Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Ship Design Concept: The Carrier

<< < (3/4) > >>

-Muse- Cullen:

--- Quote ---The carrier does not always have to send both planes out, but can use a flak on the side and have the one small plane use a chain gun to break armor.

--- End quote ---
-Because the planes only have one gun, they could easily be ignored by themselves through out-repairing. Crippling the carrier would be too easy if only one person decided to deploy a helicopter or plane. If the planes were coordinated enough to do some serious damage, the enemy ship could simply focus on taking out one plane, and then relax at the easy kill ...- Because it would take so long to build a new plane, its always an extremely risky maneuver to send a plane out to take on a ship that isn't distracted. The carrier wouldn't have enough firepower to distract an enemy, because it only has one gun. By taking out the plane, or that one gun on the Carrier, the damage to the hull becomes negligible and out-repairable. The Carrier would need more options than simply -send out a plane and keep on shooting-. If it had the chance to keep the ship in the hangar and shoot directly from there(and act as a normal gun that repairs at normal speed), that would be leagues better, because it would have the same gun layout as the Junker.


--- Quote ---For the carronades, you have the same problem with a carronade squid, or hellhound fish where they have the ability to get in your blind spot and sink you, but unlike the planes they do not have to turn around or go refuel. I would rather have two carronade planes on me then a carronade airship in my opinion.

--- End quote ---

While this is true, I must still say that it becomes too easy for a ship to hybridize by using a balloon popper plane in conjunction with long range cover. Poppers on their own are a problem, and giving a ship the ability to make expendable poppers would be extremely attractive- the risk(virtually 0)-reward(crippling the ship and getting a kill) for this would be too amazing to do anything but. The reason that those two ships are so dangerous is because they can get into that blind spot due to their mobility. The planes will be the epitome of maneuverability, and will be able to get to those blind spots much easier than those two. In fact, flying head on with the plane would be suicide, so a carronade might be the only 'good' option in order to maximize the effectiveness due to small windows of attack during the strafing run. One light gun is not enough to do damage to a ship- that is why the majority, if not all, ships in this game have at least one medium gun, or at least two light guns that can bifecta for damage. Killing one gun would render the other completely useless. While killing the plane would take him out of the match for some time, the slow-moving Carrier would be a much easier target- especially since that is the only thing that matters in actually scoring a point. The gunner wouldn't be able to do anything, while the engineer(s) on the Carrier would probably abandon the gun for the hull.


--- Quote ---The main idea for planes is to have them assist an ally ship, where you could have a plane with an artimis pegging at an enemy attacking an ally, and you have your own carrier and second plane keeping the other enemy busy. With a high turning speed and weapons close to the hull, one engineer should be able to keep the ship up long enough for an ally to come and assist after their fight.

--- End quote ---

Sending off a plane to help an ally is a good strategy, but the Carrier is so defenseless without that extra plane that it would be like pulling a goalie and letting him leave the rink on a team of three while playing against against a team of four. Having the trifecta of damage would make this ship amazing, otherwise, it is a waste to have a plane leave the ship's target during a direct assault.

Connor Mc.:
Helicopters would be really weird, there were experimental helicopter designs in the 20s, WW1 ended in 1918ish or something like that, if this is a world where WW1 never ended, it's likely they used really crappy helicopters, but that's what they would be, really crappy

Sgt. Spoon:

--- Quote from: Captain Phil on April 01, 2013, 05:13:27 pm ---I also saw the problem of crews just taking off to try to maximize their plane before engaging in combat. However, it takes a while of being out there flying to receive even a little of that permanent buff, so gunners would just end up taking the time out to do useful things such as scouting and spotting enemy ships before they engage in combat.

As for repairing in flight, it is just a small amount of temporary hp to protect your plane from about 1-2 chain gun shots, but mainly to help reduce damage taken from sandstorms if you get caught in one.

--- End quote ---

I guess it's all due to good balancing i.e. it'll be Eric's problem :P
---
Also, when we discussed planes on the old forums a big concern was that they might get to powerful. Now there's a lot of concerns about it being to weak. It's good to see that the discussion isn't too static.

Helmic:
The issues are similar to boarding, it's completely new gameplay that has to be precisely balanced.  Planes are gonna happen and it's going to suck if they're only ever AI-controlled, but it'd take a lot of effort to make planes fun to both fly and shoot down while still keeping that airship-to-airship focus of combat.

HarveyFiveTwoNine:
Forgive me if it has been mentioned already, but what about this being a game type: Capture the Carrier? Say each team has one massive carrier (armed with AA guns), but the players can only fly the planes it launches. The idea would be to try and fend off the enemy team's fighters from trying to destroy the AA guns on your carrier before landing on it to capture it and win the round and visa versa.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page