(Aces) High Seas - The Next Generation

[Arlo]

Replacing the cruiser with an escort carrier is a fundamental change in game dynamics. A carrier
task force that loses it's CV would still have the CVE to support air operations until a re-spawn. This
reduces overall TF firepower but gives a limited time of continued base of operations for airborne planes.

There could be a possibility of making the jeep carriers only capable of providing rearming, and successfully
landing a sortie with no aircraft spawning capability. This would make the CV the juicer target still even
with it being the flagship that causes TF re-spawn.

This may also require combined TF (full fleet) operations for invasions if heavy opposition
is anticipated (as often would be the case). With the CV distance limitation the invasion TF would require
carrier aircraft already airborne and rotating over it to provide protection.

If player manned destroyers become spawnable from the TFs (with 4 drones still in place) then some degree
of additional protection is afforded.

So far, this would require modeling escort CVs, BBs, player commanded DDs and possibly landing craft.

P.S. If there are BB TF slug outs then the CV TF, if present, may ought to consider backing from the fray.

P.P.S. I would further recommend making the flagship the only spawnable point for DDs, PTs and amphibs
thereby reducing the chances of a flagship-less fleet spawning infinite DDs and such once it is essentially
'taken out of commission.'

[Babalonian]

(Image removed from quote.)

Replacing the cruiser with an escort carrier is a fundamental change in game dynamics. A carrier
task force that loses it's CV would still have the CVE to support air operations until a re-spawn. This
reduces overall TF firepower but gives a limited time of continued base of operations for airborne planes.

There could be a possibility of making the jeep carriers only capable of providing rearming, and successfully
landing a sortie with no aircraft spawning capability. This would make the CV the juicer target still even
with it being the flagship that causes TF re-spawn.

This may also require combined TF (full fleet) operations for invasions if heavy opposition
is anticipated (as often would be the case). With the CV distance limitation the invasion TF would require
carrier aircraft already airborne and rotating over it to provide protection.

If player manned destroyers become spawnable from the TFs (with 4 drones still in place) then some degree
of additional protection is afforded.

So far, this would require modeling escort CVs, BBs, player commanded DDs and possibly landing craft.

P.S. If there are BB TF slug outs then the CV TF, if present, may ought to consider backing from the fray.

P.P.S. I would further recommend making the flagship the only spawnable point for DDs, PTs and amphibs
thereby reducing the chances of a flagship-less fleet spawning infinite DDs and such once it is essentially
'taken out of commission.'

If that's to accurate scale, +1 just for the challenge of landing and TO on it (not to mention even hitting it with a bomb from higher/safer altitudes).

[Arlo]

If that's to accurate scale, +1 just for the challenge of landing and TO on it (not to mention even hitting it with a bomb from higher/safer altitudes).

Didn't go far enough into the ship comparison to scale it accurately. It's basically the same scale at the cruiser with it's bow lopped off. 

[Arlo]

Here's a more accurate scale comparison:

[TDeacon]

You have some original ideas, but if I understand #4 correctly, you are allowing a single "high ranked" player to control where all the rest of us spawn our GVs.  (Pardon me if I misunderstand your suggestion).  If that is what you are proposing, I don't think I'd like it much being told where to spawn. 

I would prefer fixed GV spawn points as currently.  However the desire to reduce spawn camping is still valid.  Currently we have pseudo-random spawn point offsets, but they are still pretty predictable to campers.  Instead of this, I would prefer to enable players to deliberately chose one of many (20 or so) offsets to the spawn point.  So if you were killed at spawn point offset "1", you might try "9" for the next instead up upping and dieing over and over again at "1". 

MH

[Arlo]

I've always been a proponent of this:

1) CV Group - Task Group as it currently exists, however remove LVTs and PTs. Restricted to operating no closer than 25 miles of enemy fields.
2) Bombardment Group - Replace CV with a BB. Add float plane scouts (OS2U Kingfisher, F1M "Pete", etc.) and remove all other vehicle/aircraft spawns. Can close halfway between 25 miles and current minimum approach distance.
3) Invasion Group - 1 LST (LVTs/PTs) escorted by 1 CVE with limited plane set (TBM, SBD, F4F, FM-2, Seafire, Sea Hurricane, A6M, B5N, D3A) and a couple DEs. Respawn triggered by loss of LST. Can close within the current range of shore as current CV groups.

So, back to exploring a three task force fleet deployed from a single port. I've explored 2 of your suggestions; the CV task force (albeit replacing the cruiser with an escort carrier) and the BB/bombardment task force (with the BB TF being the actual invading fleet). Your third TF, consisting of an LST, a CVE and 2 drone DEs (the LST being it's flag ship) comes off a little light to me. Being the 'point group' it would be much closer to shore (possibly operating independently if it was split from the main fleet - a bad but no doubt probably attempted tactic). Both the CV and BB TFs would become stand-off units. The CVTF would provide air strike, support and defense both in an invasion stand-off position and in deep sea stand off fleet vs fleet situations. The BB would provide stand off shore-bombardment and fleet to fleet slug-outs.

But the Invasion TF cannot afford to be a stand alone once it moves in to put forces ashore. And, as stated, perhaps it shouldn't. I would still suggest it retain a cruiser and the standard 4 drone dds, with the LST being the flagship (as you suggest). Adding a CVE to the Invasion TF might be reasonable if it merely served as a rearm pad/land sortie point. As such, the CV stand-off TF could retain the cruiser and CVE, as well.

All TF flagships would be the specific spawn points of whatever planes, vehicles or smaller escorts and PTs they spawn (CV-aircraft and player DDs, BB = player DDs, LST = landing craft and amphibs). [ I removed PTs since they should really just be coastal/island based. ]

What do you think? Simple yet adding a degree of complexity the players may appreciate?  

[Saxman]

The idea would be that unless the TG commander is an idiot, the invasion fleet wouldn't move in until the shore defenses had been softened up and CAPed by the CV group and bombardment groups. It's a way to prevent the heavy TGs from going too close to shore (addressing one of the complaints about the CVs as they currently exist, since you basically end up with enemy flak over your OWN airfield) while still having a group that can get close enough to deploy LVTs (which is what requires the close approach).

[RngFndr]

Yes, this always an interesting topic, with all kinds of ideas..
Lots of people support these Naval warfare ideas in general.. Although they have their own opinions on how to implement them.. By all means we should use as much as possible of the game components that already exist..

CV groups there is no real need to change.. It needs the Cruiser for the AA platform and in case it meets an Enemy Fleet.. The "I" Fleet can use the same ships for starters, just remove the carrier.. But then new ships would be needed to fill the operational requirements.. All kinds of possible wishes here!

Here are a few of my thoughts to kick around..

Invasion fleets were large, lots of ships.. They were FESTOONED with AA, very dangerous..

It would need Troop Transports APA's (like troop barracks)

It would need LSD's Landing Ships with well deck, to properly spawn the landing operation..(like VH)

Landing craft to carry vehicles to shore.. I prefer the LCT, that carries 6 GV's that can fire while on board..

The fleet would need the ability to pull up and park, before the landing operation could begin..

Bombardment ship, Cruiser for starters, eventually an Iowa Battleship I hope, nothing else would look right!

Corresponding upgrade of Shore Batteries, to balance the Battleship, I like the 14in rifles with a Disappearing carriage.. Or 12in coast Mortars with 360 traverse.. Both In open pits so they would be vulnerable to air attack..

Bunkers and nests/trenches near the water, for some light auto and soft guns, at all seaside towns..

Player spawnable Destroyers, provide cover for the landing force as it approaches shore, and for Fleet defense against enemy Destroyers.. Just a bigger more durable and powerful PT boat, still fairly easy to sink, but takes more than spittin at it to sink it..
 

[jeffdn]

Corresponding upgrade of Shore Batteries, to balance the Battleship, I like the 14in rifles with a Disappearing carriage.. Or 12in coast Mortars with 360 traverse.. Both In open pits so they would be vulnerable to air attack..

Bunkers and nests/trenches near the water, for some light auto and soft guns, at all seaside towns..

Perhaps each airfield/vbase should have a field artillery battery... six 105mm cannon or whatever the standard was in WWII. This artillery battery could be used in place of the shore battery, or to supplement it, as well as to defend the base from GV attack, etc. Additionally, each field should have 4x 88mm AA cannon, aimed in the same way that the 88 is currently, to provide a bracketing effect similar to the auto puffy ack, for better bomber defense.

As to fighting positions/entrenchments around the towns, I really like that idea. It would certainly make it harder to sneak troops in. Perhaps it could be set up as auto-fired rifle calibre machine gun positions, so as to minimize the amount of coding required.

[Babalonian]

You have some original ideas, but if I understand #4 correctly, you are allowing a single "high ranked" player to control where all the rest of us spawn our GVs.  (Pardon me if I misunderstand your suggestion).  If that is what you are proposing, I don't think I'd like it much being told where to spawn. 

I would prefer fixed GV spawn points as currently.  However the desire to reduce spawn camping is still valid.  Currently we have pseudo-random spawn point offsets, but they are still pretty predictable to campers.  Instead of this, I would prefer to enable players to deliberately chose one of many (20 or so) offsets to the spawn point.  So if you were killed at spawn point offset "1", you might try "9" for the next instead up upping and dieing over and over again at "1". 

MH

You got a few good ideas there I would like to single out and highlight.  The flaw with a "high ranked" player having control can be an issue, but if so this is a current issue with CVs currently (and sometimes it is).  Maybe if we can think of a way to improove/resolve that feature/issue, it will resolve that issue in both aspects.

An idea to start with from this weekend would be that at the very highest ranks, rank 58 player can take command from rank 22 when he is afk (or rank 22 from rank 5 when he is afk).

Offsets could be a great compliment to this idea though, enabling a player to chooe where the spawn is on the field of play, but giving the individual the ability to choose where to spawn within 1-2 miles of that point, and can greatly help prevent spawn camps. Then again, the player in cnotrol of the spawn point location could simpley move it (backaway or advance it so it's imediatley behind the enemies).  I really would love to see it played out in a beta first before specualting too much.  Players don't like to be camped, but they want to be point-blank to the action.

[Babalonian]

The idea would be that unless the TG commander is an idiot, the invasion fleet wouldn't move in until the shore defenses had been softened up and CAPed by the CV group and bombardment groups. It's a way to prevent the heavy TGs from going too close to shore (addressing one of the complaints about the CVs as they currently exist, since you basically end up with enemy flak over your OWN airfield) while still having a group that can get close enough to deploy LVTs (which is what requires the close approach).

A benefit with the old system and having a single high-ranked player in charge of it I guess (now I'm conradicting myself, lol).  If you could build up a very strong fleet, you would probabley not want for it to be hijacked and driven within shore battery range of the nearest enemy base.

Building up and maintaining the stronger fleets can be an atractive "high ranker sport" for those who get the rank.  I don't think it'll be easy though, I stress maintaining them will be a chore especially if they become prized targets.


If we're really thinking at length into the far future here for expanding water play in the game, would riots ensue if a 4th perk point category was added for Sea?  Could be useful come the day of subs and player controlled fleets with multiple captial class ships in their composition.  Or what about "commander perk points", so it extends to controlling things on land like movable GV spawn points?