RE: Yamato-waste of naval points

RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

John 3rd -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/17/2010 5:54:45 PM)
"That's no MOON...." [sm=sterb029.gif]

bigred -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 1:46:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bigred Has anyone seen the effect of a minefield on the Yamato? Every Sunday afternoon our old gamers club meets to play games face to face. Goerge is an avid AH Midway/Bismarck player from the 70's. He enjoys hearing my recap of defeat and victory in AE. I was describing how P.Hussler was really roughing me up as the IJN at Pago. I mentioned I had sank a light cvl w/ mines. With a strange twisted smile and a wild eyed look George asked me if Hausser had run the Yamoto thru the minefield to clear the mines. I was shocked at the thought and was literally speechless at the idea. I dont recall reading of the Yamato being used as a minesweeper. So what would be the effect of an allied mine hitting the YAM(gamewise and then real life)? [image]local://upfiles/27655/3611C22889A74347BD9352AB34AD67F4.jpg[/image]

castor troy -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 9:30:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius I recently pasted the Musashi with 27 1000lb bombs and 6 500lb bombs (range was to far for torpedoes), in my AI game Scen 2. I flipped it in curiosity to see what damage I had inflicted. 14 points into Sys damage. I was pretty disappointed. These 2 BB's, in AE, are pretty bullet proof against most Allied platforms. same was true in WITP. But now you can at least sink heavy cruisers with 500lb bombs.

castor troy -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 9:34:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bigred quote: ORIGINAL: bigred Has anyone seen the effect of a minefield on the Yamato? Every Sunday afternoon our old gamers club meets to play games face to face. Goerge is an avid AH Midway/Bismarck player from the 70's. He enjoys hearing my recap of defeat and victory in AE. I was describing how P.Hussler was really roughing me up as the IJN at Pago. I mentioned I had sank a light cvl w/ mines. With a strange twisted smile and a wild eyed look George asked me if Hausser had run the Yamoto thru the minefield to clear the mines. I was shocked at the thought and was literally speechless at the idea. I dont recall reading of the Yamato being used as a minesweeper. So what would be the effect of an allied mine hitting the YAM(gamewise and then real life)? [image]local://upfiles/27655/3611C22889A74347BD9352AB34AD67F4.jpg[/image] He was joking, he can´t seriously think that Yamato would have been used as a minesweeper nor would Yamato be able to suck up a couple of mine hits... mines are like torps, they would hurt every BB I guess and noone would drive a BB through an area to "clear" mines.

crsutton -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 5:07:49 PM)
After the 1943 refit, some american fleet boats can lay the MK 12 mine vs the older MK 10. If you look at the editor the MK 12 mine has about just as much whallop as a long lance torpedo. So in answer to your question, it would depend on the mine that Yamato hits.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 5:20:11 PM)
Doubt they ever used the but iirc the Yamato had paravanes equipped.

Nikademus -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 5:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: bigred quote: ORIGINAL: bigred Has anyone seen the effect of a minefield on the Yamato? Every Sunday afternoon our old gamers club meets to play games face to face. Goerge is an avid AH Midway/Bismarck player from the 70's. He enjoys hearing my recap of defeat and victory in AE. I was describing how P.Hussler was really roughing me up as the IJN at Pago. I mentioned I had sank a light cvl w/ mines. With a strange twisted smile and a wild eyed look George asked me if Hausser had run the Yamoto thru the minefield to clear the mines. I was shocked at the thought and was literally speechless at the idea. I dont recall reading of the Yamato being used as a minesweeper. So what would be the effect of an allied mine hitting the YAM(gamewise and then real life)? [image]local://upfiles/27655/3611C22889A74347BD9352AB34AD67F4.jpg[/image] He was joking, he can´t seriously think that Yamato would have been used as a minesweeper nor would Yamato be able to suck up a couple of mine hits... mines are like torps, they would hurt every BB I guess and noone would drive a BB through an area to "clear" mines. He was probably referring to an old exploit on an older board game. Every wargame has it's crazy exploits within the framework of that rules set.

topeverest -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 8:04:57 PM)
I know this argument is as years old, but... I would definately aggree that the persistant problem of lack of damage from non-penetrating bomb hits to heavily armored ships like Yamato is one of the major recurring problems with the combat system. No ship of any type could take a considerable number of 500lb+ hits anywhere on the superstructure and fail to be seriously damaged. On top of that problem, a non-penetrating hit by a large bomb on one of these babies would significantly increase the weapons systems and fire damage. Mulitple hits guaranteed critical damage despite lack of penetration. Neither type of result occur IMHO to any remote approximation of IRL. It is something I do hope finally gets fixed.

Nikademus -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 8:10:55 PM)
Overall, i think the model works well.

wdolson -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 9:46:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni Well... as the allies my surface ships are terrified of the yamato and her sister. I could probably send all of my battleships vs those two and still come out the loser. Vs the AI I just dropped like 50 bombs on the Yamato and all I did was scratch her paint. Stupid torpedo planes all missed lol. If you need to smash some enemy surface ships the Yamato is the most effective ship in the world at doing so. Even if the age of the battleship was dead and gone by this point, I wish the Americans had produced some Montanas. Or realized before the war that limiting battleships to panama capable severly gimps them for combat. Stupid canal. In the end, the fast BBs were mostly AA platforms. They would have been more effective with the 16 inch turrets replaced with more AA. The only time fast BBs were used in a surface action was when the South Dakota and Washington were used at Guadalcanal. They were facing an old BB and smaller ships, but the Washington did quite well. The South Dakota not so much, but she had an electrical failure early on. If Halsey had kept his fast BBs at the exit to the San Bernardino Straits at Leyte, the world might have seen what fast BBs were capable of. The same night at Surgio Strait a bunch of old iron demonstrated that radar controlled gunnery was lethal, even on an ancient platform. The Montanas would have been a waste of yard space that was needed to build Essexes. Two Iowas were launched early and never completed to allow building more Essex class carriers. In the end, if the Iowas had been canceled and that yard space used for Essexes, it probably would have been better. TF 38/58 could have had one more carrier task group. Battleships are sexy looking, but they are about as practical as owning a Corvette with a family of 4. Bill

witpqs -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/18/2010 10:34:15 PM)
Although, as AA platforms the fast BB's were quite important.

John 3rd -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 12:14:46 AM)
I am still going to build my pretty ships! Two Yamatos and two new BCs will be fun to watch and see what they can bag before being cruelly killed underneath the totally unfair and EVIL American Dive-Bombers and Torpedo planes. Better yet for them to die standing tall facing the enemy battleline! BANZAI!

vonTirpitz -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 3:51:25 AM)
I'm building them both. It's my firm belief that having the battleships in 1942-43 is more effective and useful than having two more carriers in 1944-45. quote: One more ship will make no difference in the here and now. But 22 years ago, one ship could have stopped this war before it started. - Yesterday's Enterprise [;)]

John 3rd -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 4:15:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz I'm building them both. It's my firm belief that having the battleships in 1942-43 is more effective and useful than having two more carriers in 1944-45. quote: One more ship will make no difference in the here and now. But 22 years ago, one ship could have stopped this war before it started. - Yesterday's Enterprise [;)] I don't really disagree with that comment whatsoever. Think you are fairly accurate in the assessment. As to your quote from Yesterday's Enterprise...I now know you are a GREAT human being because that episode is the BEST from Next Generation.

bigred -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 4:51:55 AM)
W/ the reluctant Admiral senario, the best of all worlds would be to accelerate the 3x CVs(900 ship points for a late 42 arrival) and also build the 2 yamatos (466)and the two CBs(240). Stop everything else. Restart normal builds after the CVs arrive.

Phanatikk -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 1:38:52 PM)
Battleships are sexy looking, but they are about as practical as owning a Corvette with a family of 4. Bill I don't know. Sometimes you need diapers QUICK!

John 3rd -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 2:16:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bigred W/ the reluctant Admiral senario, the best of all worlds would be to accelerate the 3x CVs(900 ship points for a late 42 arrival) and also build the 2 yamatos (466)and the two CBs(240). Stop everything else. Restart normal builds after the CVs arrive. This was the whole point of the modified 4th Circle Plan (Yamamoto-Style). It is an excellent Plan with very good ships, however, the choices now shoot up as you have the Unryu's to look at for the Emergency Building too. You have to find a balance between the earlier plan and the latter ships coming in 1944-45. My intention--I think--is to build Yamato, while holding Musashi, and once Yamato is done let Musashi re-start. I will not accelerate any of the 1942 CVs but will accelerate the last two of the Shokaku-Kai. This should provide three heavy CVs in late-42 and early-43 for the Japanese. The CBs and pair of CAs will build at a normal pace. This is all hypothetical but I think it is achievable with the expanded and expanding shipyards...

BrucePowers -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 2:24:04 PM)
Sounds like a fun mod John.

crsutton -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/19/2010 7:51:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Although, as AA platforms the fast BB's were quite important. Yep, by 44 the real pupose of fast BBs were to protect carriers. Too bad it does not really work that well in game. I find the AA to be very lethargic.

John 3rd -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/20/2010 1:26:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers Sounds like a fun mod John. I've just restarted with AdmNelson and I am now in for the long haul. The designers of the Mod (Juan, FatR, Red Lancer, BK, and others) really came up with something special I think. We simply worked through a slightly enhanced Japanese Navy. Every decision was made through the writings and quotes of Yamamoto for the main changes. Very little difference on Dec 7th but by early-43 a bunch (by Japanese standards) of new ships and aircraft designs come into play. Cannot wait to get that far!

xj900uk -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/20/2010 12:24:29 PM)
There were very few traditional battleship actions in WWII anywhere (Atlantic or Pacific) so IMO the role of battleships should be to doubly protect the carriers (as Yamato and the more forward-thinking members of his staff postulated in 1940 in a defence paper). First of all yes agreed as floating AA platforms (although US were traditionally better at this than the IJN) and secondly simply to act as alternative targets. With more big ships around to choose from, very few pilots even the more experienced would always concentrate on the carriers in the heat of battle. Also BB's are far better at absorbing damage (in theory) than carriers, which, lets face it, were largely unprotected floating Avgas carriers (altohugh the British carriers with their armoured flight-decks enjoyed some measure of protection from kamikaze's later on in the war)

Zigurat666 -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/20/2010 1:08:48 PM)
The biggest problem I have had with the Yamato is usually while onroute somewhere it will get into a minor fluff with some air or a sub or even a minor surface battle and take enough damage to warrant a repair (20-25 sys or something). Then when it pulls into Hiroshima you find its going to take 6 months to fix before going out for another minor hit.

topeverest -> RE: Yamato-waste of naval points (8/20/2010 2:25:19 PM)
This is timely, in my PBEM, Yamato just sunk Ramilles with one salvo in a major BB engagement...made me cry in my oatmeal and reminded me of HMS Hood. Of course, a critical hit, but... Although I went on to win the engagement, she was by far the star for the empire. This is not an isolated case. IMHO, In pure surface combat with a top commander, she is just that good, especially when you can move her at will in 42 when the allied subs and torpedoes are poor.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.187988