New style task group

[SKYGUNS]

add a new extra TG to each port but instead of a CV replace it with a heavy battle ship,
14-16 inch guns and although has lack of aircraft (unless you want catapulted scout aircraft) it could prove useful for bombardments or protecting a nearby CV or whatever you have in mind...



its basically a task group at selected ports but instead of a carrier its a heavy battle ship or cruiser.

[JHerne]

There would have to be an efficient way to kill it. WW2-era fast battleships carried huge amounts of AA... four 5in turrets on a carrier, imagine a ship like an Iowa class with ten 5" turrets, nineteen quad 40mm, and 28 20mm singles. This is based on the 1944 USS Iowa configuration. Even if half of those were AI guns, it would be impossible to get close enough to kill the ship except for high-alt bombers.

16/50cal. guns have an effective range in excess of 30 miles, which I believe is completely outside the dar circle. Targeting and sighting in the game would have to be improved dramatically to account for firing from those types of ranges.

Shore batteries would have to be improved to counter the BB. It takes several 8" gun hits from a cruiser to bring one down, probably only a couple from 16" guns. But that makes it even easier for a shore battery to kill a CV.

I dunno...I think it'd be neat, but I don't think it'd balance the existing naval units very well.

Personally, I think the DDs should be manned and allowed to move in close to shore to counter the shore batteries, the same way they did in the Pacific during the island-hopping campaigns.

J

[Denholm]

There would have to be an efficient way to kill it. WW2-era fast battleships carried huge amounts of AA... four 5in turrets on a carrier, imagine a ship like an Iowa class with ten 5" turrets, nineteen quad 40mm, and 28 20mm singles. This is based on the 1944 USS Iowa configuration. Even if half of those were AI guns, it would be impossible to get close enough to kill the ship except for high-alt bombers...

Maybe that would counter the Lanc-Stukas?

[SmokinLoon]

There would have to be an efficient way to kill it. WW2-era fast battleships carried huge amounts of AA... four 5in turrets on a carrier, imagine a ship like an Iowa class with ten 5" turrets, nineteen quad 40mm, and 28 20mm singles. This is based on the 1944 USS Iowa configuration. Even if half of those were AI guns, it would be impossible to get close enough to kill the ship except for high-alt bombers.

J

Mission up.  Have it be either a HIGH flight of bombers or a swarm of hvy fighters.  This bit of having just 2-3 hvy fighters take out a CV, cruiser, or battleship is quite far from "realisitc".  It should take a whole swarm to planes and that should be purely to squeak through the ack and drop some ords. 

[JHerne]

When you look back at the air attacks on Yamato and Musashi, using literally hundreds of aircraft, it makes sense...but...can any one side muster enough aircraft to pull off something like that in the game, especially if they're dealing with fighters at the same time? We have to balance gameplay with historical relevance (notice I didn't say accuracy).

When you consider the number of dive bombers (Hornet, Enterprise, and Yorktown, VB-3,6, and 8) that attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway, you're only looking at 36 aircraft to sink three of the four carriers. Realistically, a couple of heavy fighters could wreak havoc on a CV, although I think CV losses are just as much a result of poor handling by the players as they are effective attacks by aircraft. CVs also have no form of damage control or repair, so once a CV is soft that's it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but there's other factors to consider when adding a unit with that much firepower to the game.

J

[Spikes]

Even if half of those were AI guns, it would be impossible to get close enough to kill the ship except for high-alt bombers.

I don't have a problem with that.

[thndregg]

I'd like the existing carrier groups to be more of a challenge to sink. Too easy unless it has a defense cap over it.

[Bruv119]

I would like the cruiser to be controlled independent of the Carrier within a set range.  make a mini assault group.   If it gets taken out No LVTS  after 15 minutes it respawns back with the CV.

 

[Rich46yo]

Im getting tired of these lifeless mush heads dropping all these CVs with their Lancs at 2k. I say bring on the Battlewagons.

[JHerne]

Gotta admit...a long-range battleship duel would be cool...

J

[Anaxogoras]

The only reason you see a handful of aircraft take out carriers in this game is because none of them mind dying in the process.

[JHerne]

I think that can be attibuted to just about everything (sadly), Ho-ing, dive-bombing with Lancs, rushing headlong into a horde without waiting for support...

I wish there was some way to inflict a death penalty of sorts, to make survival more important. Doubt it'll never happen, but it would probably add some realism to the game in terms of suicide players.

J

[Rich46yo]

I think that can be attibuted to just about everything (sadly), Ho-ing, dive-bombing with Lancs, rushing headlong into a horde without waiting for support...

I wish there was some way to inflict a death penalty of sorts, to make survival more important. Doubt it'll never happen, but it would probably add some realism to the game in terms of suicide players.

J

Just write the game code to not allow dropping ords, from heavy bombers, unless they are flying flat and horizontal. That and bringing on Fast Iowas. Oh maybe not all the CV groups but maybe if 1/2 of a teams CVs had them it would add a new diminsion to the game and maybe allow these CVs to last around longer. As it is you have airheads who specialize in bomb and bail Lanc-stukas. Its just gotten altogether silly.

[Denholm]

Would this fix the problem?

[glock89]

(Image removed from quote.)

Would this fix the problem?

Yes it would.