Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: RobbZero on October 27, 2010, 05:32:20 PM
-
How's about having a CV battlegroup made up of a major battleship like the Yamato.
Some parameters:
- Limit ONE per country
- Respawns within an hour of being destroyed
- Combined X amount fighter/bomber/attack/vehicle perks (not necessarily all four) between players to get it launched
- Perk cost proportional to ENY and player population of other countries
- Perk value should be greater than a ME-262
- Launched from a new bigger port design
- Extended radar-range (15-mile radius; just a few miles extra of current CVs)
So something along those lines I think would be cool for the game. I don't think there should be subs in this new CV battlegroup.
ROFL:ROFL:LOL:ROFL:ROFL
|
L .____^___
LOL=== []\
L \ \
\________ ]
I I
-----------/
-
battleship without ack cover from cv group should be such an easy kill. all you can do with it is fire a few shells at a town/base, then wait to be sunk. how about a nice a26 instead?
semp
-
Battleships had more ack cover on them alone then the entire CV group has in AH
-
battleship without ack cover from cv group should be such an easy kill. all you can do with it is fire a few shells at a town/base, then wait to be sunk. how about a nice a26 instead?
No no no. I did say CV battlegroup. And by that I meant a big battleship like the Yamato with at least 5 other escort ships.
Just like the CV right now has a cruiser and four other destroyers -- just swap out the cruiser for a bigger and better one. I'm thinking the Yamato would be in the middle and maybe have a couple flattops in there with something like 4 to 6 destroyers.
Here's a layout I had in mind:
(plz excuse my ascii art)
C's are Carriers
+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| |
| D |
| D |
| |
+ C +
| |
| |
| D |
| Y |
+ D +
| |
| |
| C |
| |
+ +
| D |
| D |
| |
| |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+
-
battleship without ack cover from cv group should be such an easy kill. all you can do with it is fire a few shells at a town/base, then wait to be sunk. how about a nice a26 instead?
semp
The AA armament on a BB in the LW would outstrip any CV . Yamato had 24x5" 162x25mm 4x13.2mm Essex class CV had at 14x5" 40-72x40mm 55-76x20mm . I would prefer an Iowa class BB .With superior fire control and proximity fuses .
-
my bad robbzero, misunderstood.
The AA armament on a BB in the LW would outstrip any CV . Yamato had 24x5" 162x25mm 4x13.2mm Essex class CV had at 14x5" 40-72x40mm 55-76x20mm . I would prefer an Iowa class BB .With superior fire control and proximity fuses .
unless it gets airplane cover it will be sunk by single planes like in ww2. and other than to just shell a base/town, there would be no point to have it, unless it is combined with a cv fleet. and if it is perked you really think somebody is gonna sit on that cruiser for hours till it gets to the target. what if the people that launched it log? will it disapear? what if the people that launched it start arguing and the whining wont stop?.
If you really want to have it, it would be better if it's unperked, just like the cv's are now. and let whoever has the highest rank set the course. too many problems if it is perked.
semp
-
Guncrasher as a separate unit it would be a CV "Hunter".
I think that is probably the best purpose you can come up with for it.
And as a uparmored, upgunned cruiser it should be between our current cruiser and CV in # bombs required.
Say 4k instead of 1k. That would make it more survivable without a cv air group flying cap for it.
-
How about the most decorated battleship of the war!
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/300px-Uss_north_carolina_bb.jpg)
GIMME MY SHOWBOAT!
-
my bad robbzero, misunderstood.
unless it gets airplane cover it will be sunk by single planes like in ww2. and other than to just shell a base/town, there would be no point to have it, unless it is combined with a cv fleet. and if it is perked you really think somebody is gonna sit on that cruiser for hours till it gets to the target. what if the people that launched it log? will it disapear? what if the people that launched it start arguing and the whining wont stop?.
If you really want to have it, it would be better if it's unperked, just like the cv's are now. and let whoever has the highest rank set the course. too many problems if it is perked.
semp
Off the top of my head I cannot recall a single battlewagon sunk by a single aircraft in WW2.
Most of them took ENORMOUS amounts of damage from torpedo and bomb hits before sinking.
The Bismarck was crippled by a single hit, but it took quite a few big gun hits to finish the job.
-
Off the top of my head I cannot recall a single battlewagon sunk by a single aircraft in WW2.
Most of them took ENORMOUS amounts of damage from torpedo and bomb hits before sinking.
The Bismarck was crippled by a single hit, but it took quite a few big gun hits to finish the job.
Even when the Bismarck was spinning around in circles, she still managed to land direct hits on various ships as they enclosed in on her. And they STILL didn't sink her, she scuttled herself. (From James Cameron's & Robert Ballard dives on the Bismark).
The Yamato sank after 3 solid hours of 8 direct hits from bombings and 11 direct torpedo hits from over 300 aircraft. There were over 40 near misses which still caused considerable structural damage from the concussions to her side hull plating.1
A battleship CV is needed. Heck, I would like to see individual Destroyer's that I could take out.
1 - Yoshida, Mitsuru; Minear, Richard H. (1999) [1985]. Requiem for Battleship Yamato. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557505446
-
You've got a Baltimore Class CA already in the game, you aren't going to get a much better design than that if you intend to improve the cruiser, unless you move into the Alaska-Class CB, which were white elephants by the time they were launched anyway.
Light cruisers - 4, 5, or 6" guns
Heavy cruisers, 6" 8"
Battlecruisers, pocket battleship - 11" (German Graf Spee), 12" guns (Alaska Class)
Battleships - 14, 15, 16, or 18" guns
So if you intend to upgrade the cruiser, you can go with one of the Alaska-class CBs, or perhaps a German pocket battleship.
Your next step from there is one of the pre-war BBs, Pennsy, Nevada, California, etc.
Next step from there is a Treaty BB like KGV class, SoDak, etc.
From there, Iowa, Yamato
-
This concept is definitely gonna need lots of tweaking.
unless it gets airplane cover it will be sunk by single planes like in ww2. and other than to just shell a base/town, there would be no point to have it, unless it is combined with a cv fleet. and if it is perked you really think somebody is gonna sit on that cruiser for hours till it gets to the target. what if the people that launched it log? will it disapear? what if the people that launched it start arguing and the whining wont stop?.
If you really want to have it, it would be better if it's unperked, just like the cv's are now. and let whoever has the highest rank set the course. too many problems if it is perked.
I agree that perking it might not be necessary. So let's say that it's a regular CV except that it has a stronger cruiser in it like the Yamato or Bismark, etc. So in this case this particular CV wouldn't disappear after the launcher log's. So scrap the perk idea.
Hopefully any arguments about where to bring it will be limited.
In general, all I'm looking for is a kind of "Super CV" group that is more heavily armored with bigger guns, maybe an extra ship or two and only one per country. And if it's a really big map, maybe only allow for ports spread out at least 300-500 miles apart to be able to launch a "Super CV" so that there's no kinda of runaway ENY ship-wise.
So to recap:
New CV parameters:
- Replace cruiser /w major battleship (Yamato, Bismark, etc.)
- Limit ONE per country (allow for 2 or more if map is huge)
- Respawns within an hour of being destroyed
* Launched from a new bigger port design
- Extended radar-range (15-mile radius; just a few miles extra of current CVs)
- Extra ships in CV (destroyers or carriers)
* "would-be-nice" item
Something along these lines.
This came in while I was typing:
You've got a Baltimore Class CA already in the game, you aren't going to get a much better design than that if you intend to improve the cruiser, unless you move into the Alaska-Class CB, which were white elephants by the time they were launched anyway.
So if you intend to upgrade the cruiser, you can go with one of the Alaska-class CBs, or perhaps a German pocket battleship.
Your next step from there is one of the pre-war BBs, Pennsy, Nevada, California, etc.
Next step from there is a Treaty BB like KGV class, SoDak, etc.
From there, Iowa, Yamato
So I see where you're going with this. That there probably shouldn't be a huge jump to a major ship like the Yamato and maybe go for a pocket battleship instead. So because of that jump to a Yamato, my initial idea was to have it perked as part of a new CV group.
So my intention is to upgrade the cruiser. Maybe going to a Yamato or Bismark is too much but then I figured let's allow only 1 of these per map.
I don't know many ship acronyms. What's CA, CB and BB stand for?
-
on a side note, the yamato also had "honeycomb" AA shells for the 18" set to explode 1 second after being fired, it would be like the 5" guns on the cv on crack
-
I think it would be doable as long as Subs were brought in at the same time
to even out the odds.
-
How about a perked USS Lexington, just when u think its going down...its not!
(http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss243/bradt53/Misc/lexnightp.jpg)
-
I don't know many ship acronyms. What's CA, CB and BB stand for?
BB= Battleship
CB= Large Cruiser
CA=Heavy Cruiser
-
well when the F-14's are added you have to add a bigger CV a late class ESSEX class atleast
-
The problem with upgrading the CV is that the Essex was the ultimate wartime fleet carrier, your next progressive step in carrier design was the Midway class, but none of them saw combat in WW2 (Midway and FDR were commissioned in Sept. and Oct. of 1945).
The problem that I see - is that any TG with a BB in it will make mincemeat of a normal CA battlegroup, unless each country's BB group specifically seeks the other out. Give the size of the maps, that's probably unlikely. The commonality of the existing CVs groups mean that one group typically doesn't have an overwhelming advantage over another, the notable exception being those maps that offer up dual-CA groups.
Perhaps - and I'm just tossing this idea out - the idea of having a single ship, perhaps a CB or BB, as a player-spawned surface raider, might have some merit. Eliminate the auto-puffy, have the AA controlled in the same manner as a bomber (all guns fire that can be brought to bear), and have it cost perks. It spawns from a port, and must be landed with range of a port.
While its true that most players won't spend huge perks to take a BB or CB out 'carrier hunting', it could certainly make for some interesting gameplay. The downside I see is no one upping to protect a single-player controlled ship like they do a CV.
Just a thought. I'd certainly enjoy tangling with a CV group.
-
The problem with upgrading the CV is that the Essex was the ultimate wartime fleet carrier, your next progressive step in carrier design was the Midway class, but none of them saw combat in WW2 (Midway and FDR were commissioned in Sept. and Oct. of 1945).
The problem that I see - is that any TG with a BB in it will make mincemeat of a normal CA battlegroup, unless each country's BB group specifically seeks the other out. Give the size of the maps, that's probably unlikely. The commonality of the existing CVs groups mean that one group typically doesn't have an overwhelming advantage over another, the notable exception being those maps that offer up dual-CA groups.
Perhaps - and I'm just tossing this idea out - the idea of having a single ship, perhaps a CB or BB, as a player-spawned surface raider, might have some merit. Eliminate the auto-puffy, have the AA controlled in the same manner as a bomber (all guns fire that can be brought to bear), and have it cost perks. It spawns from a port, and must be landed with range of a port.
While its true that most players won't spend huge perks to take a BB or CB out 'carrier hunting', it could certainly make for some interesting gameplay. The downside I see is no one upping to protect a single-player controlled ship like they do a CV.
Just a thought. I'd certainly enjoy tangling with a CV group.
This would be awesome, but it would get boring in between battles. Also, I can see players spawn camping ports for enemy CVs or other BBs.
-
Off the top of my head I cannot recall a single battlewagon sunk by a single aircraft in WW2.
Most of them took ENORMOUS amounts of damage from torpedo and bomb hits before sinking.
The Bismarck was crippled by a single hit, but it took quite a few big gun hits to finish the job.
Yep, even though some people like to use HMS Repulse as an example of how bombers can attack and sink a battleship in reality it was 4 or 5 torpedo hits that did in Repulse.
ack-ack
-
The loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse was a textbook example of airpower dominating surface combatants. It was a 3-phase operation, high altitude bombers (Nells) in the first wave, followed by torpedo carrying Nells in the second which sank Prince of Wales. The 3rd attack was made by G4Ms carrying torpedoes which sank Repulse. In both cases, Brewsters were within range and I don't know off the top o'my head if escort fighters accompanying the bombers to the ships (not saying there weren't, just didn't bother to look it up).
The loss of PoW and Repulse was also due to several other factors - no capital ship had been lost to aircraft on the open sea up until that time, and Admiral Phillips wasn't overly concerned since he felt he was operating outside of the range of Japanese aircraft. The British raids on Taranto had been made against anchored targets, Pearl Harbor had happened only 3 days earlier (and the effects of that attack hadn't been fully studied or even acknowledged). PoW had 4 confirmed torpedo hits, Repulse 2 confirmed and 2 probable. The loss of both can also be attributed to their designs - Repulse never received her anti-torpedo blisters (Renown, her sister had), and PoW took a torpedo at her most weak spot, the prop shaft opening. In fact, they figured the prop shaft sheared and actually tore the hull the open, flooding multiple compartments. In addition, the flooding of the prop shaft tunnel caused a list, flooded the engine room, resulting in a loss of power. That meant her pumps, comm, fire control, etc., were all either disabled or drastically reduced.
Much like the torpedo to Bismarck's rudder, this single torpedo hit caused the ultimate loss of the ship.
Kevin Denlay from Project 74 did an extensive survey of both wrecks and published a fascinating PDF online....
http://www.explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf (http://www.explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf)
J
-
The loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse was a textbook example of airpower dominating surface combatants. It was a 3-phase operation, high altitude bombers (Nells) in the first wave, followed by torpedo carrying Nells in the second which sank Prince of Wales. The 3rd attack was made by G4Ms carrying torpedoes which sank Repulse. In both cases, Brewsters were within range and I don't know off the top o'my head if escort fighters accompanying the bombers to the ships (not saying there weren't, just didn't bother to look it up).
The loss of PoW and Repulse was also due to several other factors - no capital ship had been lost to aircraft on the open sea up until that time, and Admiral Phillips wasn't overly concerned since he felt he was operating outside of the range of Japanese aircraft. The British raids on Taranto had been made against anchored targets, Pearl Harbor had happened only 3 days earlier (and the effects of that attack hadn't been fully studied or even acknowledged). PoW had 4 confirmed torpedo hits, Repulse 2 confirmed and 2 probable. The loss of both can also be attributed to their designs - Repulse never received her anti-torpedo blisters (Renown, her sister had), and PoW took a torpedo at her most weak spot, the prop shaft opening. In fact, they figured the prop shaft sheared and actually tore the hull the open, flooding multiple compartments. In addition, the flooding of the prop shaft tunnel caused a list, flooded the engine room, resulting in a loss of power. That meant her pumps, comm, fire control, etc., were all either disabled or drastically reduced.
Much like the torpedo to Bismarck's rudder, this single torpedo hit caused the ultimate loss of the ship.
Kevin Denlay from Project 74 did an extensive survey of both wrecks and published a fascinating PDF online....
http://www.explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf (http://www.explorers.org/flag_reports/Flag_118_-_Kevin_Denlay_-_Update.pdf)
J
I think there wasb one other major factor in the loss of these 2 ships . Prewar AA armament .
-
I think there wasb one other major factor in the loss of these 2 ships . Prewar AA armament .
I agree - but I think that everyone had that issue early on. If anything, I believe the RN was more aware of the problem than any other combatant nation at the time, probably on parallel with the Kreigsmarine. This comes simply as a result of more operational experience up to that point.
The loss of PoW and Repulse, like the losses of other major ships, can be attributed primarily to not one single thing going terribly wrong, but a combination of little things that individually weren't huge issues.
The Titanic and her partial bulkheads and weak rivets, the Shinano and her lack of watertight doors and venting, the Bismarck and her jammed rudder, the Indianapolis and the fact they she was in a low-alert state, the Lusitania and her coal dust triggering secondary explosions, etc... Had circumstance taken away any one of these variables, the ship might have survived, or the outcome of the loss of life would have been less had the ship remained afloat for a longer period of time...