Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
DefundedUser_1036628598

Weather needs to impact planes

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Banned
259 posts
6,335 battles

I've said it before and I will say it again:

If you're gonna have storms and cyclones and such in the game then it makes no historical sense that planes are completely unaffected by them. In the real world, they were not all-weather capable back then, in fact they were frequently grounded by weather, sometimes for weeks.

Accordingly, there could be a mechanic making them take continuous damage while flying into a storm front.

Another idea is planes could just get lost, both on their way in as well as on their way back to the carrier.

Also strike accuracy needs to be impacted by weather.

It makes no sense at all that on top of all the other advantages, CVs should be the only class to be immune to weather when historically they were the ones most vulnerable.

Edited by FixCVs
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[HINON]
Members
14,209 posts
2 hours ago, FixCVs said:

 

By that reasoning we should just not have battles in weather and ships should be at anchor.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[_BDA_]
Members
562 posts
8,931 battles
1 minute ago, RipNuN2 said:

By that reasoning we should just not have battles in weather and ships should be at anchor.

So, to take this to its logical conclusion, when a storm front rolls through the battle ends and whoever is ahead on points at that time wins the battle.  Wouldn't that make for an interesting variable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[HINON]
Members
14,209 posts
3 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

So, to take this to its logical conclusion, when a storm front rolls through the battle ends and whoever is ahead on points at that time wins the battle.  Wouldn't that make for an interesting variable?

Sure or we have an admiral who decides we should ride out a hurricane and then we randomly lose ships. 

Edited by RipNuN2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[_BDA_]
Members
562 posts
8,931 battles
7 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Sure or we have an admiral who decides we should ride out a hurricane and then we randomly lose ships. 

I know which incident you're referring to, but they were not in combat and out of over 100 vessels (reports never include the oilers and supply ships, just combatants) only 3 were lost.  A random 3% loss of a mere dozen ships (random battle, and it would really only affect destroyers) wouldn't affect the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,792 posts
23,987 battles
2 hours ago, FixCVs said:

I've said it before and I will say it again:

If you're gonna have storms and cyclones and such in the game then it makes no historical sense that planes are completely unaffected by them. In the real world, they were not all-weather capable back then, in fact they were frequently grounded by weather, sometimes for weeks.

Accordingly, there could be a mechanic making them take continuous damage while flying into a storm front.

Another idea is planes could just get lost, both on their way in as well as on their way back to the carrier.

Also strike accuracy needs to be impacted by weather.

It makes no sense at all that on top of all the other advantages, CVs should be the only class to be immune to weather when historically they were the ones most vulnerable.

One would reason then that only short range AA (3.5 km or less) would be effective in these game situations and even then at accuracy and reload rate would be impacted by the same weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
887
[WOLFB]
Members
3,186 posts
8,175 battles

can you imagine how much it would suck if you take a ship in battle but you cant use it do to weather. I guess you would just sit for 15 min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,790
[SOFOP]
Members
2,482 posts
15,344 battles

And we should only have one nation on each team.....

And ships should have limited ammo.....

And overpens should cause flooding......

And CVs shouldn't be able to instantly repair planes and build new ones....

And battleships should only be able to fire a couple times a match.....

 

A historically accurate game sounds awefully boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[_BDA_]
Members
562 posts
8,931 battles
1 hour ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

And we should only have one nation on each team.....

And ships should have limited ammo.....

And overpens should cause flooding......

And CVs shouldn't be able to instantly repair planes and build new ones....

And battleships should only be able to fire a couple times a match.....

 

A historically accurate game sounds awefully boring.

I could agree with your first point, but why not take it a step further...  only WWI era ships can fight each other, or only WWII?  Allied versus Central Powers, or Allied versus Axis only.  

As for carriers...  they shouldn't even be on the same playing field as a surface engagement... again, with one exception that I know of, and that scenario should be heavily nerfed in favor of the carriers.  Perhaps there should be carrier versus carrier battles, with a division of destroyers attached to each carrier that only provide anti-aircraft support and move in formation with their carrier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×