Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: JUGgler on December 26, 2011, 07:38:30 AM
-
I'd like to see one of two changes:
#1- Fleet puffy be disabled if the fleet comes within 5-10 miles of a base.
or
#2- All coastal bases have their own defensive puffy.
It seems an unessecary advantage for those launching from CV groups. It seems everytime I have to go verticle in a fight when a CV is close ( hell it doesn't even have to be that close) I get instant damage. I'ts hard enough to come to grips with a zeke without having the "magic" 3K death threshold. :bhead
Now I'm only refering to the (computer generated puff) :aok
JUGgler
-
I concur with the line of thought here. If puffy ack can reach over the air field then the CV is too close to shore. Not sure of the solution... :headscratch:
-
Yup, another "gamey" thing that should be taken care of.
I also think that as soon as the CV groups starts firering on a base the base should start flashing. Those big old rounds smacking into the ground SHOULD set off the alert.
-
:cry :cry :cry Make them stop shooting at me so I can furball!
:cry :cry :cry Make them stop shooting at me so I can furball!
:cry :cry :cry Make them stop shooting at me so I can furball!
I also think that as soon as the CV groups starts firering on a base the base should start flashing. Those big old rounds smacking into the ground SHOULD set off the alert. (Very true)
Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.
-
This is one of the things that makes Aces High gameplay rubbish,
Puffy Ack
CVs parked 2 metres of shore - yeah thats realistic, the cv would never run aground there would it HTC
Discos
Pilot wounds - did you know in real life the more you slow down the more likely you are to blackout? realism points+++++
Radiator hits - might as well be an instant death
Thats before I even start about the human element of gameplay :rofl
Just for the CV being parked on the beach I vote we get rid of insistence on historical skins in game.
-
Which actually brings up another opinion: I think the CV is far too easy to sink. One flight B26's, 8K alt, 8 500lbs bombs... unless there is a strong aerial defense, it's way too simple. Add to that, one is not restricted to taking off from the base that is being shelled.
-
Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.
The problem for me is not "THEM" shoosting at me, in fact I encourage more of "THEM" to shoost at me! But alas, it is not "THEM" shoosting at me, it is the computer shoosting at me, and pardon me for thinking "THEM" do not require the computer to assist with "THEM" shoosting at me :aok
Get it?
Got it?
Good! :aok
JUGgler
-
Which actually brings up another opinion: I think the CV is far too easy to sink. One flight B26's, 8K alt, 8 500lbs bombs... unless there is a strong aerial defense, it's way too simple. Add to that, one is not restricted to taking off from the base that is being shelled.
Agreed!
JUGgler
-
Puffy Ack
The modeling could be improved, true.
CVs parked 2 metres of shore - yeah thats realistic, the cv would never run aground there would it HTC
I've not seen them so close that they would run aground, but they do get too close from a tactical standpoint. Always leads to their loss too.
Discos
Welcome to the world of computer network connections over long distances. This is not specific to AH at all.
Pilot wounds - did you know in real life the more you slow down the more likely you are to blackout? realism points+++++
Slowing down has nothing to do with blackouts from pilot wounds. Nothing you do has anything to do with them. They simply get more and more frequent until you die.
Radiator hits - might as well be an instant death
Funny, but I've returned many aircraft, even single engined ones, after getting a radiator or oil hit. Perhaps you have a different understanding of "instant death" than the rest of us.
-
Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.
I lived on a CV for two years. The only time we saw land was when we went ashore.
Which actually brings up another opinion: I think the CV is far too easy to sink. One flight B26's, 8K alt, 8 500lbs bombs... unless there is a strong aerial defense, it's way too simple. Add to that, one is not restricted to taking off from the base that is being shelled.
Agreed, but the tonnage is right, the defense is not. Most people don't want to be bothered to defend a CV they are too busy furballin, or trying to capture/flatten the base BEFORE the CV is sunk. Maybe they could give you double, maybe triple the point/perks for dropping a buff inside the CV dar circle. Bigger carrot might get some people to CAP the CV.
-
The modeling could be improved, true.I've not seen them so close that they would run aground, but they do get too close from a tactical standpoint.
I have seen them "on land"
JUGgler
-
I have seen them "on land"
JUGgler
Yup, there are bugs.
What I'd like is a "invasion" fleet centered on either a pair or trio of heavy cruisers (easy) or centered on a battleship (new asset needed) that would get close to the shore and be able to launch LVTs. Then restrict the carrier fleets to further stand off range and not have the ability to launch LVTs.
-
The modeling could be improved, true.I've not seen them so close that they would run aground, but they do get too close from a tactical standpoint. Always leads to their loss too.Welcome to the world of computer network connections over long distances. This is not specific to AH at all.Slowing down has nothing to do with blackouts from pilot wounds. Nothing you do has anything to do with them. They simply get more and more frequent until you die.Funny, but I've returned many aircraft, even single engined ones, after getting a radiator or oil hit. Perhaps you have a different understanding of "instant death" than the rest of us.
You miss the point completely Karnak, these are things that could be avoided if the game was changed that way. There are too many random things that happen during the game to make it playable, granted things like discoes are out of HTCs control but the fact they happen merely emphasises things like puffy ack pilot wounds and radiator hits.
Look at it this way.
Log in, take off, climb out for 10 minutes nearly at fight...disco.
Log in, take off, climb out for 10 minutes nearly at fight puffy ack missing wing down you go.
Take off, climb out for 10 minutes arrive at fight, get pw'ed from 1k sprayers, the next 5 minutes is then spent playing peekaboo with the world or be sensible and rtb either way it just means another 10 minutes wasted flying home. And btw the PW IS triggered by speed in most cases, ever came in to land and every time you do your PW comes on?
So try again take off climb out 10 minutes arrive at fight get attempt at face shot radiator hit, end of flight.
I could avoid all this by not engaging in combat, but thats the whole point of the game isn't it.
-
You miss the point completely Karnak, these are things that could be avoided if the game was changed that way. There are too many random things that happen during the game to make it playable, granted things like discoes are out of HTCs control but the fact they happen merely emphasises things like puffy ack pilot wounds and radiator hits.
Look at it this way.
Log in, take off, climb out for 10 minutes nearly at fight...disco.
Log in, take off, climb out for 10 minutes nearly at fight puffy ack missing wing down you go.
Take off, climb out for 10 minutes arrive at fight, get pw'ed from 1k sprayers, the next 5 minutes is then spent playing peekaboo with the world or be sensible and rtb either way it just means another 10 minutes wasted flying home. And btw the PW IS triggered by speed in most cases, ever came in to land and every time you do your PW comes on?
So try again take off climb out 10 minutes arrive at fight get attempt at face shot radiator hit, end of flight.
I could avoid all this by not engaging in combat, but thats the whole point of the game isn't it.
Don't know what to say. Sounds like you want puffy ack and a simple, linear damage bar instead of what we have now.
-
Don't know what to say. Sounds like you want puffy ack and a simple, linear damage bar instead of what we have now.
If I wanted any of the above I would look for the following game titles, all of which could be played without any other human interaction..
Ack High!
World Of Pilot Wounds
Scalding Heights (radiator leak simulator)
-
If I wanted any of the above I would look for the following game titles, all of which could be played without any other human interaction..
Ack High!
World Of Pilot Wounds
Scalding Heights (radiator leak simulator)
As I said, you are looking for something much simpler, like the original air warrior or the old Lucasarts games.
Personally, I think you are being extremely silly in your tirade against radiator damage and pilot wounds.
-
get rid of all the automatic puffy ack, and make all the guns mannable.
I, like others would rather get shot down by a gun dweeb than my own computer and a random number generator.
-
As I said, you are looking for something much simpler, like the original air warrior or the old Lucasarts games.
Personally, I think you are being extremely silly in your tirade against radiator damage and pilot wounds.
I'm looking for this game without the nonsense in between, maybe if I quit my job and played 24/7 I could find it. Personally logging on now is more about pot luck regards finding some action, a lot of it is pointless with little personal reward, save talking to my squaddies.
Pilot wounds and rad hits are so easy to inflict its common sense to attempt a HO probably why everyone does it, so therefore it encourages rubbish gameplay.
-
In JUGglers defense... I was at the same base as him yesterday defending from a CV and the puffy was INSANE!!! Every time I'd barely hit 3k it'd go "Thwap pop thud" and I'd be bloodied and missing parts. Add to that then the guy who gets angry you just shot him down, even though he was at 10,000 feet and dove in doing something stupid, who then jumps in a manned 5" and is popping you over the field at 10 feet off the ground because the CV is less than 5K away and it makes CV defense really really lame...
...until they start upping LVT's and PT boats like mad and let me get my name in lights, that was fun.
-
In JUGglers defense... I was at the same base as him yesterday defending from a CV and the puffy was INSANE!!! Every time I'd barely hit 3k it'd go "Thwap pop thud" and I'd be bloodied and missing parts. Add to that then the guy who gets angry you just shot him down, even though he was at 10,000 feet and dove in doing something stupid, who then jumps in a manned 5" and is popping you over the field at 10 feet off the ground because the CV is less than 5K away and it makes CV defense really really lame...
...until they start upping LVT's and PT boats like mad and let me get my name in lights, that was fun.
It was fun! :rock, and I'm not whining. I just realized as I went vert with a zeke who had position and alt on me, just as I ripped his wing off I was flamed by "BIG PUFF" looked at dash and couldn't have been higher than 3025' when I was thwacked. I thought wow, that is some "quick reacting puff right there! Folks who up from CV should be smarter cause they have a "free climb card" as the folks upping from a land base "within range" of a CV do not! :aok
JUGgler
-
I'm looking for this game without the nonsense in between, maybe if I quit my job and played 24/7 I could find it. Personally logging on now is more about pot luck regards finding some action, a lot of it is pointless with little personal reward, save talking to my squaddies.
Pilot wounds and rad hits are so easy to inflict its common sense to attempt a HO probably why everyone does it, so therefore it encourages rubbish gameplay.
The fact that you consider radiator hits to be nonsense is absurd.
-
The fact that you consider radiator hits to be nonsense is absurd.
Yak yak yak just statements don't be so lazy explain how I'm wrong, or you just on a justice league tip again?
-
I spent my time in tanks (M60A3 and M1A1) so I am not an expert in ack. It does seem very overmodeled, I think is the term. When using ranging technique for aiming the first shot is never the most accurate. NEVER! Well, OK unable to discount winning the lottery.
The first shot gets you within hundreds of yards, second shot should be within striking distrance and third shots are for damage. Not to embelish but in the past several months the first indication I have of a CV being in the area is a sudden flash of damage and my oil is all over the windshield. A couple times it was pilot wound. Once my engine was gone. Seriously? The first shot at an airborne target at beyond incon range is right smack on target? That would never happen in real life short of the Aegis air defense system shooting SM-2 missiles. Yet here, hourly affair.
The ack is wwwwaaaayyyyy off.
Another perfect example of this is the rapidly evading fighter getting oiled while a flight of B-24s cruise right through with very minor to no damage.
Fix this and the other issues fix themselves. Oh, I agree with parking a CV off the base. In real life (as Fugitive gets at) CVs attacked from 100+ miles away. The purpose of having an airplane was accurate bombing with the ship way far, far away.
Boo
PS I think the reality of attacking a WW2 US CV battle group is that by 1945 any enemy within 1 mile is dead via hundreds of 40mm and thousand plus 20mm. Thus the Kamikaze attacks. Properly modeling would see damage beyond a couple miles a miracle and within a mile absolute.
-
Which actually brings up another opinion: I think the CV is far too easy to sink. One flight B26's, 8K alt, 8 500lbs bombs... unless there is a strong aerial defense, it's way too simple. Add to that, one is not restricted to taking off from the base that is being shelled.
with a b26, 5.5 alt and you only need 3 eggs, save 1 for the cruiser. I dont even remember the last time i got shot down in a buff by either manned ack or cv ack.
at the same time i agree with juggler, let the cv stay away from shore so puffy ack doest hit every single airplane upping. I dont even remember the last time i didnt got shot down in a fighter by puffy ack.
semp
-
Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.
:rolleyes:
Melvin you obviously don't know me here Sir. I ain't much of what you would call a furballer. In fact to some I am a dick because I like to sink them. In fact I usually start with a B-25 or a PT boat to soften up. Still does not change the fact that the puffy ack should not be so close that it actually caps the field. It is meant to be a defensive weapon for the CV, not a passive field suppression weapon to cover field attacks. Know who you are taliking to before you start typing. :aok
-
It is meant to be a defensive weapon for the CV, not a passive field suppression weapon to cover field attacks.
So if the Germans had the option to drive right into Pearl, you don't think they would have? Who are you (or anybody here) to try and dictate to others how to use the weapons at hand?
In fact to some I am a dick
This much I believe.
Look, all of this nonsense about the ship running aground makes no sense at all since the game doesn't model a sea bed.
The solution is not to take away the tools at a player's disposal, but rather to correctly model the world in which we interact. Of course some towns have rather steep underwater drops close to shore.
-
Germans driving to Pearl Harbor? This sounds like that motivational speech from the cheesy frat movie Animal House.
To my knowledge at no time in the history of naval aviation has any country used a CV for direct fire support on a beach. Not even at Normandy. Maybe the Brits ran one of their CVs up to the beaches at Tripoli or something. Maybe the Japanese somewhere in 1942, some little island. Is anyone aware of CVs ever providing direct fire? And clearly using ones 5", 40mm and 20mm to cap a field falls under the category of 'direct fire.'
Boo
-
By that token, does anyone have proof that any manned 5" CV guns actually engaged another enemy CV (of the same class) with said 5" guns?
I say that unless the guns are only allowed to point straight up, we should ban CV gunnery all together.
Germans driving to Pearl Harbor? This sounds like that motivational speech from the cheesy frat movie Animal House.
CHEESY?
You Sir, had better watch your word choices, or I may have to smash your guitar.
-
So if the Germans had the option to drive right into Pearl, you don't think they would have? Who are you (or anybody here) to try and dictate to others how to use the weapons at hand?
This much I believe.
Look, all of this nonsense about the ship running aground makes no sense at all since the game doesn't model a sea bed.
The solution is not to take away the tools at a player's disposal, but rather to correctly model the world in which we interact. Of course some towns have rather steep underwater drops close to shore.
on the first question. no the german's would not have driven a cv right into pearl harbor. german cvs were in short supply to begin and it would be a death trap as airplanes would be killed easily taking off. also notice since the "german's" basically killed all the air power at pearl harbor along with disabling all the cruisers/battleships/etc.. they would still be unable to capture the base as you cant capture a base in the real world with just airplanes.
second question: you actually gave the answer to your own question.
semp
-
on the first question. no the german's would not have driven a cv right into pearl harbor. german cvs were in short supply to begin and it would be a death trap as airplanes would be killed easily taking off. also notice since the "german's" basically killed all the air power at pearl harbor along with disabling all the cruisers/battleships/etc.. they would still be unable to capture the base as you cant capture a base in the real world with just airplanes.
second question: you actually gave the answer to your own question.
semp
I don't know what the F*#K you just said kid, but you touched my heart.
-
I am pretty sure there are a few examples of CVs engaged in direct fire with enemy ships. I don't remember the name of the ships involved but I believe 1940 or 1941 a German heavy cruiser or battle cruisers sank a British CV. Also, Battle of Leyte Gulf when one of the Japanese battleship squadrons ran into Taffy 1 and Taffy 2, small US CVs used as CAS for the invasion force, escorted by destroyers and destroyer-escorts.
This is just two examples of CVs engaged in direct fights. May be others.
Boo
-
I don't know what the F*#K you just said kid, but you touched my heart.
well old grumpy man since it's x-mas i"ll explain it to you in words you can understand:
the german's had no fricking cv's. and even if they had one and could had gotten it into pearl harbor, every single guy there with any kind of weapon would be shooting at the airplanes/people on the cv deck. it would be a turkey shoot. no airplane would have taken off, not one. even little kids with slingshots would be getting kills with those slowly taking off airplanes.
now layoff the eggnog old man and stop being grumpy.
semp
-
Since the ack is AI driven we are in the realm of fantasy anyway.
So change the maximum range for spawing LVT and limit the CV force to traveling close to shore say 18-20k yards. Don't allow the AI to notice incoming aircraft until they are 6k(Icon Range) out, then throw up the auto ack curtin from heck. No one turns CV from bombers until they are inside of Icon range anyway. Didn't task forces in the pacific throw out ack curtains from wave tops up to about 20k when enemy aircraft could be seen by the gunners?
Is the auto ack range of influnce tied to the radar circle on CV up to about 30k topped out?
-
well old grumpy man since it's x-mas i"ll explain it to you in words you can understand:
the german's had no fricking cv's. and even if they had one and could had gotten it into pearl harbor, every single guy there with any kind of weapon would be shooting at the airplanes/people on the cv deck. it would be a turkey shoot. no airplane would have taken off, not one. even little kids with slingshots would be getting kills with those slowly taking off airplanes.
now layoff the eggnog old man and stop being grumpy.
semp
So wait... you're saying that a kid could take down an aircraft with a slingshot if the Germans had sailed their fleet into Pearl Harbor during the invasion?
I'm gonna need way more egg nog to wrap my brain around this nugget of wisdom.
-
well old grumpy man since it's x-mas i"ll explain it to you in words you can understand:
the german's had no fricking cv's. and even if they had one and could had gotten it into pearl harbor, every single guy there with any kind of weapon would be shooting at the airplanes/people on the cv deck. it would be a turkey shoot. no airplane would have taken off, not one. even little kids with slingshots would be getting kills with those slowly taking off airplanes.
now layoff the eggnog old man and stop being grumpy.
semp
Umm Semp, trying to make some sense out of melvin I believe is beneath even you :neener:
He is clearly in his own world of (weird)
JUGgler
-
Umm Semp, trying to make some sense out of melvin I believe is beneath even you :neener:
He is clearly in his own world of (weird)
JUGgler
Once again I concur with Juggler.
-
I don't remember the name of the ships involved but I believe 1940 or 1941 a German heavy cruiser or battle cruisers sank a British CV.
That was the Prinz Eugen and the Bismarck sank the Hood. Bismark died shortly after that, and the Prinz Eugen survived the war, only to be used as a testbed for the Bikini Atoll Atomic tests in the Pacific. She resides in 40 feet of water, capsized, on a tiny atoll 60 miles from the same spot she was bombed.
-
The US used 5" at the Battle of the Little Big Horn to suppress a counter attack by Kaiser Permenente's forces, ultimately leading to the signing of the magna carta.
-
Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.
Agreed!
-
Agreed!
But... but... it's just so weird to think that there might be merit in using CV gunnery in the offensive roll.
I mean really, it's a known fact that no Navy's Command would endorse bringing naval power in close to shore for the purpose of direct fire actions.
Nope. Never.
They wouldn't dare disturb the furball, as described in article VI of the Geneva Convention.
Now I pose this question to you Gents:
If we had the ability to separate our cruisers and destroyers from the task group, would you object to them being parked close to shore, and providing direct fire support to a landing?
-
The US used 5" at the Battle of the Little Big Horn to suppress a counter attack by Kaiser Permenente's forces, ultimately leading to the signing of the magna carta.
not the magna carta, it's was the treaty of versace. you guys are morons i swear.
semp
-
No, I think it incolced the Scharnhorst and a couple cruisers. Caught a Brit CV delivering Spits and/or Hurris to Malta, I believe. I'll look it up.
I do agree that a Task Force should be able to split off the CV and let the cruiser and destroyer go hunting. IMd also like to see resupply convoys with LSTs. And with an LST on the beach you could spawn any and all armor.
Boo
-
I do agree that a Task Force should be able to split off the CV and let the cruiser and destroyer go hunting. IMd also like to see resupply convoys with LSTs. And with an LST on the beach you could spawn any and all armor.
Boo
Yes, yes, I like all of that too.
My question though is: What if we could split the CV and escorts and the CV was left way out to sea, yet the escorts were still brought right up to the beach.
Would anybody still have a problem with that being "gamey" and historically inaccurate?
-
Yes, yes, I like all of that too.
My question though is: What if we could split the CV and escorts and the CV was left way out to sea, yet the escorts were still brought right up to the beach.
Would anybody still have a problem with that being "gamey" and historically inaccurate?
who would defend the fleet? it is easy as hell to sink the cv. now you want the fleet split up so it can be vulched while you can go park the escorts right next to runway?
semp
-
No, I think it incolced the Scharnhorst and a couple cruisers. Caught a Brit CV delivering Spits and/or Hurris to Malta, I believe. I'll look it up.
I do agree that a Task Force should be able to split off the CV and let the cruiser and destroyer go hunting. IMd also like to see resupply convoys with LSTs. And with an LST on the beach you could spawn any and all armor.
Boo
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau caught HMS Glorious in the North Sea in 1940 and sank her with shellfire.
-
LOL! Melvin, you're so far wrong. I'm not sure if you'll ever be right again.
First off, large ships like Fleet Carriers and Heavy Crusiers (what we have) didn't come within miles of the shoreline during combat for abundantly obvious reasons, and so their AAA would be incapable of providing any assistance to friendly aircraft fighting above an enemy instilation. Destroyers sometimes did (though the only time I can think of when they came close enough to shore to provide usefull AAA fire would be during D-Day).
But then again, they wouldn't be a problem to deal with on their own (if auto puffy would disapear along with the guns that are supposed to have fired the AA shells). One pass from a 190F8 and they're (or should be) nearly harmless.
Secondly, you're just wrong on this one. Theres no way to knock out the auto puffy short of destroying the entire task group (and I'm not 100% sure if even THAT stops it). That in and of itself means we need to change something about the AAA coading You're 'splitting' the fleet idea might work, though it seems to me it would be overly difficult to coad. But then it would still require a change to the AAA coading. Simplest way to fix this problem would be to change the auto-puffy and then leave it be.
@ Semp, is there anything in the game you don't find 'easy'? You often seem to be going on about how things are so easy that talking about it might as well be the same as doing it, or how every plane in the game is easy to fly. I'm rather curious, is that just bluster on your part, or have you been flying long enough to have mastered eveything there is to the game?
-
LOL! Melvin, you're so far wrong. I'm not sure if you'll ever be right again.
@ Semp, is there anything in the game you don't find 'easy'? You often seem to be going on about how things are so easy that talking about it might as well be the same as doing it, or how every plane in the game is easy to fly. I'm rather curious, is that just bluster on your part, or have you been flying long enough to have mastered eveything there is to the game?
nope havent mastered anything. but from your average player that has flown perhaps 4 airplanes most of the time, zeke, spit9, spit8 and ponyd. i can tell you that there's no such thing as a noob plane or a man's plane, (well not including the ones with "no" guns like the ju87). but only some people who think they are so superior to others because they fly a certain plane that they must put others down in order to give themselves some importance.
except for the p38, now that is a man's plane. now you really gotta have some skill to get that large piece of junk in the middle of action get kills and back to land them. rest of the plane set is just for noobs and those who want to make themselves feel important.
granted there are some people that are highly skilled but the majority just think they are.
semp
-
I would love to see every gun mannable in the TG...
Even if when there is no human in the position, the AI we have right now are there instead, would be nice. SO many times I've thought "DAMMIT if i could just get that one angle... :cry:"
Just my 2 cents.
(By the way, It would be awesome to see every single gun on the cruiser/destroyer/carrier/battleship ( :pray: ) spitting fire :aok
-
Pervert, Just shut up man, you know you sound alot like one of the biggest Knight loves/ annoyances LTown
-
Pervert, Just shut up man, you know you sound alot like one of the biggest Knight loves/ annoyances LTown
Ahhh don't think I will, have you ever tried drinking bleach btw? :rofl
-
Tank read below
-
Tank read below
-
You are incorrect Tank. There are plenty examples in the Pacific and in Italy (Anzio) where navy ships were in close support of ground troops or bases. Take it that we cannot seperate the carrier from the rest of the fleet but heavy cruisers and destroyers were often close to shore supporting ground troops, used their puffy ack, main guns, .50 calibers, to protect installations.
"Throughout this long struggle on the Italian littoral, our troops were strongly supported by naval gunfire, airpower and a shuttle of ships and craft that braved air and submarine attack to deliver reinforcements. Late in May 1944 the main Allied advance linked up with Anzio's defenders, and Rome was liberated a few days later. In what many consider a land battle, there were a total of 17 ships lost: ten British and seven U.S. Navy."
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/anzio.aspx
Anzio-"Supporting warships were heavily attacked from the air: 23rd - On patrol off the beaches, destroyer "JANUS" was torpedoed and sunk by a He111 bomber. 29th - Six days later, cruiser SPARTAN was hit by a Hs293 glider bomb and capsized with many casualties."
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN19-194401.htm
-
I think famously US Navy destroyers closed in on Mount Suribachi and provided direct fire support to Marines and they scaled to the top. They provided support with not only 5" but also 40mm and 20mm. In the Pacific Theater there are many examples of US Navy ships getting close to provide fire support. We should not confuse fire support against troops positions versus an active airfield. Not even at Guadalcanal, for what became Henderson Field, which is close to the beach. They landed a ways away and did not provide direct fire at the airfield, which was not active at the time.
In general I sense a pretty common voice of change to our current Task Force alignment and ability. A concept of allowing the TF to shift formation, they should also add an icon that allows the TF to travel from Point A to Point B using zigzag, which was very common. Or, as another suggested continue from assigned Point A to Point but allow a defense manuever of a 360degree turn without have to go in and change overall direction. A couple simple icons could add this. [Note: I am not a computer guru. I say simple, it may not be. It just seems simple.]
Boo
-
Just for the CV being parked on the beach I vote we get rid of insistence on historical skins in game.
The whole "plane must have been produced in numbers and used in combat" should go aswell
-
O.K. maybe we are getting somewhere.
If we had the ability to split some destroyers off of the main Task Group and send them in close to shore while keeping the C.V. at a respectful distance, would players still have a leg to stand on concerning the "gaminess" of puffy ack keeping a cap on their field?
I believe that they would not.
-
Currently, CV puffy is randomly generated in a box around the target. The amount of ack stays the same, however the size of the box varies on the size of a target. Bomber formations, therefore, have a much larger target box around them than does a small single-engined aircraft. the end result is that fighters are contending with a FAR heavier concentration of AAA than bombers. That puffy ack is generated automatically around the target also means it's impossible to attempt any sort of evasive action to avoid it. Additionally, the AI behavior of puffy ack is just BIZARRE. Often times it doesn't begin firing at you until you're nearly right on top of the carrier, however it can CONTINUE firing at you even if you withdraw from visual range. Let's not even get into how puffy ack can fire on you through mountains and other obstructions...
There's one quick and easy solution to a all of these problems:
Rather than randomly generated around the target once in range, model puffy ack to actually be FIRED like the other auto-ack.
-
You are incorrect Tank. There are plenty examples in the Pacific and in Italy (Anzio) where navy 1) ships were in close support of ground troops or bases. Take it that we cannot seperate the carrier from the rest of the fleet but 2) heavy cruisers and destroyers were often close to shore supporting ground troops, used their puffy ack, main guns, .50 calibers, to protect installations.
"Throughout this long struggle on the Italian littoral, our troops were strongly supported by 3) naval gunfire, airpower and a shuttle of ships and craft that braved air and submarine attack to deliver reinforcements. Late in May 1944 the main Allied advance linked up with Anzio's defenders, and Rome was liberated a few days later. In what many consider a land battle, there were a total of 17 ships lost: ten British and seven U.S. Navy."
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/anzio.aspx
Anzio-"Supporting warships were heavily attacked from the air: 23rd - 4) (see, I can over-use font stylings too!) On patrol off the beaches, destroyer "JANUS" was torpedoed and sunk by a He111 bomber. 29th - Six days later, cruiser SPARTAN was hit by a Hs293 glider bomb and capsized with many casualties."
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN19-194401.htm
1) unspecified naval ships. Many DID opperate close to shore, even beaching themselves. But Carriers and Heavy Cruisers didn't (to the best of my knowledge). And BTW, sources of using AA shells in support of ground troops. And not sure, but its quite possible that a Heavy Cruiser would ground herself if she came within effective range for .50's. Not to mention that it would be close enough for even mortars to pose a threat.
2) Examples of a Heavy Cruiser closing to within 8,000 yds of shore during combat please. I think you mean light cruisers, but either way, upon closer inspection it appears we MIGHT even have a miss-armed Alaska-class Large Cruiser. Only other Heavy Cruisers (and it is at least a heavy cruiser, based on armament) that resembels the ones we have are the Witchita-class, and the Baltimore-class, of which the Baltimore-class is the closest match.
3) OK, this one doesn't even state close support fire! It could be talking about 14" fire from a battleship 17miles away.
4) 5 miles out could be called "off" the beaches as well. Even 10 miles could, and that would put the cruiser at about 17,000 yds off shore.
-
except for the p38, now that is a man's plane. now you really gotta have some skill to get that large piece of junk in the middle of action get kills and back to land them......
semp
wrong
38 used properly is one of the easiest planes in the set.
-
Currently, CV puffy is randomly generated in a box around the target. The amount of ack stays the same, however the size of the box varies on the size of a target. Bomber formations, therefore, have a much larger target box around them than does a small single-engined aircraft. the end result is that fighters are contending with a FAR heavier concentration of AAA than bombers. That puffy ack is generated automatically around the target also means it's impossible to attempt any sort of evasive action to avoid it. Additionally, the AI behavior of puffy ack is just BIZARRE. Often times it doesn't begin firing at you until you're nearly right on top of the carrier, however it can CONTINUE firing at you even if you withdraw from visual range. Let's not even get into how puffy ack can fire on you through mountains and other obstructions...
There's one quick and easy solution to a all of these problems:
Rather than randomly generated around the target once in range, model puffy ack to actually be FIRED like the other auto-ack.
Yes, puffy ack behaves in strange and often frustrating ways.
However, I feel that the end result would be the same if there were a couple DD's close to shore, as opposed to the whole TG.
I feel that two destroyers with a full compliment of manned guns could keep a small to medium airbase crippled with direct fire, given the opportunity to get in close enough.
The way I see it, the folks that are whining because they have a 3000 ft. cap should perhaps pause to think that they are getting off lightly.
-
Face it, making a Task Group stop shooting to suit your play style is just as gamey as driving it near shore. Get in a B-25 and go sink it if you don't like it.
:facepalm
-
Melvin, yes they would. That the entire fleet is coming close to shore isn't the source of the issue. The issue comes from poor (perhaps bordering on lazy), coading of the puffy ack. Not nessicarily HTC's fault, they might have been unable to figure out a better way to coad it at the time. But the fact remains that our current auto-puffy has outlived its usefullness, and is in need of an update.
I can deack most of the carrier or cruiser with a single 190F8. I can probably completly deack a destroyer. But no less puffy is shooting at me or my friends.
I can destroy all but 1 ship and even deack that last one, and the puffy wouldn't stop.
I can hide behind a mountian, and that won't stop the puffy ack.
As for getting off lightly, be thankfull that your ships can fire through each other and not even scratch the paint. Its entirely possible that a salvo from a triple 8" gun batter would tear a destroyer in half in real life.
-
except for the p38, now that is a man's plane. now you really gotta have some skill to get that large piece of junk in the middle of action get kills and back to land them. rest of the plane set is just for noobs and those who want to make themselves feel important.
you talk like your lips don't fit.
-
Melvin, yes they would. That the entire fleet is coming close to shore isn't the source of the issue. The issue comes from poor (perhaps bordering on lazy), coading of the puffy ack. Not nessicarily HTC's fault, they might have been unable to figure out a better way to coad it at the time. But the fact remains that our current auto-puffy has outlived its usefullness, and is in need of an update.
I can deack most of the carrier or cruiser with a single 190F8. I can probably completly deack a destroyer. But no less puffy is shooting at me or my friends.
I can destroy all but 1 ship and even deack that last one, and the puffy wouldn't stop.
I can hide behind a mountian, and that won't stop the puffy ack.
As for getting off lightly, be thankfull that your ships can fire through each other and not even scratch the paint. Its entirely possible that a salvo from a triple 8" gun batter would tear a destroyer in half in real life.
Now you see, I was always under the impression that the more guns you hit in a TG, the less ack would be sent up.
Perhaps there is a fundamental flaw to some of my argument.
However, I still contend that if we had the ability to drive DD's into the littoral zone, very few aircraft would survive a brace of manned guns.
Think about it this way: If you are going against auto ack, you stand a far better chance of getting your B-25 in close enough to be effective, as opposed to going up against a manned gun which will surely smoke you quickly. (I'm talking about "on the deck" here. For some strange reason the ack is ineffective against buffs at alt.)
-
:facepalm
Thank you Grizz, I knew there had to be at least one other person to see the EYE-ROW-KNEE in melvins statement!
There is hope yet :rock
JUGgler
-
The way I see it, the folks that are whining because they have a 3000 ft. cap should perhaps pause to think that they are getting off lightly.
I would love to see a WW2 CV anti aircraft team anticipate a manoeuvring plane pop over 3000 ft and insta pwn a plane travelling at 420 mph at 6k distance the second it pops up, let alone track 20 or 30 aircraft.
What guns on the task group are firing these? They aren't firing them its a random number generator in a given box around your aircraft. There is no guns pointing at me when I get pwned by puffy ack, if like field ack they had to split their fire to individual aircraft they are tracking puffy ack from CVs would be pretty harmless.
-
you talk like your lips don't fit.
OK Irish I had to return and give you much deserved props here :aok
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Now that is funny right there!
JUGgler
-
I will say though, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the puffy ack only shoots at one person above 3k now, since Hitech fixed that aspect of it a few months ago.
-
I concur with the line of thought here. If puffy ack can reach over the air field then the CV is too close to shore. Not sure of the solution... :headscratch:
Solution-Towns and Airfields have AA, Vehicle Bases have AA and AT guns for defense...what about coastal bases having an imaginary belt of Magnetic Anti-Shipping Mines? I am not quite sure of how effective these mines were over the course of the war, but they were used. How about a belt of them anywhere from 5-10k offshore. I am one of the many who loves to fend off a CV Attack but HATES trying to get that little xtra alt before engaging and then gets destroyed by ack before you can even meet the attackers lol. These mines would be a great deterrent from running CV Groups close to shore...thoughts?
-
Naval support
USS FrankfordThe only artillery support for the troops making these tentative advances was from the navy. Finding targets difficult to spot, and in fear of hitting their own troops, the big guns of the battleships and cruisers concentrated fire on the flanks of the beaches. The destroyers, however, were able to get in closer, and from 08:00 began engaging their own targets. At 09:50, two minutes after the McCook destroyed a 75 mm gun position in WN-74, the destroyers were ordered to get as close in as possible. Some approached within 1,000 yards (900 m) several times, scraping bottom and risking running aground.[49] An engineer who had landed in the first wave at Fox Red, watching the Frankford steaming in towards shore, thought she had been badly hit and was being beached. Instead, she turned parallel to the beach and cruised westwards, guns blazing at targets of opportunity. Thinking she would turn back out to sea, the engineer soon saw that she had instead begun backing up, guns still firing. At one point, gunners aboard the Frankford saw an immobilized tank at the water's edge, still firing. Watching the fall of its shot, they followed up with a salvo of their own. In this manner, the tank acted as the ship's fire control party for several minute
-
Solution-Towns and Airfields have AA, Vehicle Bases have AA and AT guns for defense...what about coastal bases having an imaginary belt of Magnetic Anti-Shipping Mines? I am not quite sure of how effective these mines were over the course of the war, but they were used. How about a belt of them anywhere from 5-10k offshore. I am one of the many who loves to fend off a CV Attack but HATES trying to get that little xtra alt before engaging and then gets destroyed by ack before you can even meet the attackers lol. These mines would be a great deterrent from running CV Groups close to shore...thoughts?
I'd rather push out the distance CVs are mechanically allowed to approach. IMO, block CVs from getting any closer than 20 miles from an airfield. However the main problem with any solution that limits how close the TG can get to shore is going to be the LVTs. So long as the only TG is the carrier and it can launch LVTs, it HAS to be allowed to get close enough to allow the LVTs to spawn.
That's why I support having a separate "Invasion" task group with an LST, escorted by a couple DEs and MAYBE a CVE with perhaps only the auto ack for point defense and manned 5" guns, with no Puffy Ack. The LST can launch LVTs, and once sunk LVTs are no longer available and it triggers the TG respawn. The CVE can only launch F4Fs/FM-2s, SBDs, TBMs, A6Ms, B5Ns, D3As, and Seafires. The Invasion group can approach to the same range as the task group can now, while the CV group is restricted to outside 20 miles of a base.
-
In reading all of these responses I think the general theme is the task force needs to be modified to more accurately reflect reality and remove the arcade nature of it.
I agree!
Boo
-
Tank, with all due respect, please stop using "to the best of your knowledge" statements and do some research.
Also when someone posts links of information, read them instead of commenting on their post with Armchair General statements.
Lastly, let me clarify here Tank as you are taking this verbatim. .50s and AA were used in aircover support. Main guns were used in support of ground troops. The whole point is the ships came close enough to shore (if you read my links) that they could cover a base or provide aircover. The 50’s probably would not be used unless the ship was being attacked and in range of enemy aircraft (once again in my link you apparently did not read) what happened at Anzio. In this game we cannot separate the fleet so CVS and HVY Cruisers will come close to shore when ordered to do so along with the destroyers.
-
.50s and AA were used in aircover support. Main guns were used in support of ground troops. The whole point is the ships came close enough to shore (if you read my links) that they could cover a base or provide aircover. The 50’s probably would not be used unless the ship was being attacked and in range of enemy aircraft (once again in my link you apparently did not read) what happened at Anzio. In this game we cannot separate the fleet so CVS and HVY Cruisers will come close to shore when ordered to do so along with the destroyers.
Bingo :aok
-
Bingo :aok
And therein lies the problem. We have 2 solutions to these issues (and the ARE issues, contrary to Petyon's questionable oppinion):
1) fix auto puffy to be more realistic. Shells fired from auto guns, guns have realistic rate of fire, total volume of fire decreases as guns are destroyed, guns reevaluate their lead on a target ever 5 seconds and adjust accordingly, and shells cannot be fired though objects (hills, other ships, etc).
2) allow the Destroyers to be 'detached' from the Carrier group so they can come in close to shore and provide AAA support, and do everything listed in #1 as well.
As I've said earlier, regardless of if the ships did what they do in real life, the puffy ack is behaving unrealisticly and needs to be fixed. #1 would help aleviate the issue, since an estimated 1/3rd of the guns will be unable to fire on a target most of the time, and destroying individual guns will help remove the problem. #2 just gives us the bonus of being able to use the ships that could come in close to shore (destroyers) to provide close support, and leave the Carrier and Cruiser back at a more historical distance.
Both would help, #1 would likely be much quicker to coad (to say nothing of easier), #2 would allow for more additions and changes to the fleet in the future. Since #2 would still require us to do everything listed in #1, I say we use option 1 and leave #2 for a later date.
-
+1 to number one and two.
-
As it stands now I do not mind CVs and Hvy cruisers providing close support or air cover close to a base....BUT, I have provided a better and easier solution for the close support issue. This solution only covers the detaching of ships as it does not cover ack, main guns, fire rate etc.that's a different issue.
SOLUTION:
No need to detach. Just have CV and Heavy Cruisers sail by themselves as 1 task force. Light Cruisers and destroyers sail by themselves as 1 task force. A port would have/start with 2 fleets. 1 with CV, HVY Cruisers and 1 without. Same rules would apply. If non CV task group gets sunk, it reups at port. CV task force gets sunk, it reups at port. Each task force can move independently of each other or as a group by drawing similar paths on the map.
If you want to combine the 2 for more firepower you just move them together. This way there will be less programming needed by AH. All they need to do is cut the existing CV fleet down and add another fleet.
-
A seperate fleet of just Destroyers (we have no light cruiser to accompany it) would be kinda useless.
1) you're stripping the CV of much needed defense. One run from a 190F8 and about 1/2 your AA defense is gone, including manned guns.
2) The destroyer's 5" guns aren't real usefull against ground targets, and if it bumps into a CV/Cruiser group its boned, no ifs ands or buts.
3) no place to launch planes from, 5"ers of limited use, LVTA4 and PT rockets are difficult to use and are highly vulnerable and of limted range, respectivly. (ie, limited firepower vs a town or field)
4) does nothing to solve the auto puffy problem
-
I fail to see how puffy ack is not acting realistically. As I've posted before, it was historically @ 85% effective.
If 5" guns are not manned, you can fly around a cv for quite some time without getting killed. Just last week I was in a small furball inside the destroyer ring, mostly 3.5K and below, until someone got in a 5" gun and, one shot I didn't even hear, kabooom.
I've Jabo'd cv's and been shot down by puffy. Manned 5" gun.
I've furballed over and around cv's and been shot down by puffy. Manned 5" gun.
I have not been shot down by auto puffy 85% of the time I have encountered it, in anything.
The occasional "golden bullet", sure, but not-every-single-time.
wrongway
-
1) volume of fire does not decrease along with the number 5" guns destroyed. All ships must be sunk before the puffy will cease 'firing' at you.
2) the FlaK bursts spawn around you, so there is no delay between firing and bursting. If there were, the shells would be aimed at where you WOULD be when the shell reaches your altitude, which means evasive manuvers would take you out the shells' trajectory. It would also mean that FlaK is MUCH more effective down low, since there is less flight time in which you can change your possition. This, however, is not the case with our current FlaK.
3) because the bursts spawn around you, all guns ALWAYS have you in their field of fire
4) FlaK can hit you through mountians.
-
The only time I've flown in the puffy ack around a CV and not died or had something vital broken within seconds of it starting up has been in FSO, where ack lethality is reduced. Yes, the AAA of task groups was HIGHLY effective IRL. But as has been pointed out in many other threads, there needs to be a balance between realism and playability. It's why we don't have to manage our fuel mixtures or manually shift supercharger gears in aircraft that historically required it. 85% effective AAA in the Mains, where you don't have massive strikes soaking up enemy fire becomes absolutely brutal and very much NOT FUN.
-
I fail to see how puffy ack is not acting realistically. As I've posted before, it was historically @ 85% effective.
Which guns on the CV are pointed at you shooting? None
Would puffy ack gunners risk shooting at you with a swarm of their own planes 600yds off your tail? No
Would puffy ack gunners risk shooting at you if you were in a close fight with one of their guys? No
Does sinking a ship affect the volume of puffy ack fire? No
I've Jabo'd cv's and been shot down by puffy. Manned 5" gun.
I've furballed over and around cv's and been shot down by puffy. Manned 5" gun.
You can at least spot a 5 inch targeting you from the water splashs and take some action, and its manned by a player.
I have not been shot down by auto puffy 85% of the time I have encountered it, in anything.
Ahh I see what you done there, 85% huh thats just the same percentage as you stated in real life... ;)
-
As the OP I just want to clarify, it is the "COMPUTER GENERATED PUFF" I find silly. The fact that I can break 3K by 1" and recieve extremely accurate AAA instantly from the computer is irritating at best. I think that coastal fields should have the same "COMPUTER GENERATED PUFF" in response so at least the threat over 3K is equal to all!
For melvin, I could care less if the CV pulls up into the VH and all the manned guns are blasting away at everything in sight, I just don't think they need assistance from the "COMPUTER GENERATED PUFF" :aok
JUGgler