Author Topic: Improving the Sea War  (Read 506 times)

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Improving the Sea War
« on: October 13, 2004, 03:29:46 PM »
Dear HTC,

First off, I'd like to say Bravo on the changes that you guys have made to the naval elements of AH to date. Having the guns and dar on the CVs made killable, allowing the PTs to smoke and the like were all major improvements.

There are a couple of things though, that I believe would continue to improve the naval elements.

1) The CVs need more mannable acks. An actual Enterprise class carrier had more 20mm - 40mm acks than ours currently have, in fact I'd have to say that at present they are woefully undergunned and frequently at the mercy of strafing fighters.

2) Make CVs list to the struck side when they are hit by torpedoes. Not only would this be more realistic, it would give pilots some indication that CV torp damage had already occurred.

3) Make the aircraft elevators a destroyable/repairable item. Destroying both with bombs should temporarily shut down flight ops.

4) End the "Strafe to Death" option for CVs. You might technically be able to reduce a CV to a blazing mess with 110s but to actually sink it? This is just a little on the silly side and makes the CVs too vulnerable. Two days ago a Squaddie managed to deliver the Coup De Grace to a CV with the MGs on a TBM. Strafing and sinking DDs ok, but CVs?

5) Add at least one manable 5 inch gun to the Destroyers. This would add a lot of depth and realism to the naval war.

6) Slave unmanned CA guns to the manned turrets. Lets get full broadsides going when we bombard the shore. This would make the CAs a valuable Naval asset.

For Later Development:

6) The Naval Gunnery Model needs to move to the 20th Century: Except for indirect land bombardment, the Naval gunnery model has more in common with early 19th century warfare than the radar directed naval gunnery of the Second World War. A Fire Control Center and Towers on the CA would be a serious improvement.

7) Surface Radar: Actual CV groups had surface radar and could "see" ships over the horizon. Why don't ours?

Thanks!

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline MOSQ

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2004, 07:20:50 PM »
And make CVs re-supplyable. We should be able to land a re-supply plane on the CV and fix some of the damage. I suppose the most realistsic option would be to add ship supplies to the TBM bomber to make those runs. Otherwise we could use the Goon in the interim.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2004, 12:59:57 AM »
Finally a well thought out, logical suggestion (from both of you).
Sooner this is implemented the better.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline MOIL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
      • http://www.ltar.org
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2004, 03:50:20 AM »
Bravo:aok

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2004, 08:44:16 AM »
Sounds good to me!

I'd also like to see merchant shipping convoys that are very lightly defended.

Main carrier groups that are beefed up. IE a couple of battle ships, 3 or 4 cruisers, more destroyers & Destroyer escorts.


Then for second fleet a small group. Jeep carriers CVE (combustable, Vulnerable, Expendable)  :)  With no cruiser, and only 3 destroyers.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2004, 10:14:31 AM »
8) Add the appropriate amount of armor to the gun positions.  Straffing 8' gun turrets down is kinda silly when a Tiger I, with thinner armor, is nigh invulnerable.

9) Rather than each 8' turret being controled individually, slave them all to a new position in the gunnery mast.  Make that position destroyable and if it is destroyed then the turrets become individually controled from their current perspective.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
Re: Improving the Sea War
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2004, 07:38:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
1) The CVs need more mannable acks. An actual Enterprise class carrier had more 20mm - 40mm acks than ours currently have, in fact I'd have to say that at present they are woefully undergunned and frequently at the mercy of strafing fighters.

Our CV is the Essex class, which had 46 20mm compared to the 8! on ours.

The rest of the armament is correct however.

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
From my archives...
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2004, 07:49:34 PM »
A few of these ideas have since been implemented, but we can still do better. Note: a couple of pictures went with this, but it still reads okay, I hope.
---------------------------------------------------
Naval Artillery Command and Control for Aces High

The addition of naval forces into the simulation Aces High adds a tremendous diversity to the game.  While I fully appreciate the fact that AH is first and foremost an air warfare simulation, it’s nonetheless worth exploring ways to improve these other facets of the simulation; i.e. ground forces and naval vessels.  Hence, I have spent some time thinking about the implementation of warships in general, and naval artillery in particular, with an eye towards making them a more effective – and hence more utilized – aspect of the game.  After all, if no one’s conning and using those naval forces, no one will have any reason to attack them; at that point, you may as well remove them from the simulation.  I have provided a critique below on the limitations as I see it of the current naval forces in AH, and how I think they might be improved.

1) Modeling Battle Damage – I don’t refer here to the special visual effects of damage, such as oil-slicks, smoke, fire, etc (though I hope that’s in the works).  Rather, I’m talking about being able to cause damage to specific parts of a vessel, and to be able to see that damage when you look at the ship.  I also refer to modeling the effect of damage on a ship, such as listing, settling, inoperative airplane elevators on carriers, and reduced speed.  Damage should then be automatically repaired over time, unless the ship sinks of course.  Then, I’d like to see the ship sink in a realistic manner; they didn’t always blow up in a cataclysmic explosion like the battleship Arizona.

2) Conning the Battle Group – The conning – or steering/guiding – the carrier battle group is currently done by setting and clearing waypoints on the clipboard map.  Fine, as far as it goes, but there are other actions the task group commander (TGC) needs to be able to control.  The TGC should have the following additional options: set the TG’s speed (do you slow down to allow a damaged ship to keep in formation, or leave it to the wolves?); toggle zig-zagging on and off (rapid but short turns to port and starboard of the base course); and alter the steaming formation (line-abreast, line-astern, AAA screen).  This last item becomes very important if a fleet engages an enemy fleet in a gun duel!

3) Ah, yes…let’s talk about the naval gun-directing interface in AH.  The guns big gun turrets in AH are manned, aimed, and fired individually; the aiming is done from inside the actual turrets.  This is neither historically correct, nor particularly effective in the simulation.  There are seven gun positions on the AH cruiser, and six on the carrier (see the figure below).  Since a player can only fire one turret at a time, and only one shell per turret, fire is uncoordinated and virtually useless.  There are also a lot of turrets that aren’t fired at all by players.  I can see this for the small caliber AAA guns, but why leave four out of six of the 5-inch turrets on the cruiser un-utilized?


In reality, the main battery, secondary battery, and even sometimes the tertiary battery on large surface combatants were not aimed and fired from the individual gun turrets.  They were aimed from positions known as the gun-directors (see figure below).  A large ship like a cruiser or battleship had two main gun-directors located in towers fore and aft.  In the gun-director tower was a binocular-like device mounted on a pedestal.  The gunnery officer pointed this device at the target, and the determined the range and bearing to the target.  This information was displayed on a repeater in each turret to be fired at the target.  The gunners in the turret would then train the gun out to the proper bearing and elevate the guns to achieve the correct range.  A ready-to-fire signal was sent back to the gunnery officer, who then responded by ordering the guns to fire.  All batteries of a type that could bear on the target would fire together in a broadside.  The cycle was then repeated.  The gun-directors were in towers to give them maximum line-of-site range.

I suggest that the guns in AH be set up the same way.  Create a gun-director station similar to the bombsight position.  Cruiser and carriers would have two gun director stations, one for the main batteries one for the secondary batteries.  All turrets of a type would train out and fire together, aimed by the gunnery officer in the gun-director station.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2004, 03:43:09 AM »
all i ask is a Perk cruiser which could be spawned like PTs from bases not like PTs on a CV

they could only be spawned from a airbase or Port


all country players could join the players cruiser and gun for it


the cruiser could not spawn LVTs or PTs
known as Arctic in the main

Offline DamnedRen

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2164
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2004, 04:00:05 AM »
What about subs?

:D

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2004, 04:33:39 AM »
Subs wont do much right now but troll around for hours looking for a CV  then they just might have a chance of killing it


while a cruiser will have guns for aircraft other ships and give Artillery at land bases


first cruiser or any player ship then Sub to hunt the player ships:)
known as Arctic in the main

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2004, 01:47:39 PM »
isnt our current CV in AH actually teh CV-E (Escort carrier or "fast carriers") ?


some suggestion(s)

btw, if CV is destroyed, players cannot deploy LVTs and PTs. IN AH1 and 2,  I've seen LVTs trying to reach the shore EVEN when CV is destroyted.

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2004, 02:22:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 1K3
isnt our current CV in AH actually teh CV-E (Escort carrier or "fast carriers") ?


some suggestion(s)

btw, if CV is destroyed, players cannot deploy LVTs and PTs. IN AH1 and 2,  I've seen LVTs trying to reach the shore EVEN when CV is destroyted.


I'm pretty sure our CV is an Essex class fleet CV.  The four 5" gun turrets are the give away.  The CVE's were much smaller, did not have multiple elevators, sported no dual 5" turrets, and had a much smaller island.

Personally, I'd like to see the current damage model (huge improvement over the old all-or-nothing system) expended even more.  Take out the elevators, and you can land and re-arm, but not spawn new vehicles.  I'd like to see a separate military transport ship (perhaps an LVT?) added to the fleet for launching PT's and LVT's.  Sink it, and no more PT's or LVT's.  Finally, add a fast fleet support ship, which would be a combination fuel/ammo/troop transport ship.  Damage it and fuel is restricted.  Destroy it, and minimum fuel only, with NO ordnance.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
Improving the Sea War
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2004, 02:58:36 PM »
my input.

1.  If you are CO'ing the fleet you are at the helm.  Course, speed, flight ops are set while at the helm.  If you leave the helm, you are no longer CO.

2.  No more way points.  The Fleet stays on the last course set from the helm.

3.  The Fleet can be run aground.

4.  Lose a fleet while at the helm (or the last person at the helm) and it negatively impacts your ability to take command of the fleets.