|
Crazycryodude posted:Bismarck was a pretty garbage boat and it should not be considered a particularly shining example of what you can do with an actually well-built battleship Say that to the Hood
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
benzine posted:Say that to the Hood So you're saying we're not being hood-winked here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:So you're saying we're not being hood-winked here? it hood-winked out of existence, all right
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Ships just blowing the gently caress up seems like it happens disproportionately often to the British in WW1 and 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Noo Grey! What are you doing to my battleship!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
It's fine, they'll just pump some flooding along the way to Raubul, pump even more out once they're there, send it back to Japan, and then leave it sitting on a pier in some second rate port because there's no point wasting any more resources on trying to repair it before war end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 11:29
|
|
|
goatface posted:It's fine, they'll just pump some flooding along the way to Raubul, pump even more out once they're there, send it back to Japan, and then leave it sitting on a pier in some second rate port because there's no point wasting any more resources on trying to repair it before war end. Is there the ability to ground the Yamato in game? Remember reading at one point they were debating on trying to run it aground somewhere and turn it into one hell of a bunker. (Truk? )
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:Is there the ability to ground the Yamato in game? Okinawa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Okinawa. *facepalm* yup you're right
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:IIRC the Allies were starting to run pretty drat low on battleships, weren't they? How many should they have left? pre:BB Alabama USA South Dakota-class Battleship Sunk BB Arizona USA Pennsylvania-class Battleship BB California USA Tennessee-class Battleship BB Colorado USA Colorado-class Battleship Sunk BB Fuso Japanese Fuso-class Battleship Sunk BB Hyuga Japanese Ise-class Battleship Damaged: F BB Idaho USA New Mexico-class Battleship Sunk BB Indiana USA South Dakota-class Battleship Sunk BB Iowa USA Iowa-class Battleship Sunk BB Ise Japanese Ise-class Battleship Damaged: F BB Maryland USA Colorado-class Battleship Damaged: HD BB Massachusetts USA Massachusetts-class Battleship BB Mississippi USA New Mexico-class Battleship Sunk BB Musashi Japanese Yamato-class Battleship Sunk BB Mutsu Japanese Nagato-class Battleship BB Nagato Japanese Nagato-class Battleship Damaged: HF BB Nevada USA Nevada-class Battleship Sunk BB New Jersey USA New Jersey-class Battleship Sunk BB New Mexico USA New Mexico-class Battleship Sunk BB North Carolina USA North Carolina-class Battleship Sunk BB Oklahoma USA Nevada-class Battleship Damaged: F, HD BB Pennsylvania USA Pennsylvania-class Battleship Damaged: F BB Prince of Wales British King George V-class Battleship Sunk BB Ramillies British Royal Sovereign-class Battleship Damaged: F, HD BB Resolution British Royal Sovereign-class Battleship Damaged: HD BB Revenge British Royal Sovereign-class Battleship Damaged: HD BB Royal Sovereign British Royal Sovereign-class Battleship Damaged: F, HD BB South Dakota USA South Dakota-class Battleship Sunk BB Tennessee USA Tennessee-class Battleship Damaged: F BB Warspite British Queen Elizabeth-class Battleship BB Washington USA North Carolina-class Battleship Damaged: F BB West Virginia USA Colorado-class Battleship Damaged: HF, HD BB Yamashiro Japanese Fuso-class Battleship Sunk BB Yamato Japanese Yamato-class Battleship BC Haruna Japanese Kongo-class Battlecruiser Damaged: F BC Hiei Japanese Kongo-class Battlecruiser BC Kirishima Japanese Kongo-class Battlecruiser BC Kongo Japanese Kongo-class Battlecruiser BC Repulse British Renown-class Battlecruiser Sunk Also, both LCT-375 and LCT-376 have been sunk twice. The AI is running out of numbers for Landing Craft. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
What do the damage codes mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Heavy Damage, on Fire, Heavy Fires as featured in the reports, I'd assume.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
on Fire Heavy Fires Damaged Heavily Damaged
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:At least we sank an Iowa-class battleship in return Read the top of the ships sunk list again? Says the New Jersey wasn't sunk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
sullat posted:Read the top of the ships sunk list again? Says the New Jersey wasn't sunk. If you're checking my spreadsheet, I've marked it as sunk in the general list (maintaining the other list isn't a priority, sorry dudes). If you're checking GH's post, the result page is frequently wrong/inaccurate to reflect the fog of war. The combat page does not have this same handicap, for whatever reason. The intelligence report right below the sunk list says the New Jersey wasn't sunk (because they just engaged it) and the next line (after the fight) says it was reported sunk again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Yeah. Its a "dammit, shes still afloat" report followed by a "issue has been resolved" report. I'm sad her sinking is getting less air time than a still afloat ship!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
benzine posted:Say that to the Hood also a garbage ship
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:on Fire Please don't post my dating profile
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Yeah. Its a "dammit, shes still afloat" report followed by a "issue has been resolved" report. I think it's because we understand the fact that at this stage in the war as Japan, it's not "can you win?" but "how well can you not lose?" So that turns the focus to your losses
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:If you're checking GH's post, the result page is frequently wrong/inaccurate to reflect the fog of war. The combat page does not have this same handicap, for whatever reason. One of the weird things about this game is that there are different levels of fog of war depending on what is happening and what you are looking at. There is of course debate on the Matrix forums over what is the most reliable. Combat reports (but not bombing reports) are generally considered to be the gold standard. The little scrolling info thing in the bottom left when turns resolve is also considered good, though when a ship of yours that was damaged in combat is reported later in the same turn to have sunk, it always reports the wrong ship (some consider this a bug). The ships sunk list in the intel screen is more affected by fog of war than most other screens, which I guess represents a game of telephone from the front lines back to your staff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Yeah. Its a "dammit, shes still afloat" report followed by a "issue has been resolved" report. I, for one, will remember the USS New Jersey officially sinking and making your score Nice | Nice
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Ah, well here's hoping the second report stays accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Here's hoping Yamato makes it to Rabaul so the Royal Navy can go for Catechism 2.0 when they start getting tallboy-equipped Lancasters in '45.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:If you sank the Big J Grey I'm coming after you Goddammit Grey what did I just say! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Yamato's float damage may be survivable, but I doubt her 4kt speed is. She's going to get hit again tomorrow most likely, and she won't have much chance of dodging whatever comes at her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:Ah, well here's hoping the second report stays accurate. I'm sure we'll send some naval ensigns to verify that claim soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
I think the biggest argument against the battlecruiser design like the hood isn't that on paper its a bad idea to have something fast with big guns, but that the admiralty seemingly couldn't stop itself from sending them against their one true enemy the battleship
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I think the biggest argument against the battlecruiser design like the hood isn't that on paper its a bad idea to have something fast with big guns, but that the admiralty seemingly couldn't stop itself from sending them against their one true enemy the battleship Yeah. When British battlecruisers were used on their intended target (enemy cruisers) they performed excellently - check out the WW1 battle of the Falkland Islands. The combination of greater speed than an opponent and greater range than an opponent means you can fight them from outside of their effective range, and they can't escape you. The trouble is that when you've got a ship that costs about as much as a battleship, looks like a battleship, and has the guns of a battleship, your admirals are going to want to use it like a battleship, like we saw with the Hood versus the Bismarck, and with the battlecruiser squadron at Jutland in WW1. The other trouble is that it's not really worth spending battleship money on hunting raiding cruisers - since those are only an annoyance - while the enemy battleship fleet is an existential threat to your country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
The battlecruiser design was fine, even against battleships (assuming you didn't actually leave them in a slugging match). The British problem was that they completely disregarded safety protocols and ship features in order to improve their firing rate - as in they left anti-flash doors open and stacked ammunition and powder in hallways for speed in reloading. That's what likely doomed Indefatigable, Invincible and Queen Mary (and nearly Lion) to exploding at Jutland, and probably caused the quick exit of Hood against Bismarck as well. For a counter example, and acknowledging they were built sturdier to begin with, you can compare to the German battlecruisers where they only lost one during the withdrawal due to irrecoverable flooding, while all five of them had taken moderate to heavy damage during the battle. edit: And, despite the heroic actions of one of the crew in ordering the magazine closed and flooded, Lion probably would have been lost too if it wasn't for Beatty's chief gunnery officer basically telling the crew of Lion to knock that massive safety violation off. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:For a counter example, and acknowledging they were built sturdier to begin with, you can compare to the German battlecruisers where they only lost one during the withdrawal due to irrecoverable flooding, while all five of them had taken moderate to heavy damage during the battle. Isn't there a photo of one of them limping back into port with the point of the bow under water and maybe a foot of freeboard at the back?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:Isn't there a photo of one of them limping back into port with the point of the bow under water and maybe a foot of freeboard at the back?  
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:The battlecruiser design was fine, even against battleships (assuming you didn't actually leave them in a slugging match). The British problem was that they completely disregarded safety protocols and ship features in order to improve their firing rate - as in they left anti-flash doors open and stacked ammunition and powder in hallways for speed in reloading. That's what likely doomed Indefatigable, Invincible and Queen Mary (and nearly Lion) to exploding at Jutland, and probably caused the quick exit of Hood against Bismarck as well. For a counter example, and acknowledging they were built sturdier to begin with, you can compare to the German battlecruisers where they only lost one during the withdrawal due to irrecoverable flooding, while all five of them had taken moderate to heavy damage during the battle. Wasn't there also an issue with british shells at jutland? If so I feel like saying they were "fine" putting them against battleships seems a little too generous and the germans just got extremely lucky. I can't really think of many other examples of battlecruiser engagements other than kirishima and she was savaged as well. dtkozl fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:The battlecruiser design was fine, even against battleships (assuming you didn't actually leave them in a slugging match). The British problem was that they completely disregarded safety protocols and ship features in order to improve their firing rate - as in they left anti-flash doors open and stacked ammunition and powder in hallways for speed in reloading. That's what likely doomed Indefatigable, Invincible and Queen Mary (and nearly Lion) to exploding at Jutland, and probably caused the quick exit of Hood against Bismarck as well. For a counter example, and acknowledging they were built sturdier to begin with, you can compare to the German battlecruisers where they only lost one during the withdrawal due to irrecoverable flooding, while all five of them had taken moderate to heavy damage during the battle. the fact that hochseeflotte BCs took such a pounding also indicated that they were mis-used just because they survived doesn't mean that they were well employed. it's functionally impossible for commanders to NOT leave them in a slugging match due to their hitting power
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Wasn't there also an issue with british shells at jutland? If so I feel like saying they were "fine" putting them against battleships seems a little too generous and the germans just got extremely lucky. I can't really like of many other examples of battlecruiser engagements other than kirishima and she was savaged as well. Yeah, the British shells were awful at Jutland - this includes both those used by the battleships and battlecruisers; 73% of British shells failed to work properly during the battle. The shells were poorly heat-treated, meaning they broke up on impact, while their highly sensitive Lyddite filling tended to detonate on impact or as the the shell was penetrating, though this tended to mask the fact that the fuses were also awful. This doesn't really reflect poorly on the battlecruisers, though, as it was an issue with the entire British battlefleet. The British battlecruisers that did not explode survived remarkably well - Tiger, for example, took 15 shell hits (as many as Warspite, and more than any German battleship), and remained in good fighting shape throughout the battle. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the fact that hochseeflotte BCs took such a pounding also indicated that they were mis-used The realities of WWI naval combat meant that any ship engaged in a fleet engagement for any prolonged length of time would take a pounding - the way Jutland developed meant that only the battlecruisers did so. Battlecruisers were, fundamentally, intended to operate with the fleet, as heavy scouts and as a fast wing, and they fulfilled this role well for both fleets at Jutland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
benzine posted:Please save the Yamato. The Arizona was whatnow?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:The battlecruiser design was fine, even against battleships (assuming you didn't actually leave them in a slugging match). The British problem was that they completely disregarded safety protocols and ship features in order to improve their firing rate - as in they left anti-flash doors open and stacked ammunition and powder in hallways for speed in reloading. That's what likely doomed Indefatigable, Invincible and Queen Mary (and nearly Lion) to exploding at Jutland, and probably caused the quick exit of Hood against Bismarck as well. For a counter example, and acknowledging they were built sturdier to begin with, you can compare to the German battlecruisers where they only lost one during the withdrawal due to irrecoverable flooding, while all five of them had taken moderate to heavy damage during the battle. The Germans had the same problem and had to learn the same lesson as well with the Sedlitz at Dogger Bank when they had a flash fire that took out two of the three turrets. The British didn't learn the lesson then but later at Jutland to a much more catastrophic ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
McNally posted:The Arizona was whatnow? Think he meant Nevada. Which wasn't sunk persay....just grounded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Either way, you can’t refloat ships in this game. Once they sink, they’re gone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
McNally posted:The Arizona was whatnow? BUG JUG posted:Think he meant Nevada. Which wasn't sunk persay....just grounded. Had a complete lapse, either the California or Nevada were repaired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 23:54
|
|