Author Topic: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port  (Read 5072 times)

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2017, 04:05:48 PM »
The gist of this wish is you want Hitech to protect your assets so they will be around for you to use them if you decide to, and while you are in the middle of not defending them. Same as when everyone furballs their little hearts out while an M3 sneaks into the town and takes their furball away from them. Then we get angry posts to nerf the M3, harden the airfield, get rid of manned guns, or make everyone become furballers for the good of the game.

I'm in the final phase of setting up game play on this terrain. Field defense against task groups. I have to work with reality, what Hitech has in place today. So I have to spend time reading many posts looking for insights to how terrains are utilized, not how everyone wishes they could force Hitech to change the game to make them personally happy.

Why an arena with three sides essentially mirrored with an effective wall around the water, no place to hide. Why in the back field of each country a blind spot with water in it, a place to sneak. Why are most airfields 19 miles apart instead of the old standard of 25 miles. So you don't waste your precious time in transit to fight or break things. Why PT spawns at every water front airfield, some airfields are now too close together to place shore batteries that don't let you drop 8in rounds on the ends of runways just across the water. A trade off I cannot do anything about.

BowlMA gave me the opportunity to listen to players talk about their problems with task groups, not read their fantasies here in these forums. Each of the 6 task groups in each country now have a fast track path at the other countries by how I placed the ports. I also put three GV spawns to each port with two 13mile away airfields to defend the ports. They have turned out to be too easy to capture. That leaves strategic weaknesses to be leveraged if you first capture a support field to a port. And at a minimum, every base on a water front has PT spawns. Those that I can get shore batteries onto and not hit other feilds get 2-3, I think the large airfield island will get 4.

 I hate shore batteries and PT spawns on this terrain almost as much as I hate creating mountains now. Creating terrains is not as fun much of the time as it is tedious, repetitious, and brain numbing. I have a lot of sympathy for those who started and let it go. Now think about Hitech's position as the lone person who programs every last bit and bite of this. I do and keep plugging on.

So until Hitech changes the game, here is what I'm pulling my hair out over and testing. Hitech thank you so much for that red dot showing exactly where a point is touching land. It has been a game changer in setting this stuff up.

Today's fun and testing, I was worried that backfield blind-spot slot was too narrow for setting a task group path. The touching land error had to do with trying to place the first segment straight up the shore from the CV's starting location. I had to place a short segment NW to clear that point of land just N of the CV. Hitech's new segment graphic helped me trouble shoot my problem. The white rings are 8 mile radius because I've set most airfields 1-2 miles back from the water.






   
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2017, 04:07:27 PM »
Imho... no matter the solutions suggested... I think it will
lead to increased kamikaze attacks that oh so many
squeaked about several years ago   :old:

How can they possibly 'increase?'

Offline lunatic1

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2017, 04:11:44 PM »
I like this idea too. :aok

But, auto evade feature would be an ideal compromise - as along as it works.
wouldn't just be eaiser to say fleet don't spawn out until all ships in fleet are destroyed.

or just make Cv hardness same as a Battleship.
C.O. of the 173rd Guardian Angels---Don't fire until you can see the whites of their eyes...Major devereux(The Battle Of Wake Island-1941.
R.I.P.49GRIN/GRIN-R.I.P. WWHISKEY R.I.P WIZZY R.I.P.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2017, 04:15:08 PM »
Heck I just made airjer's day. Now all he has to do is take off and never climb while circling unsuspecting task groups intruding in his country from all sides. It's going to be impossible to hide your asset, so they will get sunk if you don't use them. Airfields at 19 miles apart, gauntlets of PT spawns and shore batteries, and task groups everywhere. Whats not to like about that available carnage. And the distances to get back into the fray are much shorter, especially if a field capture binge cuts loose. You see how fast territory changes hands on my first terrain when it's in rotation. 
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2017, 04:20:01 PM »
Won't they get just as sunk if we use them? :D

Offline puller

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2017, 04:33:50 PM »
id like to see the damage needed to sink BB & CV from reg bombs go up alot and damage needed from AP and torps needed to sink BB and CV go down.

+1

« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 04:35:46 PM by puller »
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
CO   Anti-Horde

Offline Ramesis

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2017, 01:04:57 PM »
How can they possibly 'increase?'

Increase is increase
 :aok
"Would you tell me, please,
 which way I ought to go from here?
 That depends a good deal on where
 you want to get to. Said the cat."
    Charles Lutwidge Dodgson a.k.a. Lewis Carroll

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2017, 06:36:17 PM »
id like to see the damage needed to sink BB & CV from reg bombs go up alot and damage needed from AP and torps needed to sink BB and CV go down.

^ What he said +1.   I'm OK with the damage needed using torps and AP bombs, but the HE stuff (especially small HE) shouldn't even make a dent in a BB and should be cut in half on a CV.  Armor is armor - if the bomb doesn't penetrate most of the blast of HE takes the path of least resistance.  Yes, you can talk about concussion effects on the crew but a ship has a whole lot of crew to replace people that get injured. 
 

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2017, 06:44:52 PM »
Hitech already increased the damage needed to sink the CV because of the BB. It takes forever to sink a CV and cruiser with a shore battery now. The bomber guys are just good at what they do. Everything that can hit a CV is effected by the increase for the BB 16in.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #54 on: September 27, 2017, 06:48:58 PM »
Doesn't SEEM any harder to sink a CV with a batch of Tu-2s, but I'll have a look.  The BBs are a tough nut - that is where I think we are seeing a resurgence in LancStuka attacks. 

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2017, 02:44:12 AM »
Doesn't SEEM any harder to sink a CV with a batch of Tu-2s, but I'll have a look. 

Eight 1000lb bombs will still sink a CV like they used to.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline Zimme83

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2017, 03:24:58 AM »
^ What he said +1.   I'm OK with the damage needed using torps and AP bombs, but the HE stuff (especially small HE) shouldn't even make a dent in a BB and should be cut in half on a CV.  Armor is armor - if the bomb doesn't penetrate most of the blast of HE takes the path of least resistance.  Yes, you can talk about concussion effects on the crew but a ship has a whole lot of crew to replace people that get injured.

A cv will not withstand gp bombs, a wooden deck full with planes plus fuel, ords etc.. At midway the SBDs dropped 500-pounders and 4 of them was enough to turn a cv into a flaming wreck.. 8000 lbs of gp bombs is more than any cv would survive.
''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'' - Stephen Hawking

Offline Greebo

  • Skinner Team
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7009
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #57 on: September 28, 2017, 05:59:21 AM »
The Japanese CVs at Midway had their decks packed with fuel and ord laden aircraft and those particular IJN carriers did not have very good protection for their fuel and ammo reserves either. The Essex class we have took a lot more punishment to sink although the wooden deck was just as vulnerable to bombs or Kamikazes. This is all besides the point anyway though. The amount of ord required to sink a CV or any ship in the game is set by HTC for game balance and has little or no bearing on what was needed in RL.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #58 on: September 28, 2017, 07:38:03 AM »
A cv will not withstand gp bombs, a wooden deck full with planes plus fuel, ords etc.. At midway the SBDs dropped 500-pounders and 4 of them was enough to turn a cv into a flaming wreck.. 8000 lbs of gp bombs is more than any cv would survive.

Actually, it was considered fortuitous that the attack group caught Japanese CVs in the middle of ord and fuel replenishment (in other words, that was/is not a constant state on CVs).

Offline Vraciu

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14141
Re: Sinking Carrier should not reset the Fleet to port
« Reply #59 on: September 28, 2017, 11:26:33 AM »
The Japanese CVs at Midway had their decks packed with fuel and ord laden aircraft and those particular IJN carriers did not have very good protection for their fuel and ammo reserves either. The Essex class we have took a lot more punishment to sink although the wooden deck was just as vulnerable to bombs or Kamikazes. This is all besides the point anyway though. The amount of ord required to sink a CV or any ship in the game is set by HTC for game balance and has little or no bearing on what was needed in RL.

The Japanese carriers at Midway had their aircraft below decks except the CAP which was in a recovery/launch/recovery cycle.  Parshall and Tully have detailed this extensively in SHATTERED SWORD.    This made the damage catastrophic because of all the associated physics related to enclosed spaces as well as the inability of escort ships to assist in fire fighting.  Great book.  Worth the read.  You'll love it.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 12:19:08 PM by Vraciu »
”KILLER V”
Charter Member of the P-51 Mustang Skin Mafia
- THE DAMNED -
King of the Hill Champ Tour 219 - Win Percentage 100
"1v1 Skyyr might be the best pilot ever to play the game." - Via PM, Name Redacted