 |
| |
|
|
curtsibling
|
 |
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
"Pocket Battleships" were technically not battleships at all, but upgunned heavy cruisers. Erika is right, they were built to avoid certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty. They had deisel engines and mounted 6 11" guns in two turrets. Like battlecruisers, they were intended to outrun what they could not fight.
The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were actual battlecruisers, mounting 6 11" guns in three turrets. They were no match for real battleships, the Scharnhorst being blown up by a single salvo from the Duke of York.
Battlecruisers could mount guns as big as a battleship. The Hood mounted 8 15" guns, the same as the Bismarck, and was actually bigger. When it came to a battle, the sacrifice of armor for speed proved fatal for the Hood.
The Bismarck was not really more powerfully armed compared to other modern battleships of the time (8 15" guns vs. 10 14" for the King George class or 9 16" for American battleships launched in the same period. It was very well armored though, and you might want to increase it's DF or give it an extra hit when doing the rules. I hope this helps. |
Cheers! 
The German ship is meant to represent the Bismarck types...
So I am going to rename it the 'pocket battleship' here
are the stats in comparison to a regular battleship...
Battleship, nil, 2, 6.,0, 10a,10d, 8h,2f, 16,0, 0, Nav, 000000000000000
Pocket Battleship, nil, 2, 7.,0, 10a,12d, 9h,2f, 17,0, 0, Nav, 000000000000000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
Ahh, but the caption immediately below says "Scharnhorst and her sister ship were designed to accept 380 mm (15-in) guns, but wartime conditions prevented this."
In any event, they don't fit any generally accepted definition of "battleship". They were battlecruisers - and weak ones at that.  |
Well, the definitions aren't mine.
As I mentioned previously:
The British classified both the Scharnhorst and her sister ship as battlecruisers.
However, the Germans (who built them) classified them as battleships.
If you click on the link below, and scroll down the page, you will see books that give the name "Battleship" to both ships.
http://www.kbismarck.com/scharnhorst.html
So, technically, one could call those ships battlecruisers or battleships and both terms would be correct.
You prefer using the British classification, while others use the German. Both are correct.
Both ships had armour on par with battleships, and the designers had allowed for replacing the initially placed 11" guns, with 15" guns at a later date.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by curtsibling
OK - After some play, I am dropping the War Supplies unit, as they add little to game play and fill the world with useless, wandering units... |
I certainly agree that the AI doesn't know what to do with War Supplies. But do all civs in Dictator TOT have adequately robust economies if they are played by a human? Sometimes, developing trade routes and collecting delivery bonuses is the only way to victory.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
fairline
|
 |
of the wing
Sep 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patine
......(pretty much all Australian and New Zealander involvement in the war was in cooperation with the Americans). |
No it didn't. The 2nd NZ Division served with distinction in the Mediterranean with the British 8th Army from Greece/Crete through all of the subsequent N. African campaign and on into Italy. The 3rd NZ Div. served in the Pacific in New Caledonia under US command. HMNZS Achilles and Leander fought alongside the RN prior to Pearl Harbor.
As for Australia, the bulk of her army fought in the Middle East with the British prior to Pearl Harbour; you are partly right that subsequent to Japan starting hostilities most transferred to the Pacific and fought with the Yanks, although one division stayed to fight on at El Alamein.
That certainly doesn't constitute 'pretty much all... involvement in the war was in cooperation with the Americans'.
Last edited by fairline on 01-06-2005 at 11:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
curtsibling
|
|
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
I am working on new solutions to the problems with the allied invasions and also have added a new Japanese unit.
I have completely reorganised the unit layout and made
some units to be used by both the USA and the UK...
There will be a Chinese civ, with outmoded armies, but
plenty of partisans and help from the Europeans if you
fight well...More on that to follow...
Also there will be a new immobile border garrison unit,
that will prevent univited wanderings...and also stop the
map being filled with useless adventures by the silly AI!
I want to make the new version much more fluid and have
the technologies more open and reseachable without too
much veering into other paths of advances...I want to keep
all the paths in set branches, such as Tanks, Planes, Ships, Amries, Industry, etc...
I will keep you all updated, of course...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2005 15:06
|