battleships

[Ruler2]

I'll reiterate my opinion that having a US task group it would be nice for  a BB task group to be based on non-US equipment.  I'd argue that Japanese equipment makes the most sense as the Pacific war, with the US and Japan being the major participants, was the more major naval aspect of WWII.  Thus a Japanese BB group formed around a Yamato or Nagato class BB with a couple Takao class CAs and a screen of Akizuki class DDs would add a nice dash of variety to AH.  Not everything has to be based on US equipment.

Or the perfect setup: one country has US, one has Japanese, and one has German task groups     Although I don't know of any German CVs other than Graf Zeppelin...

[Rino]

I'll reiterate my opinion that having a US task group it would be nice for  a BB task group to be based on non-US equipment.  I'd argue that Japanese equipment makes the most sense as the Pacific war, with the US and Japan being the major participants, was the more major naval aspect of WWII.  Thus a Japanese BB group formed around a Yamato or Nagato class BB with a couple Takao class CAs and a screen of Akizuki class DDs would add a nice dash of variety to AH.  Not everything has to be based on US equipment.

     I don't really think the country of origin would make a big difference until the shipset is filled more completely.
As far as the game goes, a BB is a BB is a BB.  Other than the gee whiz factor, people would enjoy having bigger
guns no matter what the rest of the ship looked like 

[Karnak]

Or the perfect setup: one country has US, one has Japanese, and one has German task groups     Although I don't know of any German CVs other than Graf Zeppelin...

A German task group doesn't make any sense.  The three main naval powers were the US, UK and Japan.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The origin of the battleship should be determined by the origin of the Task Group to which it is attached. If the primary ship of the Task Group to which the battleship is to be attached is a U.S. CV, then the battleship should be a U.S. battleship.

[Karnak]

The origin of the battleship should be determined by the origin of the Task Group to which it is attached. If the primary ship of the Task Group to which the battleship is to be attached is a U.S. CV, then the battleship should be a U.S. battleship.

It wouldn't be part of the CV task group, so that makes no sense.  The whole point is to get the CV further from the shore batteries and quick bomb strike ranges so it can use the stand off range of its aircraft while the BB group goes in to bombard and launch the LTVs.

[321BAR]

It wouldn't be part of the CV task group, so that makes no sense.  The whole point is to get the CV further from the shore batteries and quick bomb strike ranges so it can use the stand off range of its aircraft while the BB group goes in to bombard and launch the LTVs.

Somebody's been reading up on the "CV's still too darn blasted close!" thread     but this is almost exactly what i said in that thread. Add landing forces into the game and CV groups to support it. CV groups should not be able to launch LVTs

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

It wouldn't be part of the CV task group, so that makes no sense.  The whole point is to get the CV further from the shore batteries and quick bomb strike ranges so it can use the stand off range of its aircraft while the BB group goes in to bombard and launch the LTVs.

So, we should have a U.S. based/type CV task group standing off and supporting a non U.S. based/type amphib. invasion support Task Group? Makes perfect sense.  Instead of just adding a new ship, which would easily meet most players desires, an entire new Task Group should be designed, and new behavior modeled.

I'm sure Halsey was just pining away over not being able to use his CV Task Force to support Hosagya(sp?) and his landing force. 

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Taking this a step further, an invasion/bombardment group would not sail without a CV group. Also, the battleships, at least in the U.S. Task Forces, were used to provide an anti-aircraft umbrella for the CV. So you'd have a Task Group from one country providing air cover for a Task Group from another country on the other side of the war. And you'd have a battleship providing anti-aircraft cover for a CV on the other side of the war.

I have nothing against adding ships from other nations. But the logic being used here just in order to avoid adding a U.S. battleship is pretty disjointed.

[Karnak]

So, we should have a U.S. based/type CV task group standing off and supporting a non U.S. based/type amphib. invasion support Task Group? Makes perfect sense.   Instead of just adding a new ship, which would easily meet most players desires, an entire new Task Group should be designed, and new behavior modeled.

I'm sure Halsey was just pining away over not being able to use his CV Task Force to support Hosagya(sp?) and his landing force.  

Would that be any more disconcerting than it is to have F6Fs, Seafires and A6Ms all launching from the same CV as we do now?  Or that we launch carrier strikes from an American carrier to attack another American carrier?

Honestly I would prefer something like the Rooks have UK CV and BB groups, the Bish have US CV and BB groups and the Knights have IJN CV and BB groups.  That would fix both problems, but it is sadly unrealistic in terms of resources.  It would also kind of require fudging the modeling of the AA, bombardment, durability and speeds of the different groups so that none had an advantage over the other in terms of task group effectiveness and survivability, which I don't really like.

You are right that it would be easier to do a US BB group and simply reuse the CA and DDs from the CV group though.

[Guppy35]

So for in shore work, it's the older slower battleships like the Tennessee and Colorado, along with Jeep carriers, DDs and DEs.  Of course with the Jeep carriers the planeset is limited for attacking shore targets.  TBMs, FM2 etc.

Fast battleships, cruisers and DDs with the fast carriers out at sea looking for a ship war.  Those can't take on the shore batteries as they are the outer shield to the slow BBs and vulnerable Jeep carriers.

Ideally you create a Japanese task force, British task force and US task force with carriers filled out with appropriate aircraft for that country.

[Karnak]

So for in shore work, it's the older slower battleships like the Tennessee and Colorado, along with Jeep carriers, DDs and DEs.  Of course with the Jeep carriers the planeset is limited for attacking shore targets.  TBMs, FM2 etc.

Fast battleships, cruisers and DDs with the fast carriers out at sea looking for a ship war.  Those can't take on the shore batteries as they are the outer shield to the slow BBs and vulnerable Jeep carriers.

Ideally you create a Japanese task force, British task force and US task force with carriers filled out with appropriate aircraft for that country.

I guess a way to do it and model them correctly instead of fudging their systems would be to give all sides one of each on a small map and two of each on a large map.  That would also reduce the inclination of going Bish because it is American, or Rook because it is British or Knight because it is Axis.

As for flying the correct types of aircraft off of them, I'd leave that to scenarios and the AvA arena.  For MA purposes they should launch all CV capable aircraft.

[321BAR]

So, we should have a U.S. based/type CV task group standing off and supporting a non U.S. based/type amphib. invasion support Task Group? Makes perfect sense.  Instead of just adding a new ship, which would easily meet most players desires, an entire new Task Group should be designed, and new behavior modeled.

I'm sure Halsey was just pining away over not being able to use his CV Task Force to support Hosagya(sp?) and his landing force. 

Taking this a step further, an invasion/bombardment group would not sail without a CV group. Also, the battleships, at least in the U.S. Task Forces, were used to provide an anti-aircraft umbrella for the CV. So you'd have a Task Group from one country providing air cover for a Task Group from another country on the other side of the war. And you'd have a battleship providing anti-aircraft cover for a CV on the other side of the war.

I have nothing against adding ships from other nations. But the logic being used here just in order to avoid adding a U.S. battleship is pretty disjointed.

You're not thinking of the fact that the DDs and CAs could just be switched to the new TG and include BBs and LCs and their home ships. or leave the LCs out and keep LVTs to do the job. The CV group can stay 10k out and support the landing invasion for more realism. SBs werent firing on CVs at Normandy, Tarawa, Leyte, Iwo, Okinawa, at Torch, Sicily, Southern Italy, Southern France, Guadalcanal... any landings i missed?

[Simba]

"KMS Scharnhorst and its sistership Gneisenau."

H.M.S. Duke of York and Belfast plus supporting destroyers, so I can hunt down Scharnhorst in a historically-correct fashion and sink her, thus avenging my great-uncle who went down with H.M.S. Rawalpindi in 1939.

Oh, and I want a Swordfish to fly against her too, shades of Eugene 'Winkle' Esmonde and his gallant lads of 825 NAS Fleet Air Arm who did it for real during the Channel Dash of 1942.