Jump to content
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[DOD]
Members
5 posts
1,804 battles

 

Capture_LI.thumb.jpg.efcd2146d307d5c33d05b75a0672e2a2.jpg

I think Wargaming should create a battle scenario in which only CV players can participate. In othere  word, there's only CVs in the battle, no other ships, like the video they show before you log in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,281
[RKLES]
Members
7,243 posts
9,040 battles

That could be insanity lol, but just imagine the XP s scores from all those planes shot down... :cap_hmm: :fish_cute_2:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
[RLGN]
Members
8,310 posts
17,372 battles
30 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

That could be insanity lol, but just imagine the XP s scores from all those planes shot down... :cap_hmm: :fish_cute_2:

Yeah; some non-carrier folks would be lovin’ that...

’Awesome! Let the Sky Cancer go off and play by themselves!’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,244
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,727 posts
9,120 battles

What you are asking for is really a new game but it could be fun for a group of people that qued up together against another group that qued up together. Actually the typical 1 CV, 3 BB,s, 4 cruisers, and 4 DD's battle is pretty much what a CV battle group looked like in the WWII era. If there was a second CV just double the numbers of the support ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Actually the typical 1 CV, 3 BB,s, 4 cruisers, and 4 DD's battle is pretty much what a CV battle group looked like in the WWII era.

I'm not sure this is "pretty much what a CV battle group looked like" at anytime; I would have thought more along the lines of 1 CV, 1 BB, 2 to 4 Cruisers, and 6 plus DDs. The Doolittle raid consisted of 2 CVs, 4 Cruisers and 8 DDs. The numbers you're suggesting are way heavy on BBs and way light on DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,244
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,727 posts
9,120 battles
10 hours ago, Umikami said:

I'm not sure this is "pretty much what a CV battle group looked like" at anytime; I would have thought more along the lines of 1 CV, 1 BB, 2 to 4 Cruisers, and 6 plus DDs. The Doolittle raid consisted of 2 CVs, 4 Cruisers and 8 DDs. The numbers you're suggesting are way heavy on BBs and way light on DDs.

Then call it the ideal CV battle Group. The Japanese CV formations tended to be much closer in make up to that ideal, but military formations rarely match the TO&E even in peach time, because they had BB's in the Pacific after Dec 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
18 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

they had BB's in the Pacific after Dec 7.

The USN didn't have them until the North Carolina class, because the older ships could only do 21 knots and slowed down USN fleet operations. They were used for invasion support, as in the case of the Guadalcanal landings, but often as not sent out separately from the carriers. The NCs, and subsequent BBs, were designed as "fast" battleships specifically to sail in conjunction with carrier based fleets, again to provide invasion support as well as AA support against the new Kamikaze threat.

The IJN certainly did sail their battleships with their fleets, but theirs were designed with carrier support in mind and subsequently sailed at greater speeds than their USN counterparts. The IJN had no problems sending them out without air support either, as the night bombardments of the Guadalcanal landings certainly proves.

I think the make-up of the Doolittle fleet provides a standard for carrier based task force operations, because of the lack of speed the USN BBs had until later in the war; the IJN, however, didn't suffer from these limitations, and included BBs in almost all of their fleet ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,244
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,727 posts
9,120 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

The USN didn't have them until the North Carolina class, because the older ships could only do 21 knots and slowed down USN fleet operations. They were used for invasion support, as in the case of the Guadalcanal landings, but often as not sent out separately from the carriers. The NCs, and subsequent BBs, were designed as "fast" battleships specifically to sail in conjunction with carrier based fleets, again to provide invasion support as well as AA support against the new Kamikaze threat.

The IJN certainly did sail their battleships with their fleets, but theirs were designed with carrier support in mind and subsequently sailed at greater speeds than their USN counterparts. The IJN had no problems sending them out without air support either, as the night bombardments of the Guadalcanal landings certainly proves.

I think the make-up of the Doolittle fleet provides a standard for carrier based task force operations, because of the lack of speed the USN BBs had until later in the war; the IJN, however, didn't suffer from these limitations, and included BBs in almost all of their fleet ops.

The NC was in commission as was the Washington but they were in the Atlantic at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,542 posts
26 battles
13 hours ago, zanger2000 said:

 

Capture_LI.thumb.jpg.efcd2146d307d5c33d05b75a0672e2a2.jpg

I think Wargaming should create a battle scenario in which only CV players can participate. In othere  word, there's only CVs in the battle, no other ships, like the video they show before you log in. 

That sounds like chaotic fun :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[WORX]
Members
1,892 posts
12,982 battles

Just out the blue I was thinking if WOWS would creat a

  • CV only Game mode of 12 CVs
  •  Domination style battle so that they need the caps in order to win
  • tiers in where CVs have DB, I would even add a block number of shore installations ( except on ocean map ).
  • Have it on ocean map too.

now that would be insane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,809 posts
15,355 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

The NC was in commission as was the Washington but they were in the Atlantic at that point.

Absolutely correct, and were brought to the Pacific because their extra speed was needed, where as in the Atlantic speed was not as important, which is why some of the older BBs were never sent to Asian waters but stayed in the ETO. As with all things, choices of boosting the strengths of one area required a lessening of strengths elsewhere. Another good example was the CV Ranger; effective enough for the Atlantic but not effective, or with enough hanger capacity, to be as effective in the Pacific, despite the enormous need for carriers the USN had during the early months of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
788
[STW-M]
Members
2,122 posts
5,927 battles

Too bad frame rate would become a huge issue, especially for those less powerful computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×