|
Post by RNRobert on Oct 5, 2017 10:48:22 GMT -6
My two cents:
While I have lost ships to subs in the game, I find it pretty much on a par with what happened historically.
Also, I think historically, while battleships were considered the primary arbiter in that period, it was actually the submarines that proved far more effective. While steel battleships played a decisive role in the Russo-Japanese War, by WW1 they had evolved into expensive status symbols that were considered too valuable to risk, and spent most of the war swinging at their anchors and looking impressive. It was the Kaiser's U-boats, not his dreadnoughts, that almost won the war.
Personally, when I play RTW, I almost always make submarine research and construction a high priority, especially if I am playing nations like Austria-Hungary or Spain, which simply do not have the budget to keep up with the big boys in the dreadnought building race. This way, when I have to fight a war (particularly when fighting a much more powerful opponent), I can build a flock of subs to destroy their merchant marine rather than risk my few battleships.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Oct 4, 2017 13:45:48 GMT -6
In the early morning of April 16, 1943, the Italian torpedo boats Cigno and Cassiopea were escorting the transport Belluno off Marettimo Island (off the western tip of Sicily) when they were intercepted by the British destroyers Pakenham and Paladin. In the ensuing melee, Cigno was sunk, but not before scoring several hits on the Pakenham, crippling her (later to be scuttled). The Cassiopea was badly damaged in the encounter, but survived, and the transport reached its destination.
I recently came across this battle while browsing the web, and thought it would make for a good WC-NAW scenario. However, the Spica class torpedo boats are not in the database, so I chose the Sella class to represent them, as they are the closest fit, although somewhat larger and more powerful (795 tons, three 3.9" guns, and four 18" torpedo tunes; versus 990 tons, four 4.7" guns and four 21" torpedo tubes).
The Italian side has a 1.5 victory point modifier, but in my first run through playing the RM, I was able to sink both British destroyers with only light damage to one vessel.
CIGNO CONVOY.txt (1019 B)
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Mar 5, 2017 12:40:20 GMT -6
I find minesweepers to be mere "filler" ships. I build a few early in the game to meet my ASW/CP requirement, but later in in the game I have a plenty of 400 and 500 ton DDs that I can relegate to that role. Yes, they can detect enemy minefields, but so can destroyers. As johnw pointed out, they don't last long in a combat situation.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 28, 2017 16:27:17 GMT -6
Early in the game I will construct some big (around 15ktons) fast (22-24 knots) ACs for use as commerce raiders, and I find that engine rebuilds will make them useful for many years. However, I've found that the pre-dreadnoughts get little or no speed advantage from replacing the engines, so if I revamp that all, it is simply a modest rebuild, upgrading the fire control and gun elevation to improve their gunnery, and adding bulges to increase their survivability. My legacy cruisers and destroyers usually get no rebuilds- as I am able to get more newer ships in service, they are relegated to coastal patrol duties (and in reserve in peacetime).
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 27, 2017 20:00:59 GMT -6
Don't forget HMS Swift, launched in 1907 and commissioned 1910. She over 2,000 tons full load. Of course, she was an expensive failure, and was relegated to the Dover Patrol during the Great War.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 24, 2017 4:42:41 GMT -6
I've noticed that my destroyers sometimes like to "Blucher" a crippled enemy.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 23, 2017 18:30:07 GMT -6
I haven't had too many problems getting torpedo hits even in the game (and neither, it appears, does my enemy). That may be because my philosophy is that a destroyer's primary mission is to kill capital ships, so mine tend to be more torpedo-heavy.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 23, 2017 6:39:02 GMT -6
Open the objectives tab, and click on "Reach objective." Your objective will appear as a red dot on the map. Once your ship reaches that destination, you will get the points awarded for that objective.
Also, when you are on a bombardment mission, click on the "Bombard target" to see where you are supposed to attack.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 22, 2017 19:47:07 GMT -6
Personally, I prefer DDs with heavy torpedo armament. I can usually mount 4 TT on my 600-tonners, with 2x4 inch for gun armament.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 16, 2017 6:44:23 GMT -6
During the American Revolution and again during the War of 1812, the US launched unsuccessful invasions of Canada in an attempt to make it part of the US (When I visited the Halifax Citadel in 2006, we were told the primary purpose of it was to defend against an American attack). So, I suppose if there was a war between the US and UK in the RTW timeframe, the Yanks might again try to snatch Canada away from the Brits.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 15, 2017 7:21:02 GMT -6
Why is it that ships sent on missions to bombard land targets (presumably in support of ground forces) have no idea where the target is? Furthermore, once the immobile land target has been sighted, how can ships lose confirmation of what they were firing at? For the game, I can't answer but realistically poor maps and weather can create situation where what you want to shoot at, ain't where you think it is or has been moved. This was why aerial mapping using photoreconnaissance was developed including special cameras for aerial imaging for the creation of maps from the photos.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 8, 2017 19:21:00 GMT -6
We've got a bit off topic here, but from memory visibility during the strike on Sheffield was pretty poor, and the Swordfish were using radar to assist in their attack, which would explain why there was that level of confusion as to the target. That said, I remember reading about US B-17s bombing HMAS Australia in clear visibility, mistaking her (and the rest of her group, which included at least one US CA, and there weren't any Japanese BBs, CAs or CLs, from memory, with a US CA turret configuration) for a Japanese BB (no hits fortunately, but they managed to damage an escorting US DD) - so bad weather wasn't necessary for some rather creative target identification! I recall reading that during the battle of Midway, a B-17 spotted an unknown vessel. It dropped its bombs on it, and the target slipped beneath the waves. The B-17 returned to base, and the crew claimed they had sunk a Japanese cruiser. A few days later, an American submarine returned to base (I think it may have been the Grayling) and her skipper wanted to know why his sub had been bombed by friendly aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 8, 2017 8:55:36 GMT -6
At the close of the 19th century, news of the Peresviet class ‘fast’ battleships (rumored to have a top speed of 21 knots) under construction in Russia was the cause of concern in England. The Royal Navy subsequently ordered the Duncan class as a ‘reply.’ However, the threat posed by these ships, like that posed by the Rurik class armored cruisers a few years earlier was exaggerated. These ships only had a top speed of 18 knots, and were rather lightly armed (10” main armament instead of 12”) and armored, intended mainly to support the Rurik class cruisers in commerce raiding activity. This scenario pits three of the British (side 1) Duncan class OBBs against the three Russian (side 2) Perseviet battleships. The scenario is matched evenly pointwise, and in game play. DUNCAN VERSUS PERESVIET.txt (1.31 KB)
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 8, 2017 8:26:42 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. Thunder at Sea (the adjunct to Fighting Steel; it was also created by Fredrik Wallin) had "the Sheffield factor" in the game; in one mission, one of my cruisers was torpedoed by friendly aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 8, 2017 7:43:05 GMT -6
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 But the Sheffield had two funnels, the Bismarck only one. Plus the Sheffield operated with the Ark Royal as part of Force H, so you would think her aircrews would be able to recognize her.
|
|