|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 1, 2016 7:46:19 GMT -6
I knew about the effected by weather, just figured it would be worse with low seaboard. I got this impression from some games as Austria where that seemed to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 30, 2016 21:17:32 GMT -6
I think (not sure) that casemates on low freeboard have a higher chance of being out of action due to weather
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 29, 2016 12:14:43 GMT -6
Also I should mention that I've had some very successful large CAs/small BCs with something like 4x10" + 8x8", or even 4x12" + 8x10". They're a lot of fun, but arguably not very economical - their only real purpose is as killers of lesser CAs. But since they're fast and meant to be used aggressively anyway, their battles against smaller CAs usually follow the sequence of: wound enemy with primary caliber; close to moderate range where the intermediate battery is accurate but the enemy can't fight back effectively with their smaller secondary guns (usually 6"); disable them and finish off without getting too close. It's all good fun until you bump into a faster, "true" BC and that'll be the end of that Weirdly two of my heavy secondary BCs absolutely took apart a pair of French heavyweight BCs I think combined tonnage was 44k vs 65k in favor of the French.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 29, 2016 10:50:49 GMT -6
I didn't get the tech for good BBs till around 11-12ish, so I just kept running that design on my BCs. I was running a 30% Russia game emphasis on light forces a la directors strategy.
So great CLs and DDs, but **** BB and BC design.
Next game I am gonna try a heavy secondary on big ships for the lols
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 29, 2016 7:19:05 GMT -6
Hey all, I've been experimenting with this concept on early 6 gun BBs and BCs, was wondering what the community thought?
I have had some success using the concept as Russia to the point where in a recent game I kept the secondarys at 12*10" for the entire game. Of course this is the tech deficit nation of Russia, and the concept was mostly to compensate for my lack of wing or more than 3 centerline tech.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 28, 2016 6:15:16 GMT -6
Low tech games can be fun in a derpy way. Just finished game with France I had at 20% I had 3 generations of semi-dreads with the last one going 19kts with 6*12" in two triple turrets, and 12*11" in 4 triple turrets. I got freaking triples before I got 3+ centerline. I think it tonned out at about 30,000 tons, so presumably all the extra tonnage was armor.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 27, 2016 15:56:23 GMT -6
Weirdly in a similar game (30%, with varied tech) as Russia a ship with 2 quad turrets was still considered a predread by the game.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 24, 2016 21:12:25 GMT -6
Oh wow, that was a trip down memory lane! Thanks fit that reminder Sadly I've long lost my saves from then - but that reminds me that I've wanted to do another "experimental" game for a while... AAR! AAR! AAR!
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 23, 2016 21:51:28 GMT -6
I think another factor to consider here is that, with the way RTW technology caps out at the moment, there's not actually any meaningful advantage to an 18in gun over a 16in - in either case, playing post-1925 usually results in shell technology leaving armor development in the dust. No amount of armor in the game will stop a good-quality 16in shell from penetrating. (Which, incidentally, is part of why I basically stopped playing past 1925 except to finish an ongoing war - I find that things get so unbalanced that virtually any BB encounter ends with most of the capital ships at the bottom of the sea). True, only reason I'm at 1933 right now is I really wanted to fight GB and didn't feel ready before then. I actually took the fight cause the Brits scrapped a bunch of BBs in 1932 and haven't replaced them. Still 15BBs to 23 and 5BCs to 15, bit oh well. I also to my shame still have 4 Bs in service
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 22, 2016 18:36:10 GMT -6
That beautiful moment when all shots from 9 gun 16" broadside strike home and the enemy goes dead in the water
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 22, 2016 9:06:15 GMT -6
Why is there a cap on the R&D percentage available? I have played a number of games before where I would love to increase beyond the 10%, and it seems that few nations if any devote LESS than 10%. From what I can see this is impossible to mod without some sort of edit to the executable, somewhat beyond my abilities. My understanding is that Navies very rarely devoted more than 10% of their budget to R&D as matenence and construction is far more important. Also Navies largely at the time didn't have huge control over their budget, and while ships and construction are tangible things to show to budget approvers, R&D isn't.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 19, 2016 0:41:41 GMT -6
There be bugs up in there hills.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 18, 2016 17:47:47 GMT -6
Also I always turn away from night battles immediately, so taking position is less relevant. I have found night battles to be two risky to justify any potential rewards, as mid to late game guns can overpen armor way too dangerously at those ranges
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 18, 2016 17:44:26 GMT -6
have thought about this BB speed thing some.. 1. as said very useful for catching up. AI starts running when it's had enough but gotta catch it to sink it. 2. some reserve knots is useful when taking damage. iirc when speed dips below 16kts the ship becomes an easier target (hit rate window -> "target low speed" has a hit rate +). hits like "engine room hit B*", "machinery damaged!" etc reduce speed a lot. 3. faster -> easier to dodge torps 4. taking position for night battles. ranges are so short at night, hit rates are very high so gotta strive for initial t-crossing upon contact. almost life or death later game.. 5. BC weaklings needing rescue, intel report event locations... faster gets there sooner plus some other reasons i forgot:| anyway.. iirc i built some 24kt BBs late game and didn't like the result. especially when trying to catch fleeing AI. the AI support DD/CLs hang behind and disrupted targeting while providing sighting for their capitals.. twasn't a good fight. Good points, I just find justifying the engine power cost above 22 knots too hard to do with verses the resultant trade off in weapons and armor. My experience has been that the enemy will stand in line with me long enough for me to slow them down to where they are catchable. I mostly don't build BCs as they cannot effectively stand in line of battle against equivalent sized BBs due to the required trade offs to get above 26 knots. I actually had a game recently where my Battle line never got above 18 knots, as I was playing with Russia and engine power issues variant tech, so I couldn't scrap ships. As a result my old ships were slow as **** and I never changed the line speed cause of the number of them I had.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 18, 2016 10:41:23 GMT -6
Me a get around the whole speed/armor/gun dynamic by fixing speed around 22knots. I have found that because I play on historical budget, I keep old ships around for ages. And example of this is on one of my posts in the ship thread. So I can have 12*16" 18" armor monsters.
Just my 2 cents
Question: why do people build 24+26 knot battleships anyway?
|
|