Practical ways to expand AH ground and sea potential.

[EagleDNY]

I'm +1 for the idea of having surface combatant groups / shore bombardment groups - but the problem I see is that we do not have a realistic aiming system for guns.  There is no gunsite that determines range for long range bombardment, or for surface group vs surface group battles - and that would really be a requirement for this to work.   We need some kind of gun director in the bridge of a ship that can be manned, so that if someone is sitting in the director he can call out range and bearing in local and then zoom in and report on shot fall.  This would make bombardment and sea combat a team activity as well.

[Saxman]

There IS also the fact that if the aiming devices are made accurately for each ship class, things can get REALLY lopsided if one side has a South Dakota or Iowa with its radar ranging and target finding, but the other is in a Japanese ship, which didn't.

[Tilt]

AFAIK there ARE no Cruiser task groups. TGs are tied to the carriers, so whenever there's a CA group in any event I've flown in the CM has had to manually sink the CV and tweak the respawn timers to make it work.

It was possible to alter the ship number ( so that the cruiser become 001) in the terrain editor when deleting the cv. An invisible tower/OC and hanger point object had to be constructed to give the player a view point. ( usually to the side of the cruiser). Only ships guns were available ( set in arena settings) or maybe the odd PT or LVT.

Then a CV free battle fleet could be created. Several Scenario terrains had this. ( early BoB, Niemen )

Indeed some MA terrains had two cruisers  per CV fleet and at least one scenario terrain had fleets with multiple CV's all using the same tools.

HTC discourages the use of " modified" object groups these days.

[Mister Fork]

Spawn a LVT from a carrier close to shore - land the LVT and it becomes a vehicle spawn point.

[Lusche]

Indeed some MA terrains had two cruisers  per CV fleet and at least one scenario terrain had fleets with multiple CV's all using the same tools.

HTC discourages the use of " modified" object groups these days.

Not only we have an old terrain with 2 CA groups in game, (Ozkansas) but the most recent addition (Fester) has TG's with 3 CA's.

[Zacherof]

Ground units/AI and otherwise. Sea units, AI and otherwise. Order of development that doesn't overwhelm the developers but can still offer an immediate draw for potential players and benefit for the existing base (whether ma or event-driven or both).

On a bit by bit basis (whether it's a 'test the waters' thing or a dedicated plan to introduce a broader aspect to the game) I would be glad to see 2 things added:

1. a Japanese carrier

2. C-47s given 'formation' capability and various ground capture targets taking different numbers to capture (why destroy everything to white flag something when you can capture your targets intact? - Maybe, technically, it would be a third wish to see drunks engaging if dropped within a certain vicinity of each other (or a defending force being approached by invaders).

One, two or three things with what I perceive to be a degree of developer difficulty that increases in order of request.

Is your name AI in real life???

[Arlo]

Is your name AI in real life???

No, it's 'Otherwise.'

[Tilt]

I would love to see AI driven ground battles set to an equilibrium such that player intervention ( air, land or from sea) tips the balance one way or another.

[Arlo]

I would love to see AI driven ground battles set to an equilibrium such that player intervention ( air, land or from sea) tips the balance one way or another.

I can see the coolness in that. If frame rate keeps up, I'm all for it.

[Arlo]

There IS also the fact that if the aiming devices are made accurately for each ship class, things can get REALLY lopsided if one side has a South Dakota or Iowa with its radar ranging and target finding, but the other is in a Japanese ship, which didn't.

It's not like AH models every detail and certain elements can be eliminated for balance sake. Just model the optical rangefinders, which were fairly universal for all battleships of the day.

[Arlo]

Battleship comparison - Nagato vs. Colorado





Guns: 8 - 16 in. 45 cal.
         8 - 5 in. 38 cal.
        10 - 5 in. 51 cal
        
Armor:  16" - 14" belt
            8" belt (aft)
            3" deck (ends)
           16" - 9" funnel bases
           18" - 9" turrets
           16" conning tower and tube
           3.5" upper and 2.5" lower armor decks

Displacement: 32,500 tons

Designed S.H.P. 27,300 = 21 knots

[Arlo]

Battleship Tirpitz (for comparison with above)



Bismark (for comparison all-around)



H.M.S. King George V (for likewise comparison)




H.M.S. Hood (for likewise comparison)

[Arlo]

[Arlo]

[Arlo]