Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

RAMJB

Tester
  • Content Count

    1,023
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

RAMJB last won the day on February 2

RAMJB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,367 Excellent

2 Followers

About RAMJB

  • Rank
    Admiralty Correspondent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,412 profile views
  1. by that standard, neither is any of the (slavist) founding fathers of the USA. So by that standard of "removing stuff that doesn't show the ugly side", and by order of historical events, you should begin by changing your nation capital's name (and a state. And literally thousands of school names) for something else, as is named after a well known historical slave owner yet your federal capital and one of your states doesn't mention that fact about Washington.. Doesn't sound that enticing now, does it?. Of course it doesn't, because there's virtually no historical figure without a side that
  2. Well I don't really count the combined triple expansion/Turbine ships as "combined powerplant" per se, though of course nominally it is. Both are steam powered powerplants in essence, then the actual machinery that converts the steam power into mechanic energy is different, but at the core the principle is the same. Use boilers to create steam, use steam to create power. I mean by that standard even "normal" turbine powerplants would be combined ones ,as some shafts would be ran by high pressure turbines and some others by low pressure ones...yet in the end they're not combined powerplants at
  3. As Reaper Jack mentioned, the Deutschlands were diesel powered large warships, and actually historically significant enough as to make the inclusion of diesel as an option mandatory (if it was missing there'd be legion of people demanding the option to use diesels ;)). And of course the "H" battleships were never completed but they had been laid down by the beginning of the war, and they were diesel powered too. A significant number of large merchant ships used during WW2 used diesel propulsion aswell. Understandable, as the main advantage of a diesel powerplant was mostly range. In fact th
  4. The first use of marine gas turbines (and in the meantime combined propulsion) in a proper warship (as opposed to a small canoe) was a 1960s british frigate. that a small Motor Gun Boat did test the propulsion as a proof of concept in the late 1940s changes nothing. Turbinia tested steam turbines in 1895 and nobody will demand steam turbines in the tech trees by that date, because they didn't become a thing for larger ships until 11 years later (and then only because Dreadnought was so rushed). same thing here. Gas turbines might have been present in very small ship testbeds in the late
  5. Those are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay post-battleship era technologies.
  6. They're not ships with 500mm of belt armor. They're ships with the equivalent protection level as 500mm of belt armor of the most basic type would provide compared with the (much thinner) actual plate of a much better armor quality you're using. Completely different things, they do make sense, and they're neither unbalanced nor unhistoric. Historically there were huge leaps of protection quality each time a new advance in armor technology was achieved. to put it in perspective: In a period of less than 15 years you went from battleships with 18 inches of belt armor to ships with belts of
  7. One of the things that was keeping me from making videos of the game was the fix to the excessive speeds (not to mention, at far too early stages) that you saw in the battles. Good news indeed, was really needed ;). The other thing that's keeping me from making videos of the game is that there's no news about an overhaul of the armor layout system that produces ships were, for instance, the "armor belt" of the designer might aswell be swapped by "hull armor", magazines aren't always covered by your thickest armor, and has the effect of making the armored ends of ships so unrealisticall
  8. Circunstancial. Registered and confirmed torpedo hits on Bismarck were three aerial torpedoes from Swordfish planes, and couple from Dorsetshire when she was on her last gasps and sinking. Rodney claimed a torpedo hit on Bismarck, but this was never confirmed and most sources consider it highly unlikely. Now, two of the three aerial torpedo hits did strike Bismarck's TDS and the TDS contained the blasts. Nothing inordinarily unexpected here, Swordfish torpedoes were 18'' units with quite small warheads and extremely limited ability to do much to any modern battleship TDS other than causi
  9. Yet there are multiple instances of big battleships ordering the flooding of their own magazines to cancel out the danger of a magazine going off due to a torpedo impact. One famous instance was Scharnhorst when she was hit by Acasta; the blast not only caused extensive flooding but jammed Caesar and produced a lot of smoke. The crew feared something had caught fire and the order was issued to preventively flood the turret's magazine because of the risk of detonation. Though it was reversed shortly thereafter when it was certified no fire was ongoing. Unlike many opinions seen around h
  10. My 18pdr standard is for for lategame (last couple american independence chapters). By midgame (anytime before that) 12pdrs are plenty powerful to get things done with no big sweat, giving you plenty of time to access Industry 3. I personally never found myself feeling I needed them sooner. As for not standing a chance against a 3rd rate with 12 pdrs alone....even 9pdr desaguliers do a number on them if hitting those things from the rear. Which should be your focus, pin the rate (wishfully pointed upwind) with your biggest strongest frigate firing canister to his decks from his bro
  11. 1 - No. Usually being upwind is a big bonus. You control the distance of the engagement (enemy can't come upwind for you), you control the moment you want to move in for a boarding (it's really hard to close in with an enemy upwind from you). Add to that that if you're downwind the wind lists your ship away from the enemy, and you're showing a lot more lower hull to the enemy, which if impacted will cause serious flooding once the list recedes. Not sure if this last one is implemented in the game, though. Being downwind has a place - when you're trying to run away from the enemy. Other than
  12. It's intentional. Ardent's lower decks don't have the weigh allowance to load standard iron 32pdr guns. Too heavy for the deck. Brass you can (most optimal choice imo), so you can congreves and carronades (both too limited to be the most powerful deck of a 3rd rate). I think that it can load the french guns is an oversight nor a bug - those are heavy as heck and it shouldn't be possible to mount them in there. Keep in mind the Ardent is in there to represent the old 68 gun 3rd rate, which was pretty much rendered obsolete by the brand new 74 gun classes (the ones represented by Bellona). Th
  13. Well, yes, they're unlocked through the Industry III tech. But it has nothing to do with the Congreve guns at all, that was my point.
  14. Upper deck: 6pdr long (Desagulliers). Lower deck: 18pdr Brass (Woolwhich) 6th rates get 9pdr longs. Those gun's penetration is no joke, and the range is very helpful at the time of taking rake shots on bigger ships while keeping a reasonable security range. With second tier of carriages you get more than enough weight for a couple good upgrades (I usually go with copper hull and reload) and a good number on sailors on almost all 5th rates. A handful of those alongside your 6th rates is far more than enough to blast the rear end of that 3rd rate until it's boardable. You don't need cong
  15. And I'll have to insist that it makes little difference. One year before two fully combat ready german battleships had faced two assaulting british destroyers and took their merry time in sinking them both. In plain daylight and clear skies, and after having hit a carrier from 23km of distance (meaning, they were on top of their game), the encounter took hours before those ships were sunk, and not before some pretty damaging torpedo hits had happened. I don't see why Bismarck would've fared much better alone vs four, be it at day or night. But that's besides the point: DDs weren't easy ta
×
×
  • Create New...