|
Shouldn't those battleships be so wrecked above the waterline that they are useless in combat? And 250 kg SAP bomb, that is semi-armor piercing, right? Do the game model penetrations through turret roofs and the following detonations? Final question, how long would it take to repair a ship if you have to replace the whole turret due to a penetration bomb going off inside, but not detonating the magazines? Grey, keep up the good work! And how is baby Hunter going?
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Does the game actually takes the remaining ammunition in the magazine into account when it is hit? Does it model loss of ammunition due to flooding of the magazine?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:Final question, how long would it take to repair a ship if you have to replace the whole turret due to a penetration bomb going off inside, but not detonating the magazines? Months. It's a shipyard-level task, and might require fabrication of a new turret, depending on the condition of the old one. Just removing the old turret and repairing the barbette could take months.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Isn't "sweeping" with a BB kinda wasteful of fuel that Japan really runs low on later on?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
two_step posted:Isn't "sweeping" with a BB kinda wasteful of fuel that Japan really runs low on later on? Could be that he's shuttling the Yamashiro to another location and wanted to give it some ASW-capability so it doesn't get torpedoed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
The Yamashiro, destined to save the universe by going back in time to save the Hochseeflotte.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:Shouldn't those battleships be so wrecked above the waterline that they are useless in combat? It looked from the combat reports that a lot of the bomb hits were just with 60kg bombs that really won't do much damage at all. The game does model all those factors, but BB turret armor is also pretty thick and not all those bombs likely did much.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
   We get a torpedo into the Nashville, but our sub is hit by her pickets.  We trade planes in Malaysia.  We continue to clean up the Batavia “counter attack”.   Lets see what the torpedo/depth charge exchange netted us.  Yeah, HMS Swiss Cheese might have gone down. Grey Hunter fucked around with this message at 20:51 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:I remember these jokes about kamikazes before the American battleships eventually sunk. Battleships can take a torpedo or two and survive as long as they go slow. They have a lot of watertight compartments. The bombs themselves can't penetrate the deck armor, so while damaging systems don't do anything to make the ship sink. I suspect in real life this many bomb hits would have so thoroughly destroyed the above deck structures that the ship would be a floating burned out hulk, and would probably be scuttled.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
   The Soulpin misses with six torpedoes until it gets a hit.  I've been softening up Saingtan for the last few weeks. I just forget to tell you guys.  We continue to hammer the Batavia defenders.  404 Comment not found.  Oh hey! It looks like we did sink the Wrong Enterprise!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
I like that combat formation north of Changsha that appears to be advancing southwest through a lake.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
That's actually the Sculpin, not the Soulpin, although the font kerning makes it impossible to tell the difference. Unless you know that a sculpin is a kind of fish. Also hey Grey Hunter you have like well over five thousand political points stockpiled, maybe there's something worth spending some on?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That's actually the Sculpin, not the Soulpin, although the font kerning makes it impossible to tell the difference. Unless you know that a sculpin is a kind of fish. He's saving them up so he can move Tokyo Bay Fortress
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
  Our forces advancing south are bombed.  Another remnant force is smashed.  We blast a unit apart at Batavia. Another is destroyed by attrition and the remaining troops are surrounded. The end is nigh here.  We have ships heading to Singapore, but its a little quiet at the moment. The troops there are planning for Rangoon and resting to replace losses. The enemy at Batavia has been destroyed!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
You either wrecked or captured their motor-pool.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Always nice to get a surround in the DEI so you're not bushwhacking for Dutchmen until the end of the goddamn war.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
If it was being realistic they'd keep sneaking more Dutch special forces in (by submarine a lot of the time) to be a constant irritant.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
goatface posted:If it was being realistic they'd keep sneaking more Dutch special forces in (by submarine a lot of the time) to be a constant irritant. Don't give the grogs ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
End every update with "Chungking delenda est"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
  Clunk! Mwah ha ha!  We take Kukong, causing ten to one casualties doing so.  An Allied Task force surprises on of ours, our captains try and disengage, but the larger guns of the San Francisco hit us hard, and we lose our first capital ship of the war – the Naka!  The carriers are coming back in – no torpedoes yet, but fuel and bombs enough to cause trouble. They start by throwing away some fighters.  We hit the damaged destroyers from this mornings fight.  That's two down to reclaim some honour.  The Allies also make their first amphibious assault of the war! This is a day the AI has decided to fight back hard!  We strike at Ambon, and it looks like we are winning here after the troops have rested up!   Progress is made at Moleman.  Well, that was a day! The Allies have gone on the offensive, and for now it seems to be going well. Its a minor one though, so no real threat, but it is interesting to see them thinking offensively for the first time in the war.  Wait, you're just going to up an ADMIT we took losses?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
I'm just imagining the Japanese army fighting Hans Moleman at this point
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Wait, you're just going to up an ADMIT we took losses? We do punish that sort of defeatist talk, don't we?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Light cruisers aren't capital ships. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
I've noticed that loss admittance always happens if the ship gets sunk during a surface battle.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Were the IJN ships out of ammo or something? Why was there such a large difference in shell hits between sides?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Plek posted:Were the IJN ships out of ammo or something? Why was there such a large difference in shell hits between sides? Japanese CLs are godawful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Japanese CLs are godawful. The IJN only had five (four Agano and one Ōyodo class) light cruisers of any kind of modern design, none of which were ready at the beginning of the war. All of the others were designed and built in the early-mid twenties, and were pretty obsolete by WWII.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Japanese CLs are godawful. The IJN never figured out that CLs were meant to do anything but lead DDs and so all their CLs were piles of poo poo instead of doing useful things like escort duty.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Also Japanese fire control (as in, controlling fires on board your ship) was awful, so a few hits could easily doom a Japanese CL where an American CL might survive.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also Japanese fire control (as in, controlling fires on board your ship) was awful, so a few hits could easily doom a Japanese CL where an American CL might survive. Damage control. Fire control is directing your guns to shoot on target.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
She was also, by this day and age, really, really obsolete. The Naka was a WW1-era relic.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Pretty much all of the Japanese light cruisers were WWI era designs, because there really is no doctrinal call for light cruisers in the Japanese fleet. The IJN was happy to skirt around the limits of both the Washington and London naval treaties, and while they technically were building "light" cruisers with the Mogami class (because they were initially armed with a 6-inch main battery), they were really just doing that so they could build more heavy cruisers past all treaty limits by simply lying about the displacement. There's fundamentally nothing that a light cruiser can do that a heavy cruiser cannot except be cheaper and slightly worse at the same role. The Japanese doctrine stated that since Japan cannot hope to rival the US in fleet size, it must devote all resources into building capital ships which are superior on a ship-by-ship basis to the US designs. In the era of the Washington Naval Treaty, heavy cruisers are the best you can get without seriously violating it, so Japan didn't focus on building light cruisers. The US, on the other hand, had tons of money, so it could afford to buy both heavy cruisers and cheaper light cruisers to fill out the ranks.A White Guy posted:She was also, by this day and age, really, really obsolete. The Naka was a WW1-era relic. This isn't strictly true, but it is a big factor in the loss. The Naka had received a refit around 1930 to give it more modern fire control and an aircraft launch catapult. Its real irredeemable weakness was the old-style turret configuration, where only a part of the main battery can be aimed at a target at the same time due to every gun being in poorly-shielded individual turrets with poor firing angles. Triggerhappypilot fucked around with this message at 01:01 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Damage control. Yeah but damage control includes things like flooding management, and I was specifically talking about controlling onboard fires. Which is why I specified in a parenthetical clause that I was talking about fires.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That's actually the Sculpin, not the Soulpin, although the font kerning makes it impossible to tell the difference. Unless you know that a sculpin is a kind of fish. I wonder where the idea to name submarines after fish came from in the USN. Was it because some admiral got hungry during a meeting and decided that salmon was a very good name?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Danann posted:I wonder where the idea to name submarines after fish came from in the USNavy. You answered your own question.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I for one think it's a crime that they have moved away from that. Naming after cities and states is boring.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
For SSBNs it makes sense, an Ohio is the 2nd closest thing to a battleship we have now in terms of naval dick extensions (and a fuckload higher in actual combat power).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
By that standard we should be individually naming B52s. And every other bomber capable of carrying a nuke. And hell, individual cruise missiles, too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:By that standard we should be individually naming B52s. And every other bomber capable of carrying a nuke. And hell, individual cruise missiles, too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Also enila gay is crying herself to sleep you incredible dick
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:20
|
|