Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Shiki

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shiki

  1. I have become extraordinarily jaded towards any and all promises of 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' from any game that promises it. We might ask for things, but ultimately, the only way to get something is to do it yourself - hence, I think, the continued insistence on mod support. If they won't give us realistic parameters, we'll just have to make them ourselves.
  2. Not exactly? World of Warships bases a lot of their stuff - well, a lot of the old stuff - on actual designs and ships that existed. Now, the refits they give them (stares hard at Lyon & Normandie) are not always up to the same snuff, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that for at least most of their lines, they have some historical basis. That's what I want, personally. More historical ships, more historical options- give me something that Wargaming can't. Give me the ability to employ ships as they were used, instead of fighting tank battles on the ocean. And by historic
  3. I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically. takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA
  4. But what about Super Alsace No.2 with a standard arrangement of 3x3 431mm instead?
  5. That's only if we're able to place guns on the rear, which it doesn't look like we'll be able to. Judging from the way it was presented, if we had been offered an Alsace-type hull as well, it would have been shown off along with the all-forward Richelieu model.
  6. Well, we have Yamato, Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina, Bismarck, and now Richelieu... that leaves just King George V, Sovetskii Soyuz, and Littorio for our cadre of modern battleships.
  7. I hope that the weight increase isn't by too much, as the primary historical advantages of the concentration of the armament was that it didn't weigh as much as something like four or five twin turrets, since one could shorten the length of the armoured citadel drastically.
  8. I'll say the last Friday of next month.
  9. 1. It is not a shortsighted tactical consideration in the context of a short war fought with on-hand resources, centred on a single decisive outcome between surface fleets. 2. It is both practical and feasible to go for the larger calibres in the case of the Japanese. As you've pointed out before, Japan's industrial base and resources aren't as sufficiently advanced as the Americans (the product of going from medieval to modern in the span of a decade) so they need the calibre gap to make up the disparity. Additionally, you never once mentioned 46 cm / 18 in. You said explicitly to go to
  10. I'm not attempting to argue whether or not the Japanese were doomed as a result of their decision to go to war with the United States - that's a subject that's been beaten to death and beyond, right into Asphodel. However, the concept of their plan - which you're saying is short-sighted - is a tactical opinion. Unless you've switched tack from the 'decisive battle' to the overall conduct of the war, grand strategy is not in the purview of the discussion. The entire point is, from a technical and tactical point of view, there's no reason to not go for the larger calibre gun if it's feasible.
  11. The range advantage they calculated they had was based on the superiority of their optical equipment and the known ranges of the American Standard-type battleships, which they had been able to observe discreetly during the USN's 'Fleet Problems' of the 1930s. Colorado was the basis of their assumptions, since at that time the North Carolina hadn't been constructed yet (and even during the earliest phases of her design process, was slated to receive 356 mm rather than 406 mm). Even if the U.S. decided to construct new 406-mm-armed battleships - which they knew would become a reality as soon as
  12. You're speaking from the benefit of hindsight, which isn't a good place to start when you're trying to say "from the perspective of the 1930s." In 1936, when the initial requirements for the Yamato class were drafted, the Japanese plan was in no way shortsighted or flawed. The 'decisive combat between surface fleets' was the fundamental doctrine of every major navy going into the late 1930s and early 1940s- and it's worth noting that, had the Americans followed War Plan Orange as they had intended prior to the destruction of their major surface elements at Pearl Harbour, we might well have see
  13. I think the term you're looking for is 'chasing salvoes', a method to frustrate accurate shooting in the days of analogue fire control. As nearly as I remember, it works on the principle that most mechanical FC tables used 'Up' or 'Down' rates, based on visual spotting of the fall of shot; the manoeuvring target would therefore 'chase' the last salvo fired, turning in that direction. If the salvo landed beyond the target, a 'Down' spot would be applied: the ship would then close with the last salvo fired, causing the next salvo to be short and an 'Up' spot applied, and then so on and so forth.
  14. Lacroix & Wells mention it under "Torpedo Ordnance" in Appendix H of Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, p.779-780. As for your other suggestions... yes, I want all of those things too. I'm also a perfectionist and I want everything to be as minutely detailed as possible so that I can build ships the way I want to, right down to the number of lands and twists in a gun barrel.
  15. I mostly want QoL changes. Unsurprisingly, most of them are Ship Designer-oriented, since that's the main selling point to me (and quite possibly a lot of other people). - Options for torpedoes larger than 61-cm / 24in. The Japanese were developing a 72-cm torpedo (11.5 m long, weight 5mt, 850 kg warhead, rated for 54,000 m @ 40 kts) when war broke out and I don't want to be restricted to merely mauling battleships- I want my underwater tactical nukes. - Options to set the loading angle. You could have it be as simple as three: "Semi-fixed", "Fixed", and "All-Angle". The first would
  16. The thing about interwar Japanese cruisers is that they all use, broadly, the same hull configuration. The Myōkō, Takao, Mogami, and Tone classes all used the same basic hullform with only slightly different dimensions (affected values of which don't seem to count in this game, since existing in-game hulls don't seem to curve all that much). Using the same hull and instead creating different superstructures cuts down on hull modeling tremendously. The same is true of period American cruisers; once you hit Brooklyn, Brooklyn's basic hullform is the design plan on which you can build Wichita, Ba
  17. This is not entirely true. In the Treaty era, many ships were designed to fight at angles in relation to the target - American cruisers were designed, for example, to fight at 60 degrees (originally 30 degrees, and to 90 degrees - flat broadside - for Baltimore onward) in relation to the target, whether fore or aft. This was done to save weight in light of the broad inclinations at which fast combatants, such as cruisers, tend to fight. The same applies to even battleships such as Scharnhorst, which was designed to fight at 30 degrees inclination with respect to the opponent. This isn't to say
  18. This update has gotten me excited for this game again, honestly. Quadruple turrets and 50-cm guns are nice and all, but... my main hypes are the hull fixes and that more modern French and British medium- and large-calibre turrets are being modeled. Now all we need are a few appropriate hulls to stick those guns on. Super Alsace (12x 43 cm) vs. Original Spec A-150 (9x 51 cm), your day draws near. But more than that: it's La Galissonière's time to shine.
  19. Of course, decisive battle is the only way. It's much more cost-effective to be able to quickly end a conflict with the complete destruction of the enemy's fleet, and obtain peace before they can recover. For ship design to support that doctrine, I prefer the Italian approach: my cruisers are my battleships, and the actual "battleships" are only there to support the cruisers. They need to be fast (35.5 kts minimum, 37.5 kts preferred) in order to force that decisive action and well-armed (eight, nine, or ten 203-mm) to cripple the enemy's own cruisers. Unlike the Italians, however, I arm
  20. The Japanese Chō A-Shiki jun'yōkan (Super 'A'-type cruiser) Shirane steams in formation with her three sisters before accepting battle against four of her American counterparts.
  21. A clear photo of one of the most beautiful cruisers (nominally) built to the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval treaty, Takao, in post-reconstruction configuration. The Chōkai, firing her main battery. Italian battleship Roma, seen from aft. The Aoba, one of the Japanese 'pre-treaty' 20-cm-gun cruisers.
  22. I apologize if I seemed condescending at all during any of my posts. That was not, is not, and will never be the intention, and if you take it that way I'm sorry. I am trying not to make a bad situation worse. That being said... I proved everything I set out to prove. Pr.23 was flawed at the time of design and all four ships laid down showed that, from all credible first- and second-hand accounts. Beyond that, I don't need to prove anything - you're the one making conjecture about how they could have approved and then changed it, or re-iterated and upgraded it. My basis of fact is th
  23. You yourself are being the contradictory one. You ask for proof, then deny it when it comes. We have known examples for the USSR completing things in such poor states - see the Pr.26-class cruisers and most of their destroyers - because they didn't know it was in a poor state. That's in benefit of hindsight, which we have because it happened eighty-three years ago. If I provided working technical drawings of their flaws and the official Soviet reports saying 'this is fine', or if I provided the evidence of the Italian architects which inspected the captured Sovetskaya Ukraina at Nikolaev, you
  24. This is bait. Not only is it bait, but it's prime bait. Whether I play World of Warships or not shouldn't particularly matter, and it doesn't to me - but, you made the insinuation that I wasn't a naval nerd. Now, I'm no naval strategy nerd like you types - I focus on the technical aspects. But that point stands, and so I'm going to accept. On to your points. In answer to 1. - I invite you to view their video on the Project 23-type battleship Sovetskii Soyuz, which is what I was referencing when I spoke of 'Russian propaganda', which could more correctly be termed 'Soviet propaganda'.
  25. Few things fail to outclass Bismarck. But the Project 23-class battleships (Sovetskii Soyuz) happen to be on the list of the things which that German battleship could defeat. They're amazing on paper - most Soviet designs are. But much like the Imperial Japanese Navy, the technology simply isn't there - and furthermore, in the Soviet case, the infrastructure and experience to build and maintain ships of that size is simply nonexistent in the prewar era. The technology to run their turbines at the desired output and the propeller design to withstand that (+70,000 CV per shaft, and the Soviets p
×
×
  • Create New...