Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ONTOS on October 15, 2016, 02:02:50 PM
-
I have heard we have Battleships, but no one has seen any. Do we have them ?
-
They have been sunk already, sorry :noid
-
You have to achieve a #1 ranking to use them....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You have to enter the Konami code to access them
-
:noid
.showbattleship
-
Left left up down right down A A B A up up left start
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Left left up down right down A A B A up up left start
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it was:
Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Start Select
:headscratch:
-
I thought it was:
Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Start Select
:headscratch:
That's for the reindeer and sleigh!
-
When you hear "thunderstruck" on arena wide voice coms, you will know a proper battleship has arrived.
-
I have successfully passed the Kobayashi Maru test.( and I did not cheat) Can I have my Battleship now.
-
That's for the reindeer and sleigh!
DOH! :bhead
-
Here you go.
(http://i2.wp.com/gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/admiralgrafspeeterra081.jpg?zoom=4&w=800)
-
I have successfully passed the Kobayashi Maru test.( and I did not cheat) Can I have my Battleship now.
you forgot to write your name on the test.
semp
-
I did write my name. I cannot help it if you cannot read. I want my Battleship, it was promised.
-
Your battleship was sent to jail. It did not pass GO. It did not collect $200
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m48k6vnKnQ1rvkt60o2_500.jpg)
-
You have to pay for the gold package to get the battleship.
-
Ok, Ok, forget the Battleships. I'll take Seven Light Cruisers, an anti aircraft Cruiser (Atlanta Class), and a couple Destroyer Escorts.
-
Alt f4 for Battleships
-
As much as I would love to see a battleship, I doubt they will ever put one in AH; even if they already have it modeled. First of all it's a ship which means we can't have it to ourselves to command because hiTech does not want us in ships (for many reasons). That leaves the other option which would be to have a battleship TG in place of a CV task group, which we won't get because people would fight over it and you would have to assume you would have no air support to attack or defend with which HiTech will say is unfeasible/unnecessary. They you would be left with the only other option, which would be to add one to a CV TG, which they wont do, because they will say they cruiser is sufficient.
It is unfortunate, and I would love to see one, but I believe you could say that ship has sailed.
-
we don't no stinking battleships. :D
the heavy cruiser we have is enough. :D
the real question that should be asked is: where are the sheep-supply trucks-and the supply trains?
-
Currently there is only the normal CVTG0 task group (5 DDs, 1 CA, 1 CV) in the terrain editor so if a terrain builder wants to add the new battleship they have to make a custom task group and this may or may not be accepted for an MA terrain. While custom task groups have been incorporated in MA terrains before Skuzzy does not like them as they make updating the terrain a pain. I have been expecting HTC to either add a BBTG0 task group (BB and 5 DDs?) or to add the battleship to the current task group.
To my knowledge HTC have never said how they intend the battleship to work in the MA environment. If they add a separate battleship task group then either extra ports would have to be added to MA terrains for them or some CV TGs would have to be substituted for BB TGs. I'd not like the latter option at all.
-
As much as I would love to see a battleship, I doubt they will ever put one in AH; even if they already have it modeled. First of all it's a ship which means we can't have it to ourselves to command because hiTech does not want us in ships (for many reasons). That leaves the other option which would be to have a battleship TG in place of a CV task group, which we won't get because people would fight over it and you would have to assume you would have no air support to attack or defend with which HiTech will say is unfeasible/unnecessary. They you would be left with the only other option, which would be to add one to a CV TG, which they wont do, because they will say they cruiser is sufficient.
It is unfortunate, and I would love to see one, but I believe you could say that ship has sailed.
Ummm.... there is a battleship. It was tested with in Alpha and Beta... I dont think it has sailed anywhere, most likely sitting in the port waiting for assignment.
-
The way I'd like the battleship to be added for MA play is for it to become the flagship of the current CV task group. Make it 3-4 times harder than the CV, say 24-32K of bombs or 4-6 torpedoes to sink it. That way a set of bombers can still take out the CV and temporarily shut down air operations but the CV will eventually re-spawn unless multiple attacks sink the battleship and sends the fleet back to port first.
-
I propose no battleships until the lancaster can carry a "tallboy" bomb loadout.
Whilst we are at it some bouncing bombs aswell! Would be pretty cool to fly low and roll a bomb towards a tank/ship.
-
Ummm.... there is a battleship. It was tested with in Alpha and Beta... I dont think it has sailed anywhere, most likely sitting in the port waiting for assignment.
I remember checking out all the guns on it (and finding a minor problem with one) so it must have been sailing somewhere since you can't man the guns in the dummy ships in port?
-
During Beta testing, HT said it was working on a battleship. That's all I have to go on.
-
During Beta testing, HT said it was working on a battleship. That's all I have to go on.
There is an Iowa class Battleship.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,374889.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,374889.0.html)
From Waffle:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/waffle/floating.jpg)
-
Forget the battleship, I'll take Taffy 3 thank you.
-
Taffy 3 was a Squadron of DD's, DE's and Baby Flattops. Their battle at Leyte Gulf ( Battle off Samar) is well known to those who have studied WW II. How they stopped and turned around a Superior Japanese navel force is one of the greatest navel engagements in WW II. To name any one ship would be to dishonor the others, but the DD USS Johnston is probably the best known. Taffy 3 would be a fine addition. :salute
-
The Johnston was amazing but honestly the USS Samuel B. Roberts takes the cake for me. I mean a DE with only 2 five inch guns dueling with CAs and several battleships for almost an hour. Wow.
-
I propose no battleships until the lancaster can carry a "tallboy" bomb loadout.
Whilst we are at it some bouncing bombs aswell! Would be pretty cool to fly low and roll a bomb towards a tank/ship.
A lanc with the ability to take the tallboy (no formations) would be awesome. make it an AP bomb so blast radius isnt huge but damage massive and make it a HQ killer..
-
Taffy 3 was a Squadron of DD's, DE's and Baby Flattops. Their battle at Leyte Gulf ( Battle off Samar) is well known to those who have studied WW II. How they stopped and turned around a Superior Japanese navel force is one of the greatest navel engagements in WW II. To name any one ship would be to dishonor the others, but the DD USS Johnston is probably the best known. Taffy 3 would be a fine addition. :salute
:aok
-
Yes indeed Beefcake, the USS Samuel B. Roberts the "Destroyer that fought like a Battleship".
-
The way I'd like the battleship to be added for MA play is for it to become the flagship of the current CV task group. Make it 3-4 times harder than the CV, say 24-32K of bombs or 4-6 torpedoes to sink it. That way a set of bombers can still take out the CV and temporarily shut down air operations but the CV will eventually re-spawn unless multiple attacks sink the battleship and sends the fleet back to port first.
nope nope nope-the CV is the flagship of the American Navy battle group... unless you have a task force without a cv--just battleships cruisers and destroyers.
-
nope nope nope-the CV is the flagship of the American Navy battle group... unless you have a task force without a cv--just battleships cruisers and destroyers.
Well it may not be historically accurate, but then neither is ships respawning after x minutes, the increased speed of the task groups, Japanese planes operating from an Essex carrier, the main threat to a ship at sea being level bombers and so on. Sometimes gameplay overrides the need for what happened in RL, particularly in the MA.
I think making a much stronger battleship the TG flagship would make for more interesting gameplay. Currently if I am capping a task group and a bomber takes out the CV then it is game over from a tactical POV. With my suggested setup in that situation it would be worth me trying to protect the BB for long enough for the CV to respawn. It would become an exciting race between the attackers and defenders.
-
What if they made it a requirement to sink both CV AND BB for TG to get sent back to port? CV will respawn after 10 mins, but if BB is down, then TG respawns back at port with fresh ships. If BB is down and CV stays up, TG continues along until the BB respawns. Just give the BB a 20(?) min respawn. Still make the BB a tough cookie though.
The one thing they need to do regardless is update the way a fleet moves about. Give a little "clipboard" of maneuvers that the fleet can do. Example: 360 starboard, 360 hard starboard, 180 starboard, 180 hard starboard, etc. A standard starboard turn would have the entire fleet make the turn, allowing the support ships to keep up without formation break. A hard turn would have all ships do a 180 and would be in their spots they were prior to turn. From there, they would move around and get back into formation. Using current TG in this: After a hard 180, the CA would be behind the CV and would need to move up and around the CV (for immersion, rather than clipping through her :)) after the turn to get back into formation. You'd have to be on the bridge to use these commands though. ;) It would allow for more precise maneuvers.
I don't see why they can't just have two TG's (if they go with the separated route and of course make a TG BB group that is "standard") sourcing from 1 port currently. They can up the hardness of the hangers at the port (doubtful), up the number of troops required to cap the port to 20 (VERY HIGHLY doubt they'd do and sounds like a nightmare to code since I believe ALL MR's are the same regardless :headscratch:), or just stick with current setup. Still have to go out and find those TG's. :) Obviously not ALL ports would have a BB TG. Maybe make one/two depending on map, source the BB TG and put it "deep" in home territory. This would allow the BB asset to be put to use more regularly, rather than restricting it to FSO/Scenario/Snapshot maps. I know you AvA guys are gonna have some fun with custom AvA maps. :D
Then comes the base layout if they wish to wait until then (or they add the BB TG and later add a port base). A major naval base/port that would support 2 TG's: 2 VH's, 2-4 FH's. Add a small runway that will allow for fighters to launch/re-arm from the naval base for defense. 2 coastal guns for attacks from sea and some auto-puffy. It supports TWO TG's after all. :)
-
Well it may not be historically accurate, but then neither is ships respawning after x minutes, the increased speed of the task groups, Japanese planes operating from an Essex carrier, the main threat to a ship at sea being level bombers and so on. Sometimes gameplay overrides the need for what happened in RL, particularly in the MA.
I think making a much stronger battleship the TG flagship would make for more interesting gameplay. Currently if I am capping a task group and a bomber takes out the CV then it is game over from a tactical POV. With my suggested setup in that situation it would be worth me trying to protect the BB for long enough for the CV to respawn. It would become an exciting race between the attackers and defenders.
I really love this idea. +1