Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on October 16, 2009, 09:07:35 AM
-
I've posted this a couple times in discussions on the General forum, but thought I'd post it here as well (and yes, I know it's been brought up HERE before, too):
The way TGs are handled need to be addressed. Right now, you have people running boats so close to shore they can vulch the field with the CV ack. Besides the ridiculous gaminess of the tactic (I mean seriously, it is NOT fun taking off from your own base and running right into puffy ack) this was something that WAS NOT DONE.
The argument I get is that "Well the 8" guns only have so much range." Yeah. And the purpose of a carrier's escorts was NOT to go in and bombard the target. The escorts were there to keep between the CV and enemy surface ships, and to put up a blanket of AAA over the task group. So why should our boats be any different?
I propose the following:
1. CV task groups should not be allowed within 25 miles of a base. Period. CVs did NOT get that close to a target, and for good reason. They're vulnerable and highly valuable. CVs should be able to launch aircraft only. Have options to change the fleet formation to screen the CV from other surface ships.
2. Add a specialized bombardment group, centered around either a CA as we have now, or a BB. This can close within 15 miles of the base. It does not carry any landing craft or vehicles.
3. Add a specialized landing group, centered around a LST with a couple DDs or DEs for escort. Can close within 8 miles of the base (LVT spawn distance). Can launch LVTs only.
Have each port contribute all three task group types.
-
Nice idea but I think 25 miles from an enemy base is a bit extreme. I'd make it a couple of miles beyond the range of the puffy ack. Puffy ack range is what, 6 miles? Anyone know? This lets defending fighters cap their base without constant puffy ack annoyance.
Extend the LVT range for the fleets by a mile or two if necessary and you won't need special fleets. Such fleets would require terrain redesigns, new ports etc.
-
I like this idea, too. But in addition, make more fleet ack, but make it possible for SBDs to sink a capital ship with a well placed 500lber, and/or render CVs unable to launch aircraft when the flight deck has holes in it.
Granted that ack was wicked! But also it should be granted that dive bombers sunk CVs with less than 8,000 pounds of ordnance and certainly stopped flight operations when holes were punctured in the flight deck, or the ship was listing. Fire was, and is, a very dangerous
foe at sea. If a CV is set on fire flight operations should be interrupted; however, emphasis on the CV should be getting remaining aircraft into the air whilst fighting fires. Say, perhaps after 5 minutes of being on fire, all flight operations cease to be available.
A CV is a floating airfield and should have limitations after damage the same as, or worse than, an airfield on land.
Just some thoughts....
-
yea and next youll get folks asking to bomb runways at airfields and disableing those as well. :aok
-
I like this idea, too. But in addition, make more fleet ack, but make it possible for SBDs to sink a capital ship with a well placed 500lber, and/or render CVs unable to launch aircraft when the flight deck has holes in it.
Granted that ack was wicked! But also it should be granted that dive bombers sunk CVs with less than 8,000 pounds of ordnance and certainly stopped flight operations when holes were punctured in the flight deck, or the ship was listing. Fire was, and is, a very dangerous
foe at sea. If a CV is set on fire flight operations should be interrupted; however, emphasis on the CV should be getting remaining aircraft into the air whilst fighting fires. Say, perhaps after 5 minutes of being on fire, all flight operations cease to be available.
A CV is a floating airfield and should have limitations after damage the same as, or worse than, an airfield on land.
Just some thoughts....
I'd say increased AAA would be a legitimate tradeoff for increased bomb lethality against the carriers or the ability to disable flight capability. Maybe not a single 500lber being able to knock out launch, tho (make it equivalent of a hanger, ~2700lbs?).
However first they need to fix the puffy ack AI. It's silly to watch it focus on a fighter while B-24s are rolling overhead. And it's also just as ridiculous how the stuff is laser-guided against a fast-moving fighter, but can't hit a BUFF formation with the broad side of a Rosie O'Donnell's oscar. Rather than targeted puffy it should just blanket the zone around the carrier, which is more or less how it worked HISTORICALLY. Save targeted ack for the auto and manned guns.
-
See "cv puffy ack" in aircraft and vehicles.
+1
-
I like the premise of all three ideas. :aok +3
-
I say they should first make the Carriers wider. The Essex Class was what 50ft or 60ft wide? idk but all i know is that one plane never took up a quarter of the deck space. also the Carriers were longer to about 400 to 600ft.
-
bigger carrier, easier target for bombs. as it is no way u can miss a cv at 5.5k alt ( never fly b26's higher than that). I say just keep them about 2 or 3 miles away from the shores, or allow us to set up some mines :devil.
semp