In regards to Operation Rheinübung with 0.66.. -1 reply

Please wait...

Pvt. Ryan

Rofl

50 XP

10th November 2004

0 Uploads

220 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

ok, so should I include 2 or less flags in my fixed version, or remove them totally?




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago
NatterI don't think that's true at all. You have people very eager to slug it out Battleship vs Battleship. You have to rely on your Scout Planes to do what they are meant for. Scout. There are enough planes on the map for this to be possible, easily. I love the idea of flying around in the Arado scouting out the enemy fleet position. And in looking on the mini map you can tell in what area the fleets are in once someone spots one. Then you can do long distance shelling. Which would be cool to see for once rather than the usual drive my battleship right up next to you and blast away or even worse, Ramming speed!! Leave the flags as is, since it does provide a failsafe against some idiot in a sub hiding in a remote corner. Leave the fog in as well for that element of searching. I don't know if it is already set that way but each ship should have a one-time spawn. I wouldn't mind really the same rule for the scout planes on the Battleships either, though that may be impracticle. It is a Naval map if you don't enjoy the idea of searching the sea for your target. Then don't play it, let alone whine about it. It's the damn Ocean for cripes sake. I cannot wait for this map to be fixed so it is playable.

How many people control battleships?

2.

2 people have the driving/shooting ability. The rest are pawns on thier ship and will likely end up not facing the enemy because the battleship does not turn to allow them to fire. This map is slow and boring. If view distance was GREATLY increased and ships were given normal aiming devices (crosshair) for their big guns it might go a little smoother. Right now you have to guess the trajectory or get right up on them. If you miss, you're down for 35 seconds while it CRAWLS to reload.

The ship vs. airplane facet I like.. but torpedoes still do jack shit to ships. 4 torpedoes won't sink a damn cruiser, and planes carry 1. not to mention, these are not really the most technologically advanced planes. Swordfish? I think a Sopwith Camel has better flight charecteristics. It leaves the Bships raping planes, and even if the planes manage to drop their load, and hit the ship, it wont do anything.

I've never seen a plane or any sort of torpedo kill another ship. It took 1 torpedo in reality. More then 4 is stretching it.




GOD111

I Am Teh God

50 XP

1st July 2004

0 Uploads

6,967 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago

For once I agree with USMA. 1 flag is enough for that map, I have also a working file, I tried it out, and 3 flags are waaaaay to much.




FactionRecon

11PzG Grunt

50 XP

4th August 2003

0 Uploads

3,889 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago

Torpedos need to be upped in effectiveness. It takes a little bit of skill to line up those shots, and it'd be nice to see them rewarded with a kill. A torp should either cripple a ship or sink it completly.




Arisaka

Staff suffers from PCD

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

1,495 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago

depending on type of course. the battleships had improved armor under the waterline to protect against torpedoes. the fast destroyers did not. remember Bismarck, she wasn't sunk by a torpedo, she was rendered unsteerable because of a lucky hit.

The armor systems of the Iowa Class ships can be divided into two basic sections. First is the above water armor, which is designed to protect the ship against gun fire and aerial bombing. The second is the below water armor (side protective and triple bottom armor), which is designed to protect the vessel from mines, near miss bombs and of course, torpedoes.
The side protection (torpedo defense) and the triple bottom systems provide protection against underwater threats such as torpedoes, mines and near-miss explosions. Both of these multi-layered systems are intended to absorb the energy from an underwater explosion equivalent to a 700 pound charge of TNT.

Iowa Class

german torpedoes 400-650 pounds

japanese torpedo 660 pounds warhead

i'd like range finding devices to be implemented. for instance by placing a sighting device on the very top of the battleship (like the sight used in some of the (allied) tanks), and possibly range circles on the minimap to allow the radar to determine range. then, the main cannons would use elevation dials to fire. i guess each battery should get access to individual sighting devices.




Natter

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

17th November 2004

0 Uploads

33 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago

I believe the Hood has something of a "rangefinder" on it. There are rockets that can be fired from the Frontal position. I believe that is the intention of the rockets at least. Radar would be an incredibly bad idea as taking away from the "hunt" aspect of the map. If you did have to put in some form of radar the Bismarck should not have this option as it's radar system was knocked out after she fired her first salvo. I do not see why there are some of you complaining how boring a map this is and how some will be on the ships not in active roles such as driving or using one of the main turrets. Is that really such a big deal? This is a naval map. Made for a naval battle. You want constant in your face run around action then play Berlin or some land-based map. Don't complain because this isn't your type of map. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would like to see for once a fully crewed battleship slugging it out on the open sea. It's great to see the Pacific maps will be fixed (though I have never crashed while playing them online) But please please.. fix & optimize this map for play.