My dream aircraft carriers.

Discuss anything related to Shipbucket here.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
William Walker
Posts: 15
Joined: June 4th, 2013, 8:56 pm

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#31 Post by William Walker »

Rhade wrote:
William Walker wrote:I still think speed, armor and armament were just as important as electronics. Firepower is having more guns than the enemy so you have more firing power at the start of the engagement. Have you never played Empire Total war? :lol:
You need a lot more then firepower to win in Empire, you need to know the battlespace, you own and enemy weaknesses. And the most important thing in Total War, you need to know tactic. But you must be that one of them, lads who die under my well directed flanking attack. :lol:

And armor is not that important as electronics, modern carriers are not armored at all.
The most important thing in Empire is veterancy and technology just like it is in real life. If you have a 5th rate with high veterancy against a heavy first rate in it's first battle then the 5th rate will win, it will outmaneuver, use the wind and reload faster. Also technology is vital if you have a heavy first rate from a nation with poor technolgy against the 5th rate from a nation with all the technology the 4th rate will win. Yes having tactics to suit you different fleets is very important, what ships do you normally have in your fleets to do flanking attacks? I normally have a fleet of 10 heavy first rates to cope with the enemies big ships, then a couple of brigs to kill the enemy rocketships, with my own 2 rocket ships protected by my heavy first rates.
William Walker
Posts: 15
Joined: June 4th, 2013, 8:56 pm

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#32 Post by William Walker »

Colosseum wrote:A ship with 20 guns and no fire control radar that doesn't hit the target isn't nearly as useful as a ship with one gun and fire control radar who lands every single hit. ;)
Well that depends how large the single gun is and how well protected the ship with 20 guns it. Most of the time though you don't see Monitor's taking on battleships.
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#33 Post by TimothyC »

William Walker wrote:
Colosseum wrote:A ship with 20 guns and no fire control radar that doesn't hit the target isn't nearly as useful as a ship with one gun and fire control radar who lands every single hit. ;)
Well that depends how large the single gun is and how well protected the ship with 20 guns it. Most of the time though you don't see Monitor's taking on battleships.
No, no it doesn't because the ship with 20 guns explicitly never gets a hit. At this point I'm forced to think you're either woefully ignorant (the the point where it's an unknown-unknown* for you) or you're trolling us.

*That is to use the Rumsfeld definition: It's something that you don't know you don't know.
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
William Walker
Posts: 15
Joined: June 4th, 2013, 8:56 pm

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#34 Post by William Walker »

TimothyC wrote:
William Walker wrote:
Colosseum wrote:A ship with 20 guns and no fire control radar that doesn't hit the target isn't nearly as useful as a ship with one gun and fire control radar who lands every single hit. ;)
Well that depends how large the single gun is and how well protected the ship with 20 guns it. Most of the time though you don't see Monitor's taking on battleships.
No, no it doesn't because the ship with 20 guns explicitly never gets a hit. At this point I'm forced to think you're either woefully ignorant (the the point where it's an unknown-unknown* for you) or you're trolling us.

*That is to use the Rumsfeld definition: It's something that you don't know you don't know.
I was going to improve on the point I was trying to make in further debate with Colosseum. However after this comment and its insults there is no point.

So please delete this threat, I will not be posting again on the forum. However I will still be reading other members posts and increasing my knowledge.
Colosseum
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#35 Post by Colosseum »

I don't really "get" the point you were trying to make anyway. Like Tim says, I'm not sure if you're actually trying to have an argument with us or if you are just trolling. If you want to debate, that's fine... I won't participate as I am quite busy but i'm sure there will be others who will.
William Walker
Posts: 15
Joined: June 4th, 2013, 8:56 pm

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#36 Post by William Walker »

Colosseum wrote:I don't really "get" the point you were trying to make anyway. Like Tim says, I'm not sure if you're actually trying to have an argument with us or if you are just trolling. If you want to debate, that's fine... I won't participate as I am quite busy but i'm sure there will be others who will.
Your scenario was spurious, a 1 gun ship would never engage a 20 gun ship as it is out gunned 20-1. Unless it had a gun with better range to control the engagement or better armor protection. So in effect you are the one who is trolling me. :lol:
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: My dream aircraft carriers.

#37 Post by Thiel »

Since the 20 gun ship doesn't have much in way of fire control its effective range limited to a couple of miles at most. The 1 gun ship on the other hand can hit you the moment its radar can see you.
β€œClose” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
Post Reply