|
Post by Airy W on Nov 22, 2016 7:50:41 GMT -6
A problem with that is you cant complete a design with technologies you dont have yet. Inventing a technology should mean you already have designs related to that technology. This would mean after you invent it you haven't actually invented it yet.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 20, 2016 21:37:07 GMT -6
When I saw this AAR I downloaded the mod and am playing as Byzantium. I replicated your choice of having French built battleships. Although now I'm pondering if it might not have been better to save on the expense and build more armored cruisers instead.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 19, 2016 19:48:01 GMT -6
Why the heck dont we just call it the Greek Empire? It is an empire that is full of Greeks. Like the Chinese or the Russian or the Persian empires it can be named after it's dominant culture.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 18, 2016 9:00:44 GMT -6
I don't see the benefits of different torpedo tubes. For one thing, torpedo mounts can be replaced. It's not like a battleship turret where you have to design the entire ship around supporting that weight and having the elevation gear for the ammo. For another thing, torpedoes were built in small numbers to specifications. The navy spent the money to purchase a stockpile of a new torpedo and planned ahead of times to have their ships fitted with the appropriate mounts. The only real strategic choice was when to invest in the new torpedoes. That choice could be modeled but it's not much of a strategic choice, the Germans and especially Americans were "penny wise, pound foolish" to spend too little on torpedo stockpiles and testing and no player would chose to replicate that mistake. Maybe there could be a chance of failure (or an American and possibly German trait of "dud fish" like the British "hidden flaws" trait) but I think it's either go the extra mile like the Japanese or dont go the extra mile.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 17, 2016 23:24:38 GMT -6
I played around with the idea of having two different kinds of main guns but it's just not viable because secondary batteries and 18 guns take so long to show up. But if they were available sooner I think it would be interesting to play around with having a secondary battery of 14 inch guns to fight against conventional battleships. Then I would also give the battleship a pair of 18 inch cannons to overcompensate (...for the enemy armor).
It's ironic in a couple ways. First it's a regression back from the "all big gun" concept and secondly the game would label a ship with only two main guns as a pre-dreadnought when it's actually a specialized dreadnought killer.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 15, 2016 22:44:21 GMT -6
Playing as France, my weapons companies finally discovered better 13 inch guns in 1925. They improved the design from -2 to -1. I would love to know what the heck happened to produce this new design. I hope it involves a museum and an old model 1881 artillery piece.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 14, 2016 11:14:47 GMT -6
Huh, I've never had a bulkhead rupture below 10 that I can recall.
Reducing damaged ships to 10 knots is generally what I plan to do but I dont always notice the damage, especially in a fleet battle aftermath. I often think that it's just a jammed turret not structure or floatation damage because there is no convenient way to check all 25 ships and I am thinking the battle is over so am not eager to micromanage. So I will often just hit the cruise button, go to port and then have a nasty surprise. If there was another button for "slow" that would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 14, 2016 9:18:42 GMT -6
After a battle I will often put my ships to cruising speed and then put the game speed to ultra in order to run out the clock. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in a bulkhead rupturing which could have been prevented if the ships had been travelling at 10 knots instead of 14. Could there be a warning implemented for these situations? If a ship is at danger of a bulkhead rupturing, the game could give a pop-up saying so if you put the game speed above "fast" if that ship's division is steaming at more then 10 knots.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 9, 2016 13:25:10 GMT -6
If the small cruiser is bristling with guns and has destroyer escorts it's not in much danger. And if it just clips the enemy that can force the enemy into a neutral harbor which is massive. That doesn't net you points but it does help you blockade.
I view every battle as not just an opportunity but also as a threat. If it's my 5000 ton CL against their 5000 ton CL and I engage I am risking handing the enemy a big pile of points. If I have the money to afford sending my 8000 ton CA against their CL I not only dont think I will lose my ship, I think I'm more likely to sink theirs. It's like playing poker, the good players know that you have to fold right after the ante if you want the chips to win later.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 9, 2016 10:54:54 GMT -6
I feel like you are mixing together a semantic distinction and a gameplay argument. The "Heavy Cruiser" Acheloas showed would not meet the requirements of a "Heavy Cruiser". According to the treaty it would be a capital ship both because it's 15,000 tons exceeds 10,000 tons quite handily and because it's 10 inch guns exceed the 8 inch maximum. When he was talking about "Heavy Cruisers" I think he was referring to an armored cruiser of large displacement.
I think that armored cruisers of large displacement are extremely effectively in limited numbers. Used for offensive raiding, their only counter would be an exorbitantly expensive battlecruiser. And before battlecruisers become viable, no deterrent to them exists except for other large displacement armored cruisers. Used defensively they can run down and destroy enemy raiders.
Were it not for the Washington Naval Treaty, I think such cruisers would have been logical to build. If the enemy didn't counter them with BCs, they would be dangerous. If the enemy did counter them with BCs, they would be a very efficient fleet-in-being. It was only with the development of aircraft carriers that they became obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 9, 2016 8:09:47 GMT -6
The problem with building any ship for a specialized purpose (other than ASW or raiding) is that it will often be assigned missions it was not optimized for. Not every engagement should be decisive. If I can substitute a 2600 ton cruiser for a 5500 cruiser and come out alive, that frees up a lot of money to beef up my cruiser-hunter or my battleships. I am missing the logic in the idea of building heavy cruisers. Heavy cruisers were an outgrowth of the Washington Naval Treaty. The term heavy cruiser was born of the Naval Treaty but they built plenty of armored cruisers with a lot of tonnage before then. The logic of an armored cruiser is that it's a terror for a light cruiser and it stops enemy armored cruisers. And when one power would build such ships, others would follow, as they have one huge advantage of such ship compared to a BC - you can have them in two places at once. And compared to BCs planned at the end of WWI, I'd say you can have three. This means you have a ship in the sea all the time, patrolling or blockading, compared to occasional sallies by single BC. I agree. You can make life extremely dangerous for enemy raiders by having some ACs dedicated to hunting them.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 7, 2016 23:58:48 GMT -6
I tried to hit the target of "best in class" at first but the problem with that is you are often left with a supership that ages poorly and becomes mediocre. So now I'm trying to force myself to have discipline and avoid making most of my cruisers too big. By accepting that some enemy ships will just be plain better then some of my cruisers it's possible to afford a few slow cruisers that can really win a fight or fast cruisers that can really catch the enemy.
I have two different possible missions for BCs, depending on why I build them. I try to have a diversity of cruisers so sometimes my ACs get so might that I make a true BC, middling armor but fast and big guns. But sometimes random technology means that it's easier to make my battleships fast rather then fighty so they tun into BCs for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 7, 2016 20:42:53 GMT -6
Is this ship not a bit costly for Italy? I build CLs but with 23 kn, 1,5 inch deck, 3incher turrets and only 8 6incher guns for Germany and they cost about 23-25 million, I think?! I will check this in the next game ... . Seems like the kind of ship you are talking about is downright overpowered, especially early. Hello Intolight, I tried a similar thing with a CA and made also bad experiences against modern BCs. I lost the ships very quickly. In my opinion, they are not worth the money because for recon they are much to expensive, for battle they are not suited and it is questionable whether it is worth building them for service in the colonies. I dont really think that CAs should be judged by standing up to BCs, their job is to catch other CAs or have enough armor to scare away CLs. Having a CA or two in your roster really changes the game when it comes to convoy raids whether attacking or defending.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 7, 2016 19:58:32 GMT -6
What's your secret to successfully ram? I can never manage to pull it off, intentionally... Just steer your leading vessel into the midpoint of the enemy repeatedly. It's hard to do unless they are out of primary gun ammo.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 6, 2016 21:14:16 GMT -6
Pretty please, include a secret technology for zeppelin aircraft carriers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)Make it not possible to achieve via normal research but possible from an easter egg event. The result should be an escort vehicle that doesn't appear on the map but provides a small number of scout planes above the flagship by event.
|
|