« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Ships  (Read 3212 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ships
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2006, 12:34:37 PM »
Well, - we still "need" the BATTLESHIP.
With that one....SUBS ;)
(HT has said that it's somewhere in the future I belive)
Just the Battleship, and then two kinds of task forces could be fun. Something like the big one (1 BB, 2 cv's, 2 cruisers and 4-6 destroyers) vs something like we have now?
Fire control is also lacking a bit if there is a Battleship, - it's a lot of work to man all them guns you see.
Maybe firecontrol as a perk thing?
Then there was the light cruiser. With only 6 inch guns (12 of them in many of the RN ships such as HMS Belfast), the range was quite adequate (enough for the Horizon) and the ROF was very very good. (A turret would launch some 18 - 30 shells per minute? (10 pro minute pro barrel, or was it 6-10??). Now that one is a monster for slashing down small vessels!
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Ships
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2006, 04:16:58 PM »
Personally, i would tend to reject any british, austrailian and canadian ships just because, asthetically, they are UGLY. As far as the effect they have, i like that. Another thing we might want to look into is, brace yourselves, during CT and scenarios, realistic fleets that are DIFFERENT on each side. America would have her old CVs, Japan would have her's, britan would have hers, and Germany would have... none!!! YAY!!! (Now all those Luftwhiners out there, dont get on my arse about this. Im one of you, and ive reasearched it. There where 2 CVs planned, one built, but never comissioned, and the other was broken up)
Logged

Offline Campi

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Ships
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2006, 06:03:50 PM »
The only reasion why i mentioned it in the first place is because I was active Navy and i have woundered all them years ago, what was it like.... This game, has given me the closest thing possible to being "real" for WWII.. and I for one, have had enough fun to buy a subscription.... and believe me, I put alot of research into playing a game, before buying it... so to speak... I would even be open to testing things out... but I'm not one to post saying change this, change that.. I make suggestions on what would be funner for me... which doesnt mean it would be funner for you, or even somebody who likes to play with bombers... of course that person wouldnt like ships.. to hard to hit.. and they'd be mad at me sitting on the horizon, shelling their hanger from 20k away... while my lil scout figher friend said. oooh close a lil to the left.... no the other left!.
Logged

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Ships
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2006, 06:32:05 PM »
Actually, id LOVE to have you sitting on the horizon shelling my hangar!!! It would make things WAY mor interesting!!! And, i might get to put torpedo bombers to WAY more use!
Logged

Offline Campi

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Ships
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2006, 09:10:42 PM »
well, as the game turns more towards a WWII Sim... if we start getting perk points... for both commanding groups... and or gunning in them.. you'll start seeing more .. full CV gun placements... and the perk points we get for shooting people down, or blowing up places... (from distance.. there has to be rules against beaching a CV. and direct shooting...)... the perk points could be used to get "special" ships.. i.e. battleships and what not... per Supplies used in war... so that way there wont be oceans filled with BB's.. just like the skys arent filled with Jets...
Logged

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Ships
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2006, 04:02:46 AM »
Excellent. Personally, i dont EVER want to see more than about 9-12 BBs on that ocean at once! Also, if you beach your ship, they should reduce the number of perks you can get, and, if you dont manage to get anything BIG (ie every building on the base) you LOSE perks, and cannot land it as a sortie. To land sorties, you have to head either to a friendly port, or a CVBG. Nothing else. But you should lose HUGE numbers of perks for not "landing it", because then people will just ditch after a strike. You should not get any perks if you dont either land, or get destroyed. If you just ditch, you lose it all.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ships
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2006, 04:35:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
Personally, i would tend to reject any british, austrailian and canadian ships just because, asthetically, they are UGLY. As far as the effect they have, i like that. Another thing we might want to look into is, brace yourselves, during CT and scenarios, realistic fleets that are DIFFERENT on each side. America would have her old CVs, Japan would have her's, britan would have hers, and Germany would have... none!!! YAY!!! (Now all those Luftwhiners out there, dont get on my arse about this. Im one of you, and ive reasearched it. There where 2 CVs planned, one built, but never comissioned, and the other was broken up)


Ahem. Ugly? Young Reynolds, look up the RN ships, - many are quite elegant.
HMS BELFAST.


6 inch guns, but rapid fire.

And the big ones (Although I rather like the Scharnhorst and Bismarck, even the Roma as well as the really big U.S. ships):
King George V class:

Only 13 inch guns (Between Bismarck (15) and Scharnhorst (11)), - Calibre sacrificed for ROF and weight.
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Ships
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2006, 04:40:39 AM »
Okay, by ugly, i dont mean the hull. My thing is, the Bridges look... panzy-ish. No offense, they just seem REALLY small, next to my beloved Scharnhorst, and the guns are... horribly aysimetrical. I have this huge thing for symetricallity. I cant stand things that arent symetrical. I cant even look at the outside of my beloved 109, because seeing that intake on the left side starts me twitching. Its those britich destroyers that had a gun in the... middle? It was between two superstructures, and looked like it only pointed one way. The ones that annoyed me in particular were those that participated in defending norway in the beggining of WWII. And the 4 guns in the no. 1 turret in that King George V look like CRAP!!! Sorry, its just way too many guns lined abreast for my taste. They should move one up to the no. 2 turret. Belfast also has the same asthetic problem, in that those two front turrets should have one gun each, but a larger gun. Its just not balanced. Other than that gun problem the Belfast IS elegant. Move those guns, snip here, clip there, and shed be a ship i might actually enjoy looking at! :D
« Last Edit: July 16, 2006, 04:46:25 AM by Reynolds »
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ships
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2006, 04:54:48 AM »
Symmetric or not, HMS Belfast Wrestled the 3 times bigger Scarnhorst and scored hits at 13K. Rapid fire made them track faster I guess.
Well, Symmetric? 6 guns front, 6 on the back.
The KGV class had more on fron then back, and the Rodney (that one is ugly :D) had all on the front. So, it's an attacker that you don't want facing you with it's nose, for then you have ALL 9 16 inch Guns Pointing at you.
(Bismarck had a sour taste of that one).
HMS Nelson:

Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Ships
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2006, 05:51:53 AM »
EEEWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!! Oh, and its more port and starboard symetrical that gets me. Also, the gun number on each turret has to feel... balanced. a DD shouldnt have two large guns in a turret.
Logged

Offline Shifty

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9377
      • 307th FS
Ships
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2006, 10:33:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
Oh, fer cryin'...

YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PLAYER IN THE GAME

AND YOUR WISHES ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WORTH HAVING


Damn my bubble's burst.:cry
Logged

JG-11"Black Hearts"...nur die Stolzen, nur die Starken

"Haji may have blown my legs off but I'm still a stud"~ SPC Thomas Vandeventer Delta1/5 1st CAV

Offline Blixen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://475thfg.bravehost.com/
WE NEED THIS SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2006, 04:02:03 PM »
Logged

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Ships
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2006, 04:53:17 PM »
WTF IS THAT?!?
Logged

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: WE NEED THIS SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2006, 05:03:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Blixen



Space battleship Yamato.
Would have to perk it . The wave motion gun is just to unbalancing.

:D



Bronk
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ships
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2006, 05:10:15 PM »
It's...fictional.
BTW, What's the gun number pro turret in the Scharnhorst? Not exactly symmetrical I'm afraid...
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up
« previous next »