|
ZombieLenin posted:Except the Japanese submarines were deficient in almost everything else that was important to submarine warfare. Any info on the technical failings? I'm mostly familiar with the huge doctrinal flaws.
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Night10194 posted:Which is sillier, the I-400 or the Surcouf. As designed, Surcouf because 8" guns can't scout. As used, I-400 because what did they actually do anyway. Real answer, make the pain stop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
At least back then torpedoes were unproven.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Regarding the brit cruisers, one point does not make a trendline.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:I think this is my Clemson mistake, I didn't take the gun upgrade yet as it didn't really seem to do much according to the stats. Literally twice the guns. Also the Clemson isn't what it used to be, its range sucks now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Unbalanced in the bad sense? Because it was a supremely lovely ship that only shone at point blank (below 8km) against potatoes. Its a Kuma hull, at T8. DDs could citadel it accidentally. 16inch HE could citadel it. Unbalanced in the sense that its strengths and weaknesses preclude a fun setup. They should bring back the T10 kitakami.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah but like, the cost of a new game for a boat. The people who really get into these games often play them for a ton of time, in which case it's often a similar amount of playtime for both.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Looking forward to condottieri class. 20mm belts ahoy! (they'll probably just do the thicker Giussani hull rather than let players suffer the magic of DD autopens)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I dunno, though. "We have to invent 2 ships at the end but otherwise this is an interesting and fun historical navy" isn't nearly as egregious as the Russian lines. Flat trajectories suck for deck pen, and the too high velocity is mainly a problem in terms of wear, which would be either accuracy or outside the scope.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Many of the things that made crossing the T good aren't present in WoWs, such as coordinated fleet maneuvers, slow fire control "computers" (a room full of dudes with slide rules), lack of remote power control for turrets, and high engagement range. Umm, a fire control "table" wasn't even a room full of dudes with slide rules in WWI. By WWII they were mechanical computers capable of (in the best case) forming a continuous firing solution on maneuvering planes. ranbo das posted:I think the reason you wanted to "cross the T" in terms of WW2 ships IRL is that 1) a BB firing bow on hosed up the deck with the giant blasts of flame from its guns and 2) shells were a lot more horizontally accurate than vertically accurate, so you have a better chance of scoring hits. Also it seems that bows were much more penetrable than in WoWS, where a lot of the time you can get autobounces from the thin plating of the bow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Unless the book I have on the Bismarck is stupidly wrong, that was not the case across all navies. For them it'd be more along the lines of a few dudes with instruments manually inputting some info that goes through a computer, which outputs where the turrets should point. Not sure how less sophisticated AA directors worked, and German ones were weird and seriously troublesome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Also the longer ranges got the more turning 90 became the go to because there was progressively less and less that a faster fleet could do to outrun that maneuver, and that got going as early as dreadnought.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Also, as someone who once worked in the videogame industry, I kind of hate supertesters. Beta players are one thing, because beta players serve a really specific function you cannot get otherwise, but "supertesters" are saving Wargaming around $200k in a way that takes away jobs from people who are already hosed by 90% of the videogame industry's business models. They're not actually testers at least in my experience, they're more people who try early builds and get asked about the gameplay as well as reporting bugs on the side. That's not the same as actual professional testers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Man, what was even the point behind a slow, fat, poorly armored cruiser with light battleship guns? Baltic superiority. It's a project that's pre-Nazi. So being able to clown the poo poo out of cruisers is all it really needs, and it doesn't need to be able to that without incurring major loss of capability.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Hah, if you zoom on the turrets of the Graf Spee you read "SMS Scharnhorst" We know they reuse turret textures, what surprises me is the SMS bit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Was this on the original ship, to honor the real SMS Scharnhorst lost at the battle of the Falklands? That could be I guess? I'd be a bit surprised but then again the 1920s Emden had an iron cross on her nose.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
For me it was less the boats and more the over two years of premium I had.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
no bones about it posted:I hear the toilets flush opposite direction there. He hasn't figured out it's a bidet yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:It was funny reading that after reading Last Stand, as Last Stand makes a big point about how competent and well trained the US Navy is, but in Inferno it was like a random team from WoWS was put in charge. I got his newest book, Fleet at Flood Tide for Christmas, but haven't had time to open it up yet. Guadalcanal is where they bought that competence in blood and ships. They made some mistakes and they hadn't worked out really good tactics to deal with the capabilities of Japanese torpedoes yet. Japanese Destroyer Captain (great book) is interesting, because during the Guadalcanal campaign he's worried that they're winning but that they're winning only about as well as they need to be and if the US starts doing better they're going to be in big trouble. Then Amatsukaze takes a turret hit, and by the time he's back in the fight captaining Shigure, it's about time for Vella Gulf where the US shows that its destroyer captains are starting to get it and their use of radar is getting better by hitting all four Japanese destroyers with torpedoes from ambush. Shigure only survived because that torpedo punched through her rudder without detonating.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Kaigun and Sunburst will probably be my next book buys. They're both great and pretty much the standard go to for the IJN. They're more technical but are fantastic. Other stuff I've read and can recommend: The First Team is now two books and the first is really good. If you can get a good price on one of Norman Friedman's Illustrated Design History books about US ships, tell me and then pick up a copy in that order. They're dry but fantastic and the reason I have my library card. Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War is probably even better than those, it's a more comprehensive technical resource and is absolutely fantastic. I also have literal feet of books to get through (From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow adds up fast as it turns out). I need some sort of loyalty program for Naval Institute Press. Edit: may as well link up some previous posts I did in the Rule the Waves thread about ship design. The Weird and Wonderful World of North Carolina Design Sketches: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 The Superposed Turret The Torpedo Battleship Source for all of those is Friedman's Illustrated Design History of US BBs. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 19:51
|
|