Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: lazs2 on June 14, 2006, 08:46:31 AM
-
Let's face it.. they are about useless in the game right now but... for the few minutes that they last.....
They are probly the source of some of the best fights in the game.
So how do you make em last longer without getting too unrealistic?
How bout.... they can't be sunk until all the escorts are dead? This would stop the lone mouse weilding fluffer in his "box" of fluffs from taking out the entire fight with one no talent run on the carrier.
Maybe a tiny bit unrealistic but... in the war... no carriers were ever sunk by heavy bombers anyway so what we have is pretty unrealistic also... fluffs are accurate and easy in the game so that the talentless can have their bank accounts harvested.... no problem but.. Why make it too easy for the girls?
On the other side of it... maybe something could be done to not allow CV's to get too close to the shore.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Cracking idea,
doesn't need expanding either, sink all escorts and then you get to sink the CV
wipass
-
What about having all CV and AA made automatic unless someone mans them, that or people could try to provide a CAP
-
How about the guns be a bit tougher. Lame that a Spit 16 rolls out and takes out all the manned guns in two passes and he runs home without a scratch on him.... :rolleyes: Maybe have it so that it takes a 250lb egg to take them out? They just seem a little too soft is all....
It is a great idea you have Lazs.... CV+Furballs= Extreme Fun! :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How bout.... they can't be sunk until all the escorts are dead? This would stop the lone mouse weilding fluffer in his "box" of fluffs from taking out the entire fight with one no talent run on the carrier.
sounds like a good idea to me. :aok
-
I like that idea Lazs. Carrier fights are always fun. :aok
-
S!
very good ideal!
S!
-
How about giving the would be captain an I.Q. test.
-
Good idea.
-
That, and hardening them would be great.
-
Could the various and sundry ack and ship guns be coaded to focus on the biggest threat?
CV ack can pop a 20K 262 10 miles away, but can't shoot down a set of dive-bombing Lancs at 3K?
-
I like the idea... but my only issue with it is this...
On some maps when CV's are captured from the enemy they are often steamed far far away from the action and Hidden from their contry of origin (A pain in the butt for those who lost it...but reasonable). To get them back requires taking the port back (obviously) and an often epic flight in some buffs searching thousands of square miles of ocean.
I'm afraid this proposal will essentially make getting back a CV pretty darn close to impossible... and IMOP that sounds even less fun than the situation as it stands.
Anyone have an idea around this?
:aok
-
Originally posted by ChristCAF
How about the guns be a bit tougher. Lame that a Spit 16 rolls out and takes out all the manned guns in two passes and he runs home without a scratch on him.... :rolleyes: Maybe have it so that it takes a 250lb egg to take them out? They just seem a little too soft is all....
It is a great idea you have Lazs.... CV+Furballs= Extreme Fun! :aok
1 shot with a 5" gun anywere near him would blow him to hell.
-
make it so that once the port is down the CV group is visable on DAR and does not aut repair
-
I think a better way to solve this problem is allow for direct control of the CV rather than turning it by setting waypoints. Why not allow us to steer it like a GV?
-
OH Gawd
There would be a sudden increase in illegal CV burnouts and Groundings
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Let's face it.. they are about useless in the game right now but... for the few minutes that they last.....
They are probly the source of some of the best fights in the game.
So how do you make em last longer without getting too unrealistic?
How bout.... they can't be sunk until all the escorts are dead? This would stop the lone mouse weilding fluffer in his "box" of fluffs from taking out the entire fight with one no talent run on the carrier.
Maybe a tiny bit unrealistic but... in the war... no carriers were ever sunk by heavy bombers anyway so what we have is pretty unrealistic also... fluffs are accurate and easy in the game so that the talentless can have their bank accounts harvested.... no problem but.. Why make it too easy for the girls?
On the other side of it... maybe something could be done to not allow CV's to get too close to the shore.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Excuse me, but explain why there would there would ever be any battle over a CV if it it couldn't be sunk. How many epic battles have you had over your HQ since they're almost impossible to kill now?
Question number two, isn't the point of furballing over the CV to defend it? Oops, that's an oxy-moron,...."point of furballing", it's purposeless, disregard that question.
As a bomber pilot, I'll say that CV's are difficult enough to kill now. You fly long slow boring flights to get within sight of the CV only to have red guys jump you and shoot your bombers down, plus having the puffy ack take out one or two of your buffs.:confused:
-
Originally posted by F4J
Question number two, isn't the point of furballing over the CV to defend it? Oops, that's an oxy-moron,...."point of furballing", it's purposeless, disregard that question.
It's a game, it's all pretty pointless:aok If I want to feel like I accomplished something, I'll go look at some pRon. I furball b/c it's fun.
Originally posted by F4J
As a bomber pilot, I'll say that CV's are difficult enough to kill now.
As a former bomber pilot all I can say is you need to practice more as sad as that is to say. I hardly bomb anymore but if I want a CV dead I can pretty much kill it at will with my lanc and drones.
-
Unsinkable CVs, untakable bases....
How about unkillable fighters with unlimited fuel and ammo? Furball forever!
:)
PS:
For those who can read only what was written - it's joke.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How bout.... they can't be sunk until all the escorts are dead? This would stop the lone mouse weilding fluffer in his "box" of fluffs from taking out the entire fight with one no talent run on the carrier.
Best thing Ive read on here all year.
-
how about simply not allowing bombers to control an entire formation, make the bomber more durable as to not get killed by one .5sec burst of 50cals
when it comes to attacking CV's with no intention of survivng all a formation of bombers means is "i have 3 lives"
but then again defending urself with a single bomber would be really tough
oh and kinda off topic but does anyone else feel that the cockpit shot effect should not effect bombers. (the effect where 2 rounds into the cockpit blow up the entire plane...)
-
How about increasing the volume of AAA? If you watch a lot of the old camera footage those guns are throwing up a veritable WALL of lead and flak.
-
Good Idea and it needs both parts enacted:
1) Kill all the escorts first.
2) The CV must remain at least 20 miles offshore. That would also change the minimum LVT launch range.
To take it one stage further, LVTs would launch from LSTs (not CVs) that could break off from the CV group and with a few destroyer escorts move closer to shore. If all the LSTs are sunk then the base could not be captured by LVTs, but the air battle could continue from the CV while the attackers try to get a C-47 or M-3 into the town.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Good Idea and it needs both parts enacted:
1) Kill all the escorts first.
2) The CV must remain at least 20 miles offshore. That would also change the minimum LVT launch range.
To take it one stage further, LVTs would launch from LSTs (not CVs) that could break off from the CV group and with a few destroyer escorts move closer to shore. If all the LSTs are sunk then the base could not be captured by LVTs, but the air battle could continue from the CV while the attackers try to get a C-47 or M-3 into the town.
1) Nope, CV should be able to be killed on its own.
2) Maybe in conjuction with your 'one stage further'.
Needs one change implementing ASAP -
Guns should not be able to be killed by any cannon rounds of any size.
Small ack guns should be able to killed by rockets.
Main cruiser guns and both cruiser and CV 5" should need eggs.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
How about increasing the volume of AAA? If you watch a lot of the old camera footage those guns are throwing up a veritable WALL of lead and flak.
Ya think!!
-
Originally posted by ded
1 shot with a 5" gun anywere near him would blow him to hell.
No way! :rolleyes:
I have been playing a while bro, like 9 years. :aok
But like Saxman said... the wall of ack should be hitting these guys before they are even in their planes gun range of hitting the CV. Way too easy to take down all the guns and make a CV ded and useless.
-
you might get more support for your ideas LAZ
if you would refrain from the constant bashing of
buff pilots.
your whole point could have been made without
the "talentless" BS
IMO it makes you sound like an arrogant purr-ick
-
Bombs must not damage ships (CV & CA at least) unless direct hit. This will be enough.
-
Originally posted by soupcan
you might get more support for your ideas LAZ
if you would refrain from the constant bashing of
buff pilots.
your whole point could have been made without
the "talentless" BS
IMO it makes you sound like an arrogant purr-ick
But he is correct. A Task Force can be neutered by a Lone A8, I know, because I've done it a few times. But the "inevitable" diving bombers are entertaining.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Let's face it.. they are about useless in the game right now but... for the few minutes that they last.....
They are probly the source of some of the best fights in the game.
So how do you make em last longer without getting too unrealistic?
How bout.... they can't be sunk until all the escorts are dead? :aok
Good Idea !
On the other side of it... maybe something could be done to not allow CV's to get too close to the shore.
Not to Good Idea,
I don't think their needs to be another side to it ! , CV's need to be able to close in on Towns for shelling, making for raging ship/shore gun battles, along with the rest of the fight.
Bob/CHECKERS
-
soupcan... I know that I will not get any support from the talentless mouse wielding fluffer girls in any case since what I ask for is the opposite of what they want in any case. I tell them the truth in order to help them evolve in the game.
Noo... don't thank me... the happiness that will be on your face someday when you see the light is thanks enough.
And yeah... more ack would be good but.. when the CV got close to shore... you wouldn't even be able to take off from a base. Maybe a 1/3 sector from any base would be a good minimum limit for CV's
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
soupcan... I know that I will not get any support from the talentless mouse wielding fluffer girls in any case since what I ask for is the opposite of what they want in any case. I tell them the truth in order to help them evolve in the game.
lol well i did get a good laugh anyway (at the continued bashing)
and although while it is entertaining...
i fail to see how this name calling will help anyone "evolve"
-
Originally posted by F4J
As a bomber pilot, I'll say that CV's are difficult enough to kill now. You fly long slow boring flights to get within sight of the CV only to have red guys jump you and shoot your bombers down, plus having the puffy ack take out one or two of your buffs.:confused:
One flight of B26's.
One load of 500lb bombs set at salvo 4.
8k at 265mph TAS, doors open. (At that alt, you are just out of range of auto-ack.)
Eyeball CV in its turn, as it does not have enough time to get out of the way, any way you turn it. BOOM! Sunk!
Yes, sinking a CV is very easy unless I get jumped by fighters over it or somebody is good on the 5"-ers. Yesterday, I was inbound to sink one at P194, and I was unable to drop because of a good fighter defense over it. I bagged four kills with the help of a gunner and retreated to land. My mistake was that I flew inbound to the CV too close to the enemy flight path between the CV and the port. They saw me right away and were able to gain alt and defend well.
-
You could speed them up. The faster they move, the harder they are to hit with a level buff.
I wonder what a CV up on plane would look like?
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
You could speed them up. The faster they move, the harder they are to hit with a level buff.
I wonder what a CV up on plane would look like?
Any faster you'd just have to drop flaps and look at the throttle and the bird would take off. CVs are plenty fast enough thank you.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
You could speed them up. The faster they move, the harder they are to hit with a level buff.
And make it absolutely impossible to attack with torpedos.
-
Originally posted by thndregg
Yes, sinking a CV is very easy unless I get jumped by fighters over it or somebody is good on the 5"-ers. Yesterday, I was inbound to sink one at P194, and I was unable to drop because of a good fighter defense over it. I bagged four kills with the help of a gunner and retreated to land. My mistake was that I flew inbound to the CV too close to the enemy flight path between the CV and the port. They saw me right away and were able to gain alt and defend well.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. I should have just spelled it out. Instead of just mindless furballing over the CV's and making them unsinkable, how about defending the fleet. Again, spelling it out, if you make the CV's unsinkable, no one will fly out to them for you to battle with.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Good Idea and it needs both parts enacted:
1) Kill all the escorts first.
2) The CV must remain at least 20 miles offshore. That would also change the minimum LVT launch range.
To take it one stage further, LVTs would launch from LSTs (not CVs) that could break off from the CV group and with a few destroyer escorts move closer to shore. If all the LSTs are sunk then the base could not be captured by LVTs, but the air battle could continue from the CV while the attackers try to get a C-47 or M-3 into the town.
I've been saying this exact same this for a while now. It makes no sence that the CV is part of the landing task force.
-
f4j.... I don't know what kind of CV action you are seeing but the guys that go out to "do battle" are for the most part... going out to do battle with the fighters coming off the CV... It is a source of some of the best fights in the game but...
all it takes is one talentless mouse weilder to ruin it.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
1) Nope, CV should be able to be killed on its own.
2) Maybe in conjuction with your 'one stage further'.
Needs one change implementing ASAP -
Guns should not be able to be killed by any cannon rounds of any size.
Small ack guns should be able to killed by rockets.
Main cruiser guns and both cruiser and CV 5" should need eggs.
No reason you shouldnt be able to put the 20mm and 40mm guns out of commission with even .303s since those positions arent armored turrets. Those positions arent all that much different from the Ostie's turret. The gunners are partially protected, but not completely protected like they are in the 5 inch and 8 inch turrets. Same thing with the single 5 inch gun mounts, gunners are only partially protected.
-
Having a Bf110 or P47 take out the carrier is unacceptable. Making the low level ack more accurate and tougher would help with something like proximity fuses. I am not talking about the puffy ack which can kill from 5k away (and makes defending a base very difficult).
Do the 5" guns have proximity fuses? I can't really tell. If so, then having all the ack with proximity fuses (and having ack automatic unless manned) would be a refreshing change.
Regards,
Malta
p.s. having players know to keep the ordinance down at the nme base where their carrier is located would help too.
-
You know guys what would solve the problem is the ability to sink CV with TORPEEDO'S ONLY..might make for some interesting game play for all.
Just a a thought but I'd be for it!
999000
-
Originally posted by 999000
You know guys what would solve the problem is the ability to sink CV with TORPEEDO'S ONLY..might make for some interesting game play for all.
Just a a thought but I'd be for it!
999000
So, you dive bomb a CV repeatedly because you are not forced to do it with torpedos? You have the ability to take JU88s up now, no? Why do you need to be forced to use them? Why don't you make the decision that that maybe a better way to sink the CV and use the JU88s with torps?
Better yet, why don't you dive your buffs on a farm house? It will put up the same fight as a CV.
You have a potential solution to you/problem but you are not willing to implement it unless forced to? :rofl
Respected Enemy
-
having players know to keep the ordinance down at the nme base where their carrier is located would help too.
Most people do kill the ordnance at the base the cv is attacking, buffs can still up from other bases further away though. ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
No reason you shouldnt be able to put the 20mm and 40mm guns out of commission with even .303s since those positions arent armored turrets. Those positions arent all that much different from the Ostie's turret. The gunners are partially protected, but not completely protected like they are in the 5 inch and 8 inch turrets. Same thing with the single 5 inch gun mounts, gunners are only partially protected.
You'd likely disable the gun crew, but not necessarily the gun itself, and if I'm not mistaken, there are more than 2 or 3 guys on the boat who know how to run the guns. Allowing the guns to be taken down so easily is an odd compromise that I don't understand. I would think that a CV should be one of the hardest targets to kill, but that's not really the case in here.
-
All of your ideas are crap. Every last one.
Except one.
Originally posted by mussie
make it so that once the port is down the CV group is visable on DAR and does not auto repair
-
Dear Retired,
FYI...... I often will go after a CV group with Pt. Boats, TBM, and/or Ju88's
Thanks 999000
-
well krusty..... your opinions would carry a little more weight if your avatar didn't shoot slow moving fireballs out of a tarted up berreta imitation and....play with puppets.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Oh you did NOT just diss Momma Crichton's Baby Boy. :furious
-
Originally posted by 999000
Dear Retired,
FYI...... I often will go after a CV group with Pt. Boats, TBM, and/or Ju88's
Thanks 999000
Dear respected enemy,
If I had a dollar for every time I killed your buffs 100ft over a CV (in the past 3 years) with the 5" guns, I would have enough money to buy HTC out and rewrite the software to accommodate your request about the torpedoes.
-
It's not me, but I know a "talentless mouse wielding fluff driver" who'll sink 3 cv's with the same formation of Lanc's. If you check his ranking, you'll see that it's about 300, or less. Seems to me that it takes a lot of talent to get a rank like that.
As for the hardness of the cvs, I think they are unrealistically tough. In reality a 500# bomb on a deck would render it unusable for hours if not days. Not so in this game where the elevators never ever get knocked out, all burning wreckage is immediately doused with Halon and transported to a recycling facility, and the deck is made out of something I wish my panzers were made out of.
The cv's are defended with epic battles because there is a risk of loosing them. I doubt if there would be the effort to save them if this was not the case. I also suspect that if they were made even more unrealistically tougher the incentive to attack them would be reduced.
Those of you who love the epic cv battles, why do you want to wreck it?
As for keeping them 20 miles offshore, isn't that what the shore batteries are for? Why force that in the game?
-
I like the idea of the escorts having to be sunk before the CV.
Bronk bring back your old avatar!!!:furious
-
It's not me, but I know a "talentless mouse wielding fluff driver" who'll sink 3 cv's with the same formation of Lanc's. If you check his ranking, you'll see that it's about 300, or less. Seems to me that it takes a lot of talent to get a rank like that.
I could probably beat that rank with just 3 sorties in a Stuka carrying the MOAB to "cities".
Rank is not an indicator of anything.
-
As for the hardness of the cvs, I think they are unrealistically tough. In reality a 500# bomb on a deck would render it unusable for hours if not days.
That would depend on who made the carrier. British carriers had armored flight decks and were far less vulnerable to damage.
-
I dislike cv's....why should they be able to pull up within a rocks throw of shore and bombard a base with guns and lvts???
is that somehwere historical that i missed???
and why cant shore guns aim all around instead of limited patterns so cvs can sit out of range???????? so dontgive me the "thats what shore batteries are for"
im fine with hardening a cv so it is hard to sink...but take away base capture abilities then..let it be what it was...a plane platform...not a gv/troop platform....
til that is fixed let it be eaily disabled as is any airbase or vh....
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
As for the hardness of the cvs, I think they are unrealistically tough. In reality a 500# bomb on a deck would render it unusable for hours if not days.
During Fight in Corall Sea CV "Lexington" got 5 bombs hits and 2 torpedos in one side and remain fully operational until secondary vapor's explosion. "Yorktown" got single heavy bomb hit in flight deck and remain operational as well.
8000lb to kill carrier too much comparing RL though, but achieving hits far easier and you dont even need to actually land bomb in ship.
Originally posted by Elfie
That would depend on who made the carrier. British carriers had armored flight decks and were far less vulnerable to damage.
I may be wrong, but i dont think there was any significant difference for 500-1000lb bomb.
-
British carriers with their armored flight decks were far less susceptible (sp) to damage than their American or Japanese counterparts that had wooden flight decks.
-
How strong it was armored? As i said, i highly doubt it make any difference at all for medum/heavy bombs.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
How strong it was armored? As i said, i highly doubt it make any difference at all for medum/heavy bombs.
Flight decks on the British carriers were pretty well armored. Made a big difference when they were attacked with bombs. I dont recall all the specifics, but the difference was very substantial.
-
I like the idea Laz.
Now excuse me while I go to the o`club and tell angus he was right. The sky acualy is falling. :)
-
Well I am turned off by the name calling false feelings of superiority too & I rarely fly buffs.
HTC please leave the CV's as they are if the people who want change can't be adult about it.
I think it's odd that the shore batts have to hit the CV's numerous times to kill it, but a lone 110 can sink one. I feel something should change with the CV's but I can't see any answer in these posts & can't think of one myself.
I hate to steal a movie line but a lot of the comments made by the furballing vets of this game remind me of playing cards with my sisters kids.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Flight decks on the British carriers were pretty well armored. Made a big difference when they were attacked with bombs. I dont recall all the specifics, but the difference was very substantial.
Looks like you only know they had armored flight deck, huh? Everything else is just your conjectures.
Read this, for example: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm
Actually, only Illustrious, Implacable and Ark Royal Class carriers has armored flight decks (of WW2 ships), 7 ships total if i'm not wrong.
Here some facts about Illustrious Class aircraft carrier (3'' flight deck + 2'' hangar deck)
The "Illustrious" Class ships were the radical next generation of aircraft carrier which the Admiralty took steps to develop in 1935. They were to have a hangar protected against 500lb bombs and 6" shells with armouring to the flight deck.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ships/ILLUSTRIOUS.html
HMS Illustrious was heavily damaged by a concerted enemy air attack by German dive-bombers on 10 January 1941, when the armoured flight deck armour was penetrated by an 1100lb (500kg) bomb. That and six other bomb hits kept her out of action until the following December.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ships/FORMIDABLE.html
HMS Formidable: She supported Crete operations in May where she suffered serious damage in air attacks by 1000kg bombs on 26 May 1941, and so was out of action for six months.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ships/Indomitable.html
Indomitable had her flight-deck armour pierced by an 1100lb bomb, in the Mediterranean in August 1942 when enemy bombers scored 2 hits and 3 near-misses; that and another hit aft where there was no armour put her out of action being repaired in the USA until February 1943.
Armour helps against kamikaze though:
On 4 May she was hit by a Kamikaze - but received no damage -the Kamikaze aircraft simply slid up the armoured flight deck and over the side.
And remember the end of BB Arizona, in has simular or slightly stronger deck's armour.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Well I am turned off by the name calling false feelings of superiority too & I rarely fly buffs.
Marriage must really get your goat then. :)
Seriously...I don`t see why buff pilots wouldn`t also like this idea. It would leave seagoing targets up a lot longer than the current setup. Looks like a win/win situation.
-
Man I once killed a CV with the 50 cals from an FM2.... LOL
Yeah its was already beaten up and I thought I had no chance,it was a fianl act of defiance....
When i killed it I was so shocked I almost crashed