|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 14, 2018 13:20:43 GMT -6
It is incredibly interesting seeing people look at naval helicopter use, especially the German ones, as my focus has in the past been exclusive to the land potential the Luftwaffe wasted by ignoring them.
Read a translation once that demonstrates the arguments the various branches of service often had when the army immediately went "omg these would be amazing for supply transport and shot range tactical mobility." And the Luftwaffe went "meh we see no use for these."
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 14, 2018 12:54:44 GMT -6
A little teaser for what I'm working on - and a very aggressive sub: Eide Siebs Eide Siebs Class Armed Merchant Cruiser, 5,000 tons. Built:0 (265) February 1922: Eide Siebs was laid down. It was estimated to take 4 months. (265) February 1922: Sunk in gunnery duel with French submarine SS Foucault I'm curious, did it remove the ship from the build que? I believe I've had a similar thing happen, but the ship continued building so I said "oh well just a bug"
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 14, 2018 1:31:24 GMT -6
One HUMONGOUS item: Players should make choices and have the AI should respond. Are you gonna frigging spam a variant of this comment on every thread? Cause so far everyone I have opened today has you posting some version of it. You are incredibly lucky that the mods/devs on this forum are not like the average for most online forums or you would be gone already.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 6, 2018 16:17:25 GMT -6
Additionally to what was just said it has been my observation that the AI tends to adjust course a lot and reacts to dds as if they have infinite torps and are launching them regardless of range. Whereas a human play will (myself and videos watched on YouTube for experience) tend to hold a steady damn the torpedos approach to maximize gunnery. Especially in the early game this will lead to more torpedo hits, but also generally better gunnery results.
My experience it that the AI will turn away as soon as dds move forward while a player may not.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 14, 2018 2:26:16 GMT -6
It looks like the AI is making predreads out of armored cruisers again.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 8, 2018 15:44:35 GMT -6
I also think convoy attacks where heavy ships are present represent the number of times scharnhorst and Gneisenau sortied with the express purpose of attacking and destroying convoys.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 27, 2018 20:36:30 GMT -6
Sorry should have been more specific. 20-30mm cannons generally had no issues in WW2 I was talking exclusively about the larger 50mm> weaponry. The 410 variant I was referencing had a underslung 50mm for bomber interception the idea being to engage from beyond the range of the bombers defensive weapons. It was not terribly effective.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 27, 2018 10:31:03 GMT -6
It's very hazy, but I think the British had some success (can't remember exactly how much, wasn't 'blown away phenomenal', but I think it also wasn't 'so useless we shouldn't do that again') with their cannon-armed Mosquito's against subs. One of the advantages they would have had is that subs are a bigger target than tanks, which presumably would have been what the German cannnon-armed aircraft would have been focussing on (although that's a complete guess). The Germans mostly used them in ground attack, tho they were also tried in a anti-shipping role, and weirdly enough for bomber interception, mostly on the Me 410. Not terrible results but very disappointing compared to rockets and bombs, esp things like the Fritz-X.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 26, 2018 2:22:20 GMT -6
What about guns - 20mm up to the 57mm on a mosquito or 75mm on a Mitchell (70degrees plus) vs shallow glide My reading of large caliber guns on planes during this period was that they generally underperformed in intended roles.(meaning the 57-75mm) A 20mm won't do all that much damage to anything with more than minimal armor and the large anti-tank sized weaponry tended to have feed and reliability issues plus a very low ROF. (At least on German aircraft which is where most of my reading has been focused) I also love the derp that is the p108 from Italy. A 108mm gun on a bomber...sigh, what are you doing Italy.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 21, 2018 2:50:11 GMT -6
The problem with the argument of cease putting resources into the Navy and transfer the to the Luftwaffe is manifold. 1. Foreign conscripts are really not who you want in your ground support pool, many oprotunities for sabotage. I would note that actual German use of foreign conscripts (differs from SS volunteers) was in disposable meatshield units like those on the beaches and it was due to their lack of reliability. 2. The Luftwaffe pretty decisively proved it was not institutional organized for a fight to knock out Britain (I actually recently wrote an analysis of the battle of Britain focusing on the Luftwaffe). They were not organized or in my opinion capable under the flaky leadership of Goering for the nessisary operations. Their long range and strategic bombing targeting and organization was frankly crap, they did not have the range or tactics for long range bomber escort, and tbh their plane designs (with a couple exceptions, FW 200) were not up to the task of knocking out the Brits. 3. Finally looking at our historical sample set German pilot attrition was massively higher than that of the Brits, unsustainable in fact. Unless you posit that all these now unemployed navy types can be converted into many, many more pilots then it doesn't work. 4. Finally, there are places German air simply can't go for range constraints. Anywhere kinda northern Britain is a Deathtrap for German attacks due to lack of escort. And unescorted bombers die in droves. A defeat of Britain needs one of two things A. A cross chanel invasion, B. Destroying their capacity to make war through destruction of imports. I do not believe the Luftwaffe capable of either of these goals even with any resources gained from scrapping or abstaining from any naval programs.
Plus once the Germans go into Russia it reduces the forces facing the Brits substantially.
Incidentally in fairness to the kreigsmarine their serface navy building was intended to A. Be for a war in 1942 and B. Be for parity with France only.
NOTE: I do not intend the above discorce as insulting in any way, if I have offended be assured it is cause I am crap at what my dad would call interpersonal relations
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 19, 2018 10:04:32 GMT -6
To my knowledge and experience a ship going obsolete (first O type) is much more likely to suffer engineering failures in battle. In my experience ships that are past refit often suffer the bearings overheating event.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 11, 2018 6:52:27 GMT -6
In response to oldpop: (sorry if I miss anything, I'm on a phone so I can't see post while I type) while I agree that if they station the subs prior to war AH can use subs for commerce attacks, especially against Italy, I was thinking in the context of a long war. If the hypothetical enemy has any noticable ASW gear then getting back for resupply is going to be very hard (assuming Italy is an enemy or hostile neutral, which I feel likely), which puts a high risk and hard cap on the viability of commerce raiding with their subs. Primary enemy's for AH are: Italy, France, and historically Russia, tho in game I suspect Britain will be the more likely and dangerous game enemy. Primary enemy's for Brits: USA, France, Germany. Don't have time to analyze, class starts in 5min, lists in no particular order.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 10, 2018 20:17:06 GMT -6
For usage of submarines I would suspect both Britain and Australia-Hungary are in the same boat but for different reasons. What I mean by this is that strategically they mostly will have subs for the purpose of sinking enemy fleet combatants. For the British this is because they can reasonably expect to be the dominant naval force an a conflict, thus rendering the commerce raiding potential of the submarine moot, so they are used for reconisance and attacks on enemy fleet units For Austria-Hungary it is for a very different reason. The Adriatic is not suited for commerce raiding as it is too narrow, and thus it makes it much harder to operate submarines. Additionally because basically any comparable opponent can close off the Adriatic with ease it makes any potential AH submarines much more likely to be confined to the Adriatic as opposed to being able to slip into the wider Mediterranean Which is much more favorable to submarine warfare. In my mind this would thus confine any AH submarines to a fleet support role.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 7, 2018 20:19:25 GMT -6
I'm just gonna put this statement here and start ignoring him(harlec). YOU HAVE POSTED ALL OF 2 SCREENSHOTS. They weren't even particularly relevant to the discussion at the time. You have repeatedly gotten angry at those trying to help and you went full on rant mode at Bcoopactual, one of the most helpful people on this forum. I am forced to conclude that you are either a troll or a bitter old war gamer (based on your rant) who is unable to grasp the UI, has convinced himself the AI cheats (I have played this game for around 2 years now, basically only get torpedoed when I make a dumbass error), and doesn't really want the help offered, just wants to vent on the forum.
Good day to you, and to the rest of the forum I would recommend that y'all just ignore him... especially if he starts talking about torpedos.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Oct 1, 2018 21:39:56 GMT -6
That is an impressive ship I will say. Are you playing on variable tech? If so that may explain the derpy research progression
|
|