Fleet division

[321BAR]

Ok so we all know we have CV groups with DDs and CAs...

we also all know that a spotted CV is almost always a dead CV...

why not make assault fleets of multiple CAs and DDs to attack bases with while CV groups stay out at sea to support the attack? this would allow the survival of CVs, more strategic work and teamwork, and a new challenge for defenders and attackers both. Assault fleets to attack with and LVTs roll from there while CVs defend the assault fleets with aircraft and high alt CAPs and low alt furballers go to the assault fleet and protect from B25s etc there... you can also add BBs to these groups to make them more effective and assault groups could be safer against low flyers and SBs due to the AA on BBs and CAs

[Black Jack]

+1 for that. Think it would be cool

[ImADot]

Sure it would be cool...if you could get enough people to actually play along to make it work like you envision it.  I'm all for coordinated plans and clear roles for each man; maybe that's why I like flying in FSO whether we see lots of action or not.   

[MachFly]

 

[LLogann]

Interesting idea Bro.........  +1 for sure!

[JOACH1M]

I like it +1

[Wildcat1]

as a special events geek, i love situations where teamwork and tactics are used.

a big +1 to this

[DEECONX]

Yeah, CV groups could be coded so that they cant go past a certain point towards the water. I.E. if the CV groups is represented by X, it cant cross line Y, but the Assault Group represented by Z can.


+1

[JHerne]

+1 to amphibious task groups

[Dadsguns]

neat idea and would give it a  +1

But it would never work as you intended, we have CV "tAcTiCaL XpRtS" that would abuse this much worse than what we currently see from merely hiding them now.

So, for that -3

[dirt911]

+1

[321BAR]

neat idea and would give it a  +1

But it would never work as you intended, we have CV "tAcTiCaL XpRtS" that would abuse this much worse than what we currently see from merely hiding them now.

So, for that -3

hey who knows? maybe they can find a way to get rid of idiots in the game...

[SlapShot]

Don't know if anyone remembers, but when Fester first released the OzKansas map, he did create a Naval group minus the CV. This was meant to be a "Hunter" group or could be used as a separate defensive group for an existing CV group. I am not sure if OzKansas still has this "Hunter" group defined today.

HT reluctantly allowed this for OzKansas, but I think that he said that this notion wouldn't be allowed on any other map and I am not sure if you could still do this with the current Map Maker program.

[Lusche]

Don't know if anyone remembers, but when Fester first released the OzKansas map, he did create a Naval group minus the CV. This was meant to be a "Hunter" group or could be used as a separate defensive group for an existing CV group. I am not sure if OzKansas still has this "Hunter" group defined today.

Not anymore.

On OZkansas, we have CV groups of different sizes (small ones just with a CV and one destroyer, the biggest ones having two CA's), but no CV-less task group.
There are a few other maps (for example Trinity) having a similar difference in TG sizes, though it's mostly about having one or two CA's.

[Vinkman]

This game may be transitioning into a "war game" instead of a flight game, but I'm not a big fan of GV-ing, CV-ing, or anything other than flying. I already hate CV because while they could have been just another moveable airfield to increase pilot on pilot action, they are so full of ack and flak that they create dead airspace around them of a radius too large for my liking. the fact that a CV can get so close to shore that it's hyper acurate Flak can cap an airbase is also anoying.

-1 on more boats with anti-aircraft guns.