Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

DougToss

Members2
  • Content Count

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

DougToss last won the day on October 19

DougToss had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

466 Excellent

About DougToss

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think about 800 of Bismarck’s crew made it into the water to abandon ship. Mostly from the aft turrets and engineering spaces, if I recall. Still, that’s only 800 out of more than 2000 and crew efficiency was 0 for most, if not all, of the engagement.
  2. The WOWS crowd hated that, if I remember, complained that the AI was “impossible to sink.”
  3. I have no doubt from reading some of Brown’s assessments of WW1 and WW2 damage that ships could take tremendous punishment and remain afloat. It’s just that there is a huge gradation before actually physically sinking beneath the waves we’re missing such as breaking contact, retreating, limping away, getting under tow, abandoning ship etc. A ship that’s been 92% damaged, whatever we consider that to mean, is having a very bad day and is not going to stick around as if nothing has happened. For all intents and purposes, that ship’s war is over - at least until it gets major time in
  4. If you think of the 2D map as being an abstraction for the flag plot, signallers and subordinates relaying information, I think on the balance it’s good to have. The players have aids that real officers didn’t have because all of the other information available can’t be experienced through the PC.
  5. Even if a ship remained afloat, it would surely have been rendered hors d’combat and struck its colours, right?
  6. No, no I appreciate it. Chapter 9, “The Long Calm Lee of Trafalgar” in Rules of the Game gives it a thorough treatment. Book’s on libgen if you’re so inclined. I’m curious what you think since all of the points you touch on are there.
  7. That’s just it eh? Incredibly highly trained, but did that training in things like drill, seamanship and sail management help?
  8. The Victorian Royal Navy insisting on using sail training for decades longer than it should gets a chapter of its own in Rules Of The Game, maybe there’s something to it. Help me work this out into gameplay terms, but something like - Training on old ships and with old methods gives you a spit and polish peacetime navy - higher prestige, higher discipline, better ship maintenance, but does not increase (maybe even harms) wartime effectiveness?
  9. I’m in the testing forum, I run it several times before every new version comes out. If your problem with the feedback is that there aren’t enough illustrations, there’s nothing I can do for you. Am I supposed to draw you pictures so you can follow along? I welcome you to argue on merits (“credibility”), because I consistently post qualitative and quantitive data from primary, secondary and academic sources. What about any of that do you find incredible? What data sets do you object to? Is there any analysis that you think is askew? If you have a hard time keeping up,
  10. I bought it as soon as it was available you petulant child.
  11. Naval enthusiasts follow (enthusiastic about) naval game that uses word “Realistic” 13 times in blog entry describing intended battle system, news at 11. 😢🎻 You just finished throwing a fit, so we don’t need to rehash this, but how you handle the feedback is more disruptive than the feedback itself. As you alluded to, you haven’t tried to dispute any of the arguments on merit, but instead complain that knowledge is being demonstrated at all. While I understand that it must be frustrating to feel left out of a conversation, or like you are being talked over, people ha
  12. I think it’s more that neither was very accurate but the threat of either was a huge consideration. I could be misreading that though. Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations really examines torpedo usage and effectiveness, but I’m not sure the best way to summarize the argument in a way that is good feedback for UA:D: “The purpose of these ships was to influence the main action: to force the enemy to turn or, if he did not, to cripple him with torpedoes. In battle, destroyers were treated as mad dogs on the leash of the destroyer flotilla commander. The fleet commander’s practical
  13. If I remember confused splashes aren’t modelled yet, but it goes without saying an 8 inch secondary battery would have a host of problems, that displacement would have been better used to protect or propel the ship. 10 8 inch guns that could have been better used on a cruiser and would make the main battery gunnery worse - hence the Dreadnought in the first place - is better than what we have seen, but by no means good.
  14. Attaching this postscript at the end of a disjointed missive railing against the people most actively working to provide feedback on core mechanics is a strange choice. You don’t seem to grasp that improvements to core mechanics would impose - to borrow from you - “realism”, that naturally creates limitations. Mostly though, you seem to be misrepresenting the argument - Higher fidelity allows for a ship builder that allows for the recreation of what was historical, and, rooted in that reality, what was possible. Right now, it does neither.
×
×
  • Create New...