Cant the sea mines tech be more than placeholders? Maybe a little bonus to coast fort construction, or little sea attack/def bonus to coastal ships or screen ships.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Zeeburg 1917 2 destroyers out of action
Mas 15 sank BB Szent István in 1918
1919 Baltic actions against the Soviet Red forces 1 Cruiser 1 depot ship sunk 1 BB damaged
Sounds Pretty relevant.
Peral Submarine
Plunger-Class submarines
Holland-Class submarine
Imperial Japanese Navy submarines originated with the purchase of five Holland type submarines from the United States in 1904.
Guess they never existed.
Had working mines as units in earlier mods.
BB Navarin Sunk after striking either one or two mines during the Battle of Tsushima on May 28, 1905.
WWI Ship losses BB BC PDN C CV M DD/TB
Mines 1 - 8 10 - 1 62
HMS Irresistible Struck a mine on March 18, 1915
HMS Ocean Struck a mine on March 18, 1915
FS Bouvet Struck a mine on March 18, 1915
(YEP - Pointless)
The ships of the class were slower and smaller than the preceding Queen Elizabeth-class battleships
The major flaw in the class was the deliberately reduced stability to give the ships a slow rolling motion to make gunnery easier.
This made it almost impossible to update them. In addition, it was not economically possible to fit more powerful machinery later in their lives.
Need to switch them.
The Pennsylvania class consisted of two super-dreadnought battleships built for the United States Navy.
Same for rest of US BB unitl Colorado Class
Actually they only add 1% to research bonus... It's not possible to represent them properly...
Tell me why, if not a single DH mod, except for the cold war ones (and it's because of the peculiarities of the cold war/modern naval combats), add MTBs, why should we add them? It's impossible to include them at this scale without making the naval combat system a complete mess.
And all those effects can be included via events.
And also there's not space in the tech tree for them.
Those submarines are there, but not as an unit because those were not viable at that stage. And also many navies refused to use submarines at that moment because they didn't see their potential.
The same happens with the depth charges, the first model is not viable and doesn't activate nothing, but you still have to research it.
I know that naval mines were very important both in Russo-Japanese war and ww1 but it's impossible to represent them properly with the current game engine.
So yes, it would be pointless.
An unit of their own would not work.
All those issues can be represented by the BB's statistics. And no, they don't need to be switched because the mid war built/designed BBs must be represented somehow.
They had their flaws? sure, but that doesn't mean that the model must be taken out of the tech tree.
Nope, they weren't, they were classified as standard BBs as they came after the nevada class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_the_United_States_Navy#Standard_type
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/battleships7.htm
http://www.navypedia.org/ships_index.htm (unfortunately it seems to be down ATM)
http://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/
plus the books: "The encyclopedia of warships" by Robert Jackson (edited by Grange Books) and "The encyclopedia of ships" (edited by blitz editions)
Sorry (only a little) about the second post - my first post was meant as suggestions you could ignore or discuss on Skype or email.
Your choice to dismiss them point by point in a condescending manner on your next post - ticked me off.
My point is there are the above items (and others) are worth considering
ie (mines CAN be represented in a working fashion - you may not like the result and can say no thanks - but you need to stop saying things are not possible)
and can be put used or put aside - is your choice.
My Skype and email is moxs60@hotmail.com still happy to discuss further (still disagree with a couple of your points - but they are valid) or not.
Done here.
^^ Ok, sorry if i sounded a bit rude, i was a bit upset, but you have to comprehend that both Arturius and me invested many hours researching and discussing the naval component of the mod and it has been discussed thoroughly and we had to do, re-do and un-do here and there until the whole picture was finished.
It wasn't an "out of the blue" idea and it's based on many many sources, both digital (many webpages, .pdf documents) and traditional (books and documentaries).
The case of the naval mines is just like the armoured trains or the scout planes. They just simply can't be with the actual engine limitations. Tell me, how do you simulate that the naval mines damage absolutely every ships without looking at the nationality?
Sorry, but i don't comment nothing via email.
Also, i don't claim my system to be perfect, IMO that's impossible, and it has its flaws yes, for instance i wrongly classified the USS Omaha as a heavy cruiser when it was a light one (already corrected BTW)
It wasn't an "out of the blue" idea and it's based on many many sources, both digital (many webpages, .pdf documents) and traditional (books and documentaries).
The case of the naval mines is just like the armoured trains or the scout planes. They just simply can't be with the actual engine limitations. Tell me, how do you simulate that the naval mines damage absolutely every ships without looking at the nationality?
Sorry, but i don't comment nothing via email.
Also, i don't claim my system to be perfect, IMO that's impossible, and it has its flaws yes, for instance i wrongly classified the USS Omaha as a heavy cruiser when it was a light one (already corrected BTW)
Last edited:
Just to support your point about the difficulty of matching the historical template, I'll weigh in with a couple of comments on the Pennsylvanias and Omahas.
By any reasonable criteria the Pennsylvanias should be seen as 'super-dreadnoughts', but since that term never had any official recognition it's perfectly true that the USN classified them as 'standard' BBs. The term 'super-dreadnought' originated in the popular press to describe Britain's second generation of all-big-gun battleships and was coined to describe the move from 12" main armament to 13.5" weapons. The Pennsylvanias mounted 14" guns (as indeed did the Nevadas and New Yorks before them) so they'd fit neatly into the super-dreadnought category if it weren't for the fact that officially that category never existed.
The Omahas are another consequence of category nonsense. They were classified as 'light' cruisers under the London and Washington treaties because their main armament consisted of 6" guns. But the fact that they mounted twelve of them meant that they had a greater throw-rate than the 8" armed 'heavy' cruisers provided for in those agreements. It's true that they were around 2000 tons lighter than the 'heavies', but their 7000 ton displacement was in fact one of the key reasons why the 'light cruiser' category was fudged upward from the 6000 tons initially proposed.
Bottom line is, if you stick to the contemporary official designations you're going to get caned for employing illogical criteria, while if you try to impose some sense and consistency you're going to get beaten up for lack of 'historicity'. You just can't win.
I'm personally not sure that sea mines would defeat the engine (think of the AA model) and would like to see some of moxs' ideas incorporated, but given the difficulties just described I'm happy to settle for what's offered here and thank you for your efforts.
Last edited:
I've just scanned back through the thread and noticed your interest in info on armoured cars. If it's still needed I think I might have some helpful material.
are they still working on 1914 mod? why don't you ask for resources there, or possibly merge together?
Hi guys, sadly I have to withdraw from any kind modding for around one year. I have to get my university degree in this time urgently. For now I'm not able to make any statements about the future of this mod. If anybody wants to continue developing the mod he would get the files and my support as much as I can. I'm sorry for all guys who have awaited this mod and had made contributions to it.
Sorry to hear that about your mod Arturius, but real life is your priority. Best of luck with your degree!
I've 2 science degrees and am unemployed, since I suppose I'm too old at 56(eek!). Sometimes I think I should have been a plumber...
I've 2 science degrees and am unemployed, since I suppose I'm too old at 56(eek!). Sometimes I think I should have been a plumber...
RDDIII has always intended to have 1889 and 1914 scenarios that borrowed heavily and based on alot of aspects of these Mods. (with Arturius's support).
Both scenarios will continue as planned.
Sorry to hear that Arturius but RL has its obligations so good luck with your studies 
Could you maybe post the files you got until here? (documentation as well) It may give an incentive to anyone interested in WW1 era.
Could you maybe post the files you got until here? (documentation as well) It may give an incentive to anyone interested in WW1 era.
It's sad to see you go...
But you need that degree, So good luck with university, man!!
And thanks for helping me out with my mod story! (Play party music)
Thank you for your kind words. I am not able to balance RL and (this) hobby so this cut is needed. But I am too digged in this subject and have a too huge desire to bring this subject into a mod/game and so I hope I will come back soon. One year isn't that long.
Indeed, university degree isn't a guarantee for a (good) job nowadays. Worst example is Spain.
Indeed, university degree isn't a guarantee for a (good) job nowadays. Worst example is Spain.
Last edited: