Hi all,
After reading Kweassa's post a few threads down the line, I would like to elaborate a little bit more on the carrier ops subject, because I agree entirely with him and I also have a few ideas of my own about the subject.
Carriers in Ah, as I have read in past threads, were born with a major problem: they are objects, not vehicles. This means that carriers, and fleets also, are quite limited today, in AH. I believe that this could be an area of improvement.
Carrier ops have become increasingly more and more important in AH operations, in a tactical and strategic role, just like in real life. But, as their use became more common, "gaming" it's limitations put them further and further away from reality, until a point where AH community uses carriers like battering rams, spitting planes like missiles and enduring almost impossible damage, under the cover of murderous radar-laser-guided ack-ack, only to capture a medium airfield with too little or too late defense...
In my opinion, Carrier Ops, as well as the whole Naval Warfare design in AH could be extremely improved, for realism and gameplay in what is the most complete MMOG ww2 warfare simulation in the present day.
1 - The Aircraft Carrier size and his Task Force
We should have at least 2 sizes: large carriers (Big E type) and Escort Carriers. Each type would have a proportional Task Force attached for protection.
I believe it would be too much to ask to have exact replicas of every CV, CVE, battleship, cruiser and destroyers of the major naval powers of the time...
2 - Separate surface ship groups and carrier groups
We should have 2 distinct types of vessels acting: surface groups, with battleships, cruisers and destroyers and aircraft carrier groups, built around a aricraft carrier. More ships in the water would give submarines more work than simply lay at a port entrance waiting for the ships to spawn...
3 - Task Group range and Heading
Here, we would have to allow 2 modes: auto (AI) and manned ships. Like we have today, control of the main ship would imply the control of the whole Group. Nothing new, here.
New would be that the comand of the ship or carrier would be from a bridge and:
- you would be able to plot a possible course within fuel range (without refuelling) and let it go on automatic;
- you would be able to actively steer and control speed directly from the bridge, all within the manoueverability limits of a real ship;
- you would have access to surface radar - when available - for surface target aquisition, thus allowing to feed gunnery instructions to the manned guns;
Range would be an important issue here, for ships would have to travel from one port to another for refuelling, repairs - in Kweassa's shipyards - and rearming too, btw. Yes, because ammo must be loaded and aircraft total number would be limited to a realistic number aboard, although only combat kills registered by the host would count for each CV "stock" of aircraft. If a CV would arrive to a port without fuel, could not leave until fuel dumps re-spawned. It's damage would not be repaired if the shipyards were not operational to a certain percentage. His complement of aircraft would only be loaded after some time in port...
Of course, AI plotting would tend to be more conservative for big carriers, more audacious for escort carriers, without putting the ships in a very dangerous position but taking then into enemy zone vicinity or into it.
Auto or manual plotting would give the possibility of port-hopping to a certain destination, but in a dinamic way: if a port was taken by other country forces, all ranges and plotted courses of every ship depending on that specific port would be changed immediately, overruling any previous calculations, automatic or manual.
Speed and manouvering would have impact in range, thus forcing to reduce ranges and returning to next closest port earlier in some cases.
4 - Damage, vulnerability, AAA accuracy and related issues
All ships should be able to sustain more degrees of damage, in different parts. Rudders, boilers and propellers, shafts included, should be considered. The big deck lifts also. Fuel leaks should be possible. Side impacts would force the ships to list port or starboard, depending. Water flooding the ship should reduce speed and floatability. Getting the props or the boilers would give a dead-in-the-water ship.
Then, we would have the straggler CV problem: until, say, 5 knots of speed, the fleet would hold its positions. Under that speed, the fleet would follow his way to the nearest safe harbour, leaving the CV to sink or be scuttled (automaticaly as escort ships reach port).
AAA accuracy, as in the whole of AH, should be reviewed. It should be calculated by the average accuracy of manned guns in AH for the last 12 months and updated monthly.
5 - Carrier ops and naval aviation related issues
Here, the new thing would be to have a finite complement of aircraft and landing crafts aboard, proportional to the size of the carrier. We would have Fighters, Scouts, Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers as we have today, only in a limited number.
Every aircraft flown off the deck and shot down by an opposing aircraft and registered as one by the host would reduce the carrier complement by one. Crashes on landing, take-off or in flight and safe ditches would not count (to avoid big time cheating).
Aircraft would have to be lifted from the hangar deck to the flight deck for take-off, thus making replaning and mission launching slower but more realistic.
Although incomplete, these are some ideas that I believe would add more value to carrier ops and naval operations in AH.
Would like to know your opinions and suggestions.
Sparow
249 Sqn RAF "Gold Coast"
