Jump to content

NobleSauvage

Players
  • Content Сount

    301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

About NobleSauvage

  • Rank
    Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

121 profile views
  1. NobleSauvage

    When will you fix ramming?

    @T0byJug Can't seem to quote your post directly, but how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine) (this one was a submarine!)
  2. NobleSauvage

    When will you fix ramming?

    Specifically it was here (one of my favourite episodes in naval history, although it doesn't fill me with confidence for grinding the Italian cruisers! ): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1866)
  3. NobleSauvage

    When will you fix ramming?

    Did you? Because it has this to say about the topic: "In World War II, naval ships often rammed other vessels, though this was often due to circumstances, as considerable damage could be caused to the attacking ship. The damage that lightly constructed destroyers took from the tactic led to it being officially discouraged by the Royal Navy from early 1943, after HMS Hesperus was dry-docked for three months following sinking U-357 in December 1942 and HMS Harvester was torpedoed and sunk following damaging her propellers during the ramming of U-444 in March 1943. USS Buckley rammed U-66; and HMS Easton rammed U-458." (Strikethrough is mine to correct the usual poorly-sourced Wiki hyperbole.) A better link would have been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_ram#Twentieth_century which again attests to the impromptu nature of ramming as a tactic, as I indicated. As someone who has read quite a bit on naval architecture, I would be most interested to hear of any sources you have that attest to any destroyers and/or submarines being 'specifically equipped for ramming as a battle tactic'. As regards the general topic though, ramming is currently enough of a marginal occurrence that it wouldn't seem to warrant the extra calculations required, certainly not on the same scale as something like shell penetration which already takes the factors mentioned into account. Of course with submarines that may change, but the rule of 'the smaller ship goes boom and a greater or lesser amount of damage is inflicted on the larger ship' would seem to cover that anyway. Now I'd really like to hear about your sources...
  4. NobleSauvage

    When will you fix ramming?

    Fixed it for you
  5. NobleSauvage

    Friendly AI Torpedo Suicides.

    Never overestimate the abilities of a Co-op bot...
  6. NobleSauvage

    Naval Legends: Battleship Bismarck – Trailer

    Respectfully, the first part of your statement there is pretty far-fetched: there's no way anyone could have known how the Hood/Bismarck encounter was going to go before she'd even left port. Yes, the Hood had thin deck armour by the standards of the day; yes, the admiralty were planning on refitting her as soon as funds, space and circumstances would allow; but to assume that she was automatically a write-off against Bismarck is pretty over-the-top. For a start, she had the same number and calibre of guns (with modern shells to boot, no more Jutland shatters), secondly in places her armour belt was thicker than Bismarck's was. The shell hitting her magazine (which have their own armour systems by the way, it's not just the deck keeping the weather out) was sheer bad (or good, from the other point of view) luck that would have done for significantly better-protected ships just as well. Again, no disrespect intended but it's really quite easy to tell the difference in the majority of cases, particularly with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau: they were battleships (as they were in fact referred to when entering service) that happened to have smaller guns than other battleships; renaming them to battlecruisers might have been a sop to Hitler's ego (because of their teeny weeny guns compared to all the other battleships of the world), but it didn't make it so. Similarly the RN always called Hood a battlecruiser, and put her in the battlecruiser squadron: doesn't change the fact that her protection scheme and armament was an improvement on the Queen Elizabeths and thus with her substantially improved propulsion machinery she was a fast battleship (unless you consider the QEs to be battlecruisers as well, I suppose). Of course if you're wanting to talk marginal cases, Renown might be a better candidate as she was (ultimately) much closer to the border between the two types. A battlecruiser is a ship with battleship guns, notionally more speed, but less than battleship levels of armour; it's not just a fast battleship and it's not a battleship with smaller-than-average guns. If you want to go into grey areas then exactly what constitutes 'battleship levels of armour' is probably a good one, but I'd imagine that any and all navies of the period probably had their own definitions (possibly to do with simple maximum main belt thickness or ratio of armour against total tonnage, something along those lines). The point is, these were defined terms and not mystical titles conferred by secret and arcane rituals (unlike 'Commodore', or 'Prime Minister'...). Now there's something I'll wholeheartedly support, it's only common sense to wear protection against premature explosions
  7. NobleSauvage

    Adjust Final BoT Assault In Newport Ops Pls

    Could have been worse, someone might have fished Commander Jenkins out of whichever part of the bay in Killer Whale he last went down in and given him a new destroyer Also: A friendly AI Carrier? In this day and age? With theirrrr reputation? Wow, my most sincere commiserations! Three destroyers in a team is a bad sight at the beginning of any Op., let alone Newport. I know there are people who stand by them, but I seriously doubt anyone that good couldn't do better in a suitably similarly-handling cruiser (like, say, Leander).
  8. NobleSauvage

    Adjust Final BoT Assault In Newport Ops Pls

    I'd never pieced together the Furious/Titanic bow similarity before, but you're spot on! Also, was thinking the other day while looking at one of those Trophy camos that were given out recently with a mission, which are just a kind of forest-green all over the ship (not sure what that has to do with trophies but there we are): it would be awesome to have the option of just changing ships' skins for a different single-colour all-over one , not to provide any bonuses or anything like a true camo but just as a cosmetic customisability option. This is it, with other Ops you can afford to have to carry a couple of team members along, possibly even all of them if one person is good enough and knows the Op.; in Newport, everyone has to carry for virtually the whole time...
  9. NobleSauvage

    Adjust Final BoT Assault In Newport Ops Pls

    That's pretty... Differently competent, even for current times (I've actually lost almost half the Co-op battles I've played in T5s this last week when the team has been a T4/5 mix, although at least some of those were down to the green team being largely made up of bots for some strange reason, and I'd like to think it wasn't just down to my own rank incompetence). Still, kinda goes to show that the scenario just isn't as intuitively constructed as it should be.
  10. NobleSauvage

    Providing Feedback - A Poll

    There's no option for Ops in question 5, which is the one I would have picked if it were there; there are quite a few grievances relating to that mode at the moment.
  11. NobleSauvage

    Adjust Final BoT Assault In Newport Ops Pls

    There's no quick fix for Newport, the problem is with the makeup of the mission itself rather than any individual part of it. Other missions let you take chances and play creatively to come up with clever new tactics, Newport just crushes you for making mistakes. The way it's structured, you're just doing the same thing from start to finish: find somewhere to hide/shelter/steam around defensively, and try to keep firing as fast as your guns will load for fear of being overwhelmed. If just one part of the mission was that (like in Narai for example), it would be a fast and frenzied segment that people could look forward to as something different and intense; making it the whole mission means everyone burns out from the strain and gets swamped, often far before the end. It might be good for example if the defence part of the mission was at the start, followed by the team having to cheese it to an exit anchor perhaps with the support ships in tow; that way players could get to visit the other three quarters of the map for a change, if nothing else! Oh, and don't speak of the spreadsh**t! It might hear you, and send its minions to pay the thread a visit...
  12. NobleSauvage

    PTS redesigned Combat Missions tab and mission tracking

    To be fair, the current game client UI feels horribly sticky, clunky and filled with redundancies; anything that streamlines it can only be a good thing. It does seem that it might be harder to take in missions at a glance with the new system, but loading the various tabs or waiting for the floating info boxes with the current one is sometimes a frustrating experience, so will have to see; agreed that the post-mission icons are rather charmless, but if they're designed to show off the reward of the mission they're representing then that's a neat touch.
  13. NobleSauvage

    WoWS Warhammer Collab

    And MOAR DAKKA as well if we're honest, but clearly they only just looted it and haven't had time to take proper measures yet ;)
  14. NobleSauvage

    WoWS Warhammer Collab

    Now that's an Ork ship!
  15. NobleSauvage

    WoWS Warhammer Collab

    Good points, but the ships have unique names; wouldn't that tend to indicate it's just the two of them (that we've seen so far at least)? Also I figured out what the did wrong: didn't use a black basecoat, so all the colours are too bright and cartoony
×