Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Eric122 on January 18, 2010, 05:50:06 PM
-
mabe like the North Carolina class with 16 inch guns and OSU-2 kingfishers
-
I wil try to get info on the ships but there ere 2 the North Carolina and the Washington. each had 9 16 inch guns 20 (i think) :headscratch: 5 inch guns several quad 40s and several dual and single 20 mm batterys :aok
-
mabe like the North Carolina class with 16 inch guns and OSU-2 kingfishers
Maybe not.
I wil try to get info on the ships but there ere 2 the North Carolina and the Washington. each had 9 16 inch guns 20 (i think) headscratch 5 inch guns several quad 40s and several dual and single 20 mm batterys
:cry
-
Wish first, get the details after..............
Anybody got a match? :D
-
Yeah I gotta match: your breath and buffalo farts. :)
-
North Carolina class NO
Iowa Class YES
-
I have been in the nc when I lived in charlotte. this is funny, you would think it was a huge ship but it was actually pretty small (ok not a vw size). hard to imagine how 2000 men lived and worked on it. it sure had lots of guns on board.
it had Nine 16-inch/45 caliber guns; twenty 5-inch/38 caliber guns; sixty 40mm Bofors guns; forty-eight 20mm guns
semp
-
I have been in the nc when I lived in charlotte. this is funny, you would think it was a huge ship but it was actually pretty small (ok not a vw size). hard to imagine how 2000 men lived and worked on it. it sure had lots of guns on board.
it had Nine 16-inch/45 caliber guns; twenty 5-inch/38 caliber guns; sixty 40mm Bofors guns; forty-eight 20mm guns
semp
:x
-
I have been in the nc when I lived in charlotte. this is funny, you would think it was a huge ship but it was actually pretty small (ok not a vw size). hard to imagine how 2000 men lived and worked on it. it sure had lots of guns on board.
it had Nine 16-inch/45 caliber guns; twenty 5-inch/38 caliber guns; sixty 40mm Bofors guns; forty-eight 20mm guns
semp
It's amazing how heavy those things had to be and still floated. I understand how it works but still boggles the mind to think about all that steel, ammo, people, fuel, oil, etc on top of those.
-
Yeah I gotta match: your breath and buffalo farts. :)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nevada_%28BB-36%29
Would rather have this class of Battle Wagon!! :old:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nevada_%28BB-36%29
Would rather have this class of Battle Wagon!! :old:
Lol sunk as a target in 1948.
-
North Carolina class NO
Iowa Class YES
exactly. Iowa class was so good, we couldn't retire it until after the first gulf war
-
agreed. iowa class all the way. love that New Jersey beauty
-
Japanese task group, Yamato (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/yamato) class, late war configuration, Takao (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/takao) class heavy cruiser in front and following, screened by four to six Akizuki (http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk_c.htm) class destroyers.
While it is true that the Iowa class is superior, we have a huge overabundance of US equipment in AH. It would be very nice to get a Japanese task group. The task group I described above would still be a hugely powerful force in AH.
-
IF you are going to press for Battleships, then you'd better push for the slower battleships that supported all the landings made. The Clipper bow Battleships, New Mexico, Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, California, West Virginia, Maryland, all took part in supporting landings. They also participated in the last Battleship vs Battleship fight in history at Surigo Straight where they crossed the T and hammered the Japanese ships coming at them.
The fast battleships were part of the fast carrier groups that fought other Japanese carrier groups. I don't see that happening in AH, but I do see folks trying to close on shore to take a base and support it with gunfire from cruisers and destroyers.
-
I have been in the nc when I lived in charlotte. this is funny, you would think it was a huge ship but it was actually pretty small (ok not a vw size). hard to imagine how 2000 men lived and worked on it. it sure had lots of guns on board.
it had Nine 16-inch/45 caliber guns; twenty 5-inch/38 caliber guns; sixty 40mm Bofors guns; forty-eight 20mm guns
semp
I grew up in NC, and went onboard "Showboat" many times as a kid. Granted it's not an Iowa class monster, but it's armed to the teeth with AA guns. Not withstanding the 16" guns, these things were primarily used as AA platforms built for fast carrier escort. All those proximity-fused 5" rds make life miserably short for attacking planes. IMO this is the real reason HTC has avoided adding American BB's to the game so far. The big guns aren't the issue, it's the effect that doubling or tripling the amount of 5"' guns in the task group would have on game play.
-
IF you are going to press for Battleships, then you'd better push for the slower battleships that supported all the landings made. The Clipper bow Battleships, New Mexico, Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, California, West Virginia, Maryland, all took part in supporting landings. They also participated in the last Battleship vs Battleship fight in history at Surigo Straight where they crossed the T and hammered the Japanese ships coming at them.
The fast battleships were part of the fast carrier groups that fought other Japanese carrier groups. I don't see that happening in AH, but I do see folks trying to close on shore to take a base and support it with gunfire from cruisers and destroyers.
i actually see ALOT of ship to ship fighting that ends in alot of big bangs and lots of carrier spawn camping haha. maybe a BB would help make it more realistic...
-
Nice video on the North Carolina. I remember the school children fund raising drive to save the North Carolina when I was in elementary school.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sauRhkTIWP4
-
Japanese task group, Yamato (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/yamato) class, late war configuration, Takao (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/takao) class heavy cruiser in front and following, screened by four to six Akizuki (http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk_c.htm) class destroyers.
While it is true that the Iowa class is superior, we have a huge overabundance of US equipment in AH. It would be very nice to get a Japanese task group. The task group I described above would still be a hugely powerful force in AH.
That would work out QUITE nicely. :aok
I see your Battleship, and raise you a Carrier! :D
I would like to semi-hijack this post with the addition of Carriers into the fray. It would be nice to see Japanese CV's brought into this as well as the other class of US carriers. It could be random with a respawn or set one port US and one port Japanese? There are the British CV classes to think about as well. Hmm.... :headscratch: Think about it though, Karnak's setup but tack on the Shōkaku-class to it. It's a thought I wanted to bring to light. I'm sure it's been brought up a few times as well.
Back to topic: If we are going to talk battleship only task forces, then why limit to just Japanese and American? What about the British and Germans? They too, made good battleships. Well, the Germans made Pocket Battleships but the Bismark held well against the British fleet all by it's lonesome, before the crew scuttled the ship. It was doomed anyways, so even if they didn't scuttle the ship, it would've gone down against the onslaught of British firepower.
-
NO
Lots & lots of talking.......
-
i actually see ALOT of ship to ship fighting that ends in alot of big bangs and lots of carrier spawn camping haha. maybe a BB would help make it more realistic...
Part of the realism being that carriers would try to avoid such heavily-armed surface combatants like a plague...
I think we start getting into a density problem here, given the geographical size of the arenas.
Would it make sense to expand the sizes of the arenas? The critical task w/r Carrier groups, at that point, would be reconnaisance, given that you must first FIND the carrier group before you can sink the carrier.
PBY and sub me for that.
wish in one hand, crap in the other...
-
And, can I have a SeaHawk instead of a KingFisher?
-
I'm thinking you're on to something but yet, not realizing how cool it would be if........................... .......
Part of the realism being that carriers would try to avoid such heavily-armed surface combatants like a plague...
I think we start getting into a density problem here, given the geographical size of the arenas.
Would it make sense to expand the sizes of the arenas?
No need to make a larger map for arenas..... But what if we made a cv group pretty darn heavy? Add a battleship, another cruiser, more ack, more puffy.... Make it so 1 person CANNOT sink a cv!
AND...... We add some more 8 inch batteries along all the coasts, heck, make them autofire! So now we can keep CV's away from the shoreline (Waystin wish I believe). We would have to organize attack runs on cv groups by at least a small group of pilots. We can make LVT's spawn towards the closest coastline from the cv group, so as not to have to be driving at 8mph for 4 hours to get to town.
-
That would work out QUITE nicely. :aok
I see your Battleship, and raise you a Carrier! :D
I would like to semi-hijack this post with the addition of Carriers into the fray. It would be nice to see Japanese CV's brought into this as well as the other class of US carriers. It could be random with a respawn or set one port US and one port Japanese? There are the British CV classes to think about as well. Hmm.... :headscratch: Think about it though, Karnak's setup but tack on the Shōkaku-class to it. It's a thought I wanted to bring to light. I'm sure it's been brought up a few times as well.
Back to topic: If we are going to talk battleship only task forces, then why limit to just Japanese and American? What about the British and Germans? They too, made good battleships. Well, the Germans made Pocket Battleships but the Bismark held well against the British fleet all by it's lonesome, before the crew scuttled the ship. It was doomed anyways, so even if they didn't scuttle the ship, it would've gone down against the onslaught of British firepower.
re hijack this... haha sorry but imagine the HMS Hood, the pride of the British Navy being blown up by the Bismarck? and if we get into the tactics of naval engagements then we're gonna need to put in assault groups, CV task forces and large battle groups....
-
re hijack this... haha sorry but imagine the HMS Hood, the pride of the British Navy being blown up by the Bismarck? and if we get into the tactics of naval engagements then we're gonna need to put in assault groups, CV task forces and large battle groups....
...and that's a problem, why?
I know, I know... It's a problem because of the basic economic problem of unlimited wants/needs, limited resources (what you all pay in per month > what gets plowed back into product development ).
Yet, for a small company like HTC, betting on increased revenue from an increased offering might well make sense. After all, you'd be inviting an entire new class, known henceforth as the shiptard (let the winds of fortune blow me) into the game. Imagine an all surface combatant engagement - where both sides maneuver for the magical T-cross. Imagine some of the multi-week scenarios we might be able to pull off.
It is indeed a slippery slope - and I'm glad for it.
-
thatd be hard to do because these task groups stay in one permanent formation...
-
Japanese task group, Yamato (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/yamato) class, late war configuration, Takao (http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/takao) class heavy cruiser in front and following, screened by four to six Akizuki (http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk_c.htm) class destroyers.
While it is true that the Iowa class is superior, we have a huge overabundance of US equipment in AH. It would be very nice to get a Japanese task group. The task group I described above would still be a hugely powerful force in AH.
Sounds good +1. That would be a nice change. Maybe on the water maps give each country an non-captureable port that these would spawn from. Each country gets 1 CV group as described above and the rest of the CV groups are the normal ones we have now.
-
Yeah I gotta match: your breath and buffalo farts. :)
And what exactly were you doing smelling buffalo farts?
-
give me a bigger gun than the 8inchers we have on here and i dont care what kind of platform they're sitting on. :x
-
"the HMS Hood"
Groan, another one who doesn't know how to properly name a ship of the Royal Navy. It's Hood, the Hood or H.M.S. Hood, NOT 'the H.M.S. Hood'.
:cool:
-
"the HMS Hood"
Groan, another one who doesn't know how to properly name a ship of the Royal Navy. It's Hood, the Hood or H.M.S. Hood, NOT 'the H.M.S. Hood'.
Write His Majesty's Ship does not sound correct with 'the' added before it one hundred times, then you'll get it right - I hope.
:cool:
That's clearly a good point. His error is about as bad as Donald studmuffinan's reference to "The El Supremo" in Show Business Kids. Clearly, that's saying, "the the supreme one"...
But lost in that trivia is the fact that HMS Hood was dangerously underarmored against plunging fire. That people were surprised that it split open like a boiled hotdog merely shows that the public at large don't do engineering.
-
Hoho, there's plenty of it about, for sure. Here in Bristol, we have the 'River Avon' clearly marked on the map. As avon or afon is an old word for river . . . doh!
Too right, H.M.S. Hood carried dangerously inadequate deck armour. H.M.A.M.C. Rawalpindi carried none at all, other than the splinter shields on the 6" guns she was hurriedly fitted with at the outbreak of war. Both ships were sent into harm's way because there was nothing better available when the call came, and both were lost to enemy gunfire. My grandfather lost a cousin aboard the Hood and his brother aboard the 'Admiralty-Made Coffin' Rawalpindi, when Captain Kennedy took on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the Denmark Strait. Doubtless in the future the Royal Navy will have to fight once again with no more than what it can scrape together; and, with no doubt at all, they'll do their magnificent best.
Splice the mainbrace!
:cool:
-
Hoho, there's plenty of it about, for sure. Here in Bristol, we have the 'River Avon' clearly marked on the map. As avon or afon is an old word for river . . . doh!
Too right, H.M.S. Hood carried dangerously inadequate deck armour. H.M.A.M.C. Rawalpindi carried none at all, other than the splinter shields on the 6" guns she was hurriedly fitted with at the outbreak of war. Both ships were sent into harm's way because there was nothing better available when the call came, and both were lost to enemy gunfire. My grandfather lost a cousin aboard the Hood and his brother aboard the 'Admiralty-Made Coffin' Rawalpindi, when Captain Kennedy took on the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the Denmark Strait. Doubtless in the future the Royal Navy will have to fight once again with no more than what it can scrape together; and, with no doubt at all, they'll do their magnificent best.
Splice the mainbrace!
:cool:
Perhaps you should say a word about the Union FLAG, as opposed to jack... I was informed of some distinction regarding this item by a Manchester native - when he wasn't talking smack about "bluudy soothunahs" (Londoners) that is...
-
The Union Flag is the national flag of the United Kingdom and incorporates the crosses of Saint George for England, Saint Andrew for Scotland and Saint Patrick for (Northern, since 1922) Ireland; when hoisted on the jack-staff at the bow of a Royal Navy ship in commission, it becomes a Union Jack. Over the many years when Britannia ruled the oceans, the two became synonymous to those who didn't know better.
Howzat?
;)
-
The Union Flag is the national flag of the United Kingdom and incorporates the crosses of Saint George for England, Saint Andrew for Scotland and Saint Patrick for (Northern, since 1922) Ireland; when hoisted on the jack-staff at the bow of a Royal Navy ship in commission, it becomes a Union Jack. Over the many years when Britannia ruled the oceans, the two became synonymous to those who didn't know better.
Howzat?
;)
You pass.
-
Howzat?
;)
Middle stump
-
"the HMS Hood"
Groan, another one who doesn't know how to properly name a ship of the Royal Navy. It's Hood, the Hood or H.M.S. Hood, NOT 'the H.M.S. Hood'.
:cool:
Do people really care about that? :D
-
I don't really...... But.... I'm a dirty American. AT the same time, I do follow the reference. It's like saying HIV Virus.
Do people really care about that? :D
-
Middle stump
It doesn't take much inagination or knowledge of cricket to understand you here. What a charming Australian expression...
-
Have a British ex-girlfriend once who always corrected my grammar.... but she was the only one & it was a long time ago. Pretentious is the word that comes to mind. Also, who cares?! :rolleyes:
-
Well, the response was, I believe, not so much to do with grammar as it was our UK friend's story about the Union flag - and most likely his ref to the Empire for which the sun never set and the Navy that enforced that Empire.
That's probably why, I, for one, "care". You have to be careful with language (including math - itself a language, imj) or you miss the point entirely and start thinking that the conversation is about grammar when it is, at most, tangential to that topic.
-
Well, the response was, I believe, not so much to do with grammar as it was our UK friend's story about the Union flag - and most likely his ref to the Empire for which the sun never set and the Navy that enforced that Empire.
That's probably why, I, for one, "care". You have to be careful with language (including math - itself a language, imj) or you miss the point entirely and start thinking that the conversation is about grammar when it is, at most, tangential to that topic.
Thanks professor. I'm back in school... :D
-
all the classes are good but the USS N.C. was one of the more "modern" battleships of the war. It be nice to have it and other battleship classes too.
-
The NC class would be great! I live about 2hrs away from the Showboat and it is sweet! Would love to fire the 16inchers at an airfield or another cv group. She also made it on the TOP 10 Naval Ships at like #4 or something. Also, during her first engagement alongside the Enterprise, the Enterprise's captain was worried she was on fire because of all the smoke she was puttin out due to her tremendous firepower! :devil
+1
-
The NC class would be great! I live about 2hrs away from the Showboat and it is sweet! Would love to fire the 16inchers at an airfield or another cv group. She also made it on the TOP 10 Naval Ships at like #4 or something. Also, during her first engagement alongside the Enterprise, the Enterprise's captain was worried she was on fire because of all the smoke she was puttin out due to her tremendous firepower! :devil
+1
i noticed every time i go the rear 16 in gun is aimed at either the coast guard or one of the many buildings across the river
-
North Carolina class NO
Iowa Class YES
the N.C. class was ranked #6 in the top 10 fighting ships list
-
"the HMS Hood"
Groan, another one who doesn't know how to properly name a ship of the Royal Navy. It's Hood, the Hood or H.M.S. Hood, NOT 'the H.M.S. Hood'.
:cool:
since when has HMS Hood been called a BB anyways? :lol Battle Cruiser man
-
Spot-on, H.M.S. Hood was a battle-cruiser: the biggest and best in the world when she was built but, like all battle-cruisers, inadequately armoured when it came to fighting true battleships.
:cool:
-
HMS Hood & a few other ship in-port:
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6665/51021039.jpg) (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/51021039.jpg/)
-
HMS Hood & a few other ship in-port:
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6665/51021039.jpg) (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/51021039.jpg/)
Where'd u get this pic? Looks nice
-
Iowa class.
-Spektor
-
Where'd u get this pic? Looks nice
One of my terrains:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,278937.0.html
-
North Carolina? fightingest ship? Hmmmmm?
If you judge fightin by, how many engagements the ship participated in, it would be a cruiser for sure, not ANY BB!
USS San Francisco, would be an excellent candidate!
Among BB afficionado's, there are two separate groups of BB's. Those that 'Did', and those that 'Never Did'...
Those that actually Did, are a very small group indeed! Did or Didn't what, right, lol? A real BB lover would know the diff!
been gone for awhile...
:salute RC
-
KMS Scharnhorst and its sistership Gneisenau.
-
KMS Scharnhorst and its sistership Gneisenau.
Yes Please +1
-
I think in terms of AH, there would be little difference between a North Carolina class and
an Iowa class BB. The speed differential and the number of AAA mounts wouldn't be all that
big a deal.
-
other then a battle ship how about maybe putting in destroyer and i think the tribal class would do awesome in AH
Type: Destroyer
Displacement: 1,850 tons (standard),
2,520 tons (full)
Length: 377 ft (115 m) Length overall
Beam: 36.5 ft (11.1 m)
Draught: 9 ft (2.7 m)
Propulsion: 3 x Admiralty 3-drum boilers, 2 Parsons steam turbines on 2 shafts, 44,000 shp
Speed: 36 knots (67 km/h)
Range: 524 tons oil, 5,700 nautical miles (10,600 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h)
Complement: 190 (219 as leader)
Armament: As designed:
8 x 4.7 inch QF Mark XII (L/45) , twin mount CP Mk. XIX
4 x QF 2 pdr, quad mount Mk. VII
8 x Vickers .50 machine gun, quad mount Mk. II
4 x tubes for 21 inch torpedo Mk.IX
1 x rack, 2 x throwers for depth charges
War modifications:
6 x 4.7 inch L/45 QF Mk. XII, 3 x twin mounting CP Mk. XIX
1 x twin QF 4-inch (101.6 mm) Mk. XVI, mounting HA Mk. XIX
4 x QF 2 pdr, quad mount Mk. VII
up to 4 x single and twin 20 mm Oerlikon
1 quad launcher with Mk. IX torpedoes (4 x 21-inch torpedo tubes)
1 x rack, 2 x throwers for DCs
Cayuga, Athabaskan as built:
8 x QF 4-inch (101.6 mm) Mk. XVI, twin mount HA/LA Mk. XIX
6 x QF 40 mm Bofors
1 x twin mount Mk. V
4 x single mount Mk. III
1 quad launcher with Mk. IX torpedoes (4 x 21-inch torpedo tubes)
1 x rack, 2 x throwers for DCs
Canadian DDE modernization:
2 x 4"/45 Mk XVI twin guns
1 x 3"/50 Mk.33 twin guns
4 x 40mm/56 Bofors guns
1 quad launcher with Mk. IX torpedoes (4 x 21" torpedo tubes)
2 x Squid anti-submarine mortars
-
Yes, adding a player spawnable DD would be a great add to the game!
But that topic has been beaten to death by many on this forum..
I don't really feel like doing it all over again, But I'd vote a BIG YES on that, (if there WAS a vote, lol)
RC
-
I'll reiterate my opinion that having a US task group it would be nice for a BB task group to be based on non-US equipment. I'd argue that Japanese equipment makes the most sense as the Pacific war, with the US and Japan being the major participants, was the more major naval aspect of WWII. Thus a Japanese BB group formed around a Yamato or Nagato class BB with a couple Takao class CAs and a screen of Akizuki class DDs would add a nice dash of variety to AH. Not everything has to be based on US equipment.
-
I'll reiterate my opinion that having a US task group it would be nice for a BB task group to be based on non-US equipment. I'd argue that Japanese equipment makes the most sense as the Pacific war, with the US and Japan being the major participants, was the more major naval aspect of WWII. Thus a Japanese BB group formed around a Yamato or Nagato class BB with a couple Takao class CAs and a screen of Akizuki class DDs would add a nice dash of variety to AH. Not everything has to be based on US equipment.
Or the perfect setup: one country has US, one has Japanese, and one has German task groups :D Although I don't know of any German CVs other than Graf Zeppelin...
-
I'll reiterate my opinion that having a US task group it would be nice for a BB task group to be based on non-US equipment. I'd argue that Japanese equipment makes the most sense as the Pacific war, with the US and Japan being the major participants, was the more major naval aspect of WWII. Thus a Japanese BB group formed around a Yamato or Nagato class BB with a couple Takao class CAs and a screen of Akizuki class DDs would add a nice dash of variety to AH. Not everything has to be based on US equipment.
I don't really think the country of origin would make a big difference until the shipset is filled more completely.
As far as the game goes, a BB is a BB is a BB. Other than the gee whiz factor, people would enjoy having bigger
guns no matter what the rest of the ship looked like :D
-
Or the perfect setup: one country has US, one has Japanese, and one has German task groups :D Although I don't know of any German CVs other than Graf Zeppelin...
A German task group doesn't make any sense. The three main naval powers were the US, UK and Japan.
-
The origin of the battleship should be determined by the origin of the Task Group to which it is attached. If the primary ship of the Task Group to which the battleship is to be attached is a U.S. CV, then the battleship should be a U.S. battleship.
-
The origin of the battleship should be determined by the origin of the Task Group to which it is attached. If the primary ship of the Task Group to which the battleship is to be attached is a U.S. CV, then the battleship should be a U.S. battleship.
It wouldn't be part of the CV task group, so that makes no sense. The whole point is to get the CV further from the shore batteries and quick bomb strike ranges so it can use the stand off range of its aircraft while the BB group goes in to bombard and launch the LTVs.
-
It wouldn't be part of the CV task group, so that makes no sense. The whole point is to get the CV further from the shore batteries and quick bomb strike ranges so it can use the stand off range of its aircraft while the BB group goes in to bombard and launch the LTVs.
Somebody's been reading up on the "CV's still too darn blasted close!" thread :lol but this is almost exactly what i said in that thread. Add landing forces into the game and CV groups to support it. CV groups should not be able to launch LVTs
-
It wouldn't be part of the CV task group, so that makes no sense. The whole point is to get the CV further from the shore batteries and quick bomb strike ranges so it can use the stand off range of its aircraft while the BB group goes in to bombard and launch the LTVs.
So, we should have a U.S. based/type CV task group standing off and supporting a non U.S. based/type amphib. invasion support Task Group? Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes: Instead of just adding a new ship, which would easily meet most players desires, an entire new Task Group should be designed, and new behavior modeled.
I'm sure Halsey was just pining away over not being able to use his CV Task Force to support Hosagya(sp?) and his landing force. :rolleyes:
-
Taking this a step further, an invasion/bombardment group would not sail without a CV group. Also, the battleships, at least in the U.S. Task Forces, were used to provide an anti-aircraft umbrella for the CV. So you'd have a Task Group from one country providing air cover for a Task Group from another country on the other side of the war. And you'd have a battleship providing anti-aircraft cover for a CV on the other side of the war.
I have nothing against adding ships from other nations. But the logic being used here just in order to avoid adding a U.S. battleship is pretty disjointed.
-
So, we should have a U.S. based/type CV task group standing off and supporting a non U.S. based/type amphib. invasion support Task Group? Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes: Instead of just adding a new ship, which would easily meet most players desires, an entire new Task Group should be designed, and new behavior modeled.
I'm sure Halsey was just pining away over not being able to use his CV Task Force to support Hosagya(sp?) and his landing force. :rolleyes:
Would that be any more disconcerting than it is to have F6Fs, Seafires and A6Ms all launching from the same CV as we do now? Or that we launch carrier strikes from an American carrier to attack another American carrier?
Honestly I would prefer something like the Rooks have UK CV and BB groups, the Bish have US CV and BB groups and the Knights have IJN CV and BB groups. That would fix both problems, but it is sadly unrealistic in terms of resources. It would also kind of require fudging the modeling of the AA, bombardment, durability and speeds of the different groups so that none had an advantage over the other in terms of task group effectiveness and survivability, which I don't really like.
You are right that it would be easier to do a US BB group and simply reuse the CA and DDs from the CV group though.
-
So for in shore work, it's the older slower battleships like the Tennessee and Colorado, along with Jeep carriers, DDs and DEs. Of course with the Jeep carriers the planeset is limited for attacking shore targets. TBMs, FM2 etc.
Fast battleships, cruisers and DDs with the fast carriers out at sea looking for a ship war. Those can't take on the shore batteries as they are the outer shield to the slow BBs and vulnerable Jeep carriers.
Ideally you create a Japanese task force, British task force and US task force with carriers filled out with appropriate aircraft for that country.
-
So for in shore work, it's the older slower battleships like the Tennessee and Colorado, along with Jeep carriers, DDs and DEs. Of course with the Jeep carriers the planeset is limited for attacking shore targets. TBMs, FM2 etc.
Fast battleships, cruisers and DDs with the fast carriers out at sea looking for a ship war. Those can't take on the shore batteries as they are the outer shield to the slow BBs and vulnerable Jeep carriers.
Ideally you create a Japanese task force, British task force and US task force with carriers filled out with appropriate aircraft for that country.
I guess a way to do it and model them correctly instead of fudging their systems would be to give all sides one of each on a small map and two of each on a large map. That would also reduce the inclination of going Bish because it is American, or Rook because it is British or Knight because it is Axis.
As for flying the correct types of aircraft off of them, I'd leave that to scenarios and the AvA arena. For MA purposes they should launch all CV capable aircraft.
-
So, we should have a U.S. based/type CV task group standing off and supporting a non U.S. based/type amphib. invasion support Task Group? Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes: Instead of just adding a new ship, which would easily meet most players desires, an entire new Task Group should be designed, and new behavior modeled.
I'm sure Halsey was just pining away over not being able to use his CV Task Force to support Hosagya(sp?) and his landing force. :rolleyes:
Taking this a step further, an invasion/bombardment group would not sail without a CV group. Also, the battleships, at least in the U.S. Task Forces, were used to provide an anti-aircraft umbrella for the CV. So you'd have a Task Group from one country providing air cover for a Task Group from another country on the other side of the war. And you'd have a battleship providing anti-aircraft cover for a CV on the other side of the war.
I have nothing against adding ships from other nations. But the logic being used here just in order to avoid adding a U.S. battleship is pretty disjointed.
You're not thinking of the fact that the DDs and CAs could just be switched to the new TG and include BBs and LCs and their home ships. or leave the LCs out and keep LVTs to do the job. The CV group can stay 10k out and support the landing invasion for more realism. SBs werent firing on CVs at Normandy, Tarawa, Leyte, Iwo, Okinawa, at Torch, Sicily, Southern Italy, Southern France, Guadalcanal... any landings i missed? :headscratch:
-
"KMS Scharnhorst and its sistership Gneisenau."
H.M.S. Duke of York and Belfast plus supporting destroyers, so I can hunt down Scharnhorst in a historically-correct fashion and sink her, thus avenging my great-uncle who went down with H.M.S. Rawalpindi in 1939.
Oh, and I want a Swordfish to fly against her too, shades of Eugene 'Winkle' Esmonde and his gallant lads of 825 NAS Fleet Air Arm who did it for real during the Channel Dash of 1942.
:cool: