Buchanie

I notice in the academy that although my ship has no raised gun platforms for superfiring, or elevating the turret a deck higher, if I choose to select "barbette" under the armour menus it causes the weight of my ship to increase. Do I assume then that the "barbette" is the whole of the armoured cylinder from the turret all the way down to the shell rooms? If it is only a raised gun platform above deck level, then this increase must be an error - or maybe it refers to the portion of the cylinder above main deck where the hull has a raised foredeck? Just as the turret should include the whole of the turning column, all mechanisms for lifting ammunition up from the shell rooms etc. rather than just the gunhouse at the top - so similarly the barbette should include the armoured cylinder below the gunhouse inside which the whole turret revolves, and not just an externally exposed gun platform above deck level. 1870s RN produced so-called barbette ships where there were no turrets, big guns sat in the open on top of barbettes - but meanings move on, and "barbette" has modified its meaning by the time we get to 1900 - but we still refer to the raised gun platform as a barbette. Can you clarify the point for me - why the increase in weight when I'm designing for "armed convoy attack"?

Really struggling with the Raiders So I analysed the challenge - 3 advanced CAs = 24 8inch barrels per broadside - no way would 2 cruisers suffice. So an HMS Swiftsure or Triumph type semi dreadnought - and we won, 3 CAs sunk. I had to keep the range 5.5-6.5 km or they did huge damage - even at 6km every salvo from the CAs was likely to hit with at least one shell, often 2 or 3 of them; whereas I only hit every second or third salvo, and had to keep swinging back and forth to throw their aim. A 4th CA would have beaten me. That felt like a serious engagement! Point: I would have expected their accuracy and resilience to drop off as they took damage - but their damage control and repairing rates were phenomenal - mine were dire. Surely the numbers of crewmen required to fight fires and weld patches etc. and the mounting toll of casualties should impact on the ability to fight the guns and perform fire fighting and damage repair all at the same time? The ability of the Raider CAs to take punishment from my 12inch and maintain amazing accuracy and rate of fire was annoyingly unreal. I really enjoyed that challenge, despite all - it is nice to win after such a struggle!!!! Buchanie

On the historic ships info that comes up while the scenario loads, just seen Moltke class - info says 6x11inch - should say 10x11inch (or 5 twin turrets) - typo!

It has just occurred to me how important a role visibility played in so many historical battles - Coronel; Dogger Bank; Heligoland Bight; Jutland; Evstafi - Goeben; Slava -Konig; North Cape; Samar - perhaps it is significant in virtually all naval engagements? Certainly it always had to be a consideration in the North Sea - fog banks and rain squalls saved more than a few ships. Buchanie

I am enjoying a steady plod through the academy - but have come to a halt with "Sink the Raiders" - BB or CAs escorting the two merchantmen with 3 enemy CAs attacking. For me, this one has stepped up a level - the enemy CAs seem to have a newer hull design with a long raised forecastle, and they are fierce and powerful - their tech seems more advanced than I have access to. I haven't been able to design a single BB which is accurate enough to destroy all of them before being sunk itself - I can get one of the CAs before they sink me, but have not done better than that. So I tried building 3 cruisers instead - lots of bulkheads for strength, best balance of armour and guns - and shot to bits in no time! From reading the forum it sounds like I need to start some fires rather than try for a killer punch all the time - or perhaps move on past this challenge and come back to it later! I prefer to try to stay with "historical development" ideas, rather than do peculiar things just to overcome "the game". This scenario has really highlighted the balance characteristics - and perhaps I am giving speed too high a priority, and the BIG gun - the note at the head of the scenario does urge a strong secondary armament (but those enemy cruisers are fast - and they have lots of 8inch and seem able to take a lot of punishment too). I shall try perhaps 2 cruisers, but better ones if possible, against them next. I agree with some comments about the closeness of some "wins" - I wonder if my ship, victorious though she was, would have survived the voyage back to port without foundering in a few of the scenarios I've completed. There is also the nagging doubt, "did I actually win that one through skill and tactics, or was I simply lucky this time?" I think Admiral Ziggy Sprague summed it up after his fighting retreat at Samar when he ascribed his win to, "the courage of American sailors and the partiality of almighty God." He didn't sink all or many of the enemy - but they turned and retreated and didn't come back, and the landing fleet he was protecting suffered no harm: that was a remarkable victory. Jutland was the same - the British were still at sea, despite some bad losses; the Germans returned to port, and stayed there - we can't all do a Nelson/Trafalgar - I guess it depends on the actual mission needed to be delivered. Timer - some people like speedy battles - I feel it is more about an artificial "gaming" constraint than anything that would have historical relevance. If it was left to player choice, I would probably not use it. It does put a pressure on, perhaps encourages me to close for the kill sooner than I otherwise might - and sometimes that isn't wise and I'm the one who gets sunk because the enemy is less disabled than I thought - it does make me get on with it, though. Controlling a fleet - not easy - even a second ship cannot be micro-managed easily, so a fleet of half a dozen would be a challenge - Coronel used a "battle line" but the light conditions and time of day were maybe the most significant factor (as well as the huge difference in technology between the two fleets), with River Plate offering a rehearsed "set piece" with Exeter on a different diverging course to Ajax and Achilles to try to split Graf Spee's fire. Oldendorff's gun line at Surigao was classic and made use of the geography (like the Greeks at Salamis), and the odds were very one-sided. Jutland was a magnificent example of fleet discipline - Jellicoe's masterly port wing deployment, and the incredible 180 turns away accomplished by Hipper and Scheer were unbelievably brilliant. I could cause total chaos trying to model those in a game! Dogger Bank would make an interesting historical scenario - try to sink all the KM battlecruisers rather than just poor old outclassed Blucher; and there was an interesting campaign between the Turks and the Russians in the Black Sea where pre-dreadnought Evstafi fought off the BC Goeben - similarly at Moon Sound in the Baltic where Slava held Konig at bay, and maybe what if Troubridge had pressed the engagement with his armoured cruisers when Goeben was running through the Mediterranean? Just some thoughts. I shall return to trying to sink the raiders (and probably lose again). Thanks for this great game. Buchanie

Hello, I have been playing Dreadnoughts since 17th Dec 2019. (Why didn't Steam alert me to it before then!) This is a most impressive game – wonderfully stable, dockyard idea is super, academy is a brilliant way to teach the game – very exciting. My naval history: Peter Turcan's dreadnoughts on C64 and Amiga; CSI's Great Naval Battles;Task Force 1942; Fighting Steel; Vstep's Ship Simulator; Silent Hunter; Killerfish's Atlantic Fleet. They all basically put me on the bridge with binoculars etc. gave me a plot and all the controls. I have never played an RTS type modern real time game before – so my initial learning curve was controlling the camera separate to controlling the ship – and getting very confused and frustrated between them. Also, selecting a target also seemed to cause the ship to change course. I have got better able to do these tasks now. My point is that someone who plays RTS games will have very little trouble – but someone who plays naval games (like me) will really struggle to learn the basics of the control systems. Certainly using a standard RTS interface makes the game available to a wider customer base than naval enthusiasts alone. Request – would it be possible to have a selectable control option where the camera stays “anchored” on the chosen vessel when I choose to do that? I think this would improve the “feel” and allow the player to invest in their ship more easily – Ideally I would love to be able to stand on the bridge of my ship and direct it from there. I think this would help develop an identification with “our ship”, please. I would also like to be able to move around my fleet and be the captain on the bridge of each in turn. I am finding it difficult to move around my ships without finding them changing course and target after I have left them – perhaps I need to learn to use WASD for the camera and the mouse for ship orders – I tend to use mouse for everything. The shipyard is excellent – seems to offer proper physics, but also the prospect of designing my own fleet, and designing historical ships. I like the depth I can see growing into the game. So I have really struggled to get as far through the academy as being able to sink the semi-dreadnought! - and that is great because I don't want the game to be too easy. You are managing the balance between a game and a simulator really well. At Jutland HMS Tiger fired 400 13.5inch shells without a single hit! So there needs to be a balance between realism and gaming satisfaction! Well done with what you have achieved so far – it is already better than most “finished” games – keep up the great work. The potential here is enormous. Buchanie