Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent


  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, totally concur. Current spotting, even more than "accuracy" mechanism and the "angling for ricochets" is so jarringly arcadey that it suspends the suspension of disbelief. This mechanism is so divorced from reality (i.e. tries to simulate/abstract something that is not even there in reality) that it is the part which bugs me about the game as is massively. Mostly because I have been an active duty naval officer and have quite some experience in how well (or badly) you can see at sea (NPI) under very different conditions. The current "spotting" mechanism "might" work, with some r
  2. AFAIK there is no historic example for any warship taking more than three heavyweight (i.e. full size, for the time, surface ship or submarine torpedoes) torpedo hits and not sink... Musashi was likely sinking well before the number of torpedo hits went double digits, even with the smaller warheads of aerial toroedoes and contact fusing. The sinking of a hardened warship however can take a dozen hours or more (and be sped up by pile-on attacks).
  3. No, they were not "more effective", but they were considered, at the time, a co-equal weapon system due to their ROF/PEN/Range combination closing a capability gap of main guns in the 1880-1905 timeframe. This however was NOT true anymore beyond that, even though some navies did take about 4 decades to realize this...
  4. From around 1880 to the dreadnought age capital ships had 3 (later 4) different weapon "systems", the main gun battery ("battery" meaning the entirety of the guns and all directly supporting subsystems, components and expendables like rangefinders, ammunition handling infrastructure, ammunition etc.) , the secondary gun battery (later with QF guns), the torpedo battery and (later) the anti-torpedo-boat batteries (tertiary and sometimes quarternary). The "original" 3 weapon systems were in a mutual balance with the defensive system, the ship's armor. The main gun could pierce the armor if
  5. Destroyermen is essentially a copy of Forstchen's The Regiment series but focussed on a WWII destroyer instead of an ACW regiment.
  6. Those two small cruisers with destroyer machinery that could do 24kn were Russian copies of a light cruiser that could do 25kn and was build by the Germans (Schichau/Danzig) for the Russians... But I quibble
  7. Hydrophones in this game are a-historic oddities to begin with, contributing to a purely "gamey" element. In game they support torpedo detection but, in the game's timeframe, this was not done/possible with hydrophones. The entire "deteciton system" against torpedoes is way off and breaks suspension of disbelief to me. In game trimeframe the only hydrophones that could detect torpedoes regularly wewre those on submarines that were traveling submerged @ lest than 5kn. For surface ships at speed the only way to detect incoming torpedoes was thtough optical observation of their launch (from other
  8. With the ne rebalance of guns in beta all reload times have been significantly reduced. Gunfire has become more deadly. Nevertheless, having advanced borading equipment and the first boarding perk still is almost an "I win button" in boarding, even if your ship is significantly outnumbered.
  9. The larger transport ship, the class that can be armed and has 4 land unit slots, has far too low capacity, even less than the medium transport with 3 land unit slots and no armament option. The unmodified (by hammocks etc.) capacity is 1000 tons, this should be at least 1600, more likely 2000. It also has only one upgrade slot, unlike the aforementioned medium transport, which has three. Her it also needs at least two upgrade slots, more likely 4.
  10. Nevertheless, in a given gun family you should always see the heavier shot resulting in longer reload time. I actually did this for fun (drilling with and shooting Age of Sail muzzleloaders) some 20 years ago at the naval academy, just after my time on our sail training ship. There are four factors dependent on the gun and carriage that influence loading speed: 1) Overall weight of the moving elements (i.e. gun+carriage of the gun+sled element for carronade type mounts), the lower the weight the quicker the loading cycle 2) Weight of Shot - Lower shot weights can be handled easier an
  11. Yes, that kinda works for defense, but when I have the skirmishers chase down a retreating unit it is annoying that they retreat themselves after each salvo. The same is problematic in a moving battle when you got them on a flank and they simply will not keep firing and advancing even if the enemy is engaged to their front. In the current default, in moving battle and/or on the offensive, the skirmishers are only truly of benefit as scouts for field guns. In all other cases any larger "normal" infantry unit is more useful.
  12. Unlike in UG:CW the, somewhat hidden, range stat for firearms does not do a thing ingame for land units. Rifled weapons such as the Baker have the same range as smoothbores. But also within the smoothbores there should be differences, a fusil, with its lower windage, should have more range than a musket etc. In result, weapons such as the Baker, with a long range that does not work, high accuracy and long reload (as well as worse melee than other firearms) do not have a spot in the game, they are always a worse choice than high ROF and good melee weapons... The skirmishers are affected mo
  13. 4th Rate Razée (1400tons, 48 guns, 23ton gun capacity on the lower deck, same as Ardent class, sufficient for Woolwich 43pounder) 5th Rate Endymion class (the largest 5th Rate at 1500tons, larger then the Razée and with 52 guns, seems to me to be a 5th Rate SOL but with frigate speed and 3D model) What is the Bellona class like? I have yet only seen Ardent 3rd Rates.
  14. If you read the hover-over descriptions there might be a severe misunderstanding in the game as is today. The description in effect say that extended belt and deck armor is against shots from ahead or aft and that it does not need to be as thick because that means the shots are hitting at a severe angle. In reality, as written in this thread, extended belt/deck armor is the thinner armor at the edges of the armored belt/deck, extending some, but not full, protection to areas of lesser importance (and, to a lesser extent, to areas where hits are expected to have less force, like underwater).
  15. There was Tigerfish, which was so bad General Belgrano was sunk by 50+ year old straightrunners... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigerfish_(torpedo)
  • Create New...