couldn't possibly hurt the CV instead of opening up with everything they have on my inbound low bombers.
I'm not saying auto-evade is a bad idea from a realism standpoint, but to couple it with increase in CV ack effectiveness would be a good idea as well. 

Frankly, one of the biggest impediments to my low-level attack profile is if the CV is lit and I am coming in from astern.   The smoke from a LIT CV hides it pretty well in my scope until I am right on top of it.   What would you think about having the destroyers lay a smoke screen while the CV is doing auto-evade?   I know it is a little tough on the graphics cards, but the baseline $99 graphics card these days is a GTX 1050 and really can handle it.       
 

[Zener]

I'd love to see an auto-maneuver function on CVs because then I'd just orbit them and watch a few dozen pilots auger in trying to take off on a radically turning CV.  Might actually be a better tactic than bombing them, just make them such a spinning runway they are all but unusable.      Yeah, do that.

Meanwhile, the option is still there to protect them and whenever that goes unused I don't really feel very sorry for people who spend a lot of time planning the course of a key asset then leaving it hanging out in the wind to be destroyed.  I don't get the concept of why a CV is any more important than any other source of offensive capability.  Maybe we should have auto evading VHs based upon the same reasons, which is that someone can easily destroy them if they aren't defended.

Why not simply defend them better?