TAKTCOM
-
Posts
274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TAKTCOM
-
-
1 hour ago, Draco said:
According to this summary on navweaps https://web.archive.org/web/20160717125302/http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm
Thank you, this is an interesting link.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Draco said:
Well... it kind of is and that's also kind of okay...read the Bismarck account i linked to on the last page of the discussion...
While I am not against game сoncept "Resistance" in generally, but I cannot agree with this.
Bismarck was a tough not because it was built from pure Hitlerium, had the magical Ahnenerbe runes everywhere, or was built on the ancient, mystical scrolls from era of Myths.
Bismarck was a tough because its engine and magazines was very well protected. The Germans successfully used this armor distribution since WW1, but actually anyone could use it. It's not even an armor scheme, literally "put more armor here and here."
Yankees worshiped at AoN, while the Russians invented the opposite of AoN - some kind of Armor on Everywhere (lol), French preferred the french strings - long and thick but narrow belts, while British and Italians had their own views on optimal use of armor.
But no one forbade anyone to use the ideas of foreign countries, as it happened with AoN after WW1. I don't understand why the game should prevent me from building ships, for example, in the German style when I play Britain.
19 hours ago, RedParadize said:...it can absorb up to 97% of the damage with the IV citadel, AntiTorp V and Triple hull.
While IV citadel, AntiTorp V and Triple hull are large investments, absorption of 97% incoming damage sounds like one of the most broken things I've ever heard.
On 10/4/2021 at 3:04 PM, Microscop said:Also hhee tough guy Goben "I wil destroy the russian black sea fleet" but in reality i will get spanked and ran away from pre drednoughts.
Yes, it's actually funny - the Dreadnought has been hyped as capable to fighting (and winning!) entire squadrons of old-style battleships. Goben was a second-generation dreadnought, a fast battleship rather than an English-style battlecruiser, but every encounter with Russian battleships ended his retreat. Of course, Goben was alone and could not take risks, since Turkish industry could not repair it in case of serious damage. But still, complete superiority over the old ships, about was so much talk, did not happen.
On 10/4/2021 at 4:30 PM, DougToss said:In military affairs, boring is nearly universally good.
You know, I thought a little more about this. Many of the people, who interested in navy in modern Russia would agree with you. One of the most popular topics in the Russian community - the Russo-Japanese War, always brings up the IRN ships. And I saw many notes that the Borodino-class battleships was a mistake. Not because it was a bad or ineffective design, but because it was too new and too complicated design.
Instead, it was necessary to build simpler and more proven ships, such as the Potemkin, or the evolution of Peresvet with 12 inch guns. If we take a foreign design as a model, then it should have been the Retvizan, built by Kramp.
The same thing with dreadnoughts of the Sevastopol class. The problem was not that these ships were stuck between battleships and battlecruisers, combining "not enough speed" with "not enough armor". After all, all first generation dreadnoughts had serious flaws, one way or another. The problem was that Sevastopol class was finished too late and brought to combat able even later. Again, the right decision was to make an analogue of the Dreadnought, using components (turrets, power plants, modified hulls) from old pre-dreadnoughts, as the Germans and Americans did.
Of course, by the WW1, such conservative designs would outdated but they would have been infinitely preferable to using ships from the time of the Russo-Japanese War against Hochseeflotte, as it happened in real history.
I guess, for the navy evolution is clearly preferable to revolution.Ugh, another wall of text.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DougToss said:
In military affairs, boring is nearly universally good. It means the principles have been discovered, experimented with, tested, proven in battle, and then gradually standardized and incrementally improved.
Sure. Even without delving into history, modern ships such as the Zumwalt, Gerald Ford, littoral combat ships or CV Queen Elizabeth show difficulties that may be encountered than you try to use some innovative ideas. I've also heard that Stirling submarines are pretty tricky. I am sure the list is much longer than my modest knowledge.
It is always a balance - do only "good old" and in the end you will fall behind. Build the super-modern high-tech ship of the Next Day and it will take years (if not decades) to get it to work.
Back in WWII, I think the Royal Navy was solid. Not so impressive ships as built in Japan or USA, but reliable and generally quite efficient.
1 hour ago, madham82 said:So the idea one nation's ships should have a magical trait is completely unrealistic to begin with.
Let's hope this is hull H-44 imbalance, not the entire faction😅
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Microscop said:
Resistance is an absurdly stupid concept.
Depends on the implementation. It could be just one of the balance elements, does not affect anything or be obvious game-breaking bullshit.
At the moment hulls in total mixed bag of collision models problems, errors in weight offset settings and wrong ratios length-width. And of course, the balance of hulls characteristics, let's be honest, is far from ideal.
I like the implementation of the qarters less. We choose between "small barracks" with a minimum of people, "medium barracks" with a normal number of people, and "large barracks" with a bunch of people. And basically, it's just another HP bar. Ugh.
22 minutes ago, Microscop said:Aside from obvious being able to pick your engagements what speed is protection meant to Fischer was that a fast battlecruiser can make small course changes to confuse enemy gunnery, the faster the ship is the bigger the effect will be. This has smaller effect on your own gunnery because you are aware of your own course changes more precisly than the enemy is. Also british at that time had superior fire control so this give them aditional adventage while doing that.
Well, it was one of the ideas, which in some ways was justified, in some ways it was not. Battlecruisers of the Furious type, for example, clearly belonged to the second category. Well, at least Britain in WWI built interesting ships. I find the Royal Navy ships in WWII a little boring.
-
1
-
-
On 10/1/2021 at 8:00 AM, RedParadize said:
Speed may not equal armour but it certainly provide protection. Speed advantage give you the ability to chose if you engage or not. In face of a superior force I would rater be faster than heavily armoured... Because I could flee!
SMS Goeben approves of this comment👍
-
1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:
...destroyer with triple turrets is manifestly unreasonable.
I'm not going to teach you what to do or declare you as heretic, but ...destroyer with triple turrets is unreasonable IRL😄
Point of triple (or quarter) turrets in that they reduce firepower but save weight and space. 3 х triple turrets weigh and occupy less space than 4 × twin turrets. This means that the citadel can be made shorter - and thicker. And use a more powerful propulsion system becomes variant. This works on cruisers and battleships, also because the guns are very heavy and the turret armor typically weighs a lot.
You pay for this by reducing the rate of fire, the more guns in the turrets, the less convenient it is to handle them. Look at modern ship guns - almost all of them are in single-gun turrets. Because it is optimal for supplying gun with ammunition and achieving the maximum rate of fire.
Returning to the destroyers, what could be the purpose using triple turrets? Saving space - but large destroyers like Tashkent or Shimakaze have plenty space on their decks. Saving weight?
Fletcher class single gun turret was 18,779 kg, while Gearing class twin gun turret was already 43 409 kg, which is more than doubles the weight of turret. The triple turret will be at least 60 tons, and possibly more, due to the increase in the size of the turret itself. So this is not an option too.
So yeah triple turrets on destroyer it's just pointless complication and increase cost of turret construction. If you needs more main guns on destroyer, just add some single or twin gun mount. Or just get more powerful cannons with a heavier shell. This is how destroyer artillery evolved in reality.
Again, I have nothing against weird ships as long as they are effective. No offense.
-
3
-
-
Game mechanics that are described in the Campaings section of Ultimate Admiral:Dreadnoughts are directly taken from the game mechanics from Rule the waves. Are there players here who have Rule the waves experience? How is the issue with the ship designer resolved in RtW? I read from the walkthroughs that the designer is significantly random, but nevertheless presents the player with a challenge.
1 hour ago, ColonelHenry said:Destroyers with as many guns as possible in game are effective against other destroyers are simply because...
...game has no aircraft, submarines, MTB and mines. 20-40mm cannons are ballast, trawls and anti-submarine armament do not exist at all.
19 hours ago, DougToss said:Below is a short list of the texts I have read to provide feedback for the game
This list says a lot about you, thank you.
-
27 minutes ago, DougToss said:
It's a little disingenuous to present contre-torpilleurs and their Italian counterparts as "typical" destroyers, especially to argue that AI of every nation building heavily gunned, large displacement warships in 1910 is in any way excusable.
"Contre-torpilleurs" translates as destroyer. Nevertheless, no problem, typical USN destroyers for you.
27 minutes ago, DougToss said:... that AI of every nation building heavily gunned, large displacement warships in 1910 is in any way excusable.
We do not have a company, so this is all premature. AI may simply not research the necessary technologies and continue to build destroyers WW1 level all timeline.
8 minutes ago, DougToss said:The early destroyers had a very low freeboard (c0.5√L(ft)) which made them very wet and impossible to drive into head seas.
How does this relate to the game? So far player has no control over the board height and seaworthiness... it's even exists?
-
2
-
-
Just now, Draco said:
...
The imperfection of Somers and Magador destroyers class is not the point of discussion. I commented on this post which is obviously wrong
1 hour ago, Draco said:This is why nobody designed a 5" twin turret destroyer until WWII was more or less over...
"5" twin turret destroyer" was were designed and built in many countries, long before WW2 began. USA, Japan, Germany (150mm), Italy (120mm), Britain (120mm), France (130-138mm) and even the USSR (130mm).
What is it all about? AI makes idiotic designs? Isn't that what he always did? Does the player make designs that would never work in reality? Hmm, didn't we buy this game for that too?
And if we're entering non-functional insanity territory, let's take a look at this 295 tonn Destroyer, with 406mm armor and 254mm underwater gun built in the USA in the 19th century.
-
3
-
-
47 minutes ago, Draco said:
This is why nobody designed a 5" twin turret destroyer until WWII was more or less over...
Mogador-class destroyer, 4x2 138mm, Marine nationale, 1939
Somers-class destroyer, 4x2 5", USN 1939
_underway_ge%C3%A4.jpg)
-
4
-
-
-
One minute in the game. Looks awkward.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Tousansons said:
Back to drinking I guess.
Although after Warships toasted my graphics card I'm not a big fan of WG, it is quite interesting to see what exactly projects of Soviet CV they are going to add to the game. Thanks.
-
11 hours ago, T_the_ferret said:
My simple question is, as someone that's totally new to any engagement to the community, what is my assurance that future work will be carried on time as per the dev's words and this game is worth the high entry price currently compared to other games set to release this year?
Simple answer: no assurance at all. This applies to all pre-orders. Yes, the seller always promise excellent products, but what will you get in the end? I pre-ordered several times - TW:Thrones of Britannia, Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 and was very disappointed in the end. UAD not so bad. Yes, at the moment this is overglorified shipbuilder WW2 era. At least it's something.
I give a 50% forecast that next year we will see the some kind of company. And 20% chance that we will see all the declared nations and features before the game was abandoned.
4 hours ago, MrStan53 said:Also, this isn't even assuming that these hulls won't reuse assets from the Cruisers Trento or Deutschland
Well noticed. I remember this feeling, when in one of the patches with TENS of new designs, I suddenly realized that most of them copy-paste.
1 hour ago, Tousansons said:Let's not forget that RTW game system is around 8 years in constant development.
Price of completed RTW 1 is two times lower than UAD, which has been stuck in alpha for YEARS.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:
There is this however.
"Your impressions and ideas on the new crew system, will be utilized to optimize the final campaign patch, which will be available in the coming days."
Well, yes. It's just that the company we've all been waiting has moved away for a few months more.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Danvanthevacuumman said:
so campaign patch coming in few days
1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:Hello again Admirals,
...we decided to give out a pre-patch, which includes all the new features but without a playable campaign yet.
-
11 hours ago, Skeksis said:
Germany CA hulls are disadvantaged from 1900 to 1912...
It's better not to think about it. Otherwise, you will drown in the negative. For example, the problem you mentioned is not a problem of Germany. This is a problem for the entire CA class.
There are seven pre-dreadnoughts hulls CA in all game. And none of these hulls support casemate guns larger than five inches. This means that not one of the CA ever built in German Empire cannot be built in UAD Alpha 12.Because each of them have a whole bunch of 150mm guns in casemates.Some of them have even 210mm.
The same is true for the rest of the countries. 6 ''cannons was standard for pre-dreadnoughts CA, which means that 90% the designs of that time are simply unavailable for players. And to solve this problem, you just need to add one, not two, not five, just one hull which supports 6'' guns in casemates for all nations. Of course, this will not help France, who built completely unique and original CA and need at least two new hulls, and better four.
In the same time we have in game something like thirty-four hulls of late battleships like Yamato, Iowa and others.
Apparently, the game starts in 1945 and ends in 1890, so this is absolutely logical - sure, first you make the foundation, then the walls, and only at the end the roof. I mean, what's the point make are lot late game content if the early one is a bunch of copy-paste placeholders?
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:
The lack of communication from the developers here really concerns me, and is NOT healthy for the community going forward. Literally everyone here is going crazy out of boredom and excitement for this patch.
Any other company I've seen at least shows a few images of what's to come or a teaser, but here, I see absolutely nothing.
Very, VERY concerning.
Why aren't the developers listening?Who knows. I bought this game in October 2019 and for almost two years I have see one and the same thing from developers - silence for months. Then they make another patch with several new hulls, missions and some balance fixes. And write something like "sorry, we are making a game and have no time to communicate on the forum".
The fire burns, the water is wet and the developers don't communicate much with players. Well, at least they fix the obvious bugs when you shown them. Sometimes.
-
5
-
-
22 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Ah, thank you for this message, full of dignity and courtesy. The words that you used certainly fully show your position on this issue. I believe this is the end of our conversation. Have a nice day!
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:
No where in any of your previous posts do you alude at all to the Noviks being German Designs. No where, saying "you may read some unpleasant things about the Noviks"
This quote was about the need for the minimum need to understand the subject of the conversation.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:The best destroyers in the world and they were Russian is not admitting that they were technically speaking, not Russian. Nice back peddling.
They were built in Russia and served in the Russian Navy. You don't call Haruna, Kirishima and Hiei English ships, do you?😉
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:13 armored cruisers consisting of 5 different classes. Do you really want to bring up the 3 classes of psudo-armored frigates classified as armored cruisers built during the 1870s and 80s that were obsolete upon completion? The General-Admiral class?
And what is wrong? It was about the total for all time. "13 armored cruisers consisting of 5 different classes" were built throughout the history of the Russian Empire. General-Admiral for example, the first in the world armored cruiser.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:The Vladimir Monomakh? The Admiral Nakhimov?
Used as warships. Both were sunk at Tsushima. They were СА and were lost like СА.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:How about how the Rurik, Rossia and Gromoboi were horribly out classed by the British HMS Powerful and HMS Terrible built to counter them?
Technical progress. Between Rurik and Powerful was four years. Add four more years and get Gueydon-class or Drake-class which are much stronger than Powerful.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:Uh, that's uh, kinda why I said..
We are talking about the ships of the Russian fleet. Cruisers Pillau-Klasse have never been a part of IRN.
So far, all that can be seen from your comments is that the last Russian emperor was very fond of buying capital ships from foreigners.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:I see the bait was taken. My apologizes, I was trying to cleanly move away from the trash fire that was the ineffective and impotent soviet navy
What a restrained, objective and balanced assessment 😄 I will remind you that
15 hours ago, Fishyfish said:It wasn't until Russia became Soviet Russia that their navy switched to almost entirely domestically built warships entirely because everyone hated commies and didn't want to help them
never happened, since a significant part of the ships of the first generation of the Soviet fleet were built with the help of foreign firms.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:First, you've already proven my point I was making above that the Russians couldn't develop or produce any domestic designs completely on their own.
But we have a domestic designed fleet in some way 😄 Some even say quite conspicuous. And it doesn't even have foreign-built ships, although we wanted.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:Project 1, the Leningrad class...they were more a copy of the french Vauquelin
The two ships in the pictures are clearly look similar. But which ones? Hmm, such a difficult question...
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:A propulsion system bought from a land locked country...? Really? Reallllly?
Then suddenly, Brown, Boveri & Cie.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:Thus why over the course of the war the United States supplied the Soviet Union a total of 17,499,861 tons of military equipment, supplies and food the Soviets couldn't produce.
United States had nothing against the sale Union Christie tanks or aircraft engines. Or licenses for a Ford Model AA. As well as entire factories. All this was long before the war. But when it came to ships...
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:AHAHAHAH HAHAHA HAHAHA Oh, oh your serious, let me laugh harder! The Soviets, even with american purchased battleship designs and faragut destroyers a "strong navy"? A "threat to the United States"?
And how many aircraft carriers did the soviet union have, ever?
The US Navy ended WW2 with.... 29 battleships, 83 cruisers, 1125 destroyers, 344 submarines, 166 Aircraft Carriers (of all flavors)
according to lend lease was sent USS Milwaukee (CL-5) and nine destroyers from the First World War. Stalin even wrote a letter to Churchil, something like "send us more modern ships" and in return received "not enough for us ourselves."
The Yankees shared a lot with the Soviets, but naval technology was not one of that. And yes, if you look at modern fleets, the Russian and Chinese fleets occupy high positions. And America doesn't like China or Russia. Just like they disliked Japan and Great Britain before the WW2.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:The Sverdlov Class...
Was pre-WW2 design. And like absolutely all cruisers WW2 was "were left dangerously unprotected when operating in areas outside the cover of land-based aircraft". Chapaev was no worse than Brooklyn. It was the first Soviet ship built without construction overload. For comparison, most of the ships of the Russian Empire suffered from this disease to. If not Germans attack the first five cruisers of project 68 would be ready by about 1944.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:And how many Battleships did the soviets build? Because the Imperial Russian Navy build 26.
And how many did the Imperial Russian Navy nuclear submarines build? Because the soviets build more than a hundred. 😄 The Soviets did not build battleships, because when it made sense the USSR was a poor and ravaged by wars and invasions a country with an economy of Poland level with an illiterate and starving population.
We don't need a navy. We need more schools (c) Lenin.
And when they could build them, it was clear to everyone except Stalin that they were outdated and unnecessary. One way or another, Stalin died before his "favorite bandit" was completed and this was the end of the history of Soviet battleships.
10 hours ago, Fishyfish said:I'm done man, the only Myth here is that the Soviets had a credible, powerful and effective Navy.
You know, I've never said anything like that. The Soviets built some good ships and in the Russian Empire also built good ships sometimes. But I didn't say anything about "credible, powerful and effective Navy".
If you've been trying all this time to tell me that the Red Fleet in WWII sucks, then you've been fighting windmills.
The Tsar's Gangut and Svetlana were unsuccessful ships, built according to unsuccessful ideas. Noviks were good, but by WWII they are outdated, just like yankees Flush-deckers. Kirov, Leningrad and 7n were the first new ship generation of the Soviet navy and as always in the case of "we do this for the first time" they had a lot of problems.
You can look at the problems of the Americans with the Zumwalt, the litioral ships. This is quite typical. Everybody's screwing up.
The second generation of the Soviet fleet had its drawbacks, but it generally corresponded to world standards. Thanks to Hitler, these ships were built only after the war, when they shot no less than all the other ships of the pre-war projects of any countries.
I personally believe that the place Red Fleet in WWII somewhere close to the French and Italian fleets. Of course, they had more powerful and modern ships than the Soviets, but there was little good in this. The Italians high command the completely devalued the potential power of their fleet. And the most famous events of the French fleet in WWIIt was a massacre, which they staged first by the British, then by the Yankees. The first fleets in the WW2 are British, American and Japanese. The Soviet was not even close. The time of the communists navy came later, during the Cold War.
-
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:
Okay, time for me to ramble about Imperial Russian Warships and to clear up some misconceptions, bias and phobia...
This is much better. Not without nonsense, but a league better than "this is Russian propaganda."
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:The uh... aforementioned Novik class destroyers were *cough cough* designed by Germany. Woops...
Yes, that's what I meant about "unpleasant things about Novik". Novik was a German project based on Russian demands like "we need a better ship."
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:2 of 5 classes of Armored Cruisers were designed or built abroad. The Bayan Class Armored cruisers were built in France and the (second) Rurik class was built by Vickers.
The things you conveniently forgot to add that Russian Imperial Navy actually had 13 armored cruisers (minus Azov and Minin), ten of which were built in Russia. This includes the Boyan class, two of the four were built in Russia. And all four of these cruisers - Rurik II and three Boyan were completely outdated by the time they were launched. Because in 1906 it was too late for armored cruisers anyway. So only the lead ship - Boyan, had some value in the Russo-Japanese war.
Nevertheless, Rurik 1 performed well in the battle with the Japanese, if not for the golden shot at the steering. It was also the first large raider. I also do not consider Petropavlovsk-class as bad. They were at least did not concede Fuji class, built in England.
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:...Izumurd...
Izumrud-class cruiser was a Russian variation of the Novik cruiser and was built in Russia.
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:Muraviev Amurski class
Was confiscated by the Germans and never served in the Russian fleet.
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:It wasn't until Russia became Soviet Russia that their navy switched to almost entirely domestically built warships entirely because everyone hated commies and didn't want to help them, with the only foreign built in service being lend-lease and captured warships. Even still, soviet naval rosters are dwarfed by the number of ships in service under the Tsar.
And here are come myths. Project 1 was based on HMS Codrington, the blueprints of which were purchased (siс!) from the British. Project 7 was based on the Maestrale class destroyers, with the help of the Italians in its design. A similar story happened with Kirov and Raimondo Montecuccoli-cruisers. Tashkent-class destroyer was built in Italy by order of the USSR. Soviet Union-class battleships were based on Italian battleships blueprints. A propulsion system for the lead ship was purchased in Switzerland. The Germans sold the USSR cruiser Lützow. S-class submarine was also designed by Germans.
So no. Like all correct capitalists, as long as the communists were willing to pay, there were those who were willing to sell. Demand creates supply.
The United States refused to provide the Soviet commission with any naval technologies, although the USSR was interested in the Faragut destroyers and was ready to pay for the battleship design. It is understandable why, anyone with a strong navy is a threat to the United States, it is obvious.2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:Even still, soviet naval rosters are dwarfed by the number of ships in service under the Tsar.
The Soviet Union built more cruisers first class for twenty years (1935-1955) than the Russian Empire built for all its history. And Project 68 was pretty quality.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
Wow, Russia acomplished building a competent ship of the smallest and most simple class in modern warfare, and they did so by merely upscaling the damned thing by 2x normal size. Hold the presses. Sounds like some Russian propaganda to me anyways, Russia got stomped so hard in Tsushima before that they remain salty about it today.
It was a really funny comment. Somehow, it is entirely delusional. You may say some realy unpleasant things about Novik and Russia shipbuilding, but you did not, because for this you need to know at least something about the Russian fleet. Except anti-Russian propaganda. Which you obviously aren't doing. I will not write walls of text, I will just say that
...Novik was one of the best ships of the type during the First World War. Novik -class ships were the first destroyers to be powered by oil instead of coal. When first commissioned she was the fastest ship in the world...(с)from English Wikipedia.
English. No Russian😄
-
1
-
-
On 8/31/2021 at 7:55 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:
The hypothetical AI buffs being discussed would flat out make some things make zero sense, like Russia building superior ships to Japan...Well...Any year.
Destroyer Novik and Co was best in class worldwide, not just "better than the Japanese." The problem with Russian shipbuilding was that the ships often built on the basis of the wrong ideas, the result was unsatisfactory. I'm talking about Aurora and Peresvet classes in the Russian-Japanese war, as well as the Svetlana, Sevastopol and Borodino classes in the First World War.
So yes, there is nothing wrong with AI Russia building strong ships. However, historically, Imperial Russia has always built ships longer and more expensive than all other countries, except maybe Spain.
On 8/31/2021 at 8:40 AM, Evil4Zerggin said:Let us hope that AI Great Britain or USA can at least put up a fight against human Austria-Hungary or Spain...
I think China will be more difficult than Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary had a stronger industry than Russian, or Italian. Their technology was also better than Italian, Russian and Spanish. In fact, the funding problem was the only problem for the Austro-Hungarian fleet. And since the player will be able to increase the size of the budget over time, obviously this will be a problem mainly in the early period of the game.
The AHE admirals had a few tricks to get around low budget, and for this reason, warships of the AHE have been carefully designed and as a result - cheap, high quality and strong for their displacement. Of course, this happened until the Hungarians were allowed to build BB Szent István 😕
-
19 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
I didn't say Soviets
Huh, but you said
6 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:bolshevik
And this word refers specifically to the Soviet communists.
-
1
-
>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
Of course, this was common. USS Pittsburgh (CA-72) aka Longest Ship in the World.
4 June 1945 for Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 16 July. Still under repair at war's end, she was placed in reserve on 12 March 1946 and decommissioned on 7 March 1947.
I also liked the case when the Soviet cruiser Molotov was hit by a torpedo which cut off 20 meters of ship stern.
I remember this incident because the Molotov was repaired using the parts of three unfinished ships, each of different projects, one of which was a submarine, the second was another Kirov-class cruiser, and the third was project 68 cruiser who gave it stern.
Molotov was 26-bis project with a total displacement of about 9.5k, while Chapayev-class had a full displacement of about 14.3k. In general, these two projects had very little in common. However, somehow repair ended in complete victory:
- speed, seaworthiness and maneuverability after repair actually not changed;
- repairs began in October 1942 and ended in July 1943, which I think is pretty fast.