Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, perhaps the most important thing that the SE4 combat model lacks is "lucky" shots that rip through a ship causing a chain reaction of massive damage. Sort of a rare, but not impossible, equalizer for large ships that would otherwise be nearly impossible to destroy with a small ship.

On the other hand, a few small ships can whittle down a large ship given enough opprotunity -- I suppose it's just a model anyway.

[EDIT]
WTH? How did that quadruple post happen? Sorry guys.

[ June 23, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. It makes fighters too powerful, so much that they overpower ships in the same way that ships overpower fighters in the unmodded game.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Point defence beams (not point defence cannons !) is a nice anti-fighter weapon. Also, did you try point-defence mounts if enemy using fighters ?

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you give fighters a good defensive bonus, a ship's main guns may still fire at them but they won't hit all that often. I like that model because it simulates the low traverse speeds on the main guns, it makes fighters hard to hit but not impossible.

PDCs have in-built offensive bonuses to simulate the fact that they can track fighters better than the main guns, that's why they hit so often.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Posted by Soulfisher :

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's hard to say. Damage is just one variable, there's also range, seeker speed, rate of fire and the size of the launcher component (which determines how many of them you can load onto a fighter design). In the Star Wars mod, a basic proton torpedo (quite devastating, BTW) has speed 6, range 8, damage 40, reload 3. I suggest you use that as a starting point, then adjust until you reach the effect you want.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The ballistics of German navel rifles would dictate that the Hood was struck from a high angle if the damage was done by a 15 inch shell. If the end was caused by smaller shells, then the angle could have been less, but still a plunging hit. The design of the Hood offered little protection from 8 and 15 inch shells, and with the equipment the Germans had, an early hit was almost a given. There are many ideas about how the ship was killed; one even lays the blame on the reverse slope of the inner armor. But based on the reports from German survivors, it would appear that two 15 inch shells penetrated into the engineering spaces where the bLast compromised the thin bulkhead separating the rear main armament magazine from the engineering area.

The reason for this being the most likely case is the rapid sinking of the ship. A bLast from this type of hit would have vented from the rear of the ship forward, through the already damaged bulkhead, compromising the interior water tight compartments and lifting the lightly built deck above the engineering spaces. The hull, which was known to be under excessive stress in this area, would have been unable to remain intact with out the bracing of the deck structure.

The point here is that the Hood was not able to stand against ships of its own class, and was hard pressed against lesser ships. This should have been known by the Admiralty. The Hood should have been under orders to shadow and refuse engagement. To allow it to open a long range gun fight with a ship in the class of Bismarck was criminal. The fire control system on Hood was dismal by the standards of the day, and without armor to protect it while the layers probed for their targets, the outcome was an engineering given. And while the silver screen has given the impression that the situation was critical, this was not really the case. So long as the location of the Bismarck was known, the problem was manageable. IMHO, the reason for the Battle of the Denmark Strait was political, not strategic.

The Hood would have been more suited to hunting commerce raiders in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, where its vulnerabilities would have been less of a problem. Its speed would have offered more protection against the German raiders. But there were two reasons this was not feasible. The first is that the ship had become the unofficial champion of the fleet. This was because of it speed, gun power, and the fact that it was a damn good looking ship. This was something that the popular press made good use of. This also all but dictated that the ship would be part of the home fleet. The second reason was a result of its construction. Laid down during WW I, the ship was redesigned while under construction, an error often made during war time. And it also had many state-of-the-art systems, which were also untested and not quite mature in their design. The break downs and structural problems that resulted from this required the ship to be under repair more often than not. In fact, the ship was under repair at the time it sailed in pursuit of the Bismarck! The need for frequent yard work would also have required that the ship remain close to the yards that could keep her sea worthy.

Here are a couple of links that provide some of the specs and basic conclusions that are plausible in the sinking.
http://www.warships1.com/BRbc15_Hood_loss.htm http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm


One point that should be made here is that the big gun ship was probably obsolete at the time the Hood was laid down. During WW II, most capital ship engagements resulted in both side retiring after sustaining much damage, echoing the results of Jutland. Had the Allies spent a few dollars on torpedoes and developed an equal of the 21” Long lance, the situation would not have been so critical. But only the Japanese had the foresight to develop a torpedo that could be launched from outside the range of 15” guns.

As to the quality of British carrier aircraft at the start of the war, I am speechless. “Were they stupid?” is all that comes to mind. The planes of the U S Navy, while a generation newer, were not a lot better. But at least the U S was developing better designs, which would have been with the fleet had America entered the war in late 42 early 43 as was the plan. The Japanese planes were not a lot better, contrary to popular belief. But their pilots and navigators were very well trained. And this made a difference in the early going. But later, they paid for the shortcomings of the aircraft with their lives.

If one takes a look at Navel combat from Jutland to the end of WW II, there is one repeating item that sticks out. Quite often the need to limit damage to the capital ships has prevented the victor from gaining a substantial victory. If the weapon itself is not expendable, then its value is greatly limited. There are a few cases were luck played a role, and two cases where loss of tactical control allows for victories. But in most battles, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory due to the need to preserve the capitol ships.

In all fairness, I should mention that both America and Japan managed to produce Battleships that were able to stand against almost anything that could be thrown against them. But the combined war records of these ships do not justify the fuel cost to operate them, let alone the production cost. Japan was not willing to risk theirs until the end was near, and America’s super battleships did most of their fighting as artillery and AA platforms. What would have been the Last big gun fight of the war turned out to be a daring gambit by the Japanese. And they could have won a small victory if they had been willing to risk their capital ships and see the fight through to the end.

Now to address the game we all love to play, I think that the fighter needs a bigger punch. I also think that PDC need to be limited in their ability to engage large numbers of targets. The way the game is now, it is very hard to saturate the PDC abilities of a fleet. Fighters should be able to follow the Soviet tactic of launching swarms of stand off weapons that would penetrate defenses due to shear weight of numbers. Perhaps there should be a larger fighter/bomber that could carry these weapons from planets only. I also think that a fleet without fighters should be vulnerable to fighters with stand off weapons. If any of you have played Fleet Command, then you will know the difficulty of defending against mass missile attacks. This is an imbalance in SE4.

[ June 21, 2003, 20:44: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. Whereas the Kriegsmarine had strict instructions not to risk their heavy ships, the Royal Navy's spirit was to attack, even in unfavourable circumstances. This was partly due to the Germans being out-numbered, partly due to the traditions of the two navies. Control of the sea was more important to the British than the Germans.

I must point out that the situation was pretty critical. The shadowing cruisers lost contact with Bismarck shortly before the Denmark Strait battle and did so again a few days later. The second time that she disappeared off the radar screens, she didn't reappear. Naval radar was still in its infancy, and the cruisers couldn't shadow her visually for obvious reasons.

As contact could have been lost at any time, it was imperative that Bismarck was enaged quickly. Having her roaming the Atlantic was not an option, as it meant suspending the convoy operations without which Britain would quickly run out of various supplies (which of course was the aim of Bismarck's voyage).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In 1916? That's just silly! Even in WWII the big gun warship wasn't obsolete, although it was frequently mis-used by people who believed it was (especially by the Japanese).

Note that had the Japanese decided to use their battleships properly, their American counterparts would have led much more interesting (=useful?) lives. At Midway, what if Admiral Yamamoto (who was air-minded to say the least) had placed his array of battleships in the van rather than hundreds of miles behind his carriers? The US carrier force would not have been able to sink all nine, hold the island and defeat the four Japanese carriers without significant battleship support.

After Midway, the US fast battleships were recalled from the Atlantic and added to the carrier task forces.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Between the wars, the RAF top brass believed that they needed lots of heavy bombers and refused to allocate much funding to the Fleet Air Arm. Something similar happened in Germany - even had they finished their carrier(s) it's unlikely Goering would have furnished the Kriegsmarine with any aircraft. Inter-service rivalry was a sad fact of life.

The result was that the Swordfish aircraft that attacked the Bismarck and the Italian fleet at Taranto were slow bi-planes that wouldn't have looked out of place in WWI. In fact, it's said that the Bismarck's gunners couldn't hit the Swordfish as they were flying so slowly the gunners couldn't calculate the proper lead required*.

Although British designs improved during the war, the Fleet Air Arm was eventually equipped with American planes.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree. I'd like to see fighters armed with seeking weapons whose range is long enough to allow them to attack a target from outside it's anti-fighter defences, but is short-ranged enough to make the attacking fighters vulnerable to defending fighters/escort ships.

But if you mod a fighter-launched missile, the ship under attack can simply move out of range once it's been fired. If the game had a setting, Seekers move immediately after being fired := True/False, I think I'd actually sit down and try to write a mod rather than just think about it.

* disclaimer - might not be true.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can make a fighter have a much higher fighter targeting priority to do this. It does work fairly well -- the fighters swarm around the enemy fighters and knock lots of them out -- they don't get a to hit bonus for their specialization, but they do have the defence bonus, and they mill around, blocking the other fighters.

This is standrd SE4, you could always mod anti-fighter weapons. Proprotions already has serious to hit bonuses for fighters.

[ June 23, 2003, 16:50: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The old Crossover mod had fighters with up to a 90% defense bonus. Non-PDC weapons have a hard time hitting those fighters, especially if they keep their distance.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

How about fighters equiped with "Target Type: Fighter" PDC's? I've wondered whether that would be effective.