CV Numbers

[VoX]

Can we have CV numbers on the ship decks please?   

[JHerne]

Oh sure!!! Let's have the base numbers match the numbers on the deck....not. The numbers on the real ships were there to identify the ship. It ticks me off now that EVERY carrier is the USS Randolph, a long-hulled Essex represented by a short-hulled virtual ship. I'd agree with using numbers between 11 and 20...

CV-1 through 20 saw action in WW2, only CV-11 through 20 were Essex class, which is represented in game.

CV-21 (Boxer) never saw action in WW2.
CV-22 to 30 were actually CVLs, light carriers built on cruiser hulls.
CV-31 saw WW2 action.
CV-32 to 37 never saw action.
CV-38 saw action.
CV-40 never saw action.
CV-41-43 were Midway class, all postwar.
CV-45 and 47 never saw action, CV-46 was cancelled and never built
CV-48 and 49 were CVLs.
CV-50 through 58 were cancelled Midway and Essex class.
CV-59 - Woohoo, the Forrestal!!

Everything past CV-59 is modern...we're only now up to CVN-77.

So let's get this straight, we're gonna have CV-231 running around in virtual 1944/45 just because it spawns from P231?

-12

[VoX]

JHerne, You need to get some perspective, its a game, not Real Life, I have not seen any WW2 combat films with icons on recently! Deck numbers would add to the strategy element of the game. 

[Krusty]

It would especially be interesting to try and recon CVs when folks do the game-tastic feat of hiding CVs across maps because they are afraid of losing them, or the other game-tastic feat of parking them offshore nonstop.

In the former instance, you could report on country you've found the missing CV, or just say "Nah, it's 231, not 54," and in the latter instance you could see what the CV was and (if after the 5th time it's coming BACK) make a pre-emptive mission on the port it spawns from.


I like this idea.

[VoX]

Thank you Krusty, that was the exact reason why I came up with the request. 

[JHerne]

Some perspective, huh? You have a clipboard map, right? Bring it up...the base identifier, C232, is right next to the boat you're flying over. If you fly over a CV and they shoot at you - its enemy. What relevance does knowing what base a CV spawns from have once its out to sea?

This excuse of "Its a game, not real-life" holds no water. If your argument of "its a game" was held, then we'd see pink P-51s, Tiger tanks with NASCAR logos, and Red Bull sponsored Lavochkins. This is why HTC has standards for submitting skins, this is why we don't see F-14 Tomcats dogfighting with Zeros (whaaa...but it happened in the Final Countdown!!)

Sure, we need ID tags, because there are people out there who can't tell a Tiger from a Sherman, and the way its set up, anyone can fly or drive anything. If this were an Axis-Allied situation, I'd fly without tags completely, knowing that anything Axis (or Allied, depending on who you're flying for) was the bad guy.

So let me ask, are you against pink P-51s and Red Bull Lavochkins? If you are, then why is it ok to put the number 242, or 78, or 59 on a carrier? Its equally as wrong in my opinion. Let's for argument's sake say we put the number 68 on the ship, since it spawned from P68. Woohoo, we now have the USS Nimitz in a WW2 game.

[JHerne]

So you want this for enemy carriers??? So we can identify which enemy carrier comes from which enemy port?

I wonder if, ever, a US Navy scout pilot reported back to the task group... "I have the IJN Tenryu in sight with the cruiser Ashigara and the destroyers Yukikaze, Samidare, and Hatsuharu, I flew down and read the names on the stern plates.

No, he said, "I got an enemy carrier, cruiser, and 3 destroyers".

So lets say for arguments sake you get your numbers on the deck, how you gonna get close enough to see 'em?

Lame.

[Krusty]

JHerne, you're way over-reacting.

You might as well throw a fit about the fact that there was only 1 plane flying around with any particular skin in this game, instead of the dozens flying with the exact same markings.

You might as well pitch a fit that the airfields are all the same, and not grass fields or dirt roads like often in WW2 were used. You might as well pitch a fit that we have dozens of carriers on all 3 sides with the exact same make and model.

You're picking your fights, ignoring others, but the ones you're picking are minor and trivial.

The fact is the number on the deck identified the CV in real life. You had a fleet with several, you could tell which was which (even if they were enemy). Given the scope of this game, and the fact that we have more CVs of one type than historically ever existed, it's fair to expect that number would grow to reflect the designation that they hold "in any given map" -- rather than some staunch adherence to a historical number that holds no relevance to us in this game.

The end result is the same: You can tell the CV by the number. The only difference is that the number on the CV matches it's field number rather than a list of 9 CVs that historically had them.

Also consider that numbers assigned to fleets can and do change with every map. You cannot pre-assign them. It must be dynamic, or it means nothing.

[Krusty]

So you want this for enemy carriers??? So we can identify which enemy carrier comes from which enemy port?

I wonder if, ever, a US Navy scout pilot reported back to the task group... "I have the IJN Tenryu in sight with the cruiser Ashigara and the destroyers Yukikaze, Samidare, and Hatsuharu".

No, he said, "I got an enemy carrier, cruiser, and 3 destroyers".

So lets say for arguments sake you get your numbers on the deck, how you gonna get close enough to see 'em?

Lame.

Quite wrong... The Japanese could tell which battleships they were attacking at Pearl Harbor based on the intel they had and the profiles of each ship.

In real life, ships were not carbon copies, and it boiled down to intelligence and reports of ship movements. If you know a fleet is steaming to Port Moresby with 2 carriers and a bunch of troop transports, and another fleet is stationed south as cover, then you can tell "These are the so-and-so, and the whos-yer-daddy" because they do (or do not) have the accompanying ships.

Then again, going back to how CVs are abused in this game, some form of ID would be helpful from a gameplay defense/offense point of view.

Or, did you think that 10 soldiers going into a bunker automatically changed ownership of an airfield, restored all its ack guns and made it spawn your planes magically instead of the enemy?

As nice as this game is, all of the constructs you experience (the gameplay) are arbitrarily chosen to promote gameplay. For gameplay's sake, this is a good wish.

[JHerne]

So where does it end Krusty, hmm? You do historical skins, and why? Because you're trying to bring a semblence of historical relevance to the game.

Yea, seeing a flight of bombers with the same tail codes irks me, but I understand there's limitations to the game. I can deal with that. But again, part of the historical relevance of this "game" is not having 110% of the data you need to effectively counter the enemy. Its not modern-day, where ships are tracked from the time they leave port by satellite.

Having enemy TG identifiers benefits the game play, sure, but where do we draw the line between this being a WW2-style simulation or a World of Warcraft with planes?

And no, I'm not over-reacting. There's too many things in this 'game' that need tweaking, improving. I'm not dinging HTC, I'm just saying that we can all come up with a laundry list of things we'd like to see them do to make us all individually happy. This isn't even on my list.

[Krusty]

So where does it end Krusty, hmm? You do historical skins, and why? Because you're trying to bring a semblence of historical relevance to the game.

Having enemy TG identifiers benefits the game play, sure, but where do we draw the line between this being a WW2-style simulation or a World of Warcraft with planes?

You are way way over-reacting. This changes no historical qualities about the ship. No more than bases being given numbers instead of names. It does not make the ship have 15 5" turrets, does not make it withstand nuclear fallout without a sweat. It changes no physics-related element of the game. Your level of outrage makes no sense.

The ships have the same historical relevance, the only issue is we have more of them, so you cannot slap (in the case of this wishlist ever being put into play) the same number on them all and have it mean anything.

You take a list of 9 CVs and give them the historic numbers... Okay... What if you took an entirely new list, same CVs, same exact identical ships, but painted different numbers on them? The end results is nobody will care because it's the same ship. We all know there are limitations to the game, but you are confusing "limitations" with "gameplay considerations" -- and almost every element of this game tied to fields, bases, identifying them, maps, layouts, is a gameplay consideration, NOT a limitation.

In other words it's intentional that you can look on a map and know where the nearest enemy base is, what number it has, it's size/type, how many enemy are nearby, the radar signatures of all friendly aircraft nearby, what the fight is like, and go furball to your heart's content.



yet you raise hell over being able to ID a CV under the same circumstances?

[VoX]

JHerne, way to go on completely missing the point!

to be able to take a port and a cv and then hump it accross the map and effectivly hide it is gameing the game, adding the CV number removes the 'game' element from this to a certain degree, it create the element of 'simulation' that you are trying to protect by creating the scenario of the lone pilot able to go out and 'find' the carrier force that actually has some benefit to his country, rather than sinking the magic respawning fleet, you are actually taking a base.

[JHerne]

Yea, I do. Sure, I can fly around and see enemy bases with numbers on them. I could also look at a paper map and get the same intel.

Sure, I can see the contacts on radar. I could contact CIC on a picket DD and get vectored to an unknown contact. My point is there's historical relevancy.

How is painting a 68 on the side of a carrier any different than painting a P-51 in incorrect markings? HTC won't allow fictional skins to be used in game, why should it be any different with the ships? Because they're not aircraft or tanks? Because it improves game-play?

During WW2, we weren't able to identify specific ships. Sure, we could determine if it was a Yamato-class BB that was steaming to Leyte, but was it Yamato or Musashi? Hell, until we sank the Shinano we thought there were 3 Yamato-class BBs in the Pacific.

And yes, taking a base with 10 troops is about as unrealisitic and unhistorical as you can get. I concede that point. And no, there's no outrage here...I'm quite calm really. I am a military historian by trade (meaning I get PAID for it), and I know as well as anyone the historical (or lack thereof) quirks of this game. I simply don't want to see it skewed anymore towards the direction of an Xbox game.

All I'm saying is that there's no way we should be able to determine the shoe size and IQ of an aircraft carrier from 20K while dodging uber-puffy ack and CAP fighters.

[The Grinch]

Can we have CV numbers on the ship decks please?   

Sounds like a cool and a good idea  +1

[JimmyC]

+1
I think its a great idea
can think of no logical reason for it not to happen
makes perfect sense to me
good idea vox