Solo4114Personally, I say just ditch the elevator. It leads to some serious plane camping and smacktardism if you're not careful. It's a huge pain in the ass for the allies on that map.
Also, the carrier armor needs WORK (actually, all the ships do vs. PT boats and torpedos). It's really quite easy to sink the big ships now.
The elevator is fine......players just need to operate it correctly. On occasion i remained at that elevator station for 10 minutes or so, and all went smooth.
Players brought their plane up to the platform, exited their aircraft so it would not bounce all over the place and i lifted it up, checked if it had cleared the platform and lowered it for the next plane.
Players can also help themselves, but with plancampers hopping in your aircraft when you are lifting the platform and the plane up, or planecampers lowering the platform when you are taking off from there isn't really helping smooth operations....or your team.
But that is not the fault of the lift platform !
Also, ship launched torpedo's, battleship grenades and heavy AP bombs dropped by divebombers were extremely unhealthy for a RL carrier.
When you go through war history books, you will often find that one single bomb or torpedo in the right place was enough to start a chain reaction of explosions and fire, that resulted in the loss of a carrier.
A carrier was packed with large fuel tanks for aircraft, bombs, torpedo's and ammo stores for aircraft and own AA guns, and fuel tanks for it's own boilers.
If you think carriers sink too fast, that is probably because they are not/poorly defended. Enemies should not be allowed to lauch bombs or torpedo's at all on a carrier !!
What is the carriers fighter doing ? What is the carrier's escort ( often a destroyer ingame ) doing ? What are the flak batteries, that are very strong in FH 0.6 doing ?
I guess if player not want to lose their carrier, they will have to DEFEND it.....
It is certainly not too weak.
Personally, I'd rather lose the carrier altogether. It'd mean the planecampers would have to actually DO something for their team for a change.
Personally, I'd just rather the decks be normal carrier decks without lifts. Whether it's realistic or not, whether it's the fault of the carrier lift or not, the presence of the lift is correlated to major problems. Granted, that's the fault of the players in a lot of cases, but the OPPORTUNITY for them to screw around would not be the same if the lift wasn't there.
all polar bears r left handed
14th November 2003
but then it wouldnt be as realistic would it? :rolleyes: as [SYN] hydraSlav said the carriers should be wider. quite a bit wider in fact. this would allow the planes to get up from the hanger without causing any trouble. ... on the other hand there is a problem with the positioning of the planes in the hanger. i have found that it is almost impossible to get the bomber out coz the fighter respawns so fast. but that might just be coz i havnt played on a big enough server yet...
Well, do the Japanese carriers have elevators too? And yet, all their planes spawn on deck the same way they did in 0.5. Look, the IDEA of a carrier lift is cool, but the actual implementation of the thing doesn't work so well and causes problems in game. Maybe it's realistic, but again, the way the players use it (or misuse it, rather) makes the game materially less FUN.
Nope, the Japanese carriers in-game don't.
all polar bears r left handed
14th November 2003
if the jap carriers did have it though it would mean that not only would it be fair but also everyone would HAVE to lear how to use them properly. also if you are careful you can lift two planes at once on that thing which, if you have the pilots, can give you a huge edge due to the fact that you can launch four planes in a very short space or time. on coral sea for example the japs are at a huge disadvantage if you can get a group of allies who can play as a team because of the fast spawn time you can get around three planes into the air for each plane that the japs can launch. :type: ow my fingers hurt :D anyway, all it takes is for a couple of noobs to ruin any idea. it'll just take time for people to get used to it and learn to use it just like the new plane physics... i need a :drink:
Also most USN planes were lifted with the wings folded so you could easily get two per lift but we dont have folding wings. I have played Iwo and Makin and didnt have alot of problems with getting planes off the carriers.
I've played Saipan and have adminned on it plenty and the allies usually have problems with it. They've figured out HOW to use it more or less, but it still just unecessarily complicates matters. Assuming the Japanese carriers that are in the mod have real-life counterparts which also used elevators, I think it'd be only fair to either model their carriers with the elevators or model the U.S. carriers without 'em. Either way, as things stand now, I just don't like the lifts. They're a cool idea, they just don't work as well as implemented.
I'm not certain about the ratios or time periods, but IIRC early in the war US fleet carriers had approximately a 1:1:1 ratio of fighters:dive bombers:torpedo bombers, later in the war more fighters were put on board and fewer attack planes, until late in the war when Corsair replaced most dive bombers. As such, I think it would be nice to have a few variations of the carrier. Early war has a F4F Wildcat, SBD Dauntless, and TBD Devastator (two in hangar, one on deck off to the side, like the Zero or an offset elevator and two planes on deck, one in hangar). Mid-war the Wildcat gets replaced by the F6F Hellcat and the Devastator by a TBF/TBM Avenger (some maps could also have a Helldiver replace the Dauntless if the devs make one). Late war could have a Corsair, a Hellcat, and an Avenger and/or two Corsairs, a Hellcat, and an Avenger (an Essex-class would be nice too).
So the Japanese don't get an "advantage" from people that don't understand elevators, if possible add an elevator to the IJN carrier and put a plane or two below.
As to the ease to kill carriers, while a bomb or two could decommission or destroy a ship, they could also take hits. Not to mention the fact that the US had radar (BVR knowledge that a plane was incoming, and from where), gun crews for the flak (as opposed to having part of the crew go ashore to fight), pilots and planes on standby normally to investigate any bogeys (as opposed to all going to dogfight/provide air support), the rest of the task force (possibly including more carriers) and their own 5" AA guns for defence (and they wouldn't leave the carrier unattended), as well as many more smaller caliber close in AA guns, and visibility limited only by the curvature of the Earth and weather (and in general more time to defend the ship/fleet).
As to actually defending the carrier (talking about players and not the ship now), other than Coral Sea (maybe), IMO there's no chance that other ships will stay by to defend and the carrier AA will be fully manned.
I think carriers should be vulnerable to bombs, but not to just one bomb (I think, I dropped one from a George and don't recall damaging the carrier previously in a LAN game).
I have seen specific mention that the Carriers radar had about a 100 mile range.
Also the Japs did not have catabults but with most of their aircraft weighing considerable less than the USN aircraft it wasnt felt that they needed any.
The IJN also had ship mounted search radar but it was not as good as the US radar, had a range of about 90 miles, was prone to breakdowns, and didnt like rough seas.