Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: FiLtH on August 26, 2004, 11:14:20 PM
-
Rather than the normal cummulative damage, Id rather see the following.
1. Bombs only destroy guns,radar,and if enough hits acts like the fighter/bomber hangers were hit making it so it couldnt launch aircraft. If the hangers were inop the fire would be visible.
10 bombs(1000lb bombs) or equivalent to shutdown launch ability. A CV could be sunk by bombs, but it would take an additional random 5-10 bomb hits to sink it (1000lb bombs).
2. Torp damage would cause the CV to list if hit by 2 torps, causing it to go dead in the water. Air ops still possible.
A third torp would cause the CV to burn, and denying air ops. A fourth torp would cause the CV to list. After that a random 1-3 additional torps would cause it to sink.
3. Damage Control: For every 10 minutes of no further damage, the CV repairs a random 2-4 bomb or 1-2 torp worth of damage.
Cruisers would work similar as far as damage is concerned.
Just a thought on how Id like the CVs to work
PS I tried 3 times to post this so if 3 posts here sorry.
-
Big Ben (USS Franklin) was an Essex-class short hull, the same type we have in AH. it was put completely out of comission by two bomb hits on the after portion of the ship. The Jeep carrier USS Princeton was blown apart by a single 250kg bomb dropped from a Val dive bomber. What you're asking for would make the carrier ten times stronger than it could possibly have been. Essex-class carriers had no deck armor except the teak flight deck itself and a single 2.5" piece of STS on the hangar deck. Neither of which would stop a 250lbs bomb, let alone a 1,000lbs bomb. The armor "belt" tapered from 4" to 2.5" thick and was lousy protection against torpedoes. It wasn't a very tough ship, and primarily relied on its aircraft and escort vessels for protection.
That being said, I'd love to see additional damage effects like fires, listing from flooding, damage that can hamper or cause flight ops to cease, etc.. as well as the ability to be repaired. Maybe a "Repair at Port" button on the CB that takes the ship back to its home port for repairs lasting xx minutes?
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
also, a torpedo let alone 2 can easily sink a ship. if hit in the right place between bulkheads, there woudl eb no stopping the water comming in (even not between a 20 foot hole would be enough to slowly sink the ship)
-
I think this idea might make a cv the hardest target in the whole MA. But I think it is a step in the right direction. Treating a ship as if it were a vh, thus eliminating planes from upping is a good beginning. Make the CV's stronger (thought not quite as strong as your suggesting) and build in levels of damage. A torpedo would cause the ship to stop. Severl X lb bombs and it burns and no flight land or take off can take place. And harden it a bit to bombs in general. But build in all the other restrictions tha are operative at land based airports.
Peace
Pillur
-
Hmm,
Apart from the fact that the RL carriers were not so durable, I think we must make gameplay consessions.
I dont know or have no suggestion on how to make them better gamewise (if possible) but taking the Flight-ops-capability from the sinking of the complete CV would only add one tactical oportunity: If you plan to capture the Port that is attached to the CV anytime soon, you can put it out of commision for probably a longer time than when sinking it. By sinking it would appear 10 minutes later at the very port youre trying to take, so no good option, but when flight ops are shut down for a longer period of time then the ppl can be reassigned from defending the attacked airfield to attacking the port.
Is that the reason you would like to change it? I'm not sure if that would work out well.
If thats not what you planned, everyone will be able to sink the CV relatively easily once the planes cannot up anymore. I think they are by far the greatest threat to any bomber or Jabo coming in low I think.
I dont even think it should be hardenend. 3 Divebombing P47s should always be able to kill a CV.
Hardening them would only prolong the possibillity of a close-range furball. Thats nice to have off course, but once tons of fighters are up it will mostly take very long for one side to beat the other. So you would have to make the CV really hard so that it can withstand as much as all the Fighterhangars and the VH at a medium field. Correct?
Maybe make them softer, so ppl dont always try to waste them 2 miles off shore off a base.
Dunno, just my thoughts.
-
I like those Ideas.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Rather than the normal cummulative damage, Id rather see the following.
1. Bombs only destroy guns,radar,and if enough hits acts like the fighter/bomber hangers were hit making it so it couldnt launch aircraft. If the hangers were inop the fire would be visible.
10 bombs(1000lb bombs) or equivalent to shutdown launch ability. A CV could be sunk by bombs, but it would take an additional random 5-10 bomb hits to sink it (1000lb bombs).
2. Torp damage would cause the CV to list if hit by 2 torps, causing it to go dead in the water. Air ops still possible.
A third torp would cause the CV to burn, and denying air ops. A fourth torp would cause the CV to list. After that a random 1-3 additional torps would cause it to sink.
3. Damage Control: For every 10 minutes of no further damage, the CV repairs a random 2-4 bomb or 1-2 torp worth of damage.
Cruisers would work similar as far as damage is concerned.
Just a thought on how Id like the CVs to work
PS I tried 3 times to post this so if 3 posts here sorry.
cvs are ships, sometimes single bombs sink them.......you want them to fully repair in 10minutes?!?! :lol You seem to think CV's are really strong or something....
and why did you start another thread?
-
I like to CV's to die when I shoot them.
-
CV should stop when hit by enough ord that they are smoking. A CV hit by a torpedoe & listing should NOT be able to launch planes. As should any CV stopped, listing, burning, etc.
A CV hit by bombs & with open fire on deck should NOT be able to launch planes.
LVT's & PT's sure, why not.
Last, if you really want to make cv's tougher, you need to tie them to port. With a 2 hour timer, ,so if port is taken in 2 hours you get the CV providing port is not retaken.
No more hiding CV's for days. You'd have 2 hours to use it or lose it.
-
Unfortunately when it comes to CVs we have two camps as well.
1) Ones that see them as a threat and want to erase every single one of them as soon as they are spotted.
2) People that see them as a great place to find a fight and want to play there.
I am all for Filth's ideas. :aok It is too easy for a single box of dive bombing :rolleyes: Level bombers to drop a CV, let alone two 110s :rolleyes:.
I think the threat of base capture from a CV should be allieviated by having troop ships supply the LVTs. Then carriers could be hardened while still leaving their base capture ability medium to soft.
As for the real life thing - this is not real life, it does not simulate real life, this is a game, things have to be done to compensate for not having a full boat of pilots, sailors and escorts to protect the carriers at all times. Thus we depart from real life.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Unfortunately when it comes to CVs we have two camps as well.
1) Ones that see them as a threat and want to erase every single one of them as soon as they are spotted.
2) People that see them as a great place to find a fight and want to play there.
.
you forgot 3 which is 1+2 ;)
i love CV battles, but my aim is ALWAYS trying to taking a base, or sinking the CV. Its fun either way, but the great fight is for a reason, to sink it or take the base. IF people dont want to fight then it will sink fast.
if i find a Cv miles away from anywhere, like on trinity, half way between the 2 shores, i will circle it for a bit, and hope someone (maybe more) up and start alittle fight out there (battles at sea are more fun than close to shore, dam SB's). If they dont bother to up and i cant get a fight out of them i will land, and get a p38/p47 and start working on it. If people dont want to defend it ON the way to the target then tough im sinking it.
-
If they dont bother to up and i cant get a fight out of them i will land, and get a p38/p47 and start working on it. If people dont want to defend it ON the way to the target then tough im sinking it.
This is a perfect example of CVs being too soft. 1 guy should never be able to take down a CV. It should take a consorted effort to kill these things. They should be hard enough where one guy wouldn't even think of trying to take a CV alone.
Some times there are not enough people on to defend every outpost in this game. That is one difference between AH and real life.
-
As for the real life thing - this is not real life, it does not simulate real life, this is a game, things have to be done to compensate for not having a full boat of pilots, sailors and escorts to protect the carriers at all times. Thus we depart from real life.
That's why the CV is frickin' 8000lbs tough.
Look at the suggestion again. It requires at maximum 20 thousand pounds of bombs to kill a CV. That's more ordnance than a 3-plane B-17 formation carries.
That's not "compensation" - that's granting immunity. Granting immunity to not only the CV itself, but also the responsibilty of the CV-based pilots to protect its capital ship. Its practically warping, twisting and bending the reality to meet their personal selection of "wants" and "don't wants" in the game.
Ofcourse, this is not real life.
But some basic principles of real-life tactics and situations must stay intact for this game to have at least some kind of resemblance and immersiveness that gives this WW2 vintage aircraft combat its charm. But instead, people ask for low workload, low responsibilities, low risks and low flight time. At the same time they ask for more fun. They just might as well ask for a target drone to spawn in front of them at the runway, the way this is going.
Well, that kind of mentality may work for a FFA arena, but as long as the MA has its general form set out as a WAR between countries, there will be always the more serious people planning deadlier, and more efficient strikes and attacks, no matter how 'dweebey' it may be.
And when that time comes, how is anyone gonna stop them? Anybody?
Well, judging by these opinions, people seem to want HT to stop them!
Hello, earth to furballers, come in furballers! You can have all the fun you want, but if that fun leaves your CV in danger, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves.
And you certainly should not request for a system change to do the job for you.
We should all try to remember, that sometimes, doing stupid things are much more fun than doing the right thing.
Nobody's stopping one from doing the stupid thing. So, vice versa, don't expect doing stupid things will still yield right results. It's a very simple equation of work, responsibility, and results. No work, no responsibility? Then no results, too bad. That's how simple this is.
ps)
Some times there are not enough people on to defend every outpost in this game. That is one difference between AH and real life.
If there aren't enough people around to defend it, perhaps the CV shouldn't have been sent into a position where it could get sunk, in the first place. Or, the CV is a mobile airfield - meaning: it moves around. It should have retreated from that spot.
It's just common sense.
-
OK Kweassa you have had some good points but now you are just spouting off.
But instead, people ask for low workload, low responsibilities, low risks and low flight time. At the same time they ask for more fun. They just might as well ask for a target drone to spawn in front of them at the runway, the way this is going.
This is BS, common excuse when people don't like suggestions they have read. The bottom line is the fight at the CVs dont last long enough to justify having CVs because some one easily and quickly kills them before any decent fight can start. When three CVs are sunk in less than half an hour something is out of whack.
You seemed to be smarter and above using this "It's easier" or "The Furballer" mentality excuse, I don't know why you are now. That is a weak excuse and easy out.
CVs provide a battle, when the CVs are sunk so quickly they do nothing but provide target practice.
But instead, people ask for low workload, low responsibilities, low risks and low flight time. At the same time they ask for more fun. They just might as well ask for a target drone to spawn in front of them at the runway, the way this is going.
Well, that kind of mentality may work for a FFA arena, but as long as the MA has its general form set out as a WAR between countries, there will be always the more serious people planning deadlier, and more efficient strikes and attacks, no matter how 'dweebey' it may be.
Give me a break. Who asked for a low work load, low risk, where did anyone say that a well planned attack should be stopped. Uhhhh no where.
I am all for losing a CV to a consorted effort as I have said. I am against one guy dropping a CV. That is not some great war plan, composed by "more serious people" :rolleyes:.
And when that time comes, how is anyone gonna stop them? Anybody?
Who cares who stops who as long as it provides a nice long decent exhausting FIGHT!
Well, judging by these opinions, people seem to want HT to stop them!
Hmmmm, your judgement on opinions read = Your ASSUMPTIONs. No one wants to stop people from killing carriers. That assumption is just plain silly.
Hello, earth to furballers, come in furballers! You can have all the fun you want, but if that fun leaves your CV in danger, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves.
And you certainly should not request for a system change to do the job for you.
You are completely off base here, again no one wants to totally stop CVs from being killed, I would like to see them last longer so the fight can go on and last more than five mins. You seem to want the CVs to stay weak so you can easily kill them, perhaps it's you looking for the "low workload, low responsibilities, low risks" because as I see it hardening the carriers would only Up the workload, up the risks and up the responsibilies of those trying to kill it, thus creating more of a fight, more of a chance to successfully defend a CV etc.
As for the rest of your rant, get off the soap box. "We should all try to remember" that sometimes when things are hardened there is more fighting, more fun, more risk and more adventure.
BTW - How many pounds does a fully loaded Box of Lancs carry? Most of the time that is what I see attacking a CV.
your posts are usually well thought out and make some good points, I'm going to chalk this last one up to a lapse in better judgement.
Furballer Mentality, that is one of the weakest accustations on these BBs. I have not seen anywhere in either of these posts about carriers, anyone attack anybody for bombing the CVs, why are you attacking Furballers? Why does someone always have to reduce these threads to such a stupid level. Furballer Vs Building Battler.
I have seen some good suggestions to up the carrier defenses, but I havn't seen one reason why they shouldn't increase the hardness or way a carrier is killed.
:rolleyes:
If there aren't enough people around to defend it, perhaps the CV shouldn't have been sent into a position where it could get sunk, in the first place. Or, the CV is a mobile airfield - meaning: it moves around. It should have retreated from that spot.
It's just common sense.
Yeah I really don't think that quote you copied out has anything to do with losing carriers to stupid captains here. If you read the post and understand it in context you would realize that we are talking about open water here.if i find a Cv miles away from anywhere, like on trinity, half way between the 2 shores, i will circle it for a bit, and hope someone (maybe more) up and start alittle fight out there (battles at sea are more fun than close to shore, dam SB's). If they dont bother to up and i cant get a fight out of them i will land, and get a p38/p47 and start working on it. If people dont want to defend it ON the way to the target then tough im sinking it.
-
I think the fleet ack should take out a low-flying group of bombers no problem. At least then, they'd have to work a little before dropping their huge bombload on the carrier.
-
Hello, earth to furballers, come in furballers! You can have all the fun you want, but if that fun leaves your CV in danger, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourselves.
And you certainly should not request for a system change to do the job for you.
I think you need another cup of coffee.
How did this get "furball" centric and its the "furballers" fault.
Total BS ... From what I have read in this thread and the other one, it appears to be quite the mixture of those that would like to see some changes in the CV attack groups.
Having the CV hang around longer benefits both the furballer and strat guys who are going for the capture.
-
Real Carriers always had a high cap and many heavily gunned support ships to defend them. It is tough to defend against some guy who makes it his mission to take out CV and ups a formation of Lancs from 2 sectors out and comes in at 15K. Maybe the CV could have a spawn point at 10K directly above it for clean fighters only...seeing as how in real life there would be a constant cap over it.
-
How did this get "furball" centric and its the "furballers" fault.
Total BS ... From what I have read in this thread and the other one, it appears to be quite the mixture of those that would like to see some changes in the CV attack groups.
I shi* you not. No matter how many discussions revolve around the CV, it's always essentially about the samething. It's a very simple logic.
* A group of people(a) want the CV dead
* Another group of people(b) want the CV alive
* a), will do anything to take the CV down.
* b) wants the CV alive
* if b) wants the CV alive, then b) must protect the CV
* in the MA, b) rarely commit themselves to the most effective means of protection - CAP.
* Result: CV dies a lot.
* Reaction: People come to the BBS and complain the CV needs to be fixed
There is no 'mixture' of reasons whatsoever. It's wordgame for people who try to hide the undisputable main issue here - 90% of the cases where a CV goes down in MA, is because of lack of protection. Barely a handful of cases are due to "unstoppable dweebery" such as endlessly respawning PTs, multiple suicidal buff formations, multiple bogeys who are determined to strafe a CV dead.. and etc etc.
There are few factors which may influence just how exactly the CV gets sunk in what process, but the fundamentals are rock-solid. People don't do squat about protecting the CV. They leave it to be sunk, and that's why it gets sunk.
Having the CV hang around longer benefits both the furballer and strat guys who are going for the capture.
That part's good.
The real difference is when a large urball brews around a CV. The sort of furball where it becomes clear that our meager CV-based planes are being pushed back, and numbers of 'red dots' increase in the dar screen.
This situation is like stormclouds on the horizon.
The way 'strat' guys figure it, is if the CV can safely retreat for a while, regroup, and come back when the danger level drops - then the CV will survive, and won't have to respawn to do a four-hour cruise to the frontline all over again.
The way 'furball' guys figure, that they don't wanna missout on the fun. They keep the CV there, and yet not a single of them flies high CAP. BAM! the CV goes down, and they start blame the enemy for being a 'party pooper', and blame the system for making such a 'weak CV'.
Real Carriers always had a high cap and many heavily gunned support ships to defend them. It is tough to defend against some guy who makes it his mission to take out CV and ups a formation of Lancs from 2 sectors out and comes in at 15K.
Your picture of 'defense' shows the lack of understanding in the concept of CAP.
Maybe the CV could have a spawn point at 10K directly above it for clean fighters only...seeing as how in real life there would be a constant cap over it.
Maybe the pilot can get up and patrol the area at high alts in a potentially dangerous area, instead of fool around at low alts and then wish for an instant spawn to redeem the mistake of not setting up a proper CAP in the first place.
Constant CAP is a job we must do, not something the system can do for us. It's no fun. It's boring. But it's vital.
.............
There are a zillion things we can do to keep the CV alive.
* Try flying regular CAP duties. Find a friend nearby, and convince him to fly at least few sorties at high alts with you - giving up all the fun brawl at low alts.
* Ask others in the area to take turns with you to fly CAP.
* Actively search out the potential bases where the enemy might up buffs, and destroy its ordnance capacity befor e they launch jabos/buffs - instead of waiting around.
* Try to position the CV in a spot where enemy activity is predictable - one thing an 'admiral' must never do, is drive a CV into a waterway surrounded by 3~4 enemy bases within 25mile radius.
* Use proper discretion, and retreat the CV if the situation starts to get out of hand.
Do all of the things above - and then, if for some reason we still lose the CV, then those reasons are the factors that should be adressed/removed/fixed etc etc. in the game. And as of now, I only see a handful of those factors which need real correction - and none of them, has to do with CV toughness.
-
Kweassa you make it sound like no one flys high cap ever and that is just plain wrong. Guys man the gunns, guys fly high cap and still within 5 mins the thing is dead.
The carriers are very easy to kill no matter what you currently put up to defend it.
This is not some cut and dry Furball VS Strat issue. I have flown high cap. If I kill the high bomber I still get some mid alt Dive bobmbing Level Bomber that whacks the carrier. So then nope not gonna waste time doing a high cap.
Give me something that I can defend and I will.
* if b) wants the CV alive, then b) must protect the CV
* in the MA, b) rarely commit themselves to the most effective means of protection - CAP.
* Result: CV dies a lot.
* Reaction: People come to the BBS and complain the CV needs to be fixed
This is where I think you are wrong. Putting up a cap does not make the CV last that much if any longer. Your whole assumption that no one CAPs is incorrect. I think CVs are too soft so no matter what kind of cap you put up it's going to go down fast because it takes so little to kill.
-
Originally posted by mars01
This is a perfect example of CVs being too soft. 1 guy should never be able to take down a CV. It should take a consorted effort to kill these things. They should be hard enough where one guy wouldn't even think of trying to take a CV alone.
Some times there are not enough people on to defend every outpost in this game. That is one difference between AH and real life.
i didnt say one sortie did i?
it takes about 3 P47/p38 loads, and if theres a long gap between drops it takes even more as the ship magicaly repairs itself while at sea!! :lol
-
i didnt say one sortie did i?
it takes about 3 P47/p38 loads, and if theres a long gap between drops it takes even more as the ship magicaly repairs itself while at sea!!
Neither did I, did I? lol
Still three sorties in a 38 should not be able to drop a carrier. Like I said carriers should be hard enough that some one wouldn't and couldn't kill a CV alone.
-
Originally posted by mars01
OK Kweassa you have had some good points but now you are just spouting off. This is BS, common excuse when people don't like suggestions they have read. The bottom line is the fight at the CVs dont last long enough to justify having CVs because some one easily and quickly kills them before any decent fight can start. When three CVs are sunk in less than half an hour something is out of whack.
you know what, i think those 3cvs are the ones we, bish sunk. I sank a cv and a cruiser from them a couple of days ago.
you know why? because there was about 20 guys on them, some dive bombers, some torp bombers, and some bombers + escorts, while not ONE of them lazy rooks botherd to up to defend them (the ones that got shot down never came back).
rooks took 3 cvs somewhere, right near a bish base and didnt want us to stink them?! :rofl
-
Kweassa you make it sound like no one flys high cap ever and that is just plain wrong. Guys man the gunns, guys fly high cap and still within 5 mins the thing is dead.
No one flies high CAP mars. Some people may waltz around the enemy bases that is under attack from our CV at medium alts, pick off a few stupid jabos/buffs that up from that very field and try to make it to the CV, and call that "CAP". But that's not CAP.
An enemy plane that reaches the CV over 15k alt with a heavy bomb load, means it took off from another base at least 20 miles away - these guys can be picked off by watching dar bar. If there's a small dar reading at a base near the CV within 25 miles, that means a jabo or a buff has taken off. It can be predicted, and shot down.
If, multiple of those such bogeys come in at once, it means the enemy has organized themselves - which if the CV gets sunk basically means the enemy earned that kill. To stop something like that you need a lot of CAP fighters working in coordination. It's hard to expect in the MA, yes. But it's possible - even with individuals.
The only times a "thing" dies, is;
a) when the CV planes get pushed back from a beachfront furball and loses airsuperiority over the CV..
b) when the enemy launches a damned multiple suicidal buff mission at low alts
c) when the enemy ups planes like Nikis or 110s and purposely go strafing it to die
d) when a high jabo/buff reaches the CV unchallenged continuously
Of the four reasons, b) and c) should be addressed. But strengthening the CV is not the answer. Nor is b) and c) a common thing to take place. It is always a) and d) which brings down the CV, and a) and d), is what we can do something about, which nobody does anything about.
This is not some cut and dry Furball VS Strat issue. I have flown high cap. If I kill the high bomber I still get some mid alt Dive bobmbing Level Bomber that whacks the carrier. So then nope not gonna waste time doing a high cap.
I understand the frustration. I've experienced much same stuff. Except, when I get frustrated about it, I get frustrated about the rest of the pilots nearby who don't fly CAP with me - not at the buffs, or the 'weakness' of the CV.
I think CVs are too soft so no matter what kind of cap you put up it's going to go down fast because it takes so little to kill.
So, what's it gonna be? The CV is already 8000lbs tough. How much tougher does it have to become to satisfy you? Until no jabo or buff can harm it in anyway? Until the enemy has to put up 10~20 planes at the same tme to kill it?
-
Originally posted by mars01
Neither did I, did I? lol
Still three sorties in a 38 should not be able to drop a carrier. Like I said carriers should be hard enough that some one wouldn't and couldn't kill a CV alone.
in real life, a lucky 1000lbs could kill a carrier.
in here its 8000lbs (i think) so its not THAT bad
ive seen cvs float outside bases for HOURS on end, i dont know why your cvs keep sinking in 5minutes :p
-
Honestly I also find it very rare that a high alt bomber drops the carrier. It is easy to avoid the high alt drops. It is the low to med level Dive Bombing Level Bombers that end up killing the CVs.
So, what's it gonna be? The CV is already 8000lbs tough. How much tougher does it have to become to satisfy you? Until no jabo or buff can harm it in anyway? Until the enemy has to put up 10~20 planes at the same tme to kill it?
I agree there needs to be a balance...
(See original thread:
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.)
and I think discussions on the BBs are a good way to brainstorm and come up with some good ideas to make CV battles more fun for both sides.
I think there is a lot of room for improvement tho.
-
The three dead carriers in a half hour, I think were rooks killed by Our country the Knights this past Wed.
in real life, a lucky 1000lbs could kill a carrier.
See all other quotes. Who cares about "In Real Life" it does not apply here.
ive seen cvs float outside bases for HOURS on end, i dont know why your cvs keep sinking in 5minutes
I have never seen a carrier last that long, I wish I have seen that, but I'm sure you have seen carriers go down in 5 mins and more then a few times.
-
Originally posted by mars01
See all other quotes. Who cares about "In Real Life" it does not apply here.
you may not think so, but i do.
-
I shi* you not. No matter how many discussions revolve around the CV, it's always essentially about the samething. It's a very simple logic.
* A group of people(a) want the CV dead
* Another group of people(b) want the CV alive
* a), will do anything to take the CV down.
* b) wants the CV alive
* if b) wants the CV alive, then b) must protect the CV
* in the MA, b) rarely commit themselves to the most effective means of protection - CAP.
* Result: CV dies a lot.
* Reaction: People come to the BBS and complain the CV needs to be fixed
So how does all that above translate exclusively to "furball" ?
The way 'strat' guys figure it, is if the CV can safely retreat for a while, regroup, and come back when the danger level drops - then the CV will survive, and won't have to respawn to do a four-hour cruise to the frontline all over again.
The way 'furball' guys figure, that they don't wanna missout on the fun. They keep the CV there, and yet not a single of them flies high CAP. BAM! the CV goes down, and they start blame the enemy for being a 'party pooper', and blame the system for making such a 'weak CV'.
Your kidding right ? .... LOL
It been my experience that the "Lil' Admiralz" are more than not, the "strat" guys.
I have yet to see a down-in-wool furballer take control of a CV. They typically don't have the "rank" to take it and do what they want with it.
-
It's very hard to make it apply Overlag no matter how much you believe it.
1) You don't have people manning stations 24/7.
2) You don't even have all the real life stations to man.
3) The Fleet isn't even an 8th of a it's Real Life size.
4) The size of Real Life Oceans made it much harder to even find a task group and can not be compared to our maps.
5) In real life there would be constant fighter cover.
6) In real life you would have recon mssions routinely.
7) In real life you had qualified people driving these boats, not some score potato who has no idea what he is doing.
8) In real life you couldn't send limitless waves of planes against a carrier and sustain a War.
9) In real life there would usually be more than one carrier in a task group.
10) PT boats would not be able to launch unlimited torpedoes within seconds of getting killed.
11) In real life you would have Battleship task forces way out infront of the Carrier and smaller forces patroling the area around the CV.
on and on ...
give me 5 reasons why Real Life rules should apply.
-
Thats a great point Slap.
I know just about every time I have grabbed a CV, I back it away from the field and spawn points so we have a place to up from. About the same time all the strat guys get pissed because they can't get LVTs close enough. I would take the carrier in but the problem usually is that, these guys havn't even killed the VH, Ord or the City, but they need it in close. Go figure.
Then some maroon takes the boat and drives it into the PT spawns, kills the carrier, the fight etc.
Personally if I take a boat, I will fly high cap so I can manuever for in comming bombers, there is nothing worse than a guy that takes command and goes flying off. If you are going to lose sight give up command. I wish that when people were out of range of the CV they lost command.
-
I might be wrong... but... I think the suggestion that started this discussion was leaning more towards having damage modeled on CVs kind of like it currently is modeled on Aircraft. Not just simply have it either totally operational or dead but to offer some conditions and situations in between (depending on how much damage was applied and where it had been applied to).
I like that idea. Damage modeling for Carriers. It has endless possibilities for fun. Take off the rudder, kill the engines, take out the pilot house. The same damage catagories a plane takes but in terms of the carrier. Good idea Filth!
I also think straffing should not effect the CV other than perhaps killing the gun emplacements and the "imaginary" men that would be manning them.
-Buzzz
-
Originally posted by flakbait
Essex-class carriers had no deck armor except the teak flight deck itself and a single 2.5" piece of STS on the hangar deck. Neither of which would stop a 250lbs bomb, let alone a 1,000lbs bomb. The armor "belt" tapered from 4" to 2.5" thick and was lousy
(Edited)
Typical Essex class armor was 2-3" on the hull, 4" over boiler rooms. 1.5" under the flight deck, 1.5" on the 01 level (immediately below the flight deck) and 3" on the hanger deck.
Having spent some years of my life aboard carriers, I have a good prespective on their weaknesses.
You cannot eliminate the effect of non-armored decking and bulkheads in limiting penetration. No 250 pound bomb ever made will penerate through the flight deck, the 01, 02, 03 decks and then get through the 3" armored hanger deck. That's more than 9 inches of steel, and the related material in between decks. I'm assuming the Essex ships had decks above the hanger deck.
Princeton was a light carrier (CVL-23) built on a Light Cruiser hull. It's loss was the result of bad luck and secondary explosions. It was a 250 Kilogram bomb (not 250 lbs) that did the initial damage. It was not "blown apart" at all by the bomb hit... blast damage wasn't extensive. in fact, it was nearly saved but for the timidity of an Admiral (he was roundly criticized later), she would have survived.
Here's the story of the Princeton's sinking:
USS Princeton (CVL 23) was lost in an air attack in the Sibuyan Sea during the Battle for Leyte Gulf. On the 20th, Princeton, commanded by Capt. William H. Buracker, USN, sent her planes against airfields on Luzon to prevent Japanese land based aircraft attacks on Allied shipping massed in Leyte Gulf. On the 24th, Japanese planes from Clark and Nichols Fields found Princeton and her task group.
At 9:38 a.m. on Oct. 24, 1944, a lookout aboard Princeton spotted a single Japanese plane making a shallow dive on the ship. The plane had come out of low-hanging clouds and while under fire from Princeton's guns and those of other ships in company, dropped a 500-pound bomb from under 1,200 feet. It hit forward of the after elevator and slightly to port of the center line, crashed through the flight deck and hangar, then exploded. Flames shot down to the engineering spaces aft and back into the hangar. The explosion also knocked out the after fire-fighting system. Initial fires soon expanded.
The smoke was very thick and flowed across the after part of the ship. The heat from the fires and he dense smoke forced many of the men on the stern of the ship to jump overboard.
The first major explosions rocked the light carrier at about 10:02 a.m., engulfing the ship in more heavy billowing smoke and flame. The first blew out the after elevator; the second, shortly after the first, buckled the flight deck. The explosions also sent fragments of the ship flying in all directions, causing many casualties.
At about 10:10 a.m., USS Irwin (DD 794) went alongside the burning carrier to port. The seriously injured were lowered from the carrier onto the destroyer. Irwin continued to play hoses into the forward part of Princeton's hangar and to take aboard the carrier's crew to the point where between 600 and 700 men were packed like sardines on the small destroyer's decks.
The Task Force commander, Rear Adm. Forrest C. Sherman, seeing the heavy explosions, dispatched the cruiser USS Birmingham (CL 62) and another destroyer to the Princeton's assistance.
At about 10:55 a.m., Birmingham came alongside the blazing Princeton. Shortly after, USS Reno (CL 96) also came alongside but could not remain due to dense smoke and the scorching heat from the fires. As the crew worked the fires toward the after part of the carrier, Birmingham shifted back there as well. By about 1 p.m., enough progress had been made so that it looked as though the fires might be out within 20 or 30 minutes.
Just as Princeton's fires were about to be extinguished, Japanese aircraft were said to be in the vacinity. Immediately, at about 1:30 pm, Birmingham pulled away to get set for a fight that didn't come. Meanwhile, with very little fire-fighting capability on the carrier, Princeton's blazes grew again.
At 3:23 p.m., as Birmingham approached Princeton for the second time, the carrier's reserve bomb and torpedo stowage blew up, blowing away part of the stern. Shrapnel from the blast ripped across Birmingham killing 229 and injuring 420, far more than those hurt on the carrier.
The injured Birmingham was obliged to back off. Princeton had no fire-fighting capability left aboard, and at 4:40 p.m., Capt. Buracker left the carrier, the last to go. A message came from Rear Adm. Sherman: "Destroy Princeton. Remaining ships join task force." Shortly after 5 p.m., USS Irwin began to fire torpedoes at the burning hulk.
At 5:46 p.m., USS Reno relieved Irwin and at 5:49 p.m. the carrier's torpedo warhead storage exploded. Flames and debris shot up 1000 to 2000 feet. Princeton's forward section was gone and what was left of her after section appeared momentarily through the smoke. By 5:50 p.m., she disappeared. Ten officers and 98 enlisted men had been lost, but 1,361 of her crew survived.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hey Wide,
Great Read.
Just as Princeton's fires were about to be extinguished, Japanese aircraft were said to be in the vacinity. Immediately, at about 1:30 pm, Birmingham pulled away to get set for a fight that didn't come. Meanwhile, with very little fire-fighting capability on the carrier, Princeton's blazes grew again.
Was it the Admiral who orders the Birmingham away or just circumstance?
What was the timidity?
-
First off..I realize a real cv could be easily destroyed by a single bomb or torpedo.
That said..that is real life. This is a game.
How many people in ww2 had a chance to hit a carrier...and how often? Few Im sure. In here, everyone has a chance to whack one every 10-20 minutes. Few would be willing to sit at 25k over each task force, hoping to catch the lone suicidal typh trying to sink it at all costs.
With the exception of kamikaze attacks, most strikes were a coordinated attack, with both torp and dive bombers involved. Two strikes against that same target would have been alot in one day. We cant compare what we do here, tactics, durability,and the constant air attack of 1-5 bombers with what really happened.
Since we have to realize that, we also have to realize that the carriers themselves cant be treated totally realistic.
Yes, what I proposed sounds like alot of bomb and torp damage. But as far as the game is concerned, and how it is played, by us all, adjustments have to be made to make up for it.
The biggest letdown for me at the moment is the downtime a CV task force has in here, after traveling hours to a target area and having it killed so quickly. By giving it a harder damage threshold and the ability to repair it would require us to perform those coordinated strikes in order to sink it. To me its not simply having a carrier to use, but one to attack in a manner that would make folks work together.
I like the idea someone had about making the LVTs spawn from something other than the carrier. Make a transport ship be part of the task force that acts as the VH, much like the CV would be the floating FH/BH. You could prevent endless LVT spawning by simply destroying the transport ship, while (if able) the CV could still function.
Adding depth to any game creates many more options for fun missions, and tactics. Im not saying what I proposed is the exact settings that would work best, I just think it would be a step in the right direction. Again..I dont make the game, I only play it :)
-
Originally posted by mars01
Hey Wide,
Great Read.
Was it the Admiral who orders the Birmingham away or just circumstance?
What was the timidity?
Rear Admiral Sherman ordered the Birmingham to pull away from Princeton at the critical moment when the fires were almost out. He did this based upon a radio message intercepted from fighters 200 miles distant that reported possible enemy aircraft headed to a location the Admiral assumed was the general location of his TF. They realized later that there were no enemy aircraft...
Had the Birmingham not pulled away, and had she finished extinguishing the Princeton's fires, the CVL would have survived and the nearly 700 casualties aboard the Birmingham would have been avoided. Sherman had also managed to get the Wasp torpedoed out from under him, and was criticized for scuttling her too soon. As it was, it took three more American torpedos and several hours to sink Wasp.
Sherman was a sound officer and tactician, eventually rising to CNO. But, to quote Halsey; "Old Sherm isn't one for taking risks." In this case, the result was 229 families getting telegrams...
Sometimes it pays to take some risk, in war time it almost always leads to less casualties than caution does.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Good Stuff,
Thanks Wide.