Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: mars01 on August 25, 2004, 10:34:48 AM
-
A question for the community...
What do you think about the CV toughness, not Ack but the amount of bombs need to kill one.
It seems to me that CVs don't last that long and are very easy to kill.
-
I agree. But maybe instead of just having a sunk or floating cv, maybe make it harder to sink, but have planes disabled before that, like a FH at a base, comming back up after a given time period, if CV survives.
-
I think their "hardness" is fine.
-
seems kinda soft to me
-
No
-
From what I've read about WWII aircraft carriers, most were so thin-skinned and volatile (full of fuel and bombs) that it didn't take much to put them out of action, and sinking often followed. One or two bombs on flight deck and the airfield was out of action.
-
From what I've read about WWII aircraft carriers, most were so thin-skinned and volatile (full of fuel and bombs) that it didn't take much to put them out of action, and sinking often followed. One or two bombs on flight deck and the airfield was out of action.
Yeah, but we have to make some changes for playability. Also they had a lot more ships in the convoy and were better protected always had a cap patrol etc.
From a playability standpoint are CVs to soft.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Yeah, but we have to make some changes for playability. Also they had a lot more ships in the convoy and were better protected always had a cap patrol etc.
From a playability standpoint are CVs to soft.
I agree ... either add an armored flight deck or at least double the number of supporting ships in the task force. It should be a hailstorm of AAA to get at a CV.
-
... and no way should a 110 or any cannon plane be able to sink a CV with guns.
I believe that a CV is just another "object", that requires a total amount of ord/units to destroy it.
Planes should be able to destroy the gun emplacements, but the ammo/ord that takes out the gun emplacement should not be added to the total ord/units it takes to sink a CV. I am not completely sure if that truely is the case, but it appears to be.
-
A friend of my dads was stationed on a carrier during WW2. He always claimed they were very easy to sink. One or 2 torpedos, a couple of heavys from above. He also said fires were common and then everything focused on saving the ship. He's long gone now and I don't know how much of this was truth or beer speaking. But he always made them seem like flimsy floating boxes with planes on them.
From a game standpoint it would be nice to have them a bit tougher. Or at least have the planes "focus on saving the ship" for a bit, instead of upping immediatley while the CV sank. Has to be a way to keep one well placed bomb from sinking a CV right out. But that seemed how it was in real life.
Peace
Pillur
-
I think it's the way they're so easy to sink that's a problem. Ju-88's or Avengers with torpedos ... yup. A flight of B17's with 1000 pounders ... yup. A Me110 with cannons ... nope!
-
The idea behind being able to strip the CV of defenses was a good one. Didn't take people long to realise a 110 can strafe it and kill gun emplacements etc.
Maybe it should only be able to be damaged by rockets and bombs.
Don't know if this is possible though.
-
CVs are fine. It`s the operators that sometimes need a check-up. :D
-
I personally don't know how hard it was to actuall sink a carrier, but we can look at one instance, the York Town.
Look at the beating it took in the Coral Sea and it was still operational for Midway.
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/coral.html (http://)
The carrier Yorktown was lightly damage. She had taken a great number of hits, but was salvageable. Her six months of repair work would be completed in three days at Pearl Harbor. She would fight in the Battle of Midway.
Unfortunately she didn't fare so well at Midway.
-
Comparing the ease of sinking an actual WWII carrier to ours is useless.
How many kamikaze pilots irl got to respawn and suicide into the CV 5 minutes later?
there needs to be a ton more small caliber, close in AI ack, imo.
-
I agree Furious, I think they should up the poudage to sink em too.
-
I think cvs are fine the way they are. But, I would like to see more ack of all kinds on them. It would be alot more fun trying to dodge all that ack trying to get an pesky seafire that keeps running to the ack.
-
How many carriers in WW2 could sustain seven (7) 1000lb bomb hits to the flight deck without any impediment to flight operations? I would argue that our carriers are much "harder" than their WW2 era counterparts.
Here is the USS Franklin after just 2 bomb hits to the flight deck
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv13hit3.jpg)
That damage took the "Big Ben" out of the war.
MiG
-
Point made on the Real Life side Airboss, but I do agree comparing our carriers to real life does not apply.
I think it is important to look at the playability aspects. Currently it is so easy for a few guys to sink a carrier that the carrier fighting does not last very long.
Just last night, I think it was the Rooks, had three carriers in the same area all sunk within a half hour. What's the point?
It would be cool if they had a troop ship that if killed would eliminate LVTs.
-
If I'm flying from a CV against hordes of enemies intent on destroying it, it's too soft.
When I'm warding off hordes of enemies from a base under siege from a nearby CV, the damn thing is way too tough to sink.
Fix this immediately, HTC!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
True enough.
But there are some real peculiar imbalances in the Jabo environment. For instance, it's easier for an Me110 to shoot down an aircraft carrier than shoot out a Panzer.
It's really a gameplay issue. To get the right "feel" a CV should only be sinkable by 1000 pounders or torpedos. One plane can still do it, it just gets harder to do. Likewise, tank-busting planes (Sturmi and Hurri IID) should be able to load AP ammo and be able to shred tanks and damage ships (at the expense of having HE ammo for air-to-air and field suppression). Maybe cruisers can be taken down by 500 pounders and DD's by 250's.
Not completely realistic or historicly accurate, but right now you have people shooting down gigantic fleet carriers with light cannons, and flocks of panzers running around with basically no need for air cover. And that's just messed up.
-
Two nights ago our CV had all of its guns destroyed. There was no way to defend it. We couldnt up planes because of the vulchers overhead. And there was no way to stop the planes with ACK. The Ammo was destroyed at the base we were attacking. This was all done with 110s. They eventually sank the boat.
It seems to me that this shouldnt be able to happen. I really like the idea of dropping the larger guns on the carrier. However IMHO the smaller guns should be left up. When that last gun is out the boat should be sinking.
RHIN0
-
I think historically cv's (especially Essex class ships) were very tough to actually sink.. but relatively few hits could knock them out of the battle, and/or make flight operations impossible.
-
I shot down 23 incoming planes in the aft 5 incher last night before the CV was sunk... I wouldn't exactly call that soft.
-
Airboss while you are right that it put the Ben out of the rest of the war you also have to look at where those hits were. They hit the unarmored flight deck and went into the hangar deck causing huge amounts of damamge.
I say up the CV hardness and make it so a gun toting plane (110) can't kill one.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
If I'm flying from a CV against hordes of enemies intent on destroying it, it's too soft.
When I'm warding off hordes of enemies from a base under siege from a nearby CV, the damn thing is way too tough to sink.
Fix this immediately, HTC!
-- Todd/Leviathn
Well put.
I've been making ALOT of runs on CVs lately and
I have definately seemed to notice one thing though. AA fire from a CV that has people upping from it seems to be alot more intence then if you happen to find a Cv thats undefended (player wise)
I've dived in on a Cv that only had one plane upping form it and managed to hit it, get away then turn around and strafe the ships.
Then when I attack a CV that has alot of people upping from it the fire seems ALOT more intence and Im lucky if I survive through the first pass.
Anyone who doesnt think that a hail of AA fire doesnt come up on diving planes especially when its being defended is either attacking undefended CV's or doesnt do it all that often
I think the hardness of it when defended is fine.
Oh and I agree when someone said "Cvs are fine. its some of the operators that need a checkup"
Turning the CV to avoid level bombers is fine.
Turning the CV to avoid divebombers is pointless and only makes things more difficult for your gunners to aim and any planes that might be trying to take off.
You will NOT avoid even a semi skilled divebomber by turning the CV.
Im speaking fomr experiance. I'f Im diving on your Cv and you turn it it accomplishes nothing it is an effort in futility. Not only can I still hit your CV, but I can still choose an exact location on any of the ships as to where I want to put my bombs.
Man one of the guns instead, they are FAR more effective.
-
BTW a single 110 CANNOT kill a Cv by itself unless it was already pretty soft to begin with.
I agree that the Carrier itself should not be able to be sunk with bullets but the smaller support ships could.
Smaller ships sometimes were sunk during WWII with guns alone usually by hitting something important and causing it to blow up.
which reminds me. when something is blown up I think we should visually have a much bigger explosion then we currently do
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
True enough.
.
Not completely realistic or historicly accurate, but right now you have people shooting down gigantic fleet carriers with light cannons, and flocks of panzers running around with basically no need for air cover. And that's just messed up.
but to be able to run around and "shred" Tanks with guns would be equally unrealistic.
Very few confirmed instances of Tanks being destroyed outright by guns alone from an aircraft. Damaged, yes, sometimes
Destroyed(shreded) no.
The Vast majority of tanks killed by airpower were done from bombs not guns.
But I will agree CV's should never go down from gunfire
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but to be able to run around and "shred" Tanks with guns would be equally unrealistic.
...
I already said it wouldn't be totally realistic (well, Ju87G's did quite a number on Soviet tanks ... I remember somewhere reading Rudel's account of how he used the 7.92 MG's to sight in on the rear of a tank and when they hit he'd fire both 37mm's and goodbye tank ... but anyway ...).
The point is what do you want the gameplay to be like? Right now if a field loses ORD it takes an inordinate number of planes to shoot approaching tanks to a standstill - even open-topped Osties - because there is no one plane which is a specialised tank-buster. So 4 or 5 people have to deal with dumping 1000's of rounds of ammo at a tank hiding under the kevlar trees - yeah, that's real damn exciting.
Sure, you can "up a tank" ... but if I wanted to play tanks I'd be playing a different game.
More often than not a tank rush on a base has no air cover. Where is the realism in operating a platoon of tanks with no air cover and 20 hostile fighters within 5 miles?
I'm not suggesting that one burst from a Sturmi should kill a Tiger. But right now the situation is asymmetrical.
Just as it is for CV's.
-
CVs are too easy to kill.
Some of the greatest fights are to be had at or near a CV.
Last night more than half a dozen of these great fights were shut down by fight wreckEring CV sinking players.
I say add a few extra thousand pounds of ord needed to sink one. But who cares what I have to say. 8)
-
How about this for an idea ... what if the first torpedo hit on a CV stopped the CV fleet in addition to doing physical damage? If you can get a Ju88 or Avenger or Kate in there, you can stiop the whole deal in its tracks and then Jabo it to oblivion. Then if you harden up the ships a little it makes sense to torpedo the CV first so they provide better targets for dive-bombers.
And this isn't too far from reality as a solid torpedo hit usually at least impaired movement.
It also creates a useful specialty for players to learn - torpedo bombing. Just as a good tank-buster plane makes that specialty something useful to master.
Oh ... and yeah ... lets have them explode big time instead of just slipping under the waves. Just think how much better "Titanic" would have been if the ship had exploded at the end.
-
I like that Idea Dok.
The one think I bleive needs work tho is the torps. They just seem to "sensitive" to how they are being dropped. If you go 1 ft over max drop alt or 1 mph over max drop speed they wont work.
Seems a little crazy.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
The one think I bleive needs work tho is the torps. They just seem to "sensitive" to how they are being dropped. If you go 1 ft over max drop alt or 1 mph over max drop speed they wont work.
Seems a little crazy.
Solution:
Model Japanese torpedoes for the B5N2 and Ki-67.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
BTW a single 110 CANNOT kill a Cv by itself unless it was already pretty soft to begin with.
I
umm Dred, wrong.
a 110G2 with guns(4x20mms 2x30mms) only can sink a undamaged CV, in 2 passes if
it survivies the ack. ive done it several times.
1 time i made run on new CV in 110g2, got killed on etend after straff pass, a friendly La7 who was with me, finished off CV
with gun 3 hit flashs of his guns.
whels
-
Points well taken concerning the catestrophic damage that a cannon-armed fighter can cause to a CV.
Aside from the destruction of gun emplacements, I think the real problem is that there is too much of an all or nothing aspect to damage vs. destruction. I'm wondering if it would be possible to add successive and additive effects with bombing such as: Half speed cruising (as though a set of boilers went offline) or a stuck rudder making quick heading changes much more difficult.
MiG
-
Originally posted by whels
umm Dred, wrong.
a 110G2 with guns(4x20mms 2x30mms) only can sink a undamaged CV, in 2 passes if
it survivies the ack. ive done it several times.
1 time i made run on new CV in 110g2, got killed on etend after straff pass, a friendly La7 who was with me, finished off CV
with gun 3 hit flashs of his guns.
whels
Well all I can say is I've never managed to do it.
Hmm well if thats the case then a 262 should be able to do it easly in one pass.
Haveta give it a shot. just for chuckles
Rarely use my perks on anything anyway
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
How many carriers in WW2 could sustain seven (7) 1000lb bomb hits to the flight deck without any impediment to flight operations? I would argue that our carriers are much "harder" than their WW2 era counterparts.
Here is the USS Franklin after just 2 bomb hits to the flight deck
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv13hit3.jpg)
That damage took the "Big Ben" out of the war.
MiG
AH's CVs are certainly "hard" enough... The problem is that the AH CV task force puts up a feeble ack blanket. By 1944, only 8% of Japanese aircraft getting past the BARCAP survived the tornado of anti-aircraft fire that would come up. Level bombers, such at the B-17 could not get within 10,000 yards of a CV because the radar ranged 5" guns would obliterate them. Smaller aircraft, coming in alone, could sneak in closer due to their smaller radar signature.
Also, AH's 40mm gun mounts don't shoot VT fused rounds, relying on direct hits instead. If AH's ships put up the fire power that the real one did, sinking a CV would take dozens of sorties, maybe even more than 100.
While our CVs are anything but historic, they are adequate for game play.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Sounds like there's plenty of ideas for HT to chew on here.
The thing I just hope is that the final answer is one which adds to the game instead of takes away. Simply adding AAA really takes away because it creates a mobile ack hugger zone. Simply hardening ships only means the current style of attack takes longer to be over with already.
If you combine parts of each of these, and maybe give torpedoes the extra capability I mentioned above so that there's a viable counter to the tougher CV fleets (i.e. stop 'em in their tracks so B17's can blast the poop out of them), then you've added a new speciality to learn and some real multi-role tactics to the job of taking down a CV group.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
(i.e. stop 'em in their tracks so B17's can blast the poop out of them)
So..
What did I do know ??
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
How many carriers in WW2 could sustain seven (7) 1000lb bomb hits to the flight deck without any impediment to flight operations? I would argue that our carriers are much "harder" than their WW2 era counterparts.
Here is the USS Franklin after just 2 bomb hits to the flight deck
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv13hit3.jpg)
That damage took the "Big Ben" out of the war.
MiG
Jesus.It twisted it off its axis.Thats some serious damage.The fargin think warped !!!:eek:
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Jesus.It twisted it off its axis.Thats some serious damage.The fargin think warped !!!:eek:
It's just listing. The bomb damage was extensive though, put
some enormous holes in the flight deck that had to be repaired
back in the states.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Jesus.It twisted it off its axis.Thats some serious damage.The fargin think warped !!!:eek:
Portions of the flight deck are obsucured and bled out by the lighting in that photo and that gives it the illusion of having warped.
As I recall they gave the order to abond ship twice as they fought to save her and each time manged to avoid losing her. It was really, really close though. It was only through the excellent damage control of the US Navy that she didn't go down.
Here is a shot as the USS Franklin entered New York harbor:
(http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~killmerdm/k04760.jpg)
-
CVs are more or less fine IMO. It all comes down to what kind of CAP the players are willing to put up.
If everybody is saying "geez, I don't want to fly a such a boring task" then there's no on earth a way that people will be satisifed with the CV. It's basically asking for the game/system to compensate for the lack of brains and organization due to the laziness.
In reality, assuming an equal number of forces collide, a CV discovered is a CV dead. The battles in the Pacific rotated around long hours of searching, using brains, trying to figure out where the enemy CV is. Launching the first strike was THE most important aspect of CV attack. Since the MA is very limited, naturally, setting up a good CAP becomes even moreso important than anything else.
Widewing mentions only 8% of aircraft got through BARCAP, but lets not forget that 8% was enough to cause high levels of alarm in the ranks of the US Navy. The Kamikazes themselves would never have stopped Japan from defeat, but the destruction they caused was sheer terror. A single plane smashing into a ship would easily cripple it, and would create hundreds of casualties.
Now, compare that to the MA, where the opposing forces are rarely in a bad condition as Japan was, capable of putting massive number of respawning planes in the air. In the MA, one must assume that every enemy aircraft near the CV is potentially a kamikaze. If a CV stays in a furball area one must assume, that its gonna go down sooner or later.
The largest strengths of a CV lies in the fact that its a mobile airfield, capable of silently approaching an enemy base and striking it.
If a CV-launched assault to a nearby land base does not achieve total air superiority within minutes of first strike, then it's basically piss-poor tactics for the 'admiral'.
If a large furball grows around the CV then its a failure. The strengths of the CV - stealth and mobility - is quickly compromised, and it soon turns into an all-out air battle with one side using a limited plane set, and the other using a full plane set. In that condition - the CV will go down, if it stays there.
You guys should be thinking of ways to avoid that situation, before complaining the CV is too weak. It's the same thing as A2A combat - if a bogey latches behind you, you're basically dead. One should be thinking of not letting that situation commence in the first place, instead of complaining the plane is too weak against gunfire.
....
Ofcourse, some situations are unavoidable. The MA is a '45 arena with late war monster planes carrying some 2000~5000lbs of ordnance and diving into the CV at speeds which most planes cannot catch. There are also the problems of lame-prettythang deck-running buffs and dive-bombing buffs. These problems should be addressed.
However, despite all that, with proper discretion the CV can be protected for a long time if people do it right.
Unfortunately, people just don't do it right.
-
Good analysis, Kweassa. Plastic ducks in bathtubs have more sense than skippers who drive CVs right up to hostile airfields.
-
Until they stop getting killed by suicide tards over and over... cv's will never be hard enough.
Tumor
-
Suicidal tards will be here forever. So, should the CV toughness increase indefinately until it reaches a point of practical invulnerability?
...
We can't stop all the suicidal dorks. But what we can do, is make efforts to lower the chances of them succeeding. It's those very efforts, that are totally missing in the MA.
Ofcourse, like mentioned, some system changes can help prevent the dweebery - particularly with deck-run/divebombing buffs.
Also, the CV taking damage from aircraft fire is understandable..but two Bf110s can strafe a CV dead in a single pass with collaborated effort. Something like this has gotta be addressed.
And if... HTC ever thinks otherwise.. they can try to shift the arena to an earlier era, where latewar aircraft is still available albeit with perks paid. 1943 aircraft rarely carry more than 1000lbs(although something like the hellcat carries 2k+).
-
If you make CV's and CA's impervious to cannon fire, and make their AAA armored (like at a port) that will solve some of the issues pretty easy. At least then it makes sense to take a Mosi which has bombs and rockets ... and use the cannons to de-ack the ships.
-
To me cvs are great the way they are.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
If I'm flying from a CV against hordes of enemies intent on destroying it, it's too soft.
When I'm warding off hordes of enemies from a base under siege from a nearby CV, the damn thing is way too tough to sink.
Fix this immediately, HTC!
-- Todd/Leviathn
Kerry...er... Leviathn for president! ;)
PS... Agree CVs are to soft. On a map like OzK CVs provide the best fights. Shame they end so quickly.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The thing I just hope is that the final answer is one which adds to the game instead of takes away. Simply adding AAA really takes away because it creates a mobile ack hugger zone. Simply hardening ships only means the current style of attack takes longer to be over with already.
If you combine parts of each of these, and maybe give torpedoes the extra capability I mentioned above so that there's a viable counter to the tougher CV fleets (i.e. stop 'em in their tracks so B17's can blast the poop out of them), then you've added a new speciality to learn and some real multi-role tactics to the job of taking down a CV group.
Sounds reasonable. I wonder if hardening the AA might help some -- those guns go out really fast, leaving the carrier very vulnerable very quickly.
I've noticed that since AH2 I see less of the swarmed attacks, that were fun to fight off, and a lot more of the single pony at 15k diving in with 2x1000s and 8x rockets. Almost hopelessly hard to defend against, since most uping pplanes are still grabbing and we dont have command and control to vector interceptions, or to discipline the fighters to stay over carrier at altitude.
Result? Flattened carrier, end of game play.
Add to that the VERY lame "tactic" of carrier hiding, and carriers become little more than an interesting sidelight.
I'd liek them to be much more.
My personal beef is with the lame-o dweebies who insist on taking carrier up to base and ORBIT THROUGH THE FREAKING PT SPAWN POINTS!!!!!!!
There, I feel better.
Maybe the focus could be on changing the ship command rules so that better use could be made of what we have? Rank rules help, but not always. Maybe a vote 'em out system, where 3 people agreeing could eject current commander -- or maybe requiring the command to end when you either leave the carrier or when you enter the command. I dunno, but something ought to change.
At least toughen the ack's survivability, HT. Alternitively, increase the volume of puffy ack at altitude to counter the solo divers. Make 'em come in lower so we all get to play!
-
Great thread ALL great points!!!
I second, third and fourth this one!!!!!!!!
My personal beef is with the lame-o dweebies who insist on taking carrier up to base and ORBIT THROUGH THE FREAKING PT SPAWN POINTS!!!!!!!
-
I think the damage model on the CV is fine, but the guns are way to easy to take out. I have a screen shot of me taking every gun emplacement on the cv out with two passes in a P51D, when you attack one, there should be an enormous amount of AK fire. Also there needs to be some way to resupply the CV, instead of having to have your cv soft for hours.
-
Agreed, the guns are far too easy to knock out. Twin 5"/38 guns were situated in an armored turret with plates 2.5" thick. There is only one aerial gun in AH that can punch through a 5" gun turret: the 23mm on the IL-2. Even then, you'd have to close to within 300 yards to just have a chance of getting through. Some bombs would make a hole (500lbs+) too. I'd like to see the 5" gun turrets made more accurate to reflect the 2.5" armor plate. They were tough guns to kill, and should be so in AH. Currently a quick pass with pretty much any weapon will knock a whole string of them out.
Each quad 40mm gun onboard the Essex-class (short hull) did not have a gun shield mounted to the barrels. Our's do, for some reason. Essex (and most other) 40mm mounts sat in an armored ring, like so...
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12_pics.htm
Note the armor mounting. The gun shield was not mounted to the barrels, it was mounted to the ring base. Two arms controled the angle of the plate based on gun elevation. The shield never got higher or lower, it just changed angles. The ring base the guns sat in was surrounded by one inch armor plate. If it was modeled, it would make level or near-level attacks against the 40mm ineffective. More vertical attacks would probably kill the crews, if not the guns.
I say bring all the ships up to proper spec vs. everything. Aircraft, aerial guns, gvs, gv guns, bombs and rockets. Oh, and increase the number of triple-A mounts. As Widewing said earlier, very few aircraft got through the firestorm of AA fire a fleet could throw up. I'm not asking for historical numbers of anti-aircraft guns, that'd be far too many! Just additional guns on the DEs would be nice.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
What Flakbait said...though it will probrably go unnoticed
-
Nice presentation, Flakbait. Would definitely like to see harder 5-inch turrets and more mannable acks, particularly on the destroyer escorts.
-
Ditto to flakbait.
Harder 5", more 40mm -- hear, hear!!!
-
this thread is another one that proves very little people defend stuff...much like the harden barracks thread....Kweassa is totaly right on that fact.
Saying that, it would be fun if CV groups had more ships. I like the idea of the troop ships, i like the idea of maybe more cruisers with carriers (like trinity) or more DD's for AA fire maybe. Suicide tards in B17's or lancs need to be stopped though. But thats more of a "bug" with level bombers being able to dive bomb, this effects EVERYTHING in the game not just cvs.
I like the idea of a damaged CV not being able to up planes too.... But we would need 2 cvs in each group then......hmmm
-
Originally posted by Overlag
this thread is another one that proves very little people defend stuff...much like the harden barracks thread....Kweassa is totaly right on that fact.
Saying that, it would be fun if CV groups had more ships. I like the idea of the troop ships, i like the idea of maybe more cruisers with carriers (like trinity) or more DD's for AA fire maybe. Suicide tards in B17's or lancs need to be stopped though. But thats more of a "bug" with level bombers being able to dive bomb, this effects EVERYTHING in the game not just cvs.
I like the idea of a damaged CV not being able to up planes too.... But we would need 2 cvs in each group then......hmmm
I hear what you're saying, and I'm not sure I'd harden the carriers themselves, but I think you're forgetting one very important thing -- THIS IS A GAME.
People play games to have fun. AH is a realistic game, that tries very effectively to faithfully reproduce flight combat . But, people do not pay money to essentially sit in a cubicle and "make a very important contribution to the company." That's what work is for.
So don't demand that people either circle the carrier at 13k, or pay the price by seeing the darn thing die. We dont fly AH to be drones, just cause it might help other players. We want to fly and fight.
I know that in AH1 some of the miost fun I had came in defending a CV group from waves of low Ju88s, low lancs, and some of their fighter cover. High buffs could be spotted and the CV would be turned. All in all, a CV defense might last hours.
In Ah2, whether from the killable acks or from tactical innovations, I see very few of those extended fights. Now most carrier kills seem to come from single high jabos doing dive runs. You cant turn the carrier from a dive attack, and you often cant kill the plane because the 5"s are dead (or unmanned because players dont have the target density they used to). Carrier dead. While we're not trying to model an entire CV group's AA lethality, it shouldn't be THAT easy to wipe out a TG.
As to being too soft -- last night I saw a single pony finish off a damaged carrier with partial ordindnce drop, zoom up and do a dive run on the cruiser to kill it too. (The guy then went on to the nearest base to BnZ the troops until he was finally killed, but I'll refrain from comments on his parentage.)
So again, the issue is gameplay. Dead carriers don't add to game play, and soft acks speed the death of carriers. I don't suggest that HT should compensate for player incompetence, but this combination of features seriously damages CV's gameplay values. The features were coded not to create a WW2 tactical training tool, but to add to the gaming experience in AH. So changing them isnt a sign of weakness, guys. And suggesting an improvement doesn't mean I'm "little", overlag.
I'd suggest hardening the 5" guns to reflect reality (2.5" armor stopped at least one kamikaze hit according to one of my older friends, who was in the turret at the time), and to add to gameplay value.
I'd also suggest tweaking the lethality of high altitude puffy ack to simulate the effect of CAP drones, and to push the attacks down to where the players actually are -- remember, it's a (very fun and hopefully realistic) GAME.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I
I know that in AH1 some of the miost fun I had came in defending a CV group from waves of low Ju88s, low lancs, and some of their fighter cover. High buffs could be spotted and the CV would be turned. All in all, a CV defense might last hours.
In Ah2, whether from the killable acks or from tactical innovations, I see very few of those extended fights. Now most carrier kills seem to come from single high jabos doing dive runs. You cant turn the carrier from a dive attack, and you often cant kill the plane because the 5"s are dead (or unmanned because players dont have the target density they used to). Carrier dead. While we're not trying to model an entire CV group's AA lethality, it shouldn't be THAT easy to wipe out a TG.
As to being too soft -- last night I saw a single pony finish off a damaged carrier with partial ordindnce drop, zoom up and do a dive run on the cruiser to kill it too. (The guy then went on to the nearest base to BnZ the troops until he was finally killed, but I'll refrain from comments on his parentage.)
I'd suggest hardening the 5" guns to reflect reality (2.5" armor stopped at least one kamikaze hit according to one of my older friends, who was in the turret at the time), and to add to gameplay value.
i think its the fact the guns are destroyable that leaves it totaly open, of coarse not many people do high cap anymore, and as you said not many people injoy that. Also, in AHI you had the tracers from 5inch guns, which ment most enemy planes could be downed at 20k which wasnt a good thing for MY gameplay but rocked for CV defence.
So personaly i dont think the CV's need hardening they need:
[list=1]
- More guns
- Harder guns, or faster repairing?
- More support ships?
- Dive bombing suicide lancs/b17s/b26s NEED TO BE STOPPED somehow PLEASE HTC.
[/list=1]
1: all sizes big and small, fast firing, slow firing etc.
2: as you said, some of them guns had thick armour only bombs should be able to kill them. Maybe rockets?
3: this would make it more fun sinking cvs groups for both sides
4: game issue that should have been fixed on AHII release, dive bombing LEVEL BOMBERS sucks, its totaly gamey, the fact that they can die and reupp instantly also sucks. Its the same with everything in this game, because death doesnt mean anything people dont care about it, like flying dead6 bomber groups, or HOing. If they die they are up in 10 seconds, if that, with another massive bomb load to kill the CV or whatever.
-
this thread is another one that proves very little people defend stuff...much like the harden barracks thread....Kweassa is totaly right on that fact.
If there are a bunch of cons attacking and much fighting is to be had then I will defend, most people do.
Am I going to hover over a carrier while one guy continually ups and attacks the carrier every 5 mins, F#$@#$K NO! Last time I checked I am not getting a Navy Commission, I come to this game to play not work.
Then add in the softness of the carrier - If one Dive Bombing :rolleyes: Level Bomber is going to kill the carrier why waste the time trying to defend it when it is useless to defend.
People play games to have fun. AH is a realistic game, that tries very effectively to faithfully reproduce flight combat . But, people do not pay money to essentially sit in a cubicle and "make a very important contribution to the company." That's what work is for.
So don't demand that people either circle the carrier at 13k, or pay the price by seeing the darn thing die. We dont fly AH to be drones, just cause it might help other players. We want to fly and fight.
BINGO!!
I think another problem is that the escorts don't need to be killed first. If they were truly formidable then people would need to kill them to get to the carrier, instead they are ineffective and either not killed at all or killed last as an after thought.
There is a balance here though, we dont want to make a huge ack hugging circle for enemy planes and we don't want to make carriers invincible. Currently though they go down so fast, it would get Hugh Grahm off.:D
-
Originally posted by mars01
...
There is a balance here though, we dont want to make a huge ack hugging circle for enemy planes and we don't want to make carriers invincible. Currently though they go down so fast, it would get Hugh Grahm off.:D
Agreed ... the only way I can see adding AAA would be via more escort ships. But even then a CV fleet becomes more of a mobile uber-flak which can positioned off the coast of bases.
I still think it's more the way CV's and CA's can be killed that's the problem. Just make a couple of abstract changes and the whole situation could change. For instance:
- CV's and CA's can't be damaged by cannon fire (except for killing AAA positions)
- CV's and CA's cannot be sunk without at least one torpedo hit. Maybe have the ship trail "oil" in the water once it's been torpedoed.
With these two changes you can bring your Me110's and P51 lawn darts and the best you can do is de-ack and soften up a CV for the final coup de grace from a torpedo bomber. Someone will still need to drive that bird in on the deck and do the job. And *that* is something you can defend against.
-
Yeah Gonzo I could go with that.
I think hardening carriers but adding support ships to make the carriers job more difficult to do would be interesting.
If they incorporated the oil leak thing you could also have a supply tanker that would reduce the ability of the carrier if killed.
I think there is alot of room for improvements and gameplay with the current CV set. I think the basic CV group we have now has outlived it's effectiveness to create and sustain good fights and that is a bummer since some maps rely on the carriers for any decent fights.
-
Originally posted by mars01
My personal beef is with the lame-o dweebies who insist on taking carrier up to base and ORBIT THROUGH THE FREAKING PT SPAWN POINTS!!!!!!!
Yeah, this is exasperating..... Clueless too.
Prospective CV admirals take note: Those purple arrows are to be avoided.......
Unless the CV admiral is one of those knuckleheads who likes killing PTs with a 5" gun more than anything else. :rolleyes:
I believe that some people fail to understand that a CV group is a TEAM asset, and that disregard for their fellow players is bad form.
CVs are not LSTs, they don't need to be within hailing distance of the beach. Being in close means that defending fighters have an extremely limited time to shoot down the suicide buff drivers. It also means that failure to knock out shore batteries will result in fast destruction of the CV.
My suggestion made years ago was to armor warships so that only armor-piercing bombs can sink it at the minimum total bomb tonnage. High explosive bombs would have their effectiveness cut by 2/3rds against ships (tripling the weight required to sink the vessel). Only Naval type aircraft would have access to armor-piercing bombs (D3a, B5n, SBD, TBM, F6F, F4U, etc)... Thus somewhat limiting the effectiveness of Suicide buffs.
My regards,
Widewing
-
CVs are not LSTs, they don't need to be within hailing distance of the beach. Being in close means that defending fighters have an extremely limited time to shoot down the suicide buff drivers. It also means that failure to knock out shore batteries will result in fast destruction of the CV.
My suggestion made years ago was to armor warships so that only armor-piercing bombs can sink it at the minimum total bomb tonnage. High explosive bombs would have their effectiveness cut by 2/3rds against ships (tripling the weight required to sink the vessel). Only Naval type aircraft would have access to armor-piercing bombs (D3a, B5n, SBD, TBD, F6F, F4U, etc)... Thus somewhat limiting the effectiveness of Suicide buffs.
Yep and great suggestion. That is a great way to limit the Dive Bombing Level Bombers:aok
-
I'd still like to see some requirement for a torpedo hit to finally sink the CV. Mainly so the torpedo planes get used.
-
Originally posted by Halo
From what I've read about WWII aircraft carriers, most were so thin-skinned and volatile (full of fuel and bombs) that it didn't take much to put them out of action, and sinking often followed. One or two bombs on flight deck and the airfield was out of action.
They were not extensively armored. Typical Essex class armor was 2-3" on the hull, 1.5" on the flight deck, 1.5" on the 01 level (immediately below the flight deck) and 3" on the hanger deck. So, a typical bomb would not generally get through the hanger deck. However, if the hanger deck was filled with fully fueled aircraft, serious fires would result. We must not forget that ready ordnance was usually stored on the hanger deck while re-arming aircraft. The magazines themselves were well protected.
You may find it interesting that the Lexington pre-war class carriers carried more than double the armor of the Essex class. Largely due to being converted from Battlecruisers (early in the construction process). Unfortunately for the Lexington, the avgas system was badly designed. It was later reworked on Saratoga during one of her post-damage refits.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, they had less armor than that. No Essex flight deck was armored, unless you want to count 2" teak planks and a thin sheet of steel used under them. The hangar deck had a 2.5" plate of STS steel flooring for armor. This was the reason why a single bomb hit could utterly destroy any Essex carrier. The bomb would go through the flight deck and hit the 2.5" floor of the hangar deck, detonating almost instantly. What runs through the hangar deck? 2" diameter pipes that carry aviation fuel. So even if the hangar deck was empty, the resulting fire would eliminate flight ops entirely. The armor "belt" tapered from 4" thick down to 2.5" thick; meager defence against any torpedo. The interior was just as well protected as the hull, with 4" thick bulkheads.
As I stated in the other thread, the fleets need more AA protection and tougher guns. None of our fleet ships, save the Baltimore cruiser, were designed to be all that tough. Destroyer Escorts? They were called "tin cans" for a reason, and put up a miserable AA barrage. Dump the DEs and stick in actual destroyers. Aside from being tougher, the Fletcher-class destroyer could really pack a wallop. To compare a Rudderow-class DE to the Fletcher DD...
Rudderow DE:
Weapons:
2x 5"/38 guns (single mount)
10x20mm single
2x40mm
2x triple-rack 21" torpedo launchers
Length: 306'
Speed: 24 knots
Fletcher DD
Weapons:
5x5"/38 guns (single mount)
5x40mm twin mounts
2x 6-rack 21" torpedo launchers
Length: 376'
Speed: 35.2 knots
Then again, we could try to bag an Allen M Sumner class DD. It was bigger and much more heavily armed than the Fletcher. Simply by changing the escort ships we can increase the amount of firepower available to protect a fleet, increase the number of player-manned guns, and throw up a more effective defence. All that's left is for HT to give the 5" turrets armor so they aren't killed so quickly.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
Too soft and too bland. It needs much more to it that what it is.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
My suggestion made years ago was to armor warships so that only armor-piercing bombs can sink it at the minimum total bomb tonnage. High explosive bombs would have their effectiveness cut by 2/3rds against ships (tripling the weight required to sink the vessel). Only Naval type aircraft would have access to armor-piercing bombs (D3a, B5n, SBD, TBM, F6F, F4U, etc)... Thus somewhat limiting the effectiveness of Suicide buffs.
My regards,
Widewing
I like this idea a LOT. Could make defense more fun, though all guys would have to do is up a hellcat instead of a pony. :(
Puffy ack is lovely background effect, but isnt too scary to me as a pilot right now. I've raked over a strat in a thunderbolt all by myself for 10-15 minutes, ignoring the ack and never getting touched. I know that's not universal, but I strongly believe high planes IB to carrier ought to feel very nervous -- adn that's just not the case right now.
I's ask for increased lethality of the high altitude puffy ack, and no change to the lower 40mm and 1.1". That would keep the TG form being an ack hider's haven, but would also force the combat ot lower -- and more engagable -- alts.
In the end, the main reason to leave ack light is to discourage ack hiders -- but realistically, they're the only ones to suffer. Gotta be pretty boring after a while hugging the ack ...... and the next step is to never leave the tower. Let 'em play that way if they want, but countering that yellow-bellied behaviour shouldnt require everyone else to compormise gameplay.