|
Post by William Miller on Oct 29, 2015 19:10:19 GMT -6
To akmatov,
Sorry.. I read your comments in the checkout box so I had "CD" on the brain, your serial code is emailed. Normally I email the codes very shortly after an order is placed for a DL when I check the store.
We can consider a CD/DL option but so far have there have been very rarely been requests for that option. Usually players want one or the other, mostly DL.
As to having any "automated" service.. tried that in the past and it was not worth the price, logistical concerns, tech issues, or other related issues.
We mostly offer a DL option for those that don't want to pay for, or wait for, the postal service.
Side note.. the best way to make to contact us regarding "serial codes" is through the email address on the store - either email address goes right to me directly.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jul 12, 2015 1:12:24 GMT -6
No problem.. thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jul 11, 2015 18:18:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jul 11, 2015 18:17:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jul 11, 2015 18:15:52 GMT -6
Even though many of these instructions are shown on the online store during checkout I am reposting them here as a backup.
(Note the below applies to all titles except RTW2 which uses an activation system. More info on RTW2 can be found on these forums and on the store listing.. thanks)
* Make sure to watch for the blue download button on the payment confirmation page during checkout. There is no emailed download "link" .. just that download button.
* I advise not using Firefox as your browser due to possible incompatible website security which may not show the download button at checkout. Chrome and MSIE have been tested and should work fine.
* Watch for your serial code which is manually emailed to you within 1 business day, or 24 hours. This may end up in your anti-spam box depending on your email service.
* You can recover your download by using the link in your emailed receipt. Click the link and follow the directions at the bottom of the confirmation web page to make the "download" button visible.
* If the "download" button does not appear try using a different browser and/or clean out your browser cache and make sure that no background apps are interfering with online security features.
If there are any other questions you can reach me at nws-online@nws-online.net
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jul 11, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -6
I added an EXE extension to the file name earlier today.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Dec 31, 2014 23:04:47 GMT -6
Is there any way to create new ships and add them to the database? Steam and Iron handles this pretty well. Can it be done in NAW? Hi solops, I never intended for WCNAW to accept custom designs - plus any editor would be very complex as WCNAW is an extremely detailed naval combat system "under the hood". Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Dec 31, 2014 22:54:56 GMT -6
To artrx,
I am the designer of WCNAW. WCNAW uses a "step by step" orders routine so you won't miss important orders to give to your ships. I would recommend starting with a 1 ship vs 1 ship battle (manual selection) and the default game options to get the idea of how the interface works. Overall though, you should have little trouble working your way through your initial battles.
Let me know how it works out for you.
Side note, just in case I do not see your reply.. feel free to email me anytime at nws-online[@]nws-online.net (remove the [])
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Dec 4, 2014 8:37:27 GMT -6
I'm considering a purchase of Steam and Iron with the addon. Will I receive the key right away (like Matrixgames) or does it really take one business day to be manually sent out? thanks I ask for one business day in case I am not on my PC for a few hours but most of the time I can send the serial code within a much shorter time frame Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Sept 13, 2014 15:40:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Aug 30, 2014 0:45:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Aug 16, 2014 13:20:10 GMT -6
I never said the action was "probable", much like it was improbable for any of the fast BBs to engage the Yamato as they also had CV support. No optical rangefinder system in the world at the time could "accurately" shoot a maneuvering/fast moving surface target at 30-32kyd+ .. especially if the target was evading as needed. You simply cannot match an optical RF system to a Mk13 RFC system.. there is no comparison at all unless the range gets down to around 26-28kyd or less, and still the RFC has a serious advantage in terms of faster range change updates, salvo spotting, and motion tracking. If the best "hit" was 26.5kyd was optical (and if that shot goes to the S&G by some accounts they also had very good RFs and well trained crews) vs a large target and the best straddles (multiple) was at 36-38kyd vs a much smaller target moving at 35+ knots using RFC I do not think it would take much to figure out who would get hurt first - and most often.
At pretty much any visibility below 30-32kyd the Yamato would likely never see, much less accurately track, a long ranged target at all. The IJN was at a severe handicap in terms of radar gunnery technology, especially by 1942 onwards - and it was not even a contest by 1944. . Good example was the Washington vs the Kirishima at night.. the Kirishima had no idea who was shooting at her until it was FAR too late and that was at point blank range. Even the Scharnhorst had no idea the DoY was firing at her until it was too late. The golden BB only applies IF you can see the target, track it reasonably well, and hit it. It was not just about excellent radar vs optics either - the USN warships had some of best track/plotting, and stabilized, systems for engaging surface targets in the world at that time. So unless the Alaska captain was a total blubbering idiot and failed to use that extended range advantage.. it would have been a very one sided fight. The ONLY chance the Yamato would have had is in extremely good daylight conditions and even then the range has to drop to below around 26-28kyd for her to have any reasonable chance of a hit at all while the Alaska would start firing at around 37.5kyd - and likely avoid getting too close to retain the advantage. To say that the Alaska commander would not put up a fight I think is false also.. if the the Samar or Surigao engagements were any example, which I might add the IJN showed poor shooting skills during Samar and likely had no idea of the gauntlet they walked into at Surigao. If CVs were around... well why not cheat if you can, but if they were not then I am quite sure the Alaska would have done what she could.
Now again, would the Alaska sink the Yamato? No very likely not.. but she very likely could have rained shells on the Yamato and caused considerable damage with almost near impunity at extreme ranges even in daylight, and it would hardly even be a contest in anything less then excellent visibility conditions. In the end it would not have mattered much if she sank or not as with enough damage the Yamato would have likely at best never deployed again due to being stuck in a shipyard for months, or at worst sank on the way home due to other reasons, as happened to the Hiei. All I am saying is that the Alaska would have been a serious threat, even to the biggest BB ever built - with good reasonable, historical, and extrapolated evidence to back it up.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Aug 15, 2014 20:28:19 GMT -6
Quick thought,
I have stated in the past to some that the BC Alaska could be a serious, and likely very destructive threat, to the BB Yamato.. now many might go "not a chance in hell!". Really? With anything less then perfect visibility the Yamato would not even have a target and the Yamato mediocre radar could only reach out to around 20kyd and was nowhere near as effective as advanced USN radars by 1944-1945. The Alaska radar could see, track, AND target out to around 40kyd+ vs such a massive radar blip and the guns could reach out to around 37-38kyd. Yeah sure the Yamato guns could fire farther... but their odds of hitting anything, especially moving fast and maneuvering, beyond around 25kyd was remote to the extreme. I would note the longest ranged HIT(s) during WW2 was around 26.5kyd and that was a lucky shot vs a large target. The NJ straddled a target using similar FCRs as the Alaska at 36-38kyds vs a DD target several times over near Truk. Imagine the better odds of hitting a 70,000 ton BB!
The Alaska would NEVER have to sink the Yamato, nor was that EVER a requirement to win a naval battle.. EVER. All Alaska had to do was hammer the Yamato upper works to hell and cause fires and at extreme ranges there was a chance the 12" heavyweight shells could possibly punch through some areas of the horizontal armor protection with plunging fire. It would not be a pleasant experience for the IJN sailors getting pelted by 1,140lb shells on a relatively slow 27 knot (best speed) massive target of a ship with possibly nothing to shoot back at - especially since the Alaska could easily maintain extreme range at leisure. I would also note that the Helldivers were dropping 1,000lb SAP bombs with far less velocity on the ship causing a good deal of damage before she was sunk so it would not be a hard stretch to believe that high velocity 12" shells could do some nasty things to the Yamato.
The chances of the IJN returning the Yamato to port after such a beating would have been slim.. worse yet, it would have taken several to many MONTHS to get her back at sea with few dockyards that could even service that monster, and in turn taking up massive resources to do it - and that is saying if she ever deployed again, not like the Yamato and Musashi did much to start with except prove how great they were for being bomb and torpedo sponge targets. So did it matter if the Alaska sunk her or just spanked her all day with shells? Not really. Most warships throughout the age of naval history were not sunk solely by gunfire anyways and yet many naval battles were won with gunfire as they proved pretty damned effective at screwing up enemy ships if they suffered the bad side of the fight and many never returned to fight again.
Point being.. the big giant guns of the Yamato were only valid threats IF they could find, effectively track, and hit the target. However, I would remind everyone that those big fat ships hardly ever deployed and their on the job training/experience vs surface targets was minimal at best. Yes, they had excellent rangefinders but hitting a 38mph target like the Alaska at beyond 30kyd using only optics (if they could even detect her that far out) would have been questionable at best.. and at night or dawn/dusk conditions or other low visibility conditions very likely impossible. Obviously it goes without saying that the Iowas or the NC/SD with updated FCR systems would have almost certainly been a no brainer for a victory and the Alaska was as capable of hitting long range targets as they were. To make matters worse the advanced FCRs allowed the USN ships to do wicked evasive maneuvers and still retain a good target track.. even the best IJN ships had no such capability, if they maneuvered their gunnery accuracy would plummet and target range changes were much harder to track with optical only gunnery - especially at longer ranges.
Once you punch out those FCDs on the Yamato.. she would have been nothing more then an on the job target training. There are many examples of gunnery accuracy becoming virtually worthless when the FCDs were knocked out in a naval gun battle and even though big guns were not the most efficient method of sinking a ship they were damned effective at mission killing one and very possibly rendering a ship ineffective for the rest of a naval campaign due to lengthy repairs - if they ever made it back to port at all.
All big gun ships had one primary purpose in life.. hit a moving target at sea with gunfire. If they could not do that then they were useless in combat. It was as simple as that. All the "bigger badder armor" arguments in the world have never changed that simple fact of naval warfare and punching out the eyes of a ship was often far easier then punching through the belt and deck armor. The ship that got hit the hardest first in naval combat... usually lost the fight, and more often then not that usually happened to the ship that could not hit back effectively.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Aug 15, 2014 20:02:58 GMT -6
Closing thoughts, I need to get back to work here.
Note, I am in no way saying we even needed the CB Alaska class - only that it was the most lethal "BC" type ship ever built, and that BCs deployed FAR more often with most navies then any BB with the only exception being the USN which built BC type ships far too late and had enough fast BBs to go around. For all intensive purposes the USN never really needed any more new BBs as the CVs/CRs/DDs/SSs did the bulk of the workload for winning the Pacific War, and after the Essex class started deploying the Pacific War was totally over for the IJN. Was the CB Alaska like all other capital gunnery ships in most ways? No.. however, could it do the general role of a BC effectively well? Absolutely, and with the above context that was all that was required of it. It was a damn shame they were not finished during the early 1940s as it would have been a heck of a sight to see them in action.
Take care everyone and thanks for the chat.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Aug 15, 2014 0:00:53 GMT -6
The USN I think found that engaging and destroying the enemy beyond their ability to launch torpedoes effectively was far better then making water donuts. Considering the NJ fired at, and straddled several times, an IJN DD at Truk at around 18-19nm (a feat never achieved by ANY warship ever before or after with gunnery) I do not think a DD torp attack was a very good idea vs a battleship armed with 16" and 5" guns using advanced RFC - much less being protected by DDs and CRs, and the Alaska had guns that could easily kill any CR or DD and had the same advanced RFCs and could engage targets out to 17.5nm. The straight runner unguided torpedo attack concept was virtually obsolete by 1944 onwards due to RFC allowing ships to engage torpedo platforms (surface and air) at ranges far beyond the effective torpedo attack ranges of around 2-4kyd. Even by 1942 the IJAF/N were losing vast numbers of aircraft due to proximity fuzes and RFC for the AA guns and IJN DDs were already getting pulverized by 5"/38s and 6-8" CR guns using RFC by 1942 onwards. So did the Alaska need the ability to make water donuts and shrug off torpedo hits or was it more important to engage and destroy enemy platforms before they could get into range to be a threat? I pick the later every time. The Alaska was built to pound enemy ships at long range with gunnery, which it could do better then any ship at the time with the slight exception of the Iowas and any British BBs with similar advanced RFC. The 12" guns were very powerful, reliable, and fired lethal heavyweight shells at very long range. The SB and AA was good enough and better then any BC ever built before their time. They were also very fast and reasonably well protected. To the best of my knowledge.. I have never seen any hardcore requirements for a ship to be classed as a BC beyond any reasonable part of the Alaska design. All else was opinion, and usually biased at that. I would argue that the 12" guns on the Alaska class gave them far better firepower then the 8" guns on most any CA however. About the only CA that could have put up a reasonable fight against the Alaska was the monster of a CA the Des Moines class - now THAT was a large cruiser! The Alaska would have better range by around 3-4nm and harder hitting shells but the Des Moines would have a faster ROF.. so it would have been one hell of a fight! Thanks.
|
|