Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

High Low Mix

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> High Low Mix Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 11:21:07 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, That is why the Navy uses the High Low mix. If you send a high value ship (CV) to sea you surround it with low value (DD/FFG) ships.
A Missile can't tell a CV from a FFG (of course the CV is easier to see) When an escort eats a missile (or a kamikaze) instead of the CV it has done it's job. Better if it shoots a few down first.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 181
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 2:29:34 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, That is why the Navy uses the High Low mix. If you send a high value ship (CV) to sea you surround it with low value (DD/FFG) ships.
A Missile can't tell a CV from a FFG (of course the CV is easier to see) When an escort eats a missile (or a kamikaze) instead of the CV it has done it's job. Better if it shoots a few down first.


Yep, the second ship I was on was an old Coontz class destroyer and I was assigned to the Terrier system, (AN/SPG-55B radar), and we figured in a full out Soviet attack we had about 10 seconds of life in such a battle.

Well, at least working in combat systems, we'd at least know the exact moment to put our heads between our knees and start kissing

Soviet doctrine was launch everything possible to overwhelm the NATO defenses. And the Iowa's would be short work just like everyone else. The Soviets had some really nasty stuff.

If you have "Sub Command", during the opening video a bird takes out an old de-commed cruiser that had the Terrier system (Turner class?). The impact of that bird.....man, it looks like it breaks that ship in half. Very humbling.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 182
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 4:15:09 PM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline 		really seems to come down to "shoot first and hit first, since there is no second chance!!"

Weren't soviet subs the main attacking force in the north atlantic?

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to barbarrossa)
Post #: 183
RE: Witpblazers - 5/17/2004 5:20:09 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Part of the problem that existed when I was doing this debating (late 80/early 90's) was that the ships did not have the abality to cordinate their efforts, so they would likely face the mass alone given their posation withen a TF and the atack vector, even if more than one ship could see the threat it would likely be that they would be assigning missels to the same targets. Another problem is that while an Agies class Cruzer had 4 fire controle radars only three would ever be able to be used at any one time do to the ships shadow. and this only under ideal circumstances. The wave top aporach of the missels was a big problem it severly limited the reaction time and the limiting factor then was the fire controle radar/ or rather the illumanators. No mater how you sliced it some misels would get past the Standard missels(actualy most would) then of course you have either Chaff or Phalanx to get some more, but at the time Chaff would bugger Phalanx so the two could not be used at the same time, and phalanx would never get all that leaked through the Standard screan, their just was not enough time, a couple would get through, prety much no mater what.


Just a few things quickly, as this thread gets farther off-topic with every post. First, my understanding is that the big nasties could go very fast or very low, not both; going low also cost range, meaning that the launch platform had to get closer to the targets. Second, Over-The-Horizon targeting is very much dependent on accurate, timely information - meaning somebody has to get in close enough to take a good look at the ships, and live long enough to report back, preferably without being spotted in turn. Third, aircraft dramatically extend the detection and engagement ranges of a CVBG, allowing most air and surface threats to be dealt with at a distance - preferably before the enemy gets close enough to launch their own missiles. Fourth, it's true that the AEGIS cruisers can only guide two missiles per director at a time; but the Standard missiles they carry use Inertial/Terminal SARH guidance and so only need the directors for the last few seconds of flight. The cruiser could and would have the next wave(s) of missiles already in the air and on their way to the point where they'd switch over to terminal guidance as soon as the previous wave hit (or missed). As I said before, 24 missiles isn't a lot for a "saturation attack" against an alerted CVBG.

< Message edited by CynicAl -- 5/17/2004 9:23:31 AM >

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 184
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 7:47:12 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Tiornu - Thanks for the discussion. I consider myself better informed now. How much does the boiler grate protection compromise Yamato's "impenetrable" zone? (I dislike the phrase "immune zone" because so many things can go wrong from a non-penetrating hit.)

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 5/17/2004 5:46:59 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 185
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 7:55:59 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Tiornu - Thanks for the discussion. I consider myself better informed now.




< Message edited by byron13 -- 5/17/2004 5:55:49 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 186
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 7:59:45 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Tiornu - Thanks for the discussion. I consider myself better informed now.





Oh the humanity!

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 187
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 8:00:39 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		"Sometimes you're the Louisville slugger, sometimes you're the ball."



< Message edited by mdiehl -- 5/17/2004 6:00:22 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 188
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 8:16:56 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		mdiehl, I apologize for my "" comment above. While you usually frustrate me to no end, I still have to respect all of your arguments as being at least well-researched (though I often disagree with the conclusion). In any event, I shouldn't be jabbing fun at the kind of civil posting that is often so lacking on this forum.

Actually, both of you were arguing way over my head. I understood the word "battleship" - and that was about it. Did you all come to an agreed upon modal outcome? Or did you two merely agree to disagree? If you and tiornu did agree on something, I would be curious as to the range of outcomes you two would foresee as I think it would be a pretty good guess.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 189
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 8:46:12 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I do not know whether or not we agree. I did, however, find the updated ballistics tables to which he referred and agree that there is a range in which the deck penetration of the 16"L50 and 16"L45 is not sufficient on an initial hit to hole Yamato's main armored deck in most areas, and in which the angle of entry is unlikely to allow a shell to hit Yamato's main belt flaw. I still think Yamato's vertical armor flaw makes her quite vulnerable, such that her main armament is likely to be rapidly reduced. And the effect of non-penetrating hits, including those likely to start uncontrollable fires, makes her quite vulnerable at all ranges.

In the Yamato vs. Iowa/SoDak case I think it comes down to who hits anything fastest.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 190
RE: High Low Mix - 5/17/2004 10:26:28 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		The boiler gratings had not quite 55% of its surface area removed by the perforations. G&D give the 40% figure that Nathan quotes as the degree to which the holed plate would resist shell. I have no idea where the 40% comes from.
Now it gets complicated. Piercing a 6 in deck (15in x 40%) is not a great task for the superheavy shell. Massachusetts penetrated a 150mm deck at Casablanca from as close as 25,000 yards. The difference here is that Massachusetts did not have to get through any plating of 1in or thicker before hitting that deck. For Yamato, I don't think it would be possible to get to the grating without first hitting some D steel or CNC of more than 1in. It's possible the shell would not even reach the grating prior to detonation. Even if it does, it would be significantly slowed by the plating and other intervening material, and its cap might be in another neigborhood. I don't believe it's possible, with the info available, to give a prediction on the specific vulnerability of this plate. The Japanese seem to have felt it was a good match to the 200mm deck around it, and I have no reason to doubt them.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 191
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/18/2004 1:33:39 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		You guys are hung up on guns and armor. There is much more to ships than that. A modern BB is extremely complicated and represents an interlocking of many sophisticated systems-many that can fail critically and doom the ship. It is not just the hits and penetration that matter-it is what happens afterwards that really counts. This said, the Iowa class BBs were far superior ships from top to bottom and better equiped to take damage. The Japanese super BBs were amazing ships considering the state of the Japanese industry that produced them, and featured some quality features that were better than the American BBs. However, you can not compare the overall quality of Japanese shipbuilding to American shipbuilding of the era. The Japanese just could not compete. American ships were just better built. They had better condensers, better ball bearings, better evaporators, better steel, better fire control systems better radar, better communication systems, better radar, better wiring, better fire extenguishers, better fire control pumps, better welds, better hoses, better forced draft machinery, better boilers, better turbines, better burner tips, better electrical breakers, better navigational aids, better watertight security, better windlasses, better wire rope, better light bulbs, better ice cream makers....................and so on.

The point I am making here is that guns and armor are only one part of a fighting ship and really do not reflect the total quality of a ship in combat. All of these things I mentioned above contribute to the operation of a ship. The all also contribute to its ability to fight and survive. I don't know jack about a lot of things, but I do know a lot about ships and how they work. The guns on found topside and the armor skin are just the most obvious features of a on a very intricate and complex system.

Frankly, I would not care to be on either ship, but if I had to be on one during a fair fight, it would be the American ship. You can throw the data at me all you want about firepower and shell penetration, it still does not change my mind. My money would be on the American built product. Simply put, they were better......lots better. Don't fool yourselves about this.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Pier5)
Post #: 192
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/18/2004 2:00:06 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Without necessarily assenting to ALL of that, your general POV is one that I share. That is why I said a long time ago that an Iowa would likely inflict 100% sys damage (not flot damage) on a Yamato rather quickly. Much of that, however, is difficult to quantify in game terms. I think the reason why armor and penetration take the central role in the debate is because these other qualities are so challenging to evaluate and ascribe numbers to in re their relative merits. And with armor, well, a penetrating hit that goes off INSIDE a main magazine basically ends the fight (and probably sinks the ship). And as Joe Stalin is sometimes alleged to have said "Quantity has a quality all its own." Yamato was a white elephant, but she had quantity.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 193
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/18/2004 6:31:09 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"First, my understanding is that the big nasties could go very fast or very low, not both; going low also cost range, meaning that the launch platform had to get closer to the targets. "

SS-N-19 had a range of around 300 NM, and were launched while the Boat was submerged.


"Second, Over-The-Horizon targeting is very much dependent on accurate, timely information - meaning somebody has to get in close enough to take a good look at the ships, and live long enough to report back, preferably without being spotted in turn. "

Oscars were I beleave capable of receaving targeting information from various platforms, including satalite posationing, other subs, Bear's ect.

"Third, aircraft dramatically extend the detection and engagement ranges of a CVBG, allowing most air and surface threats to be dealt with at a distance - preferably before the enemy gets close enough to launch their own missiles. "

The SS-N-19 had a range of 300NM (Understanding Soviet Naval Developments, (NAVSO P-3560). While it is likely that any airdetection would of been intercepted priour to it geting a fix on the fleat, it still of done so before it was killed and the other aabobe mentioned detection platforms could of given the posation and stood a fair chance of making it, certainly the satalite.







"Fourth, it's true that the AEGIS cruisers can only guide two missiles per director at a time; but the Standard missiles they carry use Inertial/Terminal SARH guidance and so only need the directors for the last few seconds of flight. The cruiser could and would have the next wave(s) of missiles already in the air and on their way to the point where they'd switch over to terminal guidance as soon as the previous wave hit (or missed). As I said before, 24 missiles isn't a lot for a "saturation attack" against an alerted CVBG."

It may not be alot but given the views of those who I talked to about this, the men on the ships, and the various sources I had at the time I knew a naval wepon system enginer during that time and we discused these things at length, their take on it was that even an Ageas class cruzer would not be able to get all the SS-N-19's, in fat given the distance to the horizon and the wave top aproach and the spead they came in at, their was no way they alone would stop 24 of them. If they were alone they would be dead, if they were in a CVBG it was considered certain that at least one ship would be hit and likely more than one. When the scenario was discussed it was assumed that the CVBG would know that the missles were inbound, it was offered up that one of the towed sonar arays would of picked up the launch, even at that range, although it is likely that this event would of not been heard, given sea state at launch time convergance zones, ect, so in reality it is likely that they would be suprised.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 194
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/18/2004 8:37:31 AM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

SS-N-19 had a range of around 300 NM, and were launched while the Boat was submerged.

Did I dispute that? No. But that doesn't answer the question: Were they capable of 300NM and M3 in a sea skimming trajectory? My understanding is No - to go that far and that fast, they had to go very high. The only supersonic sea-skimmer I'm aware of in service is the Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn), which has a dramatically shorter range than the Granat (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) and as far as I know is only deployed on surface ships.

quote:

Oscars were I beleave capable of receaving targeting information from various platforms, including satalite posationing, other subs, Bear's ect.

That doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it off on whatever other platform you're using to scout. Remember, not only does the spotter have to get in and get a good look, it also has to survive long enough to transmit. We'll come back to this.

quote:

The SS-N-19 had a range of 300NM (Understanding Soviet Naval Developments, (NAVSO P-3560). While it is likely that any airdetection would of been intercepted priour to it geting a fix on the fleat, it still of done so before it was killed and the other aabobe mentioned detection platforms could of given the posation and stood a fair chance of making it, certainly the satalite.


If I've deciphered that sentence correctly, you're saying that even aerial snoopers had some chance, and it should be no great trick for subs or satellites. While it's not impossible that a big, slow Bear could sneak up on a CVBG undetected long enough to get a good fix and radio off a report, it looks like we're agreed that it's awfully unlikely. A sub has a better chance of getting inside and getting a look, but then it has to share the information. That means coming up to the shallows and transmitting - not a move calculated to extend the lifespan of the sub or her crew. Satellite recon poses different problems. For one, their orbits are very predictable, which means they can be (and are) avoided by evasive routing. Time lag is another serious problem - an hour's lag means a warship TF could be 100 miles in any direction from the datum point, so the shooters need the information in real-time (or as near to it as can be managed). Were Soviet submarines set up to receive direct feed from RORSATs?

OTH targeting is a real PITA. That's one of the reasons the anti-ship Tomahawks didn't last very long in USN service.

quote:

... in fat given the distance to the horizon and the wave top aproach and the spead they came in at...

As I've said, it is my understanding that these missiles were not that fast on the deck; they had to choose either speed or surprise, which would make them a bit less complicated to deal with.

quote:

When the scenario was discussed it was assumed that the CVBG would know that the missles were inbound, it was offered up that one of the towed sonar arays would of picked up the launch, even at that range, although it is likely that this event would of not been heard, given sea state at launch time convergance zones, ect, so in reality it is likely that they would be suprised.

First, you seem to be assuming that the Oscar would have good enough targeting information to launch as soon as it crossed the 300nm mark. This is far from guaranteed, and it is much more likely that the boat would have to work in a little closer before launch - maybe even a lot closer. Second, CVBGs tend to spread out over an awful lot of ocean. One effect of this is that the sub could be 200 or 300 nm from the CV, but only 100 nm or less from an escorting destoryer (or sub). Another effect is that the escorts' convergence zones actually cover different areas rather than mostly overlapping as they would if the ships were bunched up within a tight little nucleus. In reality, an event as noisy as an Oscar firing off its missiles would most likely be noticed.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 195
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/18/2004 9:15:17 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"Did I dispute that? No. But that doesn't answer the question: Were they capable of 300NM and M3 in a sea skimming trajectory? My understanding is No - to go that far and that fast, they had to go very high. The only supersonic sea-skimmer I'm aware of in service is the Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn), which has a dramatically shorter range than the Granat (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) and as far as I know is only deployed on surface ships. "

While the Book I sighted noted a 300NM rang, when debating this beofre typicaly a 200NM distance for launch was discussed. Even a subsonic sea skimer is going to aproach the target very quickely, how far is the Horizion from an Illumanator on a Ageis Cruzer? Factor in dection time from them crosing the Horizon, Launch and time to target, the time frame hear is amasingly short.

"That doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it off on whatever other platform you're using to scout. Remember, not only does the spotter have to get in and get a good look, it also has to survive long enough to transmit. We'll come back to this."


O I Know, I did not mean to sugest otherwise.

"If I've deciphered that sentence correctly, you're saying that even aerial snoopers had some chance, and it should be no great trick for subs or satellites. While it's not impossible that a big, slow Bear could sneak up on a CVBG undetected long enough to get a good fix and radio off a report, it looks like we're agreed that it's awfully unlikely. "

Very slim chance for the Bear I would agree.

"A sub has a better chance of getting inside and getting a look, but then it has to share the information. That means coming up to the shallows and transmitting - not a move calculated to extend the lifespan of the sub or her crew."

No I should think not, but a posabaility non the less, a CV and it's Battle groupe would be worth the risk I am shure.

"Satellite recon poses different problems. For one, their orbits are very predictable, which means they can be (and are) avoided by evasive routing. Time lag is another serious problem - an hour's lag means a warship TF could be 100 miles in any direction from the datum point, so the shooters need the information in real-time (or as near to it as can be managed). Were Soviet submarines set up to receive direct feed from RORSATs? ""

Yes Satalite spoting was and is a problem espichaly since they paths are know and largely can be avoided, from what I understand they were capable of receiving data from them.

"First, you seem to be assuming that the Oscar would have good enough targeting information to launch as soon as it crossed the 300nm mark. This is far from guaranteed, and it is much more likely that the boat would have to work in a little closer before launch - maybe even a lot closer. Second, CVBGs tend to spread out over an awful lot of ocean. One effect of this is that the sub could be 200 or 300 nm from the CV, but only 100 nm or less from an escorting destoryer (or sub). Another effect is that the escorts' convergence zones actually cover different areas rather than mostly overlapping as they would if the ships were bunched up within a tight little nucleus. In reality, an event as noisy as an Oscar firing off its missiles would most likely be noticed. "

The main point of the debates I had then were largely centered around the Ships (US Navy) to deal with an inbound saturation atack, as in all good (or bad) fiction one must by into certain aspects of the story line, for the sake of discusing the outcome of the Missel atack it was asumed that the Oscar had launced it's missels and that found the mark.
Clearly the best way to avoid this Losing situation was to prevent the Oscar from being able to launch. A spread out TF would leave many ships very vulnerable to such atacks, any single ship on the edge the atack was comming from would serve only to atriate the saturation atack largely through asorbation of missel hits.


Even after all this time it is interesting to debate the various aspects of this type of modern warfare. I do agree that the big problem for them is getting good targeting data.

(in reply to CynicAl)
Post #: 196
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 2:05:10 AM   
Zeta16


Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline 		In a Carrier group would the AWAC plane pick it up very early and alert the task force or is this not possible? Yes the skimmers would still have to pick up later than a high approach but there would be warning.

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 197
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 4:52:13 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline 		What a fabulous thread.

We should try and clear all the biggies up whilst we're at it.

Tiornu: Do you have an opinion about the relative merits of Wildcats and Zeros?

Regards,
IronDuke

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 5/19/2004 2:49:45 AM >

(in reply to Zeta16)
Post #: 198
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 6:18:46 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

What a fabulous thread.

We should try and clear all the biggies up whilst we're at it.

Tiornu: Do you have an opinion about the relative merits of Wildcats and Zeros?

Regards,
IronDuke


I thought we should get into Romulan battlecruisers vs. Federation starships.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 199
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 6:27:01 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Do you have an opinion about the relative merits of Wildcats and Zeros?


<setting the hook>

Obviously the Zero was better!

<reeling in the fish>

If it was not, how come the USA had to develop better aircraft?

<reaching for the net>

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 200
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 6:35:51 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


I thought we should get into Romulan battlecruisers vs. Federation starships.


Before or after the General War refits?

_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 201
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 6:45:18 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal
I thought we should get into Romulan battlecruisers vs. Federation starships.


Well, the Feds got their Dreadnought (DN) first so it wasn't as good as the Romulan one which came later. The Fed DN basically had the same firepower as their CA while the other races made their DNs with about 50% more firepower. In a one-on-one fight the Romulan Condor DN would mop up space with the Fed DN. This is based on SFB and not those crappy TV shows. SFB was balanced but on the TV shows the Feds always won.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 202
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 6:47:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		unless your playing SFC. Great game but it had a big hole for the Roms.......they had no plasma bolts so the big complaint was that enemy ships would just zip around the map at speed 30+ and phaser the Rom to death.

_____________________________


(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 203
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 6:55:37 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

unless your playing SFC. Great game but it had a big hole for the Roms.......they had no plasma bolts so the big complaint was that enemy ships would just zip around the map at speed 30+ and phaser the Rom to death.


Yes, it was hard to win with Romulans in SFC but my partner and I managed to win several tournaments with Romulans. When SFC2 came out we switch to ISC because the PPD was the closest the SFC series ever got to plasma bolt.
Playing on the small map in a 2 vs 2 it was still possible to get some plasma hits and you only need a few.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 204
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 7:03:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		never had much chance or time to play online......only wish the AI was better....it only has one strategy....close with the player.. ick. real game breaker

_____________________________


(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 205
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 7:53:06 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I thought we should get into Romulan battlecruisers vs. Federation starships.


No sense: these ships are too well documented for there to be any debate. Now, as to the quality of the officers and crew . . .

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 206
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 8:49:36 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		OMG!!! Whereis this going?






I'ma Kzinti man myself. old SFB by TaskForce games. Loved the fact that the ships looked like overhead views of squashed cats.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 207
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 9:29:23 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Bah.....

Kzin just wish they were Klingons which is PROVEN by the DOCUMENTED fact that their General War refits gave them more phasers and DISRUPTORS so that they could act more like Klingons.

D-Hulls rule!

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 208
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 9:43:02 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Bah.....

Kzin just wish they were Klingons which is PROVEN by the DOCUMENTED fact that their General War refits gave them more phasers and DISRUPTORS so that they could act more like Klingons.

D-Hulls rule!


Yeah, I hated all the refits. To me Kzinti were always 2/3 drones and 1/3 disruptors. Klingons were 2/3 disruptors and 1/3 drones. The refits made them all look the same (expect the Klingon ships were still a bit more maneuverable).

It's official. We've totally hijacked this thread.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 209
RE: Anyone tested a Yamato vs. Iowa class slugfest? - 5/19/2004 9:47:28 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		who cares......anyone who complains can kiss my DERFACS....

_____________________________


(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> High Low Mix Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.234