JeeWeeJ

Tarskin, on 08 September 2012 - 08:27 PM, said: Go ahead mate ;) I did that for my WoWP planes threads but haven't bothered for WoWS *shrug* Thanks! I added some other pictures as well: http://www.zeeuwse-n...-Provincien.png HNLMS De Ruyter (left) and HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën (right) HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën after her refit with the Terrier missile system HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën as initially built You can find the thread here if interested. :Smile_smile:

L3gi, on 08 September 2012 - 12:56 AM, said: actually the onliest thing ill dislike in WOWS is that these ships will be like useless against the stuff they will bring in for tier 8-10. Also it might not be a good idea to bring such ships for a T4-6 stage, as i think they wont fit properly. Sadly this comes to the conclusion that i doubt that these ships will see WOWS seas at all (goes for WW1 dreadnoughts and battleships /cruisers in general) Personally id prefer this time not just out of personal preference. These ships (1906-1918) would fit the playstyle of WOWS perfectly due to a more accurate seperation in battlefield roles. and a nice stone paper scissor effect (torpedoboat < DD < CL < BC < BB < Torpedoboat(s) ) Actually, the devs have already confirmed that dreadnoughts will be ingame. Heck, excluding them would make it impossible to fill a BB tree from tier 2 to 10. And i disagree with you on the "not fitting" in tier 5 or 6. Yes, tier 6 might be too high, but a Bayern of Ersatz Yorck on tier 5 would do pretty well i think. On the NA forums we have a few threads going speculating about the various shiptrees and in all of them tiers 2 to 5 are filled with dreadnoughts. And personally, i'd love to take a Bayern out and tangle with a Queen Elizabeth or a New Mexico class :Smile_izmena:

Btw Tarskin, would you mind if i share your quite excellent OP on the NA forums? Trying to convince those yanks there that if things ain't dutch, it ain't much. :Smile_playing:

Falathi, on 07 September 2012 - 09:49 AM, said: Speaking of bad ang good things resulting from lack of tradition I`ve read that there was yet another significant difference between the Hochseeflotte and RN and that is preparation for long periods of fleet in being and ways to maintain the morale. The Germans usually tried simply to maintain strict discipline, even if the fleet was in base and there was no need to be constantly alert. Given the fact we are talking about periods lasting for many months this does not seem to be a good idea. The British, on the contrary, were aware it`s good to keep the seamen busy but also provide them with some entertainment and not strict discipline 24/7 I`ve read about it some time ago so I lack detail here except for one case from WWII, but it would be slightly off topic. Well, actually that wouldn't suprise me. The Germans (and the Prussians for that matter) had been expanding their navy very rapidly with only a few minor clashes in the baltic sea. So, yeah, they lacked the experience other seafaring nations had. And overall strict German dicipline and them being confined to port by the British AND their own Kaiser wouldn't have helped a whole lot. (eventually resulting in the mutinies at the end of the war)

[offtopic] Hmm, i see in the "recent developer posts" list that wowpey has replied twice to this topic...but is it just me or are we unable to see them?? I R confused! :Smile_sad: [/offtopic]

Tarskin, on 06 September 2012 - 11:30 AM, said: They better have the correct naval jack tho ;) They're planning on making flags customizable. They didn't say how exactly though...

I'd buy them in a heartbeat. :D

That might work, but will not remove the problem that most countries won't get beyond tier 6 or so. We Dutch are actually quite luckt that we have the 1047 class design which could fit a tier 7 or 8 slot. Spain, Sweden and Finland had coastal defence battleships, but these were no match for a proper BB as they weren't designed for that. And the smaller countries generally focussed more on smaller ships, as they were more cost effective. This makes it quite hard to put them agains heavy cruisers like the Baltimore, Surrey and Mogami classes. Game balance is a [edited] that way. :(

Nice work indeed! And yeah, putting old armored cruisers against heavy cruisers of other nations wouldnt really make sense. And to be fair, i'm kind of glad they're doing seperate lines for eacht type of ship, as there were a lot of really nice ships out there! I'd love to sail around in HMS Dreadnought or SMS Bayern. (Yamato and Iowa are highly overrated IMHO) But still, WG hasn't said that they'll never include ships from smaller nations, so there is still hope. :)

Gigaton, on 05 September 2012 - 03:48 PM, said: She was handled too agressively, IMO. In hindsight, the correct course of action would have been to turn tail and run for it the moment the British ships were spotted. Had the Leanders been correctly identified, that's likely what Langsdorff would have done anyway. There is simply a too large risk for too little potential gain. Problem would be that the Leanders were faster than the Graf Spee, 32 knots vs 28 knots. So, she couldn't run. But i agree, she could have taken on the light cruisers. They scuttled her because the captain was made to believe there was a large RN fleet waiting to destroy his ship.

Tarskin, on 05 September 2012 - 02:56 PM, said: That would imply that there would be no soviet OR german line as they don't have enough classes to get 5+ BB types, CV types and so on (example: Koning class (arguable) -> Bayern class -> Scharnhorst class -> Bismarck class, that's only 4). The only nations in this game would then be the IJN, USN and RN (which i would accept BUT if the devs add a russian navy then they should also consider the dutch navy is my main point). You're forgetting that the Germans and Russians had sizable WW1 fleets AND had quite some ships planned (AKA paper ships) prior to WW2 (the German Plan Z for example). Tiers 2 to 5 or 6 can be filled with WW1 dreadnoughts, of which the Germans had plenty (see my post here on the German WW1 fleet.) Dreadnoughts Nassau class: 4 built Helgoland class: 4 built Kaiser class: 5 built Köning class: 4 built Bayern class: 4 planned, 2 built Battlecruisers Von der Tann class: 1 built Moltke class: 2 built Seydlitz class: 1 built Derfflinger class: 3 built That's 9 classes to choose from, and please don't underestimate the power of a dreadnought. HMS Warspite, HMS Revenge and USS Texas proved the power of those beasts in WW2. Then you have the Scharnhorst class BC, Bismarck class and the H classes. And you could fit in a O class BC somewhere in between. Only difficulty with the German tree are the CV's. The Soviet BB and CA/CL lines can also be filled like this, with once again the CV tree being the point of difficulty. Anyway, back on topic: unless someone at the MoD has some Dutch CA, BB and CV designs in a drawer somewhere, we won't get our own shiptree very soon. Our only hope would be to have some ships included with another nation (with the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy being the only realistic options) or a getting a multinational line. And if you want to blame someone, blame the pacifist movement in the 30's. ;)

Tarskin, on 05 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said: @JeeWeeJ I completely disagree with the RNN being too small (i'm including a list of ships in use at the outbreak of WW2 below here, NOT including the Colonial Navy) and disagree even more with being part of the german tree for obvious reasons o.O I am fully aware of what the Dutch navy had, but as WoWs will only include DD,CL,CA,BB/BC and CV classes, you can ignore roughly 80% of your list. Of that, the 1913 dreadnoughts would be roughly equal to a tier 2 or 3 ships of other nations as they have a severe lack of armor, the 1047 class BC would be equal to a roughly tier 7 Scharnhorst class and the cruisers would reach tier 6...AT BEST! So that leaves us with a severe lack of usable shipclasses and of the classes we do have, most of them are severely underpowered (as we Dutch tend to spend money on EVERYTHING except on our navy). I don't know if you follow the NA forums, but there the devs have stated that for a nation to be included, it must have enough ships to fill at least the BB, CL/CA and CV trees. And as much as i love our RNN, it just cannot do that.

Just suggested this on the NA forums, but as the RNN is too small to be a nation on its own, the Eendracht class could be included in the German tree, just like the Gerard Callenburgh destroyers. As the Germans really did try to complete the cruisers and they finished and used Hr. Ms. Gerard Callenburgh as destroyer ZH1. If the Germans can use French and Czech tanks in WoT, they can use Dutch ships in WoWs! ;)

Nice boat...but shouldnt this be in the WW1 section? ;)

Schultz, on 28 August 2012 - 06:24 PM, said: You are forgetting one crucial thing. Torpedoes in WW1 weren't so reliable, there were a lot of duds, that's why submarines used deck guns instead of torpedoes. Indeed, that and that subs had very few spare torps they could carry with them. But, reliable or not, that had hardly any impact on the threat a torpedo represented for surface ships.

Well, to be honest, i think it was right for admirals to fear torpedoes. Remember, most ships didnt even have any form of torpedo protection. If a destroyer wasnt destroyed before it launched its torpedoes, all one could do was take evasive actions and pray. As only one good torpedo hit was enough to sink a dreadnought. (WW2 warships were a lot harder to sink with torpedoes due to better torpedo defences) If i were a WW1 admiral and i saw a fleet of torpedo wielding destroyers running towards my dreadnoughts at full speed, i'd be worried! Especially when taking into concideration that those dreads were hideously expensive to build. So, yes, DD's were pretty effective in WW1. They may not have seen as much action as in WW2, but i think they were a bigger threat to capital ships in WW1 than they were in WW2.

Boneripper, on 28 August 2012 - 01:55 PM, said: The fear of torpedoes in the early years were perhaps a bit exaggerated The Austro-Hungarian dreadnought SMS Szent István might disagree with you... ;)

salvoe444, on 28 August 2012 - 11:20 AM, said: Hi all. I'm a newcomer in Navy history and ship tech. My question is: why, in your opinion , italians engineers did projects of warships for Russia before WWII ? Simple business or premonitory partner-ship ? Simple business. Just like the Brits and Germans were building (or designing) ships for other countries.

Well, here in the Netherlands they are rebuilding old ships. They've complete the Batavia and are now working on a replica of De Zeven Provinciën Also, in the US they have the USS Constitution if i'm correct.

Tuccy, on 28 August 2012 - 08:26 AM, said: Generally German navy had some very good technical solutions (due to lack of the burden of traditions) and as for training, I think it didn't have that much deficit in technical tasks/ships control in combat. However (during WWII at least) commanders often were not as aggressive or decisive as they should (pressing attacks home etc.) and sometimes the seamanship slacked a bit (Personally I think that if Bismarck was RN or USN ship in the same situation, commander would not hesitate to try to use explosives, as was suggested, risking damage for a chance to get underway). That is where the tradition often had good influence. All in all the designs were optimised for North Sea and one specific opponent, and guns were superb - RN could have heavier broadside, but AFAIK had more trouble with shells shattering on armor. And of course where Brits had huge deficits were ammo handling procedures. Yeah, the only experience they had was from the Royal Prussian navy, but even that experience was limited. However, if you concider what they managed to do with what they had, its hard not to be impressed no matter what happened in the end. They scared the hell out of the Royal Navy, not many navies had managed to do that. (only the Dutch and French navies come to mind, the Spanish were done after losing their armada)

Tuccy, on 27 August 2012 - 02:09 PM, said: The proposed upgrade (change of 9x28cm for 6x 38cm) would have been interesting. Yup, they would have the same guns as the Bismarck, and the 11" turrets would be used for the P class heavy cruisers....but all that didnt happen...

Wow, nice boat! Funny though, how (just like the soviet Project 24) the size of the ship increases, but the weapon loadout stays more or less the same.

Sgt_Bones, on 27 August 2012 - 12:36 PM, said: Well see, that is where the "Technical edge" was displayed by the Japanese, especially in the Cruiser Department. They were faster, burned oil instead of coal, and had Big guns instead lots of middle sized ones. Of course, most assuredly the training of the Japanese at that time, not to mention the Discipline that they had, helped quite a bit! But as you even say yourself, the "go big guns" made such an impact that the HMS Dreadnought was built based on the occurrences during the Russo Japanese war. This was observed by almost every major naval power at the time, the Germans, British, French and Americans all had observers on the ground and at sea during this war, technically they saw all the mistakes that they themselves then proceeded to make during WW1 back then in 1905! Simple things like the Fast Big Guns ship concept, barbed wire and trench warfare, even machine guns. Yet all these nations made the same mistakes during the Great War due to "Tradition" and or "Politics". Oh well! Lol, dont get me started about the madness of trench warfare. I've got a book here which quotes a British general, saying that it would be madness to go to peacetalks and end the war in a peacefull way, because then the thousands of men that died the last few days would have died for nothing. And wa cant have that, now can we? (note: they died for gaining a few meters of mud...at most)

shnbwmn, on 26 August 2012 - 07:34 PM, said: We were all added automatically from the WoWp forum. I was told by someone that this forum was up, and low and behold I was already signed up along with 4 million other people. Better yet, if you've got a WoT account it transferred here aswel. :)

Sgt_Bones, on 26 August 2012 - 07:50 PM, said: Of course, I will admit to being biased towards this somewhat forgotten time frame and battles, since I wrote my Finals Paper in Mil-Hist. on this subject when I was in college in 1983.(which was quite good, got an A+ "Wow, I didn't know all that" from my Professor) To see the ships of that era, if possible, come to life in a game is very interesting to me...especially in a game such as I hope this one will become, because frankly, the current examples such as "Distant Guns" are somewhat ....boring. And these ships, and this time frame were instrumental in making great changes in all naval fleets throughout the world. It should not be forgotten. I'm with you on that one! But even though i'd love to see pre-dreads ingame, i think that they'll be quickly overpowered by a T3 dreadnought...which is faster, probably better armored AND has more big guns! Thats a game balancing nightmare right there. :( Maybe as a low tier premium vessel? Tuccy, on 26 August 2012 - 08:12 PM, said: Dunno but most things I read put top Russian ships technically and technologically on par with the Japanese, the edge being in superior training, tactics and leadership of the IJN (and a lesson being that mid caliber armament was not worth its weight -> go "big guns" and "anti-torpedo-boat guns", ie Dreadnought). I may be mistaken though :) Yeah, the Japanese had the advantage in that battle. I even believe the Russians outnumbered the Japanese? (could be wrong here)