Airpower and the Pacific

GlowwormGuy · 04-07-06, 08:05 PM

I wonder how a 1930's style hybrid Carrier-Battlecruiser battle would have been (I'm imagining a Star Wars style engagement, as the space ships there are technically hybrid Carrier-Battleships) as many early carriers were originally Battlecruiser or Battleship designs.

Courageous Class
Akagi and Kaga
Eagle (ex-Cochrane class BB)
Bearn (ex-Normandie class BB)
Lexington Class
Ise Class (late war modification)
Shinano (late war change design)

Now, what if these ships had - as in the Japanese case - retained their heavy guns? Interesting stuff - instead of over the horizon engagements, you could have fleets of these 'hermaphrodites' actively seeking out and engaging the enemy at gun range, screened by their own aircraft. Sort of like the WW2 Battle of Samar (Leyte Gulf) except this time the carriers can hold their own.

They should look into airpower for SH4 - having a VERY SIMPLE dogfight AI that allows aircraft to actually ENGAGE each other (I mean simple Playstation games can manage this, why not here?), the possibility of allowing ship launched aircraft - there were some submarines capable of launching aircraft, the Japanese Sen-Toku class comes immediately to mind and of course if you're in the Pacific, naval airpower IS the thing! What's the use of seeing aircraft buzzing around if they're not shooting each other down - and this also adds the dimension of rescuing downed fliers, a MAJOR US Navy sub task! The things don't have to start on deck, even just spawning as they launch from a carrier, then landing properly (rather than just flying till they run out of fuel) would be not just a big plus but, for a Pacific based game, a necessity.

So PLEASE, ship launchable aircraft (with option to order a launch yourself!) that actually fight.

Mountbatten

STEED · 04-08-06, 05:57 AM

Interesting :hmm:

GlowwormGuy · 04-08-06, 09:49 PM

(well we know the answer to THAT one but just for a moment let's pretend it's not all about the Benjamins...)

The games are similar enough as they have to be compatible. Small things here and there should BOTH be accepted - for example in DC and SH2 ships would have to be either Diesel or Steam Turbine (like it made an appreciable difference). The problem with that is, there were many surface ships that used Diesels and in any case there doesn't seem to be any real performance difference between the two in game.

The major appreciable difference is the heavy fixed binocular screen. If the ship is 'sub' class then it would get those fixed binocs but if it's a surface type this could be substituted for the Gun Director screen.

The ships guns themselves shouldn't - historically and realistically - be limited to one heavy gun and one AA gun apiece. What about subs that mounted multiple AA guns or even those heavy quad mounts I've seen in some pictures?

There really shouldn't be any problem with having two-in-one. If they could do that - and supply an adequate scenario and unit editor - then I'd buy that.

Mountbatten

04-07-06, 08:05 PM	#1
GlowwormGuy Planesman Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 187 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 0	Airpower and the Pacific I wonder how a 1930's style hybrid Carrier-Battlecruiser battle would have been (I'm imagining a Star Wars style engagement, as the space ships there are technically hybrid Carrier-Battleships) as many early carriers were originally Battlecruiser or Battleship designs. Courageous Class Akagi and Kaga Eagle (ex-Cochrane class BB) Bearn (ex-Normandie class BB) Lexington Class Ise Class (late war modification) Shinano (late war change design) Now, what if these ships had - as in the Japanese case - retained their heavy guns? Interesting stuff - instead of over the horizon engagements, you could have fleets of these 'hermaphrodites' actively seeking out and engaging the enemy at gun range, screened by their own aircraft. Sort of like the WW2 Battle of Samar (Leyte Gulf) except this time the carriers can hold their own. They should look into airpower for SH4 - having a VERY SIMPLE dogfight AI that allows aircraft to actually ENGAGE each other (I mean simple Playstation games can manage this, why not here?), the possibility of allowing ship launched aircraft - there were some submarines capable of launching aircraft, the Japanese Sen-Toku class comes immediately to mind and of course if you're in the Pacific, naval airpower IS the thing! What's the use of seeing aircraft buzzing around if they're not shooting each other down - and this also adds the dimension of rescuing downed fliers, a MAJOR US Navy sub task! The things don't have to start on deck, even just spawning as they launch from a carrier, then landing properly (rather than just flying till they run out of fuel) would be not just a big plus but, for a Pacific based game, a necessity. So PLEASE, ship launchable aircraft (with option to order a launch yourself!) that actually fight. Mountbatten

04-08-06, 05:57 AM	#2
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	Interesting :hmm: __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

04-08-06, 09:49 PM	#3
GlowwormGuy Planesman Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 187 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 0	DC2 or SH4? Why not just have both? (well we know the answer to THAT one but just for a moment let's pretend it's not all about the Benjamins...) The games are similar enough as they have to be compatible. Small things here and there should BOTH be accepted - for example in DC and SH2 ships would have to be either Diesel or Steam Turbine (like it made an appreciable difference). The problem with that is, there were many surface ships that used Diesels and in any case there doesn't seem to be any real performance difference between the two in game. The major appreciable difference is the heavy fixed binocular screen. If the ship is 'sub' class then it would get those fixed binocs but if it's a surface type this could be substituted for the Gun Director screen. The ships guns themselves shouldn't - historically and realistically - be limited to one heavy gun and one AA gun apiece. What about subs that mounted multiple AA guns or even those heavy quad mounts I've seen in some pictures? There really shouldn't be any problem with having two-in-one. If they could do that - and supply an adequate scenario and unit editor - then I'd buy that. Mountbatten