Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: captkaos on August 01, 2006, 01:08:13 PM
-
I wish that the ships could sustain other types of damage. Some examples are:
1. Knock out engines so ship is adrift in the water.
2. Knock of rudder control so that ships heading cannot be changed. If it runs aground it is a sitng duck.
3. Destroy carrier deck so that it can no longer launch and recover aircraft.
4. Knock out CV ability to launch PT's and LVT's.
5. Be able to bring supplies to the CV with c47's to recover from the damage.
Items 1 and 2 would force CV's farther from shore, unlike the unrealistic shore running we see now after the SB is destroyed.
Basically treat it like an airfield that moves.
-
Great ideas Kaos!
Seems strange that a cv can be one 50 pound bomb away from sinking and still be fully functional.
-
I like 1,2, & 5. Would change cv ops completely.:aok
-
I second the motion to have articals 1,2 and 5 implemented in Aces High.
Please Hitech[super whiny mode] PLEASE!!!!![/super whiny mode]:D
-
I think they are all great ideas! I dont know how practical it would be to re supply a cv with a c-47...How about PT?
-
I have landed C47's on carriers, not all that difficult as lond as the carrier does not turn, to be honest is is easier than landing an F4.
-
I think I may have used the wrong choice of words...No doubt the C-47 can, and is landed on carriers.....But do you really see HTC ever going for this? I dont...Maybe if supply's were air dropped, but I doubt that will ever be put in the game.... I'd say LVT's would be the most "realistic" choice, but those things are so slow, you would have to time your cv intercept perfectly............PT it is
-
It would nice if CV ops were affected by fire - nobody launches with the ship on fire. The fire goes out in a random(1-10 minutes) and flight operations recommence.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
and we could launch the FIRE FIGHTER. a pilot on the cv deck, with a fire extinguisher :p
with regaurds to #4 create a new ship. modeled after the ships that really deployed LVTs and other landing craft
-
I wish the CV hardness could be set under arena object settings
-
I too would like more "depth" to the ship damage model. I would implement the following changes. First, add a tanker to emulate fuel bunker at land bases; add an ammo ship to emulate ammo bunker (these two ships could use the same ship model, i.e. a Liberty ship, as there were tanker and cargo versions of the LS); a troop transport (could also use the LS model); an LST to take place of vehicle hanger. The following damage effects would then be in affect:
Damage Affect
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV deck = No planes launch
Tanker damaged/sunk = A/C and vehicle fuel limited
Ammo Ship sunk = Ordnance unavailable
Troop sunk = No troops
LST sunk = No GV/PT
If this is too many ships to add, you could combine the fuel/ammo/troops into a single Liberty ship, with each one independantly target-able/destroy-able (the cargo hatch covers would be your aim points).
Finally, the fleet commander should be given the option for direct helm control and the ability to set fleet speed to slow, half, full, and flank settings. The fleet speed would of course affect how heavy and aircraft you could get off the deck. Make it so the fleet would go automatically back to following waypoints after a set length of time with no direct helm inputs.
-
Love the idea of being able to adjust the fleet speed. Right now, bombing a CV is as simple as flying over it and dropping your bombs, because we all know the lead required to hit the CV from a given altitude. With varying speeds, it would greatly decrease the effect bombers would have on a CV.
-
I think varying the speeds of a fleet would be problematic..... and as we do not have runway damage modelled on fields why have it modelled on CV's?
However in addition to the existing fleet (as per Sabre)
1) 2 x troop/ logistics carriers (with Troops/supplies/VH(lvt & Pt) objects embedded)
2) 2 x Fuel tankers
3) 2 x Ordinance ships (and some awsome graphics when these blow up)
4) Allow fleets to self repair( ie launching and dropping field repairs will not ressurect ships but will allow repairs on ships.... radar AA guns etc)
5) Would there be only One radar mast on a fleet? Would not the cruiser have one too?
-
Hi, Tilt. Actually, rather than the cv deck, I meant to say the hit required to prevent planes from launching would be the elevator, which would emulate hits to the hanger on airfields. In real life of course most hits on a carrier's deck would prevent flight ops untill the deck was patched. An elevator hit was even more serious.
-
an airfield only has one radar tower. why should a fleet have 2?
-
Because maybe besides the CV, the cruiser also had radar?
ack-ack
-
So instead of having the CV put out of action by being sunk with 8K
of bombs, the fight could be killed by a single jabo lobbing a 500 lber into
the deck? Nope, not for me.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Because maybe besides the CV, the cruiser also had radar?
ack-ack
Apparently the escort destroyers turned their's off too :D
-
Originally posted by Rino
So instead of having the CV put out of action by being sunk with 8K
of bombs, the fight could be killed by a single jabo lobbing a 500 lber into
the deck? Nope, not for me.
Rino, I understand your point if a hit anywhere on the deck would interupt flight ops. However, if the deck elevator was the target that controls plane spawning, its hardness could be independently set, just like the hangers on land bases. Iits down tiime would be independently selected as well, just like for hanger's. Plus the elevator would be a much smaller tartet than simply hitting the flight deck. Hits on the deck would still count, but they'd count towards sinking the ship, not on whether planes can launch or not.
-
Greetings,
Great ideas - however a couple of points.
Historically, level bombers were terrible at actually sinking ships in the open water. Number of factors - maneuverability, inaccuracy of sight, wind effects on failing objects, normal dispersal patterns of man made objects, etc . . . It should be harder to sink a CV, if not dang near impossible, with a level bomber than with an equal number of dive bombers (in tonnage of ord).
Implementing wind effects on failing objects (bombs) is an answer to making it harder for CVs to be kilt. Perhaps, artifically inducing a dispersal pattern onto each bomb when dropped. Don't know the software, does the game track each bomb / rocket by speed and rate of fall? If so, a random number varying the fall rate slightly would effect the POI. The greater the height, the greater the variation.
Regards,
-
These sound like very good ideas:aok
heres another:
add those plane launching ramps onto that cruiser!:D
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I think varying the speeds of a fleet would be problematic..... and as we do not have runway damage modelled on fields why have it modelled on CV's?
I coulda Swore you can drop like 40,000 LBS of bombs on a runway and it goes down for like 60 seconds, I may be wrong though
-
Originally posted by outbreak
I coulda Swore you can drop like 40,000 LBS of bombs on a runway and it goes down for like 60 seconds, I may be wrong though
its more like 125000 lbs
-
knew it was something like that, But HEY you can still damage it for 1 minute!