CV Defence

[danny76]

I want mines and nets to stop the practice of driving CV 's up to coastal bases.

With the CV parked so close you get hammered by ack as you try and gain altitude to defend.

I think if you want to drive your carrier group onto the beach in order to roll a base then you should risk having it destroyed by hitting mines which would undoubtedly be in coastal waters

[caldera]

CV groups too close?  Nah. 2K offshore is a sensible limit.  Why shouldn't an enemy CV have your field and town covered by puffy ack? 
They did it in the war! 

[danny76]

CV groups too close?  Nah. 2K offshore is a sensible limit.  Why shouldn't an enemy CV have your field and town covered by puffy ack? 
They did it in the war! 

(Image removed from quote.)

Thank you for illustrating my point.

[TopGear]

I took out 4 guns on a enemy destroyer 2 nights ago with a wirb from the beach.

[waystin2]

A Giganto +1. 

[matt]

Try sinking the cv.....you might need too come from a different base.

[danny76]

Try sinking the cv.....you might need too come from a different base.

I want a PT Boat equipped with influence mines to do just that.

[EagleDNY]

Forget nets and mines - too gamey.  All that is needed is a mild redesign of the shore battery to give it a better field of fire.  The "blockhouse" shore battery we have now has far too limited a field of fire - I'm NOT saying allow it to swing around and hit any and all shore targets, but the design and placement of shore batteries should at least allow them to cover the landing beaches and critical sea approaches to any base vulnerable to attack from the sea.  Why bother to construct an huge concrete blockhouse and put a big gun in it when you point it away from the critical sea approaches to the base it is designed to protect?  The placement of many of the guns is laughable.

I would suggest we replace the "blockhouse" with the turret type coast defense gun - you can find pictures online of these (the UK used a lot of turret mounted 6" coast defense guns).  Go over the terrain at each base with a shore battery and assign the firing arcs to cover the zones most susceptible to attack from the sea.   Installations with multiple shore batteries should have overlapping firing arcs as appropriate.  

This would do more to prevent people driving the CVs inshore more than anything else.   Even if the armored turret only had the hardness of a standard hanger it would be worth it.  

[Noir]

any solution involving map redesign is doomed. An 'easy' way out would be to forbid cvs to enter radar range of any base and expand lvt spawn range. Its a bit extreme tho.

My wish would be to keep it the old way and get rid of the damn puff ack. I get tired to go back to tower just for crossing 3k miles away from a cv.

I apologise for the hijack.

[Bino]

...
All that is needed is a mild redesign of the shore battery to give it a better field of fire.  The "blockhouse" shore battery we have now has far too limited a field of fire - I'm NOT saying allow it to swing around and hit any and all shore targets, but the design and placement of shore batteries should at least allow them to cover the landing beaches and critical sea approaches to any base vulnerable to attack from the sea
...

^ this   

[major347]

Forget nets and mines - too gamey.  All that is needed is a mild redesign of the shore battery to give it a better field of fire.  The "blockhouse" shore battery we have now has far too limited a field of fire - I'm NOT saying allow it to swing around and hit any and all shore targets, but the design and placement of shore batteries should at least allow them to cover the landing beaches and critical sea approaches to any base vulnerable to attack from the sea.  Why bother to construct an huge concrete blockhouse and put a big gun in it when you point it away from the critical sea approaches to the base it is designed to protect?  The placement of many of the guns is laughable.

I would suggest we replace the "blockhouse" with the turret type coast defense gun - you can find pictures online of these (the UK used a lot of turret mounted 6" coast defense guns).  Go over the terrain at each base with a shore battery and assign the firing arcs to cover the zones most susceptible to attack from the sea.   Installations with multiple shore batteries should have overlapping firing arcs as appropriate.  

This would do more to prevent people driving the CVs inshore more than anything else.   Even if the armored turret only had the hardness of a standard hanger it would be worth it.  

I agree

[skorpx1]

CV groups too close?  Nah. 2K offshore is a sensible limit.  Why shouldn't an enemy CV have your field and town covered by puffy ack? 
They did it in the war! 

(Image removed from quote.)

OH LAWD. MY SIDES.
"Understatement of the year"

+1 to the wish.

[ToeTag]

I'm just throwing this in but if a cv gets sunk then who ever put it that  close looses 2000 vehicle perks!  Oh and if you dont have them you dont turn the round thingy....might tighten that nut behind the wheel..

[MK-84]

     I think the problem is that players like to get the cv as close to shore as possible.  no matter how many times Someone wants to keep a further distance the majority will want to bring it in closer. People will drive the cv to the shore to matter what opposition so they can get to the fight quicker. 
Adding mines or better shore batteries will do little in my opinion.  The limited field of fire from a shore battery is routinely ignored and the carrier is driven into it all the time.  It is driven into PT spawns all the time with no regard to what those little purple arrows mean. Making coastal defenses more deadly will not affect the desired result.
     The desired result I assume is sending a CV to attack a base with better chances of the carrier's survival?  to promote a low alt fight?  or a shorter distance fight?  For base capture purposes?  If any of these, instead of "this segment touches land" maybe "this route is too close to shore?"
     Of course, the majority wants to drive the cv up as close as they can, so is the majority correct because that is what is fun for them?

[EagleDNY]

     I think the problem is that players like to get the cv as close to shore as possible.  no matter how many times Someone wants to keep a further distance the majority will want to bring it in closer. People will drive the cv to the shore to matter what opposition so they can get to the fight quicker. 
Adding mines or better shore batteries will do little in my opinion.  The limited field of fire from a shore battery is routinely ignored and the carrier is driven into it all the time.  It is driven into PT spawns all the time with no regard to what those little purple arrows mean. Making coastal defenses more deadly will not affect the desired result.
     The desired result I assume is sending a CV to attack a base with better chances of the carrier's survival?  to promote a low alt fight?  or a shorter distance fight?  For base capture purposes?  If any of these, instead of "this segment touches land" maybe "this route is too close to shore?"
     Of course, the majority wants to drive the cv up as close as they can, so is the majority correct because that is what is fun for them?

I don't know if that is a problem or a requirement since you need to be able to spawn LVTs.  I actually have an idea on LVT spawning that I will post in another thread that might help as well.   Mines are worthless, but if you are guaranteed to be under shore battery fire from multiple batteries if you are close inshore, that might at least discourage running the CV up on the beach.