Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Someguy63 on March 05, 2014, 07:53:03 AM
-
In-game, whenever any type of ship on a task group is sunk, they sink in the Titanic style bow forward animation, minus the splitting of the ship. Instead, it would be nice to see the ships sunk, sink a different way altogether to create a more realistic effect. For example, ships could capsize, list, or even explode altogether if the ship is hit in the ammo magazine. In the case of cruisers and destroyers, these are below the 8" and 5" turrets. I also suppose that having these animations added would increase the time it takes for the ship to slip under the water.
Well, have at it.
:salute Flyman92
-
+1
-
+1 The current "Star Trek IV whale standing on it's nose" sinking kind of sucks.
-
+1 They should list to the side making some of the auto ack unable to fire before sinking.
-
We're getting new water in the next update, I hope new sinking ship animations is something that gets added with it!
+1!
-
We're getting new water in the next update, I hope new sinking ship animations is something that gets added with it!
+1!
Who said it was the "next" update? :headscratch:
-
List and sinks according to what/where impact is made. A more detailed battle damage setup for them as well. Oil slicks, rudder damage preventing ships from turning and/or causing them to turn poorly, engine damage causing them to slow down or even stop, etc.
I also hope that we will gain the ability to use the fire control towers on the ships as well. Take our Fletcher class DD's; someone could jump into the fire control tower and take control of all 5 5" guns to shell something. This would not prevent someone from jumping into the 2 mannable guns that exist. The same applies to our Oregon City(?) class CA's. Someone can jump into the 8" FCT and control all 3 turrets. This will not stop folks for taking 2 of the 3 guns though. One will stay in the FCT's control. A little tricky to sort out the 5" FCT's though... :headscratch:
-
I think our cruiser is Baltimore-class.
I actually just posted about this in the general forum, but I would LOVE to see more detail in the TG damage model. Particularly the ineffectiveness of small-caliber weapons (IE, at best .50cal and 20mm fire would be able to take out the smaller 20mm and 40mm gun emplacements, but wouldn't do much more than that), but also adding differences in how torpedoes and bombs inflict damage (of the American fleet carriers that were lost during the war, all suffered their fatal damage from torpedoes), and also adding the effects of damaging near-misses.
-
Who said it was the "next" update? :headscratch:
I did. :)
:pray
-
I think our cruiser is Baltimore-class.
I actually just posted about this in the general forum, but I would LOVE to see more detail in the TG damage model. Particularly the ineffectiveness of small-caliber weapons (IE, at best .50cal and 20mm fire would be able to take out the smaller 20mm and 40mm gun emplacements, but wouldn't do much more than that), but also adding differences in how torpedoes and bombs inflict damage (of the American fleet carriers that were lost during the war, all suffered their fatal damage from torpedoes), and also adding the effects of damaging near-misses.
,
I do believe a few DD's were sunk by strafing attacks with .50cal's? I recall seeing a few video's. Anything bigger though, could probably be "immune" to .50cal and what-not. I'd love to see at least basic battle damage showing from bombs/torpedoes/rockets on ships. CV's will likely only have a turning/speed ability reduction implemented over listing due to damage, for game play reasons which I won't argue with. :aok
Now that I think about it, It is to my understanding that torpedoes currently do 2x damage than listed to simulate damage below the waterline if I recall correctly. Am I correct?
-
List and sinks according to what/where impact is made. A more detailed battle damage setup for them as well. Oil slicks, rudder damage preventing ships from turning and/or causing them to turn poorly, engine damage causing them to slow down or even stop, etc.
+1 Nailed it. :aok
-
I think our cruiser is Baltimore-class.
I actually just posted about this in the general forum, but I would LOVE to see more detail in the TG damage model. Particularly the ineffectiveness of small-caliber weapons (IE, at best .50cal and 20mm fire would be able to take out the smaller 20mm and 40mm gun emplacements, but wouldn't do much more than that), but also adding differences in how torpedoes and bombs inflict damage (of the American fleet carriers that were lost during the war, all suffered their fatal damage from torpedoes), and also adding the effects of damaging near-misses.
I also agree with Saxman there, small-caliber weapons shouldn't do more than take out small gun batteries. And adding the effects of near bomb misses would indeed and a bit more realism to the game. Like how an American carrier, (USS Enterprise I believe) was damaged by a near miss from a dive bomber, compared to AH where salvos of up to 18 bombs just barely miss the cv and the boat isn't scratched .
-
+1
-
+1!!! :rock
-
Great wish :aok
-
Now that I think about it, It is to my understanding that torpedoes currently do 2x damage than listed to simulate damage below the waterline if I recall correctly. Am I correct?
That still amounts to "X damage boat sinks." The mechanical effects of a torpedo strike (or damaging near miss exploding at or below the waterline) would be much different than a bomb exploding against the superstructure or deck.
-
Who said it was the "next" update? :headscratch:
didnt Hitech mention 1 update before the new terrain?
we got that 1 update already...
-
,
I do believe a few DD's were sunk by strafing attacks with .50cal's?
Yes, but DDs also weren't armored any better than a freighter, thus "tin cans". CAs, CVs, BCs and BBs would all be immune to any gun carried by a WWII airplane save some of their light, surface structures (open position guns, radar and such).
-
That still amounts to "X damage boat sinks." The mechanical effects of a torpedo strike (or damaging near miss exploding at or below the waterline) would be much different than a bomb exploding against the superstructure or deck.
I was merely asking that as confirmation of our current setup. Nothing more. :aok
Yes, but DDs also weren't armored any better than a freighter, thus "tin cans". CAs, CVs, BCs and BBs would all be immune to any gun carried by a WWII airplane save some of their light, surface structures (open position guns, radar and such).
I misunderstood Saxman's statement in that he was implying that not even DD's should be sunk by strafing.
I'm getting excited about the upcoming changes to water and what it will bring. :x
-
Yes, but DDs also weren't armored any better than a freighter, thus "tin cans". CAs, CVs, BCs and BBs would all be immune to any gun carried by a WWII airplane save some of their light, surface structures (open position guns, radar and such).
DEs were the "tin cans." Full destroyers were much tougher. The ship the Tuskegee Airmen were famous for strafing down as I recall was either an older ship, or converted.
-
Oh, and on the subject of the ships:
Can we please get the decks painted in the proper "deck blue" (RGB 87, 91, 98)? None of the decks on US ships were left in the color they are in game.
-
Oh, and on the subject of the ships:
Can we please get the decks painted in the proper "deck blue" (RGB 87, 91, 98)? None of the decks on US ships were left in the color they are in game.
Yeah that would be a pretty cool feature. :banana:
-
All this sounds like a nice update. Maybe the guys will do it.
-
All this sounds like a nice update. Maybe the guys will do it.
I hope so! :pray
-
DEs were the "tin cans." Full destroyers were much tougher. The ship the Tuskegee Airmen were famous for strafing down as I recall was either an older ship, or converted.
On that note then, I am hoping to see DE's and more variety of other ship types brought in. :aok
-
Another thing that would be interesting would be bomb craters on the flight deck. Depending on the bomb size, it would take to repair, thus making it hard/impossible to up from that CV.
:salute Coalcat1
-
Err add time between takes and repair :lol
-
I understand your idea, but that would make the cv only as useful as a sunk one. As far as effecting aircraft operations on the cv, it's either afloat or sunk, only thing that should be effected is guns, radar, and like an earlier comment, the ship's rudder, thus effecting steering capabilities.
-
should add a ammo storage on the CV which can only be hit with an AP bomb causing extra damage and leaving the planes unable to use ords
raynos32
-
Who said it was the "next" update? :headscratch:
I know I did. Just laying a little faith in HTC.
Hope there's nothing wrong with that.
Coogan
-
should add a ammo storage on the CV which can only be hit with an AP bomb causing extra damage and leaving the planes unable to use ords
Nah a hit to the ammo magazine would blow a good portion of the ship up, or set it alight, and would end in the sinking or inoperability of the carrier. Especially since we lack a damage control crew.
-
gonna get pounced on---what difference does it make how a ship looks when it sinks--it's gone dead adios,its not used anymore until it respawns..besides ship is sunk before most players know it..why waste resources on a better looking way a ship sinks..and are pilots gonna fly around in circles watching it sink???
-
I understand your idea, but that would make the cv only as useful as a sunk one. As far as effecting aircraft operations on the cv, it's either afloat or sunk, only thing that should be effected is guns, radar, and like an earlier comment, the ship's rudder, thus effecting steering capabilities.
Not entirely, if a pilot is good enough, they could use flaps to lower their take-off speed as well as doge bomb craters (depending on location and size) with plenty of time to get off the flight deck. Another solution would be to add a steam catapult (as used by U.S CVs in WWII) only making it harder to land on a damaged CV. I also agree with raynos' idea for ords. On a ship so an AP bomb could send it down like the Arizona.
:salute Coalcat1
-
I think our cruiser is Baltimore-class.
I actually just posted about this in the general forum, but I would LOVE to see more detail in the TG damage model. Particularly the ineffectiveness of small-caliber weapons (IE, at best .50cal and 20mm fire would be able to take out the smaller 20mm and 40mm gun emplacements, but wouldn't do much more than that), but also adding differences in how torpedoes and bombs inflict damage (of the American fleet carriers that were lost during the war, all suffered their fatal damage from torpedoes), and also adding the effects of damaging near-misses.
there is a difference in game between how torps and bombs do damage. A 2000lb bomb does roughly 2000lb of damage (GP bomb), the american 2000lb torpedo does 4000lb worth of damage. Torps do 2X damage of their weight.
Also near misses from bombs are already added to the game. In another thread someone posted a pic of just that happening to a CV.
-
Not entirely, if a pilot is good enough, they could use flaps to lower their take-off speed as well as doge bomb craters (depending on location and size) with plenty of time to get off the flight deck. Another solution would be to add a steam catapult (as used by U.S CVs in WWII) only making it harder to land on a damaged CV. I also agree with raynos' idea for ords. On a ship so an AP bomb could send it down like the Arizona.
:salute Coalcat1
I think the catapult on our ship is hydraulic.
-
I think the catapult on our ship is hydraulic.
If I am not mistaken WWII CV catapults where steam driven, ran off of the ships boiler.
-
But please correct me if anyone has proof I'm wrong, would help me out a lot.
-
Not entirely, if a pilot is good enough, they could use flaps to lower their take-off speed as well as doge bomb craters (depending on location and size) with plenty of time to get off the flight deck. Another solution would be to add a steam catapult (as used by U.S CVs in WWII) only making it harder to land on a damaged CV. I also agree with raynos' idea for ords. On a ship so an AP bomb could send it down like the Arizona.
:salute Coalcat1
No, an aircraft carrier flight deck isn't long enough for a pilot to try and dodge bomb craters that are about nearly as big as the elevator shaft, which covers most of the deck. The amount of speed required to take off, for the heaviest of aircraft, wouldn't be acquired before running into a crater that is even near the end of the flight deck. And like I said...
Nah a hit to the ammo magazine would blow a good portion of the ship up, or set it alight, and would end in the sinking or inoperability of the carrier. Especially since we lack a damage control crew.
And lastly, WW2 aircraft carrier catapults were run by hydraulics. While the first experimental catapult tested in 1912, ran on compressed air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult#Interwar_and_World_War_II
-
If I remember correctly though the USS Enterprise's catapult was run off of steam bit like I said I might be wrong! never saw the signature steam cloud around the old footage :lol