Where are the battleships

[Zimme83]

I propose no battleships until the lancaster can carry a "tallboy" bomb loadout.

Whilst we are at it some bouncing bombs aswell!   Would be pretty cool  to fly low and roll a bomb towards a tank/ship.

A lanc with the ability to take the tallboy (no formations) would be awesome. make it an AP bomb so blast radius isnt huge but damage massive and make it a HQ killer..

[Clifra Jones]

Taffy 3 was a Squadron of DD's, DE's and Baby Flattops.  Their battle at Leyte Gulf ( Battle off Samar) is well known to those who have studied WW II. How they stopped and turned around a Superior Japanese navel force is one of the greatest navel engagements in WW II. To name any one ship would be to dishonor the others, but the DD USS Johnston is probably the best known.  Taffy 3 would be a fine addition.

 

[ONTOS]

Yes indeed Beefcake, the USS Samuel B. Roberts  the "Destroyer that fought like a Battleship".

[lunatic1]

The way I'd like the battleship to be added for MA play is for it to become the flagship of the current CV task group. Make it 3-4 times harder than the CV, say 24-32K of bombs or 4-6 torpedoes to sink it. That way a set of bombers can still take out the CV and temporarily shut down air operations but the CV will eventually re-spawn unless multiple attacks sink the battleship and sends the fleet back to port first.

nope nope nope-the CV is the flagship of the American Navy battle group...  unless you have a task force without a cv--just battleships cruisers and destroyers.

[Greebo]

nope nope nope-the CV is the flagship of the American Navy battle group...  unless you have a task force without a cv--just battleships cruisers and destroyers.

Well it may not be historically accurate, but then neither is ships respawning after x minutes, the increased speed of the task groups, Japanese planes operating from an Essex carrier, the main threat to a ship at sea being level bombers and so on. Sometimes gameplay overrides the need for what happened in RL, particularly in the MA.

I think making a much stronger battleship the TG flagship would make for more interesting gameplay. Currently if I am capping a task group and a bomber takes out the CV then it is game over from a tactical POV. With my suggested setup in that situation it would be worth me trying to protect the BB for long enough for the CV to respawn. It would become an exciting race between the attackers and defenders.

[Volron]

What if they made it a requirement to sink both CV AND BB for TG to get sent back to port?  CV will respawn after 10 mins, but if BB is down, then TG respawns back at port with fresh ships.  If BB is down and CV stays up, TG continues along until the BB respawns.  Just give the BB a 20(?) min respawn.  Still make the BB a tough cookie though.

The one thing they need to do regardless is update the way a fleet moves about.  Give a little "clipboard" of maneuvers that the fleet can do.  Example: 360 starboard, 360 hard starboard, 180 starboard, 180 hard starboard, etc.  A standard starboard turn would have the entire fleet make the turn, allowing the support ships to keep up without formation break.  A hard turn would have all ships do a 180 and would be in their spots they were prior to turn.  From there, they would move around and get back into formation.  Using current TG in this: After a hard 180, the CA would be behind the CV and would need to move up and around the CV (for immersion, rather than clipping through her ) after the turn to get back into formation.  You'd have to be on the bridge to use these commands though.   It would allow for more precise maneuvers.

I don't see why they can't just have two TG's (if they go with the separated route and of course make a TG BB group that is "standard") sourcing from 1 port currently.  They can up the hardness of the hangers at the port (doubtful), up the number of troops required to cap the port to 20 (VERY HIGHLY doubt they'd do and sounds like a nightmare to code since I believe ALL MR's are the same regardless  ), or just stick with current setup.  Still have to go out and find those TG's.   Obviously not ALL ports would have a BB TG.  Maybe make one/two depending on map, source the BB TG and put it "deep" in home territory.  This would allow the BB asset to be put to use more regularly, rather than restricting it to FSO/Scenario/Snapshot maps.  I know you AvA guys are gonna have some fun with custom AvA maps.

Then comes the base layout if they wish to wait until then (or they add the BB TG and later add a port base).  A major naval base/port that would support 2 TG's:  2 VH's, 2-4 FH's.  Add a small runway that will allow for fighters to launch/re-arm from the naval base for defense.  2 coastal guns for attacks from sea and some auto-puffy.  It supports TWO TG's after all.

[bangsbox]

Well it may not be historically accurate, but then neither is ships respawning after x minutes, the increased speed of the task groups, Japanese planes operating from an Essex carrier, the main threat to a ship at sea being level bombers and so on. Sometimes gameplay overrides the need for what happened in RL, particularly in the MA.

I think making a much stronger battleship the TG flagship would make for more interesting gameplay. Currently if I am capping a task group and a bomber takes out the CV then it is game over from a tactical POV. With my suggested setup in that situation it would be worth me trying to protect the BB for long enough for the CV to respawn. It would become an exciting race between the attackers and defenders.

I really love this idea. +1