New Base

[321BAR]

Just what we need - Battleships. The ability to fire a projectile that weighs more than Volkswagen in excess of 30 miles.

oh, in your reading your original post - you mentioned 13-20" shells...

Pray tell, what WW2 battleships had 13" or 20" guns?

14", 15", 16", or 18" - those are your choices.

US Fast Battleships carried 16"/50 cal (Iowa) and 16"/45 (SoDak & Washington)
KGV Class (Prince of Whales, KGV, Anson and Howe were all the same class), 14"/45
Kongo (and her sisters Kirishima, Hiei, and Haruna) 14"/45
Yamato - 18" guns

If you're lucky enough to get a US Battleship, in one single vessel you carry more AA guns than an entire CV group. Add to that the DDs required to protect it, and you have a virtually indestructible wall of ack.

Sorry - nope.

If you want to wish for a useful ship to add to the game, ask for an LST.

so youre saying something that would increase teamwork and strategy shouldnt be added to the game?

[JHerne]

I'm all for introducing things to the game that will improve the gameplay, strategy, etc.... What I'm saying is that we have enough trouble dealing with the 8" gun CAs.

So instead of dealing with an 8" gun ship we now have to deal with a 16" gun ship, capable of doing even greater amounts of damage, from considerably farther away? If you take into consideration firing at anything beyond the range of the existing optics, that means revamping the graphics to see the target beyond the ranges we currently have. Or, it means developing a radar-directed fire control system, which would be a completely new development to the game, unless you adapt the land mode we currently use to blind fire at a square on the map.

A 16" gun strike to a CV would effectively kill it, one shot.

And don't base it on the premise that a 16" round is twice as deadly as an 8" round. They're not. If I were to do the math, I'd figure somewhere in the range of 20-25 times more lethal when you consider ballastics, trajectory, penetration data, etc. Iowa throws a shell that weighs 2700lbs. The average 8" shell is somewhere in the range of 85-100lbs depending on the type. A broadside from an Iowa is 17,600lbs of shell. How many pounds of bombs does it take to kill a CV?

Ya see where I'm coming from?

[Rino]

add u boats and midget subs to destrop cvs and crusiers

     I'd like to see the midget sub that could keep up with our task forces 

[Void]

Never wanted an iowa. And most likely a 8" volley would all impact the ship. That's 24inches laid into a ship. As for a Kongo, 1 gun has 2 barrels and whe greater the distance the less accurate it will get. If the battleship gets closer it might be screwed because of all the bombers that left as soon as a base gets attacked. Plus the BBs or CAs will get a chance to hunt hiding CVs without having to sacrifice another CV group to find them.

[321BAR]

I'm all for introducing things to the game that will improve the gameplay, strategy, etc.... What I'm saying is that we have enough trouble dealing with the 8" gun CAs.

So instead of dealing with an 8" gun ship we now have to deal with a 16" gun ship, capable of doing even greater amounts of damage, from considerably farther away? If you take into consideration firing at anything beyond the range of the existing optics, that means revamping the graphics to see the target beyond the ranges we currently have. Or, it means developing a radar-directed fire control system, which would be a completely new development to the game, unless you adapt the land mode we currently use to blind fire at a square on the map.

A 16" gun strike to a CV would effectively kill it, one shot.

And don't base it on the premise that a 16" round is twice as deadly as an 8" round. They're not. If I were to do the math, I'd figure somewhere in the range of 20-25 times more lethal when you consider ballastics, trajectory, penetration data, etc. Iowa throws a shell that weighs 2700lbs. The average 8" shell is somewhere in the range of 85-100lbs depending on the type. A broadside from an Iowa is 17,600lbs of shell. How many pounds of bombs does it take to kill a CV?

Ya see where I'm coming from?

suddenly theres a reason to put in assault groups and CV groups to separate between the two CV groups stay to sea to protect the big gun assault ships and landing craft... so you'll never see a BB in the TGs with the CVs but you will see cruisers

[JHerne]

I agree with ya there, 110%. If we were to get an amphibious group, one of the old 14" gun BBs would be great. Sure, it would create total havoc on a town, but obviously it'd have to be neutered in some fashion, maybe 2 turrets of 2 guns each, something like that.

Someone else posted up in another thread, which I thought was a good idea, about freighters doubling as ord bunkers, tankers as fuel bunkers, a troop transport as barracks, and LSTs as the VH, etc.

J

[321BAR]

I agree with ya there, 110%. If we were to get an amphibious group, one of the old 14" gun BBs would be great. Sure, it would create total havoc on a town, but obviously it'd have to be neutered in some fashion, maybe 2 turrets of 2 guns each, something like that.

Someone else posted up in another thread, which I thought was a good idea, about freighters doubling as ord bunkers, tankers as fuel bunkers, a troop transport as barracks, and LSTs as the VH, etc.

J

[Avanti]

what about the bismarck?

EDIT: spelling error corrected

[JHerne]

Its all the same.

Bismarck was famous for two things - sinking HMS Hood, pounding HMS Prince of Wales (or Whales as it was written earlier  ), then being gang-banged by 2/3 of the Royal Navy.

If you're going to implement a battleship, it'd best be a ship (or representative of the class) that had some history. Tirpitz would be the same - she did sortie against convoys, but her most-famous photo is of her ass-up in fiord near Trondheim.


If we were to get a BB, it would most likely end up being USN. Although there's no logical reasoning for it to be anything else, all of the ships that are currently in-game are US representations.

[Void]

I spelled Wales wrong. Big deal.