Two More CVs, Four Battleships

[Arlo]

Event worthy. Could also change the complexion of the MAs.

Shokaku class - IJN

Illustrious class - UK

North Carolina class - U.S.

Nagato class - IJN

King George V class - UK

Bismark class - Germany

In events, they'll add immersion and the Battleships might finally match up for a fight. In the main, it would add a slug-fest at sea and make shore landings more resilient.

Put a CV and a BB in every TF (matching nationalities - U.S., Japanese, British). Leave the Bismark class out of MA TFs or ... make it a 2 BB TF (Bismark and Tirpitz).

Have ports rotate what type of fleet pops up again when a fleet sinks. Randomize the initial fleets (my apology to the coders in advance).

[Lusche]

 We'd need a proper modeling for bombs, i.e. AP bombs need a certain speed (=altitude) to actually penetrate the deck armor, while HE bombs will not and only destroy equipment 

[Arlo]

We'd need a proper modeling for bombs, i.e. AP bombs need a certain speed (=altitude) to actually penetrate the deck armor, while HE bombs will not and only destroy equipment  

Dive-bombing also produces speed.

Also ....

The following planes have AP bombs in the game:

B5N2
D3A1
FW190F8 (semi)
G4M1
Ju87D3
ME410 (semi)
SBD5

Are you saying they are just 'AP' (or 'SAP') in name or are you saying that you want the game to recognize the speed on impact?

[Chalenge]

As much as I would like to see it this runs the risk of raising a few issues we don't need in AH. It would be great for specific scenarios, but really the Bismarck was out of action before it really had an effect at all on the war, and aside from that specific ship types don't matter. A generic carrier is as good as anything except for historical reenactments. Submarines would be a much more effective addition.

[Arlo]

As much as I would like to see it this runs the risk of raising a few issues we don't need in AH. It would be great for specific scenarios, but really the Bismarck was out of action before it really had an effect at all on the war, and aside from that specific ship types don't matter. A generic carrier is as good as anything except for historical reenactments. Submarines would be a much more effective addition.

The Bismark isn't on the top of my list for a reason. But it would make for a fun one-shot (this day?) event (Sink the BISMARK!). The two BB TF in the MA was an afterthought, as well.

Submarines would be coding a completely new game which, unfortunately, is already in existence. Sub sims are, by nature, long patrol simulations (with time compression between encounters). AH doesn't lend itself to such. AH is more of a constant action format. Heck, players complain about flight time to action as it is. There is no time compression in AH, there's only reduced scale. The only way I can see submarines in AH would be as AI. Still, even making them run patrols to intercept task forces would add little to the game other than making players angry that a task force was hit by an AI sub instead of at least becoming a surface ship on surface ship action. And if it wasn't AI? It would merely be 'fleet camping.'

Which .... brings us back to offering more options in surface fleet vs surface fleet. Saying 'generic ships are good enough' is kinda like saying 'generic tanks are good enough' or 'generic planes are good enough' (the carrier in AH isn't really generic, nor is the cruiser, iirc, one is based on the Essex class and the other on the Baltimore class, I believe). Besides, wouldn't it depend on individual perspective when it comes to what's 'good enough' (I'd settle for the first ship on the list, not generic).

[mbailey]

If this wish came true I fear I'd never get anything done around the house. I'm a junkie when it comes to anything naval warfare oriented....given how well HTC models the aircraft here, if they added a serious naval game on top of it, I'd fear for my marriage.   

[Arlo]

If this wish came true I fear I'd never get anything done around the house. I'm a junkie when it comes to anything naval warfare oriented....given how well HTC models the aircraft here, if they added a serious naval game on top of it, I'd fear for my marriage.   

It's the holy grail of married gamers to get their spouses just as addicted to the game, ain't it? (Of course, laundry piles up, the trash piles up, the dishes pile up, we go broke eating out more.)

(P.S. The wife signed the family up for German language lessons every Saturday through May. We did make sure it didn't interfere with the scenario, though. Wife loves me even when she pries me away - like I play that much.) 

[Arlo]

Now here's something that the coders may not appreciate about this idea. Adding rangefinders and fire directors:





I modified an image from another game to portray what I think a simplified ranger finder in the fire control director seat might look like in AH III (For the North Carolina class):

[mthrockmor]

My dad was a range finder for the 5" secondary on the USS St Paul (CA-73) during the Korean War.

I know this is a bad question but in a slug out, which of these battlewagons has the advantage? I go with either the North Carolina or the Bismarck. I say this for the simple reason I've read that the North Carolina was a very stable platform, which lent to greater accuracy. The Bismarck had a great armor design. In all cases the classic rule of 'being lucky over good any day' applies.

Thoughts?

boo

PS +1 for expanding the naval assets. I would love to see convoys, LSTs, etc.

[cobia38]

 NC had radar guided fire control,bismark would be no match.
 oh and as long as we add other country vessels,lets make sure the AAA is modeled correctly for each. IE japan did not have proxie fuze

[Arlo]

NC had radar guided fire control,bismark would be no match.
 oh and as long as we add other country vessels,lets make sure the AAA is modeled correctly for each. IE japan did not have proxie fuze

Shermans are 'no match' for Panzers. The NC also had visual FC (all the BBs on the list did). And Japan did have a proxie fuse, it just wasn't radio proxie. A lot of things aren't modeled in the game to reflect every single technical advantage each side did or did not have in WWII. All of this can be modeled without the redundancy (even if advantageous). A 'Sink the Bismark' one frame event would not feature the North Carolina. Those two specific ships meeting up in the MA (if the Bismark is active there) would be happenstance if the fleet spawning was randomized (and there likely wouldn't be fog banks there for the Bismark to hide in, highlighting the most advantageous environment for radar range-finding).

'Captain, radar is down!'

'How is the weather?'

'Unlimited visibility.'

'Bridge to fire control. Do you have the enemy sighted?'

'Aye. Forty thousand yards and closing.'

'Fire when within range.'

[Karnak]

My dad was a range finder for the 5" secondary on the USS St Paul (CA-73) during the Korean War.

I know this is a bad question but in a slug out, which of these battlewagons has the advantage? I go with either the North Carolina or the Bismarck. I say this for the simple reason I've read that the North Carolina was a very stable platform, which lent to greater accuracy. The Bismarck had a great armor design. In all cases the classic rule of 'being lucky over good any day' applies.

Thoughts?

boo

PS +1 for expanding the naval assets. I would love to see convoys, LSTs, etc.

The Nagato was the first 16" gunned BB and probably the most powerful ship in the world when launched, but she is 20 years older than the other three.  KGV has good armor, but her guns are only 14".  Probably North Carolina followed by Bismark, then perhaps Nagato due to punch and last KGV.

[Arlo]

Technical data for the guns: http://www.navweaps.com/

Some battleships comparisons by a fan of such (granted, not specifically all of the ships I listed): http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

[Mister Fork]

'Captain, radar is down!'

'How is the weather?'

'Unlimited visibility.'

'Bridge to fire control. Do you have the enemy sighted?'

'Aye. Forty thousand yards and closing.'

'Fire when within range.'

I think you are onto something there Arlo - when radar is down, radar range should be equal to current visibility no? Every airport and ship had spotters - so if electric radar went down, wouldn't the manual method of aircraft tracking take precedence?

[mthrockmor]

When it comes to ranging for mainguns, I've long loved the idea of allowing TBMs to call in fire.

Imagine a TBM turning circles at 15k, a few miles off the beach. The TBM is able to take control of the main guns (or at least one turret) of our cruiser. They can then call in and adjust fire for effect.

Allowing this would allow over the horizon bombardments and require a greater amount of teamwork for a squadron. Among other things an attacking group would be wise to keep a Division of Hellcats in BARCAP for the TBM.

Dare to dream...

boo