A very important feature missing in battleships ? -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

conningtower.jpg

All Battleships had a high elevated position where targeting data was visually gathered, and transmitted to the fire control room deep inside (the armoured belt) the ship.

Q1) Why do we need a spotting position on a battleship in FH ?

Q2) We already have planes that can spot.......

1) Battlships now fight ( as many other vehicles do in bf1942/FH ) rediculously close, while Battleships are capable of fighting at much longer range. Being able to fight longer range, players with gunnery skill can start to damage an opponent ship at much longer ranges, wich is ofcourse very challenging while the ships are moving targets and being able to fire longer range represents better what battleship naval battles were all about.

Battleships had a very thick horizontal armoured belt and were well protecteted against flat trajectory fire, wich happens if you fire at a battleship close range, but were much less well protected if the grenades fell down a steep angle from the air hitting the less thick armoured decks above the horizontal armoured belt......wich happens if you fire in an arch, long range. Therefore it is preferrable ( i actually do not know if FH damagemodel has very strong sides but weaker decks aswell ) to fire at Battleships longer range, in an arch.

2) The ship borne aircraft we are given in FH are foremost abused to dogfight other ship borne aircraft, wich is ofcourse useless to the fleet. They can be very usefull transmitting the coordinates of enemy ships in a large map, upon discovery. That is what these aircraft are truely good for........

They can however also place a spotters cam on an enemy ship that is beyond the visual range of a friendly battleship, but within range of it's guns. That can be very usefull if the ship is stationary ( often happens a lot with carriers ) but useless if the target is a moving (battle)ship. The distance is so large, before the grenades arrive, the enemy (battle)ship will be somewhere else.

Therefore i suggest placing a spotters position in battleships itself, like in vehicles like the Stug, and preferably where they really were located high up in the mast above the bridge. Fighting will still be restricted to visual range ( that of the spotter but 360 degrees around ) but no longer be dependend on the limited view of individual gunners that can only see in the direction of their side of the ship. ( external cam don't really help, very short range ) When the spotter places a cam view on a traget just in visual ( or fog) range, the distance is short enough for the gunners to react fast enough to be more accurate then aiming without help, but can fire longer range then the usual almost boarding short range flat fire trajectory fights.

With only adding such a spotter position to all battleships ( and cruisers ) you can change the way how sea battles are fought, or at least can be fought, by skilled players. It will be more historically accurate this way, and the most skilled gunners ( or evasive manouvering captain ) will be greatly rewarded by more interesting gameplay. Make battleship fights just as intersting as tank fights, devs ;)

Feel free to add or discuss this matter people.....or else there will be whining it is in the wrong forum, wich is on purpose.......I think this feature could really make battleship fight more interesting and it needs to be discussed ( and supported if possible )




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

I also feel the crows nest would be useful for spotting for the BB's guns inland. The higher vanatge point gies a better view of where the shells are landing in a fire support mission.




urseus

|LAB|urseus²

50 XP

8th May 2003

0 Uploads

263 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

Theres no need for it, because of the fog. By the time another ship is within visual range, you can fire very easily at it. The crows nest would be good if there was no fog, and you were firing from one side of midway to the other. I will add though that those flak type guns on the battleships are outstanding. Not only do they look good, but firing them onto the shore is devistating in sound and power. I smashed an enemy defence on saipan with responses of "what the mother hell was that??!! Jesus chirst i thought i was on fire.." Its those kinds of guns which are the reason we need more night maps. A pacific battle at night, with flak and tracers flying all over the place would be breathtaking.




lumpeh

FH Groupie

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

1,174 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I think ships on the whole could do with more loving. It is clear from the latest update that they are expanding the range availible, but bar one laggy map they are nothing more than a mobile spawn point to the nears island flag.

I doubt they have locational damage right now, though it would be interesting if they could include such a feature if it isnt already in. It would be cool if they could be treated like destroyable objections with distructable towers and the like.

Perhaps they should have a lot more 'health points' but unrepairable by engineers? Its rather clownish to see 4-5 engineers prone on the decks rubbing their spanners to keep her afloat! ;) I think you've said it before when we need shipping yards on some maps that could act as oversized repair pads - perhaps the active part underwater to stop tanks and so on from repairing there.

Until they figure some other way of calling artillery in, i think the ships are going to be limited to close quarters given fog limitations. :/




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

lumpeh

Perhaps they should have a lot more 'health points' but unrepairable by engineers? Its rather clownish to see 4-5 engineers prone on the decks rubbing their spanners to keep her afloat! ;) I think you've said it before when we need shipping yards on some maps that could act as oversized repair pads - perhaps the active part underwater to stop tanks and so on from repairing there.

Subs defenatly need somewhere or something ( "milkcow" sub, merchant ship, torpedo or E boat or destroyer ? ) to reload torpedo's......right now they are useless shortly after making contact and having spend all their torpedoes with nowhere to go.

For battlships i think the situation is different, they have enough ammo and in major naval clashes ships were only emergency repaired ( the deck rubbing engineers with spanners represent the onboard engineers wich were really there and had complete workshops on the ship just fine ) and could only retreat to a dock that was maybe hundreds if not thousands of miles away. They need to slug it out with the health they have got left......but no respawning full health new (battle)ships then !!!

I do believe big ships should not respawn at all......and not act as a spawnpoint to the nearest island, in fact there shouldn't be any islands or flags in naval battle maps ! ( a pacific island invasion map is something else then a naval battle, so having flags and land in them is ok)

Just a ( very easy to do ) sea map where if all ships are lost to one side, the round is over. That is a naval battle.......the first map, where there will never be survivors on the losing team ;)




MG42Maniac

A man of dubious moral fibre

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

3,932 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

I tell you what needs changing is this:

I carpet bombed the Yamoto with 48 B-17 bombs and found it still was afloat! I know they are not tall boy bombs designed for busting ships but thats still a shit loads of TNT! The fog needs to be increased massivly on ship maps everytime I engage an enemy ship its like floating next to me :lol:




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

I think ships always recieved rather little attention in FH, and they are still very buggy and partially unbalanced. For example, you cna destroy a carrier with a few torpedos, but can drop endless amount of bombs and shells on it wthout harming it to much...




Ardent_Psyclone

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

26th May 2004

0 Uploads

32 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

Agreed, ship combat needs some lovin'. I especially like the idea of NOT allowing the ships to respawn once destroyed.




Master Minder

FHdev

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

680 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

in RL the hirizon would be abit farer if you're on a higher possition - in BF it wont be becourse of the fog

so everything a extra possition up there would add would be lag




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

lumpeh

I doubt they have locational damage right now, though it would be interesting if they could include such a feature if it isnt already in. It would be cool if they could be treated like destroyable objections with distructable towers and the like.

Tanks have a strong frontal armour, but weak top and side armour......i don't see how a battleship is diffrent from a tank when it comes to general damage modelling.......it's "top" armour, namely the superstructure and decks were weaker armoured too.....just like a tank.

Comparible to the tanks thick frontal armour is the ships hull sides......behind the outer hull is a very thick armoured belt, that is virtually inpenetrable by battleship grenades......inside it are the ships most vital control area's : the engines ( boilers and turbines ) the actual steering wheel room, fire control that controls the main turrets and the ammunition bunkers. The ammunition lift between the ammunition bunkers and main turrets is always inside a thick armoured huge "pipe" that connect to where the main turrets are mounted on the hull, so called barbettes.

Because of the armoured belt a ship can continue to fight as long as it has operating intact main gun turrets, even if the complete superstructure ( all strucures above deck ) are shot off.......obviously these cannot be heavily armoured or the ship becomes top heavy and capsize. The Yamato was the only exeption, it's superstructure could take up to 380 mm battleship grenades, the hull even 460 mm ( wich no other battleship would ever have ) ......the Yamato was extremely wide, wich meant it was less instable and could be heavier above the waterline without rolling upside down in the water.

For those that really interested in ships armour : the bow and the aft sections of a battleship were often "false" sections of the ship, meaning they were not armoured at all to save a lot of weight wich meant it would lay deeper in the water and have a low top speed. These sections had no other function then to make the ship handle better in rough sea, it was no problem if they were completely shot off ( however strange that sounds. As long as the armoured belt stayed intact, that reached from the rear main turrets to the front main turrets and not a centimeter more, a battleship would never sink.

I heard the devs were very busy concentrating effort into the flight physics, this time doing it right......maybe in future releases they could spend some time in naval units too.....they are like a "forgotten" part of bf1942 ( and therefor FH )

I fail to see why people seem to think battleships and sea battles are boring.......a Tiger tank is not much faster, and is an insect compared the the armour and cannons of a battleship.....wich also has a lot more fighting stations. Maybe it is that, maybe players just don't like teamwork vehicles ? Or are most FH players ( as i fear ) bored to death bunnyhoppers ?




  • 1
  • 2