General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Rebel28 on September 20, 2017, 06:53:16 AM
Title: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Rebel28 on September 20, 2017, 06:53:16 AM
It takes 1.5 – 2 hours to get a fleet into position but only takes one bomber run to reset the entire fleet by sinking just the Carrier. Using the cruiser to take out field objects does not kill them they reset after a time period. The carrier should be the same.
To reset an entire fleet all the ships should need to be sunk. Otherwise they would be replaced, or in the case of the game reset, after a time frame. The other ships in the fleet are still effective and active. They would not be pulled out of a battle, as what happens now.
The auto guns on the fleet are only effective on dive bombers, fighters and low flying bombers. In the time I have spent on the ships I have never witnessed them hitting a high bomber formation. Turning the fleet is the only effective defense at this time. That only works about 50% of the time, and only if the timing of the turn is correct. With multiple attacks at the same time that percentage goes down.
Under the current system it’s to easy to just kill the carrier to reset an entire fleet.
Other options would be make the carrier indestructible like the one hanger on the fields. Or increase the accuracy of the 5 inch auto ack
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Greebo on September 20, 2017, 07:19:43 AM
I may be mis-remembering but in AH1 I think you did have to kill the whole fleet to reset it. I agree it would be a step in the right direction to go back to this arrangement although once the carrier is down I can't see it taking very long for the other ships to be sunk as well. So maybe cut the ship reset time too. It would be fun to try and defend a CV group for long enough for the CV to respawn or to try and kill the ships before it does. The ticking timer gives the fight an edge.
Increasing the accuracy of the auto ack to be effective against bombers would make it ridiculous against fighters, what it really needs is an improvement in AI.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: asterix on September 20, 2017, 07:38:17 AM
The auto guns on the fleet are only effective on dive bombers, fighters and low flying bombers. In the time I have spent on the ships I have never witnessed them hitting a high bomber formation. Turning the fleet is the only effective defense at this time. That only works about 50% of the time, and only if the timing of the turn is correct. With multiple attacks at the same time that percentage goes down.
You have manned guns and you can have combat air patrol over the fleet.
Not saying no to the idea. Just few comments.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: popeye on September 20, 2017, 09:22:36 AM
So, the enemy can kill all but one DD and it will sail alone forever?
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Greebo on September 20, 2017, 09:29:33 AM
No, the idea is that each sunk ship respawns after a certain time, like hangars do on airfields.
Its a question of balance, at the moment it is too easy to kill the fleet and too hard to defend it. Manned AA is very effective against jabos and torp planes, much less so against level bombers. Capping a fleet involves circling around for ages waiting for bombers that may never turn up, as this is far more boring than attacking an airfield or furballing few people are prepared to do it. Now if it required all the ships to sunk in a time frame then it would be a lot more worthwhile to CAP the fleet. Even if you miss the first lot of bombers, they or others will have to come back to finish the job. So you are far more likely to see some action and you have a goal to achieve as well, protect the ships until the CV respawns.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lusche on September 20, 2017, 09:35:44 AM
I once was thinking along the same line, but refrained from posting it as a wish because I see this as a very double-edged sword.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Mister Fork on September 20, 2017, 09:56:43 AM
I think it's a good idea that it requires all but maybe 2 of the ships still alive to cause a reset of the CV. Still acts like a landing force until most of the ships are sent to the bottom. I LIKE IT :aok
You could still put a timer on it once the carrier is sunk - like maybe one hour?
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Zardoz on September 20, 2017, 11:06:45 AM
I think this is an idea that has merit. I'm not sure how the particulars would play out, but I would like to see it explored.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Arlo on September 20, 2017, 11:29:25 AM
I'd like the CV to be unsinkable until all the other ships are sunk. :D
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: SlipKnt on September 20, 2017, 11:31:40 AM
I think I understand the OP.
Currently, when a ship in a fleet goes down, it is out for I believe 45 minutes. The CV is down for 10.
My recommendation is all ships down for 15 minutes...
But, sink the CV, it still should respawn to the port with the the rest of the group.
That would be my recommendation.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lazerr on September 20, 2017, 11:47:09 AM
Not sure how i feel about having to kill all the ships to get rid of the whole group.. sounds like a recipe for more gun sitters.
I do think the cv and cruiser hardness should be at least doubled.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Wiley on September 20, 2017, 11:59:03 AM
Not sure how i feel about having to kill all the ships to get rid of the whole group.. sounds like a recipe for more gun sitters.
I do think the cv and cruiser hardness should be at least doubled.
That might be part of the equation too. It's nearly trivial to kill a CV currently. It seems to me it's a bit out of whack that one successful player in a bomber can take it out.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Mister Fork on September 20, 2017, 12:50:44 PM
That might be part of the equation too. It's nearly trivial to kill a CV currently. It seems to me it's a bit out of whack that one successful player in a bomber can take it out.
Wiley.
That's the problem. A patient heavy bomber pilot at 20k+ can just make pass after pass until the carrier is sunk. Either double the damage it can take to sink, or let the remaining ship group stay up for at least an hour before it resets back to it's port (or unless the enemy sinks the rest of the ships).
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Wiley on September 20, 2017, 12:57:15 PM
Or up a set of TU2s and just one pass it. Not entirely sure doubling it is exactly right, but something more than a single pass should be necessary for the CV and cruiser, IMO.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lusche on September 20, 2017, 01:02:35 PM
That's the problem. A patient heavy bomber pilot at 20k+ can just make pass after pass until the carrier is sunk.
Almost no carriers are sunk from 20k+ in the MA. Unless there is literally no one on it and it's on a straight and level course for a sector or so, it's incredibly hard to get a hit. That's why usually player ain't even trying for that. And also because it takes way too long to get to 20k (not under 20 minutes for a heavy bomber, often 30+). Generally, the upper limit of incoming level bombers is about 12, and even that is quite rare.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: EagleDNY on September 20, 2017, 01:57:54 PM
I kill a lot of CVs - it is vastly more efficient to just up a set of TU-2s or B-26s and come in about 5K. If a CV is manned and turning there is no way a high level bomber is going to hit it. By coming in low we just lead it a bit and score at least few hits every time. Only manned ack and fighter cover prevents this sort of attack. Puffy is worthless except to alert me when I am getting near the CV.
I kind of like this idea - having the CV group respawn where it sits unless every ship is sunk means that I can turn the group away if the CV and Cruiser gets wacked and try to hide out with the destroyers until respawn. If we do this though the CV respawn time has to be increased - I'd say take it 30 minutes. This also has the benefit of making it harder to capture CV and BB groups, so it might lessen people wanting to capture a CV/BB and hide it on some corner of the map in off hours.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: pembquist on September 20, 2017, 02:21:35 PM
I think it would be interesting if it respawned in one of 5 random spawn points a good distance away form the port. That way only the side that owns it would know where it is. As it stands there is a certain monotony with some port battles and if it respawned where it was sunk it would be a bit zombie like.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Zener on September 20, 2017, 02:40:55 PM
I don't favor changing anything about CVs while other options exist and simply are not chosen. I bomb CVs a lot and maybe one in ten, one in twelve attempt do I even encounter a single plane resisting the effort. On the other hand, the hardest CVs to sink are those where some fighters are in permanent orbit.
I think it comes down to how this game requires, in some respects, a sort of "team" effort for success. When LVTs are inbound to a town, it helps to have some fighter cap, though they also may simply orbit with no action. However, if they were NOT there, that LVT has almost no chance to get ashore or make town.
So if the CV is of that much value, it should take (IMHO) someone willing to protect that asset while others press the attack. If no one is willing to, which is often the case, then what should you expect?
If a country refused to up and defend an airfield, what ought to happen? Should we make the ack or manned guns more lethal? Should we reduce town building down times to 5 min? No, I think we should assess the weakness in our offense or defense and fix that with our tactics rather than tinker with the code to make up for it.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bustr on September 20, 2017, 02:47:42 PM
Have task groups respawn 1\3 of the total path distance from it's port start position back from it's last position when sunk. If sunk in the same local waters of the port, it's default start position.
This kind of negates the breathing space the enemy just earned itself on that front and the purpose of sinking task groups to get them out of that territory. From this idea, task groups become limited persistent mobile airfields that you can never get out of your territory and that once there, as long as you keep your port, you don't have to defend it and it's almost always ready for you to attack with.
One of the problems is how hard it appears to hit level bombers with the 5in versus fighters. Offline I can slaughter bomber drones in the circuit with a 5in, while online even at those ranges, there was no purpose to practicing offline. I've been on task groups where all the 5in were manned by very good shooters and they spent an hour slaughtering level bombers keeping their CV alive. The majority of the time, bombers have 5in resistant shielding and sink the CV with impunity unless the commander is well versed at turning the CV. The veteran CV sinkers today are incredible with their ability to adjust to radical CV turning and still sink them.
And the few times POTW has attempted to sink a task group where a squad decided to fly high CAP, the CV never got sunk.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Wiley on September 20, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
I don't favor changing anything about CVs while other options exist and simply are not chosen. I bomb CVs a lot and maybe one in ten, one in twelve attempt do I even encounter a single plane resisting the effort. On the other hand, the hardest CVs to sink are those where some fighters are in permanent orbit.
I think it comes down to how this game requires, in some respects, a sort of "team" effort for success. When LVTs are inbound to a town, it helps to have some fighter cap, though they also may simply orbit with no action. However, if they were NOT there, that LVT has almost no chance to get ashore or make town.
So if the CV is of that much value, it should take (IMHO) someone willing to protect that asset while others press the attack. If no one is willing to, which is often the case, then what should you expect?
If a country refused to up and defend an airfield, what ought to happen? Should we make the ack or manned guns more lethal? Should we reduce town building down times to 5 min? No, I think we should assess the weakness in our offense or defense and fix that with our tactics rather than tinker with the code to make up for it.
It's not about tactics though. One person has to do a fair bit of work to take a base.
Simply put one person can shut down a CV attack that took a long time to set up with a time investment of 10 to 15 minutes. For a reasonable chance of success, at least 2 fighters need to be available to defend. Yes one can do it but he better be pretty good at it, where it doesn't take much more than a breathing human at the bomber controls to kill a CV.
Have task groups respawn 1\3 of the total path distance from it's port start position back from it's last position when sunk. If sunk in the same local waters of the port, it's default start position.
That's not a terrible idea, but the rules for coding that would be tricky to implement.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bustr on September 20, 2017, 03:23:12 PM
It would be another database, and Hitech probably has better things to do with his time....
Mostly this was a vehicle to point out the wish doesn't benefit everyone, just the player who wants task groups in the other countries waters when he logs on. Or when he decides he wants to do some carrier action.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: popeye on September 20, 2017, 03:37:15 PM
-1
The TG already has the advantage of stealth and can shut down and WF a field before it encounters any opposition. Even after it is discovered, I've seen the TG cruise back and forth offshore for a long time before it is neutralized - especially when player numbers are low.
Maybe increase the CV and CA hardness a bit.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: hitech on September 20, 2017, 04:02:22 PM
Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?
HiTech
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: puller on September 20, 2017, 04:15:37 PM
Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?
HiTech
Would it be from a predictable series of evasive's that can be learned over time to know when to turn your bomber left or right? Or would it be a list of evasive's introduced visa a randomizer function like the random spawn circle? How long will it stay in effect since turning the boat gets in the way of upping fighters to play. Our armchair admirals are not known for being studious about releasing control or turning things off.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: hitech on September 20, 2017, 04:29:31 PM
Would it be from a predictable series of evasive's that can be learned over time to know when to turn your bomber left or right? Or would it be a list of evasive's introduced visa a randomizer function like the random spawn circle? How long will it stay in effect since turning the boat gets in the way of upping fighters to play. Our armchair admirals are not known for being studious about releasing control or turning things off.
Random, and go straight if someone is on deck.
HiTech
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lusche on September 20, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?
HiTech
With the tactics I use probably not. Simply turning the CV would not be enough - I can see which way you are going because the cruiser leads the turn a bit and I drop my bombs in the direction of your turn when I lead. It would certainly help against high level attacks, but to stop my low-level freebies you would need much tougher AAA (5" and Puffy). AAA (puffy especially) needs to have some more intelligence as well - bombers and attack aircraft need to get priority on AAA fire. I often get a free run on the CV because the AAA is blasting some low fighter nearby that couldn't possibly hurt the CV instead of opening up with everything they have on my inbound low bombers. I'm not saying auto-evade is a bad idea from a realism standpoint, but to couple it with increase in CV ack effectiveness would be a good idea as well.
Frankly, one of the biggest impediments to my low-level attack profile is if the CV is lit and I am coming in from astern. The smoke from a LIT CV hides it pretty well in my scope until I am right on top of it. What would you think about having the destroyers lay a smoke screen while the CV is doing auto-evade? I know it is a little tough on the graphics cards, but the baseline $99 graphics card these days is a GTX 1050 and really can handle it.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Zener on September 20, 2017, 06:58:43 PM
I'd love to see an auto-maneuver function on CVs because then I'd just orbit them and watch a few dozen pilots auger in trying to take off on a radically turning CV. Might actually be a better tactic than bombing them, just make them such a spinning runway they are all but unusable. :D :aok Yeah, do that.
Meanwhile, the option is still there to protect them and whenever that goes unused I don't really feel very sorry for people who spend a lot of time planning the course of a key asset then leaving it hanging out in the wind to be destroyed. I don't get the concept of why a CV is any more important than any other source of offensive capability. Maybe we should have auto evading VHs based upon the same reasons, which is that someone can easily destroy them if they aren't defended.
Why not simply defend them better?
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Devil 505 on September 20, 2017, 07:18:19 PM
Would auto evade check box make it more difficult to bomb?
HiTech
I've sunk and hit a lot of ships from 8K B26's no matter which way and how hard they turn. Most times, the only thing that stops me is a great fighter and gunner defense. I'm not sure "auto-evade" would help the group stay afloat.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lazerr on September 21, 2017, 12:48:24 AM
Are we ruling out making it take more ord to kill?
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: popeye on September 21, 2017, 08:44:48 AM
I'd like the CV to be unsinkable until all the other ships are sunk. :D
I like this idea too. :aok
But, auto evade feature would be an ideal compromise - as along as it works.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Zimme83 on September 21, 2017, 09:13:01 AM
Few, if any carrier, would take 8000 lbs of bombs and still remain functional.. But as said above. The problem is lack of air cover for the carrier. The Japanese Carriers were just about as long lived w/o fighter escort. (and took far less damage than 'our' carriers). Fly a fighter cap at 12k and the carriers will stay alive much longer..
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: SlipKnt on September 21, 2017, 11:17:55 AM
Two things I saw that would enhance the CV experience for both attack and defense in my twisted mind...
1. Auto turn function 2. Harden the CV a bit more so one set of bombers (except the Lanc and B29) is required.
I would add that changing the down time for all fleet ships could be changed to 15 minute down times, period. But if the CV is gone, it re-spawns to port in 15 minutes (not the current 10). But also taking down a cruiser during an intense battle forces the defenders to either sink the CV ASAP or deal with a cruiser up again in 15 minutes.
Really good discussion.
I am not for sinking the entire fleet to force a re-spawn though. There needs to be a balance. When a CV attack comes against a low numbered side, that just enhances the vulch light on a defended field.
I honestly like the direction this post is going.
:rock
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: The Fugitive on September 21, 2017, 11:36:32 AM
Few, if any carrier, would take 8000 lbs of bombs and still remain functional.. But as said above. The problem is lack of air cover for the carrier. The Japanese Carriers were just about as long lived w/o fighter escort. (and took far less damage than 'our' carriers). Fly a fighter cap at 12k and the carriers will stay alive much longer..
the problem stems from this being a game and not "real life". You can base the arguments on that.
first, this being a game, tactics are different. Here you can suicide again and again in which ever bomber you want to use to dive bomb in. real life you can do that once.
second, if I have 2 hours to play a game which is more likely to happen. fly cap for 2 hours picking off buffs, and missing it up on the deck with everyone else? I'll bet most are here to play, not cap.
as a game there are a number of things that are done to compensate for the lack of real world quality. F3 in buffs to simulate a full crews worth of eyes and so on. Some thing is needed to compensate for the lack of attrition in attacking a cv.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Wiley on September 21, 2017, 12:01:02 PM
the problem stems from this being a game and not "real life". You can base the arguments on that.
first, this being a game, tactics are different. Here you can suicide again and again in which ever bomber you want to use to dive bomb in. real life you can do that once.
second, if I have 2 hours to play a game which is more likely to happen. fly cap for 2 hours picking off buffs, and missing it up on the deck with everyone else? I'll bet most are here to play, not cap.
as a game there are a number of things that are done to compensate for the lack of real world quality. F3 in buffs to simulate a full crews worth of eyes and so on. Some thing is needed to compensate for the lack of attrition in attacking a cv.
You're not wrong, but I think increasing the hardness would help in that instead of the guys mixing it up on the deck seeing a set of 8k TU2s and going, "Well, that's the end of this." and being angry because the fun police have arrived, more might be motivated to climb to 12k to set up for the next batch.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lusche on September 21, 2017, 12:21:54 PM
"Mixing it up" is one thing. But what I have frequently seen is 6 guys hovering over a deacked airfield waiting for a fool to up, with none of them capping the CV or even helping that guy in the LVT at town by strafing that last 3 buildings down. I have to admit I'm not very sympathetic to them when the CV goes down, even when I happen to be one of them. ;) Especially as you can often see the darbar coming in for the CV from the next base.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Becinhu on September 21, 2017, 01:48:05 PM
A cv offshore can create a fight when there are none. They can make for s nice long drawn out battle. I'll leave a cv alone until one of two things happen. 1. The vulch is on 2. They hit town. Then I up the no fun bus. And it takes a competent cv driver to make 8k bombers miss, unless the bomber pilot botches their drop.
The other factor that will kill a good cv battle is the butt hurt bandits who get shot down and jump in the 5 inchers or 88s and start lobbing rounds into the furball.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bustr on September 21, 2017, 02:16:27 PM
Next terrain once again has a BB task group with each CV task group from the 3 ports in each country. CV task groups, just kill the cruiser and you will have a drawn out furball until the cruiser rebuilds if it lasts that long. The BB can stand off at 22 miles and take down your town\airfield using Shift_Q. When it gets in closer then your shore batteries with a single salvo.
I doubt Hitech will make his auto evasion mode he spoke about only for the CV group, since both groups use the same code for driving them.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Ramesis on September 21, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Imho... no matter the solutions suggested... I think it will lead to increased kamikaze attacks that oh so many squeaked about several years ago :old:
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bangsbox on September 21, 2017, 03:42:20 PM
id like to see the damage needed to sink BB & CV from reg bombs go up alot and damage needed from AP and torps needed to sink BB and CV go down.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bustr on September 21, 2017, 04:05:48 PM
The gist of this wish is you want Hitech to protect your assets so they will be around for you to use them if you decide to, and while you are in the middle of not defending them. Same as when everyone furballs their little hearts out while an M3 sneaks into the town and takes their furball away from them. Then we get angry posts to nerf the M3, harden the airfield, get rid of manned guns, or make everyone become furballers for the good of the game.
I'm in the final phase of setting up game play on this terrain. Field defense against task groups. I have to work with reality, what Hitech has in place today. So I have to spend time reading many posts looking for insights to how terrains are utilized, not how everyone wishes they could force Hitech to change the game to make them personally happy.
Why an arena with three sides essentially mirrored with an effective wall around the water, no place to hide. Why in the back field of each country a blind spot with water in it, a place to sneak. Why are most airfields 19 miles apart instead of the old standard of 25 miles. So you don't waste your precious time in transit to fight or break things. Why PT spawns at every water front airfield, some airfields are now too close together to place shore batteries that don't let you drop 8in rounds on the ends of runways just across the water. A trade off I cannot do anything about.
BowlMA gave me the opportunity to listen to players talk about their problems with task groups, not read their fantasies here in these forums. Each of the 6 task groups in each country now have a fast track path at the other countries by how I placed the ports. I also put three GV spawns to each port with two 13mile away airfields to defend the ports. They have turned out to be too easy to capture. That leaves strategic weaknesses to be leveraged if you first capture a support field to a port. And at a minimum, every base on a water front has PT spawns. Those that I can get shore batteries onto and not hit other feilds get 2-3, I think the large airfield island will get 4.
I hate shore batteries and PT spawns on this terrain almost as much as I hate creating mountains now. Creating terrains is not as fun much of the time as it is tedious, repetitious, and brain numbing. I have a lot of sympathy for those who started and let it go. Now think about Hitech's position as the lone person who programs every last bit and bite of this. I do and keep plugging on.
So until Hitech changes the game, here is what I'm pulling my hair out over and testing. Hitech thank you so much for that red dot showing exactly where a point is touching land. It has been a game changer in setting this stuff up.
Today's fun and testing, I was worried that backfield blind-spot slot was too narrow for setting a task group path. The touching land error had to do with trying to place the first segment straight up the shore from the CV's starting location. I had to place a short segment NW to clear that point of land just N of the CV. Hitech's new segment graphic helped me trouble shoot my problem. The white rings are 8 mile radius because I've set most airfields 1-2 miles back from the water.
But, auto evade feature would be an ideal compromise - as along as it works.
wouldn't just be eaiser to say fleet don't spawn out until all ships in fleet are destroyed.
or just make Cv hardness same as a Battleship.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bustr on September 21, 2017, 04:15:08 PM
Heck I just made airjer's day. Now all he has to do is take off and never climb while circling unsuspecting task groups intruding in his country from all sides. It's going to be impossible to hide your asset, so they will get sunk if you don't use them. Airfields at 19 miles apart, gauntlets of PT spawns and shore batteries, and task groups everywhere. Whats not to like about that available carnage. And the distances to get back into the fray are much shorter, especially if a field capture binge cuts loose. You see how fast territory changes hands on my first terrain when it's in rotation.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Arlo on September 21, 2017, 04:20:01 PM
Won't they get just as sunk if we use them? :D
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: puller on September 21, 2017, 04:33:50 PM
id like to see the damage needed to sink BB & CV from reg bombs go up alot and damage needed from AP and torps needed to sink BB and CV go down.
^ What he said +1. I'm OK with the damage needed using torps and AP bombs, but the HE stuff (especially small HE) shouldn't even make a dent in a BB and should be cut in half on a CV. Armor is armor - if the bomb doesn't penetrate most of the blast of HE takes the path of least resistance. Yes, you can talk about concussion effects on the crew but a ship has a whole lot of crew to replace people that get injured.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: bustr on September 26, 2017, 06:44:52 PM
Hitech already increased the damage needed to sink the CV because of the BB. It takes forever to sink a CV and cruiser with a shore battery now. The bomber guys are just good at what they do. Everything that can hit a CV is effected by the increase for the BB 16in.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: EagleDNY on September 27, 2017, 06:48:58 PM
Doesn't SEEM any harder to sink a CV with a batch of Tu-2s, but I'll have a look. The BBs are a tough nut - that is where I think we are seeing a resurgence in LancStuka attacks.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lusche on September 28, 2017, 02:44:12 AM
^ What he said +1. I'm OK with the damage needed using torps and AP bombs, but the HE stuff (especially small HE) shouldn't even make a dent in a BB and should be cut in half on a CV. Armor is armor - if the bomb doesn't penetrate most of the blast of HE takes the path of least resistance. Yes, you can talk about concussion effects on the crew but a ship has a whole lot of crew to replace people that get injured.
A cv will not withstand gp bombs, a wooden deck full with planes plus fuel, ords etc.. At midway the SBDs dropped 500-pounders and 4 of them was enough to turn a cv into a flaming wreck.. 8000 lbs of gp bombs is more than any cv would survive.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Greebo on September 28, 2017, 05:59:21 AM
The Japanese CVs at Midway had their decks packed with fuel and ord laden aircraft and those particular IJN carriers did not have very good protection for their fuel and ammo reserves either. The Essex class we have took a lot more punishment to sink although the wooden deck was just as vulnerable to bombs or Kamikazes. This is all besides the point anyway though. The amount of ord required to sink a CV or any ship in the game is set by HTC for game balance and has little or no bearing on what was needed in RL.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Arlo on September 28, 2017, 07:38:03 AM
A cv will not withstand gp bombs, a wooden deck full with planes plus fuel, ords etc.. At midway the SBDs dropped 500-pounders and 4 of them was enough to turn a cv into a flaming wreck.. 8000 lbs of gp bombs is more than any cv would survive.
Actually, it was considered fortuitous that the attack group caught Japanese CVs in the middle of ord and fuel replenishment (in other words, that was/is not a constant state on CVs).
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Vraciu on September 28, 2017, 11:26:33 AM
The Japanese CVs at Midway had their decks packed with fuel and ord laden aircraft and those particular IJN carriers did not have very good protection for their fuel and ammo reserves either. The Essex class we have took a lot more punishment to sink although the wooden deck was just as vulnerable to bombs or Kamikazes. This is all besides the point anyway though. The amount of ord required to sink a CV or any ship in the game is set by HTC for game balance and has little or no bearing on what was needed in RL.
The Japanese carriers at Midway had their aircraft below decks except the CAP which was in a recovery/launch/recovery cycle. Parshall and Tully have detailed this extensively in SHATTERED SWORD. This made the damage catastrophic because of all the associated physics related to enclosed spaces as well as the inability of escort ships to assist in fire fighting. Great book. Worth the read. You'll love it.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Becinhu on September 28, 2017, 12:06:56 PM
A single set of b26s with 500 lbers makes a reef out of a cv every time on a good drop.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Zener on September 28, 2017, 01:38:39 PM
Same can be said for every heavy bomber.
Sometimes it's better NOT to go for a sink right away, such as when you have other teammates inbound in bombers of their own. In those cases I will sometimes drop my salvo and make a run with lesser objectives, such as to damage it and drop its radar and to force a turn if someone is driving the CV. If there's little or no cap, I can turn and come back with the lethal drop just about the time the others are in their bombsight from the other direction. One of us is going to have time to react to a turn and sink it.
I like using 88s for that job. Save the 500lb bombs on the wing for the second run, drop plenty of those smaller bombs in the bomb bay in salvos on the first pass and one of them is going to create a candle no matter how it turns. Assuming of course you make the correct approach.
Undamaged BBs require a different strategy than CVs.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Becinhu on September 28, 2017, 05:21:16 PM
At 8000 ft that cv has to be turned almost perfectly
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Arlo on September 28, 2017, 05:47:00 PM
Good reason to add:
(http://p1.la-img.com/538/35486/14754938_2_l.jpg)
Which would create a reason to add:
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Lusche on September 28, 2017, 05:47:27 PM
Unless I am the one bombing it, then about any turn will do :bhead
I would figure its more the result of the lack of hands. How does a snail push the bomb release anyway....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Rebel28 on September 30, 2017, 09:43:50 AM
The main point I was trying to make in the original post was just sinking the Carrier should not reset the entire fleet.
The Carrier group as it is assembled here consists of:
1 Essex class carrier 1 Baltimore class Heavy cruiser 4 Destroyers
The Essex class carrier and the Baltimore class cruiser are, both, capital ships.
The sinking of just one should only reduce the effectiveness of the fleet not put it out of action. Which returning it to its home port is what it does currently.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: EagleDNY on September 30, 2017, 06:44:45 PM
Not a bad idea to have to sink BOTH the CV and the Cruiser to get a reset. Still gives you the opportunity to run with half the fleet and wait for one ship to respawn if sunk, or press the attack knowing they have to get the other one to reset you. Would want to play with the respawn time on the CV and Cruiser though.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Devil 505 on September 30, 2017, 08:20:52 PM
The sinking of just one should only reduce the effectiveness of the fleet not put it out of action. Which returning it to its home port is what it does currently.
I like this.
Could be made even better if you attach the LVT and PT boats to the cruiser. That way one can sink the cruiser and prevent a base take while allowing the fight to continue.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Arlo on September 30, 2017, 09:11:19 PM
CV unsinkable until all other ships in TF sunk. CV still can be damaged all along, though.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: EagleDNY on October 01, 2017, 02:15:38 PM
CV unsinkable until all other ships in TF sunk. CV still can be damaged all along, though.
Way too gamey this way.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: The Fugitive on October 01, 2017, 02:26:36 PM
A town has to be 80% down before it goes WF. Set a number of ships that have to go down in 30 minutes to make the capture. One capital ship and 3 others in 30 minutes, 1 capitol ship and 2 others in 15 minutes.
Title: Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
Post by: Arlo on October 01, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Nothing else suggested is 'gamey', at all? We play in an MA which is massively adjusted for the sake of game play. In the challenge of balancing realism and game play we have shorter distances, faster fuel burn rate, magic spawn points and rapid repair. We also have dive-bombing bomber formations, ships that move at a constant forward speed, kill-shooter and every plane model in the game on every side of the game.
One more 'gamey' suggestion that'll keep the CV in the fight .... is 'way too' gamey? :D