Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Concerned about the game's scope and context

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jatzi said:

I know pocket battleship, semi-dreadnought, semi-battlecruiser are all not actual classifications. But they do represent in-between ships. I mentioned a specific cruiser I made early on in a RTW game as Italy. I was fighting France in like 1905 and couldn't beat their CA's So I made a kind of semi-battlecruiser or pocket battlecruiser. 16k tons, 11 inch main guns, heavy secondary battery of 8 in casemates and 4 in tertiaries. 24 knots with CA armor. It was really just a CA albeit a large and well-armed one especially in this game. In RTW it's less common to have CA's with such  heavy armaments though. But all this and what you said just goes to show that classifications and labels are flexible and not everything is equal. RTW treats all CA's and BB's the same but they aren't. Hopefully this game lets you have more control over the disposition of forces leading up to battles. I'd rather not have a RTW-style battle generator. I know they initially used one, I really hope they've changed it

Fair enough, the devs do seem to already have taken the decision as to what will constitute as CAs, BC, and BBs as they are given as specifically classed hull so my guess is it's not going to be as convoluted as in RTW. CA hull can only use up 11" guns, BC and BB hulls are already uniquely design with their own limitations for said class as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DocHawkeye said:

No. You are saying that. I have made an attempt to correct your misunderstanding and will go no further than that since it is difficult to discern if you are in fact confused or just engaging in bad faith argumentation. You have failed to engage with one single point i've made other than the TDS issue which you are either unable or unwilling get past. I no longer care which. 

I would like it very much if you would leave the topic please. You are being disruptive. 

I thought we were having a good discussion and was trying to explore what reasoning you were giving behind the statement, "Fast Battleships particularly were vessels that sat at endpoints of the trends in warship design of their respective age, and were heavily influenced by the context of factors that are, -presently- outside the scope of the game"

I believed I had shown significant evidence to conclude the fast battleship was not a result of factors not in scope of the game, the only one being aircraft. 

Furthermore, no one has supported your belief regarding this particular subject. 

Your statement above speaks volumes about your character. Everyone has a right to disagree. You could have just left it at that, but instead you feel some kind of entitlement that says you can simply wish away those who don't support your theories. This is an open forum and you posted in it. You have no right to ask anyone to leave or call them disruptive simply because they do not agree with you. With that said, I bid you good luck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 11:59 AM, DocHawkeye said:

but many elements of Fast Battleship design were predicated on concession to the airplane which had been accepted as a new point of pivot in warship design prior to the end of the First World War

@DocHawkeye this is directly from your first post that opened this thread and it clearly shows that you were trying to make a link between the increasing power and importance of naval aviation and the development/design of the fast battleship. Nobody else is trying to connect the rise of naval airpower and battleship design.

Nobody in this thread thus far has been rude or disruptive, and nobody has to engage/discuss all of the points you made. Forums are supposed to be a place where everyone can discuss their differing viewpoints, thoughts for/about the game, propose new ideas and voice any concerns about the game.

Disagreeing with somebody isn't a crime, nor is it "being disruptive." If you feel like somebody doesn't understand what you are trying to say, try rephrasing the question or clarify it as best you can. The fact that you've also said you "don't care anymore" whether certain people don't understand or continue to argue in bad faith tells everyone you either have no patience or you don't want to discuss it further because they disagree with you.

Regardless of who said what or how much our thoughts/opinions differ, if everyone in this thread will continue to be civil and not acting like children (or if you could START being civil and STOP acting childish), I'm fairly certain everyone will appreciate it. Everyone will have differing opinions, and that's OK...either accept it or don't post.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...