Author Topic: Two More CVs, Four Battleships  (Read 4702 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2015, 06:51:43 PM »
Battlecruisers don't stand up to battleships very well.

I suspect Arlo's goal was to suggest a list of BBs that were, relatively, equal.  

Spot on.

I do think the California would fit that better than the South Dakota.  If we were to get a single BB to add the option of a BB centered fleet in addition to our CV centered fleet the obvious choices are South Dakota or Iowa classes.  If HTC wanted to bite off a bit more and introduce a new DD and CA at the same time then Yamato or Nagato class might work with a Takao class CA and some Akizuki class DDs as escorts.

If DDs as player controlled units ever happen I'd hope for the initial two to be Fletcher class and Akizuki class.

Finding parity while staying true to each ship's uniqueness is a tough row to hoe. I've already suggested that some historical advantages need not be modeled. At the same time, 16" guns facing 14" guns have an advantage, as do the number of guns that can be brought to bear at any given angle and the armor of each respective ship and the speed and turning capability (at various speeds). There will be differences.

I used to not give much call for individual ship control but I think it could get quite interesting if friendly (and enemy) collisions are modeled. Of course, one may bring up the possibility of griefers running willy nilly ramming friendly ships. Perhaps that's a setting best left for events? But I could see a place for task forces that sport both a CV and BB splitting up to handle things. Perhaps an enemy BB is spotted out ahead and the CV lays back while launching aircraft ahead to support the BB (and cruiser?) that is going ahead to handle business. Perhaps the enemy CV has the same idea. Perhaps the player taking command of the TF can select (via boxes) what ships can be independently commanded by other players? (I'm sliding down the 'recommending stuff that takes more and more coding slope.')

Honestly, I have nothing against the BBs built in the previous war or during the inter-war period taking precedence. I'd just like to see parity while suggesting the fewest ships to model. The six ship classes I've suggested could take a while to model. They likely wouldn't be released all at once. They may not be the best choices, at all. If they aren't a big hit then modeling and releasing more isn't likely (WWI didn't create enough following to inspire HTC to invest more time and energy in it, apparently).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 06:54:44 PM by Arlo »

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2015, 06:57:13 PM »
Let's keep it simple.  Nagato, Prince of Wales, Washington, Bismarck
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2015, 09:15:32 PM »
Let's keep it simple.  Nagato, Prince of Wales, Washington, Bismarck


And a couple of CVs? Or no?  :)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2015, 09:23:16 PM »
Yorktown class, Akagi, Illustrious and a CVE should do it :)
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Phoenix3107

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2015, 10:50:22 PM »
Illustrious, Soryu, King George V, Bismarck, South Dakota, Kongo.

Also, changing the cruisers, to a Mogami or Cleveland class.

DD's, the Fletcher, Allen M. Summer, Akizuki, Fubuki.

GameID:Phoenix

Also can be found under my DA name
"Lonewolf32097" at www.deviantart.com.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2015, 10:53:46 PM »
Illustrious, Soryu, King George V, Bismarck, South Dakota, Kongo.
As stated earlier, battlecruisers do not stand up to battleships very well.  Only Japanese options are Nagato class or Yamato class.  All other Japanese BBs are actually modified BCs.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2015, 12:22:14 AM »

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2015, 01:26:07 AM »
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.'

Unfortunately, you forget we do have time compression.  HTC calls them spawn points.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5785
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2015, 03:53:26 AM »
Unfortunately, you forget we do have time compression.  HTC calls them spawn points.

 :lol
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2015, 08:37:06 AM »
Unfortunately, you forget we do have time compression.  HTC calls them spawn points.

That may be similar to you, not so much to me (even attempted tongue-in-cheek). A good submarine simulation (the consensus on SubSim) is all about finding the enemy, positioning for the attack, evading the anti-sub escorts (if there are any), rinse-repeat with 90% of your time on the find part (that includes travel to the designated patrol area but also patrolling said area). Depth charge attacks on your noggin could take hours, as well. If you can see that practically added to AHIII, I surely can't (even with my daydream of more surface warfare options).  :cheers:

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2015, 11:25:13 AM »
Some informational youtube videos on various ships: https://www.youtube.com/user/navyreviewer/videos

Basically some stills and a read description of the ship specs, background and history (a bit dry and monotone with some words mispronounced but still informative).

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2015, 06:37:15 PM »
Another interesting amateur battleship source: http://www.voodoo-world.cz/battleships/

Offline Muzzy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1402
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2015, 02:28:06 PM »
I like the idea of varying the skins for ships, so +1 for that. However the BB's should be modeled on ships that historically screened the CV's, or were at least fast enough to do so. Bismarck, Hiei, Washington, SoDak and KGV would fit, but California and her contemporaries would not.


CO 111 Sqdn Black Arrows

Wng Cdr, No. 2 Tactical Bomber Group, RAF, "Today's Target" Scenario. "You maydie, but you will not be bored!"

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
About our cruiser - U.S.S. Pittsburgh (Baltimore class)
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2015, 02:50:15 PM »




Class & type:    Baltimore-class cruiser

Displacement:    13,600 long tons (13,818 t)
Length:    673 ft 5 in (205.26 m)
Beam:    70 ft 10 in (21.59 m)
Draft:    20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Speed:    33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph)
Complement:    1,142 officers and enlisted

Main Armament:    
9 × 8 in (203 mm)/55 cal guns

Secondary Armament:
12 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal guns

Tertiary Armament:
48 × Bofors 40 mm guns
22 × Oerlikon 20 mm cannons

Aircraft carried:    4

(From Wikipedia)

World War II, 1944–1945

Pittsburgh trained along the east coast and in the Caribbean until departing Boston on 13 January 1945 for duty in the Pacific. After calling in Panama and final gunnery exercises in the Hawaiians, she joined TF 58 at Ulithi on 13 February, assigned to TG 58.2 formed around the aircraft carrier Lexington (CV-16).

Iwo Jima

The force sortied on 10 February to prepare the way for the assault on Iwo Jima. Carrier air strikes against airfields near Tokyo on 16 and 17 February limited Japanese air response to the initial landings on 19 February. That day planes from Pittsburgh's group began direct support to Marines fighting to overcome fierce Japanese resistance on the island. Final strikes against Tokyo's environs on 25 February and 1 March against the Nansei Shoto completed this operation.

The force sailed from Ulithi on 14 March to pound airfields and other military installations on Kyūshū on 18 March, and again the next day. The Japanese struck back at dawn on the 19th, with an air raid which set the carrier Franklin (CV-13) ablaze, her decks utter chaos and power lost. Pittsburgh dashed to the rescue at 30 knots (56 km/h). After saving 34 men from the water, Pittsburgh, with the light cruiser Santa Fe (CL-60), performed an outstanding feat of seamanship in getting a tow line on board the flaming carrier. Pittsburgh then began the agonizingly slow task of pulling the carrier to safety, as the flattop's crew struggled to restore power. Twice gunning off enemy air attacks attempting to finish Franklin, the cruiser continued her effort until noon, on 20 March when Franklin was able to cast off the tow and proceed, albeit slowly, under her own power. Capt. Gingrich had remained at the conn for 48 hours during the situation.

Okinawa

Between 23 March and 27 April, Pittsburgh guarded the carriers as they first prepared for, then covered and supported, the invasion of Okinawa. Enemy airfields were interdicted, and the troops given direct aid from the carriers. Pittsburgh repelled enemy air attacks and launched her scout planes to rescue downed carrier pilots. After replenishing at Ulithi, the force sortied once more on 8 May to attack the Nansei Shoto and Southern Japan in the continuing fight for Okinawa.

Damaged by a typhoon

On 4 June, Pittsburgh began to fight a typhoon which by early next day had increased to 70-knot (130 km/h) winds and 100-foot (30 m) waves. Shortly after her starboard scout plane had been lifted off its catapult and dashed onto the deck by the wind, Pittsburgh's second deck buckled, her bow structure thrust upward, and then wrenched free. Miraculously, not a man was lost. Now her crew's seamanship saved their own ship. Still fighting the storm, and maneuvering to avoid being rammed by the drifting bow-structure, Pittsburgh was held quarter-on to the seas by engine manipulations while the forward bulkhead was shored. After a seven-hour battle, the storm subsided, and Pittsburgh proceeded at 6 knots (11 km/h) to Guam arriving on 10 June. Her bow, nicknamed "McKeesport" (a suburb of Pittsburgh), was later salvaged by the tug Munsee (ATF-107) and brought into Guam.

With a false bow, Pittsburgh left Guam on 24 June bound for Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 16 July. Still under repair at war's end, she was placed in commission in reserve on 12 March 1946 and decommissioned on 7 March 1947. The typhoon damage also earned her the nickname "Longest Ship in the World" as literally thousands of miles separated the bow and stern.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Revive the dream.

"We've begun work on the ships.  Right now we're working on a PT boat and a carrier.  The fleet we're working on for 1.05 consists entirely of American ships.  Ships from other countries will be something we can work on in the future for use in historical terrains.  We have to  see how much work is involved in this first set of ships before we can plan that far ahead.  The fleet ships we're keeping as simple as we can.  While they will be player-controlled, it won't be as a helmsman.  That will be done by inputting waypoints for the fleet to sail to.  The player with the highest overall ranking will get precedence in positioning the fleet.  Players will also be able to man the guns for both anti-aircraft and shore bombardment.

The carrier that we're working on is an Essex class carrier.  After that, we'll start working on a Baltimore class cruiser.  The 8" guns on the cruiser will be the heavy bombardment weapon of the fleet.  If people like that aspect of the game, we'll probably follow up with a battleship.  For anti-aircraft, players will be able to control a variety of batteries ranging up to the 5" guns with VT fuzes."

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,14707.0.html  (Pyro Nov. 3, 2000)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2015, 03:17:36 PM »
I like the idea of varying the skins for ships, so +1 for that. However the BB's should be modeled on ships that historically screened the CV's, or were at least fast enough to do so. Bismarck, Hiei, Washington, SoDak and KGV would fit, but California and her contemporaries would not.

I clocked our current TF speed at approx. 33 MPH or 28.7 knots. That's cruising speed (but for game purposes, only speed - may as well be top).

Bismark didn't have a CV to escort - however, in the MA, she might.

That leaves (give a couple knots):

German

Scharnhorst class - 31 knots

Bismark class - 30 knots

U.S.

North Carolina class - 28 knots

South Dakota class - 27.8 knots (erg, maybe)

Iowa class - 33 knots

I.J.N.

Kongo class - 30 knots

Nagato class - 26.5 knots (erg, make the cV zig zag more)

Yamato class - 27 knots (even it lagged)

R.N.

King George V - 28 knots

(It does limit selection.)