Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: ONTOS on September 02, 2013, 07:37:55 PM
-
Add a Battleship, Washington Class. Handy for shelling bases, ports, and towns. Also good for fending off those pesky bombers and attack planes. We have a Cruiser, but not enough.
-
Add a Battleship, Washington Class. Handy for shelling bases, ports, and towns. Also good for fending off those pesky bombers and attack planes. We have a Cruiser, but not enough.
Then I need a little float plane to go with :old:
-
Actually, they had two float planes.
-
Actually, they had two float planes.
I only need 1 :D
-
I'd be for a battleship as long as I was separate from the main CV taskforce. Yamato class instead of Washington :aok
-
I'd be for a battleship as long as I was separate from the main CV taskforce. Yamato class instead of Washington :aok
Co-ordinate a cv group and battleship group then that's a task force of awesome power.
-
I'd be for a battleship as long as I was separate from the main CV taskforce. Yamato class instead of Washington :aok
No no no no no! Kongo Class!
(http://ww2db.com/images/ship_hiei15.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Lurking_Fear/kongoclass.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-Ls3UEqiunZDXkqxyWGLzWfOFv43-5SkXw34wubPfoGyWKISW)
Edit: Technically a Battlecruiser. But still just look at it! It's gorgeous!
-
That should have been North Carolina Class (BB 55), as USS Washington was BB 56. Anyway, so long as we have a battleship. The Kongo Class looked impressive. Talk about firepower, the Yamato and her sister ship, the Musashi had it in spades, but a bit much to start out with in the game.
-
Nagato Class:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/nagato.jpg)
The most powerful ships in the world when they were launched.
-
Nagato Class:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/nagato.jpg)
The most powerful ships in the world when they were launched.
Can I haz dem all? :O
+10
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
leave the CV group as is, and then make a completely new task group with Japanese ships, IE Yamato where CV is located now, Akizuki class destroyers in place of the American ones we have now, and a Takao class cruiser
-
hmmm...it would be interesting if there were cv groups from at least 3 different countries (maybe japan, germany, u.s.?) with the proper ship models (including battleships) for each country. with a little creative scripting, each game country could be randomly set to use the ships from 1 of the navies per map or per tour.
-
Add a Battleship, Washington Class. Handy for shelling bases, ports, and towns. Also good for fending off those pesky bombers and attack planes. We have a Cruiser, but not enough.
As part of the Task group, or as a separately controllable Ship?
-
Yamato was a bit of an exception to say the least and your average Washington treaty battleship will do. Destroying 3-6 Yamatos per hour with not a single merchant ship or u-boat in sight will seem rather odd.
Battleships were a pretty uncommon sight, so I'd say they were further down the list than merchant ships, u-boats on the surface, minesweepers, minelayers, or even cruisers without a CV, but it's on the list somewhere.
-
Yamato may be a bit of an exception, but as we probably only get one shot at a battleship, if HTC decides to add one, I would prefer it to be either Yamato class or Iowa class, something that can take a lot of punishment.
Yamato class photos from the same site I got the Nagato class shot:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato1.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato2.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato3.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato4.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato5.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato6.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato7.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato8.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato9.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato10.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato11.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato12.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/Yamato13.png)
-
Ship wishlists would be different than aircraft wishlists. Adding 2 or 3 capital ship types (rare as they were) would have a huge impact on historical events. A single Japanese carrier modeled (say the Shokaku-class which includes the Zuikaku) for CV task force placement would bring scenario immersion opportunities. The Yamato class gives us a 'sink the Yamato' opportunity. Same with the Bismark. Merchant fleets might find some use in events but would mainly represent a new target/revamp of the logistical system in the MA. Subs don't some into play in AH. I doubt they could find a practical home there.
-
hmmm...it would be interesting if there were cv groups from at least 3 different countries (maybe japan, germany, u.s.?) with the proper ship models (including battleships) for each country. with a little creative scripting, each game country could be randomly set to use the ships from 1 of the navies per map or per tour.
I generally agree with the concept in principle, but will point out that U.S.A, Japan, and Great Britain were the only navies that had operational carriers in WWII; Germany was building one, but it never saw operational use.
-
I generally agree with the concept in principle, but will point out that U.S.A, Japan, and Great Britain were the only navies that had operational carriers in WWII; Germany was building one, but it never saw operational use.
That's ridiculous! Germany had one built in a super secret antarctic under-ice manufacturing facility, that when finished was 27 miles long. Just as the war was closing they put the antigravity engines on it, crewed it with a clone of every german that was anybody, and launched it to the dark side of the moon where it is still operational today just waiting for the right moment to return...................
Prepare yourselves for the 4th Reich Gentlemen :O
-
Lets have the HMS Hood in AcesHigh, then no one will be pissed when it sinks after 1 hit.
-
Lets have the HMS Hood in AcesHigh, then no one will be pissed when it sinks after 1 hit.
☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
-
That's ridiculous! Germany had one built in a super secret antarctic under-ice manufacturing facility, that when finished was 27 miles long. Just as the war was closing they put the antigravity engines on it, crewed it with a clone of every german that was anybody, and launched it to the dark side of the moon where it is still operational today just waiting for the right moment to return...................
Prepare yourselves for the 4th Reich Gentlemen :O
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol i can't believe you actually watched that movie Zoney... :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
+1 for battleships. I would rather player controlled destroyers than battleships first however. Battleships were already outdated when WWII started - big sitting duck targets aircraft. It was an aircraft that initially doomed the Bismarck and aircraft that sank the Yamato.
They would have to add to gameplay but I'm not seeing how they would be a positive impact other than perhaps added them as battle groups - battleship + cruisers + support destroyers. Player controlled Destroyers however could add a dynamic to any engagement - especially if a CV gets too close to a port - you could have 10-20 destroyers rush out to sink the CV group - and counter from the CV group spawning defensive destroyers - gameplay changer. And a good one.
So, +1 for Battleship groups but please add player controlled Destroyers first.
-
Unless your plan is ship to ship the best bet would be the older slower BBs like Idaho or Colorado. Those were the ones used for shore bombardment not the fast BBs. Those older BBs fought some nasty battles with shore batteries. One of them, Colorado if memory serves, fired more tonnage of shells than any other ship in the US Navy and that was all in support of ground operations.
-
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol i can't believe you actually watched that movie Zoney... :lol :lol :lol :lol
Dude, I'm a sci-fi glutton. I'll watch any of them once. Speaking of Scifi, my brother in-law, Michael Cassutt's new book, Heaven's Fall is out and selling well. Excellent Hard SCI fi read if ya wanna try it.
-
Unless your plan is ship to ship the best bet would be the older slower BBs like Idaho or Colorado. Those were the ones used for shore bombardment not the fast BBs. Those older BBs fought some nasty battles with shore batteries. One of them, Colorado if memory serves, fired more tonnage of shells than any other ship in the US Navy and that was all in support of ground operations.
That is true, but from a gameplay standpoint I would like to see BBs that are tougher and at least somewhat capable of defending themselves. Also, having seen enough CVs sunk by cruisers in AH, I have no doubt that BB vs BB and BB vs CV gun engagements would happen. My vote remains for the Yamato or Iowa.
As to player controlled DDs, I actually like that idea. There are enough DD classes out there, from all major participants, that a goodly variety could be added. Enough that ENY differentiation would be meaningful, from low ENY units like the Fletchers and Akizukis to high ENY units like the '1200 ton type' that was given on Lend-Lease. DDs seem like the ideal class of ship to allow players to control.
-
Unless your plan is ship to ship the best bet would be the older slower BBs like Idaho or Colorado. Those were the ones used for shore bombardment not the fast BBs. Those older BBs fought some nasty battles with shore batteries. One of them, Colorado if memory serves, fired more tonnage of shells than any other ship in the US Navy and that was all in support of ground operations.
I always include the potential for ship to ship. :D
"At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the ship (New Jersey) protected carriers with her anti-aircraft guns. New Jersey then bombarded Iwo Jima and Okinawa."
"Missouri conducted her trials off New York with shakedown and battle practice in Chesapeake Bay before transferring to the Pacific Fleet, where she screened U.S. aircraft carriers involved in offensive operations against the Japanese before reporting to Okinawa to shell the island in advance of the planned landings. Following the bombardment of Okinawa, Missouri turned her attention to the Japanese homeland islands of Honshu and Hokkaido, performing shore bombardment and screening U.S. carriers involved in combat operations."
"Wisconsin was ordered 12 June 1940, laid down 25 January 1942, launched 7 December 1943, and commissioned 16 April 1944. After trials and initial training in Chesapeake Bay, she transferred to the Pacific Fleet in 1944 and was assigned to protect the U.S. fleet of aircraft carriers involved in operations in the Philippines until summoned to Iwo Jima to bombard the island in advance of the Marine landings. Afterward, she proceeded to Okinawa, bombarding the island in advance of the allied amphibious assault."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship
-
for all you peeps wishing for Japanese battleships,just remember.................... no proximity fuses for air defense :neener:
they will be converted to reefs very easy :devil
-
for all you peeps wishing for Japanese battleships,just remember.................... no proximity fuses for air defense :neener:
they will be converted to reefs very easy :devil
Yes, I know and it has been part of my consideration. Of Japanese BBs only the Yamato class, through sheer number of AA guns and sheer toughness, might be viable. Yamato should take about 20,000lbs to sink. More if they model the difference between sinking it with bombs or torpedoes.
-
My vote remains for the Yamato or Iowa.
Of the two, I'd go for the Iowas. As I recall, Japan largely avoided committing the Yamatos to "save" them for the large-scale battleship engagement that never happened, so aside from their size they were really rather insignificant to the war.
-
Of the two, I'd go for the Iowas. As I recall, Japan largely avoided committing the Yamatos to "save" them for the large-scale battleship engagement that never happened, so aside from their size they were really rather insignificant to the war.
But they are fun!
Also, I'd kinda like to see AH diverge from all American ships.
I'd almost prefer a KG5 class BB to an Iowa for that reason. Still, Iowa or Yamato.
-
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/USSWashington.jpg)
-
Of the two, I'd go for the Iowas. As I recall, Japan largely avoided committing the Yamatos to "save" them for the large-scale battleship engagement that never happened, so aside from their size they were really rather insignificant to the war.
Scenarios, however, always have an element of 'what-if' (obviously, for without such they would just be re-enactments).
As such, the addition of the Yamato gives the Battle of the Philippine Sea (Battle of Leyte Gulf, Battle Off Samar,
Operation Ten-Go) not only a historical legitimate target but options for the IJN side to use it differently.
-
But they are fun!
Also, I'd kinda like to see AH diverge from all American ships.
I'd almost prefer a KG5 class BB to an Iowa for that reason. Still, Iowa or Yamato.
Iowa .... and Yamato. :D
(And Shōkaku)
-
Scenarios, however, always have an element of 'what-if' (obviously, for without such they would just be re-enactments).
As such, the addition of the Yamato gives the Battle of the Philippine Sea (Battle of Leyte Gulf, Battle Off Samar,
Operation Ten-Go) not only a historical legitimate target but options for the IJN side to use it differently.
Yamato could have been used during Guadalcanal. Imagine if Yamato had sailed with Kirishima and was there at the second battle of Guadalcanal to face the South Dakota and the Washington. While the Japanese may still have lost, I'd not be at all surprised if South Dakota would have been sunk as well.
-
Yamato could have been used during Guadalcanal. Imagine if Yamato had sailed with Kirishima and was there at the second battle of Guadalcanal to face the South Dakota and the Washington. While the Japanese may still have lost, I'd not be at all surprised if South Dakota would have been sunk as well.
The appeal of a complete Pacific war campaign with each side having players responsible for
planning at the strategic level (including R&D, logistics and industry) has always been there
for me. I'm an old 'Axis and Allies' player (and I even think the original mechanics of that
board game can serve as somewhat of a template for such an idea). In such a campaign
both the Axis and Allies may determine not only how they want to deploy and engage, they
can determine where they want to spend their resources and how much. New toys modeled
for land, air and sea in AHII give more flexibility. :)
-
Microprose's Task Force 1942 was, in my opinion, an under rated game. When I used the Yamato and the Nagato class BB Mutsu instead of holding them forever in reserve the Americans had a much rougher time of it. While it is just a game, I did sink several American BBs because I had BBs as well instead of just glorified BCs.
-
Yamato could have been used during Guadalcanal. Imagine if Yamato had sailed with Kirishima and was there at the second battle of Guadalcanal to face the South Dakota and the Washington. While the Japanese may still have lost, I'd not be at all surprised if South Dakota would have been sunk as well.
Although wasn't South Dakota primarily lit up by her own side's radar...?
I'd almost prefer a KG5 class BB to an Iowa for that reason. Still, Iowa or Yamato.
TBH, I'd say to go for Iowa AND Yamato. And North Dakota. And Nagato. And KG5. And Yorktown. And Saratoga. And Casablanca. And Shokaku. And Hiryu. And Ark Royal. And Illustrious.
Even if having multiple classes of the same ship types isn't much use in the Mains, there's a LOT you could do by having a bigger variety of TG compositions.
-
TBH, I'd say to go for Iowa AND Yamato. And North Dakota. And Nagato. And KG5. And Yorktown. And Saratoga. And Casablanca. And Shokaku. And Hiryu. And Ark Royal. And Illustrious.
Wish overload is never a good thing.
Three's a good start.
I'd still pare it down to Iowa class, Yamato class and Shokaku class. Those three would transform water events in AHII dramatically.
-
the yamato would be a great addition to aces high. specially to finally kill those damn rooks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixDaGu35q54&list=FLOqMBU9i7snSPI9L0np35HQ&index=36
semp
-
the yamato would be a great addition to aces high. specially to finally kill those damn rooks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixDaGu35q54&list=FLOqMBU9i7snSPI9L0np35HQ&index=36
semp
LOL, loved that series. I've got the live-action movie on DVD (subtitles; they didn't have an English-dubbed version), and it's actually pretty good. Considering they only spent a couple million dollars making it, they did real well.
Seriously though, one of the Brit battlewagons would also be cool, like the KG-V class, though they may be a bit lacking in AAA compared to the newer USN ships. Incidentally, the Royal Navy fleet carriers were some of the toughest afloat, as they had actual armored decks, so I'd love to see one of those added sometime...as long as were making wishes.
-
Wish overload is never a good thing.
Three's a good start.
I'd still pare it down to Iowa class, Yamato class and Shokaku class. Those three would transform water events in AHII dramatically.
Thinking back on the earlier thread when we were talking about revising task force compositions to CV TFs, BB TFs and Invasion TFs, along with this it would seem modeling an Iowa and a Yamato as well as a Shokaku IJN CV and an LST (capable of launching invasion craft beached or at sea) .... and an escort carrier (Casablanca) may facilitate adding depth to the sea war in AHII. That's 5 ship models. The most complex probably being the LST. The escort carrier being a smaller non-spawnable version of the CV. The BBs being harder hitting and tougher than the cruisers by perhaps a factor of 4 or more.
If the game goes from one basic type of TF to 5 representations of TFs (Essex TF, Shokaku TF, Iowa TF, Yamato TF and LST TF) and ports cannot be re-coded to deploy more than one TF at a time then MA maps will have to have a minimum of 5 ports per side (if all types of task forces are to be allowed and just one LST TF is mapped per side). These ports may have to be located in hard to capture spots (rear areas with plenty of supporting bases near). The maps may require more water to traverse. Capturing another side's LST TF or Yamato/Iowa port/TF could be a significant boon. Port fights may take on more significance.
Scouting for enemy fleets would also take on more significance. All aircraft in AHII should be able to take on the role of reconnaissance. Sighting an enemy fleet and reporting it would be less cumbersome if a keystroke could result in a team message: "Enemy task force sighted." with the reporting players location being blipped on the clipboard map. Perhaps a fading dot (10-15 seconds or so). It would even be more helpful if the message described which type of TF: "Iowa Task force sighted headed NE."
Player controlled destroyers have been mentioned in more than one thread. I've seen them mentioned as both port defenders and fleet spawns. I, personally, think their number should be limited, somehow. USN destroyer squadrons of WWII numbered 8 or 9 ships. A limit of 10 isn't unreasonable. So a port could then spawn 10 destroyers. Task forces should probably not spawn any since that kind of makes the port ability to spawn them useless. The destroyers won't really be a threat to BBs (unless torps are modeled for them) but they would be a threat to the LST. What about re-spawning? If there's a limit to how many destroyers can be spawned at any given moment, when one is sunk and another is spawned then the port may as well have an infinite supply. Should a down-time be imposed?
As fun as all this sounds, the more factors discussed - the more I wince on the coding that may be involved (from the ship modeling to the recon coding to the spawn limit coding). I find it intriguing if the coding doesn't make for a huge headache to implement .... if the majority of players even care.