Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheDudeDVant on October 11, 2010, 07:19:57 PM
-
That would represent the puffy fire control ship.. A radar ship if you will.. Some new cool ship we could destroy to stop the puffy ack.. Instead of having to destroy them all..
-
Why? Is it your intent that if this ship is sunk then the CV fleet would not be able to fire puffy acks?
ack-ack
-
If that was to take affect,let's see.... No more puffy ack on destroyers( only manned 5")
And the aa ship could be the atlanta class CA, or the Akatsuki DD.
-
Why? Is it your intent that if this ship is sunk then the CV fleet would not be able to fire puffy acks?
ack-ack
Or a ship to greatly reduce puffy.
-
Why? Is it your intent that if this ship is sunk then the CV fleet would not be able to fire puffy acks?
ack-ack
uhh yea! We're not ever going to get rid of the puffgods.. At least give us some central target we can go after to stop it.. And we'll get new targets for the war winners.. Its WIN WIN!
-
If that was to take affect,let's see.... No more puffy ack on destroyers( only manned 5")
And the aa ship could be the atlanta class CA, or the Akatsuki DD.
There would still be puffy acks on destroyers, what do you think those 5" guns fired in AA mode?
ack-ack
-
Well, since Fletcher Class destroyers were each equipped with a CiC, and most served as radar pickets, and they all carried independent SC-series radar (with the exception of the USS Pringle, which carried SA), and since each Mk 14 Fire Control Director was equipped with an additional Mk. 22 radar, and since each ship carried its own set of SG radar....
I would say...
-1
-
And don't even get me started on SC-1 and SC-2 series radar carried by the bigger ships.
You want an Atlanta? Early war or late war?
So you want SIX twin 5"/38 turrets, and six or more quad 40mm mounts?
Ugh.
-
If you want to fix puffy ack, make it actually FIRED by the guns, not auto-generated around the target as they are now. That way there's actual time of flight and aim correction rather than a magic kill box.
-
And don't even get me started on SC-1 and SC-2 series radar carried by the bigger ships.
You want an Atlanta? Early war or late war?
So you want SIX twin 5"/38 turrets, and six or more quad 40mm mounts?
Ugh.
It would basically replace 2 destroyers.
-
It would basically replace 2 destroyers.
Uhhh, no.... A single Atlanta has 6 twin guns, equaling a total of 12 barrels. That would be three destroyers, going on the premise that 4 turrets are available on a Fletcher. In addition, and I'm not sure they modeled it in AH or not, but the Fletcher used a 5"/25 caliber gun, while the Gearings and Sumners, and all larger class ships with twin mounts (Essex, Pittsburgh Class CAs, Atlanta Class CLAA, Iowa Class, SoDak, Washington class, etc) all used 5"/38 caliber weapons.
What you're asking for, a radar control ship, didn't happen in WW2. A WW2 ship was USED as the first radar control ship, the USS Saipan, a CVL, but that was post war.
I have no problem with eliminating auto-puffy and adding an Atlanta Class CLAA to compensate, or even upgrading the Fletcher-esque destroyers we have now to Sumners. In fact, I'm all for it. But sinking a ship and having that one ship reduce the effectiveness of the AA overall is not a great idea.
-
How about this, rather than sinking some magical ship that controls all the flak guns why don't you just sink the CV instead and voila! Problem solved in 5 minutes.
-
Uhhh, no.... A single Atlanta has 6 twin guns, equaling a total of 12 barrels. That would be three destroyers, going on the premise that 4 turrets are available on a Fletcher.
Fletcher class destroyers have 5 turrets.
-
How about this, rather than sinking some magical ship that controls all the flak guns why don't you just sink the CV instead and voila! Problem solved in 5 minutes.
Which you could kill that ship and 75% of your problem is an instant removal. :neener:
-
Interesting, but a bit scary :D
(http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/am/cla_uss_oakland_cla95.jpg)
The Oakland class
(http://www.acepilots.com/ships/cl53.jpg)
Btw JHerne, this one has 16 5 inch in 8 turrets, 6 inline and 2 others just forward of the stern battery.
-
Puffy is a joke. +1
-
Puffy is a joke. +1
Untill it kills you 10k out, 20k high.
-
Fletcher class destroyers have 5 turrets.
Yea, I know...but how many do we have access to in AH destroyers??? We have access to 4 - X turret is non-functional in the game.
If there's one thing I know - its Fletchers...
(http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/wrpress/fletcher/WR-fletcher-01.jpg)
Here's the book review:
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/wrpress/fletcher/wr-fletcher.html
J
-
Puffy is a joke. +1
Can't have a good fight within 30K of a CV anymore. +1, though I think no puffy ack is a bit drastic. Perhaps simply a wider less accurate spread of fire.
-
Can't have a good fight within 30K of a CV anymore. +1, though I think no puffy ack is a bit drastic. Perhaps simply a wider less accurate spread of fire.
As I said, make puffy ack so that's actually fired BY guns, not automatically generated around the target. You'll see the whines about the effectiveness of puffy ack decline TREMENDOUSLY.
The problem is that puffy ack is instantaneous and radar guided, and the amount of flak bursts is the same regardless of the size of the bounding box (IE, a fighter and four-engine bomber have two different sized "target" boxes, but both receive the same amount of ack. The result is a fighter is more likely to go down because the flak is more concentrated). Make ALL AAA so that it's fired by the guns. That means it will actually be possible to evade flak to a point by changing direction. Thus, fighters and small attack craft (IE, SBDs and D3As) will actually have a chance of getting through the flak barrage since they can more easily change course to throw off the aim of the gunners.
It would also be nice if EVERY gunner didn't zero in on one target the way they do now, or prioritized BUFF formations over fighters, but this change would be a good start.
-
Btw JHerne, this one has 16 5 inch in 8 turrets, 6 inline and 2 others just forward of the stern battery.
As built Rino, yes. The first 4 ships of the class, Atlanta, Juneau, San Juan, and San Diego, all had the wing turrets. Atlanta and Juneau were sunk at Savo, leaving only San Juan and San Diego. All ships from Oakland (the 5th) on had their turrets removed and replaced with 40mm Mk II guns in an effort to save weight. Since all of the ships we have are late war configurations, I would figure that if a CLAA were added, it would be the later, more common design.
CLAA is simply too uber.
-
Nope. Sounds like an easy CV plane vulch setup to me.
-
you guys want new ships? put some BBs in please... i'd love to see the New Jersey going full broadside on a base with the cruiser backing it up smacking buildings down in town... and id also like to see the realism of forcing 8" and 16" guns only allowed to fire when AA gunnery is not used. make it into a "ship mode" style of combat and a ship commander to allow for the sea to sea fighting and AA fighting. 40mm guns wouldnt be manned while an 8" or 16" gun fired just for the fact that the gun would make whoever was in the 40mm gun mount fly overboard with bleeding ears and KOd
-
Nope. Sounds like an easy CV plane vulch setup to me.
It's hard to vulch above 3k. :rofl
-
It's hard to vulch above 3k. :rofl
Not really. Just take something fast like an LA-7 or Pony D, or.. er.. um.. a 262. :D
-
Untill it kills you 10k out, 20k high.
Think that's what he meant anyway.
-
Not really. Just take something fast like an LA-7 or Pony D, or.. er.. um.. a 262. :D
We are talking about the puffy ack. not the regular ack or the 5". Nevertheless, how can one vulch from 3k above an airfield?
-
We are talking about the puffy ack. not the regular ack or the 5". Nevertheless, how can one vulch from 3k above an airfield?
I do it all the time, as do you. Rip around on the deck at high speed and tag guys lifting or just lifted. Horizontal vulching! :aok
-
B-25H.
-
I do it all the time, as do you. Rip around on the deck at high speed and tag guys lifting or just lifted. Horizontal vulching! :aok
What does that have to do with this wish? The puffy ack is only enabled above 3k.
-
Yea, I know...but how many do we have access to in AH destroyers??? We have access to 4 - X turret is non-functional in the game.
If there's one thing I know - its Fletchers...
J
You might know a lot about Fletchers, but you obviously don't know much about them in the game.
We have access to only two of the 5" turrets, one in the front, and one in the rear.
Besides, you said this:
Uhhh, no.... A single Atlanta has 6 twin guns, equaling a total of 12 barrels. That would be three destroyers, going on the premise that 4 turrets are available on a Fletcher.
You say 12 barrels and 4 barrels on the Fletchers. I said the Fletchers have 5 barrels, not 4. It's closer to two destroyers as the OP stated than 3 if you are only counting 5" guns.
I am not sure what your point is about access. If an Atlanta was added in the game, there is no reason to believe we would have access to all six turrets, just as we don't have access to all the turrets on any of the other ships.
-
I concede the point on the Fletchers, don't get your panties twisted in a knot. Fletcher have 5 barrels, only two of them are playable. So what do the others do? Do they contribute to auto puffy ack?
As for the Atlantas, what is the sense of having a ship with 6 or 8 twin 5" turrets if we don't have access to them?
So we only get 3? Then make the DDs Sumners or Gearings.
Either way, a radar control ship that determines the lethality of puffy ack is a horrible idea.
And you, you're simply trolling.
-
I concede the point on the Fletchers, don't get your panties twisted in a knot. Fletcher have 5 barrels, only two of them are playable. So what do the others do? Do they contribute to auto puffy ack?
As for the Atlantas, what is the sense of having a ship with 6 or 8 twin 5" turrets if we don't have access to them?
So we only get 3? Then make the DDs Sumners or Gearings.
Either way, a radar control ship that determines the lethality of puffy ack is a horrible idea.
And you, you're simply trolling.
Not trolling at all, nor are my "panties twisted." I'm simply correcting your mistakes.
I don't know if the other turrets are the "source" of puffy ack or not. I seem to recall at one time you could get the puffy box above a fleet even if there were no ships left. :rolleyes: But my memory could be faulty on that one.
And I don't really care if we get an Atlanta class cruiser or not. Nor do I think the idea of a radar ship is a good idea. Neither has anything to do with what I posted.
-
you guys want new ships? put some BBs in please... i'd love to see the New Jersey going full broadside on a base with the cruiser backing it up smacking buildings down in town... and id also like to see the realism of forcing 8" and 16" guns only allowed to fire when AA gunnery is not used. make it into a "ship mode" style of combat and a ship commander to allow for the sea to sea fighting and AA fighting. 40mm guns wouldnt be manned while an 8" or 16" gun fired just for the fact that the gun would make whoever was in the 40mm gun mount fly overboard with bleeding ears and KOd
What exactly would prevent the main batteries from firing if the secondaries are firing AAA? Admittedly
chances are that you wouldn't use the mains on the same type targets, but they were mounted in different
turrets and with different fire control as well.
There have been some reports of Japanese BBs using main guns against torpedo attackers. Of course
this could just be exaggeration by engaged crews....I know I'd be pooping pickles if someone was firing
naval sized ordnance at my low and slow torpedo bomber too :D
-
instead of going around the problem how about HTC just fix the uber accurate 1st crack of puffy as soon as you pull over 3k miles away from the CV in a fighter when there are 10 guys nearer the ship than you are.
I got killed 4 times trying to defend my base the other day in exactly the same fashion. What put me over the edge was moving bases and upping off a friendly CV to get bounced by an enemy con that I reversed and was about to kill, when my own Puffy ack took my wing clean off one hit :cry
and yes a whine has been recorded :D
-
instead of going around the problem how about HTC just fix the uber accurate 1st crack of puffy as soon as you pull over 3k miles away from the CV in a fighter when there are 10 guys nearer the ship than you are.
Geeze, where have I heard something like that before...
As I said, make puffy ack so that's actually fired BY guns, not automatically generated around the target. You'll see the whines about the effectiveness of puffy ack decline TREMENDOUSLY.
The problem is that puffy ack is instantaneous and radar guided, and the amount of flak bursts is the same regardless of the size of the bounding box (IE, a fighter and four-engine bomber have two different sized "target" boxes, but both receive the same amount of ack. The result is a fighter is more likely to go down because the flak is more concentrated). Make ALL AAA so that it's fired by the guns. That means it will actually be possible to evade flak to a point by changing direction. Thus, fighters and small attack craft (IE, SBDs and D3As) will actually have a chance of getting through the flak barrage since they can more easily change course to throw off the aim of the gunners.
It would also be nice if EVERY gunner didn't zero in on one target the way they do now, or prioritized BUFF formations over fighters, but this change would be a good start.
-
I agree that fixing the puffy ack is optimal over adding a AAA ship. There are other ship types I'd prefer get added first. The BB is one, though it's not even at the top of the list. An LST to act as a floating VH for the fleet would be neat, and give people a way to disable amphibias landings. Likewise, an ammo ship and troop ship that would take the place of the ammo bunker and barracks would also be cool, and give more targets. You could even add a tanker for the fuel bunker function. Yes, I know; in real life, these fleet auxilliaries would never have been able to keep up with the CVBG's, but our fleets aren't exactly configured or operated in a historical fashion. It's one of the reasons I believe there should be two fleet types; a CVBG (no LVTs or PTs, just A/C) and an amphipias assault group that would have no CV, but would have a BB or extra CA and with an LST capable of spawning LVTs and PTs. In my less than lucid moments I've even imagined the LST as being able to be detached from the fleet and beached to form a temporary VH that would then be able to spawn non-amphib GVs.
-
If there's going to be BBs, LSTs, etc, then there needs to be two fleet types:
The CV battle groups which can get no closed than 25 miles from a base, and a bombardment/invasion group, which launchs the LVTs and can get closer.
-
+1111111 Saxman
-
A puffy ack control ship -1
A Fletcher class destroyer as an addition to the CV setup +1
My 2c
-
A puffy ack control ship -1
A Fletcher class destroyer as an addition to the CV setup +1
My 2c
Your wish is granted, as we already have pseudo-Fletchers.
-
But in theroy if you kill the radar on a CV then puffy shouldn't be able to hit you?
-
Not really...two different radars, technically.
The radar that sees the red dots on the clipboard map would equate to the CVs SC set (that big array on the mast). The radar that controls the ack is located on the Mk.37 Fire Control directors (those things that look like turrets but have no barrels sticking out of them). I'm not sure if they're even modeled on the pseudo-Essex we have in game.
The Fletchers are the same way - the spinning rectangular array on the foremast of the DD is the air-search set, SC series. There's supposed to be a small SG radar set on the mast (not even worth modeling in game, its so small) that would be the surface search radar. The gunnery radar again comes from the Fire Control Director that sits on top of the wheelhouse.
So...in theory (and I'm not opposed to this, I actually like the idea), we'd have to knock out the Fire Control Directors to reduce, then eliminate, the accuracy of the ack.
J
-
Not really...two different radars, technically.
The radar that sees the red dots on the clipboard map would equate to the CVs SC set (that big array on the mast). The radar that controls the ack is located on the Mk.37 Fire Control directors (those things that look like turrets but have no barrels sticking out of them). I'm not sure if they're even modeled on the pseudo-Essex we have in game.
The Fletchers are the same way - the spinning rectangular array on the foremast of the DD is the air-search set, SC series. There's supposed to be a small SG radar set on the mast (not even worth modeling in game, its so small) that would be the surface search radar. The gunnery radar again comes from the Fire Control Director that sits on top of the wheelhouse.
So...in theory (and I'm not opposed to this, I actually like the idea), we'd have to knock out the Fire Control Directors to reduce, then eliminate, the accuracy of the ack.
J
I see, sounds like a good idea to me :aok
-
This is the ship that needs to be added to the game. The US Navy's "Ice Cream Barge" that was part of the Pacific Fleet.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_E-QOnTGFX_o/RewaoG-yzZI/AAAAAAAAAP0/QTDm3dS4knc/s400/concrete.jpg)
ack-ack