Sea Battles

[shotgunneeley]

Horesman's "Battleship" thread got me thinking about this. Here is what I'm thinking:

What if the ports functioned more like the vehicle bases, only for sea going vessels. Players could up their own personal war ship (excluding aircraft carriers) ranging from pt boats, corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, battleships, etc. When a player launches their ship, they spawn out in the middle of the ocean within, lets say, a sector of an opposing port's spawn. Players can operate their individual warships similar to how a gv'er operates a tank. A player will control their vehicle out of the commander's position in the tower of the ship, bringing to bear and firing all or single guns that can fire at a target, like the defensive guns we have in bombers now. By pressing the backspace button, a player could switch from firing the main guns against enemy ships to firing AA guns against enemy planes. To end a sortie, you have to be within a zone of water near your spawn point (it would be far too time consuming to travel all the way to a port). Convoy type merchant ships could be brought out and function as resupply/repair ships when brought along side a war ship. Thoughts?

(braces for the inevitable 'this is Aces High!!!')

[1Nicolas]

Good! +1!

[AceHavok]

I don't know if Aces High is ready for a player controlled battleship. It's an interesting idea. I do really like the idea. Who knows, maybe it will get added in the future.

+1 Though. 

[Vudu15]

seems viable 

[stabbyy]

you see the damage 3 triple 8"s do to a town? and you want a battle ship thats player controlled and can fire nearly 24 miles away with x2 larger shells and does 38mph? our baltimore class heavy cruiser only shoots at 17.07 miles

Armament: 9 × 16 in (410 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
20 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

(note thats iowa^^^^^)


+1 im all for the idea its just somthing that travels faster then a tank.... and can WF a base in about 3 shots from half a sector away and would require about 15-20klbs of bombs in game equivlent unless given Ap bombs to sink

and granted i realise thats the iowa and all... but even the smaller US battleships would be equaly capeable of the same thing more or less i like the idea but this would have to cost gv perks about 750-1500 per ship otherwise no costal or near coast base would stand a chance.. or maybe rquire a pilot rank to use them.... or make a new perk type..

but in that same way i think yuo should be able to have frigates or destroyers with you like the CV does at the cost of extra perks say small escourt =2 ships +200 more perks med escourt 5 ships=800 large escourt 10 ships(cas and CLs) +4000 first 2 options=frigates obivsuly thats overkill but how many ppl would really spend 5500 perks? anyways thats just my thought...

[shotgunneeley]

you see the damage 3 triple 8"s do to a town? and you want a battle ship thats player controlled and can fire nearly 24 miles away with x2 larger shells and does 38mph?

Armament: 9 × 16 in (410 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
20 × 5 in (130 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

(note thats iowa^^^^^)


+1 im all for the idea its just somthing that travels faster then a tank.... and can WF a base in about 3 shots from half a sector away and would require about 15-20klbs of bombs in game equivlent unless given Ap bombs to sink

and granted i realise thats the iowa and all... but even the smaller US battleships would be equaly capeable of the same thing more or less i like the idea but this would have to cost gv perks about 750-1500 per ship otherwise no costal or near coast base would stand a chance.. or maybe rquire a pilot rank to use them.... or make a new perk type..

but in that same way i think yuo should be able to have frigates or destroyers with you like the CV does at the cost of extra perks say small escourt =2 ships +200 more perks med escourt 5 ships=800 large escourt 10 ships(cas and CLs) +4000 first 2 options=frigates obivsuly thats overkill but how many ppl would really spend 5500 perks? anyways thats just my thought...

Remember In my OP I said that the ships would spawn "in the middle of the ocean". If someone wants to spend that time sailing 5 sectors just to hit a coastal base and get bombed into oblivion by aircraft they can be my guest. How many gv'ers do you see willing to travel from one base to another via the hanger spawn?

[stabbyy]

Remember In my OP I said that the ships would spawn "in the middle of the ocean". If someone wants to spend that time sailing 5 sectors just to hit a coastal base and get bombed into oblivion by aircraft they can be my guest. How many gv'ers do you see willing to travel from one base to another via the hanger spawn?

ive seen ppl drive tanks to strats from 2-3 sectors away at 25mph...there are plenty of ppl out there who would espcially having the ability to oblitrate any carrier division in 1-2 salvos and a city in 3-5(asuming ur a good gunner) and be half a sector away and out of range of any shore battery aswell as carrier groups and be hell to fly over or bomb also.... battleships had scout planes... so i would think those would be enabled to...so having these would pose a mssive threat to any cv even if the gunner cant see the shells a scout plane can relay and....
not all maps have a "middle of the ocean" so it could be as little as 2-3 sectors away and at 38mph... it would only take them about 3-5 hours to get there depending on the battleship as i dont think the iowa was the fastest...i beleive the japs fuso class was faster not sure on theyamato point is with open ocean... u can go afk... just like when bombing strats u can take off 400 miles away... and go on auto climb come back for the last 150-200 miles your not going to run into a tree or anything

and this is the type of armor your looking to break with a GP bomb point is without an AP bomb you need b29s to sink it for the most part...
Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm)(side of the ship)
Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm)(ship structure more or less)
Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (290 to 440 mm)(armored protective cylinder around a revolving gun turret on a warship)
Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)(the guns)
Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)(the deck of the ship)
(again iowa)

[shotgunneeley]

I see your point, every map is different. It could be limited so warships cannot leave a certain area when they spawn, kind of like "sandbox" play. My vision is for this to be mainly ship vs. ship battles similar to our Tank Towns, not a bunch of marauding capital ships striking at coastal targets. I'm not against that idea, but that purpose is     better suited for our CV groups now. And like TT, you'll likely have to defend yourself from air attacks from flyers looking to nail your water panther.

I would think the degree in which the ships are perked should be a function of how much freedom they have to attack enemy targets. If their allowed to roam the seas engaging both naval and land targets, then the perk price should be much higher than if they are confined to a small space like 1-2 sectors engaging primarily other sea vessels.

[gyrene81]

there would be some serious whines when someone gets thier battleship sunk by a 4000lbs iron turd out of a lanc. and i would hope the people who spawned the ships couldn't do the one man fire while navigating thing, like the gv's.

[shotgunneeley]

there would be some serious whines when someone gets thier battleship sunk by a 4000lbs iron turd out of a lanc. and i would hope the people who spawned the ships couldn't do the one man fire while navigating thing, like the gv's.

A part of me sympathizes with guy on the receiving end of a gamey lancstuka, but the other half of me feels that every enemy vehicle or object is a justified target by any means necessary. If a wirble can shoot down a low flying 262 (in which case he deserves to be shot down), then a bomber can drop on a perked tank or ship. Since my ability to survive and evade stinks, I don't up any perked vehicle if I'm not prepared to loose it one way or another. If someone wants a plain ol' tank vs. tank, or ship vs. ship, or fighter vs. fighter fight with absolutely no intervention from a different type of vehicle, then he/she should go to the DA/TA.

That being said, I do believe that the 4 engine heavies should be slightly perked based on their overall survivability and payload effectiveness. They are devastatingly effective and half the time are used in a gamey manner with reckless disregard for their lives. As much as I love flying bombers, it annoys me to see them used in an "unconventional" manner, like flying in at low altitudes brazenly through AA fire to completely drop a CV or by doing a mass NOE raid in order to quickly kill a field while sustaining almost 100% loss.

On the lines with this thread topic, I would imagine that mass volumes of puffy ack will fill the skies for any incoming planes on the levels of a city/strat. I'm surprised that y'all are jumping right to the super battleships, the ayatollahs of rock-n-rollas! Remember, before HT got to the King Tiger they had the Panzer IV. OK, the ship could have different key positions to switch seats in to perform different roles. Just spitballing, the damage model could be similar to current vehicles now where guns or parts are knocked out of action by ordinance and would have to be repaired by merchant ships. Or, there could be a "sinking meter" that increases as a function to the amount of damage sustained. The more damage you take, the less amount of time you have to get resupplied before you finally sink.

[crazyivan]

Possibly even use perks to add a ship to an existing task group. I like the player controlled destoyer as a starting point though +1.

Player owned Crusier, I could vulch a field at 20k out   opps  

[Devil 505]

I would limit shipd to just subs and destroyers.

[gyrene81]

That being said, I do believe that the 4 engine heavies should be slightly perked based on their overall survivability and payload effectiveness. They are devastatingly effective and half the time are used in a gamey manner with reckless disregard for their lives. As much as I love flying bombers, it annoys me to see them used in an "unconventional" manner, like flying in at low altitudes brazenly through AA fire to completely drop a CV or by doing a mass NOE raid in order to quickly kill a field while sustaining almost 100% loss.

sorry man, i understand what you're getting at but, i gotta do it. that perceived "gamey manner with reckless disregard for their lives" and "unconvential manner" actually occurred historically.

a bristol blenheim bombing mission at ijmuiden. some reported to have been as low as 100ft.



one of the b-24s that attacked ploesti romania and it survived...



a-20s attacking japanese rail roads in luzon



b-25 bombing a japanese ship



b-25 skip bombing at low level


under 10,000 feet was not that uncommon, especially early in the war and in the pacific.

[shotgunneeley]

sorry man, i understand what you're getting at but, i gotta do it. that perceived "gamey manner with reckless disregard for their lives" and "unconvential manner" actually occurred historically.

a bristol blenheim bombing mission at ijmuiden. some reported to have been as low as 100ft.
(Image removed from quote.)


one of the b-24s that attacked ploesti romania and it survived...
(Image removed from quote.)


a-20s attacking japanese rail roads in luzon
(Image removed from quote.)


b-25 bombing a japanese ship
(Image removed from quote.)


b-25 skip bombing at low level
(Image removed from quote.)

under 10,000 feet was not that uncommon, especially early in the war and in the pacific.

The majority of those are 2-engine medium bombers. They were designed for making low level runs on vehicles and ground targets. I'm talking about the big 4-engine heavies. There's a reason why b24's didn't operate again at NOE after Operation Tidal Wave. Yes, the navy version of the b24 operated close to sea level for anti-submarine patrols but they would have had little to worry from AA and aircraft compared to the Ploesti Raid.

Edit: Its impossible to satisfy everyone. Any change is going to have pros and cons no matter what group you identify with. What matters is that you find a way to do what you believe is fun and enjoyable. For me personally, I like flying as realistically as possible and winging up with other people to get a job done. I sometimes find myself diving in on a 1 vs 1 fight not because I want an easy kill for a few points, but because I'm trying to save my countrymate if he is being shot up. The MA's in AH are like one big sand box: don't cry if you get sand in your eye, take a shovel and bury the other guy. It's almost 1am and I'm getting off topic.

[remy1dog]

+1 me like