|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 19, 2021 10:28:24 GMT -6
The save Attachments:Game1.7z (467.19 KB)
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 19, 2021 10:26:45 GMT -6
Game start: 1900 Playing as Japan I think I'm on 70 or 80% tech rate and harsh peace deals I have discovered that if a CV detaches due to damage, you order it to launch a strike, and then it rejoins its parent formation (due to fixing the flooding for example) the ordered strike is basically caught in limbo along with all the prepping CAP etc. They show up in the list of strikes readying, but nothing changes. The ship can still launch and prepare aircraft from those left out of the previous ordered strike, so it clearly isn't too damaged to operate aircraft. Game version 1.24
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 13, 2021 13:32:08 GMT -6
From Personal inclination I would perhaps take the largest of the available predreadnought battleships in hand for conversion to aircraft carrying warships, as otherwise there is naught use for those hulls but the scrapyard, and it is a great pity to send an already paid for warship to the breakers yard. I have in my own experience found that it is not impossible to convert smaller predreadnoughts into perfectly usable AVs to provide scouting for the fleet, a role they answer to for low cost and good effectiveness. While I too have had success converting pre-dreadnoughts into light aircraft carriers, they usually were the ones I built between 1903-1906 that had like 16-18,000 tons. All of his remaining pre-dreadnoughts are those 13,100 ton Da Vinci class ships, and seeing as how that class was designed with 6 9-inch guns and 12 1/2-inch thick belt armor, I really doubt that you can get a good carrier out of that. As crazy as it sounds, I’d make a light carrier with the same number of planes and a fraction of the cost from an old cruiser, then take one or two of those Lepantos in hand for conversion to a regular carrier when the time comes. I've made a usable CVL out of a 13,000 ton CVL. At the least it will provide a functional CVL for the purposes of letting the game research further CV tech. It does need a engine refit and ripping all the guns out. Remember CVLs have iirc a 20kt minimum speed rather than the 24kts of a full CV. In fact, as an older ship she will have more tonnage wrapped up in her engines than a newer vessel of the same speed. Thought an old armored cruiser if there is one big enough and available to be converted is possibly a better choice. As for short range in a CVL conversion. Well it would be usable in the med, but short range very much restricts how often a ship will show up in battles further from port, so expect her to only really show up reliably in battle close in to Italian ports. It would also mean were the ship deployed to say the Indian ocean, it would be stuck there come war.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 10, 2021 18:03:13 GMT -6
From Personal inclination I would perhaps take the largest of the available predreadnought battleships in hand for conversion to aircraft carrying warships, as otherwise there is naught use for those hulls but the scrapyard, and it is a great pity to send an already paid for warship to the breakers yard. I have in my own experience found that it is not impossible to convert smaller predreadnoughts into perfectly usable AVs to provide scouting for the fleet, a role they answer to for low cost and good effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 27, 2021 13:07:18 GMT -6
Today is a good day to die! New Myco AAR is greatly welcome.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 26, 2021 20:49:49 GMT -6
You can put in more than 2 images per post by using a image hosting website and embedding from there
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Aug 21, 2021 14:39:44 GMT -6
Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. So I know I'm not on the forum much these days (have mostly migrated to the discord), but some people on the disc are seriously questioning the historicity of this, esp for the triples. Additionally looks like a lot of triple turrets had the same barbette diameter as same caliber twin mounts per a post by user Jabajabajebejebe. Obviously to a degree it is too early to say cause the full mechanics haven't been revealed, but the historicity of this rule looks to be iffy. If the intent is to force a Teggethof level of bad TPS onto ships with a 3-2-2-3 layout, the poor TPS on the Teggethof had nothing to do with the turret layout. Edit: I just realized another disc user had already made a post...sigh. Oh well not gonna delete my post
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Mar 6, 2021 12:44:09 GMT -6
So I'm playing a game and I have 60ish coastal subs. Despite having Japan under blockade they keep sinking up to 70 merchant ships per turn. Playing as Russia. Didn't save any pictures and can't upload the save. Well, you having subs, Japan being blockaded and them sinking your merchants are unrelated statements - as far as I can tell. Or to be more detailed: - You having subs and what type has nothing to do with blockading the enemy and them sinking your ships
- Blocking a country does not stop them from sinking ships, but it means that you cannot sink theirs (because the blockade prevents them from sailing in the first place)
I probably should have been more clear, but Hawk is right. It is my subs sinking 70ish Japanese mechies a turn, even though Japan is under blockade. First time I've noticed this, but apparently it is a known thing on the discord, and no one has reported is under the assumption that it is the game working as intended.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Mar 5, 2021 11:24:11 GMT -6
Hopefully you've actually got an alliance with the French, otherwise this may end very badly
Edit: Posted this not realizing there was another update. Ooof on the French abandoning you and no hope of a German alliance.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Mar 5, 2021 10:38:07 GMT -6
We can look at this, but without a save game it would be difficult to narrow down potential causation's, I am afraid. If space is an issue with posting a save game, you can use "7-Zip" to compress files much greater than normal zip files, or upload the file to a free file-sharing service and simply post the link here. Thanks. derp me I don't check the forum enough. I was honestly expecting to just get the usual answers from people claiming "Historical" accuracy so I don't have the save anymore
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Feb 18, 2021 20:56:16 GMT -6
So I'm playing a game and I have 60ish coastal subs. Despite having Japan under blockade they keep sinking up to 70 merchant ships per turn. Playing as Russia. Didn't save any pictures and can't upload the save.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 7, 2020 0:02:21 GMT -6
Didn't technically sink, so only minor damage. You got really unlucky on that torpedo hit, as often one will suffice to sink a predread.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 4, 2020 9:37:50 GMT -6
It might have been worthwhile building (or rebuilding in the future) the coastal battleships with their secondaries in shielded (2" armor single turrets) mounts to increase their effectiveness in rough seaways. I think there were a couple coastal ships that did that? Anyway I believe that does increase the chance they will be operable in rough seas, but I have no proof of it. I'm not sure its worth it to rebuild coastal battleships, I mean , they are already half obsolete. Personally I would rebuild some of the better pre dreads and send them in the far east or reserve them in foreign stations when the dreadnoughts become hot ****. Taking the secondaries into single turrets is not that expensive and as their armor is not awful it might be a worthwhile rebuild, esp just for far east coastal defense. Plus going down to 2" secbat armor would allow for more secondaries. It is a cost choice. Quick, cheap rebuild following this war, and it being 1902 that might make them more combat useful in the 2-3 years before dreads become a thing. At the very least there is probably gonna be a fire control rebuild between in universe now and then. The thing with Russia (in my experience) is that your far east fleet is really a secondary station, so you want ships that are just not **** enough to last the 6 months it takes for reinforcements to arrive, while being as cheap as possible. Hell, I've had good use of building 1 turret monitor style ships during the dreadnought era for that purpose. A First Class Battleship is just a little too maintenance heavy for that role in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 3, 2020 18:31:42 GMT -6
It might have been worthwhile building (or rebuilding in the future) the coastal battleships with their secondaries in shielded (2" armor single turrets) mounts to increase their effectiveness in rough seaways. I think there were a couple coastal ships that did that? Anyway I believe that does increase the chance they will be operable in rough seas, but I have no proof of it.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 31, 2020 21:18:32 GMT -6
I continue to be impressed by the quality of your writing. Most impressive and chilling have been your depictions of depression and contemplation of suicide, and I am talking from a place of experience.
|
|