Author Topic: new ships  (Read 1440 times)

Offline matt72078

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
new ships
« on: January 14, 2013, 02:27:24 PM »
This would be a cool addition to the task groups, light cruisers with 6" guns and equiped with radar fire control like the USS Boise.  Smaller guns than we have now on the cruisers but they could put a lot of ordance downrange in a hurry. 
"Best in the wing, hat in the ring!"

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: new ships
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2013, 10:44:58 AM »
But I want a battleship!
Something that only torps, AP bombs, and 8in could even think about sinking it.

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: new ships
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2013, 10:47:51 AM »
Chicago piano?
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Oddball-CAF

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: new ships
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2013, 12:36:00 PM »
6" guns and equiped with radar fire control like the USS Boise. 

... and this would work exactly...how?

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: new ships
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2013, 07:23:40 AM »
... and this would work exactly...how?


Magic
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Re: new ships
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2013, 07:45:52 AM »
Yes to battleship. I think it a more critical addition to the ship set than a CL (i.e. light cruiser).  Even more important, however, would be the addition of auxiliary ships, like a tanker, ammo ship, troop transport, and LST -- these would be analogous in function to the fuel tanks, ammo bunker, barracks, and VH at airfields.  More targets  :t , and more ways to affect CV and amphib ops.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline bangsbox

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: new ships
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2013, 11:05:55 AM »
Yes to battleship. I think it a more critical addition to the ship set than a CL (i.e. light cruiser).  Even more important, however, would be the addition of auxiliary ships, like a tanker, ammo ship, troop transport, and LST -- these would be analogous in function to the fuel tanks, ammo bunker, barracks, and VH at airfields.  More targets  :t , and more ways to affect CV and amphib ops.

Yes to battleship....-1 for aux ships (waste of coding). If u want to kill more small vessels, sink the DDs and supply barges

Offline matt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
Re: new ships
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 11:13:32 AM »
+Battleship

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Re: new ships
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2013, 04:48:15 PM »
Yes to battleship....-1 for aux ships (waste of coding). If u want to kill more small vessels, sink the DDs and supply barges

Matter of opinion, I guess. I forgot to mention that I'd make the CV itself tougher, as part of the ship additions.  This would truly make it like a mobile land base, where you could hit a softer target to impact its capabilities in the same way we do with land bases.  Completely sink the tanker, for instance, and you'd be down to 25% fuel loads. Take out the ammo ship? No ordnance.  Kill the Troop ship...well, you get the idea.

Another thought I had was to make it so that progressively worse damage to the CV would slow it down, also in effect limiting maximum fuel and bomb loads, do to the decrease in wind over the deck.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 04:50:49 PM by Sabre »
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: new ships
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2013, 11:06:25 AM »
Matter of opinion, I guess. I forgot to mention that I'd make the CV itself tougher, as part of the ship additions.  This would truly make it like a mobile land base, where you could hit a softer target to impact its capabilities in the same way we do with land bases.  Completely sink the tanker, for instance, and you'd be down to 25% fuel loads. Take out the ammo ship? No ordnance.  Kill the Troop ship...well, you get the idea.

Another thought I had was to make it so that progressively worse damage to the CV would slow it down, also in effect limiting maximum fuel and bomb loads, do to the decrease in wind over the deck.

I kinda have a soft spot for tankers...

This guy (my grandfather)...


Strangely resembles this guy...


Who used to serve on this lady...
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Re: new ships
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2013, 01:27:21 PM »
 :salute to your granddad, VonMessa.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline skorpx1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: new ships
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2013, 01:31:56 PM »
If we get any form of new ship in game i'd vote for the Iowa class battleship. Nothing would bring more death and destruction to an enemy base like guns that would light up the horizon and rock the boat like crazy when fired.

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: new ships
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2013, 02:29:01 PM »
+1 - Having an Iowa showing up on your doorstep lobbing 16" shells and 5" all over your airfield would certainly be an eye opener. 

+1 - Because I would live for the day we managed to get it in gun range of a CV group.

+1 - Because the AAA would be enormous - 20 x 5" plus a load of 40mm popping off at you?   The tears of those wacked by the puffy would be epic.


Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: new ships
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2013, 02:31:49 PM »
:salute to your granddad, VonMessa.

Thank You  :aok

He just passed in May of 2012.  He was almost 91.  My wife and I had lived with him and took care of him for the past 6 years.  Oh, the stories I've heard.  :O

If we get any form of new ship in game i'd vote for the Iowa class battleship. Nothing would bring more death and destruction to an enemy base like guns that would light up the horizon and rock the boat like crazy when fired.

I would love to see some Auxiliary ships that travel with, or near, the task groups.  They could act as a miniature "strat" for the CV.  Damaging or destroying them could affect CV damage and rebuild time, adding some depth to the way CV interaction.
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline skorpx1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: new ships
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2013, 02:44:01 PM »
Thank You  :aok

He just passed in May of 2012.  He was almost 91.  My wife and I had lived with him and took care of him for the past 6 years.  Oh, the stories I've heard.  :O

I would love to see some Auxiliary ships that travel with, or near, the task groups.  They could act as a miniature "strat" for the CV.  Damaging or destroying them could affect CV damage and rebuild time, adding some depth to the way CV interaction.
I'm not a military historian or an expert on any form of navy, but I think that the Auxiliary ships went out to the task group to re-fuel/re-arm/re-stock them then went home. If this is the case then I suggest we have those ships come to the CV's from the closest friendly port to resupply them, kind of like the truck convoys when they come from the "depot" or the barges when they come to the port. Killing them before they'd get to the CV would limit fuel/ords and maybe even certain planes.

If those ships actually followed the task group/CV then killing them would probably do the same kind of damage, but not as severe.