« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: I would like to have:  (Read 267 times)

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
I would like to have:
« on: October 10, 2002, 01:44:01 AM »
A Zero or an N1K with floats, to be available at ports.

Both are basically variants of existing AH aircraft (moreso the Zeke).  This would give us SOMETHING with wings to help try to defend the ports with, but wouldn't change the balance of the MA (nobody would use a seaplane for anything but immediate defence/goon hunting).

Maybe a floatplane fighter could also launch from fleets with destroyed CV's, further adding to their potential usefulness--again without upsetting the balance of the MA.  

I bet a seaplane fighter would see more use than some of the AH planeset  :)

J_A_B
« Last Edit: October 10, 2002, 03:13:48 AM by J_A_B »
Logged

Offline akak

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
      • http://www.479thraiders.com
Re: I would like to have:
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2002, 02:08:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by J_A_B
A Zero or an N1K with floats, to be available at ports.

Both are basically variants of existing AH aircraft (moreso the Zeke).  This would give us SOMETHING with wings to help try to help defend the ports with, but wouldn't change the balance of the MA (nobody would use a seaplane for anything but immediate defence/goon hunting).

Maybe a floatplane fighter could also launch from fleets with destroyed CV's, further adding to their potential usefulness--again without upsetting the balance of the MA.  

I bet a seaplane fighter would see more use than some of the AH planeset  :)

J_A_B


you should also allow each fleet to have 2 floatplanes since quite a few battle wagons had them.  


ack-ack
Logged

Offline SunKing

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3726
I would like to have:
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2002, 02:56:51 AM »
Logged

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
I would like to have:
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2002, 03:46:12 AM »
I hate to sound like a wise guy, but why not just put a small fighter field close to the port?
Logged
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline devious

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 703
      • http://www.jg301-wildesau.de
I would like to have:
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2002, 03:51:36 AM »
Bah, you're destroying the excuse for float planes :)

Could you jettison the floats once airborne ? I imagine they hurt performance...
Logged

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
I would like to have:
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2002, 04:14:51 AM »
Devious--

The floats are permanenely attached, unless damaged  :)  And yes they carried a considerable performance penalty.  The A6M2 with floats could only do around 280 MPH, as opposed to about 325 for a normal Zero.  This is still fast enough to be effective as a local defence fighter though.  I think the N1K1 did around 310 MPH.

Sixpence--

Good questions, for which there are IMO good answers  :)


I believe the ports in AH weren't intended to be used as airfields--I think they were intended to be an asset meant to be defended, not an offensive location.

However, some of the ports on some maps tend to be far removed from friendly airfields.  This makes defence difficult.  There's been quite a few times I sat in a port, only to watch a small group of enemies capture it before defence fighters could arrive.  I feel ports could use some additional defence ability, because of their strategic importance.

Why float fighters?

If you enable land-based fighters at the ports, you turn the ports into offensive locations.  Heavy fighters or such could take off from a port to attack enemy fleets/fields.  This is contrary to what I think HTC wants the ports to be.   Even if you found a way to disable ordnance from the ports, you'd still be able to launch fighters that are every bit as good (and possibly better) than what the enemy can likely muster--which would still disrupt the balance too much IMO.

However, a seaplane fighter cannot carry ordnance, and nor is it a true match for what the enemy will be able to bring.  It'd be useful strictly for things like attacking heavy fighters and hunting for C-47's.  In other words, a float fighter might be enough to buy some time for the real defenders to arrive.  It'd give the defending side a fighting chance  :)

J_A_B
Logged

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
I would like to have:
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2002, 04:27:42 AM »
Interesting. But how many fighter hangers would there be? If only one they would just have to take the hanger down. I think a limited field like you mentioned isn't a bad idea. One of those "backwoods"(or whatever they call em) bases with 2 fishnet hangers close by with spit I's?
Logged
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline sax

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
      • http://www.13thtas.com
I would like to have:
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2002, 12:29:44 PM »
Something that carries troops would be nice.
Logged

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
I would like to have:
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2002, 12:59:22 PM »
"But how many fighter hangers would there be? "

Depends on what AH can do.   If possible, simply not having a FH is easiest.  While this would prevent you from denying the enemy use of the float fighters, that would be of little consequence to a dedicated attack (just more vulching) and wouldn't require any changes to the existing AH maps.   If AH requires every enabled vehicle to have a hangar, then one or two small hangars would suffice.   It'd be enough to help hold off a surprise attack , nothing more.

Another advantage to the float fighters over land-based planes like a Spit 1 is you could have the float fighter enabled at fleets even after the CV sinks.  This could also be of potential use in the CT where they occasionally have fleets with cruisers only (a float fighter would be good for defending these fleets).

While I also like the idea of having seaplane bombers or transports, I feel that such aircraft would turn the ports into offensive locations.

J_A_B
Logged

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
I would like to have:
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2002, 01:01:42 PM »
They would easy meat...

Hangar Queens IMO.
Logged
Quote from: 100hooch on July 27, 2014, 02:44:19 AM
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline Rotorian

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
I would like to have:
« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2002, 01:17:19 PM »
[SIZE=10]PBY[/SIZE]
Logged

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
I would like to have:
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2002, 01:21:26 PM »
"They would easy meat... Hangar Queens IMO."

Same san be said about the PT boat, yet people use it.  Why?   it's the only boat available  :)  Look at how many PT's invariably spawn whena CV gets sunk during a large battle.

J_A_B
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »