Captain Basilone
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Captain Basilone
-
-
On 1/5/2023 at 2:09 PM, Durham Dave said:
No, because they didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up. Without the treaties Japan's fleet may have been bigger, but the others would too. Japan may have only able to have 2/3 the battleships under the Washington Treaty, but a lot less area for those battleships to cover compared to the US and UK. They had more than France, which did have possessions in the Caribbean and Far East as well as dealing with Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts in home waters. The treaties allowed them to compete. When the gloves came off in WW2 Japan couldn't replace losses, the US could and expanded massively on top of it.
Certainly, a good theory. However, if the Washington treaty didn't exist, quite a few carriers would not exist. Carrier development would also lag and the battleships would have been the kings of the sea. In that case the Japanese still would have a decent chance as they would have rather good designs that were comparable if not superior to the US battleships. The losses at Pearl Harbor suddenly become extremely bad for the United States if such a war starts.
-
Ah yes, the ancient question of quality or quantity.
-
1
-
-
Yes!
on a side note I would like to see the addition of the Brazilian, Argentinian and Chilean navies as they all had battleships.
-
6
-
-
On 4/14/2022 at 1:51 AM, Drenzul said:
Does anyone willingly use torp tubes?
I do but not near your level
-
On 3/23/2022 at 12:03 PM, slightlytreasonous said:
The only reason I see this being a feature is so totally clueless people don't screw themselves over. But it just over reaches everywhere. I didn't realize it didn't let you build "obsolete hulls", but, wow. WHY???
(1) Obsolete hulls can be kept in reserve in case you take heavy loses and need to fill the gaps.
(2) Obsolete ships can be regulated to costal defense allowing the more modern battleships to hunt the enemy fleet.
(3) Obsolete hulls are often cheaper allowing for quantity over quality.
(4) If selling ships to other nations become a feature of the game in the future, building and selling crap to neutral nations can be profitable and in the event they become enemy, they are outclassed by you ships.
-
I must say that funding is very lacking all of a sudden. Playing as Britian in 1920s campaign i could barely scrape 28 ships together. Meantime France has a whopping 78. Granted i do use the components heavily but before the update i could play this same campaign and field nearly 100 ships to fight both Austria Hungry and Germany at the same time.
-
3
-
-
Good so far. One thing that bugs me however. I was blockading Germany and Austria-Hungary at the same time while playing as Britian. I could not force a single battle even when I camped a fleet outside of Wilhelmshaven that was the same size as the one in harbor. The campaign was a 2 year one
-
I'm with Candle 86 on this one. The 80s refit allowed for some pretty modern advancements to the Iowas. If a second, even more modern refit happened the Iowas could I guess get the Aegis system and they would once more become part of a carrier's AA screen as well as a significant ship to shore powerhouse.
(BTW the russians have the Kirov class battlecruisers which played a part in the 80s reactivation of the Iowas.)
-
Yep we need corvettes though I think PT boats are better heirs of torpedo boats than corvettes. And if the Ukraine can last a month from the start of the invasion, I think they win in the long run regardless of actual territorial possessions.
-
1
-
-
Personally I would say torpedo boats continued in use during WWII as PT boats. Basically they are the same thing only PTs would more strictly limited to coastal ops. Both sides made use of them and yes I would push for their addition to the game alongside auxiliary cruisers, corvettes, frigates, monitors and subs
-
1
-
-
This is a good idea. Of course this would mean adding a scuttling option to vessels to prevent this same scenario
-
1
-
-
Two errors i've found.
(1) Ships that i have sunk are reappearing in battle. Now the timeline is long enough that a second vessel might be built and named after the dead one (ie USS Yorktown CV5 and USS Yorktown CV10.) but it doubt it.
(2) Changing torpedoes to anything other than normal rate of fire fails to detonate. The torpedoes hit and go through the target even at point blank.
-
1
-
-
I'm having trouble with the camera. when the cursor enters the area of on screen controls and secondary windows, the camera will not keep on the ship and behave like its on manual override until the cursor moves away.
Refit is also having issues. i can add or remove armor but cannot add say newly gained torpedo protection even iff i have the spare tonnage to pull it off.
-
2
-
-
I'd have to say no to this idea. With diplomacy now being added to the game, it should be considered that the hard level on campaign might start with Washington Treaty style limits in place. Of course after the campaign starts better ships can be designed but one would have to deal with the existing subpar cruisers.
-
4 hours ago, Captain Meow said:
I'm guessing pre-dreadnougth hulls (with respective parts) for Italian & Austria-Hungarian ships?
No. More cruisers and PLEASE something more than one superstructure for light cuisers
-
2
-
-
It's Showtime!
-
Having issues with AIs. any group larger than 3 is prone to having the flagship follow orders and the rest of the group screwing around. If I don't keep an eye on things, I end up with just the flagship with the rest of the group 50 KM away.
-
1
-
-
More dynamic background and storms.
Playable submarines.
Ability to sell or buy ships from allied or friendly nations in campaign mode.
-
5
-
-
I'd support this idea. With campaign mode, monitors and similar vessels could make up costal battleships of some of the smaller nations (Sweden, Finland, Thailand etc.)
-
4
-
-
I'm going with Norbert on this one. A Panzerschiff that makes the Admiral Graff Spree look like an angry lapdog.
-
1
-
-
After study of the battle, guess the shells are 18 inchers from the Yamato. Only the Yamato did not have dye shells. Also the Yamato's third salvo had a shell that, while it did not penetrate the hull, damage the right engine room.
-
Night battles! Link the spotlights to the guns in use. (or if equip with radar, a green outline)
-
3
-
-
Okay getting it on Steam has fixed it.
-
12 hours ago, Ink said:
Did they help to resolve the problem?
No. They just got back to me and said the only handle payment issues. So what files do you need and where do I send them for you guys to find out what this issue is?
From the US Naval Institute ...
in General Discussions
Posted
After the Battle of Port Arthur, Japan began to include preemptive strikes in all war plans. While we can debate the damage that would have been caused, Pearl Harbor would have been subject to a surprise attack by carrier or battleship. Read Seapower in the Pacific by Hector C Bywater. The man clearly predicts many of the opening moves of the Pacific War in the early 20s when carriers were still unproven.