Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: frosty on March 24, 2007, 03:13:15 PM
-
I mentioned this in the "triple buffs" thread but it's really a different topic.
CVs are too important a target to be so easy to take down. Just a little while ago I watched a flight of 26s come in, make a single (diving!!) run, and destroy a completely undamaged CV.
Yeah, I know, fighters need to defend, but with the triple buff config it's pretty impossible to stop them on short notice.
Why do we even have torpedo planes if people can just carpet bomb the CV? The CVs need to be hardened. Up the power of the torpedo ordinance to compensate.
If not, why not just replace the torpedo planes with other models, since they're useless anyways? I've never seen ANYONE organize a torpedo run. Why would you, when you can just up a buff formation and kamikaze the CV within 5 minutes?
I know it's just a game, but in real life no one carpet bombed carriers. If we're going with the "it's just a game" argument, then perhaps we should be able to bring goons in to repair the CV.
I dunno. Any fix would be great. CVs offer so much to the game, but they are far too easy to kill and so much potential is wasted.
They should be as difficult to take down as any other field.
-
All bombers that you can up in formation should have to be above 5 or maybe 10k when they drop to get the bombs armed.
my 5 cents
-
That would kill NOE runs.
How about realistic flak shell travel, so that you can maneuver out of them (instead of the present box flak), and more accurate AI flak against bombers?
If bombers had the more difficult bombsight modifications mentionned in the 3-ship thread in addition to that, it could be enough.
Plenty of torpedo runs do happen.
-
Originally posted by moot
That would kill NOE runs.
And killing NOE runs in buff formations would be a bad thing?
-
Frosty usually porking the ord before the enemy know its there does the trick.
If the buffs have to fly from a further base to kill the cv that gives ample time to setup a fighter CAP above the CV.
People use cvs as quick base grabs and a quick vulch. These fights can swing either way and I guarantee that if the porking hasnt been done or if the cv driver is using the SB firing line as a parking lot it will get sunk!
My favourite map was the very large one where each team had about 6 cv's plus. If one got sunk it was all aboard the next one lol
constant action!
Bruv
~S~
-
The balance is ok in my eyes gameplay wise the dive bombing formations are a bit retarded. But there are many skilled CV killers who level bomb very well.
I learnt to play in a diff game where CV's were too hard to program into the equivalent main arena to be used at all. Are there any other online sims that offer CV based action that we have in AH???
30 guys a side furballing, CV burning, PT boats, SB firing, puffy ack everywhere, tracer rounds shooting at kamikaze nutjobs, lvts getting strafed, tanks camping the shoreline, torps in the water, Turn the ship buffs inbound!!! what more can you ask for. (apart from a better machine)
-
We focus constantly on buffs in this way and I am beginning to think we miss the point.
I wonder if the balistic effects of the HE bombs dropped from Buffs should be re considered.
I start by looking at the very accurate bomb sight we have.
It is very easy to ensure pin point accuracy using the bomb sight in combination with E6B. However even if we are to be gifted with such a fantastic bomb sight surely we should not also be gifted with bombs that drop plum down the cross hair track as if lazer guided.
I would suggest that from say 20.000 ft an error of some hundred yards could occur. I doint have any expertise to offer on the subject. But I would say that simplifying the bomb sight has removed an element of human error. So it may be simple but why should it be error free?
Hence I would argue that we can keep it simple but "model" some error with a significant random drift factor around the target.
The 1st added error can be due to slight random inaccuracies in the release mechanism (.05 sec +.1/-0 sec?)
The 2nd added error can be a delay incurred in release between the lead bomber and drones of a formation. This delay would also be subject to random variance simulating the practice of drone bomb aimers releasing their bombs only upon seeing bombs falling from the lead aircraft.
The 3rd added error would be drift due to the bombs not dropping true. Hence if they were to drift randomly upto 10 ft per thousand above target we would see a 400 ft diameter error zone around the cross hair release point when dropping from 20,000ft.
With such bombing accuracy reduced, HTC could then look at the ballistic model with a view to more accurately modelling the blast radius and subsequent peripheral damage incurred to objects.
This should be done with the terrain mind.
I would expect the blast radius in water to be virtually zero.
On concreted facilities the blast radius may be at its maximum.
On soft farm land or in dense woodland it would be reduced from maximum.
What would the effect of all this be?
Level bombers hitting fleets would be far less certain of success. The accuracy with which they can hit a weaving boat is additionally impeded by the new errors effecting accuracy with which their bombs drop. Further near misses count for almost nothing in water.
Level bombers hitting air fields and trying to target independant buildings would also be less certain of success than now, however near misses will count for far more and ,whilst not sure of success, the more random destruction around the target will bring reward whilst not totally eliminating the chance of actually destroying the independant buildings targeted.
Level bombers hitting Strat facilities and towns would still be in their element......able to carpet bomb many buildings within a "bracket".
So
it would be much harder to hit CV's with level bombers.........as it was.
It would be difficult (but not impossible) to target a series of individual buildings.... as it was.
carpet bombing large areas of densely packed buildings would be quite easy.......as it was.
-
Sort of off topic but I think TBMs and B5Ns and other single engine torpedo bombers should be formation capable.
-
Bruv, I agree that if the CV is not capped, it's gonna get hit and deservedly so. It's a problem. But still, for every individual with a buff formation, it's likely gonna take a at least 2 people to stop him. With enemy fighters to deal with, the math just doesn't work out. With fields, it's not a real big imbalance because it takes a LOT of coordination to take down a field. With CVs, it's a huge imbalance, as 1 run does the trick.
Again, a single successful run should not be enough to sink the thing. It's just too important a target to be so fragile. OK, maybe if they get direct hits with ALL of their ordinance, but that **should** be nearly impossible. Maybe make it so bombs won't release from buffs below a certain angle of attack would work.
I agree with moot than better AI flak shells vs. buffs might be a good solution.
I agree with Nilsen that NOE runs in buffs are silly. Use 110s and such for that stuff.
-
Bomb accuracy could be significantly altered if AH typically had some wind. I'd like it if the MA had more-realistic wind settings all of the time.
-
WHere wind is set in an arena I would add it to the above suggestions to make accuracy even harder. Presently the MA has no wind but you can always add it to SEA event settings.
But the point above adds error but also addresses blast radii such that periferal damage is more accurately modelled on hard ground.
-
Ive asked for the tuffer CV and stronger torp warhead before. Make it so if you want to kill a CV, you need torps. Bombs would kill dar and guns on it, but to make it sink you need torps. Or a whole lot of bombs.
-
Filth, exactly! No problem with items on the deck being blown to hell, but it should take a ridiculous amount of ordinance hitting the surface of the deck to sink it that way.
-
CVs are kind of silly imho...what major air to air battle ever occurred off a cv? and what CV ever captured a land target???
also PT boats are helpless vs cvs...silly
and finally you can kill ack/ord/vh easily at an airbase but cv continues to have monster ack..endless gvs and planes and ord....since when was a cv more powerful than an airstrip????
so anyway that allows cvs to die is ok with me....
oh and let shorebatteries cover all water...or give an airfield on the shore about 6 more shorebatteries to keep the cv at bay...
-
I'd like to know just how armored do you guys think a WWII class CV was?? A carrier, even todays modern Nimitz class CV's, are very vulnerable to attack. The deck on a WWII CV wasn't that thick. A 500lb bomb would go through it very easily.
Take the USS Forestal incident for excample. A single zuni rocket accidently fires and hits anouther plane that is fully loaded with 500lb bombs, rockets, and fuel. The fuel leaks out of the damaged plane and starts a huge fire on deck. The bombs start cooking off while laying on the deck and ends up blowing several very large holes in the deck that allows even more fuel to drain into the lower decks, spreading the fire. They came very close to loosing that ship from just a few blast and those bombs were just sitting there, NOT falling and penetrating into the ship.
Now considering that a CV is loaded with several hundred tons of ordiance, bunker fuel, and avaition fuel and doesn't take all that many bombs to do some serious damage. Now if a bomb finds a magazine it's all over. HMS Hood is a good excample of this. 1 shell from the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen blew that ship in half by hitting a magazine. Hood was a heavy crusier and more armored than any CV ever was.
Anyone who has ever served in the Navy or has worked in the marine industry understands just how vulnerable a ship is, and what can happen due to fire or explosions onboard.
Lets look at the battle of Midway. The Japanese lost 3 out of 4 carriers to light dive bombers of the US Navy. Those planes weren't carrying thousands of pounds of bombs per plane. At most they were armed with 500lbrs but those few bombs that did hit penetrated down into the ship before blowing and caused massive damage. Damage bad enough to sink those ships.
Now in the game it requires 8000lbrs of ordinace to sink a CV. In reality that much ordinace is overkill because no CV in WWII took that much damage and lived. The game is actually harder than it should be to kill a carrier.
Now as far as heavy bombers hunting CV's in the game, it's not that hard to have the CV avoid being hit. Just turn the thing, but then you have the idiots that complain about the CV turning and they can't take off on auto takeoff mode. These are the same idiots that turn around and complain when the CV gets sunk because no turned it in time to avoid the bombs raining down on it.
If you guys don't want to loose the CV's in the game then do something that is tacticaly sound and provide an extended CAP around the CV to fend off the bombers, pork the feilds near the CV so the enemy can't bring bombs to the CV, and keep the thing manuvering.
-
Nilsen, NOE runs are fun. It would throw out the baby with the bath water.. until there is no doubt that what you suggest is the only choice, we shouldn't just nerf things like that.
Sort of like the HO defense cone in AW or WB, or whatever game it was.
Skip bombing would not work either, with such a nerf.
Originally posted by Bruv119
Frosty usually porking the ord before the enemy know its there does the trick.
That won't make sense to some people who just want to furball. They want to have their furball, but not work for it.
-
Hornet, if realism is what we're talking about, well, buffs never, EVER attacked CVs in WW2.
Game balance is what matters.
1 person in a flying barcalounger being able to destroy what amounts to a an entire field in a single run is retarded.
-
I see no need to harden CV's any more..........just make bombing less accurate............
As soft as WWII CV's were how many were hit by formations of level bombers?
-
I should add that buffs will always be able to bomb CVs in game. No way around that.
Take away the laser precision of the bombs and that would likely solve the problem.
I don't get why so many buff fans defend the realism of their bombing CVs when they have what amounts to laser precision bomb sites and ordinance that falls 100% predictably, on top of being able to fly 3 planes with 1 pilot.
So yes, perhaps a buff COULD destroy a CV in real life, but it would have to be insanely lucky. The bombs just were not that accurate. Most of them would land in the ocean from any sane altitude.
-
Originally posted by frosty
Hornet, if realism is what we're talking about, well, buffs never, EVER attacked CVs in WW2.
Game balance is what matters.
1 person in a flying barcalounger being able to destroy what amounts to a an entire field in a single run is retarded.
Well if that's the case then why do we have spitfires fighting P-51's and Bf109's fighting Fw190's??? You seem to be saying that level bombers shouldn't be allowed to bomb a CV. If that's the case then any aircraft from the same real country shouldn't be allowed to attack each other either. No more P-38's shooting down B-17's or spits mixing it up in a furball. That NEVER happened either in real life.
This game allows for allot of "what ifs" and level bombers hitting CV's is just one more excample of that.
The fact is the CV's in the game are harder to kill than what real life tells us they were. It doesn't matter that no CV was ever attacked by level bombers, that's not the point.
What's retarded is the guy who lets the CV get bombed by the single guy in the barcalounger. Turn the thing so it doesn't get hit, don't bring it in range of the shore batteries, provide an extended CAP, and pork the ords at the nearby bases.
Do something stupid with a CV and it will be killed. Use it smart and it'll be around for awhile.
-
Here we go with another I HATE BOMBER THREADS!!!!!
1) As previously stated TURN THE CV!!!
2) The Auto ACK on a CV is already enough what more do you want. How much footage can be seen from WWII of Torp PLanes making successful runs on CV's!!! This is because ACK wasnt as accurate.
3) Due to High number of ord needed to kill a CV Bombers are your best bet.
4) IN real life or any game with CV realism a single SBD Dive Bomber can cripple any CV.
Now if you want to make bombing a CV harder then how about you turn off auto ack and you can bombing a CV with buffs Harder. You will see more Torp Runs and Dive Bombing Runs. But wait that will lead to complaints about CV's being able to be sunk by Torp PLanes wityh ease.
So leave it as is. It is much better for those on the CV's then already needs to be. By the way numerous bombers in RL in WWII did do some dive bombing. Think before you speak!!! Things could be alot worse!!!
-
These anti-bomber threads are way out of hand, they’ve gotten really old.
“Take away the formations,:cry nerf the guns,:cry go back to manual calibration,:cry toss in more drop error,:cry add wind,:cry harden CVs,:cry stop fighter bombers from dive bombing.:cry ”
Add your wind, I love wind! Make it 35 mph if you like but start it a ZERO elevation.:aok Make everyone learn to deal with it on take off and landing the way it should be. Hate the laser gunsights on the bombers, learn not to cry about it until you figure out where their convergence point is and learn not to fly there any more once you do.:aok Bring back the manual calibration, I liked it before and the very guys sinking your CVs will still be able to do it even if you harden the ships. Oh and btw, two or three guys in 110s can sink a CV in one pass using only cannon but you probably didn’t know that but now that you’re aware of it, you’d better nerf the 110s too, right?
The only thing it takes to protect your CV from a single formation of bombers boys and girls, is a skipper willing to watch after it and turn it at the right time when the bombers fly in. Enough of this silliness. :lol
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
CVs are kind of silly imho...what major air to air battle ever occurred off a cv? and what CV ever captured a land target???.
many
-
Wind doesn't work because it's an advantage to one country (or 2) and a constant disadvantage to the other (or 2). Hardening CVs doesn't work, because then the only way to sink a CV is even more bombers. The torp thing doesn't work, because then if the horde country porks ord, the other country doesn't have any way to sink it.
I'd say maybe HT could give us real flak, instead of the magic box of fighter doom. Maybe a proper sight or radar or something to help aim it, have both AI and mannable, more ack guns, etc.
I know certain wellknown buff types have great success at sinking CVs, and I've been able to sink a CV or cruiser in a single pass at low alt, and make it through the flak alive. It really is quite simple to do, and it's very difficult to prevent.
Aside from the flak (which after 7 years, I'm not thinking HT plans to fix ), the only feasible solution is removing the formations until such time as bombing can be made realistic. However, HT hasn't expressed any interest in changing bombing, or removing uberforms either, so it's probably going to be like this until HTC closes it's doors.
Sad, but it's only cartoon ships. You get new ones after a few minutes.
-
Solution: increase the angular dispersion of falling bombs.
I had never flown buffs, never bombed, had no clue about the calibration, hadn't even mapped the key for calibration. Yet I took up some Lancs, followed the onscreen directions, and was able to place all of my bombs on target from 20K+ within a dispersion measured in a few feet. That is some special aerodynamics to fall within a few feet from 20,000 ft.
No wonder that the appearance of high alt buffs means the CV has a 99% chance of going down. The only way bombing could be made easier were if it only entailed clicking on a map of things you want to blow up.
PS: The Auto ACK on a CV is already enough what more do you want
I've never understood most peoples opinion of the auto puffy ack. In many many years of playing, I have never seen it hit anything at all. Manned ack yes, auto puffy ack, essentially never. So I guess to a buff driver, an auto ack that never hits him is perfectly modeled ;)
-
yeah. why waste time changing stuff that works fine? why spend time argueing about worthless whines? (o wait. its fun :lol )
Anyway. last night my squad made a concerted effort to defend a stolen cv after we took an enemy port. We defended that cv for at least an hour and a half against some established pilots. With about 8 coordinated pilots we provided mid-high level CAP, along with turning the cv out from under bombs at least 3 times when the CAP couldnot hold off teh attackers.
what im saying is thise whole thread is a waste of bandwidth. :rofl
(And i dont want cvs hardened, because i like sinking cvs with my Ki67s. escpecially when i hit 5 in one scenario frame :cool: )
-
Originally posted by Warchief
1) As previously stated TURN THE CV!!!
This won't work with any stick with more than an hour of experience in buffs.
A turning cv provides no challenge for most, all one needs to do is just adjust the direction of your bomb-lead.
Of the few CVs i've bothered to bomb (always level bombed), turning never impacted my accuracy severely.
I always fly JU-88s or Ar-234s for CV attacks too, so it's not like i'm lobbing 4000 pound 'nooks' at it either.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
This won't work with any stick with more than an hour of experience in buffs.
A turning cv provides no challenge for most, all one needs to do is just adjust the direction of your bomb-lead.
Originally posted by Toadkill
Anyway. last night my squad made a concerted effort to defend a stolen cv after we took an enemy port. We defended that cv for at least an hour and a half against some established pilots. With about 8 coordinated pilots we provided mid-high level CAP, along with turning the cv out from under bombs at least 3 times when the CAP couldnot hold off teh attackers.
-
The easy fix would be to not bring the CVs next to the enemy AF. Thats what gets them killed faster than anything else.
-
Originally posted by frosty
Hornet, if realism is what we're talking about, well, buffs never, EVER attacked CVs in WW2.
Just FYI, this is not true. B-17s bombed the Japanese fleet at the battle of Midway. They claimed several hits, but what they probably saw was the destroyers attempting to form a smoke screen. Although none of the bombs hit, the attack had the fleet turning in circles for a bit trying to avoid the bombs.
Proof. (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm)
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I'd like to know just how armored do you guys think a WWII class CV was??
I just looked up what the US WWII carriers took to sink. Here's what I found.
US Aircraft-carrier Hardness
Source: Wikipedia
Ship sunk, damage taken, lbs explosive
Lexington (CV-2), 2 torpedoes and 3 bombs, 3503 lbs
Yorktown (CV-5), 1 bomb, 551 lbs
Wasp (CV-7), 2 sub torpedoes, 1786 lbs
Hornet (CV-8), 3 torpedoes and 5 bombs, 5530 lbs
This assumes a bomb hit is 551 lbs (usual size for the D3A), a torp hit is 925 lbs (assuming largest-warhead type 91 for B5N), and a sub torp hit is 893 lbs (assuming type 95 torpedo).
Average lbs taken to sink is thus 2843 lbs.
Carriers that weren't sunk, where ";" is used to denote separate attacks, in between which there is perhaps some or total repair.
Saratoga (CV-3), 6 bombs
Enterprise (CV-6), 3 bombs; 2 bombs; kamikaze
Essex (CV-9), kamikaze
Yorktown (CV-10), bomb
Intrepid (CV-11), torpedo; kamikaze; kamikaze
Franklin (CV-13), Kamikaze; bomb; kamikaze
-
I recently read Ship of Ghosts: The Story of the USS Houston, FDR's Legendary Lost Cruiser, and the Epic Saga of Her Survivors, by Hornfischer. It talks in some detail about the Houston avoiding level bombing attacks by IJAF bombers. The captain was apparently very good at it, and what he'd do, in addition to erratic maneuvers in general, is wait for the bombers to drop and then go into a hard evasive. He would watch the bombers with binoculars to see the bombs start to drop. He could also speed up and slow down, and turn quite sharply by full rudder and by going into full reverse on the inside screws.
If people were able to do this in AH, we'd have a lot more success avoiding level bombs.
However, even with just turning the CV's only when the bombers are very close (i.e., starting the turn when they are dropping as opposed to being in a steady, predictable turn as they approach), I think we'd see it being drastically harder to hit a ship with level bombers.
Add a little wind into the game, and we'd have an environment that makes it much harder to hit CV's with level bombing.
Of course, half the time, our CV's are unmanned and unmaneuvering when bombers come in. This isn't the fault of bombers being too powerful, though.
-
(http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3909810/2007/3/25/whine.jpg)
-
Theoretically, what would happen if several (2~3) 1000lbs general purpose bombs fell at close proximity of a CV in real life? Would the impact underwater be enough to cause hull breach?
-
Would bombs even blow up,when/after entering the water?
-
Weren't they mechanically fused?
Come to think of it, how did they fuse anti-shipping bombs anyway? Set to blow up at certain altitudes? Or blow up upon impact?
-
Originally posted by frosty
Bruv, I agree that if the CV is not capped, it's gonna get hit and deservedly so.
Who is going to fly around in a p51 all day waiting for a B24 run that will never happen?
-
Originally posted by spikes
Who is going to fly around in a p51 all day waiting for a B24 run that will never happen?
So they should nerf our rides because of this? Some reasoning process there. By that logic, you could find a reason to nerf just about any ride in the game.
As a side note. A squadie and I sat in PT boats near a CV a while back and effortlessly picked off bombers attacking the CV . I think we shot down something like 8-10 formations untill they gave up. The CV was minimally dammaged.
-
Originally posted by E25280
but what they probably saw was the destroyers attempting to form a smoke screen.
Hmmm player manned smoke screen from destroyers?
operated from the destroyer gguns............
Effect on FR would probably be the same as smoking buildings.........
-
Yep, bombs hitting next to a ship in the water would explode and would at times buckle the hull enough to allow water in.
In pictures and video from WWII bombing attacks, you can often see bombs missing and causing large columns of water upon exploding next to the ship in the water.
In AH, bombs explode when hitting the water and have a damage radius, like on land, so it approximates the effect, I would think.
-
Task groups need more flak power against bombers.
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
CVs are kind of silly imho...what major air to air battle ever occurred off a cv?
[/B]
Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomans, Santa Cruz Is, Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf
and what CV ever captured a land target???
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa
-
Originally posted by Grits
Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomans, Santa Cruz Is, Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa [/B]
thank you
-
Decisive conflicts are more favored by lots of potential power than little.
E.g. putting everyone in biplanes will scale down the effective returns of effort put into improving one's dogfighting.
No nerfing will help the MA be (more) fun.. more power to the weaker part is the better balancing solution.
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
CVs are kind of silly imho...what major air to air battle ever occurred off a cv?
Originally posted by Grits
Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomans, Santa Cruz Is, Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa [/B]
Now now Grits. Everybody knows that those were sea battles and there weren't any planes involved. :lol
-
Originally posted by Brooke
I just looked up what the US WWII carriers took to sink. Here's what I found.
US Aircraft-carrier Hardness
Source: Wikipedia
Ship sunk, damage taken, lbs explosive
Yorktown (CV-5), 1 bomb, 551 lbs
I can't speak to the others off the top of my head, but this one is simply ridiculously wrong.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I can't speak to the others off the top of my head, but this one is simply ridiculously wrong.
I found this.
http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/War_Damage/25.pdf
According to it, there were 3 bomb hits and 4 torpedos total.
-
Originally posted by Tango
I found this.
http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/War_Damage/25.pdf
According to it, there were 3 bomb hits and 4 torpedos total.
Great find, Tango. And yet it only hints at the fact that the Yorktown entered the Midway battle still damaged from the Coral Sea engagement.
"The Commanding officer, in reference (a), estimated the bomb that hit No. 1 elevator to be a delayed-action projectile type bomb, weighing about 800 lbs. and measuring approximately 12 inches in diameter. This description does not fit any of the currently available data on Japanese bombs. The distance of travel and the extent of damage corresponds with that observed on this ship in the Coral Sea battle of May 8, 1942. The bomb performance also corresponds closely to that of the bombs which struck CALIFORNIA and CURTISS. Damange in the above three cases was concluded to have been caused by a 250 Kg. (550 lbs.) "semi-armor piercing" bomb with delayed action fuses of the type recovered at Schofield Barracks after the raid of Dec. 7, 1941." (Bold emphasis mine).
-
who exactly is it that counts, weighs and then records the bombs that sink thier ship?
-
Flipper. Dolphins are mad smart.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
who exactly is it that counts, weighs and then records the bombs that sink thier ship?
They same guys that try to figure out ways to defend a ship from these attacks?
-
Ya I understand bombs did in fact start fires and such and vessels sank from being bombed. But usually it was the result of either a fire that gutted the ship, forced abandonment, blew ammo stores, or was scuttled.
I just wish the torpedo meant more in the game.
-
Yeah! How dare anyone attack a field without a clear cut exit strategy! :D
-
That report preety much shows that it was the last 2 torpedos that killed the Yorktown.
It would be nice to see more torpedo runs.
-
The only way we will see more torpedo runs is if they turn off the proximity fuses in the 5" batteries. Torp runs have no chance of success if they are detected and there is a 5" that can be brought to bear, IMO.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I can't speak to the others off the top of my head, but this one is simply ridiculously wrong.
Yep, that is completely wrong. I will fix it. Thanks for spotting that.
-
Here is the updated data, correcting the data for Yorktown.
US Aircraft-carrier Hardness
Source: Wikipedia
Ship sunk, damage taken, lbs explosive
Lexington (CV-2), 2 torpedoes and 3 bombs, 3503 lbs
Yorktown (CV-5), 2 torpedoes and 3 bombs, 3503 lbs
Wasp (CV-7), 2 sub torpedoes, 1786 lbs
Hornet (CV-8), 3 torpedoes and 5 bombs, 5530 lbs
This assumes a bomb hit is 551 lbs (usual for D3A), a torp hit is 925 lbs (assuming largest-warhead type 91 for B5N), and a sub torp hit is 893 lbs (type 95).
Average lbs taken to sink is thus 3580 lbs.
Carriers that weren't sunk, where ";" is used to denote separate attacks, in between which there is perhaps some or even a lot of repair.
Saratoga (CV-3), 6 bombs
Enterprise (CV-6), 3 bombs; 2 bombs; kamikaze
Essex (CV-9), kamikaze
Yorktown (CV-10), bomb
Intrepid (CV-11), torpedo; kamikaze; kamikaze
Franklin (CV-13), Kamikaze; bomb; kamikaze
-
Originally posted by E25280
The only way we will see more torpedo runs is if they turn off the proximity fuses in the 5" batteries. Torp runs have no chance of success if they are detected and there is a 5" that can be brought to bear, IMO.
I think this may be true. Can't think of any successful airborne torpedo attacks on US ships after prox fuses were introduced.
- oldman (not to mention that our carrier task forces were just a bit heavier in escorts and CAP by then)
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Here is the updated data, correcting the data for Yorktown.
US Aircraft-carrier Hardness
Source: Wikipedia
Ship sunk, damage taken, lbs explosive
Lexington (CV-2), 2 torpedoes and 3 bombs, 3503 lbs
Yorktown (CV-5), 2 torpedoes and 3 bombs, 3503 lbs
Wasp (CV-7), 2 sub torpedoes, 1786 lbs
Hornet (CV-8), 3 torpedoes and 5 bombs, 5530 lbs
This assumes a bomb hit is 551 lbs (usual for D3A), a torp hit is 925 lbs (assuming largest-warhead type 91 for B5N), and a sub torp hit is 893 lbs (type 95).
Yorktown was hit by 3 bombs, 2 torpedoes and ultimately sunk by a Japanese Submarine while under tow.
Hornet was hit by 2 suicide crashes, 7 bombs and 3 torpedoes dropped by Japanese aircraft and was abandoned. To prevent capture, U.S. destroyers fired 9 torpedoes at it and over 300 5 in. shells. She was finally sunk by 4 long-lance torpedoes fired from Japanese destroyers the next day.
As an aside, U.S. torpedoes were notoriously unreliable at this time and, I read somewhere, there was a certain amount of disgust with the ability on the destroyer's gunner's performance after this incident.
Wasp was sunk by 3 torpedoes fired from a Sub.
The Wasp and Lexington actually were lost due to gas-fume explosions deep within the ships.
Also, U.S. Carrier doctrine did not call for an armored flight deck. There was worry about it making them to top heavy and unstable as well as making them easier to repair if damaged. I believe the main hanger deck was armored.
Don't use Wikipedia as a source.
wrngway
-
Wind, sure. Bomb accuracy changes, okay. High alt bombing changes yeah yeah yeah.
Still doesn't stop someone from dive bombing B-26s.
And whoever said you need 5k-10k for the bombs to arm is wrong.
I see CVs dying to buffs dive bombing them everytime I fly a marine map.
-
In my opinion this is a rehash of level bombers being able to dive and the unrealistic ability of our Lazar norden bomb site. Neither of which HTC is concerned with remodeling.
The only capital ship level bombed by heavy bombers was anchored. Not suggesting b25's / 26's, Beaufighters and Sunderlands etc, didn't do their fair share of depth charging and bombing of small ships and subs.
The problem, if that's the right word, is that in order to launch LVT's our fleets have to be within 8.8 miles (1 key pad) of the map room. Thus unduly warranting a CV to be in the front line with a main battle fleets beach head attack. This as we all all know never happened. CV's were kept well back.
So here's a suggestions (prolly kiss of death due to some copy write law, public domain blah blah) bearing in mind level bombers will not be re-modeled. How about enabling LVT's to spawn only in a area of 17.6 to within 8.8 miles of shore (2nd key pads distance). None spawn of LVT's any closer than 8.8 miles (1 key pad) because we don't want "dry spawning" at the map room do we.:D
At this distance the 8 Inch guns are still VERY effective if used :rolleyes:. Either side could obtain more alt if desired. Better chance of CV cap being implemented :lol They could even add more shore batteries and longer or more PT spawns to keep the fleet right out on the edge.
Just pissing in the wind.
Oh P.S Explosive pressure wave under water is more effective than in air.
-
I think one problem is that bomber flights really spring up on you in this game. What is radar range? 12miles? Thats not nearly enough time to scramble some interceptors to stop buffs at 10k plus.
I dont propose we extend radar range, and i dont know how we can get around it, but seems to be a contributing factor.
What kind of radar range did ships have in real life?
-
Originally posted by LYNX
The problem, if that's the right word, is that in order to launch LVT's our fleets have to be within 8.8 miles (1 key pad) of the map room. Thus unduly warranting a CV to be in the front line with a main battle fleets beach head attack. This as we all all know never happened. CV's were kept well back.
No re modelling of spawn distances needs be done to facilitate something like this.
This can be solved at terrain level
Each port on every terrain can be split into two ports side by side.
One port gets a std CV fleet which has amphibious vehicles disabled. It could spawn well away from the port.
The second port gets a battle ship fleet with no CV (battle ship becomes shp001) but with amphibious vehicles enabled.
This is 20 minutes work on each terrain we use.
( the hanger object placings can be put on the open rear deck of the battleship for the "invasion" fleets or {as they are for amphibs and PT boats} they can ve shown on the sea)
-
ok,i have to ask why is it the buffs how many ever torp at 200mph at 200 feet into train guns and puffy ack not many,pts spawn into them to you know make um harder thats what you want,ack is so tuff now in bases so the treetop runs are over anyway unless you want suicide are cvs easy sure but so is ords troops towns etc,i just dont think its the buffs as everyone wants to complain
easy to blame the buff guy,i challenge anyone or all to let me know were the cv is ill attack it how you want you defend as you see fit 5then lets see how easy it is the key here is DEFEND let me know when and were >S><
-
Originally posted by Tango
The easy fix would be to not bring the CVs next to the enemy AF. Thats what gets them killed faster than anything else.
Simple truth, pure and simple.
But people still do it.
And btw are you Tango from WWIIOL? If so,
-
Okay guys, even though it's been pointed out clearly already, how will you capture fields with a CV group? Spend 2 or 3 hours paddling along in your LVTs?
-
some folks want "random error" introduced into bombing.
ok how 'bout some "random error" in fighter guns as well?
i don't think adding frustration into the game due to "random error"
is the way to go.
lancs 24s and 17s not being able to drop except from in f6?
i absolutely agree.
bring back the calibration method where you had to hold your crosshairs steady
to calibrate speed?
i absolutely agree bring it back.
crying about CVs being sunk by a box of buffs?
first off it respawns in 12 minutes.
it is the same for all countries.
don't hand me this bunk about CVs can't be defended. I have been shredded
many times before getting to CV by a proper cap. also there are some CV drivers who are very good at turning the boat at just the right time to avoid the bombs.
it's a game folks, and a very entertaining one at that. now get back in your rides and have some fun dammit.
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
And btw are you Tango from WWIIOL? If so,
Damn, I knew I should have changed my name. :)
S!
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay guys, even though it's been pointed out clearly already, how will you capture fields with a CV group? Spend 2 or 3 hours paddling along in your LVTs?
Have them spawn in just like the tanks do. A spawn point halfway between the fleet and the base. The spawn point only becomes ative when the fleet is in range of it.
-
Ha, an entertaining read on how its no fair bombers can drop bombs.
Someone suggested adding wind so its harder for them to strike precisely.
Oh please, do that. I cant WAIT to read all the threads on how someone couldnt land all their kills because of the crosswind landing...so they augered in 4 inches from the runway! And that's not fair! :)
I agree the dive bombing buffs stink. They make the folks who actually endeavor to climb to alt and use the bombsight look bad. But I really think any effort you make to nerf the suiciders unfairly penalizes those who play per the rules.
If you dont want bombers blasting your CV, you either CAP the region or pork the nearby bases of ord.
-
I dont fly buffs but I do respect the guys who do it right. The guys who do it right wont be effected if they can only drop from F6 view or use the old harder calibration method, but the suicide divebombers will.
Having said that, the only capitol ship sunk by level bombers was at anchor as has already been stated, and on top of that it took numerous raids before the job was done. Level buffs sinking a capitol ship that is under way should be nearly impossible as it was in real life. True divebombers like the SBD, Ju87 and Val should get the special AP anti-ship bombs just as they did in real life and GP bombs regular buffs carry should be made less effective vs ships. Torpedoes should be made more effective as they really were.
Also as has been stated, CV's should not be forced to beach themselves to capture a base as they have to now.
-
What about a jeep entering inside a tiger and killing the crew? Off topic I know but that's what things are.
-
Originally posted by brucerer
I think one problem is that bomber flights really spring up on you in this game. What is radar range? 12miles? Thats not nearly enough time to scramble some interceptors to stop buffs at 10k plus.
I dont propose we extend radar range, and i dont know how we can get around it, but seems to be a contributing factor.
What kind of radar range did ships have in real life?
American CV groups operating near Okinawa stationed destroyer pickets so that they had 50 mile radar coverage. This gave them some time to react against kamikaze raids against the CVs, but it left the picket DDs' tails hanging out quite a bit.
There are basically 2 types of radars - fire control and search. Fire control (as you would expect) is for radar direction of the guns, and your search radar is to locate inbound contacts further out.
The Mk.12 fire control (5" gun) radars were good out to about 45,000 yards and coupled with a height finder made life real interesting for anyone flying into an American CV group. There were other models on DDs that were good to about half that distance.
The CV mounted big search radars (the late war ones) were capable of picking up aircraft as far away as 150 miles, but the problem is line of sight (enemy aircraft are below the scanning beam due to the curvature of the earth). The solution to that was to send out the pickets - the DD search radars were typically good for 12-20 miles range and by stationing them far out you increase radar coverage.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by Grits
I dont fly buffs but I do respect the guys who do it right. The guys who do it right wont be effected if they can only drop from F6 view or use the old harder calibration method, but the suicide divebombers will.
yeah. i like the old 'harder' calibration method better than the auto calibration, imo its more reliable. i can hold the reticle steady for 10-15s and get a spot on accurate calibration every time. but with the auto calibrate i seem to hold the button for 10-15s and release and get a speed of 256 when im doing 261... taht doesnt happen with the old method.
-
Drop from F6 only when in formation or if a "bomber" category is chosen.
When "attack" is chosen formations and F6 dissabled pilot must drop.
Bomb drift v alt during drop. (Random drift upto 10ft per 1000ft)
Drones drop late. (with variable delay between 0.5 to 1 sec)
Minimum salvo delay set to 0.1
BTW the more complex bombsight is still there, it is simply an arena setting to invoke the "old"bombsite. HTC could run a trial at any time in one of the arenas.
-
Originally posted by Tango
They same guys that try to figure out ways to defend a ship from these attacks?
i dont think my intended humour quite came off there sorry.
-
one word fix for torpedeo usuage SUBMARINES:D
-
Didn't Ships require a certain type of bomb, different from what was used on other targets?
This could make the solution of perking bombs a bit more adaptative.
-
OK, so I think we've established that a few bombs COULD indeed sink a CV in real life. So, since real life is what matters, I think we can all agree that 1 pilot flying 3 planes and the laser-accurate bombs must go.
No?
Well then, harden the CVs. Or else, kill the bomb accuracy.
Around we go... :aok
Let's either be consistently focused on realism, or consistently focused on balance. The bufftards shouldn't have their cake and eat it, too.
*stirring the pot*
-
Originally posted by quintv
Sort of off topic but I think TBMs and B5Ns and other single engine torpedo bombers should be formation capable.
x2
-
Originally posted by moot
Didn't Ships require a certain type of bomb, different from what was used on other targets?
This could make the solution of perking bombs a bit more adaptative.
Yes. All divebombers like the SBD, Ju87 and Val had special armor piercing bombs specifically for use against ships. Regular bombs would do a lot of damage topside especially on small ships like destroyers but to pierce the armor of a cruiser or BB you needed an AP bomb just like AP ammo for ships guns. Giving the dive bombers, and ONLY the dive bombers, the AP anti-ship bombs would stop suicide level buff formations and give the true dive bombers a purpose.
-
Thanks Grits. With any luck someone at HTC reads this and gets a great idea..
-
Originally posted by AWwrgwy
Don't use Wikipedia as a source.
wrngway
Please post sources -- I'd be interested to add or correct info.