We'd need a proper modeling for bombs, i.e. AP bombs need a certain speed (=altitude) to actually penetrate the deck armor, while HE bombs will not and only destroy equipment :old:
As much as I would like to see it this runs the risk of raising a few issues we don't need in AH. It would be great for specific scenarios, but really the Bismarck was out of action before it really had an effect at all on the war, and aside from that specific ship types don't matter. A generic carrier is as good as anything except for historical reenactments. Submarines would be a much more effective addition.
If this wish came true I fear I'd never get anything done around the house. I'm a junkie when it comes to anything naval warfare oriented....given how well HTC models the aircraft here, if they added a serious naval game on top of it, I'd fear for my marriage. :lol
NC had radar guided fire control,bismark would be no match.
oh and as long as we add other country vessels,lets make sure the AAA is modeled correctly for each. IE japan did not have proxie fuze
My dad was a range finder for the 5" secondary on the USS St Paul (CA-73) during the Korean War.The Nagato was the first 16" gunned BB and probably the most powerful ship in the world when launched, but she is 20 years older than the other three. KGV has good armor, but her guns are only 14". Probably North Carolina followed by Bismark, then perhaps Nagato due to punch and last KGV.
I know this is a bad question but in a slug out, which of these battlewagons has the advantage? I go with either the North Carolina or the Bismarck. I say this for the simple reason I've read that the North Carolina was a very stable platform, which lent to greater accuracy. The Bismarck had a great armor design. In all cases the classic rule of 'being lucky over good any day' applies.
Thoughts?
boo
PS +1 for expanding the naval assets. I would love to see convoys, LSTs, etc.
I think you are onto something there Arlo - when radar is down, radar range should be equal to current visibility no? Every airport and ship had spotters - so if electric radar went down, wouldn't the manual method of aircraft tracking take precedence?
'Captain, radar is down!'
'How is the weather?'
'Unlimited visibility.'
'Bridge to fire control. Do you have the enemy sighted?'
'Aye. Forty thousand yards and closing.'
'Fire when within range.'
Dive-bombing also produces speed.
Also ....
The following planes have AP bombs in the game:
B5N2
D3A1
FW190F8 (semi)
G4M1
Ju87D3
ME410 (semi)
SBD5
Are you saying they are just 'AP' (or 'SAP') in name or are you saying that you want the game to recognize the speed on impact?
When it comes to ranging for mainguns, I've long loved the idea of allowing TBMs to call in fire.
Imagine a TBM turning circles at 15k, a few miles off the beach. The TBM is able to take control of the main guns (or at least one turret) of our cruiser. They can then call in and adjust fire for effect.
Allowing this would allow over the horizon bombardments and require a greater amount of teamwork for a squadron. Among other things an attacking group would be wise to keep a Division of Hellcats in BARCAP for the TBM.
Dare to dream...
boo
When it comes to ranging for mainguns, I've long loved the idea of allowing TBMs to call in fire.
Imagine a TBM turning circles at 15k, a few miles off the beach. The TBM is able to take control of the main guns (or at least one turret) of our cruiser. They can then call in and adjust fire for effect.
Allowing this would allow over the horizon bombardments and require a greater amount of teamwork for a squadron. Among other things an attacking group would be wise to keep a Division of Hellcats in BARCAP for the TBM.
Dare to dream...
boo
I listened to 2 guys n game do just that. One was circling the other was calling his shots.....they must have done it as a team quite a bit as the spotter walked his shots right in, it was really a sight to see. The immersion factor was nothing short of awesome.
A fellow CJ and I did this a couple years ago. I had just got done dropping my ords from my 234 when he told me he was shelling the field. So I just circled the field and spotted for him. It was friggen awesome! :x He'd always call out "Shot.", which made it very much easier to tell which were his vs the other two guys who were in the other turrets. During this, he told me that if he scores a hit on target, to call a final correction, then call "fire for effect". Then he's just keep shelling the hell out of the hanger until I called down, or until he had to readjust due to CV maneuvering. "Correct: L 100; IN: 500." *Shot.* "Correct: R25; IN: 25. Fire for effect."
Bet it was you gents as what you wrote was exactly what I was hearing :aok
Love the Lusty - HMS Illustrious. Now here's a question, with armoured flight decks the Illustrious class could take a lot more punishment than their US counterparts - would you model this?
Love the Lusty - HMS Illustrious. Now here's a question, with armoured flight decks the Illustrious class could take a lot more punishment than their US counterparts - would you model this?Yes - you can easily adjust the hardness of ships as long as it's treated as a separate object in the game administration. Right now all ships have a standard hardness which we can adjust accordingly in our arena settings both in game and object settings (two places).
If we're going to have the Bismarck, we absolutely need this:
(http://www.uh.edu/engines/faireyswordfishb&w.jpg)
Battle of Taranto anyone? :cool:
At least go with the BBs that fit best with the game Arlo :)
USS California and the other clipper bow BBs. Then you've got Pearl covered as well as all the shore bombardment those BBs did during the war. And finally you've got the last BBs to engage in a surface action at Surigo Straight (sp)
Gotta love the look of those clipper bows, even in high seas
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/California-1.jpg)
At least go with the BBs that fit best with the game Arlo :)
USS California and the other clipper bow BBs. Then you've got Pearl covered as well as all the shore bombardment those BBs did during the war. And finally you've got the last BBs to engage in a surface action at Surigo Straight (sp)
Gotta love the look of those clipper bows, even in high seas
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/California-1.jpg)
Which version of the California gets modeled?Definitely number 2
(http://www.warart.com/images/products/251_large_image.jpg)
Far too easy to sink the battle groups. Even a noob like me has done it and survived.
Which version of the California gets modeled?
(http://www.warart.com/images/products/251_large_image.jpg)
2 as the Pearl version is just one day, the other is the one that did all the damage. Throw in the West Virginia with the twin 16 inch turrets too. She scored on her first shot at a Japanese BB. Talk about payback :)
What one class of BB would you pare it all down to? Bear in mind, the Nagato had 16" guns. The ships won't be identical (USN, IJN, RN, etc.).
Should we try to balance the firepower of the main batteries somewhat, though? Individual gun range and power, number of guns, guns to bear side fore and aft, armor?
Rather than Bismark, how about Scharnhorst and Gneisenau for the German fleet, alternatives for British could be Repulse/Renown or Queen Elizabeth class? Illustrious is a definite for the British carrier.Battlecruisers don't stand up to battleships very well.
Battlecruisers don't stand up to battleships very well.
I suspect Arlo's goal was to suggest a list of BBs that were, relatively, equal.
I do think the California would fit that better than the South Dakota. If we were to get a single BB to add the option of a BB centered fleet in addition to our CV centered fleet the obvious choices are South Dakota or Iowa classes. If HTC wanted to bite off a bit more and introduce a new DD and CA at the same time then Yamato or Nagato class might work with a Takao class CA and some Akizuki class DDs as escorts.
If DDs as player controlled units ever happen I'd hope for the initial two to be Fletcher class and Akizuki class.
Let's keep it simple. Nagato, Prince of Wales, Washington, Bismarck
Illustrious, Soryu, King George V, Bismarck, South Dakota, Kongo.As stated earlier, battlecruisers do not stand up to battleships very well. Only Japanese options are Nagato class or Yamato class. All other Japanese BBs are actually modified BCs.
Submarines would be coding a completely new game which, unfortunately, is already in existence. Sub sims are, by nature, long patrol simulations (with time compression between encounters). AH doesn't lend itself to such. AH is more of a constant action format. Heck, players complain about flight time to action as it is. There is no time compression in AH, there's only reduced scale. The only way I can see submarines in AH would be as AI. Still, even making them run patrols to intercept task forces would add little to the game other than making players angry that a task force was hit by an AI sub instead of at least becoming a surface ship on surface ship action. And if it wasn't AI? It would merely be 'fleet camping.'
Unfortunately, you forget we do have time compression. HTC calls them spawn points.
Unfortunately, you forget we do have time compression. HTC calls them spawn points.
I like the idea of varying the skins for ships, so +1 for that. However the BB's should be modeled on ships that historically screened the CV's, or were at least fast enough to do so. Bismarck, Hiei, Washington, SoDak and KGV would fit, but California and her contemporaries would not.
I clocked our current TF speed at approx. 33 MPH or 28.7 knots. That's cruising speed (but for game purposes, only speed - may as well be top).
Bismark didn't have a CV to escort - however, in the MA, she might.
That leaves (give a couple knots):
German
Scharnhorst class - 31 knots
Bismark class - 30 knots
U.S.
North Carolina class - 28 knots
South Dakota class - 27.8 knots (erg, maybe)
Iowa class - 33 knots
I.J.N.
Kongo class - 30 knots
Nagato class - 26.5 knots (erg, make the cV zig zag more)
Yamato class - 27 knots (even it lagged)
R.N.
King George V - 28 knots
(It does limit selection.)
Yeah it's wishful thinking, but it is a wish list :)
North Carolina and Nagato classes. That would make separate TFs a necessity but that could make things just as interesting. What do you think of rotational TF spawning in the MA?
The type 93 turned IJN DDs and light CGs into very effective night attack platforms against USN capitol ships. I can only imagine the Havoc to be caused had they lesser platforms for such attacks at night, like PT boats, and used their DDs for convoy protection. Luckily for us they didnt have the number of DDs available for that until AFTER we destroyed their convoy Hulls, and probably, would have used the DDs as capitol ships anyways BECAUSE of the type 93.
I bet the Long Lance could have taken out any ship in the USN. Of course what good was it when we got our huge CV groups rolling, nothing could get close to the CVs or BBs used as screens. Was there ever a USN BB hit by a LongLance?
I know the lighter sub version took out the heavy cruiser Indianapolis. The IJN "fish" were very dangerous, most of all at night. In the end we managed them by managing their launch platforms. The Japanese also didnt seem to learn from their mistakes. Even the modern IJN was mired in to much tradition.
I don't see an issue for having the AI control the scout planes from a ship. Now for Cruisers and Battleships, there isn't a problem. They only had a couple. From a CV though, a limit would be needed. Maybe 4 to 8, depending on CV class (if they add in different CV types)? If we are still with our Essex, then what about a limit of 8 scouts?
Now how about this idea to further it along: If launched then later shot down, it would take 15 minutes before you could launch another one? If they returned and landed, you have a 30 second wait until you can launch again? This would be similar to them landing to re-arm. For launching of scouts, a player MUST be in the tower of the TG to do so, and possibly in command. A drop down menu would appear when you click on something like "Launch Scouts", where you can select which ship and how many would launch. Then give a custom patrol path or click on "Default Patrol", which would give you a basic search pattern.
Picture this. You're flying in an AH event as a scout for the U.S. Pacific fleet and you find this ....
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/IJNBBfleetYTfilm_zps989eb0bb.png~original) (http://youtu.be/s8VFU8RX9Jk)
Good points, Volron. But knowing what the enemy fleet is comprised of is as important as knowing where it is. If there is no 'join' button to see with our own eyes I would say that the TFs require specific designations to show types:
TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 1 enemy TG (our current type)
TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 2 enemy TG (U.S. BB)
TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 3 enemy TG (U.S. invasion group)
TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 4 enemy TG (IJN CV group) ..... etc.
I'd love to see a fuller surface fleet for both sides lead to an event like:
http://youtu.be/f-iGLrrwiGw
Oh, and TG commanders need a throttle to stop the group when it's time to recover the scout float plane (or lose that scout for whatever acceptable time limit and keep on trucking). Or .... do they?
Losing a scout float plane to combat/fuel should result in:
a: Loss of one scout float plane out of x for 30 minutes.
b: Loss of scout float plane capability altogether for that ship for 30 minutes.
c: Loss of one scout float plane out of x for an hour.
d: Loss of scout float plane capability altogether for that ship for an hour.
e: No penalty. Hell, buffs auger just to re-up faster as it is. It's not like scout float planes can be abused worse than that.