Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Gary26 on January 24, 2007, 07:17:36 PM
-
I dont want to say HT has gotten lazy, but come on. We used to have weekly resets by staff when we had 1 MA. I say we go back to that. What good is having 2 new maps if it is 2 weeks before we can see them. Really getting burned out of the same 2 maps.
#2
Is there anything we can do to disrupt the Uberjabobuffs from dweebing cv's? Make ack harder? Add another carrier to task group? Do something.:O
-
Move the bases in to minimum spacing; then the fragile carriers are not the only place to find a decent fight.
This may have been mentioned once before.
-
Yup. Maps with 30-40 mils between airfields suck :o
-
Very easy to rectify our problems,let DREDger reset the maps as they grow boring! He is teh l33t mishun planner IKE strategy guy fellow! problem solved!:aok
-
If you don't want CVs sunk, kill the ords at the fields near the CVs.
No ords...no "Uberjabobuffs".
Simple.
-
Dont work actually. As everybody know the best way to sink CV is level bombing :rolleyes: You cannt kill ords at every fields in 60 mil around CV.
Can make CV's life a little longer though.
-
Originally posted by Gary26
#2 Is there anything we can do to disrupt the Uberjabobuffs from dweebing cv's? Make ack harder? Add another carrier to task group? Do something.:O
I'm no tactician, but I'm guessing 2 or 3 fighters flying around the CV looking for incoming Uberjabobuff threats would probably do the job.
-
LOL i agree think the TG (Task Group) needs to be made harder to sink it seems its 100% garenteed to get sunk especially with dive bombing 234s, me and a friend have been up trying to protect TG from getting bombed we killed 3 sets of buffs think they were ju88s and another set comes along and sinks it in one pass and then thats it we have to find somewere else to fly.
I think personally there needs to be more puffy ack or make it more lethal because you could fly loops in that stuff for a hour and it wouldnt hit you or if it did hit you it wouldnt do that much damage i meen was it really this easy to avoid puffy ack in WW2? Was it really this easy to sink a TG in ww2?
When puffy ack was in towns it was more affective than puffy ack on a TG you could say 3 times outta 10 the puffy would get me at town but over a TG it just looks nice and isnt very affective.
-
Originally posted by The Fury
LOL i agree think the TG (Task Group) needs to be made harder to sink it seems its 100% garenteed to get sunk especially with dive bombing 234s, me and a friend have been up trying to protect TG from getting bombed we killed 3 sets of buffs think they were ju88s and another set comes along and sinks it in one pass and then thats it we have to find somewere else to fly.
I think personally there needs to be more puffy ack or make it more lethal because you could fly loops in that stuff for a hour and it wouldnt hit you or if it did hit you it wouldnt do that much damage i meen was it really this easy to avoid puffy ack in WW2? Was it really this easy to sink a TG in ww2?
When puffy ack was in towns it was more affective than puffy ack on a TG you could say 3 times outta 10 the puffy would get me at town but over a TG it just looks nice and isnt very affective.
only reason cv's get sunkl is noobs taking off before town or vhs dead a good cv gunner kills entire town in 5 mins and kills vh and fh next 5. but more than not a noob takes off cv 15 miles from base or just as you start killing town. suicide bluffs only work if no one in 5". i bet i have 30 kills of bombers trying for cv this tod. and have had good 100 to 200 in tod.
But on same maps htc not lazy, They made new war system where u need 90% ur fields and 40 % of both other teams. better this way then 2 sides not ganging out numbered team. want to win war u have to beat both.
-
It takes a bit of forethought to kill the ords in the immediate area, and a bit more to think that bombers may come from a sector or more away. So, yes, and no....depending upon the map. Maps do make a difference.
Hardening CVs more, or increasing it's ack coverage more would do more harm than good. As it is, Jabos are ineffective unless massed, or following upon near misses by bombers, and thats only if they don't get picked off at 15K by the CVs ack. It wasn't Bombers that killed CVs in WWII...it was Dive Bombers...JABOs...Level bombers like the B24s, B17s, Lancs, etc, proved to be ineffective. In Aces High, the reverse seems to be true; level bombers effective...Jabos...ineffecti ve.
Here is a suggestion:
Instead of hardening the CV more...reduce it to 3k tonnage to sink it.
But! Before the CV takes any damage, ALL of her escourts must be sunk first! Destroyers take say...1K to sink...and the Cruiser 2K to sink...and this BEFORE the CV incurs ANY damage at all.
Thus, to sink the CV you must first sink four (4) destroyers at 1 K each (total of 4K tonnage) AND the Cruiser (CA) at 2K, for a total of 6K of tonnage upon the Fleet and the CV is then pretty much defensless except for her fighter groups, and should go down with 3K tonnage upon it, or, at the very LEAST, DISABLE its air and amphipbious operations for a very minumum of 30 minutes, and require an additional 3K of ordnance to positively sink it.
What this does is allow CVs to operate with near impunity until her escorts are gone...and then she must rely upon her airarm to protect her. It also gives JABOs the chance to fullfill missions they really flew, and bombers can still sink undefended CVs.
As for the ack...it's deadly enough for the 8K of tonnage being currently required to sink a defended CV. It's effectivity should be reduce by a factor of each escorts' ability to defend.
Just some thoughts.
-
ya gary you nailed that. the Cvs are far too easily killed. the CV itself could be hardened to say 50k of bombs also it should be repairable while underweigh.
also what toad said.
-
It seems like it takes more ord to kill a Tiger than it does a CV. They need to be made harder if all the aaa flying from the group cant even manage to kill or deflect the odd bomb or rocket here and there.
Also cv's should be coded to where the person in command of the cv MUST be in range of cv. The knights had same person lose like 4 cv's in 3 hrs lastnight.
90prf
-
CV hardness is fine....a good 5 inch gunner can keep a CV safe ....I've seen whels kill 30 planes w/ it and CV was fresh as a daisy.
-
Originally posted by storch
.....also it should be repairable while underweigh...
Massive[/i] agreement here.
-
Originally posted by Helm
CV hardness is fine....a good 5 inch gunner can keep a CV safe ....I've seen whels kill 30 planes w/ it and CV was fresh as a daisy.
okay riddle me this then. how many CVs are sunk from direct comabt for these combatants?
IJN
Commonwealth
USN
-
I like what patches said, but keep the cv hardness the same. I think cv's are a big grey area in this game. They are effective and fun to use but to easily sunk. The reason for this post in the first place is, the other night I and sevral others were defending a cv. While cap planes were attacking 4 sets of buff there was a set of 26's that slipped through. I started hiiting them from the 5inch from 3.5 out. they started to dive ALL 3 on fire and lead plane missing a wing still was able to lob a volley of 1k eggs and sink it. I think there shoud be alot of changes to a TG. I think after a certain point you should be able to disable ords on a cv. In real life didnt bombs find there way into the ord hold on the ship. Bases can get tough to defend against a steady stream of ords only minutes away.
-
Airplane gun ammo should not count towards the "total damage" applied to CVs and its escorts. Airplane guns should be able to take out gun turrets, but not be able to sink a vessel.
Wanted to cry last week when a single suicide NOE 110 sunk a CV with its cannons ... that is beyond ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Patches1
Here is a suggestion:
Instead of hardening the CV more...reduce it to 3k tonnage to sink it.
But! Before the CV takes any damage, ALL of her escourts must be sunk first! Destroyers take say...1K to sink...and the Cruiser 2K to sink...and this BEFORE the CV incurs ANY damage at all.
Thus, to sink the CV you must first sink four (4) destroyers at 1 K each (total of 4K tonnage) AND the Cruiser (CA) at 2K, for a total of 6K of tonnage upon the Fleet and the CV is then pretty much defensless except for her fighter groups, and should go down with 3K tonnage upon it, or, at the very LEAST, DISABLE its air and amphipbious operations for a very minumum of 30 minutes, and require an additional 3K of ordnance to positively sink it.
What this does is allow CVs to operate with near impunity until her escorts are gone...and then she must rely upon her airarm to protect her. It also gives JABOs the chance to fullfill missions they really flew, and bombers can still sink undefended CVs.
As for the ack...it's deadly enough for the 8K of tonnage being currently required to sink a defended CV. It's effectivity should be reduce by a factor of each escorts' ability to defend.
Just some thoughts.
Well Done Patches..... Well done:aok
4XTCH
-
Cvs already continuously repair themselves while underway. This replicates the repair parties aboard ships. From the first damage ships begin immediate repair. Once hit, CV's are in a continuous state of repair.
50K of bombs to sink a CV, Storch?
CVs should be vulnerable...that's why Fleets are built AROUND them. The FLEET should protect the CV, not artificial 50K hardness. CV's depended upon the surrounding Fleet, and it's own Air CAP, to protect the CV. The Battle of Midway proved how vulnerable CVs were...and how effective dive bombing (JABO) could be even in heavy ack.
In my opinion...CVs are waaayyyy over-hardened as they are. Consider the Japanese attack upon Pear Harbor...did the USS Arizona require 50K of bombs to sink it?
I will vote for 50K of damage being done to my Corsair before I spring an oil leak, though! :-)
Just some thoughts....
-
Originally posted by Patches1
I will vote for 50K of damage being done to my Corsair before I spring an oil leak, though! :-)
LOL
Bring the IL2 bug to the corsair.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Airplane gun ammo should not count towards the "total damage" applied to CVs and its escorts. Airplane guns should be able to take out gun turrets, but not be able to sink a vessel.
Wanted to cry last week when a single suicide NOE 110 sunk a CV with its cannons ... that is beyond ridiculous.
We agree on something :) almost.
No way should aircraft rounds have any effect on CV or cruiser 5" or 8" guns.
The small AA guns yup, but not the main.
Although most are sunk with buffs it's usually AFTER most of the main guns have been taken out by suicide aircraft.
If you consider it, this is a issue connected with the damage system which is almost unchanged since AH1.
It's one of two things (strat being other) that haven't kept up with 'game'.
-
my thinking is that since the level bombers can pretty much get through at will given all the gamey advantage they possess and in the case of the lancasters hauling 14k lbs of bombs 50k is a reasonable number.
-
I concur...
Against armored vessels aircraft guns should count perhaps 1/4 of their designed effectivity.
On the other hand... allied .50 caliber strafing runs on Japanese barges and troop transports were highly effective, often ending in horrible carnage for the Japanese.
So, in game, since the Fleets are armored, I agree that straffing Fleet ships should produce little effect; but straffing offshore supply tugs and barges should still have maximum value.
Your thoughts, Sir?
Patches
-
Storch, Sir,
I made a proposal to support my thoughts that I feel CVs are already artificially hardened.
I am at a loss to understand your last post which states that Bombers... "can pretty much get through at will given all the gamey advantage they possess..." Considering your wishes to harden CVs to 50K of ordnance in order to sink it, isn't that a bit "gamey" in itself?
I'll play the game no matter how it is built. But, continueing to build in hardness against ordnance takes us back to Medeival times when Castle walls were built high and thick to withstand arrows.
Do you have a proposal to change the way Fleets and CVs are modeled, or do you simply not like the way Bombers are modeled?
Patches
-
Anyone given thought to the fact that this is just a symptom of the somewhat basic damage system, unchanged since AH1.
It was suggested a long time ago that a complete overhaul was needed to take into account what the target was made of, and what was being used to damage it.
For e.g.
Ammo bunkers -
IMO should only be damaged/destroyed by rockets or bombs.
Currently even a pilot firing a .45 can do a minute amount of damage. Extreme example but shows up the flaw in the current setup.
-
patches sir how many carriers were sunk by direct enemy action in WWII?
in answer to your questions
yes. bomber modelling needs to be looked at. bomb calibration is rediculously easy and bomb accuracy is better than with current Jdam munitions. during the big one, WWII it took 1000 level bombers to get 10 bombs on target. we should strive for 100 for ten hits as opposed to 1 bomber for 1,000,000 hits.
I won't even broach the topic of the defensive armament.
the CVs were devilishly difficult to hit because of the amount of ack put up. in the case of the commonwealth CVs with their armored flight decks bombs did not penetrate.
sinking a CV was very very difficult. given that the best fights, therefore the most enjoyment gained by players per game hour revolve around the CV they should be nearly impossible to sink.
having said that they should also not be able to come with 15 miles of the shore either.
-
Originally posted by storch
patches sir how many carriers were sunk by direct enemy action in WWII?
in answer to your questions
yes. bomber modelling needs to be looked at. bomb calibration is rediculously easy and bomb accuracy is better than with current Jdam munitions. during the big one, WWII it took 1000 level bombers to get 10 bombs on target. we should strive for 100 for ten hits as opposed to 1 bomber for 1,000,000 hits.
I won't even broach the topic of the defensive armament.
the CVs were devilishly difficult to hit because of the amount of ack put up. in the case of the commonwealth CVs with their armored flight decks bombs did not penetrate.
sinking a CV was very very difficult. given that the best fights, therefore the most enjoyment gained by players per game hour revolve around the CV they should be nearly impossible to sink.
having said that they should also not be able to come with 15 miles of the shore either.
Wow! I agree with Storch! :aok
-
They shouldn't be able to get in close enough to vulch the airfield with their defensive armaments.
-
good points Storch!
The problem with CV's is really the unrealistic tactics we are forced to use. Tell me there is a naval officer anywhere in the world who would support bringing your most valuable asset, your CV, within 15 miles of the enemy shores, just to land LVTs? I doubt it! What we need is a landing assault group. A separately controlled group of ships that can be brought to the attack zone while the CV stay at a relatively safe distance to launch aircraft. These Assault Groups would tag along with the CV group when not under player control. Obviously not something that can be done quickly but it would really make the CV war much more accurate.
Also, most CVs in WWII were not sunk by aerial bombing. Rendered unusable yes but not sunk. Most were sunk by either torpedo planes or subs. Make it so if you hit the flight deck with enough bombs you cannot launch planes until the desk is repaired. Time it the same as fighter hangers.
-
I love Patches' idea of requiring the escorts to be sunk first!
Keep the 8k weight for the CV and leave the others the same. Ack would be reduced as each escort is sunk because their guns will no longer be firing. Leave all else the same so as to keep it simple and mayhaps HTC can do it now!....Put an end to the days when a lone 234 can sink/destoy in effect, an entire field! I LOVE IT! BIG to Patches!
-
First, I referenced the Midway battle where the Japanese lost four (4) Carriers, and I don't recall that any level bombers were used, but I am an old man and my memory may not be very good. All four (4) Japanese carriers were sunk, or severly damaged by Dive Bombing (JABO), if my memory serves me well (it mayn't however).
Second, I think you have confirmed that you have more of an issue with Bomber modeling than with the CV hardness. I agree that level bombers should have quite a difficult time in hitting CVs. I believe my previous posts support your contention that level bombing was an inexact science, and that level bombers never sunk a CV in WWII, to my knowledge (I could be wrong). So, from your standpoint of AH Bomber loads and the ease with which level bombers in AH can hit targets from nearly any altitude, I can understand why you wish to harden CVs further.
Clearly your issue is with Bomber modeling and not CV hardness, whereas my issue is with CV hardness and not Bomber modeling.
I just wanted to clarify our paths because each leads in a different direction and each path has a separate potential solution.
I posted my suggestion which encompasses the current Bomber modeling, makes Dive bombing more important, and dangerous, gives the CV a good chance of survival and gives gameplayers many options per gameplayer hour. Remember, under my suggestion, the CV does not incur any damage until all of it's escorts are sunk. Then, however, the CV becomes a soft and ripe target, just perfect for level bombing.
So, protecting the CV becomes very important, more so than the current gameset, in my opinion, where a single formation of level bombers can end, in a single pass, the enjoyment many who are having fun with the CVs.
Just some thoughts...
Patches
-
Folks, I agree with the contention of keeping CVs out at sea.
I support the idea of a separate Landing Force complete with supply ships and Troop Transports protected by a CV Task Force.
This idea opens another dimension to Aces High Gameplay.
Patches
-
Bring on the Submarines!:O
-
did someone say p38H??:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by storch
patches sir how many carriers were sunk by direct enemy action in WWII?
Aircraft Carriers sunk from enemy action:
Battle of Coral Sea:
USS Lexington
IJN Carrier Shoho
Battle of Midway
USS Yorktown
IJN Carriers Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu & Kaga
Battle of Eastern Solomons
IJN Carrier Ryujo
Battle of Santa Cruz Islands
USS Hornet badly damaged; sunk the next day.
Philippines Campaign
IJN Carrier Shokaku
IJN Carriers Zuiho & Zuikaka (Battle of Leyte Gulf)
*this list only includes the large carriers that were sunk and does not list the US escort carriers that were sunk from enemy action.
List of IJN carriers sunkby enemy action in World War II (http://www.ww2pacific.com/japcv.html)
List of US carriers in World War II. Article tells which ones were sunk by enemy action (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=2)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Patches1
First, I referenced the Midway battle where the Japanese lost four (4) Carriers, and I don't recall that any level bombers were used, but I am an old man and my memory may not be very good. All four (4) Japanese carriers were sunk, or severly damaged by Dive Bombing (JABO), if my memory serves me well (it mayn't however).
Patches
B-17s were used but missed their targets and killed a crap load of fish.
ack-ack
-
Wasnt the Tirpitz sunk my level bombers after a zillion attempts.
-
The smokescreen was not active on the third attempt - "Operation Catechism". Tirpitz was finally sunk immediately to the west of Tromsø, in the bay of Håkøybotn, on 12 November 1944 by 617 and 9 Squadron Lancasters with Tallboys on their third attempt. The ship was struck by three Tallboys. One glanced off turret armour, but the other two pierced the ship's armour and blew a 200 foot hole into her port side. Soon after, internal fires set off a magazine and blew off "C" turret. Tirpitz capsized within minutes of the attack, and close to 1,000 German sailors, out of 1,700 aboard, died.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Airplane gun ammo should not count towards the "total damage" applied to CVs and its escorts. Airplane guns should be able to take out gun turrets, but not be able to sink a vessel.
Wanted to cry last week when a single suicide NOE 110 sunk a CV with its cannons ... that is beyond ridiculous.
Every time this is brought up, I like to point to a Japaneese transport ship that was lost to nothing more than two P-38's who pickled a drop tank on its deck, and then started a fire by straffing. (It took about 8 hours to sink). While that is not a CV, CVs were completely lost or taken out of action due to fires without from hull breaches from an attack.
Short of HiTech programing a complex CV damage model that accounts for "a series of unfortunate events" that could take a CV out of action, I think the current system is a fair trade.
-
Murdr, was it the Franklin , or the Bunker Hill That was hit by a kamikaze, and sat out the rest of the war while the Flight deck was rebuilt?
I also remember that the ship was nearly lost...Due mostly to the fires on board. I believe it was an Essex class vessel...
-
Originally posted by Gary26
The smokescreen was not active on the third attempt - "Operation Catechism". Tirpitz was finally sunk immediately to the west of Tromsø, in the bay of Håkøybotn, on 12 November 1944 by 617 and 9 Squadron Lancasters with Tallboys on their third attempt. The ship was struck by three Tallboys. One glanced off turret armour, but the other two pierced the ship's armour and blew a 200 foot hole into her port side. Soon after, internal fires set off a magazine and blew off "C" turret. Tirpitz capsized within minutes of the attack, and close to 1,000 German sailors, out of 1,700 aboard, died.
yup but it was tied to a pier and not manuevering. also it didn't have the benefit of fighter cover.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Aircraft Carriers sunk from enemy action:
Battle of Coral Sea:
USS Lexington
IJN Carrier Shoho
Battle of Midway
USS Yorktown
IJN Carriers Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu & Kaga
Battle of Eastern Solomons
IJN Carrier Ryujo
Battle of Santa Cruz Islands
USS Hornet badly damaged; sunk the next day.
Philippines Campaign
IJN Carrier Shokaku
IJN Carriers Zuiho & Zuikaka (Battle of Leyte Gulf)
*this list only includes the large carriers that were sunk and does not list the US escort carriers that were sunk from enemy action.
List of IJN carriers sunkby enemy action in World War II (http://www.ww2pacific.com/japcv.html)
List of US carriers in World War II. Article tells which ones were sunk by enemy action (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=2)
ack-ack
well sugarplum I thought I was on your ignore list. didya miss me? back to the topic, there were no fleet carriers sunk by direct enemy action. all were put out of commission by jabo attacks and later sunk by torpedos. IIRC the escort carrier gambier bay was the only carrier ever sunk by direct enemy action during the battle for leyte.