Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vinkman on November 15, 2011, 10:02:37 AM
-
Carrier groups in general stink and are bad for game play. I try to avoid them.
I will explain why I think they stink, then how to fix them. :salute
1) The ballance of artillary fire power vs land bases is complete ridiculous.
Shore batteries can't articulate enough to even hit the cv when it's right off shore in many cases.
Shore batteries only have one 8" very slow firing gun can that can hit a CV group at a time.
The CV group has 1 bazzillion 5" rapid fire artillary guns on it, that go from AAA to HE with the flick of a switch
The CV group has 9X the 8" firepower of a land base.
The 8" tripples are auto-leveled, and have computer controlled auto-aiming so they can hit the same spot repeatedly while steaming along at flank speed.
2) The ballance of AAA fire is completely ridiculous
The AAA from a CV group can cap an enemy field
The AAA from a field does nothing to the CV group
Hyper-Telescopic bore sites, radar proximity fuses, and rapid fire capability make the 5" guns too lethal against fighters at all ranges.
The land bases have no mannable 5" Artillary
The land bases have no Computer controlled Puffy.
4) The power of the few vs the many.
A CV group with two or three people is an overwhelming force
It takes a hoarde to successfully defend against a CV group because of all it's AI controlled guns, and the lethality of a couple of individuals in manned guns.
A.I. and manned guns make CVs so lethal, planes taking off are not even required to destroy a base and rack up lots of kills when attacking an airfield.
My estimate is for every person active on a CV group, it takes 3-5 defenders. So it requires 15 base defenders to fight off 5 people on a CV group
CV groups stink for game play because they draw lambs to the slaughter. The game is stacked to make the CV group very lethal against attacking aircraft. But Bases are not given anything capable of defending itself against a CV except aircraft. Leading to a fultile effort unless you amass a hoarde of defenders who all die repeatedly untill they sink the whole fleet only to find out it was manned by a total of 3 people who never even get a death recorded because deaths in manned guns get a free pass. And if fighters do up fro the carrier, the fight is ruined by all that AAA, manned and computer generated, that is picking planes out of the sky like they were free shrimp a buffet.
How to fix it:
1) Put more shore batteries in, or add lots 8" field artillary, or Add a mobile Howitzer to the VH
Mobile artillary in the 5" range. [Mobile artillary would be easier than changing all the maps to add the fixed guns]
That will create a stand off distance for CV groups.
This will also solve the AAA problem by forcing the CV out far enough where its AAA can't cap the field
2) Deactivate the zoom on 5" guns in AA mode.
3) Deactivate the computer controlled aiming of the 8" tripples on the cruiser.
If you want to bombard the field. Park the CV group, aim your guns and get a plane spotter to tell you where your shells are landing.
This will make the CV a bit more vulnerable to Torpedo attacks from Pt boats or SBDs, making the effort to attack a CV with those planes worth it.
4) Track and keep score of Deaths in Manned guns.
No one should be get reward without risk.
Thanks for listening :salute
-
:noid
-
:noid
does it read like a consiracy theory? Hmm, didn't mean it that way. :salute
-
IMO the problem isnt as dramatic as you described.
Still, it can be pretty much annoying (manawars...). Also like 5 people can can a base with the auto pufy over 3k: enough for them to stay over there, their interception will became nearly inpossible, the 3000 1/2 feet instant deaths just ridiculous. Not as common, but happens with me in every cv battle.
I can agree with your second and fourth point.
-
I think a simpler solution would just be to make it so the carrier group can't get so close to the shore line. Although, that would be a bummer for LVT's.
I wouldn't mind seeing the AA rounds in the manned 5" guns going away. It's always annoying getting popped by a 5" gun when in a knife fight on the deck when you are well outside AAA range and way below puffy altitude. However, perhaps you are right, removing the zoom on the 5" guns might be enough to solve that problem.
Did they ever actually completely stop a CV group even when firing in real life? Seems like they would just compensate for the speed with negative lead rather than make the fleet that vulnerable. I also wouldn't be surprised if the "target hold" feature we see in this game was possible back then with some math to find out the rad/sec required to hold that point while moving.
I always thought defending CV attacks was fairly easy, if you caught them early enough (which is true for most things in this game as it stands). Plus, you always get someone who will bomb them with Lancs, and that ends the CV's reign rather abruptly. I guess I don't see the CV's as unbalancing, sometimes you get very successful CV raids, other times they are a bust the second they appear off-shore.
-
According to the little text blurbs when loading, shore batteries are 5" guns.
IMO its easier to hit a TG from a SB than vice versa. You do have manual, land and sea modes from SBs.
-
According to the little text blurbs when loading, shore batteries are 5" guns.
IMO its easier to hit a TG from a SB than vice versa. You do have manual, land and sea modes from SBs.
Yes I think you're right. Even worse. :aok
To Sectornine50 points...
I don't completely know how fire control on battle ships and cruisers worked. I have seen plenty of films of naval shore bombardment where the heavys were parked, or moving very slowly in a straight line. If you were trying to hit a specific target, spotters were involved to radio back to the ships exact corrections in distance the shell missed the target by. Those wouldn;t be worth much if the ship was steaming around at flank speed on a some parabolic course. Once dialed in, the batteries would all open up and bombard that location. Moving the ship would require re-calibration of the angle, charge, and direction of the projectile. This may have changed on later ships like the Missouri class Battleships, but I don't know. :salute
-
Increasing the distance from shore is the best bet. LVT's could always spawn a bit further in if necessary to still give that thrill of hitting a hot beach without paddling for 45 minutes to see land.
-
Increasing the distance from shore is the best bet. LVT's could always spawn a bit further in if necessary to still give that thrill of hitting a hot beach without paddling for 45 minutes to see land.
Coupled with the AA changes I proposed in this months "Puffy Ack" thread I think would solve most of the game play issues.
I will post a good article from CiC magazine on how shore bombardment worked with the ships we have in game. It really is amazing how much technology was developed by the wars end.
-
According to the little text blurbs when loading, shore batteries are 5" guns.
Then why do they show in the hangar as 8" Single? One or the other is wrong...I vote for the text blurb being wrong. ;)
-
Submarines!!!
SWrogue
-
Increasing the distance from shore is the best bet. LVT's could always spawn a bit further in if necessary to still give that thrill of hitting a hot beach without paddling for 45 minutes to see land.
Good post Vinkman. I agree Waystin, that seems like a fairly reasonable and doable thing to add. Of course, we haven't looked at what ways this might effect ports and their protection by home fleets.
I was just looking at film of fleet bombardment of either Iwo Jima or Okinawa. I was very impressed by the footage of massive rocket launches.... (now I am slipping off into wishlist territory.... but still very cool).
-
Why not upgrade the SB? 15" or greater may do the trick. It may be easier to redo a SB to accommodate the 15+" gun and place it in the same spot as the current 8" gun. Or, you could add more 8" guns on the maps. Either way, there will be work to do. Personally, I think having the 8" guns upgraded to a 15" gun or larger would be reasonable.
40.6 cm SK C/34 or the 38 cm SK C/34 may do the trick. And yes I know, it's wiki....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_SK_C/34_naval_
Oh and one more thing; Add AAA to the SB's. Some auto and/or manned guns on and around the SB would be helpful.
-
Since the ground support carriers were generally CVEs with one 5 inch pop gun, and they were escorted by a few DDs and DEs, I think it would make some sense to limit the large carrier groups to further out and add smaller CVE task groups, maybe with more then one CVE in the group so the fight doesn't die with one suicide commando on the carriers either. keep it to DDs and DEs as escorts so it isn't the bigger cruiser guns. you can still have decent fights and attempt to take a coastal field, and you've got more but smaller carriers to launch from
-
The 4th option just now clicked...
Vinkman
If you want the manned guns to count as deaths, then there should be perks awarded for shooting down things in one. At least, this will be the argument made on this. You don't gain ANY perks for shooting down people in a manned gun, only get your name in the lights....that and the joy of picking someone off in a 37mm manned gun that's 5+k away. :devil Oh how I wish I filmed that... :bhead
Guppy35
I like that idea. The problem becomes maps... Wouldn't a new map need to be created in order to make proper use of this? Or make existing one's larger? The counter to this is a common one we hear, "too much room, too little combat". I know FSO will benefit having CVE groups and what-not though.
I still think that upgrading the Shore Batt guns to 15+" and/or adding AAA to them may work. I believe some of those large shore guns had better coverage than our current 8" shore gun. I might be wrong on this though... :headscratch:
-
WELL...cv groups always brought more firepower to shore then shore ever had. what ever has shot back at a battleship and won from land. we need battleships!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats all i heard so far. and be thankful that we only have baby cv groups. have seen ww2 footage of planes attacking cvs OMG the ack is alot worse (as far as # of guns).
-
WELL...cv groups always brought more firepower to shore then shore ever had. what ever has shot back at a battleship and won from land. we need battleships!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats all i heard so far. and be thankful that we only have baby cv groups. have seen ww2 footage of planes attacking cvs OMG the ack is alot worse (as far as # of guns).
Be careful what you wish for. Just one example. The USS Colorado was one of those BBs used for shore bombardment. She got into a dual with hidden gun batteries on Tinian. They took a lot of hits and a number of casualties. You have to remember that the BBs were essentially used as stationary floating gun platforms.
Tennessee and California also took hits and casualties from hidden shore batteries while supporting the invasions. If HTC were to try and take it further, making the shore batteries harder to see and more of them would make sense too.
-
"took hits" is not winning the dual. cv groups are insanely formatable opponents; planes, lots of 16' guns, even more 5in, and more 20mm and 40mm then there are players in this game (sarcasm but could be true) not to mention Lvts. CV groups i think are to weak. it takes many 8in hits to kill a SB. I'm all for making more SB but we should have a BB and a CA.
the only way CVs were sunk by aircraft were organized raids not solo raids so more ack would rectify this. I also think that cvs can be weaker but thats the context of adding a BB and a CA/more ack into a CV group.
-
"took hits" is not winning the dual. cv groups are insanely formatable opponents; planes, lots of 16' guns, even more 5in, and more 20mm and 40mm then there are players in this game (sarcasm but could be true) not to mention Lvts. CV groups i think are to weak. it takes many 8in hits to kill a SB. I'm all for making more SB but we should have a BB and a CA.
the only way CVs were sunk by aircraft were organized raids not solo raids so more ack would rectify this. I also think that cvs can be weaker but thats the context of adding a BB and a CA/more ack into a CV group.
But they didn't drive Essex class carriers close in shore, nor did they bring in the fast Battleships to bombard the shore. And shore bombardment was prior to an intended amphibious landing, not an attack on an airfield.
-
But they didn't drive Essex class carriers close in shore, nor did they bring in the fast Battleships to bombard the shore. And shore bombardment was prior to an intended amphibious landing, not an attack on an airfield.
i think your only thinking in terms of US carrier groups. yes our cv group is American in design but it launches jap and brit planes. should not your thinking on the issue be more dynamic?
-
But they didn't drive Essex class carriers close in shore, nor did they bring in the fast Battleships to bombard the shore. And shore bombardment was prior to an intended amphibious landing, not an attack on an airfield.
Carriers, you're right, the rest, not necessarily. The Japanese used Kongo-class fast battleships to bombard Guadalcanal with the express purpose of shutting down Henderson Field. They did stay well offshore, 10 miles or more.
Anyway, the real problem isn't bombardment, it's the use of CV ack to suppress a field. I agree with Waystin2 and the others who've said the solution is just to make the CV group stay further out and adjust LVT spawn range as necessary.
It might be fun to have bombardment groups with just cruisers and CVs. I think battleships are a bit out of the scope of the game, although they could be fun if properly implemented. What I'd like to see much more would be destroyers that could break off from the task group and make torpedo attacks. THAT would rock. :rock Smokescreens would be cool too.
As for the ship gun sighting and aiming systems, the RL ones were actually more capable. The biggest lack in the AH system is not having rangefinders or fire control computers (although our sights do contain a limited computer function in sea mode, it's not as capable as the RL ones). The thing that makes ship gunnery easier in AH is the lack of weather or any other obscurement of the target (like the above mentioned smoke) - that, and we bring task groups much closer to each other and their targets than was generally the case for battleships, cruisers, or (rarely) carriers in daylight surface battles. Our "optics" are a little better, but the naval gunnery optics of all the major navies were of extremely high quality.
They generally didn't ever bring warships to a complete stop during combat, but for gunfire support they did slow way below the flank speed our TGs always move at.
I'm not aware of any battleships that were driven off by shore-based batteries, but I'm also not aware of any battleships that got within range of functioning shore-based batteries of battleship caliber. And of course our ships aren't battleships. There were a number of instances of cruisers and destroyers being sunk, mauled, and/or sent packing by shore defenses, including the German naval assault on Oslo (although it was captured shortly afterward by troops who were airlifted in) the first Japanese attempt to take Wake Island. Shore batteries worked, that's why they invested so much in them. Where they didn't work it was usually where the attackers, particularly the Allies in the late war, brought in hundreds of ships and simply overwhelmed the defenses by sheer weight of numbers. Maybe if we beefed up AH shore defenses we'd get to see multiple TGs coordinating to take a target more often.
(As I side note on the effectiveness of shore-based batteries, and because I love any excuse for talking about my ancestors, the only reason Richmond remained Confederate in 1862 was because the heavy naval shore batteries just down the river at Fort Darling on Drewry's Bluff, with support by field artillery and the infantry of my great-great-grandfather's regiment (the 26th Virginia), managed to drive off a Union attempt to force the river defenses, including the ironclads Monitor, Galena, and Naugatuck and a couple of wooden ships. Galena was just about pounded to scrap metal by the fort's 8" and 10" Columbiads, the federal ships were forced to withdraw, and Union Gen. MacClellan took an eastern land route toward Richmond and what would become Lee's first great victory, the Seven Days Battles.)
-
Why not upgrade the SB? 15" or greater may do the trick. It may be easier to redo a SB to accommodate the 15+" gun and place it in the same spot as the current 8" gun. Or, you could add more 8" guns on the maps. Either way, there will be work to do. Personally, I think having the 8" guns upgraded to a 15" gun or larger would be reasonable.
40.6 cm SK C/34 or the 38 cm SK C/34 may do the trick. And yes I know, it's wiki....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_SK_C/34_naval_
Oh and one more thing; Add AAA to the SB's. Some auto and/or manned guns on and around the SB would be helpful.
Step in the right direction. :aok thanks for the idea
-
Lots of good info. Thanks for the post. :aok
-
CV fights would be more fun if it wasn't for the puffy ack blowing you apart at 3.1k while the enemy climb above 10k without disturbance.
-
[.....]
I agree with the others on the great information here. Basically, having the simple threat of the guns and the willingness to use them if pushed was a key factor in not wanting to get closer because it becomes a danger unless, like you said, the numbers are so over whelming they couldn't hope to stop them.
Yes, we need more guns... I mean we have many bases on many maps that are very vulnerable to coastal attack and they don't even have one. Others, they all point the wrong way...
That you know that many intimate about your family is also awesome.
-
BB-35 is still afloat. Oldest Battleship to be still afloat.
She had many firsts in her career.
-
I'd like to see more shore batts to cover all angles to the sea. CV groups were most vulnerable to Aircraft though thats why I up Lancs from another base and most times Boom CV dead with ord left over for Crusier. But watch for a good 5" gunner. :furious
-
What would happen if an Iowa class BB was added to the task groups.
The number of mannable 5" double. As would the number of escort destroyers.
Not to mention the addition of 16" naval rifles.
Wanna be realistic about it cv's are under gunned if anything.
No lancaster B17 B24 ever sank an Essex class cv in the war .
When 5" radio proximity shells were added the hit rate of these shells almost tripled.
And during the war all guns were manned not auto fired.
As far as zoom on 5" guns, good luck hitting anything zoomed in.
-
Why not upgrade the SB? 15" or greater may do the trick. It may be easier to redo a SB to accommodate the 15+" gun and place it in the same spot as the current 8" gun. Or, you could add more 8" guns on the maps. Either way, there will be work to do. Personally, I think having the 8" guns upgraded to a 15" gun or larger would be reasonable.
40.6 cm SK C/34 or the 38 cm SK C/34 may do the trick. And yes I know, it's wiki....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_SK_C/34_naval_
Oh and one more thing; Add AAA to the SB's. Some auto and/or manned guns on and around the SB would be helpful.
i agree sb's need to be upgraded badly--either more sb's or faster fireing-guns--and isn't most sb's dual barrels anyway.adding nother barrel to a shore battery would help a little
-
Add more than one Task Group to a port. One traditional carrier force and another destroyer force that could operate separately from the Main Carrier force. Basically, allowing for the destroyer group to set up pickets and blockades.
And again :aok :aok push the fleets further from shore with much better landing craft spawns.
-
Just annoying that CV puffy ack gets to hit a fighter which has flown behind a mountain.
It's enough that the Sun shines thru 'em.
Maybe auto puffy ack could be enabled only on a manned ship.
So if only 1 player is on any ship of the fleet, only that ship has auto puffy.
-
If task groups are so awsome then how is it that last night I sunk a CV, a cruiser and decapitaded a destroyer using only the torpedos and 40mm gun on my PT boat? Actually I used my rockets too but missed with every one. I ended up landing at a friendly task force with 344819.56 damage points for the sortie.
Yep, pretty awsome. The entire task force can be neutered by a PT boat.
-
Agree for the most part, but the solution would only need to be ONE of your many points.......
MORE Shore Batteries PLEASE! Eliminate the blind spots between SBs, and go one further, increase the arc so that the field of fire OVERLAPS.
elfy
-
If task groups are so awsome then how is it that last night I sunk a CV, a cruiser and decapitaded a destroyer using only the torpedos and 40mm gun on my PT boat? Actually I used my rockets too but missed with every one. I ended up landing at a friendly task force with 344819.56 damage points for the sortie.
Yep, pretty awsome. The entire task force can be neutered by a PT boat.
WOW! Wish i could do that but wait.............I fly planes............nice story though, thanks.
-
If task groups are so awsome then how is it that last night I sunk a CV, a cruiser and decapitaded a destroyer using only the torpedos and 40mm gun on my PT boat? Actually I used my rockets too but missed with every one. I ended up landing at a friendly task force with 344819.56 damage points for the sortie.
Yep, pretty awsome. The entire task force can be neutered by a PT boat.
because no one was fighting back?
-
because no one was fighting back?
Yes I admit that was true but the OP was in many ways talking about auto ack.
I caught the task force half way between their port and our field. I knew it would be there as a big CV to CV battle had just ended with both CV's being sunk. Since I launched a PT just prior to the last destoyers re-spawning and was within 1 1/2 sectors of their port I took off hunting.
I paced the task group until I got in front of it and fired four torps directly into the bow of the CV and it went down. I turned to get out ahead again then came back toward the cruiser firing my rockets (and missing), then turned again, lowered throttle, sank the cruiser with my 40mm then killed all the guns on one destroyer with it. At that point I decided I was done but had to go 2-3 sectors to rendesvous with a friendly task force for a landing.
I have used the same tactics on a manned task force though with similar success. The direct frontal (or rear) attack miimizes how many guns that can be brought to bear increasing the likelyhood of survivability. You have to keep a little more distance against live gunners too which makes aiming your torps much more difficult as well and, in fact, I prefer a spread pattern at that point to account for someone turning the CV.
Anyway, you can kill a task group with a PT. PT's are fun.
-
Yes I admit that was true but the OP was in many ways talking about auto ack.
I caught the task force half way between their port and our field. I knew it would be there as a big CV to CV battle had just ended with both CV's being sunk. Since I launched a PT just prior to the last destoyers re-spawning and was within 1 1/2 sectors of their port I took off hunting.
I paced the task group until I got in front of it and fired four torps directly into the bow of the CV and it went down. I turned to get out ahead again then came back toward the cruiser firing my rockets (and missing), then turned again, lowered throttle, sank the cruiser with my 40mm then killed all the guns on one destroyer with it. At that point I decided I was done but had to go 2-3 sectors to rendesvous with a friendly task force for a landing.
I have used the same tactics on a manned task force though with similar success. The direct frontal (or rear) attack miimizes how many guns that can be brought to bear increasing the likelyhood of survivability. You have to keep a little more distance against live gunners too which makes aiming your torps much more difficult as well and, in fact, I prefer a spread pattern at that point to account for someone turning the CV.
Anyway, you can kill a task group with a PT. PT's are fun.
Cruisers are too easy to sink in the game. Bogus for a 40mm to take 1 down.