Let's Cruise

[Pepino]

Would it be possible to detach the Cruiser from the TG?

I ask this because I would like to have the Cruiser closer to the shore in a bombardment mission, while the CV stays away at some safe distance. Cruiser captain could be appointed by TG commander, who can override Cruiser Captain's orders, if so desire.

After bombardment mission is accomplished, Cruiser could be attached to the TG again.

Cheers,

Pepe

[Saintaw]

Will let you have that, as soon as I have my Uboot!

Unescorted Cruiser, yummy !  

[NHFoxtro]

I second that one Pepino,Great Idea.

------------------
NHFoxtro
-XO-NightHawks
 
NightHawks "WE BAD"

[This message has been edited by NHFoxtro (edited 01-11-2001).]

[TheWobble]

Ive been mentioning this since 105 came out, its dumb to have to drag a carrier and useless escorts in to bombard a field.

[Midnight]

The cruiser is needed to escort the carrier. I think it would be better to have a second TG available from each port. This second TG could have a full sized battleship (Missouri would be nice) in place of the carrier, all other boats the same.

You want to shell the beach? The Missouri is the platform you need  



------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"

Midnight
13th TAS

[Pepino]

I like the Missouri idea. But in the meantime, I think the detachable cruiser would be easier to implement. And as for CV escort is concerned, It has 2x5" + 4 light guns, plus unlimited supply of CAP. Plus, the TG Commander could make CA come back whenever he feels is needed.

Anyway, just an idea. Like Ripsnort said in another rather similar thread, Kites First!  

Cheers,

Pepe.

[Hans]

I would be happier if there was a second "PT boat" that looked like a Destroyer Escort, complete with a 5" gun up front, and another 5" gun on back, and available as a perk spawn, not an existing, detacted fleet escort.

DE vs DE is bassically the same as BB vs BB, just on a different scale.

For play-balance reasons the DE would be better, since it has what we want (a private surface ship independant of anything else), ship-to-shore firepower (the one thing the PT boats lack, limiting their usefullness).  It also isn't such a big problem for aircraft to sink since it isn't armored (even your .50 caliber guns can sink it), and has only modest AA guns compared to the Baltimore Cruiser.

Just a guess, but I think HiTech and Pyro's respones to this all of this would start with, "It would be a cold day in hell...."

Hans.

P.S.  I don't understand why Pyro and Hitech are reluctant to go the next step and make this a truely combined arms game.  They are THIS >< close to having it.  Its just so frustrating to see the potential.

Hans.

[Duckwing6]

Oh btw... HT said in an online Q&A session that building a CV less TG is not a problem at all, that means the following:

a) as soon as terrain editor is out , you can design your own task Force (think about the possibilities for Scenarios (DROOOOOOOL)

b) if we ask long enough we might eventually GET our CV less Battle group in the MA  


(think about it this way: small ports spawn a little task Force or Supply ships only and a BIG port would spawn a CV .. how about that ..

DW6

[pzvg]

One quick fix: take one TG, remove carrier, add second CA in CV's spot, simmer, and serve  

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"