Artruis

post war fleet balance issue

378 posts in this topic

Well it's unfair to say the Yamato was blatantly superior just because game mechanics force us into unrealistic, ahistorical scenarios, isn't it?


No. Considering we are taking about their game prospects it makes perfect sense to compare the two in the way I am. That is what the aim of this topic was.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the Yamato class was actually part of the same construction era as the North Carolina, King George V, etc, I think it's rather unfair to put it on par with the Montana, a ship that was designed (as best the Americans could with limited intelligence on Yamato's capabilities) to counter it.  The reason Yamato was so much stronger was that it didn't have to even potentially abide by the 1936 Second London Naval treaty.  The Montana was also the first US battleship that did away with (or planned to at least) the requirement to fit through the Panama canal.  I think putting the 1937-era design Yamato on par with the Iowa is more than fair.

 

As for comparison of USN air power versus Japan, I think that you're making the mistake of presuming all the early war losses in calculating the late war battles.  Japan's carrier forces got annihilated first at the Battle of Midway, and then at the Battle of the Philippine Sea.  It's much like how when we play the Battle of Iwo Jima now with aircraft, Japan actually gets defending squadrons, when in reality all they had were the Kamikazes.  Allow Japan to have an equivalent number of Carriers in some of those later war battles, and they're easily on par.  The real difference will be in efficacy of systems, radar/optics etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Performance wise they are a very equal fight Montana vs Yamato. As I have pointed out quite a few times around here Iowa simply lacks the immunity zone that Yamato enjoys and Yamato's optically based fire control is still quite excellent when it comes to shooting under most circumstances.

Late and post war? The us and Royal Navy will employ jets how is japan going to balance that?

Also kamikazes were really limited to land based operations.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Japan will just have to get carbon copies of all the USN jets, since that seems to be the route that Gaijin is going, and won't that be oh so interesting (dry sarcastic tone).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if it is accurate, there will only be one yamato per match...

Edited by Aerobane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if it is accurate, there will only be one yamato per match...


2 actually, going up against some quite sub par pre WW2 US battleships.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 actually, going up against some quite sub par pre WW2 US battleships.

well, *cough cough* it would be 2 or them going up against a couple hundred US naval bombers first, if it got through that then it would be fighting battleships *cough cough*.

 

when naval unit's come out, I don't care that much about battleship to battleship combat, I shall be flying my TBF and my SBD. maybe the BTD if I get enough GE for it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every ship floats which means it can be sunk so no need to add fictional combat vessels to "balance" things out. Does it really have to be totally balanced to be fun?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, *cough cough* it would be 2 or them going up against a couple hundred US naval bombers first, if it got through that then it would be fighting battleships *cough cough*.

 

when naval unit's come out, I don't care that much about battleship to battleship combat, I shall be flying my TBF and my SBD. maybe the BTD if I get enough GE for it.

 

well you need some 700 naval fighters to sink em XD

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, that raises an issue. it would be rather silly to have 1-1 ratio of ships to planes, but I am pretty sure everyone is going to want to be yamato, not the TBF.

 

except me.

 

(edit typo

Edited by Aerobane
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well you need some 700 naval fighters to sink em XD


Not entirely true, Skate hit Yamato with a single torpedo which resulted in some 3000 tons of flooding. This was primarily due to the overly rigid belt design which failed allowing far more than should have occurred. The events in which led to the sinking of both ships were so lopsided, we really don't have a good idea of protection effectiveness. It is akin to saying Shoho required the 7 torpedoes and 13 x 1000 lb bombs to sink her. Yamato showed that the design was very durable due to a massive amount of reserve bouyancy, but once the main belt was breeched, progressive flooding would have doomed her.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is simply going to have to model each ships compartmentalization in order to simulate true bouncy effects due to flooding. Doing anything else will screw the survivability of every ship in the game better or worse than it s

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is simply going to have to model each ships compartmentalization in order to simulate true bouncy effects due to flooding. Doing anything else will screw the survivability of every ship in the game better or worse than it s

 

and that is going to make a lot of ships hard to sink unless you some how stun the crew.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage Control will be a key crew stat I think.  I can think of several instances where a well-trained crew saved their ship, or at least kept it afloat much longer than it might have otherwise.  I can also think of a few instances where poorly trained/green damage control teams made some massive mistakes that actually made things worse, such as the Taihō or Shinano.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage Control will be a key crew stat I think. I can think of several instances where a well-trained crew saved their ship, or at least kept it afloat much longer than it might have otherwise. I can also think of a few instances where poorly trained/green damage control teams made some massive mistakes that actually made things worse, such as the Taihō or Shinano.

Taiho was more of a case of cracked fuel lines and no way to disperse the gases creating a fuel/air bomb out of the whole damn ship. Not sure a damage control team could have done much. Shinano didn't have a proper crew as they were not trained with the onboard gear. I'd say it was more of a case of no/little compartmentalization due to construction circumstances and orders.

Regardless of these examples it could be turned into a game mechanic. Flood resistance, damage control, bouyancy, etc could be generalized into a few stats in the hopes of simulating it all. I just hope they don't over simplify it. Edited by Iridium80
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage mechanic should be visible too. If after battle you could see where the damage happened and what then developed, you would have huge future confidence in the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how will the whole naval battles work.

 

I mean, you have, eg. carriers. Will the pilots of aircraft be human? That would mean huge matches and would really be cool (and tbh we could live with a bit of imbalance in surface to surface capability then, because carriers would really then be the focus of the fleet).

 

But I doubt that is feasible in the near future.

Edited by Cpt_Branko
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how will the whole naval battles work.
 
I mean, you have, eg. carriers. Will the pilots of aircraft be human? That would mean huge matches and would really be cool (and tbh we could live with a bit of imbalance in surface to surface capability then, because carriers would really then be the focus of the fleet).
 
But I doubt that is feasible in the near future.


I would assume that carriers will be lobbing about AI planes, having over a hundred players needed for a single carrier at times may put some strain on the servers...
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think Gaijin will be balancing out nations when it comes to AAA performance, the fact that most IJN and British destroyers couldn't aim their main battery at aircraft will cause consternation. Unless they make DP upgrades available as was during the war, usually dropping larger gunsnfor smaller high angle ones due to mount weight. An example would be an A class DD with a single 3" or 4" DP gun vs the US standard of 5 x 5" DP guns. The Brits had issues making a DP gun and mount the Admiralty were impressed with, hence the 3", 4˝,4.5", 4.7", 5.25"... Would have been better if the 5.1" project hadn't been cancelled due to hopeful thinking and naval limitations. The entirety of the IJN Fubuki class could technically aim high enough but.the mounts could only traverse 6 degrees a second...let alone only fire 5-10 rounds a minute. Should be curious to see what's cooked up for both historical accuracy and gameplay. Edited by Iridium80
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave the details to Crag_r, but I think you're wrong on that one. I'm pretty sure the Brits at least had duel purpose guns.

 

Regardless each nation had things they were good and bad at. I don't believe they should artificially balance everyone, because then it makes every ship the same just in a different wrapper.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first mistake is you are saying japanese ships will be outclassed by the US because of airplanes? in reality, Japanese ships were always on par with or better than any US vessel during the war, so unless your entire team is in airplanes japan will be a very strong competitor as far as navy goes.

have clearly never heard of the Marianas Turkey shoot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave the details to Crag_r, but I think you're wrong on that one. I'm pretty sure the Brits at least had duel purpose guns.

Regardless each nation had things they were good and bad at. I don't believe they should artificially balance everyone, because then it makes every ship the same just in a different wrapper.


Nope, Brit DDs were primarily lost to air attack, and it did not help that numerous DP guns of all sizes were in demand but short supply. Even the Tribal class 4.7" mounts were found lacking so when Australia ordered theirs; they wanted 8 x 4" in dual DP mounts. This was after Britain had experimented with replacing them on a smaller scale and was impressed with the performance. Admiralty didn't like DP mounts as they were deemed heavy and expensive to maintain. All British CLs combined have a fairly small air kill count for the entire war.

The UK had the second best DP suites of the war, but even they lagged badly behind US AAA systems.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well anyway, I am practicing my torpedo bombing in SB... mwuahahahaha...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Madwolf, how bout them wildcats.

 

They had the best officiating they could have asked for. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.