Practical ways to expand AH ground and sea potential.

[Arlo]

It's how I envision it.

And obviously, this would just be for establishing the default settings on a given map. Give the CMs the ability to change the group settings on the fly for special events.

Nice .... but .... would that actually be easier time/code-wise than just adding an IJ CV model then adding a second type of CV group much like small, medium and large air fields are different but selectable already? I'm still advocating having a quicker immediate impact with less coding to have to be implemented alongside the modeling. Even with my suggestion of coding % based town captures, I believe such would and could be based on existing code (or at least the foundation and framework) and would not require all that many lines from scratch. You seem to be suggesting code be added for functions based on your experiences with other games (if I'm understanding correctly). Such would not be impossible but it does seem to neglect the additional workload that may make the project take longer and be less attractive to the programmer (based on other projects that may be easier to implement) and player base (based on the additional time it would take to see the addition come to pass). - [Picture the current workload the graphics update is taking and the amount of impatience the player base seems to have in it finally becoming a true-blue update.]

Now, let me assure you that I'm not advocating recklessness and haste when it comes to suggesting changes to add more depth to the game ... but I am suggesting potential streamlining and practicality to make my 'step by step' version of our shared vision of additions be more of a steady flow of potential growth and improvement that the players see come to pass every 3 or 4 times they pay on their sub.

[Arlo]

Here's another variant of a step-by-step building of a more robust ship set (and eventual environmental change) for AH:

1. Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier - Commissioned 8 August 1941. Shōkaku and Zuikaku formed the Japanese 5th Carrier Division, embarking their aircraft shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack.



2. Pennsylvania and Nagato class battleships -
Pennsylvania    Target ship, Operation Crossroads; scuttled 10 February 1948
Arizona            Sunk during the attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941

Nagato)            Sunk during Operation Crossroads, 29/30 July 1946
Mutsu           Sunk by internal explosion, 8 June 1943




(If it's not much of a coding monster, a more realistic fire control system would be nice to introduce with this update.)

3. Higgins boat and Daihatsu-class landing craft

4. Battleships Bismark and King George V-class





5. Illustrious-class aircraft carrier



~~~~~~~~

If all of this was presentable in 90 day increments it would take over a year - but players would be able to enjoy each update
and look forward to the next related one.

[Saxman]

Nice .... but .... would that actually be easier time/code-wise than just adding an IJ CV model then adding a second type of CV group much like small, medium and large air fields are different but selectable already? I'm still advocating having a quicker immediate impact with less coding to have to be implemented alongside the modeling. Even with my suggestion of coding % based town captures, I believe such would and could be based on existing code (or at least the foundation and framework) and would not require all that many lines from scratch. You seem to be suggesting code be added for functions based on your experiences with other games (if I'm understanding correctly). Such would not be impossible but it does seem to neglect the additional workload that may make the project take longer and be less attractive to the programmer (based on other projects that may be easier to implement) and player base (based on the additional time it would take to see the addition come to pass). - [Picture the current workload the graphics update is taking and the amount of impatience the player base seems to have in it finally becoming a true-blue update.]

Now, let me assure you that I'm not advocating recklessness and haste when it comes to suggesting changes to add more depth to the game ... but I am suggesting potential streamlining and practicality to make my 'step by step' version of our shared vision of additions be more of a steady flow of potential growth and improvement that the players see come to pass every 3 or 4 times they pay on their sub.

It's a matter of simplicity in the long run. Making an IJN task group a completely separate map object type from the US group is just going to be redundant clutter. What's the point of doing it this way if the behavior of the two are the same and the only difference is in the models used? So no, I don't see it as being the same as Small/Medium/Large fields at all.

And the more classes of carrier you add, that means adding ANOTHER task group object. So what if you want to add Yorktown or Illustrious? Now that means you have FOUR task group objects, all behaving the same way, and the only difference being what ship models are used.

That's going to be wasteful in the long run when you can just make the model types selectable options for one map object.

[Arlo]

It's a matter of simplicity in the long run. Making an IJN task group a completely separate map object type from the US group is just going to be redundant clutter. What's the point of doing it this way if the behavior of the two are the same and the only difference is in the models used? So no, I don't see it as being the same as Small/Medium/Large fields at all.

I'm of the mind that they are. They seem to be designed as air fields that players can set a course for on the water. It does appear that there are different types of TFs based on the objects involved, already. There are cruiser TFs, there are CV TFs, there are light versions of both (all differing in the types of objects and number of objects in them - there are even freighter/transport 'TFs' seen in events). To the best of my knowledge, this is done without the system you envision. Small, medium and large airfields fulfill the same function on different scales with everyone of them having a degree of redundancy. Maps are designed by selecting airfields and TFs that have redundancy. Having a TF that has an IJ CV instead of an Essex class would seem to follow the same format, to me. There's bound to be a reason that method is used. Hence most of my suggestions being presented within the parameters of what I suspect already exists in form and function of AH design (if possible) without completely re-inventing the wheel. As always, I wholly encourage input from current or past terrain designers.

And the more classes of carrier you add, that means adding ANOTHER task group object. So what if you want to add Yorktown or Illustrious? Now that means you have FOUR task group objects, all behaving the same way, and the only difference being what ship models are used.

Yes - it would involve adding task group objects (just like we have now). In my illustration we add a Shokaku class and an Illustrious class (one right off the bat, the other much later). That gives us a U.S., Japanese and British CV (sufficient for all nations who had significant carrier ops to have a carrier visually and physically represented in the game) - each one a unique carrier TF to add to the map. That's fine, for me. If the masses ask for different classes of the same type ship for more variety within one national ship sub-set and HTC thinks it's worth the time and effort, fine.  

That's going to be wasteful in the long run when you can just make the model types selectable options for one map object.

Then again, your suggestion includes more code whereas mine stays within the perceived existing design. I've always been amazed at the efficiency and small download size of the game (although I suspect the DL size may change significantly with the terrain update). I give Dale and co. credit in the coding department and figure they may not use your recommended drop-down object selection for a reason. Granted, that reason may be that they haven't gotten around to it yet (but it may be that they find it just as easy to dispense with that type of system since volunteer map builders seem capable without it).

~~~~

Aren't we nitpicking technical methodology when it may be better to bounce back and forth what would be better, adding everything imaginable in our shared future vision of the game into the programmer soup pot at once and hope it appears in our lifetime or to have a long-term plan and interesting toys that would be fun for the existing masses and draw new types of players, which they see appearing in the game every few months or so?

What do you think of the order of additions I've suggested in my step-by-step 'long term' (I think would actually be quicker than overwhelming the designers with a whole lot at once) AH ship set?

[Arlo]

What may be a better option for the Japanese battleship may be the Ise class (pre-hybrid). This gives a 12 gun to 12 gun face-off with a Pennsylvania class.



The twelve 45-calibre 14-inch guns of the Ise class were mounted in three pairs of twin-gun, superfiring turrets. Numbered one through six from front to rear, each turret weighed 655 long tons (666 t). The hydraulically powered turrets had an elevation capability of −5/+20 degrees. The guns had a rate of fire of 1.5–2 rounds per minute and could be loaded at any angle between -3 and +20 degrees. In 1921 the elevation was increased to +30 degrees and then to +43 degrees during their mid-1930s modernization, except for No. 6 turret as its supporting structure could not be lowered. The recoil mechanism of the guns was also changed from a hydraulic to a pneumatic system, which allowed for a faster firing cycle of the main guns.

By World War II, the guns used Type 91 armour-piercing, capped shells. Each of these shells weighed 673.5 kilograms (1,485 lb) and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 770–775 metres per second (2,530–2,540 ft/s). They had a maximum range of 25,000 metres (27,000 yd) at +20 degrees of elevation and 35,450 meters (38,770 yd) at +43 degrees after modernization. Also available was a 625-kilogram (1,378 lb) high-explosive shell that had a muzzle velocity of 805 metres per second (2,640 ft/s). A special Type 3 Sankaidan incendiary shrapnel shell was developed in the 1930s for anti-aircraft use.

The ships' secondary armament consisted of twenty 50-calibre 14-centimetre guns. Eighteen of these were mounted in casemates in the forecastle and superstructure and the remaining pair were mounted on the deck above them and protected by gun shields. They had a maximum elevation of +20 degrees which gave them ranges of 16,300 metres (17,800 yd). Each gun had a rate of fire of up to 10 rounds per minute. Anti-aircraft defence was provided by four 40-calibre 3rd Year Type 8-centimetre AA guns in single mounts. The 7.62-centimetre (3.00 in) high-angle guns had a maximum elevation of +75 degrees, and had a rate of fire of 13 to 20 rounds per minute. They fired a 6 kg (13 lb) projectile with a muzzle velocity of 680 m/s (2,200 ft/s) to a maximum height of 7,500 metres (24,600 ft). The ships were also fitted with six submerged 53.3-centimetre (21.0 in) torpedo tubes, three on each broadside. They carried twelve to eighteen 6th Year Type torpedos which had a 200-kilogram (440 lb) warhead. They had three settings for range and speed: 15,000 metres (16,000 yd) at 26 knots (48 km/h; 30 mph), 10,000 metres (11,000 yd) at 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph), or 7,000 metres (7,700 yd) at 37 knots (69 km/h; 43 mph).

A twin-gun 127 mm mount on board the battleship Nagato. The mounts used on board the Ise class were the same model.

In 1931–33 the AA guns were replaced with eight 40-caliber 127 mm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns, fitted on both sides of the forward superstructures in four twin-gun mounts. When firing at surface targets, the guns had a range of 14,700 metres (16,100 yd); they had a ceiling of 9,440 metres (30,970 ft) at their maximum elevation of +90 degrees. Their maximum rate of fire was 14 rounds a minute, but their sustained rate of fire was around eight rounds per minute. Two twin-gun mounts for license-built Vickers two-pounder light AA guns were also added. These guns had a maximum elevation of +80 degrees and a rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute. The pair of 14 cm guns on the upper deck were removed at this time.

During the mid-1930s reconstruction the torpedo tubes were removed and the Vickers two-pounders were replaced by twenty license-built Hotchkiss 25 mm Type 96 light AA guns in 10 twin-gun mounts. This was the standard Japanese light AA gun during World War II, but it suffered from severe design shortcomings that rendered it a largely ineffective weapon. According to historian Mark Stille, the twin and triple mounts "lacked sufficient speed in train or elevation; the gun sights were unable to handle fast targets; the gun exhibited excessive vibration; the magazine was too small, and, finally, the gun produced excessive muzzle blast". These 25-millimetre (0.98 in) guns had an effective range of 1,500–3,000 metres (1,600–3,300 yd), and an effective ceiling of 5,500 metres (18,000 ft) at an elevation of 85 degrees. The maximum effective rate of fire was only between 110 and 120 rounds per minute because of the frequent need to change the fifteen-round magazines. In addition the forward pair of 14 cm guns in the forecastle were removed at this time and the maximum elevation of the remaining guns was increased to +30 degrees.

(I wonder if coding the torpedo capability for the BBs abd DDs would be a monster or not)?

[Saxman]

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.

[Arlo]

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.

Seems that BBs will have to be designed as true blue flagship objects, replacing a CV. 

[Arlo]

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.

Hasn't AvA featured Cruiser TFs from time to time?

[cobia38]

 For those that are wishing for Japanese ships,just remember,they did NOT have proxi fuses on their AAA.
 

[Arlo]

For those that are wishing for Japanese ships,just remember,they did NOT have proxi fuses on their AAA.
 

Are you absolutely 100% sure?

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_39-65_t98.htm

Akizuki class - Fuze-setting machines were attached to the breech faces of the guns.

Oyodo class - The fuze setting on this class was done by a separate machine before the shells were loaded into the gun.

(Fuze setting? Hmmmmm.)

[Chalenge]

Time of flight or altitude fusing is different from proximity.

[Arlo]

Time of flight or altitude fusing is different from proximity.

Actually it's one of the variants of proximity. Any fuse that's set to explode without a direct hit on anything physically in hopes of releasing shrapnel into a nearby target is considered proximity. It merely isn't relying on an integral sensor.

(Having said that, yes, the radio proximity fuse was indeed an Allied advantage.)

[Chalenge]

Okay, you can be right about that.

I was looking over the army idea and it seems like a real frame killer. Even a unit as small as a regiment would be 1,000 men, which means 1,000 times whatever the maximum polygon requirement for soldiers (which of course could be less with distance in the LOD reductions). But, as I understand things, if the original soldier is built at 2,500 polys, then each LOD reduction is about half (1,250 , 625 , 310, 155). That leaves about 155,000 at a minimum for a single regiment, upwards to 2,500,000 when a single regiment is engaged by a single tank. Throw in two, or three regiments total for all three countries and instantly you have a problem. And that's just at the regiment level and without the more complex elements of grenadiers, heavy machine guns, artillery, and so on. For a single-player game that's fine, but not something like AH.

Is this really what you are planning on asking for?

[Arlo]

Okay, you can be right about that.

I was looking over the army idea and it seems like a real frame killer. Even a unit as small as a regiment would be 1,000 men, which means 1,000 times whatever the maximum polygon requirement for soldiers (which of course could be less with distance in the LOD reductions). But, as I understand things, if the original soldier is built at 2,500 polys, then each LOD reduction is about half (1,250 , 625 , 310, 155). That leaves about 155,000 at a minimum for a single regiment, upwards to 2,500,000 when a single regiment is engaged by a single tank. Throw in two, or three regiments total for all three countries and instantly you have a problem. And that's just at the regiment level and without the more complex elements of grenadiers, heavy machine guns, artillery, and so on. For a single-player game that's fine, but not something like AH.

Is this really what you are planning on asking for?

I'm of a slightly different take than Sax. I would merely expand forces by enabling formations for goons, M-3s and the SdKfz 251. Granted, if a half dozen guys on each side drop troops on the same town, one side to capture and the other to prevent such, that would be 360 little men running around. I'm not sure how much of a hit that would end up being (old or new terrain). Once a drunk dies or takes a building it essentially would go away. I still like the idea of capturing towns via percentage of buildings and not 10 in a map room. I also like the idea of defensive drunks and both sides having troops shooting at one another. But then, this is what wishlist discussions are supposed to debate. Is the modeling .... is the coding .... worth it?

And changes don't have to be large scale to have a significant impact. 60 men on each side fighting for a town would still be a battle. With or without formations facilitating.

[Chalenge]

Just like anything the modeling changes with the target complexity. So if a typical troop has to be capable of transitioning from one duty to another there is a lot more complexity and therefore the development time increases. A typical soldier (US, British, German, etc.) takes about two weeks to build with the skeleton properly constructed. I say properly, because while there are shortcuts if you want to make a model clear to any future motion data then it must be built by certain guidelines. After the initial structure is completed and mapped the model is (generally speaking) modeled with even greater geometry and the skin is baked for mapping to the original low-poly version. Then everything gets passed to the animation phase where either motion-capture data is mapped to the skeleton to create animations, or pose-to-pose positions are created for animation generation (and there are other methods). In order to make sure that there are no 'hitches' in animation there is usually an initial stance for pose-tweening or motion-tweening, and then the animation is tested through coding. As hitches are discovered the process backs up for correction.

If you want more than a single nation to be represented then the data can be shared only if the base skeleton is the same. However, as we know from history the Germans learned one method of battle, the US another, and so on. So, no two nations appear the same in battle and their movements may be used to distinguish the identity of the force. Those traits require additional development time.

Probably, in the case of AH, the soldiers would be limited to a single nation and a single uniform, so that the impact on gaming systems would be minimal.