Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Volron on August 01, 2014, 01:43:30 PM
-
These are the things I wish to see implemented into Aces High:
Let's start off with lion's share of the meat:
The Damage Model/System for ships.
I would like to see a more detailed damage model and system implemented. As is, when ships take damage, you see minor damage sustained (ship's mast/radar) with guns being knocked out (turrets being visibly damaged and soft guns gone). That is it. I would like to see holes in the deck and hull added, with listing, possibly oil trails, fire and smoke, all dependent on damage inflicted. When damage is sustained to a ship, if appropriate, a ship should be slowed as a result. Example: If a DD is struck on the Port Bow with a torpedo, it would become bow heavy and possibly list to Port and would likely become slowed. If a bomb strikes Aft, if heavy enough, you will see a hole and possibly become aft heavy, also possibly becoming slowed. Fire can indicate that a hole on deck as a result of a severe enough attack could be implemented to show for it. A hole on the hull would show by listing/slowing with oil slick. If, for example, a hit is severe enough to cause a ship to break in two and sink, it would happen. You would see a fire and smoke with the ship sinking as a result of the attack. Enough torpedoes hit at a point, example Port, it would list to port then capsize and sink if required torpedoes to sink it, hit. Possibly adding rudder damage, it stuck upon damage for X time (2.5 minutes?), after said time has passed, rudder control is regained. Something of this nature, for game play reasons, would only happen once unless the ship survives to repair itself to a certain point. At which point it can happen again. Slowing would be result of overall damage to the ship, and it will not regain it's full speed until it has repaired itself to a certain point, unless damage inflicted that would result in slowing, repairs itself but the ship itself has yet to take the overall damage required to slow it. There may be need to implement a time limit on this as well, but slowing will (if the necessary damage is inflicted) will always happen. Slowing will be "mandatory" when a ship has had enough damage inflicted overall. On something like the Carrier in regards to fire, you will no longer have fire if just the radar is knocked out. Fire only happens when enough damage to warrant it is inflicted (IE: Hole in deck and/or superstructure). So just a knocked off the radar won't cause a fire (I've seen a 262 strafe a cv and light her up when I will doubt that a fire would break out as a result). Oil trails would only be 15-20 miles from a ship; roughly dar ring.
Now for further ideas:
More Meat: The Carrier.
If a CV has received enough damage, flight ops and rearming are disabled for 5-10 minutes. Bumping up the required amount to sink a CV to 12k, if a CV takes 8k of damage, flight ops and rearming are no longer possible for 5-10 minutes, CV is slowed. The loss of flight/rearm is something that will only happen once until CV repairs itself above the 8k limit. Example: A CV takes 8k of ords, flight and rearm is disabled for 5(?) minutes, you will still be able to land of course. After this set time has passed, CV will regain these things. However, overall damage will still be 8k but flight ops/rearm will no longer be disabled if further damage is inflicted until it repairs itself above 8k. Like the rudder idea, it's a one time thing within x damage inflicted. During this time, a hole in the deck and possible listing will be visible. After the required time to reinstate flight/rearm, the cv will "right itself". Think of it as counter flooding for the listing. And while a hole with the fire and smoke will still be visible, just like bomb craters, this won't affect people's ability to take off or rearm. Slowing will apply to the CV as with all ships, and will be dependent of amount of overall damage/damage inflicted that results in slowing. Listing will only happen if damage applied would cause it, and only during the "down time" of flight/rearm. This is all based off of the CV's required ords limit to sink her is bumped up to 12k. I think a bump up would counter the loss of flight/rearm for a short time as a result of enough damage received. If we are to keep the 8k requirement, drop the down time from 5ish minutes to 2.5, just like the rudder's time limit. Respawn time of the CV will still be your box standard 10 minutes (least I think it's 10 minutes). Another thing to note is that CVTG's will no longer be able to get with 25miles of a shoreline, reason will be listed later. On some maps there will be exceptions as some port's spawn are well within this 25mile range. Having the CV spawn with a fixed course away from this maybe be an option, with the only maneuvers executed until outside this 25mile range, are those from being in command, explained next. CVTG's will no longer be able to spawn LVT's, but if there were implementation of Landing Ships, then these player controlled ships(?) could be launched from the CVTG's to shore.
Fleet Maneuvers.
When someone takes command of a Task Group, their should be options to do maneuvers with the click of a button (for game play reasons). When you take command of a TG, a small clipboard will pop up and available commands to do maneuvers will show up. Basic Example: 360 Circle L/R, 180 L/R, 45 L/R, etc. These options will ONLY be available when someone takes command, and when someone does take command, they will "locked" into the tower of the CV. If they are already in the air/ground/gun, they will not be able to take command and can only use the current waypoint system that is in place. What this means is, you do not have to take command of the TG in order to move it around. You will, however, have to take command to execute fleet maneuvers listed above, which are more defined and detailed in execution vs use of the waypoint system.
Most notable will be how ships visually execute these maneuvers. Ordering a 360 L/R, all ships will do so as seen in many WW2 pictures and video's. As is, they end up doing this strange "dance" (for lack of better word) to execute maneuver and return to position. Right now, if you order a TG to do certain maneuvers, the escorts will end up all over the place and more often than not, go right through each other and/or the CV. I would like to see more realistic speed and turn radius implemented. When ordering a TG to do a 180, I will see the escorts all of a sudden move a WHOLE lot faster to return to position. While it's obvious I know little about how fast DD's and CA's can move in relation to the CV, I am doubting that they can move that fast. I know the CV slows a bit when executing a turn, but the speed at which the escorts move to regain positions just doesn't look right. I am hoping someone will clarify.
Bombardment Task Group.
The inclusion of a Bombardment Task Group that can close to within a few miles of a shore, allowing the launch of Landing Craft and LVT's. These ships will contain 2-4 CA's for heavy bombardment, with 6-10+ DD's for escort. Adding a few troop carriers to the Bombardment TG would allow people to take away the ability to spawn Landing Craft and LVT's. Giving these ships a 4k requirement to be sunk would balance it a bit, and there will be a few of them (3-6?). They are, however, affected by strats (keeping it simple, Troop Training Facility). So if it's sunk, it's out for half the time a barrack on land would be. Unless there is the implementation of resupply at sea, having it only half would help but still give the ability to affect the Bombardment TG's ability for "troops". Even going as far as these troop carriers only suffering a quarter of the penalty that barracks on land suffer may work better. Just like the CVTG's, the ability to execute detailed maneuvers will only be allowable when being commanded by someone, who will be "locked" into the tower. More options possible to readjust the fleet formation for bombardment purpose is something I think would work well. So other than the "box standard" evasive maneuvers, there will be addition options to adjust the fleet formation for bombardment. People will still be able to give rough directions to the Bombardment TG's via the waypoint system. Later on down the line, when Battleships are implemented, the number of CA's would drop (for those that are given a BB) to 1-2 with the DD's remaining roughly the same, if not increased.
-
Player Controlled Ships (BASIC).
For player controlled ships, dependent on how and/or what is implemented, I would say to start that the heaviest ship class to be player controlled will be the Light Cruiser. Reason I pull for the Light Cruiser class is to counter, more effectively, the Cruiser we currently have within the TG's. When Battleships are implemented, give the player the ability to control a Heavy Cruiser to counter. The reason to not go any higher is simply due to the fact that the BB's are locked into the task group. A player controlled ship is, of course, not. We can move freely compared to the BB, which translates to more maneuverability, which equals better survival.
Fire Control Tower in Task Group Ships.
Players will be able to control all of the appropriate guns from their respective Fire Control Towers. When inside these towers, guns (if AAA able) are locked into HE only, which include both "auto" turrets and player controllable turrets. This means that when in command of the Fletcher Class Destroyer's Fire Control Tower, the 3 "auto" turrets that would aid in puffy defense, won't, as they would be under player command. This will not prevent players from hopping into a turret that could be manned, the exception is if all turrets from the Fire Control Tower can be manned. At this point, one turret (the one not taken) will remain in the Fire Control Tower player's hand.
There it be. A basic idea for Naval Warfare in Aces High. With the new water coming, these might be feasible. At the very least, worth a shot. :)
-
Nice write up +1
-
Well thought post.
a big +1
-
My dream game. I would love a good WW1 / WW2 naval ware fare game.....not sure how well it would translate here tho
-
+1 great idea :aok Hope hitech agrees
-
bored today huh? :P
If HTC was going to build a "Navy" game then ya that looks cool, but I doubt that is high on their list.
-
bored today huh? :P
If HTC was going to build a "Navy" game then ya that looks cool, but I doubt that is high on their list.
Not so much. :lol
Because of the post I made in the FPS wish, I thought it out some more and decided to toss it out a basic idea. :)
-
Fugi,
You and I are from a generation that only dreamed of AH as is today from AW 20 years ago. Most of these wishes to turn AH into a super fragilistc WWII Online are from generations after us who probably were not alive when .25 cent a round of Pong was a big friggen deal.
As much as skill is important to us on a meritocracy basis coupled with our imagination to fill in for the often rough graphics. Their wishes are from the expectation that the graphics and code itself will be taking the place of their imagination. Especially if they have to pay $14.95 for it. Opposed to all of the other "free" offerings out there competing to hold their imagination's figurative hand unlike Aces High.
Remember Fugi, some of the players in our game were kids when their mothers were afraid to let them walk to the store alone a few blocks away. Our mothers threw us out of the house with nothing and told us to go play all day. I suspect Hitech's mother did too.
-
Our mothers threw us out of the house with nothing and told us to go play all day.
Lucky you :old:
I was chained to a post in the basement, a broken spoon was my only toy and a dead rat my only friend :cry
-
There is something to be said of games that spark or to some degree require imagination. Old games were more like books, like Xenonauts. New games are more like cinema, like Enemy Unknown.
-
Well Lusche at least at the Peshawar Air Post radar and RB-57, U-2, ground control facility out side of Peshawar Pakistan. There was a 14 ft high wall around the USAFSS facility to keep us kids in and out of the reach of the locals. Kidnaping of westerners for ransom is a longstanding second source of income in that region.
We still found time to run wild everywhere else there wasn't fenced or guard to keep us out. And some of us still caught rabies, or broke our wrists as a result. 1960-64 there were about 3 broken wrists a year and 1 to 2 cases of rabies on that post amongst US personal dependent children in Pakistan. Broke my wrist and got rabies all in the same year. Few weeks in a cast, then 21 shots in the stomach, and I was good as new. Taking your lumps was an expected part of growing up back then.
And today a mother gets arrested for allowing her 7 year old to walk to the local park alone. So now Hitech is expected to hold our imagination's tiny little had just to go to the potty.
-
I didn't even know there was an "outside world" until I turned 29. Imagination was all I ever had :old:
Actually, I'm not entirely sure I don't just imagine AH, the internet and you as well... :noid
-
There is something to be said of games that spark or to some degree require imagination. Old games were more like books, like Xenonauts. New games are more like cinema, like Enemy Unknown.
Well put.
-
Great wishes!
+1 :aok
-
Player Controlled Ships (BASIC).
For player controlled ships, dependent on how and/or what is implemented, I would say to start that the heaviest ship class to be player controlled will be the Light Cruiser. Reason I pull for the Light Cruiser class is to counter, more effectively, the Cruiser we currently have within the TG's. When Battleships are implemented, give the player the ability to control a Heavy Cruiser to counter. The reason to not go any higher is simply due to the fact that the BB's are locked into the task group. A player controlled ship is, of course, not. We can move freely compared to the BB, which translates to more maneuverability, which equals better survival.
Expanding further on this subject:
Players could control the following types of ship classes: Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer Escort, Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer, Light Cruiser. With the implementation of Battleships to Task Groups; Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser. I am uncertain about the Heavy Destroyer Class, if such a designation existed. If so, we would have the ability to control a ship of this class. If not, omit.
Each class of ship will have "gun packages" to choose from and will affect it's ENY/OBJ value (if possible) as well as incur a Perk Price if deemed necessary. Things such as Sonar/Advanced Sonar, Radar Controlled Fire Control, Depth Charges and Radar(?) could/would incur a Perk Price, for example. These gun packages will fall into year ranges (Rough Example: 39-M41/M41-M43/M43-L44/L44-45) and will affect what your ship's gun setup would be. In other words, if you chose the 39-M41 gun package, your ship's guns will be majority setup for Anti-Ship combat. A L44-45 will be setup with less Anti-Ship guns and more AAA. This will apply to Hulls that were used through out the war, example being MANY of the Japanese Ships.
Player Controlled Ships could use spawns out to sea (PT Spawns, or spawns designated for ships), but would otherwise need to launch out of port off one of the docking piers. Adding a Dry Dock to ports would allow players to knock it out and prevent ship spawn, but the hardness of such a target is in question. Hanger Hardness at the very least, but possibly require 4-6k ords to knock out. The down time of such a target will be of hanger down time, 15 minutes. Knocking out ords at a port will affect the amount of ords a ship can launch from. If all ords are down at a port, you will only have 2 torpedoes per tube for example. Otherwise you take a full load. The safest way to "land" your ship would be to return to a port and bring her within a certain range or within the docking piers. However, like ground vehicles, if there are no enemies within 6k(?), you will get a "successful landing" and you are less than 3(?) knots.
Damage sustained to player ships will behave as they would with Task Group ships. If the appropriate damage is sustained to your ship, you will list, go fore/aft heavy, slow, lose maneuverability, and possibly leave an oil slick. You can also sustain and lose your Fire Control Tower if your ship class uses one (this would be implemented into TG ships as well). Losing any turret is permanent, meaning if you want that turret back, you will have to up a new ships. "Soft" guns, 40mm/37mm AAA and less, can be repaired though it will cost you 1 repair point. When repaired, all soft guns will repair, not just partial (for game play reasons). After all, it would be no fun if you couldn't at least defend yourself against enemy air. Other damage sustained to a player can, in some cases, be repaired at sea. However while you can do a stop-gap repair, your speed and/or turn radius will still be affected. It isn't meant to fix your ship perfectly, though it doesn't mean you are out of the fight. Player ships can have their rudder/engine/sonar/radar disabled and the player will not be able to implement repairs until you are 6k away from an enemy. At which point, you would have to drop to less than 3 knots to repair. This means you can slow to less than 3 knots, but still have visual on an enemy ship. So long as he's 6+k away, you can initiate repairs. Of course this is risky. These stop-gap repairs can only be done an X amount of times (dependent on ship class) before supplies would have to be ran out to you, unless you have supplies on board (Explained Later).
A rough example of the amount of times you can do repairs at sea without resupply:
Corvette: 1
Frigate: 1
Destroyer Escort: 1-2
Destroyer: 2-3
Heavy Destroyer: 3
Light Cruiser: 3-4
Cruiser: 4-5
Heavy Cruiser: 6
A "ship stall limiter" could be implemented that would automatically counter-flood in case of listing. You can turn this off, but would have to order your crew to counter flood (a button click). With it on, your crew will automatically counter-flood with no input from you. Turning it off will allow more control over how you want your ship to behave in the event of listing. However if you have it off and don't pay attention, the possibility of capsizing in an otherwise survivable hit, exists. The same for having it on. While your ship will automatically counter flood, the result may cost you the speed/maneuverability to win or escape. A double edged sword.
Controlling Your Guns.
You will, of course, have the ability to man your guns (or even call in a gunner). When you click the button Man Guns, the clipboard will pop and show available guns. Tabs at the top could be used to select between the following: Fire Control Tower; Main Guns; Secondary Guns; AAA; Torpedo Launcher(?). If a gun has been knocked out, it will show red on the clipboard. AAA will work as they do on bombers however, when not manned, AAA on your ship will be under AI control. You can toggle an option for your AI to shoot at other ships or to ignore them (if possible). If a player jumps into your AAA, the AI will "shut down" until the player leaves. The AI used for our auto-guns will be sufficient, so there shouldn't be a need to rewrite AI. The thing to note is that, even if your ship is capable of putting out puffy ack, the AI will not be able to use these. This will be solely, a player control aspect of your ship. No AI puffy of death, so rest easy AC. If you are shot down by a player ship's puffy, rest assured it will have been by a human player in the guns. There has to be some give somewhere, and AI for your AAA is something I feel is best in this situation.
EDIT: I forgot to mention another important factor, that also applies to TG Ships: Free Mode, Land Mode and Sea Mode. This will be explain further in my next post.
Destroyer Escort/Destroyer Supplies.
There could be two type of supplies carried by the DE/DD's: Hull Supplies; which add 1 repair, or Ship Supplies; which rearm a quarter of your ords (shells, torpedoes, depth charges, etc.) You may be able to push Ship Supplies to half, but I wouldn't fo further. DE and DD's will be the only class that will have the ability to run supplies, but at the cost of your torpedo load. One example would be to take on supplies to resupply a player, but at the cost of half of your torpedoes. It is to my understanding that submarines, at times, would take on supplies from a DE/DD simply because it was too dangerous for a Supply Ship to be sent. These supplies could be taken by any player ship, but both would have to slow to less than 3 knots in order to drop/take on supplies. Hull Supplies will add 1 more repair to the target ship, including your own. In other words, if you up a DE with supplies, you will have 3 (using high end) points of repair for your ship, though only half of the amount of torpedoes you could carry.
-
Free Mode, Land Mode, Sea Mode.
These options will be available to TG ships and Player Ships. For Player Controlled ships, you can choose to bombard a target using land mode from the bridge of your ship. An option, Bombardment, will be available from the bridge which you can click on to start using. This will automatically put you into Land Mode and a clipboard with a map will pop up with the option (dependent on ship class) to use Main Guns, Secondary Guns and All Guns (If your ship lacks secondary guns, Main Guns and Secondary Guns will be grayed out and All Guns will be locked in). Since your ship is limited in ammunition, it's not always feasible to use All Guns. For example, if you are expecting ship-to-ship combat, just using your Secondary Guns could benefit you more. However you will be able to toggle between the options while on the bridge at will. Just pull up your clipboard and check the appropriate box as per your needs. Example: Cruiser Class (our current class Brooklyn? I honestly keep forgetting.) I wish to bombard a town, and rather do it from the bridge so I can use both my 8" Main Guns as well as my 5" Secondary Guns. I would click on the button Bombardment and my clipboard will pop up, setting my mode to Land Mode and give me the options to use either my Main Guns, Secondary Guns or All Guns (By Default All Guns will be checked). From there I click on the map where the town is and proceed to hit the assigned fire all guns key (which mine is the default setting). Now, if you have a gunner on your ship, he will only be able to control one turret if you are controlling all guns. This means that he will not be able to use the Fire Control Tower(s) of either the 8" guns or 5" guns, and instead will be stuck with using a single turret. To allow him to do the bombardment or to take control of the 5" Fire Control Tower, you will have to drop out of bombardment mode and resume from a Fire Control Tower, if you wish to use it's assigned guns, or from an individual turret.
Supply Ships.
If players are allowed to control supply ships, then the ability to fully reload a player ship will be feasible. They might also have the ability to fully restore a player ship's repair points as well (which is dependent in Supply Ship Class and Target Player's Ship Class). Supply ships can run with (dependent on class) 2-4 supplies and will fall under the same requirements to carry out the operation (both must be slowed to under 3 knots to drop/take supplies). This is further detailed with the ability to adjust supply types (IE: Using the large range of 4: Take 2 Hull and 2 Ship or, take 1 Hull and 3 ship). Supply Ships can also take Field Supplies and be used to resupply any coastal fields (if they are close enough) and ports. If implemented, they could be used to resupply fleets (IE: Bombardment Task Group Troop Transports). Dependent on class, Supply Ships can sport light Anti-Ship guns and/or AAA guns, and they will have "gun packages" if applicable. Supply Ships, while lightly armed and armored, could give a player the ability to drastically reduce the down time's at the base. While this may sound "op", you have to consider the fact that this player had to sail all the way from his nearest friendly port to this base, and that he's doing it in a lightly armed and armored ship. They are not known for their speed as well, so I think this is a reasonable trade off. The reward for this action will also fit the effort. That being said, having a time limit to which you can resupply the same base will need to be implemented so people don't "farm" perks. Maybe limiting the ability to resupply the same field to once every 2-4 hours to prevent this is a starting point. Adjust both perks and time as necessary.
AI Supply Ships/Convoys (BASIC).
If implemented, they should follow supply corridors. Inside these corridors, the AI ship will "randomly" plot a course towards it's destination. A corridor should be 25-50 miles wide, which means that if someone hunting supply ships/convoy's wants juicy perks, they will have to work for them a little bit. No: Beaufighter, 25% fuel, X Bombs/Rockets, fly to this very spot here, ???, profit. You'll have to look a bit.
-
Complexity is it's own worst enemy while acting as a narcotic for the creators mind.
Your write up sounds great on paper with 24 sided dice.
-
Complexity is it's own worst enemy while acting as a narcotic for the creators mind.
Your write up sounds great on paper with 24 sided dice.
Aside from your first post which briefly mentions the eye candy as a result of damage, this quoted post seems to be the only one that actually is a straight response to the idea I put forth. Otherwise, your previous 2 posts really didn't amount to much more than rambling on about the past. So, what is your exact problem with the idea here? I want to hear what you have to say. You may very well state something I completely missed, or have a better line to draw from one point to another. Getting information from different perspectives helps out after all. I only request few things in your response; Don't "beat around the bush" like you normally do. Get to the point. Stay on point.
While I may only be 32, there was something I was told that may be of help to you: "Respect people regardless of age. Otherwise, do not ask for respect when you give none."
-
+1 :aok
-
Complexity is it's own worst enemy while acting as a narcotic for the creators mind.
Shortest bustr post ever. And most ironic. :D
-
Fleet movement and Task Group Control +1
I will have to read more to see if it does anything to both discourage dive bombing B26s, or ack hanging Corsairs..... :old:
-
I like it! +1
Don't know how easy it would be to get individual ships to slow down in the TG though
-
Aside from your first post which briefly mentions the eye candy as a result of damage, this quoted post seems to be the only one that actually is a straight response to the idea I put forth. Otherwise, your previous 2 posts really didn't amount to much more than rambling on about the past. So, what is your exact problem with the idea here? I want to hear what you have to say. You may very well state something I completely missed, or have a better line to draw from one point to another. Getting information from different perspectives helps out after all. I only request few things in your response; Don't "beat around the bush" like you normally do. Get to the point. Stay on point.
While I may only be 32, there was something I was told that may be of help to you: "Respect people regardless of age. Otherwise, do not ask for respect when you give none."
About on schedule for everyone's life cycle, that you try to build the tower of Babel that didn't crash under it's own weight.
Complexity is it's own worst enemy while being the hallmark of youth trying to make their mark on the universe before they become the old poops they despise for getting in their way. As you get on in life, you also learn that respect is an illusion most often used as a personal ploy in intellectual exchanges to hide anger. Something only important to the one's worried about it, over being granted to themselves or denying it to others like friending on Face Book. With about as much value in the real world.
-
Fleet movement and Task Group Control +1
I will have to read more to see if it does anything to both discourage dive bombing B26s, or ack hanging Corsairs..... :old:
If determined enough, nothing. :lol I'm guilty of flying my AC straight into a DD or CA, but usually because I'm missing parts and only have enough control to do it. :D
About on schedule for everyone's life cycle, that you try to build the tower of Babel that didn't crash under it's own weight.
Complexity is it's own worst enemy while being the hallmark of youth trying to make their mark on the universe before they become the old poops they despise for getting in their way. As you get on in life, you also learn that respect is an illusion most often used as a personal ploy in intellectual exchanges to hide anger. Something only important to the one's worried about it, over being granted to themselves or denying it to others like friending on Face Book. With about as much value in the real world.
Hmmm..... And we see here that you not only "beat around the bush", as per your norm, you hide it all under a guise of intellect.
Straight to point:
"You idea is just too complex for my liking."
I have just now showed you how not to beat around the bush. Straight to point, stayed on point.
It is an interesting act you put forth for everyone's enjoyment. I would say you should drop it, but that would be pointless. You will act however you wish to act. You are your own person afterall. However, you are far from being superior over anyone here. So maybe a change in your act may be beneficial to you.
-
What a great idea, for a different game.
-1
I would not want to see any more resources spent on something that has very little to do with aircraft. there are already plenty of things to do if you don't want to fly.
BTW Volron, what is your in-game handle please?
Never mind, I see it's "Volron", you just haven't done a sortie yet this month.
-
While I do hope they intend to work on this aspect before sending out the new engine, it's not meant as in; "Now, now, now! GIMME!". I just wish for more towards the Naval side of things. At the very least I hope to sea some float planes implemented upon release. :) But things will come as they come. :aok
-
While I do hope they intend to work on this aspect before sending out the new engine, it's not meant as in; "Now, now, now! GIMME!". I just wish for more towards the Naval side of things. At the very least I hope to sea some float planes implemented upon release. :) But things will come as they come. :aok
Hey man, many get what you are sayin
A lot of us have asked for this kind of thing, for years..
Because this is the aspect of WW2 that interests us..
Just not here I guess.. And doesn't seem to be any interest..
So my naval warfare "interest" takes me elsewhere..
Not my fault man, LOL