Author Topic: About them CV thingies...  (Read 936 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2003, 09:02:06 AM »
gee hubert... weren't you the one that gave the lecture on not insulting people from the safety of the internet?   weren't you the "libertarian" that wanted to tell everyone what to say and not say?  

besides... you fight like a girl and nobody likes you.
lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2003, 09:12:38 AM »
tw.. if you need perkies I can sell you about 11,000.. might be able to get squadmates to sell you another 100,000 or so.

you could ruin my fun by sinking cv's (gawd knows it's easy enough) but wouldn't it be more fun to just hunt me down like the dog that I am?   My squaddies would appreciate the latter.

And thank you for sparing me your personal problems/reasons for 'quitting".

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2003, 09:40:19 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lassie
gee hubert... weren't you the one that gave the lecture on not insulting people from the safety of the internet?   weren't you the "libertarian" that wanted to tell everyone what to say and not say?  

besides... you fight like a girl and nobody likes you.
lazs


Gave the lecture.  You didn't pay any attention.  Decided to change tactics.  Fighting fire with fire.  Not telling you what to say, just telling you that you're a jerk for saying it.  That doesn't violate your rights.  Idiotic allusion to lack of Libertarian principles dismissed.

No, no, it's not "fight like a girl", it's "mud wrestle with girls".  At least I like girls.  My dog likes me.

You're still a jerk.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2003, 09:49:10 AM by rshubert »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2003, 09:49:14 AM »
mw.. it's lazs.. just as it allways has been..  the lazs2 thing is when the BB coughed a long time ago and My lack of puter savy made me pick another handle... when it coughs again I will no doubt be lazs3 but will allways sign...

hubert..  WTG on getting your dog to like you (it wouldn't be a male collie would it?).   Oh... and the fighting fire with fire thing... maybe you should give that some more thought.  

lazs

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2003, 09:53:18 AM »
You brought up a good point about controll towers being invulnerable, they need to fix that .

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2003, 09:57:21 AM »
I don't know... what would be the point of making the towers blow up?  most don't even know or care if they do.  

As for the CV's... they take bombs now and don't sink... how would it look unrealistic if they didn't sink till the rest of the fleet did?  It would just look like the bombs that hit did  insignificant damage.... didn't hit vulnerable areas or... there wasn't enough tonnage on target.   I think people would adjust to it seamlessly.
lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2003, 10:06:49 AM »
And why would that be better?   I mean... I don't care so lonmg as the CV's are a little tougher to sink or there are a lot more of em but..

 I am stunned by this reversal of your position.... Didn't you say that things were fine as they were and that the real problem was the lack of players willing to circle around the cv doing nothing but wait for the skilless fluff or suicide jabo?

lazs

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2003, 10:11:49 AM »
Quote
I think people would adjust to it seamlessly.



I don't think Hitech would . He's bothered by things like magic shacks that you can taxi through without damage, etc.

CV's don't take bombs without taking damage, and thats good, and right . You're proposing making the damage model worse and wrong for gamey purposes .

CV's get sunk because people do stupid things with them, not because the damage model is too logical . I know I've blown my share of ships out of the water with coastal artillery because somebody was stupid enough to offer their CG up on a silver platter .

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2003, 10:18:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lassie
hubert..  WTG on getting your dog to like you (it wouldn't be a male collie would it?).   Oh... and the fighting fire with fire thing... maybe you should give that some more thought.  

lazs


No, it (they actually) are yorkies.  Why, are you attracted to male collies for some reason?

I would give the "fire with fire" thing some more thought, but I don't take advice from jerks.

You're still a jerk.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2003, 10:31:54 AM »
tw said  "Its not the cv's fault or the games fault.. Its the lack of defense thats to blame.."

this would tend to indicate to anyone that you felt that the cv model was fine and that the gameplay was fine and that the fault rested SOLEY on the players themselves who refused to circle around doing nothing in order to stop fluffy or suicide jabos...

To me... your current position that advocates fixing the wqay that cv's are sunk is indeed a stunning reversal.

hubert... internet tough guy doesn't suit you.. it comes off like "petulant moron" when yu do it... nothing wrong with that if that is the effect you want tho... oh... lassie was a male collie.  just so you know.
lazs

Offline fullback

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 149
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2003, 10:42:24 AM »
I have to side with TW9.

CV damage doesn't need to be hardened. The historically-correct defense of a CV is also the approriate defense in AH.

Fly multi-altitude CAP [Carrier Air Patrol ;)] at proper intercept distance and your CV is less likely to be sunk. Don't fly a CAP after placing the CV in harms way against a numerically superior enemy and you lose your CV.

Sometimes you just have to do the grunt work. It comes with the territory - just like running supplies.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
DEE-FENSE! DEE-FENSE!!
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2003, 11:58:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by fullback
I have to side with TW9.

CV damage doesn't need to be hardened. The historically-correct defense of a CV is also the approriate defense in AH.

Fly multi-altitude CAP [Carrier Air Patrol ;)] at proper intercept distance and your CV is less likely to be sunk. Don't fly a CAP after placing the CV in harms way against a numerically superior enemy and you lose your CV.

Sometimes you just have to do the grunt work. It comes with the territory - just like running supplies.


You are correct, Sir.  BUT...

I still would like to see a more advanced damage model on the ships.  Hull damage, gun damage, etc. culminating in a sinking when enough hull damage accumulates.  It would be good to know what the status of the ride is, too.

Another idea is repair.  Real CVs have huge repair crews that fix what gets broke, if they have time.  Of course, too much damage in too little time overwhelmed their efforts.

We need better control of the Task Group and of individual ships.  I would love to crank one of those Fletchers up and go torpedo somebody.

I used to play a sim called Great Naval Battles that modeled all these things.  Lassie would hate it, since it could take HOURS to get a kill.  I had a good time, though.

Lassie, you need to get that cough looked at.  And, by the way, you're still a jerk.

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7255
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2003, 12:05:37 PM »
How about we give the CV's a damage model?  You know, bombs can destroy the flight deck but not destroy the carrier. The Carriers should also have damage modelling for turrets, fuel, ordinance, and barracks like currentsl bases.  That way by slamming a carrier you can reduce it's effectiveness, not sink it outright.

You can sign up as fix crew, and every minute there it helps reduce the downtime by 5 minutes.

That way the carrier doesn't sink, but it is made in-operable by attacks.

IRL - carriers were VERY hard to sink. It took a combination of bombs, fires, and torpedo's to sink the Yorktown over a period of DAYS.
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2003, 12:16:57 PM »
you are correct hubert.. taking hours to get a kill would not go over very well with me in a game.   I doubt that it would with anyone here.

What you are not keeping in mind is that this is a 24/7 /365 day game that people come on at any point in time.   Any long term goals are not seen by the majority and are not even important to a lot of us.  

I believe that the trend has been going away from air combat and that it would be nice if we could offer some choice for those of us who like to fight other  players.

and yes... i am a jerk but it is kinda rude (and unimaginative) of you to point it out every post.  
lazs

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
About them CV thingies...
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2003, 12:17:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mister Fork
How about we give the CV's a damage model?  You know, bombs can destroy the flight deck but not destroy the carrier. The Carriers should also have damage modelling for turrets, fuel, ordinance, and barracks like currentsl bases.  That way by slamming a carrier you can reduce it's effectiveness, not sink it outright.

You can sign up as fix crew, and every minute there it helps reduce the downtime by 5 minutes.

That way the carrier doesn't sink, but it is made in-operable by attacks.

IRL - carriers were VERY hard to sink. It took a combination of bombs, fires, and torpedo's to sink the Yorktown over a period of DAYS.


You're right, but Lexington went down in a few hours, as did Wasp.  Hornet was sunk on the same day as the attack by her own destroyers.  All were sunk by torpedos, bomb hits not withstanding.

It just shows that a more advanced model is needed.  Navy guys say that you don't sink ships by making holes that let in air, but by making holes that let in water.  Hull damage should be the only thing that sinks the CV, and aerial bombs don't do that very well.  They blow up on the hangar deck, and start fires.

BTW, I used to work with a guy who was a survivor of BOTH the Lex and the Yorktown.  After Lexington sunk, the survivors went back to Pearl Harbor.  Volunteers were requested to make up the losses in Yorktown's engineering department.  He thought lightning could never strike twice...

He was one of the last people off Yorktown after it was torpedoed by the sub.  Had some interesting stories.