|
James Garfield posted:I'm glad they finally patched it so the US can sink the traitor navy. Yeah, your ships can misreport poo poo. I've had bad submarine sightings and had mine hits reported as torpedo hits. Also, already finished throwing together a basic USA2 custom nation (like I said it was real easy) I even snagged a custom ship names list for the US off the RtW forums that excludes Southern names. Apparently the Spanish-American war was instead the Spanish-Confederate War, as the CSA wins out over Spain in their conflicting possession inputs on who controls the Caribbean. So the CSA gets the Caribbean while Spain keeps its Pacific holdings. Other rivals are Japan, Great Britain, France, and Germany. Haven't touched the economic stuff (yet), so the USA is just a strait copy of normal USA minus all their lost territories. Panama is forced to neutral control*, as is normal for the Spain and CSA scenarios.  * I wonder what happens with the Panama Canal if Panama is still neutral by 1914 when the Canal opens, can anyone use it? No one? Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Sep 21, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:Yeah I was very confused for a second. I mean I know that the americans stole a lot of german designs especially after the war, but using german cannons on american battleships seems a bit too crazy. No German* guns here. *Swiss based on a modified German design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Well, the Becker and the Oerlikon are the grand-daddy of drat near every light autocannon in the world. Especially during WW2, I think only the Russian cannons weren't based on the Oerlikon, the Japanese cannons and Allied Hispano were both descended from the old German guns. Anyways, here is that USA vs CSA (and Spain) mod. It is a quick and dirty slap together. Hopefully things will work just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Well, the Becker and the Oerlikon are the grand-daddy of drat near every light autocannon in the world. Especially during WW2, I think only the Russian cannons weren't based on the Oerlikon, the Japanese cannons and Allied Hispano were both descended from the old German guns. Only the IJN used an Oerlikon derivative. The army developed their own gun(of course). The German also mostly switched to a new design during the first half of the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Right, I was thinking of the Type-99, not the IJA's stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bofors_firing_USS_Hornet.jpg Looks like a six man team? Amused at the manual loading, but that was how it was done I guess. I think this image is just a test firing? Nobody seems to be aiming the guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Wooper posted:Only the IJN used an Oerlikon derivative. The army developed their own gun(of course). If i remember right the IJN's 20mm cannon was based on scaling up the Browning .30 machine gun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Teledahn posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bofors_firing_USS_Hornet.jpg A 40mm quad mount like that usually had a crew of eleven. A dual mount would have had four fewer loaders/assistant loaders. The guy in the middle with the headphones is the mount captain (designated target and gave the order to fire). The rest of the crew would be the , a pointer (sat in the left seat, controlled gun elevation and fired the gun with a foot pedal), the trainer (sat in the right seat, controlled the gun's horizontal movement), four loaders (one for each barrel), and four assistant loaders (moved ammo from the ready locker to the loaders). In this picture, the gun is probably being controlled by the ship's AA directors and is being remotely aimed and fired. That'd explain why the gun trainer and pointer aren't in their seats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
ElBrak posted:If i remember right the IJN's 20mm cannon was based on scaling up the Browning .30 machine gun. You mean this one? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_cannon) Their shipboard cannon was the mostly useless 25mm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_25_mm_AT/AA_Gun) Saros fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Saros posted:Their shipboard cannon was the mostly useless 25mm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_25_mm_AT/AA_Gun) You know, that's a pretty common thing to hear so I decided to actually research it a bit.  Navweaps claims:a) The multiple mounts could not be trained and elevated rapidly enough, either by power or manual drive. b) The gunsights were inadequate against high speed aircraft. c) The guns had excessive vibration, making them difficult to keep on target. d) The capacity of the ammunition supply equipment was inadequate, causing interrupted fire and a greatly reduced operating routine. e) The muzzle blast caused problems for both the guncrew and equipment. Here's the 25mm in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkEsZ9TuhNw Here's a pretty good continuous shot of the 40mm Bofors by comparison: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675054082_USS-Philippine-Sea_flight-deck-operations_smoke-rises-up_deck-of-the-aircraft-carrier Great shot of the loaders: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675054081_USS-Philippine-Sea_flight-deck-operations_hangar-of-the-ship_smoke-rises-up And the 20mm Oerlikon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITIrYOcfNk The 25mm has a bolt hold open device. Once a fresh magazine is loaded, the firing continues right away (mind the fingers) Each gun has a single loader. The 25mm 15 round magazine is stupidly small, it's emptied in 3 seconds. The Bofors has 2-3 per gun in a bucket-chain. That is the real key to the high rate of fire of the 40mm, though the hopper is better in theory. Even then, after about 10 seconds only one or two still fire at any one time. Not that gunners should fire for that long that often. The Oerlikon has only a single loader and a 60 round drum and a better rate of fire. The triple mount is manually slewed. Even though one prefers powered training, the main benefit really is to free the hands of the gunners. Shooting at highly oblique targets is not something you should do with these kinds of guns anyway because a plane flying past is not a threat. If you are taking potshots at passerby, you're probably not worrying enough about the enemy that's coming at you. None of the guns have a reflector sight, thus all are pretty much equally terrible, though the Japanese sight apparently had a technical issue with its layout. In any case the guy who really 'aims' the gun is the one standing beside or behind the gunners giving corrections, because he is the only one who sees the tracers. The blast, gunsight, perspective, bright sky and recoil completely obstruct them from the gunners, no matter whether you fire a .30cal, or a 40mm. Without having fired one, the triple mount seems alright or comparable to the kind of mounts other countries have. The quad 40mm mount is in contrast so massive it doesn't budge when fired. Japanese ammunition manual and stats: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/pdfs/TM9-1985-5-Japan.pdf http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.htm HE filler 15g (Typo? See file above. Equivalent volume HEI has 19g filler) Muzzle velocity 900 m/s Triple mount weight 1,800 kg Fun fact: The what-seemed-to-be the APHE shell is actually filled with clay. Oerlikon stats : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_2cm-70_mk234.htm HE filler 11g Muzzle velocity 830 m/s Single gun mount weight 431-769 kg Bofors stats: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm HE filler 68g Muzzle velocity 880 m/s Quad mount weight 10,524 - 11,137 kg By comparison the excellent Japanese 100mm gun was 34,500 kg in a twin mount. Astonishingly, by raw HE per a unit of weight the quad Bofors is actually inferior to the triple Type 96, even if you lowball the effective ROF and the filler. The projectiles are fine. The 25mm HE round has a third to two thirds superior filler volume to the 20mm and a superior velocity, which likely keeps better at range as well than the lighter 20mm. The Bofors is in a class of its own, but the quad 40mm is excessively big. In a twin mount the Bofors was the best gun by far, but the 25mm is competitive overall. The main issues with it seem to be tactical: If the gun pit layout had the ammunition around the circumference and thus was easily available to the loaders, it would keep up in rate of fire with the other guns, though a 20 or 25 round magazine would help. The limited range and hitting power of the gun vis-a-vis the Bofors required great training, trigger discipline, fire direction and fire correction, which the IJN actually failed at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
So wait, I bought this yesterday before going to bed, was tired and poo poo. Am I really only able to download it in one single chance on the purchase confirmation page? You get no download link in your serial email.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Go back to the purchase page and enter in your credit card details to get another download link (seriously). There was a little blue button from memory. Alternatively its up on google drive here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
I gave in and purchased this. Do they only have one person sending out the emails?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:I gave in and purchased this. Do they only have one person sending out the emails? Most likely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Yes. I replied to the serial key email with something like "HURR DURR at least make this a no-reply address" and to my great surprise he responded. It wasn't even a no-reply address.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
I think it's their official contact address 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yes. I replied to the serial key email with something like "HURR DURR at least make this a no-reply address" and to my great surprise he responded. It wasn't even a no-reply address. What did he reply?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Historically, how often did non-AA secondary guns on battleships get used?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Are quadruple turrets actually useful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
They let you pack more gun into less turret armor, so yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Is it viable to use low freeboard ships in the Med, as it generally isn't subject to heavy seas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Always low, short, cramped, speed Austrian battleships.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Are quadruple turrets actually useful? Do you like more guns? If so, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Are you supposed to have access to your nations Bonus Tech from the very beginning or do you just get it sooner? I ask because it's 1902 as Japan and I still only have single swivel torpedo launchers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Roumba posted:Are you supposed to have access to your nations Bonus Tech from the very beginning or do you just get it sooner? I ask because it's 1902 as Japan and I still only have single swivel torpedo launchers. Bonus tech is just a strong likelihood to develop that tech early (and not miss it at all).
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Always low, short, cramped, speed Austrian battleships. I love the little starting battleships the Austrians make. They never bother to scrap them until the mid-1910s. And then I roll up with a bunch of BBs with 15" guns... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
This game broke my Friday. After a couple of false starts Germany is rising. I was actually down on 13 prestige for a while before I could force a war with France and start gaining prestige again. Love the mix of planning for the future and just going "gently caress I have a surplus let's just build something " Dislike the whole your 10 year old raider is under attack do you want to take personal command and run away for ten minutes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
It does kinda suck that I am the only one losing ships though. Ai should Def war with eachother.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Affi posted:Dislike the whole your 10 year old raider is under attack do you want to take personal command and run away for ten minutes? Pre-1.1 you could exit a battle early for no VP gain by either side. This of course was cheating, and had to be patched out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
It was considering you could do it in a battle where you've had a dozen battleships sunk for few enemy losses. I do agree those raider escapes are annoying though. Including a "Run away" option if your raider has superior speed would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
It would be nice if there were some way to end battles early. It's annoying to sink the whole German fleet in the English Channel within 200 minutes, and then have to wait 800 more because you each have a 200 ton minesweeper patrolling on opposite sides of the map. vvv: I had the game give my European fleet (as Spain) a mission to bombard Hong Kong, I assumed it was trying to reenact Tsushima 
James Garfield fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
An enemy raider sank a merchant in NE Asia, then was intercepted by a cruiser stationed in SE Asia. They fought in the North Sea. Intelligence: Germany is rumored to be building an AMC with 7" guns.  I was told a raiding cruiser of mine was interned in a neutral port, two or three messages later, it was intercepted running a blockade. It is sunk in the ensuing battle. 12 months later... the war ends, and I get a message about the same cruiser being returned from internment, though no ship matching that description is in my docks. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Are you playing the latest version? I know a bug about interned ships still counting for fleet support totals and being able to be destroyed via mine/sub/etc events could occur in older versions, but I haven't seen that. Definitely worth mentioning on the NWS forum. I dunno what the problem about an AMC with 7" guns is though, but I don't use AMCs much. As for the oddball raider battle, its probably just a bad entry, he's still playing whack a mole with those and clearly hasn't fixed them all yet. Build multiple generic battle/raider scenarios for as many possessions as are in the game and mistakes are bound to popup. Probably a bad copy paste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
AMCs are, by definition, limited to 6" weapons. At least, according to the role descriptors in the back of the manual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Ah. Well, it is quite possible your military intelligence is living up to the cliches about military "intelligence"!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
That is what I assumed, just like how your ships can identify enemy ship as the wrong class and even the wrong type, lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
In one game where I went to 1935 the AI was building 9000 ton CLs with 9" guns, I don't think the game will let you do that either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
What do directors do? I mean I know they increase accuracy. But should I use one or two or three? What is the difference? Deck crossfiring? What does that do? So many questions. Where do I find the answers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:It was considering you could do it in a battle where you've had a dozen battleships sunk for few enemy losses. 1) It's a single player game, so what do we care about cheating? 2) You still lost those battleships 3) no one gives a poo poo about VPs, you win by forcing unrest 4) you can still do that using the task manager
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
  Only took me 3 fleet battles to whittle down the British fleet from a 21BB:12BC vs my 11BB:13BC:10B to something like 5BB:9BC vs my 10BB:11BC. So many flash fires. Their 35 000+ ton super BCs with 16 inch guns are pretty nasty when a pack of them appear from the mists when I've already engaged their BB line. Luckily my cheap BCs can lure them away and survive long enough for me to mostly mop up their BBs. Having access to both 14+1 guns in quad mountings and 17+1 cannons for the big BBs is real nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 08:59
|
|
