Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
KaptainNemo_1

What to do with CVs...

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

243
[P2W]
Members
373 posts
10,119 battles

... and Battleships, and Cruisers, and DDs: make more operations!

With all the angst over whether or not CVs are broken, whether or not having Mad Max On Waterskis is a good idea, or any of the other questionable ideas that the WG design group has been working on, how about we get some more fun operations? The Cherry Blossom and Dunkirk ones were a lot of fun and people have repeatedly asked to get them back. There are so many real events that could form the basis for operations that it can't be that difficult to think up examples for them:

  • Both the Bismarck and the Tirpitz were ultimately done in by aircraft - there has to be a way to make one or more missions from that
  • Jutland was the ultimate pre-CV surface combat opportunity - surely a new operation where you have to reverse history and get a win as the Germans would be fun
  • The attack on Taffy 3 (The Battle Off Samar) would be fun, with the humans playing as either the Americans or the Japanese
  • How about something from the 1905 Russo-Japanese war? I don't know enough of the history of that one, but there has to be an opportunity there
  • How about 6 DDs have to defend Convoy PQ-17 from an onslaught of bot subs and airplanes?

I could go on, but presumably the point is for you to start spending your design teams efforts on that as opposed to only coming up with ever grander flights of fancy.

(And I apologize [sort of] for the click-bait title)

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
[TDRB]
Members
3,101 posts
9,368 battles
7 minutes ago, KaptainNemo_1 said:

... and Battleships, and Cruisers, and DDs: make more operations!

With all the angst over whether or not CVs are broken, whether or not having Mad Max On Waterskis is a good idea, or any of the other questionable ideas that the WG design group has been working on, how about we get some more fun operations? The Cherry Blossom and Dunkirk ones were a lot of fun and people have repeatedly asked to get them back. There are so many real events that could form the basis for operations that it can't be that difficult to think up examples for them:

  • Both the Bismarck and the Tirpitz were ultimately done in by aircraft - there has to be a way to make one or more missions from that
  • Jutland was the ultimate pre-CV surface combat opportunity - surely a new operation where you have to reverse history and get a win as the Germans would be fun
  • The attack on Taffy 3 (The Battle Off Samar) would be fun, with the humans playing as either the Americans or the Japanese
  • How about something from the 1905 Russo-Japanese war? I don't know enough of the history of that one, but there has to be an opportunity there
  • How about 6 DDs have to defend Convoy PQ-17 from an onslaught of bot subs and airplanes?

I could go on, but presumably the point is for you to start spending your design teams efforts on that as opposed to only coming up with ever grander flights of fancy.

(And I apologize [sort of] for the click-bait title)

The Bismarck was done in by aircraft? I believe your history is a little shaky on that as well. The Bismarck was scuttled after it pounded into a burning wreck. The Tirpitz was a sitting duck, much like the US fleet at Pearl Harbor & the Italians at Taranto but as a single ship was more difficult to attack.

The game is set in the WW2 era, Jutland was WW1. IMO it is best we stay in one era.

Battle Off Samar wouldn't be much fun because the US victory was due to a bad decision by the Japanese commander. While the heroic deeds of Taffy 3 played a part they could not stop the Japanese from continuing on had the Japanese choose to do so. 

 The 1905 Russo-Japanese War predates the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought was the last major step in battleship evolution.

We have similar operations to defending a convoy with Raptor Rescue & Hermes.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,255 posts
2,399 battles
1 minute ago, kgh52 said:

The Bismarck was done in by aircraft? I believe your history is a little shaky on that as well. The Bismarck was scuttled after it pounded into a burning wreck. The Tirpitz was a sitting duck, much like the US fleet at Pearl Harbor & the Italians at Taranto but as a single ship was more difficult to attack.

The game is set in the WW2 era, Jutland was WW1. IMO it is best we stay in one era.

Battle Off Samar wouldn't be much fun because the US victory was due to a bad decision by the Japanese commander. While the heroic deeds of Taffy 3 played a part they could not stop the Japanese from continuing on had the Japanese choose to do so. 

 The 1905 Russo-Japanese War predates the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought was the last major step in battleship evolution.

We have similar operations to defending a convoy with Raptor Rescue & Hermes.

 

He prolly meant how the ark royal trashed bismarks rudder making her a sitting duck for all the pounding she took that led to her scuttling.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
815
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
2,795 posts
10,953 battles

The Bismarck got a blanket party on the high seas by the Royal Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[SIDE]
Members
2,551 posts
2 minutes ago, Wows_Nightly_News said:

well played.

image.png.fa4939dd98a577e338cebd41be5df3e7.png

I’m stealing that pic... awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875
[TF_34]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,726 posts
11,267 battles
14 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

The Bismarck was done in by aircraft? I believe your history is a little shaky on that as well. The Bismarck was scuttled after it pounded into a burning wreck. The Tirpitz was a sitting duck, much like the US fleet at Pearl Harbor & the Italians at Taranto but as a single ship was more difficult to attack.

The game is set in the WW2 era, Jutland was WW1. IMO it is best we stay in one era.

Battle Off Samar wouldn't be much fun because the US victory was due to a bad decision by the Japanese commander. While the heroic deeds of Taffy 3 played a part they could not stop the Japanese from continuing on had the Japanese choose to do so. 

 The 1905 Russo-Japanese War predates the Dreadnought. The Dreadnought was the last major step in battleship evolution.

We have similar operations to defending a convoy with Raptor Rescue & Hermes.

 

It was an air dropped torp from a swordfish tb plane that took out the rudder causing it to turn at 15 degrees thus unable to make it back to port. So while yes the crew scuttled it, it was a plane that forced this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[NUWES]
Members
2,509 posts
7,940 battles
16 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

The Bismarck was done in by aircraft? I believe your history is a little shaky on that as well. The Bismarck was scuttled after it pounded into a burning wreck. 

 

None of which would have happened without the successful air attacks disabling her and keeping her from simply leaving. She was a mobility-kill the minute the TB hit crumbled her stern and jammed her rudder and they couldn't fix it. It didn't matter whether she was scuttled, pounded until she sank or left behind for her crew to starve. He is correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[NUWES]
Members
2,509 posts
7,940 battles
32 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

 

The game is set in the WW2 era, Jutland was WW1. IMO it is best we stay in one era.

 

The T3s and lower would beg to disagree. Very few of them ever saw any meaningful role in WW2.  As would some of the T4s. I agree with you that there probably isn't much value to replaying Tsushima, but the game is most certainly not set only in the WW2 era. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
759 posts
62 battles
1 hour ago, KaptainNemo_1 said:

Jutland was the ultimate pre-CV surface combat opportunity - surely a new operation where you have to reverse history and get a win as the Germans would be fun

That would be an awesome scenario!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,646
[_-_]
Members
2,316 posts
6,925 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

The Dreadnought was the last major step in battleship evolution.

One might assert that the five Queen Elizabeths were the final great leap, being the first  modern "fast battleships" that combined near battlecruiser speed with battleship staying and hitting power.

Side note, with the premium Ark Royal coming out *soon* I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of Bismarck-related event to hype it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,419
[SALVO]
Members
22,147 posts
22,556 battles
2 hours ago, KaptainNemo_1 said:

... and Battleships, and Cruisers, and DDs: make more operations!

With all the angst over whether or not CVs are broken, whether or not having Mad Max On Waterskis is a good idea, or any of the other questionable ideas that the WG design group has been working on, how about we get some more fun operations? The Cherry Blossom and Dunkirk ones were a lot of fun and people have repeatedly asked to get them back. There are so many real events that could form the basis for operations that it can't be that difficult to think up examples for them:

  • Both the Bismarck and the Tirpitz were ultimately done in by aircraft - there has to be a way to make one or more missions from that
  • Jutland was the ultimate pre-CV surface combat opportunity - surely a new operation where you have to reverse history and get a win as the Germans would be fun
  • The attack on Taffy 3 (The Battle Off Samar) would be fun, with the humans playing as either the Americans or the Japanese
  • How about something from the 1905 Russo-Japanese war? I don't know enough of the history of that one, but there has to be an opportunity there
  • How about 6 DDs have to defend Convoy PQ-17 from an onslaught of bot subs and airplanes?

I could go on, but presumably the point is for you to start spending your design teams efforts on that as opposed to only coming up with ever grander flights of fancy.

(And I apologize [sort of] for the click-bait title)

While I empathize with the desire for more operations, I want more maps for the core game (randoms and coop) even more.  And I don't want to see map making resources pushed into making maps for operations when I'd much rather see them working on maps for the core game.

Now, if they could use existing maps for some new operations, that works for me.  I realize that longer term, we'd probably want to see more operations with unique maps.  But I guess that I'd rather have a new operations "holiday" while WG's map makers produce new maps for all tiers for the core game and make up for the past couple of years of very few new core game maps.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
[TDRB]
Members
3,101 posts
9,368 battles
14 hours ago, So_lt_Goes said:

One might assert that the five Queen Elizabeths were the final great leap, being the first  modern "fast battleships" that combined near battlecruiser speed with battleship staying and hitting power.

Side note, with the premium Ark Royal coming out *soon* I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of Bismarck-related event to hype it.

Yes, one could make that argument. I would counter with the Dreadnought made previously build battleships obsolete. Super-Dreadnoughts, while an improvement, did not make the Dreadnoughts obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,646
[_-_]
Members
2,316 posts
6,925 battles
19 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Yes, one could make that argument. I would counter with the Dreadnought made previously build battleships obsolete. Super-Dreadnoughts, while an improvement, did not make the Dreadnoughts obsolete.

The Queens were not merely super-dreadnoughts, they were the first of the design principle that closed out the age of big-gun capital ships. The concepts that guided the design of the Queens were adopted and refined by every post-Washington Treaty design, including Vanguard and the Iowas, the last battleships ever built. You said "final leap", didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314
[H_]
Members
2,628 posts

Ah, I'm not at all fan of Carriers but, Occam would likely chime in with "fix them..." mantra because they are already in the game and why waste the investiture of time in creating them???  Pre 8.0 and Post 8.0 there were carriers with severely messed up mechanics...........  Because, "someone needs to win" in an arcade shooter's bottom line....  And, to sell an "Odd" or "dissimilar" product, well, "it has to be worth the time to play.....thereby, being massively OP somehow to sell..."

Endless personally controlled and aimed planes and perfect, computer driven AA are incompatible for either side.....  It will never find balance because at it's heart are opposing mechanics.   What would happen if we "balance the mechanics" and add a dose of reality:  Aimed AA and TO&E numbers of aircraft (that are and have to be very dangerous...)  Isn't the debate about "skill determining the winner?"  In other words, "let's go the other way" from 8.0 and change the basic assumptions:

Carriers can and should be encouraged to first, fight the enemies air efforts; and, there should be a higher value for killing attack aircraft with fighters. 

There should be an "Air Superiority" reward for each game that is of "real value;" and, since you have Air Superiority, that make the other Carrier(s) more at risk (planes don't regenerate but damaged planes can be repaired.)  

Carriers can aloft multiple sorties at the same time and they are seriously, and dangerous armed.  Only TO&E numbers of Aircraft and when you run out and can't repair damaged AC, too bad............ 

And,

the ships actually have to Aim their AA; and, if you aren't that good at that, oh well...........too bad (remember a lot of the argument is about skill);

the ships should be able to vector on board AC at the incoming aircraft with the initial flight times restored.....  And,

it's time to give "historical AA Picket ships", the ships "designed" for AA picket duties AA radar and enhanced AA capabilities......  By doing this, it creates "roles" for those ships: to hunt carriers and planes.  As ASW will do to DD's when Subs get here..........  This also means that the SAG has "x" many less ship killers; and, how those AA picket DD's do or can not do is sufficient to contribute to a "team win"....  Carriers and SAG's will need to discuss tactics to be successful !!

OK, yes, it will be hard to "aim in multiple locations" and do other things.......too bad:  it's what happened in real life and there were no computers....  And, fly-boys, if they can aim at you and are a good shot, well.........too bad and get over it, it wasn't a safe job to begin with.....and maybe, you should pick better targets that "just can't seem to work together"......

I think Occam is right: the simplest assumption in a group of assumptions is usually the simplest......  Neither side can win without the other........instead of: All for one...............and, more for me.....!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
[TDRB]
Members
3,101 posts
9,368 battles
6 hours ago, So_lt_Goes said:

The Queens were not merely super-dreadnoughts, they were the first of the design principle that closed out the age of big-gun capital ships. The concepts that guided the design of the Queens were adopted and refined by every post-Washington Treaty design, including Vanguard and the Iowas, the last battleships ever built. You said "final leap", didn't you?

Yes, I said final leap. IMO the Queens were just cleaning up & improving the Dreadnoughts. Yes, other navies saw benefits of and adopted superfiring turrets mounted along the ship's center line which lasted until the end of WW2, the war were BB's not only lost their throne as king of the seas but became obsolete for naval combat as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×