Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: sparow on August 20, 2007, 12:55:43 PM
-
Hello all,
After searching the Forums, I have not found what is the actual fleet speed in Aces High. I would like to know the actual speed.
This said, I am opening this thread to ask for a more realistic speed for the Task Groups in AH.
It's not reasonable that Task Groups get faster than torpedos. This is especially hard for the few pilots that try to torpedo a fleet. Also for those that try dive bombing in TBMs (wrong, I know) and SBDs (futile, I know).
CV - Wasp was capable of 29,5 knots. Could she keep that speed for long? No.
CVE - Bogue could do 18 knots...For how long and with what kind of sea and wind conditions?
USS Ponaganset, a fleet oiler, could do 15,5 knots for his life, beeing 13 knots his max economical top speed...
Even though depicted with it's minimal escort, a TG in AH should take into account the fact that many other - slower - support ships need to stay within TG reach...So, I think it would not be wrong to limit the task group speed to something in between 10 to 18 knots...
Also, with damage, the ships tend to be slower, so a decrease to 8 or 5 knots would be easy to implement...
Much has allready been said about what to change in the TG action and management. Most of the threads I read contain extraordinary ideas, most of them simple programming changes.
If we keep overlooking the Carrier Ops totally, if we stop giving them the importance they deserve in a strategical and tactical role, they will never evolve to anything else more than cheap naval jumpstarts to get a quick capture or start a vulch...Fans of naval airplanes and aerial naval operations feel abandoned and go away...
So much to do and so little time...
all,
-
Isn't it easy enough for them to be sunk as is?
-
From Rolex's post in this thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=207314):
Fleets move at a standard speed of 34.5 mph (approx. 1000 yards/minute).
Fleets can travel at a speed higher than standard for more than 5 minutes after making sharp turns.
To be honest, I don't see how the fleet speed has much to do with anything. it's obviously much slower than an airplane, so as long as you know how much to lead, it's not any harder to hit a fleet doing 34.5 mph than it is to hit one doing 29 mph.
The only thing that's harder is chasing a fleet with a PT boat, and that's really not a very good idea in any case.
-
The problem is two-fold. One, during standard cruising you are correct that the fleet should be slowed. But during takeoff/landing, the CV would increase speed.
How do you model that? Anyone can take off at anytime in AH.
If you slow the fleet, you would have even more trouble getting those heavy loaded Corsairs off the deck.
-
Hi chaps,
Thank you for your replies. Scotty, tx for the numbers, could't find them anywhere. In fact, thay are totally irrealistic...Faster than the fastest battleships, LOL! Now, I think they have to slow them down!
And Tiger, are you sure about that? The aircraft need the lift produced by the CV displacement?...That would be tricky...
Are you sure we could not take off the heaviest of aircrafts running at 10 knots?
Chip in, the more the merryer!
Cheers,
-
Originally posted by sparow
And Tiger, are you sure about that? The aircraft need the lift produced by the CV displacement?...That would be tricky...
Are you sure we could not take off the heaviest of aircrafts running at 10 knots?
Well, the thing is, in RL, they had wind. In here, we really don't.
-
The CV I was on did 30+. No we didn't run that fast all the time, but close, and when we launched or recovered aircraft, we ALWAYS turned into the wind.
I think the main reason the speed of our CVs in the game are faster, is playability. It takes for ever to get one into "playing" range now, and you want to chop the speed in half there by taking TWICE as long to get anywhere. Might as well just take them out of the game then
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
I think the main reason the speed of our CVs in the game are faster, is playability. It takes for ever to get one into "playing" range now, and you want to chop the speed in half there by taking TWICE as long to get anywhere. Might as well just take them out of the game then
Just what I was about to say.
-
Seriously, all of you need to get your facts straight.
The USS Wasp's top speed was 29.5 knots, which is about 34 MPH.
The carriers we have in the game are Essex class carriers. These had a tops speed of 33 knots, which is about 38 mph.
Likewise, the Baltimore class cruiser was capable of 33 knots.
Fletcher class destroyers (I think we have Fletchers) had a top speed of 35 knots.
A ship would certainly be moving at top possible speed in a war zone. ALL of AH is a war zone, so you would expect all ships to be moving at flank speed.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SPEED OF THE FLEET IN THE GAME. If anything they are too SLOW based on the 34.5 MPH in Rolex's notes.
-
Hi chaps,
Fugitive, with all due respect, I believe the CV you where in is a modern one...am I wrong?
Also, for playability reasons we have no RATO on Zekes to get it faster to the furball...Or worm-holes or warp speed for that matter...
If an aircraft and a GV must live with their RL speeds, why shouldn't the fleet live with that accordingly?
You're talking about CVs parked at shore battery range, sacrificial lambs to the altar of speed capturing freaks...
CVs shouldn't even be used that way, they are totally disposable...
Of course, God forbit to allow full command of Task Forces to 99% of AH players...Even a honest and willing would-be skipper or air-boss would do more damage than good trying to run carrier ops in this game...
Is it or is it not possible to take off a fully loaded (ammo+fuel) F4U or TBM of a AH CV deck at 10knots? This is the real question here.
Because, as it is now, if they keep this TG speed, what's the point of having torpedo bombers? Better throw insults to the skipper and crew in ch 200, that would do more damage...
Cheers,
-
Sparow, you obviously did not read the post directly above your last one. There is NOTHING WRONG with the speeds of the ships in AH. The speeds they travel ARE real life speeds, and perhaps a tad slow.
NO CV would perform air operations at 10 knots.
NO cruiser or destroyer would intentionally do 10 knots while under fire.
What you are asking for is simply rediculous.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Seriously, all of you need to get your facts straight.
The USS Wasp's top speed was 29.5 knots, which is about 34 MPH.
I don't. I know the difference between knots and mph. I was in ze US Coast Guard. Plus I own a boat.
:D
-
Originally posted by sparow
Also, for playability reasons we have no RATO on Zekes to get it faster to the furball...Or worm-holes or warp speed for that matter...
If an aircraft and a GV must live with their RL speeds, why shouldn't the fleet live with that accordingly?
So, if I read this right, you'd also like to have to fly a couple hours to get to a fight. You'd like to die once and never play again. You'd like to drive a tank for days (weeks?) to see if there's another tank around, and if not, head in a new direction.
-
Sparrow has some good points, but is confusing some information that he has.
The Essex class cruising speed was 15 Knots or about 17 mph. So he is pretty close with that information. BUT, this IS NOT launch speed for planes, nor maximum speed. E25280 is correct with that info.
When launching or retreiving planes, they would always turn into the wind and go to max speed (or at least close to it).
So, E25280 is also correct in saying... A ship would certainly be moving at top possible speed in a war zone. ALL of AH is a war zone, so you would expect all ships to be moving at flank speed.
Now, Sparrow's point of how a carrier group is used in game is correct. They are, unfortunately, expendable in many peoples eyes.
A carrier's power comes not only from the planes it carries but from it's ability to be stealth and launch an attack or defense when and where they aren't expected. Even a modern day carrier wouldn't sit right off shore of a heavily defended field.
So now we have to ask ourselves why are carrier groups used the way they are in AH?
The answer is really quite simple. It's the way the carrier groups are configured. With the carrier linked to the cruisers we are forced to take them directly into harms way. The cruisers are needed to do damage to the bases. And in that mode, the carrier is just along for the ride which places them in danger.
The proper answer for in-game use of carriers would be to create separate carrier groups and cruiser groups. This would allow carriers to remain relatively safe while the cruisers moved in closer to do their job of damaging fields.
Edit:
Quite a while ago I suggested giving control of the flight deck to the person that has command of the CV. Simply because when the group is operating as a "cruiser group" and damaging a field people tend to see a CV by a base and think it's OK to take off. When in reality, the damage to the base isn't complete and taking off places the carrier in a real dangerous situation.
This idea was shot down because of people switching sides and taking control of a CV just so it can be destroyed. Which is another problem all in itself.
-
Gentlemen,
I apologise for my ignorance. Although I'm talking only in knots, I mede a big confusion regarding the CV models used in AC, thinking they were Wasps class and beeing Essex class afterall: it's a different ball game, totally.
E25280, you're right, we posted simultaneously, I only saw your post after replying...
Yes, I am aware - and as a skipper I would do that - that in a war zone you sail as fast as your boilers, wind and waves let you, I mean, flat out and nose in the wind for take-offs!
I agree with NHawk, Task Group configuration is distorting the use of fleets, as the possibility to sail them to shallow waters is totally non-sense...
Although several improvements could be made towards TG control, formation, speed, heading, etc, the solution may be in introducing another frequent request, the Battleship.
Add to the BB, a complement of DDs and the "special" DDs for LVTs and Troop transport. Call it a mini-assault group.
Also, limiting CV TG to deep water, could help, too.
About the bridge control, my opinion is the following:
Who takes control of a TG stays in the chair. Leave the chair, Otto - a much more reliable skipper - takes command of the TG. His orders: protect the TG but maintaining operational capability.
To OOZ, I would like to say that that is not what I meant. Yes, I've flew many times for 20 minutes to reach target, and I'm not a buff guy...But I wouldn't mind to have airfields a bit more spread out and far apart...I like an instant fight like anyone who has little time to fly online and the "need for a fight" sindrome...What I meant was, if the planes and GVs travel at realistic speeds, the TG and the torpedos should also do that accordingly.
I had a few figures wrong, my fault. I'm not looking at the whole picture, I admit. But all I wished was to be able to hit the fleet with torpedos...Should I have asked for those new pesky supercavitation torps that can do 300knots/hour?
We should get our Naval Wishes in one single Mega-Post. Meanwhile, thank you all chaps!
Cheers,
-
I've made the same suggestion as NHawk regarding special purpose fleets. I would like to see two different kinds of fleets. One would be a strike fleet (CVBG), consisting of two CVs, a cruiser, and escorting DEs. Then you'ld have the amphibias assault fleet (AABG), consisting of two to three cruisers and escorting DEs. The CVBG would not have LVT's or PTs enabled; the AABG would. Eventually, I'd like to see an amphibias assault ship added that would serve as the VH for the AABG. I'd also like to eventually see a CVE added to the AABG, but with the max speed for the AABG appropriately (and historically) restricted to around 18 to 20 knots. Only a very limited planeset would be available on the CVE, and the slower fleet speeds would prevent heavy fighters and large bomb loads.
-
I could agree with the 2 fleet setup. Makes sense to me.
A true CV group with no LVTs/PTs and a second TG with multiple cruisers PT's/LVTs enabled.
The reasons people run the CVs right up to the base is two fold.
1.) Shorter flight times.
2.) To get the LVTs closer.
-
Originally posted by sparow
I agree with NHawk, Task Group configuration is distorting the use of fleets, as the possibility to sail them to shallow waters is totally non-sense...
You know how deep the water is in AH?
-
Originally posted by NHawk
So now we have to ask ourselves why are carrier groups used the way they are in AH?
The answer is really quite simple. It's the way the carrier groups are configured. With the carrier linked to the cruisers we are forced to take them directly into harms way. The cruisers are needed to do damage to the bases. And in that mode, the carrier is just along for the ride which places them in danger.
Not 100% true. The cruisers can still hit from many miles off-shore before the shore even becomes visible in full zoom.
They might be brought in to get visual on targets but even then can be left relatively farther out.
The only reason that a TG HAS to be brought in close is to spawn LVTs because no one's going to drive them in at 8 mph from 30 miles out and the carrier is the only ship that you can spawn from.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
You know how deep the water is in AH?
Yes, but I swore secrecy...:noid
Now, seriously, it's feasable. What I meant to say is that the Carrier TG shouldn't not be allowed to come closer than 10 miles to shore or something like that...
I am awere of the LVT problem...That should be solved if CVTG had no LVTs and AssaultTG had.
Cheers,