Operation "Ostfront" - The Battle off the North Cape (25-26. December 1943) -1 reply

Please wait...

The Red Barron

{TDB} Tek Jansen

50 XP

8th July 2004

0 Uploads

191 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

I have been a long term fan of naval maps and island assauts with supporting ships, however, I do feel some of the maps could be revitalized in addition to having some new additions. Some people find maps like Rheinübung boring (I actually agree, but it could be made a much more exciting map) and some people love them. I also would like to propose a new naval map that would IMO make things more intresting for the British vs German sea engagements. First off, I would like to propose new ideas to make ship to ship maps a hell of a lot more exciting. Faster Speed- Since most maps with large bodies of water are using huge map size, the slow speed of the ships and relative size of the body of water makes it quite boring to make a transit from area to area and without the help of aerial spotters makes it quite a hard task to actually initate a naval battle by finding the enemy ship. Increased speed for the ships may seem out of place because aircraft will seem slower (you won't realize notice it if your on the ground) and this could be problem but I'm sure a solution could be found. Faster Firing Rate- Who likes to sit for a minute after you fire your primary armarment wating to reload? I personally dont. I think all ships fire should be speeded up, but different ships should have different loading times. Its a longer process to load the 18 shell on a Yamato than the 14 inch shell on the PoW right? Faster firing rates in general would speed up gameplay a tad leading to more intense combat between ships. Variable Accuracy- If your a good shot, you are going to hit your opponent quite often every time. However, there were many variables in the inherint accuracy of each salvo fired by a ship. If possible would not having random guns fire high or low (or whole turrets if its easier) make combat more exciting? I think so, does anyone agree? More Armor- 1-2 full salvos from a battleship in combat will normally sink the enemy which IMO is rather boring. With heavier armor, ships could take more hits which in conjunction with variable accuracy and faster firing rates would increase the fun factor of naval combat by a good deal. Some Dreadnaughts at Jutland took 30 hits, and while heavily damaged, they all made it back to port. Battlecrusiers were the only large capital ships lost at Jutland which in game should have them having much less armor. Now, for a new map Operation "Ostfront" - The Battle off the North Cape (25-26. December 1943) Operation Ostfront was a German attempt at interdicting the supply convoys in the Arctic sea which was rendering aid to Russia. The Battleship Scharnhorst along with the 4th Destroyer Flotilla were sent to attack convoy JW 55 B (the more interesting ones to depict in this map) with a defensive force consisting of Duke of York (King George V class, you could use the PoW as a model since they were in the same class, saving time) H.M.S Jamaica (British light crusier, if you ever needed a cruiser, you could just use this model, again saving time) 4 Destroyers, (just use the Gloucester for all 4 possibly renaming it, unless you want the extra work of creating 4 new destroyers ;) ) RA 55A was escorted by H.M.S Norfolk (Heavy Cruiser) and 2 light cruisers (Belfast and Sheffield) You might want to tone down the number of ships on each side, but I think it would make it rather exciting with so many unless there was huge lag for most low end computer gamers. This is a map of the actual engagement, and to prevent it being a totally water map (which some people find dull) you could add a little bit of land to signify Norway with maybe a flag or something just so people can play with infantry if they dont like the ship to ship combat. scharnhort_operation_ostfront_1.gif This would give an excellent opportunity to model Scharnhorst (and could be used for her sister ship Gneisenau) which both having very active service lifes including Operation "Weserübung" Operation "Juno" Operation "Berlin" Operation "Cerberus" Operation "Ostfront" Operation "Sizilien" with the Tirpitz, a Bismark class ship And, you could finally model a German Destroyer which could be useful in upcoming maps I'm sure. gallscharnfinalyear01.jpg Scharnhorst herself




Blood n Guts

Wolverine Starting 9/6/2006

50 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

758 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

If we're on the topic of naval engagements, I think a map with that Russian destroyer (Gnevny Class)that has been around for 3 versions without being put into a map would be a good idea. Maybe for an improvement, end respawning ships and flags but add more ships to both sides. That way, it would be somewhat objective base, since once all the enemy ships are sunk, you win the battle. Sounds like a good idea for a map, but that's alot of new ships to model.




Myrddraal

Search function? Where?

50 XP

28th April 2004

0 Uploads

669 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

Ships should also have reworked hit boxes so that where you hit them matters. Ships should have at least as complex a hit box system as tanks do. Also ships should blow up fantastically when they are killed The "landing craft" should also be removed from any warships on naval combat maps add in flying boats for search and rescue. Battleships should also have depth charges.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago
MyrddraalShips should also have reworked hit boxes so that where you hit them matters. Ships should have at least as complex a hit box system as tanks do. Also ships should blow up fantastically when they are killed The "landing craft" should also be removed from any warships on naval combat maps add in flying boats for search and rescue. Battleships should also have depth charges.

I think you were doing great up to the battleships should hve depthcharges. Why would you want to give battleships depthcharges? They are pointless unless you give them sonar too so tehy can spot enemy subs, but now you have a supership that can do everything but launch and recieve attack aircraft.




Hedgemus

I Like Pie!

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

284 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
Anlushac11I think you were doing great up to the battleships should hve depthcharges. Why would you want to give battleships depthcharges? They are pointless unless you give them sonar too so tehy can spot enemy subs, but now you have a supership that can do everything but launch and recieve attack aircraft.

Actually the Battleships can launch aircraft already. If you're a decent pilot you can even land back on the ship.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

They're not attack aircraft.. I don't think germans should get more battleships and such now, the Americans doesnt even have one. Also Germans and Brits lacks destroyers, brits lacks subs.




Andrew_HK

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

20th July 2004

0 Uploads

146 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

i really want a map like "sink the Tirpitz-1944" (may be Queen of North 1943 )




Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

25th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Operation Cerberus, AKA The Channel Dash would be a nice map, but I dont know how it should be made in FH... :(




Myrddraal

Search function? Where?

50 XP

28th April 2004

0 Uploads

669 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago
Anlushac11I think you were doing great up to the battleships should hve depthcharges. Why would you want to give battleships depthcharges? They are pointless unless you give them sonar too so tehy can spot enemy subs, but now you have a supership that can do everything but launch and recieve attack aircraft.

The reason I say BB's should have depth charges is because right now they are helpless against submerged submarines. I would put the launchers as positions that must be run to (not selectable by number keys). The BB is still very vulnerable to subs in this situation as it is a slow and large target. Plus BB's were built to be superships. IRL subs were not much of a threat to BB's it was aircraft that killed them. The lack of sonar is good because it allows them only to hunt subs by periscope spots. It makes attacking a BB difficult for the sub but not impossible and it makes killing the sub difficult for the BB but not impossible. Plus to prevent the supership problem some midrange ships to fill the gap between Destroyers and BB's are needed in FH (Cruisers and pocket battleships come to mind). Naval forces and maps are currently the chink in FH's armour




The Red Barron

{TDB} Tek Jansen

50 XP

8th July 2004

0 Uploads

191 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

Besides for odd exceptions, battleships did not have depth charges at all. Most lacked sonar and torpedoes. Storing Depth charges and torpedoes on the deck is an inviting target that would cause quite a bit of damage, which is why you do not see them on capital ships. A BB would rely on Destroyers to hunt down subs.