Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: FiLtH on June 07, 2007, 10:58:54 AM
-
Its so easy to kill CVs with 1 flight of bombers. Id like to see bombs strip the ships of radar,and guns, but require torpedos to sink them. It would make them last longer.
-
Nah. Also many ships were sunk with bombs. As a matter of fact, the airplane in general dropped several bombs onto a ship in WW1 to prove the effectiveness, for the army/navy. THe 2 ships that were hit, I do believe 1 was sunk on the spot. The other had so much damage that it was scutteled. Hence, airforce. Now I dont remember how many it took, but it was a reletively low number Im gonna say under 20 to do this. I really dont feel like loooking for the link and all that right now, I just remember it from along time ago.
Cheers
-
Single Lanc formation can carry 40000lb, how strong CV you want? 50000lb? 100000lb? Any increasing of CV hardness will penalize dive bombing (with real dive bombers, not heavies) and torpedo bombing which are historical tactics and will have very little effect (if any) on level bombing or dive bombing with heavies which are most unrealictic tactics.
Effect of near miss in water is a problem, not CV hardness.
-
Battle of Midway.
Beginning at 10:22, Enterprise’s aircraft attacked Kaga, while to the south, Yorktown’s aircraft attacked carrier Sôryû, with Akagi being struck by several of Enterprise's bombers four minutes later. Simultaneously, VT-3 was targeting Hiryû, although the American torpedo aircraft again scored no hits. The dive-bombers, however, had better fortune. Within six minutes, the SBDs made their attack runs and left all three of their targets heavily ablaze. Akagi was hit by just one bomb, which was sufficient; it penetrated to the upper hangar deck and exploded among the armed and fueled aircraft there. One extremely near miss also slanted in and exploded underwater, bending the flight deck upward with the resulting geyser and causing crucial rudder damage.[45] Sôryû took three bomb hits in the hangar decks; Kaga took at least four and likely more. All three carriers were out of action, and would eventually be abandoned and scuttled.[46]
When American scout aircraft subsequently located Hiryû later in the afternoon, Enterprise and Yorktown launched a final strike of dive bombers against the last Japanese carrier that left her ablaze, despite being defended by a strong defensive CAP of over a dozen Zero fighters. Rear Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi chose to go down with his ship.
4 CV's taken out by SBD's. Granted the CV's in the game are modelled on the US Essex class which did have an armored flight deck, but a carrier is still a "soft" target in all respects due to the amount of ammunition, fuel, and other combustibes stored onboard.
-
please name any american CVs that were sunken by level bombers
-
Probably all of them, had they plowed on using a straight arrow-based linear course during an attack.
Oh, wait, that never happened!
(*grumble*stupid*mumble*waypoint*grumble*system*)
-
CV hardness is not the problem.
How players use the CV's in the game is.
The only game addition I could see would be to add radar to the cruiser, and add picket destroyers with radar further out from the task group, or separate the TG radar from the field and base radar in the game settings, and give it longer range (closer to what radar actually would have been over open water). Maybe add a second cruiser. If we were on big maps, I'd say add a second cruiser and second carrier.
The rest of it comes to the players: CV's are run right up on active enemy shore batteries and fields with ord still up. No one minds the helm when a CV is in combat to make course changes when bombers inbound. No High, Mid, or Low CAP kept over a CV during combat operations..... everyone running to vulch. In addition to players whining to straighten the CV out so they can take off or land, I now hear GUNNERS whining to stay straight so they can shoot main guns and puffy ack better.... never mind the inbound buffs.
CV's are fine, you can just never get players to operate them well in the game. To most, they are just convenient spawns to go vulching and furballing from. As long as CV's are not defended, they will be easy targets.
-
the CV should not be brought right up to the beach. it is by far one the gamiest and annoying aspects of the game. the CV should not be able to approach any closer than 3/4 of a sector from any coastal base. the idea of a separate task force that could approach closer and drop off amphibious elements is good. that landing force should a CRUDESGRU the CV should have a couple of cruisers as well as a BB with 16" (Iowa Class) naval rifles. both the cruisers and the BBs should be able to launch and recover scout bombers. there should be mannable guns on all naval elements and when not manned they should fire automatically. that is to say that if there are enough players willing to man ack chairs they should be able to man every gun on the fleet.
and lastly I should be able to win the lotto every saturday and wednesday for the rest of my life.
:D
-
Add more ships to the task force, allow only "deep water" courses (X miles from land) 2 or 3 CVs per task force, 4 cruisers and a dozen DDs should fix it.
-
here is a solution. Since CVs where not close in bombardment ships but where standoff airbase platforms. add a Battleship to the fleet (Iowa,Arizona, Yamatto, HMS Hood, or Bizmark class). add more picket destroyers to counter the low level suicide strafffer planes(rediculous fighters and 110s straff killing CVs and Cruisers).
now add limited(2 to 4 per 30 mins and only can spawn another if others are ded) spawnable Cruisers tht can leave the fleet like PTs to go into close shore bombardment. even makem cost perks, it dies u lose the perks, u return to with fleet, and exit, u keep perks. ? what perks would you use? how about either bomber, or make a new cat Ship perks. you gain perks in that cat by sinking enemy ships with bomber/attack planes or ship guns.
but we need to be able to keep the CV offshore farther out and be able
to send in hvy shore bombardment ships.
-
Originally posted by whels
what perks would you use?
I was thinking, a manable 5" at each base, you start a new catagory. It costs perks. You gain perks by shooting planes down in it. and if you get killed you lose them. Make it easier to kill....1K bomb or something.
-
If you are going to go the perk route -- turn gunning into a true category. Field guns, ships guns, whatever -- shoot things down, earn perks for your "spawnable ships."
You could also add that as a ranking category and use it and only it as the standard for taking over task groups.
-
I think CVs are too small in this game, they are kind of escort carriers, but they dont escort anything(also escort carriers had no defensive armor).
But we could use some larger carriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_class_carrier
-
CV battles are fun from either side. They degrade into vulches when the gunners on the CA kill the fighter hangers and threaten a capture.
Harden the CV and increase the downtime for the CA. That will keep the battle rolling until one side or the other finally decides to end it as a group instead of one guy stopping it.
I have noticed better skippers in the MA lately and that the CVs last longer.
-
Iowa class BB....
Ship perks....
Driving your own Cruiser, and employing gunners...
Directly driving Cvs....
Brilliant....
Lets just turn this game into BattleStations: Midway +ACM!
Or we could focus on improving the number of planes, and reducing the gaps in the planeset.
-
storch, the problem with a second task group for amphibious operations is either it is not sent in close proximity to the carrier task force, and thus is a very easy kill with no air cover, or you tie it into the CV task group --- sort of maneuvering around the periphery, closest to shore --- but then it's movements are predictable as compared to the CV movement, and possibly an easy kill.... and then there is the catch up speed of such a landing force group when compared to the CV's movement speeds.
BB's with 16 inch guns and their air defense seem like overkill.
And we're still left with players misusing TG's and getting them killed.
PanzerIV, IFAIK, the carrier in the game now is already modeled after the Essex class carriers. I'm not positive about the scale.
-
IQ test before gaining control of a TG might help. Tried to warn a guy last night and he wouldn't have any thing to say but don't move it so he and 2 others could attack a large field, in shore battery range. Another guy and i flew medium and high cap but that didn't matter. jet sking buffs hit it 5 mins later.
-
I think level bombers would have a much tougher time if they could be detected and intercepted at a more realistic distance. The 12 mile radar coverage on a CV is just too small to give the defense time to up and intercept incoming buffs when the CV starts flashing. CVs (and I would argue bases too) need larger radar circles - 25 miles would be a good start, and it would encourage the use of torpedo planes coming in under the radar to make attacks.
If the buffs come in at 5K, which a lot do, even turning the CV isn't enough to prevent getting hit. If the buffs had to come in at a more realistic altitude because they are getting intercepted, a decent CV driver can usually do some zig-zags and turns that can make the bombs miss, assuming there is someone at the helm. If there isn't, why not have an AUTOEVADE that will do some zig-zags or something along the base course?
Also - puffy ack and 5" auto-guns should automatically target buffs first as a matter of course. Having all the ack in the fleet follow one diving fighter or blasting at a parachute is silly.
I don't think it would be a bad idea in the interim to make all the CV groups the type with the 2nd cruiser so that you have additional ack support. Frankly, in my mind you could double the CV group up (2 CVs, 4 CAs, 8 DDs) and really improve things, but I gather from our other threads on this subject that it causes a frame rate hit that some folks just cant handle.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
What about changing the ord properties?
Right now we have bombs and torpedo's... with torpedo's doing I believe twice the poundage in damage as a similar bomb. How about level bombers have HE/general purpose bombs which work fine for bases, factories, etc. but not so well against hardened/armored targets like warships. While dedicated ship killers like the SBD and other plaens get armor piercing bombs. Set a different multiplier for each type of weapon. Make it so it takes more bombs from a level bomber than a divebomber/ship killer.
At any rate it's just a thought.
-
Raise the 5" guns up some on the cruiser. If your heading straight at a target you can't get the gun down because you shoot the back of the 8" guns. Nice explosions in your face though... :lol
-
I still say that since ports are such an easy capture that a single pilot should not be able to put a CV group out of commission like they can now. YES I know in real life that if a formation of lancs bombed a CV, it would surely sink. This is a GAME, hence there should be 2 or 3 CVs, 4 cruisers, 12 destroyers. If you had 3 cvs the take-off points would work like the runway system and could be labeled "Enterprise" "Hornet" "Yorktown" ETC. ETC. This means a greater team effort will have to be made to shut it down just like a regular airfield. Even with these improvements it is a soft target.
The CV should also require "deep water" areas no closer than say...5 miles?... no parking the group 1K offshore. The purpose of this isn't to make it a "Battle of Midway" game as someone suggested earlier but to simply prevent 1 player from shutting it down with 1 run. To balance this out and make wise use of the carrier group more important, after a carrier group is sunk, increase the time it is out of action to 30 minutes or even an hour. I would like to see the fleet be a more important component of AIR COMBAT in the game. Greater Striking power for the fleet, and a greater importance to coordinate attacks on a battle group... all are forms of air combat and will encourage a fight in the air to accomplish this goal.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
YES I know in real life that if a formation of lancs bombed a CV, it would surely sink.
First of all, they wouldnt hit it. In battle for the Midway dozen B-17s tried to sink transports and CVs and didnt score single hit. Level bombers was absolutely useless agains ships in RL, no matter how much bombs they can carry.
-
Maybe some AI code that takes control of the CV group when a bomber comes within range. It would do evasive maneuvers while that bomber is in range but resume course when it either drops its bombs or leaves the area.
Of course all the guys trying to take off would probably whine, but...
-
Originally posted by Oleg
First of all, they wouldnt hit it. In battle for the Midway dozen B-17s tried to sink transports and CVs and didnt score single hit. Level bombers was absolutely useless agains ships in RL, no matter how much bombs they can carry.
Agreed, I meant IF they hit it.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
The CV should also require "deep water" areas no closer than say...5 miles?... no parking the group 1K offshore.
LVTs need to be able to spawn onshore, and the 8" guns on the cruisers and shore batteries need to be able to engage each other. 5 Miles (8.8K) doesn't sound bad for the guns - but what is the LVT to off-shore spawn range?
-
Originally posted by Oleg
First of all, they wouldnt hit it. In battle for the Midway dozen B-17s tried to sink transports and CVs and didnt score single hit. Level bombers was absolutely useless agains ships in RL, no matter how much bombs they can carry.
The B17s that attacked the Japanese at Midway came in at 20,000ft. At that altitude, an evading ship is almost impossible to hit with an unguided bomb.
If you figure the terminal velocity of a bomb at 300mph (an estimate), it takes over 45 seconds for the bomb dropped to hit the target from 20,000 ft. During that time, an evading ship moving at 30 knots has moved 3/8 of a MILE away. Given that your bomb sight was targeting a point on the water out in front of the ships and not on a stationary target, any serious turn by the ship causes a clean miss. This doesn't even take into account the inaccuracies caused by wind from 20,000 ft, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that level bombers were not very effective against ships not tied up to a dock someplace.
The problem we have in AH is that the bombers come in a 5K, have a 11-12 sec bomb drop time, and know exactly how far the CV is going to travel in that time. Even if there is evasion, laying a pattern across the bow will score plenty of hits, and I've sunk plenty of CVs in this manner. At 10K, its tougher, but still quite possible if the CV is not actively evading - if the CV is violently maneuvering it is dicey at best. At 15K, I've watched half my squad miss a violently maneuvering CV. The reason we have the water skiing buff problem is because that is the tactic that works best - changing ack targeting priority to level buffs (especially low ones) and extending the radar range so that the cap can get interceptions as the low buffs come in would help change that.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
LVTs need to be able to spawn onshore, and the 8" guns on the cruisers and shore batteries need to be able to engage each other. 5 Miles (8.8K) doesn't sound bad for the guns - but what is the LVT to off-shore spawn range?
Not sure but this too seems like just a setting that could simply be adjusted for gameplay. Meaning that If the distance is currently 3 miles, extend it out to 5 or even a little more... I don't think it could hurt at all. I dont think it would require much effort to make it happen.
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
The B17s that attacked the Japanese at Midway came in at 20,000ft. At that altitude, an evading ship is almost impossible to hit with an unguided bomb.
According to Sherman F. ("The American Aircraft Carriers in the Pacific Wars") they attacked transports from 8k, 10k and 12k feet, no hits achieved. CV groop was attacked from 20k - 23k later, no hits either.
-
wow I forgot about this post. I know a fully loaded heavy bomber could probably wax a CV in real life, but they never hit that good from altitude. If nothing else the arena should have winds aloft to make the bombing harder. Something. Anything.
I do like Whels idea of having a separate bombardment group with a CA or two for getting in close to bombard and invade. Having the CV in that close isnt a good idea.
Having winds aloft would make bombing a fleet from 10k higher really hard to do, and would make it more realistic. This would make the need for Vals and SBDs, and since they are used, maybe even some TBMs w/ torps thrown in as well.
As far as bombing from 20k in post above...it is possible to hit. Hit and sink. At 20k lead the CV by 2.5 carrier deck lengths. it its turning, gauge your lead by the wake of the CV. If its turning left, lead the CV 2.5 lengths and at a curve that matches the wake. Its just too easy as it is now.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Having winds aloft would make bombing a fleet from 10k higher really hard to do, and would make it more realistic. This would make the need for Vals and SBDs, and since they are used, maybe even some TBMs w/ torps thrown in as well.
I've been using stukas lately, gotten lots of successes
I'd like to see them being used more.
-
Maybe just up the wind in the game to help change the flight of the eggs falling from the heavens?
-
unfortunately i think that would make divebombing lancs worse... I personally wouldnt mind a return to having to calibrate alt, wind and speed like we used to.