Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 5PointOh on February 22, 2011, 10:42:10 PM
-
I know its been kind of asked for in the past. But here it goes.
Battleships for AH:
1: Logic of a Battleship In Aces High.
Seems to be a missing aspect of Aces High in my opinion. The battleship could bring a new dynamic and perhaps a new type of crowd to Aces High.
A)The new dynamic would be great naval battles between large tonage of warships. I know some may think this is just another way to kill airfields, but I look at as a chance for long range battleship vs battleship battles. Or carrier group vs battleships.
B)It seems to be an untapped group of cliental for HTC. I enjoy playing the Silent Hunter series, but I'd rather be in the large battleships sending large rounds into others. I don't think I'm alone on that one.
2:How it would work.
Battleships would be seperate from task groups.
A)Each battleship would have its own port and be completely seperate from any task group. This allows the option to follow a task group, lead a task group or attack targets idependently. Also it give a new form of protection for "highly desirable base".
B)To destroy a battleship approximately 10,000lbs would be needed to destroy, and typical ship regeneration of 45 min for max strength after hit. Capturing would work as current task group system does. Capture Battleship port-->Sink Battleship-->Battleship then captured.
C) Each country would have each class of battleship or whichever battleship HTC would choose to model (after all its their choice)
3:Pitfalls.
A)Player only use battleships to shell towns and airfields.
B)Captured Battleships are hidden like current task groups. Gamey but what can you do.
Just my thoughs...flame away or add insight. Either way its my wish.
(http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/am/bb_uss_iowa.jpg)
USS Iowa
Country United States
Ship Class Iowa-class Battleship
Hull Number BB-61
Builder New York Navy Yard, New York, United States
Laid Down 27 Jun 1940
Launched 27 Aug 1942
Commissioned 22 Feb 1943
Decommissioned 24 Mar 1949
Displacement 44560 tons standard; 55710 tons full
Length 887 feet
Beam 108 feet
Draft 38 feet
Machinery Four General Electric geared turbines, eight Babcock and Wilcox boilers, four shafts
Bunkerage 7,073 tons of oil
Power Output 212000 SHP
Speed 33 knots
Range 18,000nm at 12 knots
Crew 1921
Armament 9x16in, 20x5in, 60x40mm anti-aircraft, 60x20mm anti-aircraft
Armor 12-25in belt, 8.5-11in bulkheads, 0.5-6in decks, 1.5-17.3in barbettes, 7.25-19.7in turrets, 0.75-1in secondary turrets, 16-17.5in conning tower
(http://www.secondworldwar.org.uk/bismarck/bismarck11.jpg)
Bismark Class:
Country Germany
Ship Class Bismarck-class Battleship
Builder Blohm & Voss, Hamburg, Germany
Laid Down 1 Jul 1936
Launched 14 Feb 1939
Commissioned 24 Aug 1940
Sunk 27 May 1941
Displacement 41700 tons standard; 50900 tons full
Length 824 feet
Beam 118 feet
Draft 33 feet
Machinery 12 Wagner high-pressure; 3 Blohm & Voss geared turbines, 3 three-blade propellers
Power Output 150170 SHP
Speed 30 knots
Range 8,525nm at 19 knots
Crew 2092
Armament 4x2x380mm L47 SK-C/34 guns, 12x152mm L55 SK-C/28 guns, 16x105mm L65 SK-C/37 / SK-C/33 guns, 16x37mm L83 SK-C/30 guns, 12x1x20mm L65 C/30 machine guns, 8x4x20mm L65 C/32 machine guns
Armor 145-320mm belt, 110-120mm deck, 220mm bulkheads, 130-360mm turrets, 342mm barbettes, 360mm conning tower
Aircraft 4 Arado Ar 196 A-3
Catapult 1 double-ended
(http://www.kilroywashere.org/03-Images/GlenWallace/Yamato.jpg)
Yamoto Class:
Country Japan
Ship Class Yamato-class Battleship
Builder Kure Naval Yard, Japan
Laid Down 4 Nov 1937
Launched 8 Aug 1940
Commissioned 16 Dec 1941
Sunk 7 Apr 1945
Displacement 65027 tons standard; 72809 tons full
Length 863 feet
Beam 121 feet
Draft 34 feet
Machinery 12 Kanpon boilers, driving 4 steam turbines with 4 triple-bladed propellers
Bunkerage 6,300 tons
Power Output 150000 SHP
Speed 27 knots
Range 7,200nm at 16 knots
Crew 2750
Armament 9x46cm, 6x15.5cm, 24x12.7cm, 162x25mm anti-aircraft, 4x13mm anti-aircraft
Armor 650mm turrets, 410mm sides, 200mm deck
Aircraft 7
Aircraft Catapult 2
-
The only battleships that make sense for AH are the old clipper bow BBs that did all the pre-invasion work and were there for the last big gun ship to ship battle at Surigo Straights!
USS Colorado fired more tonnage of ammo in WW2 and spent more time in the line then any other ship of the US Navy. That's a battleship! :)
Firing at Tarawa in this case.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g50000/g56232.jpg)
-
Absolutely Dan. The USS West Virginia and Colorado would compliment the "look" better.
Also, MANaTEE would be permanently stuck in DD's and unable to enter the BB's providing us with more entertainment.
-
this is perhaps the first intelligent request for battleships that i've seen
like the others stated, it should be South Dakota Class instead of Iowa Class.
+1 though
-
Oh the joy's of lobbing 16" shells at things. :x :devil
5PointOh,
So they are only used to shell airfields and towns, I don't see that as a pitfall. Annoying, it would be, but I wouldn't consider it as a pitfall. There were not many BB surface engagements compared to how many times they were use in the bombardment role. As for the hiding of the BB groups, that's not a pitfall, that's routine AH tactics. :lol So in the end, these 2 pitfalls you pointed out don't hold a lot of water, so to speak. The question I have is, "Will the BB TG's take on or take over the role of launching LVT's and PT's, or will the CV TG's still keep that option?"
Either way, I really like the idea of adding battleships into Aces High.
Now, for the Fire Control Towers...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299671.msg3835787.html#msg3835787
Maybe this idea could be implemented as well? Not just for the battleships, but for all capable ships.
-
Just guess that firepower.
+1
-
if they ave their own port, why not give them 2 or 3 destroyers as well? the war proved how vulnerable these big targets are from the air, plus the extra ships would make them easier to pick out (harder to hide 4 ships that 1 ship)
or.. (less for HTC to do as far as map redesigns) have some ports have both cv group and bb group, maybe 1/3 of ports on any given map could have bb group attached to it also
+1 :rock
i have SH4 and love it. play that when i need my strategy/navy fix
-
this is perhaps the first intelligent request for battleships that i've seen
like the others stated, it should be South Dakota Class instead of Iowa Class.
+1 though
Understand that the ground pounding BBs were not South Dakota Class or Iowa. Those were 'fast' BBs that were with carrier groups.
If you really want to do it with BBs you need the slower BBs that were used specifically for shore bombardment. And then you'd build the TGs around the slower CVE carriers that provided the offshore air support.
Alternately you'd have fast BBs with the big carriers and those would be in open water, not right off shore like they can be in game and it would be purely for carrier group v carrier group.
Seperate the fast from the slow BBs. They did two different jobs during WW2.
And as mentioned the last big BB fight was the Pearl Surviviors vs Japanese BBs at Surigo Straights with the West Virginia scoring on it's first salvo at 24K yards on a Japanese BB with the old BBs themselves clobbering the Japanese force.
-
I'll give it a +1 BIG GUNS!
-
I'd have no issues with the BBs not being able to sit as close to shore as our current CV groups do.
Dan you're wealth of knowledge still amazes me. Thanks for the additions to the topic.
-
No problem Copr :) You happened to pick one that is a small obsession with the clipper bow battleships produced between the wars. As with anything, I have a hard time with the latest and greatest apparently :)
Those BBs did fight shore batteries and on occasion got hit by those same batteries.
If you watch the video here, it's classic what could be in AH based on real history. LVTs going ashore at Iwo with destroyers, cruisers and old BBs, in this case USS Tennessee, in close pounding Mt. Suribachi.
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675062104_Battle-of-Iwo-Jima_Mount-Suribachi_landing-vehicle-tracked_smoke-from-explosion
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MXu96taKq-Y/S-A7Zn19TeI/AAAAAAAAK9U/2ljzOhnWn-U/s1600/23.jpg)
-
I've always had a love for the WWII era naval vessels, and really considered the added benefits for scenarios as well. Such great power in the guns and the overall size still amazes me.
-
if we're going to have Bismarck, we should have Hood and Price of Wales too :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/HMS_Hood_March_17_1924.jpg/800px-HMS_Hood_March_17_1924.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Prince_of_Wales-1.jpg)
-
wiki has this very cool photo. moored together (!) in 1937, from front to back: Graf Spee, Resolution and Hood.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Resolution_graf.jpg)
my grandfathers first ship was a revenge class like Resolution, really looks its age next to its neighbours.
-
I could get on board with that. I also wanted to bring up an idea...We all know that individual guns and such can be destoryed as Cv's and Cruiser's are hit over and over, but what about ths:
In all actuality, if a ship was hit in a certain area, torpedo or bomb, it would be kinda cool if it damage would be just like the real thing. Such as a Torp or Bomb hit in a certain area ("steering controls" as an example) then the ship would respond accordingly. A hit on steering componenets would say render the ship only allowed to maneuver in circles as it did in real life. If a torp hits in a certain area then the ship would begin to list to a certain side, etc. I am positive that this has been brought up in the past, but I think it would bring even more realism to the Sea aspect of AH...What say you?
-
I agree 100 Scotty, listing ships, reduced speeds and and reduced steering. Anything to bring the sea experience to next level.
-
if we're going to have Bismarck, we should have Hood and Price of Wales too :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/HMS_Hood_March_17_1924.jpg/800px-HMS_Hood_March_17_1924.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Prince_of_Wales-1.jpg)
The Hood was a heavy Cruiser...
-
i agree. but first they need to make the ships bigger. they seem a bit smaller then the RL ones.
-
alright, so your idea has been implemented. youve been hit towrds the engines on the port side: youre listing and dead in the water. because ships have a regenerate thing, it (the battleship) would right itself and regain steam after a bit? does that make sense at all?
-
alright, so your idea has been implemented. youve been hit towrds the engines on the port side: youre listing and dead in the water. because ships have a regenerate thing, it (the battleship) would right itself and regain steam after a bit? does that make sense at all?
Yes it makes sense. US Navy damage control parties did excellent jobs of repairing ships and getting them righted and back under power (though at a reduced speed at times). Take the Yorktown for example in WWII at the Coral Sea, it was damaged repaired underway and thus saved from sinking. I can see that the reapirs be limited to less than top speed, not 100% firepower, and such things to make it real. But yes it does make sense to have ships repair/regenerate.
BigKev
-
The Hood was a heavy Cruiser...
battlecruiser, but I reckon anything with 8 15" guns is worth having :D
-
battlecruiser, but I reckon anything with 8 15" guns is worth having :D
Correct.
-
Yes it makes sense. US Navy damage control parties did excellent jobs of repairing ships and getting them righted and back under power (though at a reduced speed at times). Take the Yorktown for example in WWII at the Coral Sea, it was damaged repaired underway and thus saved from sinking. I can see that the reapirs be limited to less than top speed, not 100% firepower, and such things to make it real. But yes it does make sense to have ships repair/regenerate.
BigKev
:aok
-
but if they put legitimate sea battles into aces high, between ships and such, there would be diffrent sides having different classes of ships, correct?
so if it was, say the Yamamoto class against a South Dakota class battlship, the south dakota class would have better fire control, but the japanese ship doesn't? or is that just to complicated? :headscratch:
-
The problem with big guns would be the total lack of any type of realistic range finding. You could use them for shore bombardment, but unless someone runs a CV group or another BB group right up close to you the chance of getting hits on ships at long range would be pretty poor. An Iowa BB might be interesting - certainly the massive amount of AAA on it would make dive bombing a challenge.
-
Its a good idea and I like it, but why go through all the time and effort and hope to play with something like that when all that the land grabber types wants to be done with them is steal them and hide them thus taking them out of the game as it is. Its not about the fight, its about what they can take out of the fight.
Some of the 91st and maybe even 1fer1 might be able to elaborate on how they feel about combat and avoiding it at all cost.... :rolleyes:
-
that would be great being able to damage parts of a ship but would that create a holw new dymanic of ship sinking
-
Also Subs would be nice to see aswell, maybe torpedoes launched from the ship decks. idk what ships had torpedo launchers on them, but i do know some US warships had them in WW2.
-
the RN used torps from destroyers.
-
Japanese destroyers were torpedo first, guns second. Just finished reading "Neptune's Inferno" by James Hornfischer, who also wrote "Ghost Ship" and "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors". A common theme throughout was the use of torpedos by the Japanese and their effectiveness. Obviously US Destroyers used them as well along with some cruisers. The between the wars BBs had torpedos initially but they were removed long before WW2
-
Japanese destroyers were torpedo first, guns second. Just finished reading "Neptune's Inferno" by James Hornfischer, who also wrote "Ghost Ship" and "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors". A common theme throughout was the use of torpedos by the Japanese and their effectiveness. Obviously US Destroyers used them as well along with some cruisers. The between the wars BBs had torpedos initially but they were removed long before WW2
Ahh. didnt know that. would torpedo carrying ships be effective? i have seen cvs get extremly close to each other, close enough for the ack to kill the plane trying to take off.
-
Also Subs would be nice to see aswell, maybe torpedoes launched from the ship decks. idk what ships had torpedo launchers on them, but i do know some US warships had them in WW2.
if we ended up with submarines, that would add an entirely new dimension to the game-- then we would be playing in the air, on the ground, ON the water, as well as beneath it? does that not seema a bit much? and if we did include submarines, would they be available from the hangar, or only as a part of a CV?
-
if we ended up with submarines, that would add an entirely new dimension to the game-- then we would be playing in the air, on the ground, ON the water, as well as beneath it? does that not seema a bit much? and if we did include submarines, would they be available from the hangar, or only as a part of a CV?
maybe only avalable to ports and only ports that support submarines.
-
the Tirpiz had torpedos on her
-
the Tirpiz had torpedos on her
did she? hmm
-
did she? hmm
yup it was only difference between her and Bismark
-
yes she did, she had 2 of them, where, i dont know. but that woul be interesting, having only certain ports able to support submarines, sort of like the b-29
-
yes she did, she had 2 of them, where, i dont know. but that woul be interesting, having only certain ports able to support submarines, sort of like the b-29
yeah not only that but be able to be at sea for like a day in the MAs hunting and tracking enemy CVs.
-
it has potential, and so does the fact that you could switch between surfaced/underwater and the power that comes with it-- diesel or battery
-
it has potential, and so does the fact that you could switch between surfaced/underwater and the power that comes with it-- diesel or battery
they would have to create a whole new perk set. naval perks, becuase if you figure a submarine, a it can be at sea for a huge and i mean HUGE, possibly a whole day in game. and can sink CV and BB groups (if they add BB groups)
-
yeah, they would need different perk points, but as for the fact that they stay at sea for an entire day... as long as they had torps onboard, they could just follow TGs and just keep sinking them one after another. what im trying to say is that this would be a valid reason to include anti-sub ships, such as the sunderland or the catalina to fight against subs
-
yeah, they would need different perk points, but as for the fact that they stay at sea for an entire day... as long as they had torps onboard, they could just follow TGs and just keep sinking them one after another. what im trying to say is that this would be a valid reason to include anti-sub ships, such as the sunderland or the catalina to fight against subs
yeah not to mention depth charges would be nice lol. and sonars.
-
"Decommissioned 24 Mar 1949"
Um thhis needs to be revised just a tad. I was on the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Missouri was our escort during 1985 cruise. Just saying
-
"Decommissioned 24 Mar 1949"
Um thhis needs to be revised just a tad. I was on the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Missouri was our escort during 1985 cruise. Just saying
:salute thats awsome.
-
(http://www.kbismarck.com/photo041.jpg)
I think KG5 should be Britains representative.
-
+1 to all naval advancement including fire control of all onboard guns.
and make sure if we get them, hitech adds programmable commands for all aspects of operating the ship or guns. Nothing I hate more than dragging arrows around a map to point the ship when voice recognition programs could allow you to bark orders like a captain would.
-
yeah not to mention depth charges would be nice lol. and sonars.
yeah, depth charges would be nice, available from both on deck and the planes... and i agree onthe increasing of naval command. for example, there would be an actual bridge where the highest ranking player in the TG resides and controls the TG, then for anyone else who wants to be with the TG, just automatically spawn in the hangar
-
+3 on this idea.
What about having an arena that was almost entirely an open ocean. Maybe each side has a couple islands. It is all about capturing a base via Naval assets. Throw in independent battleships and you have some real excitement. My Dad served on the Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser USS St Paul (CA-73), which is the cruiser in our current CV Task Force. I have always liked the idea of allowing the cruiser and destroyers to detach from the CV for independent operations.
Aces High should consider an overall stronger naval component with BBs and the wide open ocean.
Boo
-
but wouldnt they just fall prey to lancstukas or b24s or and land based bomber like cvs do now
-
not if they stayed close enough to]shore, the bombers wouldnt be able get high enough, and they would be destroyed by flak
-
+3 on this idea.
What about having an arena that was almost entirely an open ocean. Maybe each side has a couple islands. It is all about capturing a base via Naval assets. Throw in independent battleships and you have some real excitement. My Dad served on the Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser USS St Paul (CA-73), which is the cruiser in our current CV Task Force. I have always liked the idea of allowing the cruiser and destroyers to detach from the CV for independent operations.
Aces High should consider an overall stronger naval component with BBs and the wide open ocean.
Boo
amazing idea, bu to capture the base itself, shouldnt they put a bit more time into the landing craft we have already? because i dont lik the chances of getting 10+ C-47s on/off a flight deck in reasonable time
-
amazing idea, bu to capture the base itself, shouldnt they put a bit more time into the landing craft we have already? because i dont lik the chances of getting 10+ C-47s on/off a flight deck in reasonable time
yeah major landing craft operations like they did in the PTO in WW2 would make for a better game, also more naval action would be fun aswell.
-
What if they had Higgins boats to land 10 troops. These troops would have to run the beach gauntlet. And let the Higgins boats come with two. 50s and with drones. Of course an LST land tanks. They need a serious Naval component and with only a few changes it can happen.
Boo
-
What if they had Higgins boats to land 10 troops. These troops would have to run the beach gauntlet. And let the Higgins boats come with two. 50s and with drones. Of course an LST land tanks. They need a serious Naval component and with only a few changes it can happen.
Boo
well not a few changes, more like alot of changes. and it would take a few years because they have to model the new ships and LSTs and higgins boats.
-
yeah, couldnt they just start small though? start with the Higgins boats, maybe an amphibious tank, publish a new version/patch for the game, and just gradually work the new boats in? because they do need new boats-- only have the Elco 80'
-
yeah, couldnt they just start small though? start with the Higgins boats, maybe an amphibious tank, publish a new version/patch for the game, and just gradually work the new boats in? because they do need new boats-- only have the Elco 80'
they already have LVTs. so no need for that and higgins boats would be nice.
-
ah thats right. forgot about that. just a landing craft that can go a little faster/or with a larger payload.
-
LSTs also. so we can get tanks onto a field capture to keep flaks and other tanks out of the town.
-
yeah... just dropping 10 troops with one 75 mm doesnt do much... a Sherman would do a far beter job of defending stuff
-
You guys derailed Copr's thread. He was asking about Battleships.
-
You guys derailed Copr's thread. He was asking about Battleships.
well im just coming up with a theory on how this should be done if they do add them.
-
Battleships are interesting, sure, but I'd rather see some destroyer on destroyer action or Japanese destroyers and American Light Cruisers. Especially if transports ever make it into the game. Cornering some transports with a Brooklyn class ship would be really, really fun.
-
Sorry about changing the focus. I do like the BB idea. I now have a decent size wish list. Ace High staff need to do some overtime to catch-up. :cheers:
Related to the BB idea though would be a shore spotter capability. Maybe they could somehow tie the TBM into this role, more so then the current method. Is this a decent idea for a BB? With a BB it is expected the range will go up significantly so a spotter would fit.
Boo
-
Sorry about changing the focus. I do like the BB idea. I now have a decent size wish list. Ace High staff need to do some overtime to catch-up. :cheers:
Related to the BB idea though would be a shore spotter capability. Maybe they could somehow tie the TBM into this role, more so then the current method. Is this a decent idea for a BB? With a BB it is expected the range will go up significantly so a spotter would fit.
Boo
Here I go with the clipper bow BBs again :) The older slower BBs got in so close they used their 40mms to cover the landing beaches. Tennessee was 850 yards off Enewitok so close that one of her sailors was struck by a stray bullet from shore. This became standard practice because it was so effective
The newer 'fast' BBs never got closer then 6 miles on shore bombardment. The older 'slow' BBs were the experts and got in close and duked it out with shore batteries and the guys fighting on shore loved their presence.
Obviously their spotters were their Kingfisher float planes, but someone in an SBD could do the same bit
-
I love the idea of having battleships in the game (I served on the USS Missouri 88/89/91) as for the classes well I guess I'm partial, IOWA's of course, just remember South Dakota class and Iowa class all had 16" guns so shell bombardment is the same pretty much, I do think all th 5" guns on them should be mannable. It would make for a very interesting battleship vs battleship shoot out!!!!! Go MIGHTY MO!!!!!!!! :salute :airplane: :banana:
-
I'm about halfway through the book Neptunes Inferno Copyright 2010 by James Hornfischer. I've always wondered why the Yamoto and the North Carolina didn't duke it out near Savo Island or in the slot during the Guadalcanal Campaign. According to the author of this book it was based mainly on the big battleships were just too expensive to operate in regards to fuel oil at this point of the war. The Yamoto, Mustsu, Hiei, and Kirishima were all in theater at Truk Lagoon for the IJN. The problem was they were tethered to their base because of an insatiable need for fuel. Admiral Nimitz had the same problem as Admiral Yamamoto. He had the Washington, South Carolina and North Carolina in theater. However the tempo of surface naval battles around the Solomon islands and the limitations of both fleets in terms of fleet oilers meant the Heavy Cruiser was the most important surface combatant for both navies. I never knew that and thought it was interesting.
-
Just finished that book Shifty. Heckuva read. I didn't get that take on it with the US Battleships. It seemed more to do with fighting in the confines of the Slot and fear of airpower. Once the carriers had shot thier load and either been sunk or their air wings decimated the BBs were what was left. The Japanese wanted to destroy Henderson with the bombardments and keep any resupply away and the US Navy could only really counter with the South Dakota and Washington.
What was more surprising to me was the ineptitude of those in leadership roles that cost so many ships, in particular the US Admirals leading the Task Groups with the Cruisers.
If course being a fan of the clipper bow BBs I took exception to the Washington being the last to sink another Battleship in a surface engagement as West Virginia and company did a nice job on those Japanese BBs at Surigo Straights! West Virginia hitting that Japanese BB with her first salvo at 24000 yards. Her up to date radar being the key :)
-
What was more surprising to me was the ineptitude of those in leadership roles that cost so many ships, in particular the US Admirals leading the Task Groups with the Cruisers.
Yes especially the very first night action off Guadalcanal Savo Island what a wake up call.
I've always thought it was ironic that three times that I know of at least. The Japanese navy had the American navy on the ropes ready to be knocked out and the Japanese Admirals sailed away sparing the Americans total defeat.
1. The third strike on Pearl Harbor which would have done much more damage than the first two strikes had the fuel tank farms and maintenance facilities been targeted.
2. The battle of Savo Island. The US warships basically destroyed and the Japanese sail off into the dark leaving the transports still afloat.
3. Leyte Gulf, the battle off Samar Island. Again the Japanese run amok through the Taffy Three CVEs and escorts. Then at the crucial moment again they turn away as in 1942 leaving the real prize the transports ship unmolested.