I hate boats

[Oldman731]

There.  I said it.  I post this to see if others agree or not.

Seems to me that in any setup that includes boats, someone parks them at the end of my runway, or uses them as an ack-haven home base.  Anyone who remembers Sicily will know what I mean.  The phenomenon exists, probably to a lesser degree, in any other setup that has water.  I don't actually witness any naval battles, and landgrabbing in the CT isn't the be-all end-all it is in the MA (except for Eskimo) (yes, we know who you are).

So.  I don't see the point of having boats.  They are a nuisance, and I am aware of one very good player whose BoB experience was ruined by the foregoing and who has not been back to the CT since.  There are probably others.

I would like to leave boats to the MA crowd, and minimize their presence in the CT.  What do you think?

- oldman

[Terror]

What about the Naval fans that love to do true CARRIER OPS?

Terror

[Sabre]

Under certain circumstances, I agree with you Oldman.  In the current set up, I moved them well away from Dover and disabled both A/C and player command.  However, in a PTO set up, or even in a Med set up, they have a significant place.  As terror says, there are many (even whole squadrons) who live for naval ops.  The CT must cater to them all at some point.

There are some things that can be done in terrain design that influence people to use naval forces more responsibly, such as creating separate fleets for blue-water ops and litoral ops.  The blue water fleets would have CV's but no shore bombardment capability or LVT's.  Litoral forces would have the big guns for naval gunfire support and LVT's, but no CVs.  Add to this two different arena variables for minimum sea room, and the ability to assign which variable a specific TG would use, and you insure that CV's stay out where they belong while the amphibious assault groups can still get in shore to do their stuff.  Oh, and while I'm on my soap box, I want direct speed and helm control for fleets, an improved ship damage model, more detailed fire-control for main gun batteries, man-able 5" guns on destroyers, and naked women terrain objects to be place on beaches.  Oh, okay, I could live with out the man-able 5-inchers;).

Sabre
CT Staff

[delta]

Originally posted by Sabre

I want ... naked women terrain objects to be place on beaches.

Sabre
CT Staff

Rich,

you surprise me all the time....

Gonzo

ps did you get my e-mail on my new e-mail address?

[keyapaha]

5 inchers and naked women should not be used ever in the same post:eek:

[Buzzbait]

S~! All

I have decided that in my future setups, although boats will be allowed, they will be in smaller numbers, and they will operate will the handicap that when they are sunk....  THEY DON'T COME BACK.  FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK.

So players will need to be careful with them.

[eskimo2]

Boats have there place, in some places within some set-ups, and not in others.

BTW, I have't been in a boat or done any land grabbing in over a month!

eskimo

[ergRTC]

You know what would be great.  Have fleets launch from ports at a players request, and only remain active if that player reacts with them every 30 minutes.  As soon as that player stops interacting they go back to port.  That way somebody is always responsible for there behavior, yet whe us naval squads show up, we know we will be able to launch a carrier group.

[HiJack]

This disturbs me. VF27Hellcats are a USN squad, we want to fly our planes, if not US then allied. We fly only in the CT and now I hear that on some maps there will be no Carriers.  Didnt think I would ever say it but maybe the Hellcats may have to fly another arena.  After all we fly whatever is in the ct, very seldom is it out plane of choice, but we fly in there anyway now i hear there will be even less. Man guys give us a break, we are regulars in the ct and would hate to have to leave, we want USN carriers to fly from once in awhile.  I believe the Hellcats have done their part in making the ct a great place to fly, we even had some of our squad quit and start an axis squad so things would be more even.  Oh well hope the mission arena starts soon, sure is a shame we cant have some type of rotation on theatres and time frames, but hey you guys make the maps!

[Sabre]

Originally posted by keyapaha
5 inchers and naked women should not be used ever in the same post:eek:

I said "man-able" not "manly", Key:eek: although I hardly think 5 inch...well, you can figure out the rest.

HiJack, rest assured that we will continue to include naval forces regularly.  I for one like to fly off the CV's sometimes.  My point was that the CT must cater to all, if not all the time.

Sabre
CT Staff

[brady]

My oppion on boats is prety much this: They are easy to sink, they are a great way to create historical set up's whear they are relavent, and anything else regarding the flack and proximinty of an enemy base to one of yours is a big whine, espichaly in the CT when more often than not the ack is turned way down, and hardness can be adjusted to match the lighter bomb loads of the time perioud. BTW all this griping about 5 inch flack is just that unless you are trying to make a "run" on a ship it is extreamly difficult to kill someone with a 5 ich gun unless they are coming right at you, if they are not coming at you it is more or less luck that get u a kill as a 5 inch gunner.

 AH is a combined arms sim, now I know some people do not care much for GV's or boats being able to kill them in their planes they are hear to fight planes in planes and anything that kills them when they are in their plane that is not  a plane rubs them raw, I see their point but I must say that those situations more often than not can be avoided if they so chose.

[Miska]

Of course, over at 880 Fleet Air Arm , we are in substantial agreement with our good friends at VF27.  Leave our CVs alone or else

[Squire]

We gladly fly the "other" CT setups and support them, in the knowledge that terrains with CVs will be back eventually. You guys cant expect full participation by getting too narrow in focus.

Pacific and Med setups with CVs are great fun, "variety" is the key to the CT.

I see no evidence that CVs have been in any way "bad". If you dont like "boats", fine, I dont like M16s and Ostwinds either, for the same reason.

Regards.

[Squirrel]

OK I'm late readin this Oldman ..  I agree with the fact that CVs can be an annoyance or otherwise used in ways that are unrealistic.  

You know, it would be nice if there was a shalllow water tile type that would restrict how close large ships could come to shore (like in real life) but would allow smaller craft like PTs or amphibious vehicles..   Another side benefit would be prettier terrains too

Another fix that would be easier to implement would be an ack range setting for CVs that could be cranked down to a more reasonable setting for the likes of BoB or other early war scenarios where ack was not nearly as effective anyway..

Beyond these ideas maybe shore batteries with a longer range than the ack could be another way to deter CVs from parking on the coast (another realistic problem for a CV)..  

I would personally like CVs to remain available we really just need a few restrictions as to where they can go imho..
Sqrl

[ergRTC]

good idea sqrl.  I think the shore batteries are the thing.  In the small bob I know they cant even line up on the ships because of the cliffs.  Shallow water would fix this.