Jump to content

Dreddnort

Members
  • Content count

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

45 Neutral

About Dreddnort

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia
  1. Is the Nelson this vulnerable?

    The Hood had a critical issue with its structure. With its main guns positioned at the far ends of a long hull (designed for straight-away speed) the center beams were under enormous strain. They noticed this deep into it’s construction and made adjustment to it’s horizontal and vertical armor plates at the mid-section, making them structural armor plates, to help alleviate the stress. The Admiralty was very concerned with this during its service (part of the reasoning for it being an only ship of its class). This structure problem was also a factor in putting off a full refit which would have required a complete rework of it’s main beam work (assuming the burdens of an engine, armor, superstructure, AA and secondary gun updates that were planned). The cost was estimated as too high to justify any significant update. It was also convenient that the Royal Navy found itself having to keep the Hood in service as newest BBs were being built.
  2. Queen Elizabeth help

    I agree. I have lots of success with QE. I function at long and medium range at the beginning, then switch the medium and short toward the end. Like yours, mine is fully loaded. I always count on a third of my shells landing on the target at any distance, so I don’t get bent out of shape. It seems to be more accurate when I try difficult targets. When I point my nose at a BB that’s firing at me and I decide to go on the offensive l fish tail for shell avoidance as I make a firing approach, I tend to come out on top. It’s a great “hobbit” ship with a sharp bite.
  3. Is HMS Hood worth it?

    The Hood was a new battle cruiser sold to the public as the latest and greatest, the marketing of this ship by the government was exemplary. In the eyes of the British citizen, it was the wonder ship. In actuality it was outclassed fairly quickly, it was also a liability, it’s design with main guns positioned at the far ends of a long hull, the huge boat deck was a huge target, under that boat deck the main structural beams were straining so much, because of the weight at both ends, that while under construction they had to design interlocking armor to aid in rigidity. The buckling of the mid-section especially in combat was an ongoing concern with the Admiralty. This was an inferior ship that public hype made it seem superior.
  4. Is the Nelson this vulnerable?

    With the Nelson, is it then best to approach a single BB and not tangle with two or more if you can help it? And when you approach that BB keep it at a forward facing angle, as soon as the lower rear main turret is able to shoot forward, then you know you are in the danger zone. I’ve heard people talk about only using the first two turrets exclusively so as not to expose anything the enemy.
  5. Is the Nelson this vulnerable?

    All battleships have armor in front of the citadel (the reinforced protection around vital areas of the ship), all battleships have a soft front and back ends, these facts are not the issue. It’s what’s in front of the citadel, plate armor on the sides and top of the hill. The Nelson is well protected, better than the Hood, better than most, yet it is not the case in this game. The Hood should be easy to sink if you AP the boat deck, the combination of poor center structural strength, mediocre deck armor and the huge open area as a target, the Hood should eclipse the Nelson.
  6. Time to rework the lineup

    By pedantic I mean fussy. It's certainly playable, but there's a better way to do this. :-) Check this out, this will show you BSP gameplay with a carrier and the fleet (note this game has multi-player mode too):
  7. Free the Fuso

    Continue with the Kongo, get the points from her. The Fuso is tons of fun, I just re-purchased the Fuso because it’s such good fun, such a powerful ship (when used correctly) it has so many guns you can split them in half and attack two ships at the same time, with the effect of two standard volleys. It’s range gives you ability to send out the first shot/hit of the game. Against higher tier BBs, it’s a great fire maker and hit point reducer, giving the more capable BBs on your team the advantage.
  8. Time to rework the lineup

    Indeed, good points you make. I have ever so much enjoyed this game for its attention to detail and the game play. To a degree my complaint about the British cruiser line is minor, I’m happy there is one. However, since you mention it, I do have to harp on the carrier portion of this game. Having been a longtime Battlestations Midway/Pacific player I am appalled at the contrast of gameplay quality between aircraft carriers and the rest of the surface fleet. The gameplay mechanics for carriers is pedantic, clunky, out of sync, and just plain bush-league. It is no wonder few play that portion of the game. If the gameplay mechanics from Battlestations were adopted there would huge participation, because it would be manageable, emersive and fun.
  9. Time to rework the lineup

    Yes, it would be nice for the formation of a heavy cruiser lineup, though I would imagine they would have to rework all the other nations too, maybe we would see the USS Alaska :-)
  10. Time to rework the lineup

    The British cruiser lineup has to be the most poorly considered selection in the entire game. Once you get to Emerald, the series after that is simply a series of derivatives with small armor upgrades and the same line of 6" guns dancing around 12 to 9 gun configurations. These series of light cruisers were all similar and based of the same basic blueprint. Of this series the Leander, Arethusa, Southampton, Edinburgh, Dido, Dido II, Fiji, Uganda and Minotaur/Tiger were nearly indistinguishable from each other, and were deployed with that in mind. All of them light cruisers. Where are the heavy cruisers? The 10,000 ton/8inch-gun configurations? It would be nice to see at least a single Kent, or a Norfolk, a London, or even a York class. The notion that the heavy cruisers would disrupt the chronological succession of this game format is less egregious than offering a series of versions of the same ship for the sake of time-stamps. I think the progression in this instance should be by order of gun and armor. Not by offering the same group of ships and applying faux game play characteristics like increases of low detection over the line and protections from strong opponent shell dispersion, all magical powers applied to make the lineup better with each upgrade, when in reality the are nearly equal in hiding from the enemy and receiving gun fire, they possess no distinct distinguishing attributes other than number of guns and a few eighth of inch armor upgrades, especially when one looks at the other nations and their more distinct lineups. Sorry for the vent, but the obvious weakness of this lineup is undeniable, though I fear not likely to change.
  11. I'm reading various posts and I see that the Nelson is an easy citadel hit. I don't have one so I don't know much about captaining it. I see most Nelsons in full reverse and avoiding any side exposure. This tells me that it is very delicate, much like a Pensacola. This appears to be contrary to the actual ship's armor protection, especially around the vital areas (citadel areas). The Nelson class was an all or nothing armor plan, all the critical spots were highly protected, the rest virtually unprotected. Vital spots were protected very well and in some cases better than it's contemporaries. So the ship was certainly not more vulnerable than BB's of it's time, it was at par if not better than most. Even the deck armor was substantial at 6" (continuous) with the additional 4" over the top, on the rear deck area. The sides were designed to take the steam out of AP shells on the first thinner outer layer before the shell hit the armor plating in the interior, thus making it difficult to penetrate. To me, in the game this ship would only be susceptible to slow bleeding/sinking due to flooding of none/low armored sections. It would be less likely to be "citideled" due to it better than most protection in this area. Just to note, the KGV adopted a very similar armor plan and in the game it fares very well to side/protected area hits, the Nelson should enjoy similar outcomes based on this fact alone.
  12. Eh, the Queen is fantastic. It's ranged fire is great, at least for me. Medium range is great too. The thing is with this ship, you don't spend much time tangling with any ship beyond a few solid volleys. Use of Islands and screening in and behind your team-mates is key. Also, if you turn away and show a pursuing ship your stern, then start firing at them, it's usually a win situation, the Queen is hard to hit and the four guns in back are wicked accurate so you can wear out a cruiser and DD, even a BB if they are low on health.
  13. Who is a better T7 Premium British BB

    FYI, the Hood is one of the least realistic BBs in the game when it comes to protection. The enormous boat deck should reduce it's protection to the BB equivalent of the Pensacola, relatively fragile. Construction, trails and service records backs this notion up.
  14. Who is a better T7 Premium British BB

    I'd say the Duke, but that's just on head to head confrontations. I don't play premiums, so I play the Duke's sister ship and in that ship I slap the Hood around pretty well, as well as most BBs I come in contact with.
  15. Nelson in reverse?

    What’s with players playing the Nelson steaming backwards? Almost every time I play a game with a Nelson I see it backing up, which makes it a sitting duck, and invariably it is overwhelmed and sunk. Those that steam forward tend to do well. It looks like those that have it in backup mode don’t know what to do with a ship with all front guns. Thoughts?
×