Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Mister Fork on November 20, 2012, 03:23:25 PM
-
Destroyers. If I could command my own destroyer - USN Fletcher class or RN Battle classe - that would be good. I think we already have the Fletcher in the CV groups don't we? Put in a bridge, a wheel, let me set the speed, course, let a friend join in the gun batteries or let me command them all at once, just like a bomber. And Torpedoes. They should have the torpedo option. Maybe even sea mines. Mines would be good too.
It would also be cool that if a destoyer was hit, she would start to sink and burn - listing to either port or bow/stern depending on where the damage was rather than just going 'poof' and then it appears as vertical rock.
I'd even pay perkies to command a destroyer. :)
-
+1
-
I dont know how it would work, but it does sound like fun.
-
Don't think the mines would be practical, we don't have any way to sweep them <other than the obvious run them over option> :D
-
+1
I've thought for a while allowing the escorts to leave the CV and 'free-style' it would be good. Isn't this how that one guy, Arleigh "31 knot" Burke made his name in the South Pacific?
Boo
-
+1
Go NAVY! :aok
-
bleh
I'd prefer that HTC enhance the air combat, screw the GVs and boats :(
-1
-
bleh
I'd prefer that HTC enhance the air combat, screw the GVs and boats :(
-1
Who is to say he couldn't do both?
-
+1
I have always wondered why the CV and cruiser are linked.
Id rather have a CV task group with a cruiser + destroyers +frigate for CV defense (need them 8" for anti-ship), and a separate task group (2 x cruisers + destroyers + frigates) for land attacks.
Doesn't make sense why we have to beach the damn CV to bring the 8" to shore.
-
I would like this too. I had wished for something similar:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,318755.0.html
-
+1
-
There will need to be an obvious limit to ship class though. You all know full well that someone would start wishing for the Yamato and Iowa after all. :) But a google of ships classes it did my head in... :bhead
I'm likely wrong on this class list but I think:
PT Boat types
Corvette's
Frigates
Destroyer Escorts
Destroyers
Was there, if any, a class between the Destroyer and Light Cruiser? IF there was one, then it should probably be the largest class in game. Otherwise, I would have to say that the Destroyer be the largest. :headscratch:
Oh, and +1 for op. :D
-
+1
Four pages on the topic: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,267254.0.html
-
-1
Anything that detracts from the air war is bad. GV and boats are good and all as long as they stay a side show.
Who is to say he couldn't do both?
He could, they players can't. I am not worried about HT and crew abilities, but the effect on the gameplay. There is also a landslide effect - HTC creates a good GV side show, new players are attracted to this aspect of the game, they demand improvement and further development which attracts more non-fliers, and since there are more FPS and world-of-tanks players in the world that flight sim guys, they game turns into WWII online with the air action becoming the side show.
-
There will need to be an obvious limit to ship class though. You all know full well that someone would start wishing for the Yamato and Iowa after all. :) But a google of ships classes it did my head in... :bhead
Just say no capital ships. Carriers, battleships and cruisers were all capital ships.
-
+1
-
Destroyers. If I could command my own destroyer - USN Fletcher class or RN Battle classe - that would be good. I think we already have the Fletcher in the CV groups don't we? Put in a bridge, a wheel, let me set the speed, course, let a friend join in the gun batteries or let me command them all at once, just like a bomber. And Torpedoes. They should have the torpedo option. Maybe even sea mines. Mines would be good too.
It would also be cool that if a destoyer was hit, she would start to sink and burn - listing to either port or bow/stern depending on where the damage was rather than just going 'poof' and then it appears as vertical rock.
I'd even pay perkies to command a destroyer. :)
How would this be implemented ? Would you have to launch from a Port or port spawn? Not from a CV group? Are you asking to take command of one of the 4 tin cans on picket duty with a CV?
-
Spawn points like current PT boats. Would work like a charm! They would operate independantly of CV's but could spawn from CV's like a PT boat. I think it would add a whole new layer of fun to Aces High.
-
-1
Anything that detracts from the air war is bad. GV and boats are good and all as long as they stay a side show.
He could, they players can't. I am not worried about HT and crew abilities, but the effect on the gameplay. There is also a landslide effect - HTC creates a good GV side show, new players are attracted to this aspect of the game, they demand improvement and further development which attracts more non-fliers, and since there are more FPS and world-of-tanks players in the world that flight sim guys, they game turns into WWII online with the air action becoming the side show.
I don't see why an Increase in GV usage is a bad thing. They way I see it it's more for me to bomb
-
which attracts more non-fliers
which in turn would be a very good thing if you want to see the game (and thus the air part too!) being continued.
-
That's what I'm thinking Lusche! The more WWII online enthusiasts we can recruit, the better this game becomes.
-
i think the more non fliers we attract the more we could intrge and turn INTO fliers, then someone like me might be able to kill somone
-
i think the more non fliers we attract the more we could intrge and turn INTO fliers
:aok
-
Spawn points like current PT boats. Would work like a charm! They would operate independantly of CV's but could spawn from CV's like a PT boat. I think it would add a whole new layer of fun to Aces High.
I don't think the TG's themselves should have the ability to spawn DD's. The ports on the other hand, or any base that supports a TG, should. It would mean that a new spawn option would probably be needed so you can spawn out at the TG. You would have your standard spawn thingy, but a spawn button that says, "Spawn at TG" or, "TG Spawn". So you would have to options of spawning at the port, spawning at the PT spawns, or spawning out at the TG. As for "shutting it down", maybe a dry dock-ish type structure for the Ship "hanger"? This dry dock will be supporting all spawn able ships, which would include the PT's. :headscratch:
-
There will need to be an obvious limit to ship class though. You all know full well that someone would start wishing for the Yamato and Iowa after all. :) But a google of ships classes it did my head in... :bhead
I'm likely wrong on this class list but I think:
PT Boat types
Corvette's
Frigates
Destroyer Escorts
Destroyers
Was there, if any, a class between the Destroyer and Light Cruiser? IF there was one, then it should probably be the largest class in game. Otherwise, I would have to say that the Destroyer be the largest. :headscratch:
Oh, and +1 for op. :D
I disagree I think it would be exolent to have full on naval battles on aces high. I would love to play with a Iowa or Yamamoto that would be awsom.
-
-1
Anything that detracts from the air war is bad. GV and boats are good and all as long as they stay a side show.
He could, they players can't. I am not worried about HT and crew abilities, but the effect on the gameplay. There is also a landslide effect - HTC creates a good GV side show, new players are attracted to this aspect of the game, they demand improvement and further development which attracts more non-fliers, and since there are more FPS and world-of-tanks players in the world that flight sim guys, they game turns into WWII online with the air action becoming the side show.
Anything that brings in new/more players is good for the air game.
Adding real commandable naval vessels (destroyers, submarines) immediately taps a sizeable player base that is just as currently bereft of outlets for their hobby as air simmers are.
If you logged in, and there were 1,000 players online and 700 of them were in GVs and Naval ships, how would this possibly detract from your game?
Even if you don't like bombing GVs/ships, or dropping torpedoes, TONS of players do... and you know what that means? You get to try to shoot them down. And if you do THAT enough, they start bringing fighter escorts... and BOOM -> Air Combat.
-
Anything that brings in new/more players is good for the air game.
<snip>
Even if you don't like bombing GVs/ships, or dropping torpedoes, TONS of players do... and you know what that means? You get to try to shoot them down. And if you do THAT enough, they start bringing fighter escorts... and BOOM -> Air Combat.
That is what I was thinking. They already have the model and the skin. Just need to add a 'cockpit/bridge' as far as I'm concerned. And then the guns could be controlled just like a PT boat - numbered guns. heck - version 1.0 could be the same control as tanks. It would be still fracking COOL!
If HTC announced they're adding Destroyers to this sim - we could easily see a 20-30% spike in membership = more money for Hitech to spend on development = more planes vehicles enhancements = even more happier clients and customers.
In bizzness terms, it's a positive causal loop... or a positive reinforcing cycle. All from just adding a single craft! :D
-
I don't think the TG's themselves should have the ability to spawn DD's. The ports on the other hand, or any base that supports a TG, should. It would mean that a new spawn option would probably be needed so you can spawn out at the TG. You would have your standard spawn thingy, but a spawn button that says, "Spawn at TG" or, "TG Spawn". So you would have to options of spawning at the port, spawning at the PT spawns, or spawning out at the TG. As for "shutting it down", maybe a dry dock-ish type structure for the Ship "hanger"? This dry dock will be supporting all spawn able ships, which would include the PT's. :headscratch:
Too complex. Easy and simple solution:
At the moment we have say 4 Carrier task groups. I suggest we make that something like 16 task groups. Four of which can continue to be carrier groups as current (each belonging to its own port). These can remain close to the target area for air support, whilst not being literally at the target.
The remaining 12 are task groups with no carrier, which cannot spawn planes or amphibious assault vehicles (maybe PTs only for increased defense). They are basically just a attacking fleet with maybe two cruisers and four to six frigates. They too belong to the same four ports as the CVs. Three to each one.
Would increase the defense challenge while at the same time not making it too easy on the offensive side.
Existing player controls would apply for steering routing and rank command authority. Like normal task groups, once the entire fleet is sunk, it re-spawns at the port it belongs to.
Easy-Peasy! :lol :aok :salute
-
I disagree I think it would be exolent to have full on naval battles on aces high. I would love to play with a Iowa or Yamamoto that would be awsom.
well i found a site can help http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ it has every allied country and ship class in there
-
I have an old game called battlestations midway. Something similar would be just the right fit for MA action.
Looking back on some screenshots, I don't know how that game wasn't a raving success if done in an MMO format.
-
I have Destroyer Command from SSI and it was an AWESOME game (not to mention I beta-tested it). I had a lot of fun with it as a German commander and having to shoot down British fighters. Depth charging subs was a lot of fun, as well trying to torpedo large convoys.
How could this NOT be fun in Aces High? I mean, come on!
-
I remember taking the Nagato class battleship Mutsu against a task force of four American CAs and twelve DDs in Microprose's Task Force 1942. That was, erm, lopsided. CAs and DDs don't take 16" shells very well.
-
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_(video_game)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/destroyer/screenshots
I want this :pray
-
I remember taking the Nagato class battleship Mutsu against a task force of four American CAs and twelve DDs in Microprose's Task Force 1942. That was, erm, lopsided. CAs and DDs don't take 16" shells very well.
That was a great game Microprose deffinatly had some great games.
-
Yeah, Microprose made some good games, especially for the Amiga.
I remember Destroyer Command was buggy as hell, and I had a dickens of a time trying to connect to Silent Hunter II players online. Game was released VERY buggy and essentially unfinished. Guess Ubisoft got tired waiting for the game developer to finish (Ultimation I think).
-
+1
-
It occurs to me that this would be an excellent reason for earning perks in ships guns . Earn a couple hundred perks , get the right to drive your own tin can around and die a horrible fiery watery death .
-
It occurs to me that this would be an excellent reason for earning perks in ships guns . Earn a couple hundred perks , get the right to drive your own tin can around and die a horrible fiery watery death .
Yes, it would. And if we ever had subs, it would mean the ability to hunt subs with the right tool. :x
-
A terrific idea, and one that doesn’t seem like it would be to terribly onerous to implement. We already have all the code components to allow spawn-able and player controllable ships. Make it the same DE (with the same toughness) that escorts the CV (no new 3D model required), but with working torpedo launchers. It would function just like an over-sized PT boat, with the possible exception of having a few of the light AAA guns be auto-controlled. Like the PT or any other a/c or vehicle, one additional person could join as a dedicated gunner. Perk the heck out of them and then allow them to spawn just like the PT’s (but only from ports or the CV groups). An additional constraint might be to limit the number each country could have active at any one time (would probably require some new code for this). I’d make it so the main guns could be switched from AAA to AP to HE, similar to the 88’s at the bases. Another possible added capability would be a limited radar capability, able to detect A/C out to maybe a 15-mile radius, and surface contacts out to a 10-mile radius, but only the player controlling the DE would see the contacts detected by their DE’s radar on their clipboard map.
An advanced feature to consider would be to add a gun-director’s position (or perhaps two, one fore and one aft). Like the gun turrets in the B-29, multiple main guns would be slaved to this GD position. Sighting would be done through a set of mounted binoculars (set high in the gun-director platform on the mast), that could zoom the view in and out, and with some sort of calibrated range bars, to estimate the range visually. Like directing the tank gun from the tank commander’s position, the turrets would be slaved to the gun director glasses, with the same sort of lag for the guns to reach the directed bearing. Guns could be set to salve once per trigger pull, or to go into continuous fire mode, where the first trigger pull would start them firing at their maximum cycle rate until the next subsequent trigger pull pauses the firing.
A high perk cost would keep it from being abused; indeed, in many instances it would be something of a one-shot wonder. If you spawned from a CV and then the CV group is destroyed, you’ll have a potentially long trip back to a port, if you don’t want to lose the perkies. Even with several auto-AAA guns, a single heavy fighter would have a reasonable chance of taking one out, so lone-wolfing it would be a good way to burn perk points in a hurry. Air-to-surface and surface-to-surface actions could take on a whole new dimension, but the impact on the air-to-air war (or the strategic war) would be naturally limited. In short, adding player-conned DEs would require only a modest initial coding investment (without the advanced features mentioned in the paragraph above), enhance naval play but without drastically altering the air war or main arena dynamics.