|
Post by srndacful on Jul 2, 2016 21:56:15 GMT -6
@ admiral: the Dwarf-Fortress levels of fun in here have already got me hooked since version 1.0.0 - no need to sell it all over again.
The most annoying flash fire incidents (for me) are always those when I have two weaker ships against a single stronger one. Like, for example, two 4kt CL against one 10kt CA. Most of the time the gun duel is going fine, enemy CA is damaged & on fire, my lead CL is crippled (took all the enemy's pounding so the second one can get it's shots in) and drops out of line to let the other CL finish the wounded enemy solo - and then one of the first volleys of the enemy CA gets a golden BB, and my mint-fresh haven't-been-hit-so-far CL goes up in smoke. Yea, that would be frustrating. Do you think putting subdivision and damage control on high initially before building your fleet would help to alleviate that situation. Anyway, as Sherman said, "I tell you, war is hell."
Well, it might - but then, I follow a simple (personal) policy in research: for every research tree set on High, there should be another set on Low. I find it hard to prioritize research as it is - finding (yet) another tree to set on Low would be digging in too dangerously into my battlefleet's future capabilities.
I do want it all - but, unfortunately, I can't get it all at once. Just another fun (as per above) story of ship design, IMHO.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 2, 2016 21:43:37 GMT -6
I noticed that certain events only happen to you once you reach certain thresholds. I wanted to collect stories from you guys to see where exactly these thresholds are. From my experience (using version 1.21, if that's relevant), they roughly seem to be: Nothing: 1-5 Protests: 6 and up Mutinies: 8 and up Collapse: 10 and above. I have never had a government collapse below 10. In addition, if I stay at 10 or above for a prolonged period, I get an event saying revolution is imminent. Also, it seems that unrest goes down 1 for every Major Victory and up 1 for every Major Defeat. Does all this sound right?
I've had unrest go up/down by 2 for Major Victories/Defeats in the late game - and by 0 in the early game. Sometimes is seems as if it goes up/down hand-in-hand with Prestige - but it might just be me seeing things.
OTOH: Thresholds are about right, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 2, 2016 21:35:27 GMT -6
@ admiral: the Dwarf-Fortress levels of fun in here have already got me hooked since version 1.0.0 - no need to sell it all over again.
The most annoying flash fire incidents (for me) are always those when I have two weaker ships against a single stronger one. Like, for example, two 4kt CL against one 10kt CA. Most of the time the gun duel is going fine, enemy CA is damaged & on fire, my lead CL is crippled (took all the enemy's pounding so the second one can get it's shots in) and drops out of line to let the other CL finish the wounded enemy solo - and then one of the first volleys of the enemy CA gets a golden BB, and my mint-fresh haven't-been-hit-so-far CL goes up in smoke.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 2, 2016 4:35:14 GMT -6
Hello
While it's only slightly relevant to this subject, I thought I'd rather put it here than open a new thread for nothing:
Can anyone tell me why I'm getting this in 1923?
Am I seriously required to build Armored Cruisers? Or does this refer to Battle Cruisers?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 19, 2016 4:48:23 GMT -6
I'd be happy with either direction .
+1 vote for this one.
Dreadnought was just 1 more step along the Gun vs. Armor battlefield which saw hundreds of such steps before it - just as we (in this game) see the (first) 100 steps after. Will we be exploring the previous or next 100 steps is all the same to me: it'll be fun either way.
Cheers!
P.S. My actual vote would be something along the lines of 1875 - 1950: 3 Generations of Capital Ships, but my momma always told me not to be too greedy.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 13, 2016 5:48:55 GMT -6
The longest I got is 5 months,. I feel it is short.
Yeah, I get that, too - usually after she strikes a mine.
Considering that major refits in this game last about 10 to 12 months - I'd say 5 months is about right for a major repair. Still, it kinda makes you wonder: just what the f#&* did she ran into?!?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 12, 2016 13:11:52 GMT -6
That article is a pretty fair summation of the battlecruiser as I understand it. I just prefer to lump his 'large cruisers' in with the battlecruisers to keep from having more ship-types.
So do I.
Still, that bit about 2 different types of Armored Cruisers was an eye-opener. I'll have to try them out in one of my games - preferably one with higher revenue.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 12, 2016 3:49:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 9, 2016 10:02:07 GMT -6
Additionally, you did not link any contemporary designs, you posted antiquated ones, by the time Alaska was in play.
Alright, let's look at some planned (but not built) designs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser 11" guns en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_B-65_cruiser 12" guns en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronshtadt-class_battlecruiser 15" guns (but 6 - not 9 barrels)
And please note: those were all planned, but not built - USA was just about the only power out there to be able to build battlecruisers at the time: French & Dutch were overrun, Germans were spamming submarines, British destroyers & frigates and Russians, Italians and Japs had their hands full repairing/replacing stuff & getting their a$$e$$ kicked ...
So, in all due respect: what contemporary designs?
Also, I came across an interesting tidbit: according to Wikipedia entry, Alaska's 12" guns were just as good - if not better than 14" guns of the pre-WW2 designs. So, I have to retract another of my statements: the Alaska's were following Fisher's British school after all.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 9, 2016 9:38:55 GMT -6
Did you just compare a latewar giant cruiser from the best designer of ships in WW2, to early war backwater country battleships and cruisers?...
Did you just admit that Alaska compares favourably to (i.e. is better than) the two contemporary battleships and is thus (by definition) a BattleCruiser? (please note the capital C in cruiser part of the designation)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 9, 2016 9:18:55 GMT -6
Yeah, oddball designations always crop up - even when you expect better. I mean, I get Fisher's 'large light cruisers' (fyi: Outrageous, Uproarious and Spurious) - that he had to cheat the Parliament to get - but Alaskas? 12" guns, 9"B / 4"D / 11"T & 31 kts - that's a Battlecruiser pure and simple.
OTOH, you really could argue for the official designation, too: that's a Large Cruiser, alright!
In ww2, 12 inch guns are WELL below BC range. Hell, even in WW1 its unacceptable. Not to mention it had no underwater protection to speak of. Its a big cruiser, nothing more.
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree on that one, too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derfflinger-class_battlecruiser 12" guns
And let's not forget the other two similar classes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkerque-class_battleship 13" guns en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst-class_battleship 11" guns
Although, I'll agree that the two contemporary 'battlecruiser' classes have bigger guns: -class_battlecruiser" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%-class_battlecruiser en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renown-class_battlecruiser But that's because they follow the "British" school of thought (which lost three to one at Jutland, btw) while Alaska (IMHO) follows the Germans. Also, if you take a look at Dunkerque and Scharnhorst classes, you'll see that they follow the German school as well.
IMHO, WW2 battlecruisers approached the ideal position of the Battlecruiser: stronger (bigger) than & (at least) as fast as a Heavy Cruiser & weaker (smaller) but much faster than the Battleship. So, IMHO, in the perfect place to be. Just like, say, heavy (44-gun) frigates of the Napoleonic wars compared to 74-gun Battleships: one deck less, on the same ship length and with as much sails.
Cheers!
Edit: it just struck me that perhaps the both of you adhere to the echoes of Fisher's lunacy: i.e. that the true Battlecruiser should sacrifice Armor to achieve speed. If I might put just another thought forward: Battlecruiser is a Capital Ship built for superior speed - no matter what it sacrifices to achieve this.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 9, 2016 5:58:40 GMT -6
Officially, the Alaska was a new "Large Cruiser" class, designed to outclass heavy cruisers, they were too small in latewar WW2 to be called a battlecruiser.
Yeah, oddball designations always crop up - even when you expect better. I mean, I get Fisher's 'large light cruisers' (fyi: Outrageous, Uproarious and Spurious) - that he had to cheat the Parliament to get - but Alaskas? 12" guns, 9"B / 4"D / 11"T & 31 kts - that's a Battlecruiser pure and simple.
OTOH, you really could argue for the official designation, too: that's a Large Cruiser, alright!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 9, 2016 4:14:55 GMT -6
Has anyone here actually SUNK a B class in 1900-1904?... With gunfire only?... I seemingly cannot! Even when its one B against 10, they empty their magazines before it dies... Nope - not gonna happen.
At that time, the chances of sinking a Battleship with Shells only is somewhere between 0 and snowball's chance in hell.
Setting it on fire and forcing crew to scuttle it, OTOH ... (which is why most of my early battleships have standard 2x2 10-11" main & 16-20 6" secondary guns)
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 9, 2016 4:08:20 GMT -6
30000 tonnes is not exactly small - that's only 5000 less that Dunkerque and Scharnhorst classes - and with similar guns / speed.
I'm afraid I have to put my vote on director's side in this one ... Deutschlands were biggest CA's ever.
Edit: oh yeah - I forgot:
I always preffered the German solution myself: reduce the weaponry. I particularly like that German Admiral who (in a debate for/against battlecruisers) argued for installing 21cm guns at most on them since "they're all you need to sink the British ones."
As of latewar WW2, Alaska class WERE small, if they were a BC. Tonnage creep was a thing ya know! A WW2 heavy cruiser was larger than a early battlships. Man, I have to correct myself here: Admiral Hipper class was the biggest CA ever. (18k tonnes - I honestly thought Deutchlands were that size ...)
And, yes, Alaska is small for a BC - but too big to be a CA, which (if I remember correctly) was what you were suggesting. That's even if we take the tonnage creep in mind. (which would, in Alaska's case, be more of a tonnage sprint ... )
As for the last comment: Sorry, but - so were some of the early CA's.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 8, 2016 10:23:26 GMT -6
Um... that's debatable (and debated even today). I'd consider the Alaskas to be exponents of the British battlecruiser thesis - fast, heavily-armed cruiser-killers with little armor. My definition of a modern CA is the Deustschland pocket-battleship... but except for the Alaskas being much bigger and better armed, they aren't that different. Not saying you're wrong, just that my dividing line puts Alaska as the last BC and Deutschland as the last of the pre-WW1[type armored cruiser. Honestly, yeah, the Alaska were basically BC's, although small ones... Strictly speaking a traditional BC is merely a battleship with AC, or less, armour, using its tonnage for speed and weapons.
30000 tonnes is not exactly small - that's only 5000 less that Dunkerque and Scharnhorst classes - and with similar guns / speed.
I'm afraid I have to put my vote on director's side in this one ... Deutschlands were biggest CA's ever.
Edit: oh yeah - I forgot:
I always preffered the German solution myself: reduce the weaponry. I particularly like that German Admiral who (in a debate for/against battlecruisers) argued for installing 21cm guns at most on them since "they're all you need to sink the British ones."
|
|