|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 23, 2017 15:52:14 GMT -6
Yeah, Japanese CLs are better examples of Destroyer leaders. The Atlanta is a battleship's secondary battery wandering around by itself. It happens to be the only WWII era cruiser with torpedoes for some reason, but really it's designed for escorting things and going pew pew pew. If you just had the destroyer leader checkbox allow the ship to be of slightly larger tonnage but take up more tons itself I think you'd be fine. Eh, Destroyer leaders are built as smaller than normal light cruisers. Rather than giving them a checkbox, you should be able to designate roles for ships. the Atlanta's are the only American WW2 cruiser with torps, lots of Japanese cruisers had torps
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 22, 2017 20:21:05 GMT -6
leader type destoryers like the Atlanta class crusier?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 9, 2017 20:09:09 GMT -6
here catch a highly explosive shell be thrown up - Said no one ever
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 9, 2017 7:39:16 GMT -6
Pretty much yes😬 Who needs ammo on the tube that leads strait thru your main armor into the things containing all the boom on the ship. Crazy peoples talk when armour is useless at best and causes more damage at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 6, 2017 7:52:22 GMT -6
Whats the most weight savings you've gotton with a refit and what did you do with said weight. in related note in a slighty different game I was able to fit better "torpedos" and a "gun" system to a "destoryer" for the same weight as the base model.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 13, 2017 6:26:36 GMT -6
this is pre WW2 nobody would know the impact They knew the consequences of their treaties and how they affect their economics and everything else. Pre-WW2 means nothing, it was a commercial business at stake. It was a new industry, growing, improving economic development and the movement of people. While there were warclouds and everyone knew it, it wouldn't have changed the commerciality of aviation. I picked pre-WW2 cause I was having trouble picking a date, a government is not going to know the true impact of aircraft till the first world war. commercial travel did not pick up till, what, the late 20s?, then you got the depression, governments really don't know what to do with new tech
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 12, 2017 21:49:51 GMT -6
That's an interesting thought I'm sure there'd still be slow technical progress, but it could seriously slow down the development of the types of high-performance engines that were necessary for aircraft to become a real threat for a 'while' (bit hard to guess how long). Guys: Do you really think that governments are going to enter into a treaty to restrict aviation development which would affect commercial aviation because commercial aviation and military aviation are intertwined. One supports the other and always has. Do you really believe that governments are going to go along with that, knowing the possibilities of commercial aviation. No, I don't think so. No you cannot just enter into treaty such as that, governments will not do that and did not. this is pre WW2 nobody would know the impact
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 12, 2017 14:19:11 GMT -6
At very least, there should be the possibility of the Army developing Nukes and using them to end the war as an event. If you out tech the enemy by too much, the Army invents nukes and wins the war for you. Don't expect much from a nuclear bomb on a fleet, Bikini showed that unless it is an underwater explosion, an air burst just beats on the superstructure and can cause radiation sickness. It doesn't sink much. If the fleet is prepared, the sickness issue using water jets from other ships can eliminate the contamination. Weather can do that also. Nuclear torpedos are a thing, in 1962 a soviet attack sub commander was furstrated that US warplanes were dropping practice depth charges near-by, the 10kt nuclear torpedo was ordered into the tubes, everyone disagreed with the captain, even the Commissar
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 12, 2017 10:23:47 GMT -6
early Anti-shipping missiles and surface to air missiles should be avaible as well as nukes since that tech really took off after the second WW2
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 11, 2017 20:43:58 GMT -6
Oh yeah, post 1945 naval nuclear strikes were considered, NUKES IN RTW2
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 7, 2017 13:08:10 GMT -6
A squadron of swordfish came in on the prefect attack vector and dropped there fish on the prefect angles the target narrowly avoided the torpedoes, the captain of the royal navy battlecrusier was not happy Same thing happened during the hunt for the Bismarck when Sheffield was attack by swordfish whose mistook her for Bismarck. As I said, ship recognition is variable to say the least. However in all fairness, the crews were briefed that any ship in the area was Bismarck and did not get informed of the detachment of Sheffield. However, a little difference in size should have been a dead give away. Apparently not. save for the 2nd aft turret repulse and bismarck class ships look fairly similar
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 7, 2017 12:57:03 GMT -6
Has anyone considered the possibility of the game introducing friendly fire incidents. With the advent of aircraft, they happened more than anyone cares to remember. RAAF pilots and USAAF pilots were notoriously bad at identifying enemy and friendly ships. A squadron of swordfish came in on the prefect attack vector and dropped there fish on the prefect angles the target narrowly avoided the torpedoes, the captain of the royal navy battlecrusier was not happy
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 7, 2017 12:54:49 GMT -6
and today ASW aircraft based on shore (P-3) are controlled by the navy Soon to be replaced by the P-8 Poseidon which is in FRP now with IOC dated November 2013 with FOC dated 2023. not really the point, the point is there are on-shore aeroplanes controlled by the navy
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 5, 2017 12:01:42 GMT -6
and today ASW aircraft based on shore (P-3) are controlled by the navy
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 3, 2017 21:25:24 GMT -6
would a land-based torpedo bomber be better then a carrier based torpedo bomber pound for pound because of a lack of carrier gear?
|
|