Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: CRASH on November 21, 2001, 07:42:00 PM
-
As long as they can be taken out by a lone suicidal fighter they're pretty much useless.
-
Edit: Need to learn how to read...
Try again: Why do the cv's need hardening? Kamikaze's were feared in WW2, why should they not be feared here? The US had a lot of ships sunk/crippled by suicide attacks. I don't like the suicide bombers either but I think they are just a side effect of making the cv's a reasonable softness.
I think eskimo said it best in the other thread:
Ships sink when bombs hit them.
It's part of the game.
Get over it.
eskimo
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Blue Mako ]
-
uh cv not gv :p
-
With all due respect, Mako (and Eskimo's lack of civility aside), I don't believe there is a precedent for lone fighters killing CV's; even in WWII CV's were harder than that.
The real question is: Why are CV's of one toughness on the NDIsles map, and another toughness on the Mindanao map?
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Voss ]
-
There is not a precedent for lone fighters killing cv's I agree, but in the attacks by many fighters/dive bombers/torpedo bombers etc, in many cases it took only ONE bomb/kamikaze to kill or cripple a cv/battleship.
I don't think it is that great a problem myself. After all, the cv respawns 10 minutes later unless the port has been captured. It shouldn't have to be as durable as IRL, otherwise we should also have to wait a few months after each cv was sunk to get it back... Now that would be worth whining about. :cool:
-
Ok, so I'm to understand that during wwii we lost alot of ships when ONE japanese kamikazee dove into the flight deck? Got any data to back that one up? Crippled makes sense, sent to the bottom doesn't.
Your neglecting several facts in your historical argument.
1. It took more than one plane diving into the deck to sink a carrier, as a matter of fact the idea was to hit at the water line or into the superstructure.
2. Kamikazee runs accounted for a very small percentage of the total number of attacks on American naval assets and for most of the war was not the preferred method of attack like it is here.
3. It was extremely costly. You lost a plane and an experienced pilot....forever, no respawn.
4. Of the a/c that tried to kamikazee in, very few actually made it.
5. CV's were heavily capped. In ah all the cap in the world wouldnt matter because all it takes is 1 p51 to dive in. Try catchin' that before it hits the cv.
Given all of this, the question is, how do you compensate for the way things were historically in a game? Well, one way is to harden the carriers so it takes more hits to kill it. Second, you amp up the ack so that very few actually get in, again, like it was historically. We can argue about this all we want, but the fact remains, a cv doesnt last 15 minutes in battle because somebody suicides it and that just aint fun. If things are gonna remain this way with regard to the cv's then why have them at all?
Originally posted by Blue Mako:
Edit: Need to learn how to read...
Try again: Why do the cv's need hardening? Kamikaze's were feared in WW2, why should they not be feared here? The US had a lot of ships sunk/crippled by suicide attacks. I don't like the suicide bombers either but I think they are just a side effect of making the cv's a reasonable softness.
I think eskimo said it best in the other thread:
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Blue Mako ]
-
Your points are well stated and make sense. However, just with regard to the last suggestion, if you are going to have the cv's "historically" hardened then you need to include the following:
Bomb/kamikaze hits disable flight operations.
Damaged cv's travel slower.
Cv's can't turn on a dime.
Cv's take about 6 months to respawn/get repaired.
Otherwise hardening the cv's is just going to make them even more gamey, not more realistic, IMO.
The fact remains that kamikaze's did inflict heavy damage when they did hit a vessel. This is also true in AH so it will continue to be used as a form of attack no matter what happens. Dweeb's Law(tm) ensures this is the case.
Increase the realism/effectiveness of the cv ack but don't make the cv tougher is my suggestion.
-
If the CV is so precious it must be kept alive... then GUARD IT.
Unless there's a mission going on, there's usually not more than 1~2 people out to get a CV. If the people weren't so busy vulching and gang banging a neutralized airfield, and if just ONE of them had enough brains to foresee someone's gonna try to kill it and fly active CAP duty around a CV, it can be easily stopped.
If people are so busy hoarding up a base and fighting on deck alt that nobody is willing to guard the CV, then tough luck.
Someone's gonna come higher and sink it.
-
Oh, and don't tell us it's impossible to stop an oncoming CV killer. Ofcourse it is impossible to stop a plane that already began its dive. If perchance anyone's thinking flying right on top of the CV is CAP, for their information it is not.
You have to catch the killer while he is making his way to the CV, not when he already arrived and has the CV on his vis. This takes time and effort, just like gooning a neutralized base needs time and effort. If a base is down and nobody goons it, it's not gonna be conquered. If a CV is in danger of being attacked and it's not guarded, it's gonna sink.
This is more about figuring out what the team needs in current situation, rather than something to do with realism.
Asking to toughen up the CV without taking this fact into consdieration is like asking "let's toughen up the CV so we can all have fun furballing, without having to worry about would-be CV killers."
.. and, this is the same with the defenders also. If everybody is so busy just furballing around enemy CV planes, and nobody takes time and effort to get a heavy plane up to kill a CV, then the CV survives. Planes from the CV will eventually overrun a nearby base.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]
-
Mako I have been reading this post and I hate to say this but I think the CVs need to be hardened too. U say it would take 6 months to respawn, and it should travel slower and it would lose flight opps, well I agree that maybe if it was possible for HT to model all that sure but as it is CVs move slow enough and the turning on a dime have U ever seen the bombsight footage of a dive bomber the CVs turn on a DIME when in a emergancy. Now as for the next part the Damaged flight opps well howa bout no suspened flight ops just no ordance and 25%fuel from all planes off that cv when it is hit. As for the 1 bomb hitting and sinking CVs and battleships lets look back at those battles it was a golden beebee that got through that sunk the CV or Battleship U know the one in a million bomb that was placed perfectly and hit a flaw in the deisign and hit the ammo keg of a ship or the fuel under the decks of a CV now lets look at the thousands of bombs that never killed a cv or let alone even serriously damaged one. I think it was the USS Lexington that took what almost 10k pounds of bombs and was still afloat and it got hit by 3 torpedos to boot. ( although I think only 2 exploded) the ship limped back to port almost 400miles away at a whopping 4-6knts yeah it lost fighter ops but was it outa the war HELL NO. did it come back 6months later yes did it get hit again better belive it did it sink not quite was it damaged of course. The CVs in AH R WAY to weak I suggest 6k to kill first 2k causes loss of 50% fuel, the next 2k that hit it loses 25% more fuel and ord. and slows to half speed and begins to smoke ( major FPS hit) the last 2k will sink it. Its easy its simple and its the closest thing we will get to realistic CV damage untill a better CV damage model comes about. But that would mean that the CV would need a whopping 100+ guns on it and thats from .50cal up.
hodo
-
The whole naval aspect in AH seems very immature to me.
(http://www.13thtas.com/yeagersig.jpg)
-
S!
CV's don't need hardening. In fact I think in many ways they are more durable than the real life thing.
One Squadron of Dauntlasses carrying single 1000 lb bombs sank 3 CV's at Midway in less than 5 minutes.
Japanese to a huge extent, and U.S. Carriers were very suseptible to bomb hits. Neither of them had armoured flight decks. That's right, just a few inches of ordinary steel. Bombs went through it like a hot knife through butter. A CV hit by a single bomb, or hit by a shell from a Cruiser would have significant damage, like elevators destroyed, magazines exploding etc. Right now the first few hits have zero effect.
British Carriers in the second war had armoured flight decks, and were able to withstand direct hits from Kamikazes and some bombs. But they also had a lot less room for aircraft because of the armour. A British Carrier typically carried 40-45 planes compared to 80-90 planes on a U.S. CV.
Do you guys want restriction on the maximum number of planes which can launch from a CV before it has to return to base to get another complement of aircraft?
Finally there is a prescedent for a single aircraft sinking a CV. A lone Japanese Kamikaze turned the USS Franklin into a burning inferno which had to be towed back to the USA and was later sold for scrap.
There are many other instances of Battleships or Carriers being sunk by one or two hits from aircraft.
-
USN CV's weren't necessarily sunk by single Kamikazes, but they were often very badly damaged by them, often to the point of being useless for months. Several of the USA's big carriers were knocked out of action for many months because of a single airplane (usually a Kamikaze). In AH this is effectively the same thing as being sunk.
USS FRANKLIN
USS Belleau Wood (sp?)
USS Enterprise (flying elevator pic)
USS Bunker Hill
USS Princeton (sunk)
USS Saratoga
All of those ships, having been hit by a single plane, were either knocked completely out of the war or at least required a refit. In the case of the Bunker Hill, it was 2 planes--but just one caused enough damage to render the ship useless for flight ops.
Either way, the damage was severe enough that the "carrier sunk and replaced in 10 minutes" in AH seems reasonable.
Now if AH modeled British carriers, with their armoured flight-decks, things would be a different matter.
J_A_B
EDIT: Franklin cruised back across the Pacific under her own power, a tremendous achievment.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: J_A_B ]
-
Well, at Midway...if my memory serves from readings, the bomb damage occured after a re-arm and the flight decks were full of bombs previously loaded and aircraft with new bombs loaded and full fuel.
I seem to recall that bombs tend to fall through the flight deck to explode below. It's nasty, but not typically a thing that would sink the great ship. Damage below the waterline is completely different and is most likely a death blow. And, I think a lot of times flight decks could be repaired with plywood. I'm no expert and will quickly yield to anyone who says I'm wrong on this. It would seem natural to suggest any bomb hits on the CV decks should disrupt air operations, but bombs on the runways of land bases don't do anything to disrupt air ops. One thing I would love to see is something to make the high alt buff demolishing a moving target be much more difficult and force more traditional cv attacks via TBMs and hopefully some dive bombers (SBD, Val, Kate) not here yet but introduced soon. Anyway, my understanding is it's damage below the waterline that is most deadly.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Steven ]
-
There's no equitable solution for kamikazi CV runs as long as there is no loss for doing it. The kamikazi can replane instantly... the CV is now hours away.
Realism meet game. Game eat realism.
AKDejaVu
-
I've got no problem with the kamikazes. It's dweebery to be sure, but so is parking a CV right off an enemy field and running up and down the coast within a few miles of an enemy field. You're asking for a kamikaze then IMO.
What annoys me is how easy it is for a level bomber to sink CVs. It seems like the bombs don't even have to hit ON the CV to sink it. And the CV can never turn away fast enough to avoid the bomber, even when it sees it coming a long ways away.
-
US and Jap CV's only had a WOOD flight deck. The bombs or Kamikazi's went right through them to explode at or below the waterline. AH model this well. One plane can take out a cv. Maybe not sink it in real life but put it out of action. In WB's they had the CV's modeled where you had to hit it with about 10 1k's to kill it. It was ridiculous. Nobody would attack them and they ran rampant all over the arena. I think the Cv's are just fine the way they are. If they were harder to kil it would upset the arena.
LLB OUT!!!!
-
Sure, toughen the CV up. But make it so that if ONE bomb hits the flight deck, it cant launch fighters.
Then you will have your precious CV disabled by the kamikaze but not sinking your CV... that is, until that same kamikaze guy comes back and slams into the deck as many times as needed.
CAP your CV or man the 5" flak guns. Easy kills, almost perfect defense.
-
well... to put it even more simply... One suicide bomber never stopped all flight operations from a carrier fleet. There were allways more than one carrier in a fleet.
As for "guarding" the fleet... LOL !! you mean, simply because it is possible that one tard will be bored and attention starved enough to kill a cv by gaming the game.... You want someone with talent and better things to do to orbit around the fleet looking for that A hole? Who get's "tard watch duty"??? You?? No, I think most guys with talent would rather do something fun rather that guard against a bug in the game.
Again... it boils down to balance. that being, a lone suicide pilot can ruin the fun of many using little or no skill. The effect he has on the game is all out of proportion to the effort he expends.
Now... if there were multiple cvs and one suicide tard attack would disable operations for several minutes, on the cv that was hit.. then he would either have a balanced effect on the fleet for his skill level or.. he would have to get a large group of like minded (no minded) tards to join him in his sillyness.
lazs
-
Alot of good info here. After reading all of these posts I would probably say that cranking up the damage limit to 4k of bombs and increasing the AAA effectiveness on a/c below say 8k would go a long way toward balancing things a bit. I don't wanna see cv's running rampant all over the map, but the way things are now they're pretty useless and it's a shame, they really add alot of fun to the game for both sides.
-
I agree with CRASH.
-
As for "guarding" the fleet... LOL !! you mean, simply because it is possible that one tard will be bored and attention starved enough to kill a cv by gaming the game.... You want someone with talent and better things to do to orbit around the fleet looking for that A hole? Who get's "tard watch duty"??? You?? No, I think most guys with talent would rather do something fun rather that guard against a bug in the game.
I can't say what is right or wrong with what you(and probably many people) feel. It's just a matter of one's own choice, decision.
If I may remind you, that kind of decision is EXACTLY the reason why CVs sink. Everybody decides they've got better things to do? Fine by me, I respect that.
You people made your choice, so you pay the price. You can't have your cake and eat it. Sure it's a boring job, but somebody's gotta do it.
Don't go complainin' around when I merrily drop my bombs to that plumpy lookin' UNGUARDED fat lady with a flat top. This CV thing is such a simple issue I can hardly understand why this keeps coming up.
"What you don't guard, you lose."[/i]
ps) 'No-skill tards' that go kamikaze a CV versus 'No-team-work fighter jocks' who decides they've all got better things to do, and complains about it later. Pretty much the same.
ps2) Things are same for the defenders. Why should somebody take long boring time climbing with heavy ordinance, search and line himself up with the CV, and go for broke? If everybody's got better things to do, we'd never see a CV sink. But somebody, a 'tard' as you mentioned, chooses to do it because the TEAM NEEDS THE CV DEAD.
So, how come there's not a single 'tard' who chooses to counter this 'tardish' action?
Maybe it's time you begin considering how one can harmonize the 'what I want' factor with 'what the team wants' factor.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]
-
Well what about this, maybe if they just added another CV into the CV battlegroup? like in the scenarios? just a thought.
hodo
-
Then there'd be twice as much whining. ;)
-
S!
What they need, (which can be programmed already) is a CV group, and a Cruiser group.
Players bring the CV close inshore because they want to chew up the airfield with the cruiser's guns. But that of course, brings the CV in close too.
If we had a pure Cruiser TG, then people could use that for the bombardment, and have the CV group behind out of immediate range for aircover.
-
If 2000lbs bomb's worth of durability seems too weak for an aircraft carrier, I guess toughening it up to about 2500~4000lbs worth might not be bad. Maybe an even 3000lbs, just like the hangars, might do.
-
Now, let's get into the main point of this thread.. wheres the challenge in sinking CV?
Just needs one bastard who knows his job and CV is gone, so it sounds like.
the challenge? rrrrrraaambooooo!
-
"There were allways more than one carrier in a fleet."
Not always; for a time the USN had a total of one operational carrier in the entire Pacific (Enterprise).
Granted that was the exception to the rule, and in general carrier groups consisted of as many carriers as were available.
A counter argument to the "fleets consisted of more than 1 carrier" argument, of course, is that "attacking air groups composed of more than 2 or 3 planes".
Still I agree that AH carriers need to be strengthened for gameplay (if not for realism).
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Kweassa:
If the CV is so precious it must be kept alive... then GUARD IT.
Unless there's a mission going on, there's usually not more than 1~2 people out to get a CV. If the people weren't so busy vulching and gang banging a neutralized airfield, and if just ONE of them had enough brains to foresee someone's gonna try to kill it and fly active CAP duty around a CV, it can be easily stopped.
If people are so busy hoarding up a base and fighting on deck alt that nobody is willing to guard the CV, then tough luck.
Someone's gonna come higher and sink it.
Heh heh....go ahead and try that Kweassa. I guarantee you cannot defend it and keep the suiciders from sinking it. If they are determined enough and dont care whether they live or die, then they will make it through. :)
-
I think that we can improve the present problem. Treat it like a small field with a twist.
2 bombs disables the CV for 10 mins...meanwhile it slowly rebuilds. If 2 more bombs hit the CV within 10 - 15 mins then it sinks.
Most CV's didn't go down in 5 secs after a kamikaze or a bomb strike. There were damge control teams that would go in and try to put out fires and reapair the deck. During 1942 the Japanese thought they sunk the Yorktown, but it was able to get back to port...repair and fight again.
-
off subject a bit:
The fact that you could be on line for hours doing carrier opps. Controlling its path, launching raids, capping it etc. Only to have someone with a higher score take it over and effectivly end your operation is whats a tad bizzar.
Have you ever had a guy who is at a land base, decide he needs the carrier to steam halfway across the map to hit a base. What normaly happens is 10 minutes after its arrival the enemy sink it because admiral yamamoto is too busy driving tanks to defend the carrier he brought to the party.
IMO
A carrier should only be able to be controled by someone working from that carrier. When you take off from a land base you lose control for 30 min or more.
A squad should be able to pool their perk points and "BUY" a carrier of their own. Talk about incentive to keep it alive :)
yea so what if it isnt realistic, neither is
buying a 262 <G>
btw, every carrier should have a few drone cap fighters just like it has drone gunners.
just saying
-
fishu and sling and some others get it... kwea doesn't..
It would take 4 or 5 guys on tard watch to stop one no talent suicide bomber or even one high alt fluff... The four or 5 guys would have to be talented and sacrafice their time online doing something totally boring for the benifiet of people who wouldn't even appreciate it for the most part.
kwea.. it is unbalanced. the suicide bombers and fluffs have far more effect on the game than their skill and effort would warrant. It really is that simple.
I find it odd that people will accept innumerable concessions when dealing with fluffs because... "people won't fly em if they are realistic". yet, they balk at making cv's tougher to counter the bombing gaminess.
lazs
-
and besides... CV's are fun... They are a lot of fun... Some of the best fights in the game center around them..
They are high priority targets for the "enemies of fun".
lazs
-
PT Boats are rediculously easy to kill.
Lots of perk points for them also.
Find a PT dweeb and you can build 50-70 perkies in big hurry.
-
I like Krushers idea's, and the idea about a cruiser group that is seperate but part of the cv group. I don't like the AI planes idea. Be like Nancy, just say NO to AI...or was that HO???? :rolleyes:
LLB OUT!!!
-
Originally posted by Minotaur:
PT Boats are rediculously easy to kill.
Lots of perk points for them also.
Find a PT dweeb and you can build 50-70 perkies in big hurry.
MrLars has 251 kills and has been killed 125 times in the PT Boat.
Come get some PT dweeb :D
-
S!
I don`t agree that it takes a lot of people to guard the CV.
I have several times been in situations where it became apparent that the CV was going to become a target.
In particular, last tour, one instance where the enemy captured the home port and the CV was within one area of the port. I spotted several red dots incoming an area away and I upped in a Zeke and climbed to 15,000.
Over the next 20 minutes I got a B17, two Mossies, and a heavy Corsair. (A Zeke is actually an excellent plane for taking out a B-17, since it can do lazy turns as it approaches and avoid return fire)
Eventually another friendly upped from the CV as a second CAP and the enemy gave up. We sailed the CV out of range.
This tour I was pretty much the only CAP high when a CV group was right off a functioning enemy field, with another field close behind. I got 6 or 7 kills in a Hellcat, despite the aircraft coming almost continuously. (had to refuel once and died once) Only because the person conning the TG refused to move it out of harms way did it eventually get toasted.
If you are a heavy fighter or bomber trying to get in position above the CV ready to make a run on it while someone is hammering away at your butt, you have serious difficulties. You can`t maneuver with your enemy, and likely you are slower. Either you drop your ordanance and fight, or you forget about getting directly above your target and instead put your nose down in a dive and go in at a less steep angle, rolling to avoid the aircraft on your tail. But if you do this, because you are not making your run vertically, you are in the cone of fire from the AA longer. Thus, you are going to increase your chances of getting taken out by flak considerably, and also reduce your chances of hitting with bombs by even more, since you must now survive till you are very close to the target vessel, since your bombs will not be falling vertically onto the target. Instead you have to rely on the aircraft`s forward momentum to carry them to a hit. Which is tough to do unless you are D 1.0 or less.
It is easy to spot incoming dots to a CV and know it is time to put up CAP. Only someone who is too lazy to watch their map is going to have a problem.
Besides CAP, you should also have a guy who is responsible for maneuvering the TG. If you`ve got a enemy attack about to happen, then the TG should be put into a hard turn. It is much more difficult to hit a CV which is circling than one which obliges its attackers by sailing a straight course.
The guy who is conning the CV should also consider taking a 5" AA gun position if an attack is happening. These can be deadly accurate with some practice. Any attacker who doesn`t maneuver very well is going to get splattered quick.
The whole key to operating a TG successfully is teamwork. You need several people, and you need people who are responsible enough to understand it needs protection.
If you have that, you shouldn`t have a problem.
On the other hand, if you have a bunch of bozos who couldn`t care less, then their party is going to be spoiled fast.
-
Last night I decided to take up an f4u-1 and 1d to do some CAP. The bish cv was in the area between a7 and a1, and the sector bars were full of friendly and knits. The knit cv was to the east also. Most of the fighting was sea level, and I saw a few half-hearted attempts at using TBM's on both sides (there were a lot of PT boats in the area too though). I was surprised our cv was still up, and stayed up for as long as it did. When I first logged in, I manned the 5" guns for a little while. A mass sea-level ju88 raid came inbound to the cv, which was subsequently broken up. There were about six of them, and only 2 made it out. I also nailed a high lone p-47 that looked like it was starting it's dive. Anyway, our cv was finally sunk by a suicidal Mossie. Someone mentioned on country channel a mossie was ib to the cv. I then spot it, lower than me about 5k out being chased by two bish. I go into a dive, but it was too far for me to catch up due to the geometry. Whoever was commanding the cv was doing a good job since he/she began to turn the cv sharply as the mossie began it's dive. It wasn't a steep dive either. The mossie's dot merged with the cv, I saw an explosion (the mossie) and the cv went down. There was no attempt to pull out.
At one time, it required about 6k to sink the cv. I remember taking up corsairs with 2k ord and dive-bombing the cv.. rinse, repeat until it sank. Starting from 10k, I would dive when I was over the cv, and as the ack started I'd roll slowly to try to avoid it. I'd pull out toward the bow of the boat and release when my gunsight moved over the bow. Right after release I'd try to jink as much as possible, rolling left, right, down, etc. This actually worked well for me, as I was able to return to base a few times I got lucky. I forget how many perk points that makes, but it should be pretty good with the 1.25 multiplier on landing.
I don't really have an opinion on the cv. In the situation above, there wasn't a big attempt to cap which is bad (I'm easily amused in this game and so grabbing alt and doing CAPs doesn't bother me much even though I don't have much time to spend online), the cv captain was obviously paying attention and tried to jink/steer the group away (good), and the cv was in "international waters" and not right off the coast of an enemy airfield (also good). I don't recall how many pounds of explosive were carried by kamikaze in WWII, but I know even 1k makes a pretty big impression. However, we know a few of the big fleet carriers (this one we have is a fleet carrier right?) limped home after getting hit by all kinds of stuff.
I like skernsk's idea of treating it as a field.. disabled flight operations and then destruction based on tonnage. Disabled time may depend on extent of damage (250 lb will take less time to repair than 500lb). Would possibly make people think more carefully about how to use the cv (then again...) Overall an increase in the required tonnage to destroy would be nice (if of course the real-life cv's could withstand said tonnage). Game wise, if it required more than 2k (the current max bombload of most of the fighters we have), I think it'd help a lot. Then, the lone wolf guys would need to either go through the "drudgery" to lift off and grab alt again in a 2k armed fighter (the fastest method of getting tonnage on target), select a bomber (which is more time consuming, but should only require one trip), or get a friend to help.
This is all if of course most of us want to see the cv hardened/changed. Ok, so I do have an opinion, but like the other things in this game, it wouldn't bother me much if things didn't change.
mauser
-
S!
If the Mossie actually impacted with the CV, then either whoever was an AA gunner on the TG was an incredibly bad shot, or there wasn`t one.
You`d have to be legally blind to miss as big a target as a Mossie coming in at a low angle directly towards a CV. With the proximity fuses on the 5 inch AA guns, close counts. And if a 5" hits, instant fireball and end of problem. Even one of the 40mm batteries would tear off a wing with one hit, which means the Mossie is gonna miss since its tough to place bombs on target in a vertically cartwheeling aircraft. ;)
Likely, no one was manning the guns, so the aircraft got through.
On the subject of the CAP not being able to get on the Mossie:
Since you describe the Mossie coming in at a low angle, it can`t have been very high. Which means the two planes who were chasing it, can`t have been very high either otherwise they would have intercepted it easily.
All it takes is a climb to 15,000 ft to be in perfect position to break up an attack. Even 12,000 would likely be enough, since most attacks start in the 5-10,000 ft range. I like 15,000 because then you can gain 5,000 ft quickly enough to deal with a Lanc or B-17 which comes in at 20,000.
-
buzz... I am at best a mediocre pilot but.. you are full of it if you think you can climb to 15k to stop my hog with a zeke... even a titanium AH zeke. especially if it is surrounded by B17's If I wanted to suicide dive you couldn't stop me with a zeke. The P47 is the suicide plane of choice tho. They get taken out it seems about half the time by the ack. That means that they have to fly 2 whole sorities to kill the cv. they seem to have no problem with that..
lazs
-
I noticed last night that I could sink a CV with 3k, but I couldn't take out the Shore Battery with the same load.
I think every map should have the CV's at the same hardness (i.e. requiring 8k). The reason is simple. One Arado can deliver 3k of eggs. Toughening the CV to require 8k would require three trips by an Arado, and in that time the CV would have repaired the initial damage. That would defeat the laser accurate Arado. Turning a CV from an Arado can be difficult to time. Lanc's and Fortresses can be defeated by a good Captain, simply by turning the CV at the appropriate time.
This durability (8k toughness) proved itself well in the NDIsles map and I think it would even things out for the other maps as well. It doesn't matter what your CAPping strategy is suiciders will get through, and given enough numbers even an 8k toughness will not be enough to keep the CV floating. As it is now, the suiciders don't even bother to get 5k alt. They simply come in on the deck and attempt to auger into the waterline. CV's don't last long under that kind of attack and only a 2.5k toughness.
-
2ks disabling it for certain amount of time seems like a reasonable compromise. CVs would smoke when hit, indicating disabled. In this case, total of 4 to 6k to completely sink it is understandable.