|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 7, 2023 18:35:37 GMT -6
Call me crazy but could monitors be included in the ships that can be designed and built. The HMS Roberts might be a good example but there were many others for nations that did not have access to the open sea.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 7, 2023 21:53:40 GMT -6
With the way the wars work, monitors seem like they'd be somewhat outside the game's scope. They'd have marginal use in shore raid missions, but occasional bombardments and lengthy river campaigns are something the game doesn't include.
Monitors might be nice for roleplaying, but I'd rather see other things prioritized.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 8, 2023 0:51:35 GMT -6
Call me crazy but could monitors be included in the ships that can be designed and built. The HMS Roberts might be a good example but there were many others for nations that did not have access to the open sea. You mean something like this? I don't know how effective it would be in combat, but the concept seems viable. Given adequate protection, I'd imagine it would be pretty useful in assisting in naval invasions by providing 'el cheapo' naval superiority. Oh, and yeah - the design is valid - although it gives me a 20% rate-of-fire penalty for having a too large gun on a too small hull.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 8, 2023 3:00:37 GMT -6
Call me crazy but could monitors be included in the ships that can be designed and built. The HMS Roberts might be a good example but there were many others for nations that did not have access to the open sea. When I developed a SAI scenario based on the Baltic Project, I also created some monitors as very slow pre-dreadnoughts. Unfortunately the AI still considered them as battleships and tended to make them participate in battles.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2023 7:37:33 GMT -6
With the way the wars work, monitors seem like they'd be somewhat outside the game's scope. They'd have marginal use in shore raid missions, but occasional bombardments and lengthy river campaigns are something the game doesn't include. Monitors might be nice for roleplaying, but I'd rather see other things prioritized. I can't disagree, there are other priorities, but if we could just have the ship type added, I think we can still use the current settings. I just don't want battleship or pre-dreadnought settings to cover it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2023 7:52:26 GMT -6
Call me crazy but could monitors be included in the ships that can be designed and built. The HMS Roberts might be a good example but there were many others for nations that did not have access to the open sea. You mean something like this? View AttachmentI don't know how effective it would be in combat, but the concept seems viable. Given adequate protection, I'd imagine it would be pretty useful in assisting in naval invasions by providing 'el cheapo' naval superiority. Oh, and yeah - the design is valid - although it gives me a 20% rate-of-fire penalty for having a too large gun on a too small hull. Thanks, I agree. I've put together a similar design but again, it calls it a pre-dreadnought. Monitors can be useful in guarding shorelines and bay along with ports.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 8, 2023 9:25:57 GMT -6
oldpop2000 well, I'd say take it - 'cause that's the best you're gonna get. Most people focus on the flashy stuff - and tend to ignore the less obvious, gritty, stuff. Take WW2 planes, for example: everyone here could name at least one fighter - most could name at least one bomber - but how many could name a single spotter/observation plane? Developer concentrated on the more flashy stuff (as he should've) - and ignored or neglected most of gritty stuff. This, for example, is why so much of ship types is swept under a single "Corvette" (aka KE) type. So, in the age of Dreadnoughts, a Monitor would be just another kind of pre-dreadnought - a slower, weaker kind of battleship - useful only as support.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2023 10:00:03 GMT -6
oldpop2000 well, I'd say take it - 'cause that's the best you're gonna get. Most people focus on the flashy stuff - and tend to ignore the less obvious, gritty, stuff. Take WW2 planes, for example: everyone here could name at least one fighter - most could name at least one bomber - but how many could name a single spotter/observation plane? Developer concentrated on the more flashy stuff (as he should've) - and ignored or neglected most of gritty stuff. This, for example, is why so much of ship types is swept under a single "Corvette" (aka KE) type. So, in the age of Dreadnoughts, a Monitor would be just another kind of pre-dreadnought - a slower, weaker kind of battleship - useful only as support. Well, there was the L-5 Sentinal, basically a Piper cub. But I understand. I just want ships and aircraft to experiment with. That is my way of using the game, to experiment with designs and strategies along with tactics. The game is not entertainment to me, I use it to develop a better understanding of military technology, tactics and strategy.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jan 8, 2023 11:00:02 GMT -6
I indeed could not think of a single pure spotter/observation plane, and I indeed could think of several fighters and bombers immediately, but they were all land-based. Ironically, the first sea-based WW2 plane I could think of was the observation-adjacent PBY Catalina.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2023 11:47:27 GMT -6
I indeed could not think of a single pure spotter/observation plane, and I indeed could think of several fighters and bombers immediately, but they were all land-based. Ironically, the first sea-based WW2 plane I could think of was the observation-adjacent PBY Catalina. The PBY Catalina is one of Patrol planes I remember. My dad flew in them out of Guadalcanal and had some interesting stories. There was also the PB2Y Coronado. These planes flew over our house when landing in San Diego Bay. That was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 8, 2023 22:29:36 GMT -6
oldpop2000 well, I'd say take it - 'cause that's the best you're gonna get. Most people focus on the flashy stuff - and tend to ignore the less obvious, gritty, stuff. Take WW2 planes, for example: everyone here could name at least one fighter - most could name at least one bomber - but how many could name a single spotter/observation plane? Developer concentrated on the more flashy stuff (as he should've) - and ignored or neglected most of gritty stuff. This, for example, is why so much of ship types is swept under a single "Corvette" (aka KE) type. So, in the age of Dreadnoughts, a Monitor would be just another kind of pre-dreadnought - a slower, weaker kind of battleship - useful only as support. Swordfish was designed for the Torpedo/Spotter/Reconnaissance role:D As for Monitors, perhaps they could be treated a bit like AA cruisers? If certain parameters are met, the ship is considered a monitor and only authorised for bombardment and defence missions. Something like: *max 2 main battery guns *max 20 knots speed *short range
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 9, 2023 7:22:24 GMT -6
oldpop2000 well, I'd say take it - 'cause that's the best you're gonna get. Most people focus on the flashy stuff - and tend to ignore the less obvious, gritty, stuff. Take WW2 planes, for example: everyone here could name at least one fighter - most could name at least one bomber - but how many could name a single spotter/observation plane? Developer concentrated on the more flashy stuff (as he should've) - and ignored or neglected most of gritty stuff. This, for example, is why so much of ship types is swept under a single "Corvette" (aka KE) type. So, in the age of Dreadnoughts, a Monitor would be just another kind of pre-dreadnought - a slower, weaker kind of battleship - useful only as support. Swordfish was designed for the Torpedo/Spotter/Reconnaissance role:D As for Monitors, perhaps they could be treated a bit like AA cruisers? If certain parameters are met, the ship is considered a monitor and only authorised for bombardment and defence missions. Something like: *max 2 main battery guns *max 20 knots speed *short range I think that might work. The bottom line is that there are ship types that with modifications, could support the concept of the monitor. If we could find a way to develop our own ship types, that would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 10, 2023 12:01:30 GMT -6
I've just bought a book on monitors: their history and construction. It is a particularly enjoyable book. Monitors were strictly wartime ships. Many nations built them, and they were used in shallow seas, and enclosed seas. Baltic, Black and the Med would be good candidates. The British build some and used them to blockade the ports along the North Sea coast of Germany. I think they could be used in the Caribbean also by the CSA and United States.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 11, 2023 1:49:39 GMT -6
The monitors and also the so-called "armed/gun-mounted barges" used large-caliber guns from scrapped battleships or those intended for new battleships that were no longer built. From the first of the two cases it can be deduced that in RTW the construction of monitors (and also of coastal fortifications) should be somewhat facilitated by the decision to scrap one or more battleships
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 11, 2023 7:14:56 GMT -6
The monitors and also the so-called "armed/gun-mounted barges" used large-caliber guns from scrapped battleships or those intended for new battleships that were no longer built. From the first of the two cases it can be deduced that in RTW the construction of monitors (and also of coastal fortifications) should be somewhat facilitated by the decision to scrap one or more battleships That is true and other sources of large ordnance were from the sale of battleship ordnance to other nations like Greece. The weapons were designed and built in the US but could not be sent to the Greeks, so they were provided to the Royal Navy and used on the Monitors. I think the idea of using scrapped battleship ordnance and parts could facilitate the production of monitors.
|
|