Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jpeg on August 15, 2005, 12:33:58 PM
-
People who have just switched countries should not be allowed to control cv until they have been with the country for at least 24 hours.
-
How about… When you switch countries, you loose your rank…?
You should not loose your perks like you do when you change game Ids, just rank. If you’re good, and stay in your new country, you’ll get your rank back soon enough.
-
Or you can't control the CV's for 12 hours like you can't get perk points for side wins. Simple solution already in effect on another issue and not much to beef about unless you were going to do it for that reason.
-
What I would like to see is the choice of country pop up when you select an arena. In addition, you should be able to see the roster so you could tell the numbers of each country, bases held, and who is flying on what side. Then you chose your country, you are moved into the arena on that side, and cannot switch sides for say 12 hours?
This would stop the CV issue, help prevent the "spying" of missions, and still allow folks who want to fly on the sides that have low numbers to do so.
-
My idea is this. If you change countries you get nothing for 48 hours. No rank, no perks, and you can't change back. If you don't like your new country, damn the bad luck. Be a man and deal with it. If you start whinin on the country channel that you hate being there you should be forced to endure the never ending harassment of your fellow countrymen that you decided that you don't like. Just my .02
-
Originally posted by KTM520guy
My idea is this. If you change countries you get nothing for 48 hours. No rank, no perks, and you can't change back. If you don't like your new country, damn the bad luck. Be a man and deal with it. If you start whinin on the country channel that you hate being there you should be forced to endure the never ending harassment of your fellow countrymen that you decided that you don't like. Just my .02
Pretty counter productive approach. Encouraging folks to switch sides to the lower pop country when things get lopsided is a good thing. Proposals such as this only discourage that.
I've got to say I don't quite understand all the hostility towards someone switching sides. If you're worried about spies, etc, none of the above will hinder that in the least. As long as someone can have two accounts, you're fully screwed and will continue to be...end of story. All this is secondary in the extreme. Or if there's some other reason for trying to discourage people from joining you're country?
-
Originally posted by Vortex
Pretty counter productive approach. Encouraging folks to switch sides to the lower pop country when things get lopsided is a good thing. Proposals such as this only discourage that.
I've got to say I don't quite understand all the hostility towards someone switching sides. If you're worried about spies, etc, none of the above will hinder that in the least. As long as someone can have two accounts, you're fully screwed and will continue to be...end of story. All this is secondary in the extreme. Or if there's some other reason for trying to discourage people from joining you're country?
People who go to the least populated country usually hang around for awhile. What actually happens the most is people on the losing side jump to the winning side right before the reset just to get the perk points. That is not very honorable. If your country is taking it in the shorts you should stick your head up and fight to the end. You can try to win the next one.
There will always be spies but we should at least make it just a little difficult for them. This idea will also make the recent CV incident a little harder to pull off. Not impossible. If someone wishes to jump sides to change the outcome the game, then a high price should be paid.
As always, just my .02
:)
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Or you can't control the CV's for 12 hours like you can't get perk points for side wins. Simple solution already in effect on another issue and not much to beef about unless you were going to do it for that reason.
I agree with this version. The issue of an enemy switching for the purpous using their rank to deny free use of a countries CV has come up on more than one occasion.
-
How about make it so that CVs can't infinitley resupply a port, too? That way BOTH gamey almost-cheating aspects that ruin someone's gaming can be eliminated?
And if you take away the incentive to switch countries (ie, get to fly Temps for the enemy against the -holes in your old country) you make people want to stay with their unbalanced side.
-
Some good ideas here, let's add this great idea to the list as well.
A Task force with no Carrier or Cruiser should not have any supplies and should not be able to re-supply a port by launching lvt's (or PT's for that matter) ad nauseum. The last time I checked destroyers couldn't launch these vehicles.
Zazen
-
I like the time limit, but not the other ideas for any other penalties/costs. With numerical imbalance being a common issue, any penalties or lost opportunities for perk/rank/score would be counterproductive.
I do not think a fleet that has been entirely sunk should be capable of launching PTs or LVTs in any circumstances.
Another idea I like, although I'm not sure if it could be implemented, would be that LVTs spawn in the water, not on the beach. I saw another instance of LVTs spawning directly onto land and dumping hundreds of troops out, who then ran off the small peninsula through the water to get to the town, which made shooting them almost impossible (this was before the change to troop 'hardness' and splash damage effects).
-
Originally posted by G0ALY
How about… When you switch countries, you loose your rank…?
You should not loose your perks like you do when you change game Ids, just rank. If you’re good, and stay in your new country, you’ll get your rank back soon enough.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. What if you were ranked per country and that was what was used to determine things like controlling the CV? The "just change countries crowd" shouldn't be bothered by it, the people that only fly one country shouldn't care and everyone else would have the option open to them. You could still have the overall rank, but that would not determine who can control the CV...only country rank.
-
What actually happens the most is people on the losing side jump to the winning side right before the reset just to get the perk points.
Total Urban Legend.
You CANNOT switch to the winning side just before a reset and get perk points.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
A Task force with no Carrier or Cruiser should not have any supplies and should not be able to re-supply a port by launching lvt's (or PT's for that matter) ad nauseum. The last time I checked destroyers couldn't launch these vehicles.
Zazen
Operation CLEANSLATE (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Guadalcanal/USA-P-Guadalcanal-Epilogue.html)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Operation CLEANSLATE (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Guadalcanal/USA-P-Guadalcanal-Epilogue.html)
Taken from that article:
On 29 January Admiral Halsey received permission from Admiral Nimitz to proceed with the occupation.2 Halsey's first plans for the attack called for an infiltration from Guadalcanal by one infantry battalion and antiaircraft units carried on two destroyer-transports.
These are not the same as escort destroyers, which is what are modelled in the task groups for AH. Destroyer-transports are just armed troop transports. Escort destroyers on the other hand are there to provide additional anti-aircraft support and anti-submarine support to the task force, not to carry troops and supplies. I've been on a destroyer there's not enough room in there for enough supplies to rebuild a destroyed base.
In this example the landing craft were all towed externally a very short distance in a pass between two proximate pieces of land. They were not in the open sea. Capital ships carried the LVT's internally where they were safe from direct enemy fire until ready to be deployed. If AH wants to model externally destroyer towed landing craft, we need to be able to shoot them all out like we do guns before they can be deployed and there needs to be a very finite number of them and if the CV travels more than a few miles from land they need to sink.
Zazen
-
Your quote was not regarding the Operation I refered to. Regardless...
The CLEANSLATE Amphibious Force, under Turner, had no large warships, transports, or cargo ships. It consisted of four destroyers, four destroyer-transports, five high-speed minesweepers, twelve tank landing craft, a number of smaller landing craft, a 1,000-ton barge, and the Russells Occupation Force. The transports would be protected by eight motor torpedo boats, an integral part of the Amphibious Force, as well as by the South Pacific air and naval forces.
Now if you were paying attention to the article before you proceeded to lecture on varieties of Naval craft, you may have noticed that the landing craft were towed to the objective and cut loose. Your argument was that they cant be launched without a cruiser and carrier in the task force, and my example says "Why not?"
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Your quote was not regarding the Operation I refered to. Regardless...
Now if you were paying attention to the article before you proceeded to lecture on varieties of Naval craft, you may have noticed that the landing craft were towed to the objective and cut loose. Your argument was that they cant be launched without a cruiser and carrier in the task force, and my example says "Why not?"
I know they were towed, I addressed that. If they are towed we should be able to shoot them prior to their deployment, each destroyer only towed 1 or 2 in that oepration. Launching something implies they are held internally and ejected from the ship, destroyers cannot do this only Capital ships (Battleships, Cruisers, CV's). Of the ships we have modelled in AH, only the Cruiser and the CV are capable of 'launching' any type of LVT. If the CV and Cruiser are down there should be no supplies, troops, LVT's or PT boats available to the task force for deployment until it respawns with its Capital ships again.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Your quote was not regarding the Operation I refered to. Regardless...
Now if you were paying attention to the article before you proceeded to lecture on varieties of Naval craft, you may have noticed that the landing craft were towed to the objective and cut loose. Your argument was that they cant be launched without a cruiser and carrier in the task force, and my example says "Why not?"
Not to add to a wonderful flame war, but wouldn't towed LCs be very vulnerable to air attack? Much more than a CA or CV already is?
-
Originally posted by Tails
Not to add to a wonderful flame war, but wouldn't towed LCs be very vulnerable to air attack? Much more than a CA or CV already is?
Yes, that is exactly my point.
Zazen
-
That's a bit harsh and don't think that's fair. Certain people like to switch sides to try and even out numbers (ty to them) and I think this would really discourage them.
Originally posted by G0ALY
How about… When you switch countries, you loose your rank…?
You should not loose your perks like you do when you change game Ids, just rank. If you’re good, and stay in your new country, you’ll get your rank back soon enough.
-
We should also be able to shoot the planes avalible to fly that are parked at the airfield, and be able to shoot unoccupied naval birds parked on the flat top, and there needs to be a finite number of planes avalible from the CV too according to your logic.
-
Originally posted by KTM520guy
People who go to the least populated country usually hang around for awhile. What actually happens the most is people on the losing side jump to the winning side right before the reset just to get the perk points. That is not very honorable. If your country is taking it in the shorts you should stick your head up and fight to the end. You can try to win the next one.
There will always be spies but we should at least make it just a little difficult for them. This idea will also make the recent CV incident a little harder to pull off. Not impossible. If someone wishes to jump sides to change the outcome the game, then a high price should be paid.
As always, just my .02
:)
At one point wasn't there a time limit of some sort on getting perks for a reset? Along the lines of having to have been a part of that country for 12 hours or something like that? I seem to recall that. If that's been removed, I vote it gets put back because you're exactly right, populations swings TO the country that is winning for perk harvesting is just all bad.
I didn't know about the guy switching sides and using high rank to suicide a CV. That's pretty nasty. The OP starts to make more sense now. Mind you, I'd go about it a different way....ban the guys account, and cc's associated with it, and keep the individuals name black listed for all eternity. Players like that are better booted out the door. :)
-
Damaged Task Groups should not spawn LVT's, and especially should not spawn unlimited LVT's with unlimited supplies or troops. In fact, damaged Task Groups shouldn't spawn ANYTHING.
Further, destroyed ports shouldn't spawn Task Groups.
Nevermind the fact that LVT's shouldn't spawn on land, they should spawn right next to the ships they spawn from.
-
Originally posted by Vortex
At one point wasn't there a time limit of some sort on getting perks for a reset? Along the lines of having to have been a part of that country for 12 hours or something like that? I seem to recall that. If that's been removed, I vote it gets put back because you're exactly right, populations swings TO the country that is winning for perk harvesting is just all bad.
As far as I know, the 12 hour reset-perk timer still exsists. But, sometimes one can find a battle going so badly that they have 12 hours of notice to change sides and cash in.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Nevermind the fact that LVT's shouldn't spawn on land, they should spawn right next to the ships they spawn from.
That would cause LVTs to nolonger be used in base capture.
Now, having them spawn on land, I think, is a bug. but having them spawn a sane distance from land is a good thing. Otherwise you're gonna be dog-paddling for some 3 miles at 5 knots to get to shore from the boat that spawned you.
Now, maybe they could look at the spawning routine for the LVT to make sure it does not spawn on land?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Damaged Task Groups should not spawn LVT's, and especially should not spawn unlimited LVT's with unlimited supplies or troops. In fact, damaged Task Groups shouldn't spawn ANYTHING.
Further, destroyed ports shouldn't spawn Task Groups.
Nevermind the fact that LVT's shouldn't spawn on land, they should spawn right next to the ships they spawn from.
Exactly, this is the core of the issue. This is what needs to be fixed.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Murdr
We should also be able to shoot the planes avalible to fly that are parked at the airfield, and be able to shoot unoccupied naval birds parked on the flat top, and there needs to be a finite number of planes avalible from the CV too according to your logic.
Destroyers did not tow LVT's in normal circumstances. They only did it in this limited context because it was a very small trip and not over open seas. It was a creative and isolated occurence to solve a peculiar and unique problem of logistics, to use that as an excuse why a destroyed TG should be able to launch an infinite number of LVT and supplies in AH is, in a word...weak.
Zazen
-
pot calling the kettle
-
Originally posted by Tails
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Nevermind the fact that LVT's shouldn't spawn on land, they should spawn right next to the ships they spawn from.[/I]
That would cause LVTs to nolonger be used in base capture.
Now, having them spawn on land, I think, is a bug. but having them spawn a sane distance from land is a good thing. Otherwise you're gonna be dog-paddling for some 3 miles at 5 knots to get to shore from the boat that spawned you.
Now, maybe they could look at the spawning routine for the LVT to make sure it does not spawn on land?
Actually, no it wouldn't prevent LVT's from being used for base capture. It WOULD make it more difficult, and it would require the Task Group to be closer to the base, and therefore the base to be more completely capped.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
A Task force with no Carrier or Cruiser should not have any supplies and should not be able to re-supply a port by launching lvt's (or PT's for that matter) ad nauseum. The last time I checked destroyers couldn't launch these vehicles.
Technically, neither can a Cruiser or Carrier. What we need are 2 or 3 LSTs as part of the task force. Sink them and no troops. To prevent the porkers from having a party, respawn them after 15 minutes. Oh, and increase the number of manned 5" turrets to four on the CV and Cruiser to offer additional protection for the LSTs. According my 1945 Janes, the USN had several types of landing ships, all armed with two 5"guns and 8 40mm bofors in four dual mounts.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Nevermind the fact that LVT's shouldn't spawn on land, they should spawn right next to the ships they spawn from.[/I]
Actually, no it wouldn't prevent LVT's from being used for base capture. It WOULD make it more difficult, and it would require the Task Group to be closer to the base, and therefore the base to be more completely capped.
That's an excellent idea. Puts more emphasis on air combat and make things more realistic.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Technically, neither can a Cruiser or Carrier. What we need are 2 or 3 LSTs as part of the task force. Sink them and no troops. To prevent the porkers from having a party, respawn them after 15 minutes. Oh, and increase the number of manned 5" turrets to four on the CV and Cruiser to offer additional protection for the LSTs. According my 1945 Janes, the USN had several types of landing ships, all armed with two 5"guns and 8 40mm bofors in four dual mounts.
My regards,
Widewing
So long as the LST's respawn at the port and only when a new Task Group spawns (like all ships spawn now), that's great.
However, they'd have to create new ships.
Right now, there are other pressing matters, and changing the code somewhat without trying to create new ships SEEMS to be faster, easier, and more simple.
I'm not at all opposed to getting new ships, just like I'm not oppsed to getting new planes or vehicles, regardless of whether I happen to like the ship, plane, or vehicle in question.
I'm just looking for a solution to the problem that they can implement faster and easier.
Also, having the LST's does not solve the problem that started all of these threads.
Theoretically, you COULD kill the LST's, and leave the rest of the Task Group up, to prevent a new Task Group from spawning with new LST's. However, that leaves the planes and the guns on the rest of the ships. You'd have to knock down all the AAA on the ships so you could cap the Task Group. That all assumes no one sinks the CV, accidentally, or on purpose.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Technically, neither can a Cruiser or Carrier. What we need are 2 or 3 LSTs as part of the task force. Sink them and no troops. To prevent the porkers from having a party, respawn them after 15 minutes. Oh, and increase the number of manned 5" turrets to four on the CV and Cruiser to offer additional protection for the LSTs. According my 1945 Janes, the USN had several types of landing ships, all armed with two 5"guns and 8 40mm bofors in four dual mounts.
My regards,
Widewing
That would be an interesting solution. It would also add more survivability to the TG in general. Further it would make both attacking and defending them more interesting and realistic. There's some very good suggestions in here for solving the core problem. I have a feeling since HiTech changed the hardpoints on TG's ships to be selectively killable and added TG's that have multiple cruisers that the TG composition is of fairly flexible design. It shouldn't take too much coding to institute a fix of this nature.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
That's an excellent idea. Puts more emphasis on air combat and make things more realistic.
Realistic, we are talking AH2 here, aren't we?
How many times in hisory you heard of tanks firing at and hitting CVs?
Fine - if entire fleet is sunk no LVT's should be available
CV boats should only be able to damaged by rocks or eggs.
Do something to stop the dive bombing Lancs etc.
Add a lot more mannable 5" and AI ack
The current task force group is only a representaion, if we had a full one there would be a hell of a lot of ships out there!
So tieing LVTs to a single ship is not viable given the current task force composition.
Imagine the ack and frame rate hit with 100+ boats floating around.
RE LVT spawn: CV has to be really close to spawn on land, and I mean really close. Only had it happen to me once, you could have stood on the shore a hit it with a thrown brick.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
We should also be able to shoot the planes avalible to fly that are parked at the airfield, and be able to shoot unoccupied naval birds parked on the flat top, and there needs to be a finite number of planes avalible from the CV too according to your logic.
You can kill the planes that are available to fly at an airfield. It's called "take out the hangars". Same thing with a CV, it's called "sink the CV".
Actually, limiting the number of planes, and for that matter PT boats and LVT's available from a CV isn't too bad an idea, especially if the CV is damaged. Currently, a CV has the same endless supply of logistics as a base, right up until you sink it. Plus, a CV can be moved to wherever you want it on water. Until you sink the CV, which is protected by a lot more AAA than any airfield, vehicle base, or port, ALL CV planes and vehicles are available, unlike an airfield or vehicle base, where the hangars can be taken out. Damage to the CV, or for that matter, the entire Task Group, does not affect plane or vehicle operations at all. Maybe it should.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You can kill the planes that are available to fly at an airfield. It's called "take out the hangars". Same thing with a CV, it's called "sink the CV".
Actually, limiting the number of planes, and for that matter PT boats and LVT's available from a CV isn't too bad an idea, especially if the CV is damaged. Currently, a CV has the same endless supply of logistics as a base, right up until you sink it. Plus, a CV can be moved to wherever you want it on water. Until you sink the CV, which is protected by a lot more AAA than any airfield, vehicle base, or port, ALL CV planes and vehicles are available, unlike an airfield or vehicle base, where the hangars can be taken out. Damage to the CV, or for that matter, the entire Task Group, does not affect plane or vehicle operations at all. Maybe it should.
Makes about as much sense as limiting planes at an airfield based on it's size.
You sink at CV it's gone. You drop the FHs at a field they rebuild.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Realistic, we are talking AH2 here, aren't we?
How many times in hisory you heard of tanks firing at and hitting CVs?
Fine - if entire fleet is sunk no LVT's should be available
CV boats should only be able to damaged by rocks or eggs.
Do something to stop the dive bombing Lancs etc.
Add a lot more mannable 5" and AI ack
The current task force group is only a representaion, if we had a full one there would be a hell of a lot of ships out there!
So tieing LVTs to a single ship is not viable given the current task force composition.
Imagine the ack and frame rate hit with 100+ boats floating around.
RE LVT spawn: CV has to be really close to spawn on land, and I mean really close. Only had it happen to me once, you could have stood on the shore a hit it with a thrown brick.
Tanks could hit a CV if it were close enough. Realisticly, no one was stupid enough to keep a CV close enough to shore to have tanks shooting at it. Of course, planes didn't sink CV's with guns either. So there are plenty of problems with the current Task Groups and how they can be used.
If the entire fleet is sunk, the Task Group respawns at its port in a few minutes, often very few minutes. The problem is, a Task Group, or a CV, especially with serious damage, should not have unlimited logistics, planes, and vehicles available for launch. After a certain percentage of damage, a CV, and/or a Task Group should NOT be able to mount an offense, and only a reduced defense. And that percentage should be a lot closer to 50% damage than 100% damage.
LVT's should NEVER be able to spawn from a Task Group or CV onto land, nevermind anywhere close to or on a town or base. That's no more realistic than having a CV close enough to hit with a tank gun.
Oh, and I agree, shooting CV's with guns until they sink is absurd. Dive bombing heavy bombers is just as bad.
However, if you increase the amount of AAA available to defend a Task Group, the effectiveness of the individual AAA gun will have to be reduced in both accuracy and power. Unless your intent is to create an invulnerable Task Group. AND, people manning ship or field guns when the ship is sunk or the gun destroyed should be KILLED, and not given a successful landing and have their kill tally posted.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Makes about as much sense as limiting planes at an airfield based on it's size.
You sink at CV it's gone. You drop the FHs at a field they rebuild.
You sink a CV and it respawns just like hangars rebuild, as soon as the Task Group is sunk. It just respawns in its own territory. Having a Task Group/CV as a floating, mobile, never ending supply of offense, until it is completely sunk is bizarre and unrealistic.
ONE relatively well placed 500# bomb stopped a REAL CV from launching and retrieving. In AH II, 4-5 1000# bombs do not. They don't even reduce its speed or ability to launch and retrieve. They MIGHT knock out some AAA and the radar. Hitting a CV with TWO 1000# bombs right on the flight deck, especially considering they'd be dropped from a plane diving at 400MPH, SHOULD reduce the capacity of the CV to launch and retrieve, and probably to maneuver.
Honestly, if you could ACTUALLY hinder a CV's ability to operate by hitting it with a couple of bombs from a plane that would have actually been used to attack a CV in the war, you might not see as many of the dive bombing heavy bombers. The biggest reason you see them used is because nothing short of SINKING the CV has ANY effect on it. Nothing but a heavy can sink a CV in one pass.
-
:lol Talk about a change of thread subject matter... oh well. I can say I've seen it before where every ship in a task group was down. However, the respawn had not taken place yet. This effectively leaves a country with an invisible, mobile spawn point for LVTs.
When this has happened, I steam the "fleet" directly into shore. Granted there often isn't a lot of time before the respawn hits, but the opportunity is there for a capture that, in essence, shouldn't happen. Before you ask, yes... I've pulled off the capture doing it.
IMHO, if you kill all the ships, it's the same as killing barracks, albeit much tougher than flying around in a Typhoon from base to base, but that's for another wishlist item :D
Now... for the side switching argument... see my wish for that (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157704)
-
Originally posted by Alpo
Now... for the side switching argument... see my wish for that (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157704)
That's an excellent solution!
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Honestly, if you could ACTUALLY hinder a CV's ability to operate by hitting it with a couple of bombs from a plane that would have actually been used to attack a CV in the war, you might not see as many of the dive bombing heavy bombers. The biggest reason you see them used is because nothing short of SINKING the CV has ANY effect on it. Nothing but a heavy can sink a CV in one pass.
That's a very good point, as it is now CV's are an all or nothing proposition. Nothing prevents a TG from launching LVT's laden with supplies and/or troops or PT Boats. Only the total destruction of the CV prevents launching of planes. What if each bomb hit knocked out the flight deck for say one minute? Consider that time required to clean and repair the flight deck. That would make CAP'ing the CV against dive bombing fighters a far higher priority. This would again put more of the focus on air to air combat.
Zazen
-
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm after.
Let's say you pop the flight deck of a CV with a 500# bomb.
That would stop launch and retrieve operations for say, 5 minutes, like dropping the fighter hangars, only for less time.
Zero affect on speed and maneuvering.
If you drop TWO 1000# bombs on the flight deck. That stops launch and retrieve for say 15 minutes, like dropping the fighter hangars, and slows the CV to 1/2 speed, and the Task Group has to slow down as well.
Hit the CV with 3-5K pounds and it stops launch and retrieve for 15 minutes, like dropping the fighter hangars, slows the CV to 25% speed, AND stops deployment of LVT's for 15 minutes as well, like dropping the vehicle hangar.
Now a CV battle isn't all or nothing. It MAY slow down the dive bombing heavies to some degree. And it changes the strategy of Task Group use.
Keep the LVT's to spawning no further than 500 yards from the center of the Task Group, and never closer than 500 to 1000 yards from shore.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
That's a very good point, as it is now CV's are an all or nothing proposition. Nothing prevents a TG from launching LVT's laden with supplies and/or troops or PT Boats. Only the total destruction of the CV prevents launching of planes. What if each bomb hit knocked out the flight deck for say one minute? Consider that time required to clean and repair the flight deck. That would make CAP'ing the CV against dive bombing fighters a far higher priority. This would again put more of the focus on air to air combat.
Zazen
Years ago I offered a suggestion that HE bombs be relatively ineffective against ships. SAP (semi-armor piercing) or AP bombs would not lose any effectiveness. The caveat was that only naval aircraft will have access to SAP and AP bombs. If HE was only 25% effective against a ship (when compared to SAP and AP), than 8,000 pounds would be required to sink a Cruiser and 32,000 pounds of HE bombs would be needed to kill a CV. This will seriously cut into the dive-bombing buff behavior.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I still dont see the problem. You have been told time and time again that there is not a bug, and not an exploit. The LTV's are vulerable during their trek from the shore to the tarmac. Things are the way they are for gameplay consessions. You cant expect players to be willing to chug along at a couple knots for a half hour in the water as a sitting duck in the MA enviroment. The LTV would not be worth using for its ineffectiveness.
The TG also has consessions to make it useful in the game. It can take a long time to direct the CV to the objective, and that also would not be worth it if its effectiveness via troops or other resources could be porked by the first ******* toolsheder that comes along. It is bad enough at times on a big map were one can visit every front line field and not find the resources avalible there that they are looking for. You can find posts in this forum where people brag about spending all evening just porking troops, ord, ect. It appears to me that you want the TG to be subject to the same kind of porking. I only want to make sure the in game resources HT gives us are worth using in the MA enviorment.
As far as Im concerned you are only looking at it from the point of view of fighting aginst a TG, and not the effect it would have on fighting with it.
Many a ship was lost to secondary damage as opposed to direct enemy action. Many a ship was lost to lucky (or unlucky as it were) hits with weapons that otherwise wouldnt have been effective. I dont care to have a super detailed damage model for ships. So what if you cant straif a ship and sink it in real life. All that was needed to take a ship out of action in real life was a fire getting out of control. If in AH the ship sinks, same difference, it is out of action. No you couldnt take bombs on the deck and continue launches and traps, but the air defense screen was more comprehensive in real life. There still needs to be a balance for gameplay.
A whole invasion TGs hopes were not pinned on the manpower or materiels residing in one craft out of the entire group, and I dont see the benefit to game play to make it that way in AH. For that reason alone it is stupid to allow for troop/supply porking for a TG.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I still dont see the problem. You have been told time and time again that there is not a bug, and not an exploit. The LTV's are vulerable during their trek from the shore to the tarmac. Things are the way they are for gameplay consessions. You cant expect players to be willing to chug along at a couple knots for a half hour in the water as a sitting duck in the MA enviroment. The LTV would not be worth using for its ineffectiveness.
[/B]
No, no one from HTC has said that LVT's should spawn on dry land, much less spawn ON a base. NOR has anyone at HTC said that what was done was NOT an exploit. IN FACT, they've already fixed part of this problem because this was being done before, and it WAS considered an exploit.
And yes, you can expect players to go 500 to 1000 yards in an LVT, I've DONE it. So much for your idea that I don't fight from or with a Task Group.
It appears to me that you want the TG to be subject to the same kind of porking.
As far as Im concerned you are only looking at it from the point of view of fighting aginst a TG, and not the effect it would have on fighting with it.
[/B]
And you couldn't be more wrong. You have NO idea what you are talking about with regards to my wishes or intentions.
-
I dont see where I specifically addressed my post to Hilts, but feel free to be snippy about it if you like. Why not? After all this thread was clearly about CV command and at the same time on page1 of the forum there was a duel CV issue thread but people felt the need to jump this thread and hijack it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, no one from HTC has said that LVT's should spawn on dry land, much less spawn ON a base. NOR has anyone at HTC said that what was done was NOT an exploit. IN FACT, they've already fixed part of this problem because this was being done before, and it WAS considered an exploit.
And yes, you can expect players to go 500 to 1000 yards in an LVT, I've DONE it. So much for your idea that I don't fight from or with a Task Group.
[/B]
And you couldn't be more wrong. You have NO idea what you are talking about with regards to my wishes or intentions. [/B]
The EXPLOIT was being able to resup a Port by dropping supplies in the water, NOT taking them onto the base.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
The EXPLOIT was being able to resup a Port by dropping supplies in the water, NOT taking them onto the base.
Actually, the exploit has always been the almost instant resupply of Ports/Bases from the CV. Up until P47 on Trinity (fixed) and now P62 on Mindoano (not yet fixed) there was no good example of relatively instant resupply being performed not from LVT's in the water (which was fixed) , but from LVT's that never had to take the time to travel through the water at all, but instead actually spawned on dry land right at the port. The lengthy period of travel they are supposed to have over water is very slow, much much slower than over-land travel, making them very vulnerable to attack for an extended period. If they instead appear instantly on dry land at the port, they are not nearly as vulnerable and not for nearly as long, nor must they take any time at all to release their supplies as they are already close enough to the base/port upon spawning or nearly so. Clearly, this is not as was intended, LVT's are supposed to have to travel over the water, then beach, then reach the port/base over land before being able to re-supply it. The geographic anomoly of P62 being on a strange penninsula jutting out into the sea much too close to the respawning CV permitted this otherwise impermissable act.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I dont see where I specifically addressed my post to Hilts, but feel free to be snippy about it if you like. Why not? After all this thread was clearly about CV command and at the same time on page1 of the forum there was a duel CV issue thread but people felt the need to jump this thread and hijack it.
Who is being snippy? We all know why this thread was started, same as all the others. Ignore it if you like. Don't like the reply? Ignore it. Have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
The EXPLOIT was being able to resup a Port by dropping supplies in the water, NOT taking them onto the base.
In this case the exploit is LVT's spawning ON DRY LAND, and in fact ON THE PORT itself. Some of those spawning LVT's ADMITTED they spawned ON THE PORT, and had to merely drop supplies and tower out. They were not TAKING supplies anywhere. They were not even moving. If they're going to spawn ON THE PORT, why not just have a "resupply port" button? Better yet, if they're going to spawn on dry land, Hell, let's just give them M-3's, M-8's, and M-16's and eliminate the LVT completely. After all, if you aren't in the water, who needs an LVT?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
In this case the exploit is LVT's spawning ON DRY LAND, and in fact ON THE PORT itself. Some of those spawning LVT's ADMITTED they spawned ON THE PORT, and had to merely drop supplies and tower out. They were not TAKING supplies anywhere. They were not even moving. If they're going to spawn ON THE PORT, why not just have a "resupply port" button? Better yet, if they're going to spawn on dry land, Hell, let's just give them M-3's, M-8's, and M-16's and eliminate the LVT completely. After all, if you aren't in the water, who needs an LVT?
Precisely the point...
Zazen
-
Actually no,
Anyways thanks Arcades057, Zazen and others for hijacking this thread (see rule #2)
I guess it was too much work to start a new thread.
Originally posted by Zazen13
Precisely the point...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by jpeg
Actually no,
Anyways thanks Arcades057, Zazen and others for hijacking this thread (see rule #2)
I guess it was too much work to start a new thread.
Okay. So you posted this Monday, after the incident Sunday night, involving a person changing countries and taking control of a CV. But that incident had NOTHING at all to do with your post. If you say so. Perhaps you should have said so to begin with.
-
I never wrote that it didn't, however there is no need to hijack a thread.
In fact it would be more beneficial to put the other topic in a separate thread so it gets noticed.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Okay. So you posted this Monday, after the incident Sunday night, involving a person changing countries and taking control of a CV. But that incident had NOTHING at all to do with your post. If you say so. Perhaps you should have said so to begin with.
-
Originally posted by jpeg
I never wrote that it didn't, however there is no need to hijack a thread.
In fact it would be more beneficial to put the other topic in a separate thread so it gets noticed.
It's getting noticed here just fine. Thanks for caring though. ;)
Zazen
-
This post stated out talking about people not being able to use rank to take control of a CV right after switching sides.
Then it diverted into rants about what caused the topic to come up this time.
I think it would be totally acceptable to reset a persons rank to 0 for at least 3 hours after they have switched sides. Or another way to look at it; only those that have been in a country for at least 3 hours can take control of a CV based on rank. This would be on par with people not getting perk points at reset unless they have been online and in the winning country for a period of time.
It has been said that people switch countries to balance the game when numbers are out of whack. Rank should not be of any concern when switching for this reason. Not having rank for 3 hours will not kill anyone if their intent is to just fly for another country.
-
I wouldn't call spawning a lvt on shore an exploit...
I'd call it lucky..... kinda like hitting planes at 3k in an osty :)