Submarines ? -1 reply

Please wait...

Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

1st May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#51 14 years ago
foodmaniac2003 Cool, now we can have The Battle of Panama Canal-1945 :naughty:.

What, 4 Seirans fly towards the Canal, get picked up by radar up the wazoo, and are met with a wall of AA and 300 P-51s? Sounds hilarious.

A very large Pacific equivalent of an Alpenfestung map (Operation Olympic, that sort of thing) with an I-400 that can launch floatplanes and Kaitens and the likes would be pretty nifty though.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#52 14 years ago

FuzzyBunnyWhat, 4 Seirans fly towards the Canal, get picked up by radar up the wazoo, and are met with a wall of AA and 300 P-51s? Sounds hilarious.

A very large Pacific equivalent of an Alpenfestung map (Operation Olympic, that sort of thing) with an I-400 that can launch floatplanes and Kaitens and the likes would be pretty nifty though.

Except that the RADAR was limited, the FLAK defences were weak, and the canal zone fighters were P-36's and P-40's. It was a defense zone but it was not a war zone so it didnt have first priority. Besides the Allies had devised a way to prevent the Canal from emptying if the locks were blown.

- History of the 32d Tactical Fighter Group

The United States Army Air Corps constituted the 32d Pursuit Group on 22 November 1940. Shortly afterwards, on 1 January 1941, the Air Corps activated the group as part of the Panama Canal Air Force at Rio Hato, Panama. The group and its three assigned flying squadrons, the 51st, 52d, and 53d Pursuit Squadrons, had the mission of protecting the Panama Canal using obsolete P-26s. On 9 December 1941, just after Pearl Harbor, the newly redesignated Caribbean Air Force moved the 32d Pursuit Group to France Field in the Panama Canal Zone. The Air Corps equipped the 32d Pursuit Group with P-36 Mohawks to strengthen the defenses of the canal region.

On 15 May 1942, the US Army Air Forces redesignated the unit as the 32d Fighter Group (Twin Engine) and provided it P-38 Lightnings. However, the group swapped these fighters for P-40 Warhawks to defend the Panama Canal Zone, subsequently being redesignated as the 32d Fighter Group (Single Engine) on 28 September 1942. During 1941 to 1943, the group trained in flying intercept and figther sweeps over the area surrounding the Canal Zone. However, as the perceived threat to the Canal Zone diminished, the US Army Air Force disbanded the 32d Fighter Group at France Field on 1 November 1943.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

1st May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#53 14 years ago
Anlushac11Except that the RADAR was limited, the FLAK defences were weak, and the canal zone fighters were P-36's and P-40's. It was a defense zone but it was not a war zone so it didnt have first priority. Besides the Allies had devised a way to prevent the Canal from emptying if the locks were blown.

Yesyesyes I was speaking figuratively, you pedant. Back under your rock.

Point being, a Panama Canal scenario wouldn't be a terrible amount of fun if involving a limited number of Japanese planes and subs, while an I-400 in a sort of "Pacific Apocalypse" map would really float my boat (or sub.)




Hawk_345

BF-Korea beta tester

50 XP

23rd April 2006

0 Uploads

1,407 Posts

0 Threads

#54 14 years ago

I think that any "what if" maps be put in later, not now. I think it woudl be a great idea for the panama canal but lets focuss on what really hapened first, then what if. For the subs i heard that some subs during the war were able to deploy mines, maybe this could be a possibility but i have no idea how much they were used or even what they were called.




Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

28th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#55 14 years ago

On-topic: Expanded submarine warfare:smokin:. Extensive post with ideas on subs, largelly based on the Silent Hunter III game.

Every time I read one of hawks threads I die a little inside.

And every time I read a childish, off-topic flame... Explain why you dislike the idea, not how you fear for your insestines. That kind of stuff is a doctor's field, and this is not a Red Cross/hospital forum.

Wouldn't be a problem _if_ you had a "seaman" class (SMG, maybe a grenade or flare gun or something) on maps where it's feasible to drop people off with a sub (i.e. launching elcos.)

Compromise: Have the sub be able to deploy a short-lived(?) raft, and have the raft be a "spawn point". I'd be happy with that, and it'd make subs more interesting. But I think it should be limited to maps were subs actually were used that way (no subs dropping commandos off at Midway Atoll in the middle of the Battle of Midway, please;)).

Opinions?




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

1st May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#56 14 years ago

Safe Keeper Compromise: Have the sub be able to deploy a short-lived(?) raft, and have the raft be a "spawn point". I'd be happy with that, and it'd make subs more interesting. But I think it should be limited to maps were subs actually were used that way (no subs dropping commandos off at Midway Atoll in the middle of the Battle of Midway, please;)).

Opinions?

Why bother? Just limit the sub's ability to deploy Elco rafts to appropriate maps. And why a spawn point? The sub's already a spawn point...

(And Elco rafts are pretty short-lived already, if someone with a sharp object sees you :-)




Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

28th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#57 14 years ago
Just limit the sub's ability to deploy Elco rafts to appropriate maps.

That's what I meant.

And why a spawn point? The sub's already a spawn point...

Because it's not very realistic or convenient whatsoever to deploy commandos straight from submerged sub to surface.

If the raft is a "spawn point", the sub can surface, deploy it, and leave, allowing the commandos to drive the raft ashore and disembark from it. Dispatching the raft and allowing players to spawn into it simulates deploying a raft full of players. Far better than the sub having to remain on station, disembarking commando teams directly in a slow drizzle.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

1st May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#58 14 years ago
Safe KeeperBecause it's not very realistic or convenient whatsoever to deploy commandos straight from submerged sub to surface.

Ahhhh I see. Sorry, I failed to consider being able to deploy it when submerged.

Naturally you are right--if this sort of thing were done, I'd hope that it'd be impossible to deploy underwater, or to spawn on the sub while submerged (as it is now.)

I don't think I like the idea of being able to spawn on a commando raft--if a sub wants to launch commando raids or landings, it should have to surface. I do it all the time on Tulagi, and it's not really a problem (I've lived through it many times.) Having rafts would just be a "nice to have" to make it more convenient and realistic.

Happy? :-)




Hawk_345

BF-Korea beta tester

50 XP

23rd April 2006

0 Uploads

1,407 Posts

0 Threads

#59 14 years ago

I dont think many people, including me, thought of what if sub were under water and deployed. The spawn point in the rafts could be a great idea to counter that scenario, unless the devs can think of something else.




It's Happy Fun Ball!

aka Killed in First Minute

50 XP

20th October 2005

0 Uploads

1,297 Posts

0 Threads

#60 14 years ago

Ok one issue I have not seen raised: I understand that in BF, running around in a sub is not possible as the engine would not allow you to keep the water out. When the sub submerged, it flooded and everyone drowned. (At least that's what I heard) Is that an issue with the BF2 engine? While we're on the topic of subs, (and I would be amazed if no one had suggested this in some thread already) I would also like to see depth of the sub affect the detection range of destroyers and the effectiveness of depth charges. IE: a destroyer must be closer to detect a deeper sub, and depth charges do less damage.