A new ship!

[E25280]

Yea, I know...but how many do we have access to in AH destroyers??? We have access to 4 - X turret is non-functional in the game.

If there's one thing I know - its Fletchers...

J

You might know a lot about Fletchers, but you obviously don't know much about them in the game.

We have access to only two of the 5" turrets, one in the front, and one in the rear.  

Besides, you said this:

Uhhh, no.... A single Atlanta has 6 twin guns, equaling a total of 12 barrels. That would be three destroyers, going on the premise that 4 turrets are available on a Fletcher.

You say 12 barrels and 4 barrels on the Fletchers.  I said the Fletchers have 5 barrels, not 4.  It's closer to two destroyers as the OP stated than 3 if you are only counting 5" guns.

I am not sure what your point is about access.  If an Atlanta was added in the game, there is no reason to believe we would have access to all six turrets, just as we don't have access to all the turrets on any of the other ships.

[JHerne]

I concede the point on the Fletchers, don't get your panties twisted in a knot. Fletcher have 5 barrels, only two of them are playable. So what do the others do? Do they contribute to auto puffy ack?

As for the Atlantas, what is the sense of having a ship with 6 or 8 twin 5" turrets if we don't have access to them?

So we only get 3? Then make the DDs Sumners or Gearings.

Either way, a radar control ship that determines the lethality of puffy ack is a horrible idea.

And you, you're simply trolling.

[E25280]

I concede the point on the Fletchers, don't get your panties twisted in a knot. Fletcher have 5 barrels, only two of them are playable. So what do the others do? Do they contribute to auto puffy ack?

As for the Atlantas, what is the sense of having a ship with 6 or 8 twin 5" turrets if we don't have access to them?

So we only get 3? Then make the DDs Sumners or Gearings.

Either way, a radar control ship that determines the lethality of puffy ack is a horrible idea.

And you, you're simply trolling.

Not trolling at all, nor are my "panties twisted."  I'm simply correcting your mistakes.

I don't know if the other turrets are the "source" of puffy ack or not.  I seem to recall at one time you could get the puffy box above a fleet even if there were no ships left.     But my memory could be faulty on that one.

And I don't really care if we get an Atlanta class cruiser or not.  Nor do I think the idea of a radar ship is a good idea.  Neither has anything to do with what I posted.

[Rino]

you guys want new ships? put some BBs in please... i'd love to see the New Jersey going full broadside on a base with the cruiser backing it up smacking buildings down in town... and id also like to see the realism of forcing 8" and 16" guns only allowed to fire when AA gunnery is not used. make it into a "ship mode" style of combat and a ship commander to allow for the sea to sea fighting and AA fighting. 40mm guns wouldnt be manned while an 8" or 16" gun fired just for the fact that the gun would make whoever was in the 40mm gun mount fly overboard with bleeding ears and KOd

     What exactly would prevent the main batteries from firing if the secondaries are  firing AAA?  Admittedly
chances are that you wouldn't use the mains on the same type targets, but they were mounted in different
turrets and with different fire control as well.

     There have been some reports of Japanese BBs using main guns against torpedo attackers.  Of course
this could just be exaggeration by engaged crews....I know I'd be pooping pickles if someone was firing
naval sized ordnance at my low and slow torpedo bomber too  

[Bruv119]

instead of going around the problem how about HTC just fix the uber accurate 1st crack of puffy as soon as you pull over 3k miles away from the CV in a fighter when there are 10 guys nearer the ship than you are.   

I got killed 4 times trying to defend my base the other day in exactly the same fashion.  What put me over the edge was moving bases and upping off a friendly CV to get bounced by an enemy con that I reversed and was about to kill, when my own Puffy ack took my wing clean off one hit 

and yes a whine has been recorded 

[Saxman]

instead of going around the problem how about HTC just fix the uber accurate 1st crack of puffy as soon as you pull over 3k miles away from the CV in a fighter when there are 10 guys nearer the ship than you are.   

Geeze, where have I heard something like that before...

As I said, make puffy ack so that's actually fired BY guns, not automatically generated around the target. You'll see the whines about the effectiveness of puffy ack decline TREMENDOUSLY.

The problem is that puffy ack is instantaneous and radar guided, and the amount of flak bursts is the same regardless of the size of the bounding box (IE, a fighter and four-engine bomber have two different sized "target" boxes, but both receive the same amount of ack. The result is a fighter is more likely to go down because the flak is more concentrated). Make ALL AAA so that it's fired by the guns. That means it will actually be possible to evade flak to a point by changing direction. Thus, fighters and small attack craft (IE, SBDs and D3As) will actually have a chance of getting through the flak barrage since they can more easily change course to throw off the aim of the gunners.

It would also be nice if EVERY gunner didn't zero in on one target the way they do now, or prioritized BUFF formations over fighters, but this change would be a good start.

[Sabre]

I agree that fixing the puffy ack is optimal over adding a AAA ship.  There are other ship types I'd prefer get added first. The BB is one, though it's not even at the top of the list.  An LST to act as a floating VH for the fleet would be neat, and give people a way to disable amphibias landings.  Likewise, an ammo ship and troop ship that would take the place of the ammo bunker and barracks would also be cool, and give more targets.  You could even add a tanker for the fuel bunker function.  Yes, I know; in real life, these fleet auxilliaries would never have been able to keep up with the CVBG's, but our fleets aren't exactly configured or operated in a historical fashion.  It's one of the reasons I believe there should be two fleet types; a CVBG (no LVTs or PTs, just A/C) and an amphipias assault group that would have no CV, but would have a BB or extra CA and with an LST capable of spawning LVTs and PTs.  In my less than lucid moments I've even imagined the LST as being able to be detached from the fleet and beached to form a temporary VH that would then be able to spawn non-amphib GVs.

[Saxman]

If there's going to be BBs, LSTs, etc, then there needs to be two fleet types:

The CV battle groups which can get no closed than 25 miles from a base, and a bombardment/invasion group, which launchs the LVTs and can get closer.

[JHerne]

+1111111 Saxman

[Stalwart]

A puffy ack control ship   -1

A Fletcher class destroyer as an addition to the CV setup   +1


My 2c

[JHerne]

A puffy ack control ship   -1

A Fletcher class destroyer as an addition to the CV setup   +1


My 2c

Your wish is granted, as we already have pseudo-Fletchers.

[Avanti]

But in theroy if you kill the radar on a CV then puffy shouldn't be able to hit you?

[JHerne]

Not really...two different radars, technically.

The radar that sees the red dots on the clipboard map would equate to the CVs SC set (that big array on the mast). The radar that controls the ack is located on the Mk.37 Fire Control directors (those things that look like turrets but have no barrels sticking out of them). I'm not sure if they're even modeled on the pseudo-Essex we have in game.

The Fletchers are the same way - the spinning rectangular array on the foremast of the DD is the air-search set, SC series. There's supposed to be a small SG radar set on the mast (not even worth modeling in game, its so small) that would be the surface search radar. The gunnery radar again comes from the Fire Control Director that sits on top of the wheelhouse.

So...in theory (and I'm not opposed to this, I actually like the idea), we'd have to knock out the Fire Control Directors to reduce, then eliminate, the accuracy of the ack.

J

[Avanti]

Not really...two different radars, technically.

The radar that sees the red dots on the clipboard map would equate to the CVs SC set (that big array on the mast). The radar that controls the ack is located on the Mk.37 Fire Control directors (those things that look like turrets but have no barrels sticking out of them). I'm not sure if they're even modeled on the pseudo-Essex we have in game.

The Fletchers are the same way - the spinning rectangular array on the foremast of the DD is the air-search set, SC series. There's supposed to be a small SG radar set on the mast (not even worth modeling in game, its so small) that would be the surface search radar. The gunnery radar again comes from the Fire Control Director that sits on top of the wheelhouse.

So...in theory (and I'm not opposed to this, I actually like the idea), we'd have to knock out the Fire Control Directors to reduce, then eliminate, the accuracy of the ack.

J

I see, sounds like a good idea to me 

[Ack-Ack]

This is the ship that needs to be added to the game.  The US Navy's "Ice Cream Barge" that was part of the Pacific Fleet.




ack-ack