Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Panzer General 3D

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:32 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Just found an old game in my ‘old’ pile, Panzer General 3D, it was unopened, so I decided to give it a try. It’s by the same company that did Steel Panthers. The graphics are similar, pretty good. They show only 1 item (vehicle/gun/plane etc…) but seem to be on a ‘unit’ basis. I have been having some issues with it, for example; an enemy truck shows up (‘fog-of-war’) drives up to my unit that’s ‘dug in’, unlimbers a field gun, shoots the crap out of me with little or nothing in return, limbers back into the truck and races off out of sight – 1 move! My field gun (already loaded into trucks) drives up to his unit, unlimbers and…done turn no more actions can’[t fire!!! WTF!!! Why can the computer’s guns move,unload,fire,reload,move away when mine can’t even move,unload,fire?
Another issue is damage, I shoot and shoot and shoot, Artillery, Nebelwerfer, field guns, Tigers, JU-87s, and his Grants are down to 1 hit point, and … oh you only shot once but can’t shoot again (even though most units can fire 2-3 times), Grants run away with their 1 suppressed HP, next turn they’re repaired, meanwhile his infantry makes one attack on my Tigers and BANG they’re dead!!! Again, WTF!!! Seems extremely cheat to me. They don't tell up at the end win/lose, just a very short film and you have to guess what it means. But I still won the Tobruk scenario against the British. Anybody else have experience with this game.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by GerryBM   » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:13 pm

GerryBM
Ensign

Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:08 am

I gave David both Steel Panthers 1 and 2 a while back in boxed form and I got him set up with all three of them on his machines for him to play. Steel Panther's 3 is probably the best of the series. Have you ever played the Operational Art of War? If you like unit based games you'll probably enjoy that one considerably and they have both Modern and historical units.

Gerry
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:30 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

GerryBM wrote:...the Operational Art of War...
Never heard of that one.

GerryBM wrote:I gave David both Steel Panthers 1 and 2 a while back in boxed form and I got him set up with all three of them on his machines for him to play. Steel Panther's 3 is probably the best of the series...
I liked 1 because it was more on a per-unit bassis rather than a per group, but liked 3 because of the time expanse. Never got to see 2 though.
I ran one experiment with the creator in 3; built a map which was a giant hill with a crater on top (extinct volcano or whatever) I lined it with 1-2 of every mobile AA in the game, from Wirblewinds to M-2s with Stingers, the other side had all kinds of strike aircraft, interesting exchange! :twisted:
One thing I hated was; they took all that time to add all that 'realism' even to the armor distribution, but didn't put in any 'tanks'! Tanks have turrets, for a reason, none of the units had turrets, they just turned around to shoot. Really pissed me off a couple of times. I was running an Israeli AVs Syria ambush in a pass. I had a platoon of M-60s positioned on a plateau, overlooking the pass. A company of T-72s were coming down the pass & stopped just out of range. Then a platoon of BMP-1s came up the far side of the hill and shoot their little pea-shooters at my M-60s, the $#%^@ computer auto-turned my M-60s from their prepared position to fire at the BMPs (took them out) but turned their butts to the T-72s, who then moved up and shot me up from behind! WTF, I didn't tell them to turn around (why would anyone!?) and why do they not have turrets?!

I would like to use SP1 to create an actual Battletech video game, yea they have 'Mechwarrior' but that's not Battletech, SP1 would be the perfect platform for it, and it already has the combat system and map-maker with terrain built in. Just replace the historical units with Mechs and conventional units from BT. (and add turret and torso twist). I would modify the turn system so that it alternates properly, each side takes turns moving unit, (evenly 1 at a time in even battles # required to move being displayed in the corner of the screen till it reaches 0 then the opponent moves - initiative decided randomly (true random not skewed to compensate for poor AI) by the system ) then each side gets a turn for targeting and torso/turret twists, then the system auto-resolves fire/damage and heat and displays the results, then click for next turn.

GerryBM wrote: If you like unit based games you'll probably enjoy that one considerably and they have both Modern and historical units.
I'd also like to find a good Naval simulator (Iron to Battleship - 1865-1946), like SP but with ships (and turrets). Can't find a decent one.
If it's like SP3, it may be interesting to see just how 'obsolete' pre-dreadnoughts were, escorted by AA-cruisers and CVEs loaded with fighters for air cover, see what the Virginia or Connecticut can do against the Takao or Hipper.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:16 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Years since i played it last.

I would like to use SP1 to create an actual Battletech video game, yea they have 'Mechwarrior' but that's not Battletech, SP1 would be the perfect platform for it, and it already has the combat system and map-maker with terrain built in.


Have you tried Megamek?

I'd also like to find a good Naval simulator (Iron to Battleship - 1865-1946), like SP but with ships (and turrets). Can't find a decent one.
If it's like SP3, it may be interesting to see just how 'obsolete' pre-dreadnoughts were, escorted by AA-cruisers and CVEs loaded with fighters for air cover, see what the Virginia or Connecticut can do against the Takao or Hipper.


:lol:

VERY obsolete i think i can safely say.

Slower speed, poorer maneuverability, mixed sizes heavy guns making ranging drastically harder(and salvo fire ineffective), main guns better placed, greatly inferior armour schemes compared to dreadnoughts, manpower inefficient...

1910 Virginia vs 1930 Takao? Heh, oldstyle BB vs a 30s heavy cruiser(a flawed class though)? Takao´s topspeed of 34 kts vs Virginia´s 19, along with Takao´s vastly superior long range firecontrol... And IF a Virginia BB gets too close for comfort, Takao´s got a crapload of Long Lance torpedoe´s it can flush, with Virginia´s being large, "slow" and not nearly as maneuverable as the normal kind of targets, hits are likely, and even a single Type 93 torpedo may be enough to sink the BB, as proper antitorpedo measures were not included in the design.

Yeah, a Virginia´s dead, really bad vs pairing for it(or a Conneticut). It´s best chance is actually that the flawed CA design makes it capsize before killing the BB.

Hipper is in many ways even worse, even if it has less effective torpedoes, is slower and less maneuverable(still beats any pre-DN BB with casual ease), because it has even better longranged firecontrol, and is larger without being larger enough to be easier to hit.

It IS possible to defeat newer ships with older of course, but outside of ambush, you generally need a crapload of luck to do it.


I have been having some issues with it


Actually sounds like the computer is cheating against you. :D

Seriously though it´s most likely the AI optimising its moves while you haven´t played it enough yet to even notice that you can do stuff like that(and how).
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:21 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:Have you tried Megamek?

Never heard of it

Tenshinai wrote:VERY obsolete i think i can safely say.
You fall in to too much propaganda I think.

Tenshinai wrote:Slower speed, poorer maneuverability, ...
The IJN heavy cruises were not very maneuverable. They were designed for speed not turning and had long slim hull forms to maximize speed, detracting from their maneuverability (as evidenced at Midway when 2 Mogamis couldn't avoid each other) the US Iowa class has the same issue, long thin hull = poor turn radius, in contrast, most pre-dreadnoughts were short and fat, giving them greater maneuverability (for the most part).
Tenshinai wrote:mixed sizes heavy guns...
yea, in 1900 mixed guns were an issue, because they didn't know how to compensate and direct properly, by 1940 (even 1914) that issue had been solved. Some PDs even got the better of DNs (of BCs) such as the battle of the Bosphorus 10 May 1915, where Russian PDs fought off the SMS Goeben off her own port. this reputation was the result of lack of training and development prior to the Dreadnought and was made more of as propaganda to justify the 'all big gun' concept (with its much greater price tag).
Tenshinai wrote:ranging drastically harder(and salvo fire ineffective)...
Again, all solved by WWI, All US PDs were given cage masts and 'modern' FC by the end of WWI, if they had been retained, do you thing they wouldn't have received continual upgrades up to WWII? of-course they would have. I'm not talking about taking the Virginia strait out of 1900 and plopping her into 1945 (like some revers form of Final Countdown - who's title I never understood)


Tenshinai wrote:main guns better placed...
how? 2 turrets fore & aft, compared to Takao with a central turret that can only fire broadside?

Tenshinai wrote:greatly inferior armor schemes compared to dreadnoughts...
Not really, later DNs (post Nevada) had the 'Raft' scheme, but before that, the Dreadnoughts had very similar armor schemes. The main issue was the fact that PDs predated watertight compartmentalization (something pioneered in Titanic) making them vulnerable to TTs (as shown by the Norwegians at 1st Narvik in 1940). The Takaos proved to be vulnerable to TTs themselves - 3 of them were taken out by them, look what happened to Maya, one hit alongside the mag and BOOM, metal confetti.

Tenshinai wrote:manpower inefficient...
eh? explain?
Tenshinai wrote:1910 Virginia vs 1930 Takao? Heh, oldstyle BB vs a 30s heavy cruiser(a flawed class though)? Takao´s topspeed of 34 kts vs Virginia´s 19, along with Takao´s vastly superior long range fire-control ...
Again, not '1910' Virginia, Virginia with likely upgrades, which she would have received if retained, which had already included FC upgrades in WWI and would have included more by 1940 (as did all ships that were retained - such as Arkansas). You don't think the US Navy would send out a warship without at-least basic upgrades, a Mk-33 if not a Mk37 FCS. She would be no less accurate than any other US warship at the time.
Tenshinai wrote: as proper antitorpedo measures were not included in the design..
They weren't included in the Pennsylvania Design either, but in 1945 she (and many others) had survived at-least 1 hit. it's called 'bulging' and 'modernization'. happens all the time (at-least in the US). Italy did a complete rebuild of their pre-WWI dreadnoughts during the inter-war period and they came out completely different (not even the same engines). There is no reason the same (or less radical upgrades) couldn't have been conducted on the PDs as well. look at the difference between the Arkansas 1911 & 1945 - almost unrecognizable.
Tenshinai wrote:IF a Virginia BB gets too close for comfort, Takao´s got a crapload of Long Lance torpedoe´s it can flush, ... even a single Type 93 torpedo may be enough to sink the BB..
I think you mean "if Takao manages to get into torpedo range". This is an issue (the only one that makes it even a fair fight) as mentioned, the Virginia would have recived upgrades which would no doubt include Anti-torpedo bulges which would protect against 1 or 2 hits over most of the ships broadside. anyway WWII TTs were horribly inaccurate and it is unlikely she would manage a hit. New Jersey was attacked by the Cruiser Katori and a DD, both flushing their tubes at her while she puttered along the shore providing NGSF to the marines. not only did she blow both ships to reef-fodder using only her 5"/38s she never even realized she had been under TT attack until the Japanese records were recovered after the war. Totally inaccurate. the Virginia would simply turn away and avoid the TTs as they approach, SoP. Takao's sister, Chōkai, couldn't Torpedo a lumbering CVE at Samar and was instead sunk by a single 5"/38 deck gun. The armor on the Japanese ships (particularly on cruisers) was particularly light. The IJN was very 'attack' oriented and neglected anything 'defensive'. much of the ship was either unarmored or plated with only 25mm (1inch) plates. paper towels for all it could do against a 12" AP round.
Tenshinai wrote:Yeah, a Virginia´s dead, really bad vs pairing for it(or a Conneticut).
No, even with just the WWI upgrades, the Takao's only real chance is a long-odds shot that she may manage to get one of her TTs to actually hit her and land it somewhere not protected by a torpedo bulge (which all US battleships had by the end of the 30's).
Tenshinai wrote:It´s best chance is actually that the flawed CA design makes it capsize before killing the BB.
Don't know here this come's from. the only Takao that capsized was the Atago after taking multiple torpedo hits to one side and having basically her whole side blown off. Any ship would lay over after that (just plain physics). the Takao took hits in the same incident and made it back to port (though the Japanese were never able to get around to repairing her ).
Tenshinai wrote:Hipper is in many ways even worse, even if it has less effective torpedoes, is slower and less maneuverable.
Again, where? the Hipper's had 12 21" TTs, yea they had slightly smaller warheads but they were no less accurate (like that would be possible) she had 6 per side. The numbers varied with the Takaos (from 4-8) depending on the year, not a significant difference. slightly slower but IDK were you get the idea that either of them could 'dance around on a dime' photos show the slow turn radius of IJN cruisers trying (too often unsuccessfully) to dodge bombs.
Tenshinai wrote: because it [had] even better [long-range] [fire-control
The German FC was way better than the IJN.
Tenshinai wrote:It IS possible to defeat newer ships with older of course, but outside of ambush, you generally need a crapload of luck to do it.
Only if your talking about 'old' ships in their time vs 'new' ships in their time - not a reasonable comparison. If 2 ships are engaging, then it's because they are in the same time, so it's only reasonable to allow the older ship the reasonable upgrades that they would receive during the intervening time period. The exception would be strait time-travel (such as Final Countdown) where the newer ship is transported back to the time period of the older ship (which can be interesting - such as the opposite - where the USS Virginia instead of going forward to WWII is transported F-C style back to 1862-3 and joins the CSN!) Still, even Takao-1900 all it would take is 1 12" AP round landing and it'd go strait threw anywhere it hit, even the main belt along the mags.
Tenshinai wrote:Actually sounds like the computer is cheating against you. :D

Seriously though it´s most likely the AI optimising its moves while you haven´t played it enough yet to even notice that you can do stuff like that(and how).

No, I fire-fire-fire with 4-5 units and it almost always end with the target down to 1 hit point orange {suppressed}, just can't finish killing it. where he comes in an 2 shots bang-bang your dead! :x . most of my kills happen on the 2nd turn when I find where the previous damaged unit ran off to. Computer games are often designed to 'cheat' as a compensation for the fact that they can't out-think human players, to challenge them, they are often given skewing effects on results such as damage and hits. I was playing a battle last night and I fired on a M4 with multiple units (Tigers, Hummels, Jaeger Panthers) and knocked it down to 3 hit points. my 4 fighters (including a 262) had to gang up on 1 bomber to down it, then 1 B-26 flew over my best Tiger unit and blew it up with 1 attack!!! :shock: :? :x
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by Tenshinai   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:10 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Never heard of it


:shock:

Seriously?

Wow, it´s been around for many years now:
http://megamek.org/
First release on sourceforge was put there no later than 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaMek
MegaMek is an open source, turn-based strategy computer game that simulates the Classic BattleTech board game.

...

Currently, MegaMek supports all the rules from the BattleTech introductory box set, most of the rules from the Total Warfare core rulebook, and a number of advanced rules from the Tactical Operations rulebook and some house rules. The game offers a simple genetic-algorithm-driven bot that one can play against, though so far its intelligence is limited. Also, most of the AeroTech rules from Total Warfare are implemented. An optional 3D interface is currently under development. The game currently supports multiplayer via TCP/IP, though play-by-email is possible through the exchange of saved games.

A sister project MekWars that is also written in Java gives MegaMek a campaign structure with a chat interface, hangars, accounts, repairs, and numerous other settings which can be defined by each server administrator as she or he wishes. There are numerous MekWars servers which offer campaigns in the different eras of BattleTech.


Until July 2016 Megamek was downloaded over Sourceforge alone over 700,000 times.


#####

You fall in to too much propaganda I think.


:lol:

You keep telling yourself that.

The IJN heavy cruises were not very maneuverable.


Compared to ships of their own era, sure.
Compared to a pre-DN BB? They run rings around them.

in contrast, most pre-dreadnoughts were short and fat, giving them greater maneuverability (for the most part).


You forget to account for the 60% higher top speed of the cruiser and improvements in hydrodynamics in the 20 years in between them.

yea, in 1900 mixed guns were an issue, because they didn't know how to compensate and direct properly


Main reason for mixed guns was the belief that battles would keep on closing range, which would eventually (in theory) make the faster firing smaller big guns more valuable.

In reality this was proven completely false(especially once improvements meant that the larger guns could fire almost as fast as the smaller ones).

You may also want to consider that the 20cm guns on the Virginia class had a rate of fire of 1-2 rounds per minute.

The otherwise almost identical 20cm guns on the Takao had a rate of fire of 2-5 per minute.

(variation for both depending on shot elevation)
Effective firing range, 20km for Virginia´s 20cm guns, 29km for Takao´s.

Virginia´s 30cm guns, similiar rate of fire, max effective range 17km.

BTW, Admiral Hipper´s 20cm guns, mostly same characteristics except higher velocity and max range of 33km.

Oh and BTW, the Virginia class superposed main turrets were a major failure point, BAD idea.

Some PDs even got the better of DNs (of BCs) such as the battle of the Bosphorus 10 May 1915, where Russian PDs fought off the SMS Goeben off her own port.


Uh, the Yavuz(as it was renamed in Ottoman service) was returning to its home port, low on maingun ammo, after an offensive patrol since May 7th, and faced TWO Russian pre-DNs.

Eh, yeah, no shit Sherlock, anyone with sanity intact would not get into a fight like that.

Again, all solved by WWI, All US PDs were given cage masts and 'modern' FC by the end of WWI, if they had been retained, do you thing they wouldn't have received continual upgrades up to WWII?


:roll:

So you´re pitting theoretically upgraded versions against originals. Right.

They were retired for good reason.

I'm not talking about taking the Virginia strait out of 1900


No, i was talking about the historical upgraded one, because the original had the unimproved 30cm guns and those couldn´t even manage 1 shot per 2 minutes at high elevation.
And their accuracy SUCKED.

(like some revers form of Final Countdown - who's title I never understood)


Eh, i don´t think you´re alone in that.

how? 2 turrets fore & aft, compared to Takao with a central turret that can only fire broadside?


Superposed main gun turrets. 4 of the 20cm guns are locked along with the 30cm guns. And IF they happen to fire too closely together, they damage the turret. Shitty solution that AFAIK noone EVER repeated again.

And seriously, don´t you know how important salvo fire was for big gun ships?
It´s one of the main reasons DNs were so much more powerful, that they could fire all main guns as ONE battery rather having to try and deal with 2(or even 3 ) different sets of ballistics, because up until post WWII, big gun accuracy for EVERYONE was not something to brag about.

Broadsides are SUPPOSED to be the "main weapon". The Takao´s were not great ships, so they would probably have been much better off without the 5th turret, but not because it could "only fire in broadsides".

Not really, later DNs (post Nevada) had the 'Raft' scheme, but before that, the Dreadnoughts had very similar armor schemes. The main issue was the fact that PDs predated watertight compartmentalization


Yees? You seriously call that "not really"?
Compartmentalization was an extremely important addition.

making them vulnerable to TTs (as shown by the Norwegians at 1st Narvik in 1940). The Takaos proved to be vulnerable to TTs themselves - 3 of them were taken out by them, look what happened to Maya, one hit alongside the mag and BOOM, metal confetti.


Vulnerable is not the same as not being better than more primitive schemes.
It´s a simple fact, armour and protection schemes from 1900 were drastically inferior to something from 1930.

Even what was technically considered the same scheme was vastly improved over those decades.

eh? explain?


In simple terms, a lot of the jobs on an older BB required more manpower to do the same thing than on a later ship.

In this case, Takao has similar full load tonnage, more guns, more equipment, yet less crew.
Engines are the single biggest improvement, but not the only ones.

Again, not '1910' Virginia, Virginia with likely upgrades, which she would have received if retained, which had already included FC upgrades in WWI and would have included more by 1940 (as did all ships that were retained - such as Arkansas). You don't think the US Navy would send out a warship without at-least basic upgrades, a Mk-33 if not a Mk37 FCS. She would be no less accurate than any other US warship at the time.


Ok sure. Takao stays at 21km, out of Virginia´s range and keeps shooting at the Virginia until it´s dead. End of story.
The advantage of having both better speed and main guns range.

They weren't included in the Pennsylvania Design either, but in 1945 she (and many others) had survived at-least 1 hit. it's called 'bulging' and 'modernization'. happens all the time (at-least in the US).


And who would pay for that upgrade of an obsolete ship? I certainly wouldn´t. Especially not with the whacky stupid turret setup.

Italy did a complete rebuild of their pre-WWI dreadnoughts during the inter-war period and they came out completely different (not even the same engines).


And later estimates tells us that they could probably have built completely new ships that were considerably better for just a little more expense. Because they essentially rebuilt the ships from beginning to end anyway. And still ended up with something less effective than they could have gotten from a newbuild.

There is no reason the same (or less radical upgrades) couldn't have been conducted on the PDs as well. look at the difference between the Arkansas 1911 & 1945 - almost unrecognizable.


Sure. But unless you also want to breach the Washington treaty, the main guns remains unchanged, and compared to 1930s guns, they suck.

I think you mean "if Takao manages to get into torpedo range".


No i do not. Because the Takao has a 15 kts speed advantage along with main guns with 9-10km greater range, ie a 50-60% advantage in both speed and firing range.
Only a fool would not abuse that kind of advantage.

This is an issue (the only one that makes it even a fair fight) as mentioned, the Virginia would have recived upgrades which would no doubt include Anti-torpedo bulges which would protect against 1 or 2 hits over most of the ships broadside.


Yeah, but you see the Virginia´s are still relatively SMALL ships for a BB, and the Long Lance are specifically made to break post WWI BBs that are double, triple or even more bigger than them.

Torpedo defense effectiveness scale with the size of the ship, a Virginia class will only get a little more use out of them than most cruisers, and that only because they´re wide enough to make a difference and have much more armour.

But again, the Long Lance torpedo was designed to be effective against ANY size battleships, and even in the 1940s they were a clear threat against stuff like the Iowa or South Dakota!
And THOSE were 3-4 times as heavy.

anyway WWII TTs were horribly inaccurate and it is unlikely she would manage a hit.


:roll:

*facepalm*

Yep, so going by that logic, because the Virginia´s guns are so poor compared to those of the 1930s, obviously they can never hit anything either.

*doh!*

*facepalm*

Seriously... Yes, amazingly, torpedoes in WWII were not superduper autohit weapons!

You MIGHT just want to remember that the Type 93 was still the best torpedo during the whole of WWII. And you MIGHT just want to think about exactly how many ships were hit by torpedoes during WWII compared to not.

And then realise that a Takao has SIXTEEN TUBES plus reloads. And against a ship the size of a Virginia, 1 hit is likely severe damage or sinking, 3 hits is pretty much a guaranteed sinking no matter what.

And against a sluggish ship like a pre-DN BB, getting hits is LIKELY.

New Jersey was attacked by the Cruiser Katori and a DD, both flushing their tubes at her while she puttered along the shore providing NGSF to the marines.


:roll:

Right so lets use a bunch of logic fallacies to draw stupid conclusions from, right.

The Katori carried FOUR tubes of nearly ancient Type 6 torpedoes.
It was also built as a training ship, with a top speed of 18 kts and near zero armour.

And oh my how amazing that TWO battleships, TWO heavy cruisers and 2 destroyers along with a bundle of aircraft had little problem dealing with it.

Takao's sister, Chōkai, couldn't Torpedo a lumbering CVE at Samar and was instead sunk by a single 5"/38 deck gun.


:lol:

Riiight. Historical revisionism running rampant again i see.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/chokai_t.htm

At 0851, CHOKAI is taken under 5-inch fire from "Taffy 3" escort carriers and destroyer escort ROBERTS. She receives 6 shell hits to port side amidships, probably from escort carrier WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66).

At 0859, a secondary explosion, probably caused by CHOKAI's own torpedoes on deck, knocks out her engines and rudder. She shears out of formation to port and moves eastward.

After 0905, four TBM-1C "Avengers" from KITKUN BAY’s VC-5 attack a Japanese heavy cruiser (in all likelihood CHOKAI), already being engaged by WHITE PLAINS, using her 5-inch stern gun. Led by Cdr Richard L. Fowler, the "Avengers" score one 500-lb SAP bomb hit to the cruiser’s stern. The pilots observe how the crippled CHOKAI, billowing smoke, begins to slow down. [5]

At 0955, lookouts on cruiser TONE observe CHOKAI, dead in the water, 3.8 miles away.

At 1006, Kurita orders Cdr Matsuzaki Tatsuji's destroyer FUJINAMI to escort CHOKAI. She and FUJINAMI down an Avenger during an air attack. FUJINAMI removes the survivors including Captain Tanaka.

At 2148, FUJINAMI signals that she scuttled CHOKAI with torpedoes at 11-22N, 126-22E.


"a single deckgun", amazing those guns, being able to shoot 500lb bombs and all. :roll:

The armor on the Japanese ships (particularly on cruisers) was particularly light.


Really? Please DO tell.

Hmm, lets see, Portland CA, 38-127mm armour.
Takao CA 25-127mm armour.
Northampton CA, 19-95mm.
New Orleans CA 32-203mm.
Pensacola CA 19-102mm.
Baltimore CA 64-203mm.(this is a 1943 build, explaining the majorly improved armour, along with the extra tonnage)

The IJN was very 'attack' oriented and neglected anything 'defensive'. much of the ship was either unarmored or plated with only 25mm (1inch) plates. paper towels for all it could do against a 12" AP round.


Please read up on the subject. Maybe even take a little peek at how USN cruisers ALSO used that "paper towels" armour for large areas, because surprisingly, armour is HEAVY, and it´s very difficult to armour everything well.

No, even with just the WWI upgrades, the Takao's only real chance is a long-odds shot that she may manage to get one of her TTs to actually hit her and land it somewhere not protected by a torpedo bulge (which all US battleships had by the end of the 30's).


20km range guns@19kts vs 29km ranged guns@34kts.

And you don´t even understand that the Type-93 torpedo is meant to kill ships DESPITE having a torpedo bulge. Or that adding those to an oldstyle BB means it looses even more of it´s already pathetic speed, because those bulges makes an already very wide ship even wider. It´s probably going to end up with a topspeed around 16-17kts.

With guns capable of firing at less than half the rate, less accurate guns, shorter ranged guns.

Sure, go with your fanwank, you do that, but don´t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Try going to http://forum.axishistory.com and ask it as a vs question.

Don't know here this come's from. the only Takao that capsized was the Atago after taking multiple torpedo hits to one side and having basically her whole side blown off. Any ship would lay over after that (just plain physics). the Takao took hits in the same incident and made it back to port (though the Japanese were never able to get around to repairing her ).


:roll:

It comes from the fact that the Takao class was VERY top heavy.
http://combinedfleet.com/ships/takao
"Not surprisingly, this class proved to be somewhat top-heavy...""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takao-class_cruiser
"The only flaws the Takaos had were that they were top-heavy and thus prone to capsizing, as well as Turret #3 having a poor firing arc."

Again, where? the Hipper's had 12 21" TTs, yea they had slightly smaller warheads but they were no less accurate (like that would be possible) she had 6 per side.


*facepalm*

Type 93 vs G7a torpedoes:
Warhead: 480kg vs 280kg
Max Range: 40km@36kts vs 12km@30kts
Max Speed: 20km@48kts vs 5km@44kts

And unlike the US navy, the IJN spent years actually testing their torpedoes, which is why they were actually in the top 3 list for most accurate during WWII.

You seriously need to take a very close look at just how the Type 93 was used, because the reason it got relatively few hits during WWII is because it was often used at ranges that USN torpedoes couldn´t even reach.

The numbers varied with the Takaos (from 4-8) depending on the year


*sigh*

Takao had 4 quadruple mounts. 16 total.
http://combinedfleet.com/ships/takao
"And their torpedo battery of 16 x 24" tubes gave them an additional punch that no Allied cruiser could come close to matching. Having torpedo-armed cruisers turned out to be a major advantage in night fighting. Chokai was flagship at the first major battle near Savo Island, when Vice Admiral Mikawa delivered the most brutal butt-kicking to the U.S. Navy it has ever had the misfortune to receive in a straight-up fight."

The German FC was way better than the IJN.


Yes? That IS what i wrote.

Still, even Takao-1900 all it would take is 1 12" AP round landing and it'd go strait threw anywhere it hit, even the main belt along the mags.


And a single Type 93 torpedo would likely kill a Virginia, OR a single salvo from Takao´s main guns would cripple or destroy it beyond the range of Virginia´s guns, because of the deckarmour(which just happens to be the same thickness as on a Takao).

Fanwanking is not a viable method of winning in reality.

Takao vs Virginia, odds are 90% or better to Takao´s advantage. You need special conditions or a crapload of excuses to seriously change that. And then you´re no longer comparing, it´s just bullshit wishing.

Again, THERE IS A REASON WHY PRE-DN BBs WAS CONSIDERED OBSOLETE AND WERE RETIRED.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:18 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:
Never heard of it


:shock:

Seriously?

Wow, it´s been around for many years now:
http://megamek.org/
First release on sourceforge was put there no later than 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaMek
MegaMek is an open source, turn-based strategy computer game that simulates the Classic BattleTech board game.

...

Currently, MegaMek supports all the rules from the BattleTech introductory box set, most of the rules from the Total Warfare core rulebook, and a number of advanced rules from the Tactical Operations rulebook and some house rules. The game offers a simple genetic-algorithm-driven bot that one can play against, though so far its intelligence is limited. Also, most of the AeroTech rules from Total Warfare are implemented. An optional 3D interface is currently under development. The game currently supports multiplayer via TCP/IP, though play-by-email is possible through the exchange of saved games.

A sister project MekWars that is also written in Java gives MegaMek a campaign structure with a chat interface, hangars, accounts, repairs, and numerous other settings which can be defined by each server administrator as she or he wishes. There are numerous MekWars servers which offer campaigns in the different eras of BattleTech.


Until July 2016 Megamek was downloaded over Sourceforge alone over 700,000 times.
thanks for the info, I'll look into it.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:53 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:Compared to ships of their own era, sure.
Compared to a pre-DN BB? They run rings around them.
You forget to account for the 60% higher top speed of the cruiser and improvements in hydrodynamics in the 20 years in between them.
Speed does not equal maneuverability. In-fact the two are diametrically opposed. Hull qualities that make a ship faster make it less maneuverable. There were some early PDs who had steering issues but on the whole they were very maneuverable. The fact that they were slow and had to turn their broadside to the enemy to bring guns to bear made turning a design priority for PDs. What your confusing is fleet maneuverability. without direct RF communications, it was difficult to coordinate a fleet sailing in close proximity at speed. This made the battle line have poor turning abilities, not the individual ships. That's what happened to HMS Victoria, the Admiral was trying to develop new ways to turn the fleet so that the ships could use their maneuverability instead of being so limited within the fleets maneuvering limits. He goofed. The hydrodynamic improvements were mainly in the form of welds replacing rivets and were partially responsible for the increased speed, not turning ability. most PDs could turn much faster than an IJN CA (again look at the photos - they could barley match the CVs when trying to avoid bombs - Here Image is the Chikuma with her superstructure replaced by a giant crater from a 2000lb bomb because she couldn't turn fast enough to dodge it - Tones had virtually the same hull as Takao).
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:14 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:Main reason for mixed guns was the belief that battles would keep on closing range, which would eventually (in theory) make the faster firing smaller big guns more valuable.
In reality this was proven completely false(especially once improvements meant that the larger guns could fire almost as fast as the smaller ones).
No, the British Navy thought guns couldn't hit past 3000 yards so they quit trying, and convinced others. Many navies (especially the US, Japan & German) never bought into this and built ships to fire at long range. That was the whole reason for the IJN Hashidate class carrying 32cm (12.6") guns in single turrets, to fire at ships (particularly enemy Battleships) at max range. If they thought they would engage at close range they would have used multiple smaller (8") guns, as you said faster rate of fire.
The original reason for the mixed batteries on Battleships was for mixed targets; the big guns were to engage Battleship, The smaller guns to engage Cruisers and the QFs to engage Torpedo Boats. not for increased RoF at close range. That's why the original All-Big-Gun Battleships had no mid-caliber weapons, the Brandenburg's only carried 28cm main guns to engage British/French/Russian Battleships and carried 10.5cm QFs as secondaries for Anti-Torpedo Boat defense.
Top
Re: Panzer General 3D
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:27 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Tenshinai wrote:You may also want to consider that the 20cm guns on the Virginia class had a rate of fire of 1-2 rounds per minute.

The otherwise almost identical 20cm guns on the Takao had a rate of fire of 2-5 per minute.
The were far from identical, the Virginia had 8" guns not 20cm (they were approximately 20.3cm) and were manually operated 35cal. The Takao carried a 20cm (apx 7.9") 50cal with newer ammunition handling equipment, so of-course they will fire faster. Still one good hit from a 12"AP and it's all over.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...