Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Simaril on June 15, 2006, 11:08:37 AM
-
Laz pointed out in another thread jsut how much fun carrier battles can be, and that got me thinking.
Carriers are uniquely useful to ALL PLAYER TYPES in AH -- they allow captures and sneaks by projecting power deep into enemy turf; they're the only platform that allow ship to ship battles for gunner guys; and they allow for some really great fights with short transit tiimes for the fighter guys.
Since they help everybody, it makes sense that more = better.
So, heres a thought or 2:
!) Increase the Damage-to-destroy for carriers to match a small airfield's hangars. After all, for game purposes they are jsut mobile small airfields!
Right now fighter/bomber/vehicle hangars take 3000lbs HE each, while the carrier loses capability for all three with 8000lbs. A small field has 3 fighter hangars, a VH, and (umm I think) 3 bomber hangars. Proportionately, carriers could reasonably be set to go down with 16,000 to 20,000 lbs damage. Harder to kill means more play time in the hot zone before they inevitably go down. If necessary to maintain gameplay, HT could also slow the autorecharge rate for ships to prevent the CV being indestructable -- a pretty fair tradeoff, and one that should effectively balance the advantages of higher damage numbers.
PLEASE NOTE: the "what would a real carrier take" argument is irrelevant; AH carriers already take far more bomb damage that ANY ww2 carrier could possibly sustain. The fact that they're already set that high shows that they are movable strategic icons for AH, not "simulated" objects like the planes and tanks That being so, it just makes sense that the numbers can be tweaked as needed to get the best possible gameplay out of the platforms.
2) Make the 5" gun turrets armored targets, just like tanks. So, it would take either bombs or AP ammo to do any damage at all.
Thsi one jsut makes sense. For the simulation arguiers, the armor on 5" gun turrets is thicker than vehicle armor, so theres no way it should go down with less penetrating ammo than a Panzer takes. For the "whatever works to make it fun" guys like me, well tougher carriers mean more fun and less time with the great CV asset doing multiple sector transits.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Proportionately, carriers could reasonably be set to go down with 16,000 to 20,000 lbs damage.
You want only level buffs will able to sink CV? Current domination of level bombers in CV killer role is not enough?
-
Not quite sure i follow you.
Making it harder to sink makes it harder for everybody, no matter what they fly.
Making it harder means everybody gets to do the fun stuff carriers have to offer, only more and longer.
Making it harder means LESS domination by single players (in buffs or not), not more.
And, it fits with the idea of adjusting gameplay to a more densely populated arena -- harder to sink means more teamwork, or more effort by individuals.
-
I disagree the only thing the CV groups need is maybe the ability to prioritize targets. (lone fighter vs. bomber group or torpedo bombers)
The biggest problem right now however isn't the CV groups or the Hardness of the CV group's ships guns ect.
The biggest problem is the people that control them.
You run your carrier so close to an enemy base that tanks can shoot your CV your asking for it to get sunk. To be honest you really shouldn’t be running a CV close enough to an enemy base for it to be seen.
Look at how CV groups are currently being used and historically been used. Nimitz never ran his CV groups within swimming distance of shore in most cases CV groups where out of site of both land and Enemy CV groups Unless they where defending the land.
The other day I watched some one run not one but 2 CV groups between 2 island bases. Not only where these 2 CV groups between them they where both together and as close to land as you could get. Who ever had control of them was asking to get them sunk and did his countrymen a horrible disservice.
We already have shore batteries on most maps. What are the shore batteries for .... to sink CV groups that get to close. You can hit a base with the main guns wihtout getting close enough to be seen. all you need to do is set to land mode and click on the map.
As I said before in the other thread we need to require and IQ test for the would be captain so we can weed out the Cpt. Giligans
This really didn't need a new thread.
-
Lanc formation can carry 42000lb, B24 - 24000lb, B17 - 18000lb. Even if CV hardness will set to 20000lb it can be sink by single bomber group.
Dive bombers/attackets have max load 4000lb (Ju87), typical - 2000lb. Will need up to 10 pilots to sink CV. Now from 2 to 4 players needed.
Who will penalize more?
-
Making it harder to sink CVs is a good idea.. but toughening the ships can hardly be considered a real solution. The CVs have already been doubled in its durability from 4,000lbs to 8,000 and it was quickly proven that nothing really changed at all.
Toughening it up even more, simply means the same people doing the same shi* a lot more than they used to do it - the means are the same, so they will do it again and again until the CV is finally sunk.
IMHO things like these represent a fundamental problem. The way how the AA defenses work, the overly simplified bombsights, how fighters can do any sort of wild maneuvering at any speeds before dropping their bombs... etc etc.
If CV bombing should be made harder, then it should be done by introducing the core of real-life difficulties that are not represented in the game, that makes bombing difficult - not by just "buffing up" the targets each time someone raises their voice that "it's too easy to kill XXX stuff".
IMHO;
1) the AA defenses on the CVs should be toughened up or changed
2) the bombsight calibration process should be made more harder
3) the bomb drop accuracy should be lowered - even when a bombsight is ideally, perfectly calibrated, there should always be a chance of some kind of dispersion in the bombs, which should make pin-point salvo drops unpreferred
4) the 1000lbs ordnance should be perked
5) bombs types should be specified, so not all fighters can carry any armament that will always prove to be effective under whatever circumstances...
6) the late-war stock of planes, which often prove to be close to uninterceptable, should all be perked
In short, the CV issue is an amalgam of multitude of problems that surround the MA environment - it's not just about how tough the CV is. It's about why people play in a certain way that is undersirable to overall gameplay.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
2) the bombsight calibration process should be made more harder
3) the bomb drop accuracy should be lowered - even when a bombsight is ideally, perfectly calibrated, there should always be a chance of some kind of dispersion in the bombs, which should make pin-point salvo drops unpreferred
I totaly support this one
-
Like Ive said a million times before, Id like to see the CV tougher, but make it so the eggs kill radar, and guns, but torps are required to actually sink it. Something like this...
CV hit by bombs that destroy the radar, deck guns and hanger. The CV burns and is unable to launch planes. When the hanger regens the fires go out. Make it so that it would take 20 1000 lb bombs to actually make it sink.
CV could also be sunk by torpedoes. Make it so 5 torps will sink a cv.
Unless its sunk it stays in area, repairs damage and continues to launch when hanger is up, like an airfield.
Give the TBF, and Kate a job! AND take double load torp away from JU88.
-
I've been saying for a long time that what we need is a secondary task group consisting of a cruiser, destroyers and troop carriers. This tack group will follow the main task group when unattended but can be controlled by players. Once under control it can be brought close to shore to launch LVTs while keeping the main carrier group out to sea. This way finding the CV wher the aircraft is coming from would be much more difficult than it is now.
This is the way it was/is done in RL.
I also agree with Mayhem, It is more the people who control the CVs than the CVs themselves.
-
Filth is right on!..make cv sunk only with torpeedo's!
999000
-
I would like too see the CV listing to one side after so many hits.
-
I can agree with having a carrier list after so many hits. maybe have it list at the current level of damage then sink after one more 1k pounder hits it.
I can agree the AAA needs to prioritize targets.
Hardening a carrier group really doesn't solve anything and starts making the game unrealistic. Historically a well placed bomb or two could take out a carrier, specially US carriers since they had wood decks. And individual pilots did get threw to dive bomb a CV. However level bombing was almost ineffective, Mainly because a CV would just rapidly zig zag to evade falling bombs. it would be nice to have an evasive maneuver button on the CV panel, unfortunately some one is going to abuse it by hitting it as people take off just for their immature giggle factor.
Some one mentioned Bombers. Me personally I think the way the game has bombers sucks. You fly not one but three bombers. You control not one gun but all the guns and not just on one craft but all of them. Considering how many guns their are on a b-17 that fire backwards means that a bomber group can hit harder then p47. I preferred Air warrior's method to gunned buffs. bring back the death star! or at least go back to one bomber per pilot with the b29 style guns not 3. At least trim it back so the pilot can only man the guns on one buff at a time.
What’s funny is very few people even mention the Captain Gilligan tactics being used in regards to using the CV groups. The biggest problem with the CV groups are the people that are controlling them. If I could control an enemies CV group I’d bring it as close to my base as possible so Planes Tanks and Shore batteries do not have to work as hard to sink it. What do most people do with a CV group? They run it right up to an enemy base.
We are loosing our CV’s because people do not know how to use them!
Not because they are to soft!
The only thing making them easy to kill are the Captian Gilligans.
Clifra Jones had a nifty idea. It would be nice to see bigger CV groups mabey 2 or 3 carriers an actual battleship 2 cruisers a troop ship ect.
Rather then make the CV harder how about just adding a cv or 2? at least it would be a little more historically accurate then just making the CVs harder.
-
We'd need the DEs to fire torps too.
-
I think bigger CV groups with cannons/MG rounds unable to do ANY damage is most likely the answer.
Maybe make a few CV groups with armoured decks like the Brits had.
AAA needs looking at also. How many Kamikaze actually got through to CV's or capital ships.?
The whole damage model needs overhauled, very rarely was it all or nothing.
-
I love the idea of CV's in the game. I'm a big fan of the blue airplanes and the idea of flying on and off the boat.
I agree the main problem is survivability. But the survivability problem is more complex than the amount of bombs required to sink them. I think the 3 biggest contributing factors to survivability are:
(1) The MA Dar Bar
(2) Distance between bases
(3) Amphib landings
1. The MA Dar Bar. In real life, CV's (say at Midway) engaged each other beyond radar range of each other. The aircraft were the striking power, period. Not even the massive 16 inchers of the U.S. BB's traded licks with Japanese naval craft. Aircraft were launched from CV's that were 300-400 miles away from each other. That's 12 or more sectors in the MA away from each other. Neither side had the ability to instantly see that suspect dar bar growing in a water only sector in the middle of the ocean and know that represented an enemy CV launching some planes. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to preemptively launch against shore batteries and ordinance before the CV got inside a threat distance, to see people screaming on country channel that I was "giving away the location of the CV". I was two sectors away. And, dutifully, the enemy launched a group of B-24's that knocked out the CV. Currently, there is no safe water sector to launch planes without being discovered. I don't know what the range of search radar was during WWII, but I know it wasn't 300 miles. Otherwise, the U.S. wouldn't have had coastwatchers in the Solomon Islands. Further, the indicator in the MA is a bar that shows you quantity of planes in a sector, not a quantity and bearing/distance. I believe the search radar was 2-D, it would give range/bearing, and the size of the return would indicate a relative size of the incoming formation. This way, the target CV had time to organize a CAP, and respond to the incoming attack. In the MA, all we see is a bar growing in an entire sector. We don't know where that bar is going--we can only guess. And trying to intercept B-24's far enough away to drop all 3 before they get ordnance off is tough when you don't know for sure which way they are coming in until they hit the radar ring at 12 miles? In real life, the defenders knew which way the attack was coming in, while the attackers had to do some searching within an area before narrowing in on the exact location of the ships. Also, both sides had the ability to put a large number of aircraft in the air and on the way to target without (1) the enemy picking up the inbound aircraft, and (2) noting where they took off from as soon as they climbed above 300 feet.
2. Distance Between Bases. In the MA, the bases (for reasons I understand) are too close to effectively allow preparation time for the incoming attack. Many times, planes will up to defend a base when it starts flashing, only to find the bad guys are level bombers at 18K and untouchable for 4-5 minutes until you can climb to meet them. Say the bombers are at 240 mph ground speed, they cover 4 miles a minute, and can close from the radar ring to the ordnance release point faster than the defenders can climb to meet them. Also, you may notice that enemy dar bar coming a few sectors away, but with 4 friendly bases within a sector of each other, which base is the target? When Henderson Field was the only active U.S. field in the Solomons, it was pretty easy to know what to defend when the coast watchers spotted Japanese bombers. The Germans would pick up U.S. or Brit bombers coming in from England as soon as they were over the coast. From there, it was a simple excercise in geometry to figure out what the target was. As the allied bombers continued, the Germans were able to narrow down the possible targets and then vector fighters to hit them before they arrived. In order to defend the CV's in the MA, and have enough time to up a CAP capable of defending, the reaction time must be increased so that a Hellcat, or Corsair, can take the 5 minutes needed to climb to altitude and then get vectored to the enemy, before the ordnance release point.
3. Amphib Landings. In order to take a base from the sea, the CV has to get within approximately 15000 meters to up amtracks to hit the beach. One key element of any real-life amphib landing is local air superiority. If you don't have it, you don't land. While you could CAP the base you're taking, there's one or more within 20 miles the enemy can up from (see argument #2). Therefore, to exercise local air superiority for the landing, you would really need to CAP 3 or 4 bases, take out the ord, and possibly the BH's as well, and then maintain that for as long as it takes to get the town down, move the ships in close, and get troops ashore. Pretty difficult coordination for the MA, in my opinion. Besides, like I said in the first argument, the aircraft comprise the striking power of the CV, not the 8 inchers on the cruiser, or the amtracks in the vehicle hold. Someone else recommended maybe having troop transports in a different group. That may be an answer, I don't know.
The CV group is certainly an asset if used well. But, it is almost impossible to do anything with it without instantly exposing it to impending destruction, since the ability to keep it hidden is extremely difficult. Furthermore, the Dar Bar helps out the enemy much more than helps anyone trying to defend or CAP the CV group by giving away the location of the CV and not defining the route of the incoming enemy bombers. Last, with bases as close together as they are in the MA and the need to bring the CV in close to drop troops, it really exposes the CV to a short life in the attack.
I wish the Dar Bar showed a bearing to targets. I don't need a God-Radar, just what they had back then. I also wish the Dar Bar had some sort of range, maybe a couple of sectors beyond the imaginary line connecting the "front" between countries. I don't really want bases to be much more distant from each other in the MA, since droning for half an hour to get into the action would run most people away from the game. But, I do not think that hardening the CV any more than it is is a good solution.
Just my humble opinion.
Cheers,
-
The problem is not so much that the CV's are weak.
The problem is the way carrier operations are conducted in the game, and the MA in particular.
CV's operate without a CAP overhead to defend them. They operate without patrols being sent out.
CV's are often run right into the range of shore batteries where they get pounded. Or right on top of enemy PT spawn points.
Rarely do CV operations have enough pilots to do the job.
Dual account dweeds will sometimes take control of a CV group with their shadow account, and either run it into suicidal range of enemy guns, or send it on an overnight cruise to the far ends of the map where they are of no use for the whole next day.
As long as people continue to do stoopid things with carriers, you will lose them easily. I have no sympathy any more or those attempting carrier operations. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
The problem is not so much that the CV's are weak.
Rarely do CV operations have enough pilots to do the job.
True enough. Real Life, they had what, 60 - 80 planes on board? Maybe 4 squadrons of fighters? If we had just 8 friendly planes capping a CV at all times, they would be survivable. Of course, you'd give away the position of the ship as soon as you upped.
-
Originally posted by Mayhem
However level bombing was almost ineffective, Mainly because a CV would just rapidly zig zag to evade falling bombs.
You are wrong. Real CV could not evade from falling bombs, that just impossible. Zig-zag, circles and other evasive maneuvers purposes to make aiming harder, not to evade from falling bombs.
Actual reasons why level bombers was absolutely ineffective against ships are:
1) Level bombing was far less accurate in RL
2) Only direct bomb hit can make any significant damage to capital ships.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
You are wrong. Real CV could not evade from falling bombs, that just impossible. Zig-zag, circles and other evasive maneuvers purposes to make aiming harder, not to evade from falling bombs.
Sigh..
Photos of B17 Attack on Japanese CV (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm)
-
stoney... You obviously do not "love" the cv's the way most of us do.
We don't enjoy them just to take off and land on. We like em because, unlike you... we feel the bases are too far apart and that the CV's offer the best chance for a good fight/furball..
You want to have them far enough to get high enough for a "good defense" I want em close enough that I can see dots of the fight when my wheels leave the ground.
I don't want to set auto climb and then go mow the lawn, come back and see how close the fight is. Any climbing over 2k above ground level is a waste of time for me.
WWII was boring. I don't want to imitate that part. When you read a book on WWII aerial combat... they don't have 90% of the book telling about preflights and all the cool things you do for a 4 hour flight and then 10% or less about seeing an enemy and maybe one page describing a fight...
nope that would be a boring book... just like it is a boring game.
People those who enjoy furballs or cv to "cap" or "defend" nothing could be more boring and useless... a sucide fluffer will get through... you simply waste hours doing cap. How would you get anyone to do it?
Even the mouse weilders won't fly cap to defend their ord or troops... no one will do it.
Fields are too far apart and CV's go down too easy.
You should have it made tho because there is usually a CV at some useless (for getting into a fight) spot that you can practice taking off and landing on.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Bottom Line.....
"Fields are too far apart and CV's go down too easy. "
Bob/CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by lazs2
stoney... You obviously do not "love" the cv's the way most of us do.
...we feel the bases are too far apart and that the CV's offer the best chance for a good fight/furball..
I can appreciate this--you pull it up right off the coast of an enemy base, and fight's on! So, in this situation, you definitely want it bulletproof. The problem is that as soon as the ships are off the coast, they immediately turn into a target for somebody in level bombers, regardless of the quality of the furball fight.
But, what if you had two bases that were 8k away from each other, had no ack, indestructable hangars, and no map room. That would probably suit what you wanted too, right?
For me, I like to play a tactical type game, and yes, it sometimes does involve some droning from pt. A to B. But, I don't want a "harder" CV, because its a double-edged sword. I have a hard enough time negotiating the 5 inch ack in a dive-bomber as it is.
I think what you want is a way to quickly get into a furball, not necessarily a CV? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if there was a way to insulate two bases so the base grabbers couldn't interfere with those that wanted to furball, that's what you're looking for, right?
-
Also..............
A lot of the WWII ships and carriers had a LOT more AA guns manned by crews.
We have what, 6-7 mannable positions? Most of the ships had anywhere from 25 to 40 twin and quad mount 40mm Bofors guns, 40-50 20mm guns and 8-12 5" guns. Which were all manned by crews.
my 2 cents
-
No stoney.. I do not want fields 8 miles apart... I want a lot more fields 3/4 of a sector apart. this is the minumum set, not by me, but by HT. The mapmakers (save fester) were all strat types who wouldn't know a furball if they seen one so... we have what we have...
That is why CV's and FT are so popular. Look at any map where a CV get's close to a base... some of the best fights till the lightbulb fragile cv goes down..
And... I fly mostly FM2 so I do like to take off from carriers and.... even if it is an enemy carrier I like it that I will be fighting carrier planes. Not head on el gays or high alt B & Z timid typhies or peee 51's No newbies clumsily wrestling spit 16's around in some clueless manner or another.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.... even if it is an enemy carrier I like it that I will be fighting carrier planes. Not head on el gays or high alt B & Z timid typhies or peee 51's No newbies clumsily wrestling spit 16's around in some clueless manner or another.
Never thought about it that way. Sorry I went off on a tangent...
-
my only request is just don't kill the CV so damned fast.
We're not "shades" or "traitors" when we say on ranged "don't kill the CV yet!" We're just trying to enjoy the best fight that the map is offering at the time for as long as we can. I don't play in the MA that much at all, and when I do find a good CV furball, I want it to last as long as possible.
Aside from that... bombing should be made a little more difficult. Dive bombing with B-17s, Lancs, etc shouldn't be allowed (restrict it to level flight bombing only.) The bombs should have to actually land on the ship to damage the ship (if this isn't already the case.) Ack should be very lethal to a buff formation if it's not got significant alt.
anyways, going home for the weekend. :)
-
If a set of lancs or B24's flies over a cv under 12k, it gets sunk 4 X outta 5--usually from prox hits, not from actual hits
-
There is one real life similarity I'm reminded of, a CV without a full time captain will get sunk quickly.
-
Originally posted by Ratnick
There is one real life similarity I'm reminded of, a CV without a full time captain will get sunk quickly.
A captain without a brain will get it sunk faster.
-
Like this thread in general - here are 2 easily programmible suggestions to help the CVs:
1. No Dar Bars in "all water" sectors. Since there are no ground observers, eliminate the dar bar so that the CV position is less obvious. This doesnt stop the spies from revealing the CV position, but it would help.
2.*** Make the level bombers bomb-release not work unless the autopilot is active. This eliminates the suicide lancs and b24s diving into a carrier and releasing a load inverted at 2k, and saves the CV from the single kamikaze buff driver. Level bombers are just that - level bombers. If a bomber is not rated for dive bombing (and there a couple of multi-engine types that were so rated), then put a flag on it so that the bomb release wont occur unless the bomber is level.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
many times i have taken command of a cv close to shore when no one was commanding it, only to get reamed by number noobs who put it there in the first place. if your going to drive a cv, stay with it an have fun. dont rag someone who is commanding a cv. that person had the guts to take command and try to keep cv alive. anyone who has ever commanded a cv gets calls to bring cv closer for lvt's or to turn cv because buffs are inbound or stop turning cv because we cant take off.
if you want cv to stay alive longer put a cap up. chogs are great for that. just remember its easy to sink cv's. have respect for your fellow players and have fun. thats what i do.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
If a set of lancs or B24's flies over a cv under 12k, it gets sunk 4 X outta 5--usually from prox hits, not from actual hits
I'm guilty of this myself, so I'll tell you the simplest way - just take a group of b24s or lancs with a load of 1000 lb bombs, come in at about 7K from behind the carrier and dive in. Hold the speed at 325 kts or so, and then pull up at 500ft and let loose - most of the time the carrier gets toasted.
This tactic is stoppable by CAP or by a Capt turning the CV to unmask his AAA, but failing that the CV is usually dead to a single buff driver. The CAP in this situation usually has to be F4U-Cs or F4U4's or has to have a big alt advantage to have time to stop the diving buffs. Unless the ack is manned, just turning the CV usually won't stop it either.
The solution IMHO is to stop the level bombers from doing bomb release when not level on autopilot. You might also want to limit the bomb release to only be active from the bombardier position, just as the guns are only active from the gunner position.
Thing is, I LIKE attacking CVs - unlike attacking fields, it is a bit of a challenge since you can actually get shot out of the sky. I'd like to see the CV groups strengthened - either by adding additional cruisers or toughening the ones we have now, and by making the CVs a "bit" tougher.
I also don't think 20mm and 30mm aircraft cannons should be able to take out armored 5" and 8" mounts. Just as my 75mm LVTA4 howitzer bounces off shore batteries, 5" and 8" mounts are armored and that 20mm / 30mm junk should be bouncing right off.
EagleDNY
$.02