submarines quick simple and dirty implementation

[Citabria]

submarines are slow

but if they have a ring of spawn points around bases like pt boats do on ozkansas they will have the ability to ambush cv groups and destroy them in fact if the subs are added like pt boats and use same spawns it would work.

if they were added as a manned vehicle just like a pt boat they would be used extensively to fight against attacking task forces which traveling at 45mph subs couldnt chase, but heck even high speed pt boats cant chase cv groups moving away with any success. pretty much all pt attacks on these fast moving fleets are already ambush attacks.

a simple uboat would need about the same number of crew positions as a ground vehicle.


it would also need 3 depth positions:
surfaced ( deck guns enabled to be manned by player as well as torpedoes)

periscope depth submerged (torpedoes and periscope  enabled)

maximum depth submerged evasive depth to escape from uboat hunters etc.  would give need for tbm3 and its historical depth charge loadout if the sub could run deep.

well i think that would rock and it would work and get used and not be some dormant cool feature thats nonusable.

[Rolex]

Sounds great. I agree that it would add another dimension that some will take to like, ummm, fish to water?

Below periscope depth would require blind sonar navigation. Can't you just hear the "pings" now in your head? You could have one 'Commander' to do all functions or have a 'crew member' join as gunner when running on the surface. I'm not sure what function the crew member could do (programming-wise) while submerged or at periscope depth. I think the original member would have to steer the sub as in bombers.

Periscope depth would expose a wake and a risk of detection and the sub could have a limited time submerged due to battery life.

And how about transport convoys that resupplied ports instead of trains as legitimate strat targets? And how about pilots bailing out within a set distance of the sub no longer getting a ditch or capture, but a safe bail instead? Lots of possiblities for interesting naval battles!

[Citabria]

ozkansas has ships that supply most island bases.

but the ah1 convoys are classified as river barges and can not be torpedoed. only gunned.

make another convoy class maybe called ship convoy that can take torpedoe damage and you have ai drone convoys killable by subs.

but most ignore the current convoys of all types.

the real fun is spoiling the attacks players make with carrier groups. this is where sub dweebs would have the most fun since they would be fighting player manned ship group instead of ai drones.

[Tilt]

Always seemed to me that subs could have avery simple FM .......... it really comes down to how much we really need stuff like different dive rates and dived to depths modelled for interaction with depth charges etc.

I would prefer the 3 depth analysis above with a fixed dive rate.

However if subs were implemented then our fleets and PT boats would need depth charges IMO and some change in the way fleet destroyers are "tied" to our fleets.  It would be neat if destroyers could be "manned" as PT boats are but linked to the fleet by a "rubber band".

Hence a destroyer would a speed advantage over the Cv and cruiser and could depart from its normal escort position when manned...........

This departure would be limited by our "rubber band" (bit like drones on formations except that when the limit is reached AI takes over)  AI also takes over when the destroyer is within the "distance limit" but not recieving any directional inputs from the "destroyer captains" FE.

AI would always direct the destroyer toward its escort position.

[zmeg]

If Task groups were slowed down to a more realistic 17 knots destroyers could detach from the fleet and catch back up later, this would also make landing on a carrier without a hook a little more difficult.

[Sabre]

Regarding implementation of subs in AH, the way Dale described it to me awhile back is there would be a "wolf pack" object akin to a AH task group. You would maneuver it the same way as fleets, i.e. with waypoints. Then, when it was in position, you would spawn subs from the wolf pack, just like PT boats are spawned from fleets. That, at least, was the original concept as I understood it. There are of course many questions that would need answering, such as how do you "sink" a wolf pack so that it can not spawn any more U-boats? Will fleets have automatic ASW defenses, as well as player-controlled ones?


__________________

[Stratocaster]

It wouldbe cool to see the word SUB above it:) but when suubmerged and periscope..... it disapears

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
It wouldbe cool to see the word SUB above it:) but when suubmerged and periscope..... it disapears

It would need no icon just the same as a CV group has no icon.

Also, with the introduction of Icons below the object, you would never see the icon anyways, if it had one, because it would be below the water surface.

Planes that fly real low NOE in AH II ... you CANNOT see the icon cause the terrain swallows it up ... which I think is real cool and hope that it remains this way.

[Ecliptik]

While I would appreciate submarines and destroyers, I think we should be careful not to make CVs even more vulnerable than they already are.  I really enjoy CV battles, but it's a little frustrating when a pair of solo suicide dweebs screaming in one after the other from 20k can so easily destroy the task force.  Seeding the seas with deadly submarines would only reduce the life expectancy of CVs further.

I'm not saying that the carrier should be able to take a ridiculous amount of damage, but we could reduce the probability of the success of such foolish individual attacks.   I think the AI 5" flak needs revision.  Right now it's so ineffective it might as well not be there.  Each flak salvo either does nothing at all, not even buffeting from the airbursts, (99.9% of the time) or it kills you instantly.  It also seems to have the same effectiveness at any range.  Either make the accuracy an effectiveness improve dramatically closer in, or make all the batteries fully manable.  Along with this, change the damage effect that flak bursts have.  Flying through heavy flak should cause a lot of incremental shrapnel damage and buffeting instead of this all-or-nothing thing we have now.

[B17Skull12]

Originally posted by Ecliptik
While I would appreciate submarines and destroyers, I think we should be careful not to make CVs even more vulnerable than they already are.  I really enjoy CV battles, but it's a little frustrating when a pair of solo suicide dweebs screaming in one after the other from 20k can so easily destroy the task force.  Seeding the seas with deadly submarines would only reduce the life expectancy of CVs further.

that is why the US Government want to cut back majorly on the us navy budge because they saw in WW2 that airpower could destroy alot of things.

[Nefarious]

Dive the Boat!!





We would have to have Subs that could at least try to defend themselves from the Air, like a Type VII or type IX with a lot of AAA guns.

[Gwjr2]

I like the Sub idea as far as CV taking Damage why not have perks gained from CV guns used for repairing cv in battle so suidweebs cant kill with just a couple.... just my .02

another thing make CVs have to be controled from boat so a player would have to take control and be on boat, not flying somewhere, want it saved from bombs get on it and drive...