Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: DERK13 on November 01, 2010, 07:58:00 PM
-
even though there is alot of cv on cv battles out there. id like to see huge battleships going at it. the way i see it is to not add the battleships to the cv group but to have the battleship and a flag ship all in its own group and you would try and get the battleship and flag ship to the cv group to have more protection. or have multiple battleships and flag ships join up with other battleships to have more defense. and these battleships would have like 16in, 14in, 10in, 8in, and 5in. all together with great armor to go againest other battleships, torpedos, bombs, etc. i just like to see more sea warfare other than cv on cv battles with someone taking out a cruiser and cv and leaving the rest alone.
-
And they can find the hiding CV groups and engage them to claim their CV group back.(http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/great-britain/barham/images/barham_001.jpg)
-
And they can find the hiding CV groups and engage them to claim their CV group back.(http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/great-britain/barham/images/barham_001.jpg)
EXACTLY!!!
-
And we have alot of bomber pilots so the battle ships won't unbalance the game!!!!!
-
And we have alot of bomber pilots so the battle ships won't unbalance the game!!!!!
EXACTLY!!!
-
Poor old Barham made a bad end.
<S>
-
Don't wanna see these cv is already to hard get close
-
The Admirals will just hide them away in the corner of the map with their other ships.
-
haha i think ppl would use the CVs more of they have more protection and more of a chance againest other groups if they have bigger guns and better range
-
GIMME MY SHOWBOAT!!!!!!!!!
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/300px-Uss_north_carolina_bb.jpg)
-
Would love to see more boat action, more options all round but atm a torpedo run is a death sentence?
I fully realise attacking a big armed ship would never be a walk in the park but should the gunnery be really as lethal as it is atm?
-
+1 :D
-
Would love to see more boat action, more options all round but atm a torpedo run is a death sentence?
I fully realise attacking a big armed ship would never be a walk in the park but should the gunnery be really as lethal as it is atm?
of the 15 planes that made the run on the Kaga during Midway.
One survived. Yeah it is that lethal.
-
All of you "RL" people are going to flame the idea........ You non-American's will also tell me it's the dumbest idea ever.......
If we were to add a battleship to the fleet, it should be a symbol of strength, courage and willpower. WHETHER OR NOT HISTORY WOULD CALL IT A WWII VESSEL. :salute And that right there could be the middle ground we need.... Certainly not as powerful as the Mighty Mo, but no slouch either.
(http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/usa/arizona/images/008-battleship-uss-arizona.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/USS_Arizona_%28BB-39%29_-_1930s.jpg)
(http://keep3.sjfc.edu/students/eaa04051/e-port/vsg/USS_Arizona_Pearl_Harbor.jpg)
-
So your basically asking for the Iowa Class ship? :aok :aok +1 it would be great to have one http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/Dogfight_over_Iowa_Class_Battleship_Wallpaper_ial9o.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scenicreflections.com/media/189662/Dogfight_over_Iowa_Class_Battleship_Wallpaper/&usg=__c9-n0F7K89C4wDDkImkqm5IGrGw=&h=250&w=350&sz=54&hl=en&start=29&zoom=1&tbnid=P-Re9BfbhUPyiM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=179&prev=/images%3Fq%3DIowa%2Bclass%2Bbattleship%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7DKUS_en%26biw%3D1419%26bih%3D714%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C357&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=841&vpy=429&dur=983&hovh=190&hovw=266&tx=126&ty=172&ei=BSrTTO-ZHoW8lQetxrjYAQ&oei=-inTTKOqJsP48AbQzezODg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:29&biw=1419&bih=714
-
Would love to see more boat action, more options all round but atm a torpedo run is a death sentence?
I fully realise attacking a big armed ship would never be a walk in the park but should the gunnery be really as lethal as it is atm?
Yea.. It would be but... Back in WWII not many people went alone. There would be a whole squadron making the attack at the same time.... So all the guns won't be focused on 1 plane.
-
yes so we need battleships not new bombers, but im thinkin HTC is secretly working on subs and new ships :pray
-
yes so we need battleships not new bombers, but im thinkin HTC is secretly working on subs and new ships :pray
keep dreaming ZZZZZZzzzzzz ha what?! hhhmmm :headscratch: that was strange
-
You know you want the most decorated ship of the war!
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/northcarolina1.jpg)
Armament: 9 16-inch/45 caliber Mark 6 guns; 20 5-inch/38 caliber Mark 12 guns; Various combinations of 40 mm and 20 mm antiaircraft guns.
:devil
-
You should learn image code and the difference between Google and the website..... :aok
So your basically asking for the Iowa Class ship? :aok :aok +1 it would be great to have one http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/Dogfight_over_Iowa_Class_Battleship_Wallpaper_ial9o.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scenicreflections.com/media/189662/Dogfight_over_Iowa_Class_Battleship_Wallpaper/&usg=__c9-n0F7K89C4wDDkImkqm5IGrGw=&h=250&w=350&sz=54&hl=en&start=29&zoom=1&tbnid=P-Re9BfbhUPyiM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=179&prev=/images%3Fq%3DIowa%2Bclass%2Bbattleship%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7DKUS_en%26biw%3D1419%26bih%3D714%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C357&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=841&vpy=429&dur=983&hovh=190&hovw=266&tx=126&ty=172&ei=BSrTTO-ZHoW8lQetxrjYAQ&oei=-inTTKOqJsP48AbQzezODg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:29&biw=1419&bih=714
-
All of you "RL" people are going to flame the idea........ You non-American's will also tell me it's the dumbest idea ever.......
If we were to add a battleship to the fleet, it should be a symbol of strength, courage and willpower. WHETHER OR NOT HISTORY WOULD CALL IT A WWII VESSEL. :salute And that right there could be the middle ground we need.... Certainly not as powerful as the Mighty Mo, but no slouch either.
(http://battleshiplist.com/battleships/usa/arizona/images/008-battleship-uss-arizona.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/USS_Arizona_%28BB-39%29_-_1930s.jpg)
(http://keep3.sjfc.edu/students/eaa04051/e-port/vsg/USS_Arizona_Pearl_Harbor.jpg)
Since the Arizona was destroyed on the first day of the Pacific war how about her sister ship?
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h67000/h67584.jpg)
-
Since the Arizona was destroyed on the first day of the Pacific war how about her sister ship?
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h67000/h67584.jpg)
I think they are both "ARIZONA CLASS" ships.
-
Actually they are Pennsylvania Class Sir. :salute
I think they are both "ARIZONA CLASS" ships.
-
Battleships... You're funnies. :rofl
-
of the 15 planes that made the run on the Kaga during Midway.
One survived. Yeah it is that lethal.
If you are referring to Torpedo 8, one pilot survived. And many of the planes were shot down by CAP rather than AA fire.
-
I think they are both "ARIZONA CLASS" ships.
There ya go thinking again. ;) They're actually Pennsylvania class.
-
If you're going to have BBs for base-taking, fire-support roles, then any of the pre-war BB designs will work...
New York Class (2 ships, Texas and NY) both were actively used in amphibious support roles in WW2.
Oklahoma Class (2 ship) but only gives you Nevada.
Pennsylvania Class (2 ship) but only give you Pennsy, as AZ was her sister.
New Mexico Class (3 ships, NM,MS,ID) all saw extensive service in amphibious support roles in WW2.
Tennesee Class (2 ships, TN and CA), " " "
Colorado Class (3 ships, CO, MD, WV), " " " there was a 4th in the class, WA, cancelled by Washington Treaty of 1922.
Anything from here on, NC Class (2), SoDak (4), and Iowa (4), are all fast BBs.
The big question is - do you want a BB that can keep pace with CVs? None of the pre-war BBs could manage 23 knots, where as the Treaty BBs could do 27 knots and the Iowas were rated at 33 knots. So, in theory, the only ship that could keep pace with the CVs would be the Iowas, or if you're willing to compromise, a 31-knot Alaska-Class CB.
-
Now that would make it even more interesting....... As with certain maps with different carrier task forces, we can implement a slower, Battle Group Task Force........... :salute
The big question is - do you want a BB that can keep pace with CVs? None of the pre-war BBs could manage 23 knots, where as the Treaty BBs could do 27 knots and the Iowas were rated at 33 knots. So, in theory, the only ship that could keep pace with the CVs would be the Iowas, or if you're willing to compromise, a 31-knot Alaska-Class CB.
HOLY SMOKES...... Dare I say if the Battleship sinks the cv group can pick up the pace even............... :cheers:
-
Holy long URL, Batman!
-
No kidding right? He just never went to the website and used Google's url.... Should have been:
http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/Dogfight_over_Iowa_Class_Battleship_Wallpaper_ial9o.jpg
Holy long URL, Batman!
-
If we put battleships into CV task groups, then inevitably the CV dies. However, if we use pre-war design 'slow battleships' as a fire-support or battlegroup, then the CV group can out-run the BB group, which would give it at least a modicum of survivability.
This has some merit, especially since its extremely rare to see players scout ahead of their own CV group.
J
-
:cheers:
If we put battleships into CV task groups, then inevitably the CV dies. However, if we use pre-war design 'slow battleships' as a fire-support or battlegroup, then the CV group can out-run the BB group, which would give it at least a modicum of survivability.
This has some merit, especially since its extremely rare to see players scout ahead of their own CV group.
J
-
GIMME MY SHOWBOAT!!!!!!!!!
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/300px-Uss_north_carolina_bb.jpg)
HECK YESS BB55!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
"In 1939 the US Navy had 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers."
Royal Navy Warship Strength
The Royal Navy, still the largest in the world in September 1939, included:
15 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1. Five 'King George V' class battleships were building.
7 Aircraft carriers. One was new and five of the planned six fleet carriers were under construction. There were no escort carriers.
66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones had been laid down.
184 Destroyers of all types. Over half were modern, with 15 of the old 'V' and 'W' classes modified as escorts. Under construction or on order were 32 fleet destroyers and 20 escort types of the 'Hunt' class.
60 Submarines, mainly modern with nine building.
45 escort and patrol vessels with nine building, and the first 56 'Flower' class corvettes on order to add to the converted 'V' and 'W's' and 'Hunts'. However, there were few fast, long-endurance convoy escorts.
Hehe I know the RN today is pretty pitifull for what its expected to do but when considering the addition of WWII ships the focus on US naval vessels although understandable from our playerbase is never the less, historically inaccurate.
German navy although apart from the U Boats effectively penned in for most of the war also had better battleships the the RN or US navys.
Not trying to start any sort of mines bigger than yours thing but as alot of us it seems would like to see an expansion to the current in game fleet and operations would be a shame to see the same bias we have with the planeset.
-
How hard would it be to "skin" or redesign the existing CV's to show a bit more variety? The main problem I see is the armament, which was vastly different from one navy to the next. I'm tired of looking at Essex hulls though.
-
If you're going to have BBs for base-taking, fire-support roles, then any of the pre-war BB designs will work...
New York Class (2 ships, Texas and NY) both were actively used in amphibious support roles in WW2.
Oklahoma Class (2 ship) but only gives you Nevada.
Pennsylvania Class (2 ship) but only give you Pennsy, as AZ was her sister.
New Mexico Class (3 ships, NM,MS,ID) all saw extensive service in amphibious support roles in WW2.
Tennesee Class (2 ships, TN and CA), " " "
Colorado Class (3 ships, CO, MD, WV), " " " there was a 4th in the class, WA, cancelled by Washington Treaty of 1922. The north carolina can keep up. It was built on a statement in the treaty that if the Japanese were suspected of building large ships they could use 16 inch guns
Anything from here on, NC Class (2), SoDak (4), and Iowa (4), are all fast BBs.
The big question is - do you want a BB that can keep pace with CVs? None of the pre-war BBs could manage 23 knots, where as the Treaty BBs could do 27 knots and the Iowas were rated at 33 knots. So, in theory, the only ship that could keep pace with the CVs would be the Iowas, or if you're willing to compromise, a 31-knot Alaska-Class CB.
-
The north carolina can keep up. It was built on a statement in the treaty that if the Japanese were suspected of building large ships they could use 16 inch guns
North Carolina cannot keep up. Her top rated speed at trials was 28 knots.
Our CVs in game average what, 32 knots? This way we don't have to turn them into the wind to launch aircraft...so explain how a 28-knot battleship can keep pace with a 32 knot carrier UNLESS we either speed up the battleship to an unrealistic speed, or slow the carrier down?
I'm not talking historically...I'm talking in-game.
-
slow everything down to historic speed, then add 10mph of wind on deck up to 500ft :)
-
Which would work, but how would we negate the wind once we're off the carrier? Some sort of vortex around the ship?
I'm asking seriously, not being sarcastic.
-
Personally, I agree! It would be awesome if you could have battleships and battlecruisers like the HMS Hood, and battleships like the USS Massachusetts and the USS New Jersey.
-
Which would work, but how would we negate the wind once we're off the carrier? Some sort of vortex around the ship?
I'm asking seriously, not being sarcastic.
I would say just have 10k of wind under 500ft throughout the whole MA
-
The north carolina can keep up. It was built on a statement in the treaty that if the Japanese were suspected of building large ships they could use 16 inch guns
North Carolina cannot keep up. Her top rated speed at trials was 28 knots.
Our CVs in game average what, 32 knots? This way we don't have to turn them into the wind to launch aircraft...so explain how a 28-knot battleship can keep pace with a 32 knot carrier UNLESS we either speed up the battleship to an unrealistic speed, or slow the carrier down?
I'm not talking historically...I'm talking in-game.
And yet despite her slower speed both North Carolina class BB's spent most of their time operating with the Fast Carrier Task Force. I'm not sure how this was accomplished given that the carriers all had at least 32knots maximum speed.
-
Correct me if im wrong but didnt battleships become a second line ship after the carrier in the USN? and i think there were very few battleship on battleship fights in WW2. and the last one was during the battle for the philippines. after that all the glory went to the carriers. well even before that. the japanese saw the effectivness of the carrier back in the 20s and 30s, and put the carrier at the head of its fleets battle groups. but yes they did have battleships in the carrier battlegroups. i would like to see it as one of the defencive screen ships in the CV groups though.
-
And yet despite her slower speed both North Carolina class BB's spent most of their time operating with the Fast Carrier Task Force. I'm not sure how this was accomplished given that the carriers all had at least 32knots maximum speed.
the north carolina class could manage about 30 to 31 knots. it was on one hand build to protect the essex class carriers, and on the other it was built to dominate any other battleships that were produced. including the yamato.
also, its 16 inch shells could do more damage then the japanese 19 inch shells fired by their guns.
-
"In 1939 the US Navy had 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers."
Royal Navy Warship Strength
The Royal Navy, still the largest in the world in September 1939, included:
15 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1. Five 'King George V' class battleships were building.
7 Aircraft carriers. One was new and five of the planned six fleet carriers were under construction. There were no escort carriers.
66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones had been laid down.
184 Destroyers of all types. Over half were modern, with 15 of the old 'V' and 'W' classes modified as escorts. Under construction or on order were 32 fleet destroyers and 20 escort types of the 'Hunt' class.
60 Submarines, mainly modern with nine building.
45 escort and patrol vessels with nine building, and the first 56 'Flower' class corvettes on order to add to the converted 'V' and 'W's' and 'Hunts'. However, there were few fast, long-endurance convoy escorts.
Hehe I know the RN today is pretty pitifull for what its expected to do but when considering the addition of WWII ships the focus on US naval vessels although understandable from our playerbase is never the less, historically inaccurate.
German navy although apart from the U Boats effectively penned in for most of the war also had better battleships the the RN or US navys.
Not trying to start any sort of mines bigger than yours thing but as alot of us it seems would like to see an expansion to the current in game fleet and operations would be a shame to see the same bias we have with the planeset.
doesthis include the RCN because through out the war they were concidered there own navy and by wars end they were the third largets in the allied and in total.
Escort carrier (2)
Corvettes (128)
Minesweepers (94)
Frigates (71)
Destroyers (33)
MS Trawlers (7)
Armed Yachts (5)
Armed Merchant Cruisers (3)
Light Cruisers (2)
maybe we should also add to the game Escort CV Groups
-
what was the most decerated battle ship in ww2? just make it and add it to the arena of witch time's it was in servise :D :D :D
-
The Iowa Class battleships. and liek i said before there werent very manny battleships vs battleships battles in WW2. if HTC adds battleships they will most likely be defencive screens for the CVs like th cruiser and destroyers that are already in the game.
-
Enough American ships... What about the Japanese and German? Something more exotic than the iwoa almost everybody knows about. I want to see a Kongo class or fuso class. (correct me if I'm wrong.)
- Nagato -
-
becuase the fleets in the game already are US, so it makes sence to have Iowa. plus as i said before the US 16 inch sheels that the iowa fired could pierce more armor then the japanese 19.5 inch shells.
-
Yeah but you see missions with N1Ks 110 lancs and spits trying to take the same base too... :uhoh
- Nagato -
-
well. i do agree they need to have the japanese and british navies, that way you can have each side can have a different carrier. the germans and russians didnt have carriers, and idk if italy had any so yeah.
-
So, when do I get my BB-55 :noid
-
you probrably wont get it.
-
If you are referring to Torpedo 8, one pilot survived. And many of the planes were shot down by CAP rather than AA fire.
and let the SBDs do their work on the CVs
-
Nobody would go near that friggin things...I cant get 15k over a CV to start my dive and within 2 seconds im towered. Stories have been passed on ack at 25k that 1 shots some poor soul that may be a little busy and is unforunate enough to fly over that CV Group..../with guns that calibre they would have to change the size of the towns because 6-16 in guns in 2 salvos could reduce a town to rubble. Just a thought, just a thought... :o
-
I fully realise attacking a big armed ship would never be a walk in the park but should the gunnery be really as lethal as it is atm?
Actually, if CV acks were realistic in game they would be far more lethal than they are. Lethality has been dummed down to keep the whines down.
ack-ack
-
Actually, if CV acks were realistic in game they would be far more lethal than they are. Lethality has been dummed down to keep the whines down.
ack-ack
Ya, about that...did a lil research while back regarding Ack in game and "Real Ack"....was somethin crazy like 12000 rnds to hit 1 plane...ill find t and get figures
-
The SoDaks and NCs screened the carriers because the majority of the time, the CVs weren't running at 32 knots. Those speeds are required to launch and receive aircraft. No where has it been logged that these ships were capable of 30 knots. Even at trials, with minimal stores loadouts, they only managed 28.7 knots and 28.4 knots, respectively. Might I suggest some reading, American Battleships of WW2 by Dulin and Gharsky. Pretty much the definitive work on US fast battleships.
The fleet would, in essence, circle the wagons when carriers launched a strike. The carriers would speed up, turn into the wind, and those ships that couldn't keep up would remain on their intended course, or on a course that would allow them to rejoin the CVs once they returned to their course.
If you read any ships' logs that screened the fast CV groups, you'll see all sorts of references to this practice.
My point is, our CVs always operate at launch speeds in game. So, we either have to speed the BBs up, or put more wind over the CV decks and slow the Task Groups down.
Most decorated ships in the US Navy:
USS Enterprise (CV-6) - 20 Battle Stars, Presidential Unit Citation
USS San Francisco (CA-38) - 17 Battle Stars, Presidential Unit Citation
USS San Diego (CL-53) - 18 Battle Stars
USS Minneapolis (CA-36) - 17 Battle Stars
USS New Orleans (CA-32) - 17 Battle Stars
USS Buchanan (DD-484) - 16 Battle Stars, Presidential Unit Citation
USS Maury (DD-401) - 16 Battle Stars, Presidential Unit Citation
USS Saufley (DD-465) - 16 Battle Stars
North Carolina was the most decorated battleship of WW2 with 15 battle stars. She did not, however, receive a Presidential Unit Citation.
-
I would like to see battleships in the game
Bismark
Yamato
Pennsylvania
Hood
One per side on a rotation.
-
So the Germans get their latest and greatest, as do the Japanese. The US is stuck with a
1913 design and the poor Brits get a WW1 battlecruiser?? :D
-
no if we get battleships it will be yamato, bismark, Iowa
-
man why is every time the german battleships is mentioned why does it have to be the bismark she was sunk in 41 off the west coast of france. a better candidate would be the Tirpitz Battleship even though she was a bismark class BB, she lasted right to almost the end of the war. there were many attempts to sink her 13 operations by the allies.
most famous
Operation source: British X craft midget Submarine raid
Operation Paravane: when 617 Squadron "the Dambusters" used the Lancaster B 1 Specials along with the tallboy bomb sank the mighty ship in her Norweigen Fyord capsizedand sank.
now that should be added along with the bomb and the lancaster type :rock :pray :pray :aok
-
Or...A ship that was never sunk...BB-55 :noid
-
DOES HTC EVER READ THIS, THERE IS SOME GREAT IDEAS IN HERE!?!?! Someone tell him plz
-
i dont think they ever do. plus people who ask for the hood are pretty wrong aswell. its not a battleship. its a battlecruiser. basicaly a cruiser with i think 14 inch guns. plus it was sunk by the bismark anyways. if anything if a british battleship should be added it should be the "prince of whales", but they need to make the ships bigger first. before adding new ships.
-
Trouble is, none of the British battleships were a match for any of their contemporaries. The RN never got around to building a ship that was free of the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty, at least not until Vanguard was launched towards the end of the war.
Hood had 15 inch guns, equivalent to Bismarck but without the armor.
King George V class ships (including Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Anson and Howe) had 10 14 inch guns, giving them less weight of shell than contemporaries like the South Dakota class. In addition, the quad turrets caused a bunch of headaches.