When are the CVs gonna get hardend?

[Sancho]

I've got no problem with the kamikazes.  It's dweebery to be sure, but so is parking a CV right off an enemy field and running up and down the coast within a few miles of an enemy field.  You're asking for a kamikaze then IMO.

What annoys me is how easy it is for a level bomber to sink CVs.  It seems like the bombs don't even have to hit ON the CV to sink it.  And the CV can never turn away fast enough to avoid the bomber, even when it sees it coming a long ways away.

[llbm_MOL]

US and Jap CV's only had a WOOD flight deck. The bombs or Kamikazi's went right through them to explode at or below the waterline. AH model this well. One plane can take out a cv. Maybe not sink it in real life but put it out of action. In WB's they had the CV's modeled where you had to hit it with about 10 1k's to kill it. It was ridiculous. Nobody would attack them and they ran rampant all over the arena. I think the Cv's are just fine the way they are. If they were harder to kil it would upset the arena.


LLB OUT!!!!

[Tac]

Sure, toughen the CV up. But make it so that if ONE bomb hits the flight deck, it cant launch fighters.

Then you will have your precious CV disabled by the kamikaze but not sinking your CV... that is, until that same kamikaze guy comes back and slams into the deck as many times as needed.

CAP your CV or man the 5" flak guns. Easy kills, almost perfect defense.

[lazs1]

well... to put it even more simply... One suicide bomber never stopped all flight operations from a carrier fleet.   There were allways more than one carrier in a fleet.

As for "guarding" the fleet... LOL !!  you mean, simply because it is possible that one tard will be bored and attention starved enough to kill a cv by gaming the game.... You want someone with talent and better things to do to orbit around the fleet looking for that A hole?   Who get's "tard watch duty"???  You??   No, I think most guys with talent would rather do something fun rather that guard against a bug in the game.

Again... it boils down to balance.   that being, a lone suicide pilot can ruin the fun of many using little or no skill.   The effect he has on the game is all out of proportion to the effort he expends.

Now... if there were multiple cvs and one suicide tard attack would disable operations for several minutes, on the cv that was hit.. then he would either have a balanced effect on the fleet for his skill level or.. he would have to get a large group of like minded (no minded) tards to join him in his sillyness.  
lazs

[CRASH]

Alot of good info here.  After reading all of these posts I would probably say that cranking up the damage limit to 4k of bombs and increasing the AAA effectiveness on a/c below say 8k would go a long way toward balancing things a bit. I don't wanna see cv's running rampant all over the map, but the way things are now they're pretty useless and it's a shame, they really add alot of fun to the game for both sides.

[SirLoin]

I agree with CRASH.

[Kweassa]

As for "guarding" the fleet... LOL !! you mean, simply because it is possible that one tard will be bored and attention starved enough to kill a cv by gaming the game.... You want someone with talent and better things to do to orbit around the fleet looking for that A hole? Who get's "tard watch duty"??? You?? No, I think most guys with talent would rather do something fun rather that guard against a bug in the game.  

  I can't say what is right or wrong with what you(and probably many people) feel.  It's just a matter of one's own choice, decision.

 If I may remind you, that kind of decision is EXACTLY the reason why CVs sink. Everybody decides they've got better things to do? Fine by me, I  respect that.

 You people made your choice, so you pay the price. You can't have your cake and eat it. Sure it's a boring job, but somebody's gotta do it.

 Don't go complainin' around when I merrily drop my bombs to that plumpy lookin' UNGUARDED fat lady with a flat top. This CV thing is such a simple issue I can hardly understand why this keeps coming up.

 "What you don't guard, you lose."[/i]

ps) 'No-skill tards' that go kamikaze a CV versus 'No-team-work fighter jocks' who decides they've all got better things to do, and complains about it later. Pretty much the same.

ps2) Things are same for the defenders. Why should somebody take long boring time climbing with heavy ordinance, search and line himself up with the CV, and go for broke? If everybody's got better things to do, we'd never see a CV sink. But somebody, a 'tard' as you mentioned, chooses to do it because the TEAM NEEDS THE CV DEAD.

 So, how come there's not a single 'tard' who chooses to counter this 'tardish' action?

 Maybe it's time you begin considering how one can harmonize the 'what I want' factor with 'what the team wants' factor.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]

[Kingonads]

Well what about this, maybe if they just added another CV into the CV battlegroup? like in the scenarios? just a thought.

                         hodo

[Blue Mako]

Then there'd be twice as much whining.  

[Buzzbait]

S!

What they need, (which can be programmed already) is a CV group, and a Cruiser group.  

Players bring the CV close inshore because they want to chew up the airfield with the cruiser's guns.  But that of course, brings the CV in close too.

If we had a pure Cruiser TG, then people could use that for the bombardment, and have the CV group behind out of immediate range for aircover.

[Kweassa]

If 2000lbs bomb's worth of durability seems too weak for an aircraft carrier, I guess toughening it up to about 2500~4000lbs worth might not be bad. Maybe an even 3000lbs, just like the hangars, might do.

[Fishu]

Now, let's get into the main point of this thread..   wheres the challenge in sinking CV?
Just needs one bastard who knows his job and CV is gone, so it sounds like.

the challenge? rrrrrraaambooooo!

[J_A_B]

"There were allways more than one carrier in a fleet."

Not always; for a time the USN had a total of one operational carrier in the entire Pacific (Enterprise).

Granted that was the exception to the rule, and in general carrier groups consisted of as many carriers as were available.

A counter argument to the "fleets consisted of more than 1 carrier" argument, of course, is that "attacking air groups composed of more than 2 or 3 planes".

Still I agree that AH carriers need to be strengthened for gameplay (if not for realism).

J_A_B

[sling322]

Originally posted by Kweassa:
If the CV is so precious it must be kept alive... then GUARD IT.

 Unless there's a mission going on, there's usually not more than 1~2 people out to get a CV. If the people weren't so busy vulching and gang banging a neutralized airfield, and if just ONE of them had enough brains to foresee someone's gonna try to kill it and fly active CAP duty around a CV, it can be easily stopped.

 If people are so busy hoarding up a base and fighting on deck alt that nobody is willing to guard the CV, then tough luck.

 Someone's gonna come higher and sink it.

Heh heh....go ahead and try that Kweassa.  I guarantee you cannot defend it and keep the suiciders from sinking it.  If they are determined enough and dont care whether they live or die, then they will make it through.  

[skernsk]

I think that we can improve the present problem.  Treat it like a small field with a twist.

2 bombs disables the CV for 10 mins...meanwhile it slowly rebuilds.  If 2 more bombs hit the CV within 10 - 15 mins then it sinks.

Most CV's didn't go down in 5 secs after a kamikaze or a bomb strike.  There were damge control teams that would go in and try to put out fires and reapair the deck.  During 1942 the Japanese thought they sunk the Yorktown, but it was able to get back to port...repair and fight again.