Jutland

[jeffsmith]

Here's the New Game Title
from Storm Eagle Studios

Storm Eagle Studios - JUTLAND !!! (http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/html/se_Jutland.html)

Sorry WallysWorld
you actually beat me to the post :)

[WallysWorld]

:mad:

LOL

[mbv]

Yup - just got the email tonight :) Damn, now I will have to buy a whole new library to research this period :laugh:

[WallysWorld]

Looking at the screenshots, one thing that was added was reflections of the ships on the water. DG just had shadows, but it looks like Jutland will have reflections.

[Lempereur1]

Wally:

JUTLAND does have reflections in the water!

And each ship has a unique bow wave as well.

Models are as much as 3 times the polygons as the RJW.

More feature peaks next week!

[WallysWorld]

Jim, will system requirements be about the same as DG? Even with the increase in polygons?

[Lempereur1]

Yes they will.

We have increased render speed again and spent it on all kinds of cool Sh_t!

[mbv]

The textures seem to give the ships a more weathered look than they had in Distant Guns too. Very nice! By the way Jim, one of those screens on the main Stormeagle Jutland page just shows a repeat image of one of the others when the thumbnail is clicked.

[Heinz Fischer]

Yahoo!

Been waiting for this announcement for a while, and I must say I'm quite excited. Can't wait for the dreadnoughts!

And the image they forgot to link to is this:
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Images/Jutland/Jutland%20Screens/Jutland_Batch_01_03_1024x768.jpg

[Lempereur1]

Sorry...

Fixed!

[Heinz Fischer]

Thank you ;)

Was pleased to get it in the mail today! I passed word of this to the Subsim forums right away, and I hope to see this one in the headlines of all the sim and wargaming sites come tomorrow.

Hope it picks up some interest in DG from the people that missed it, as well. :D

[Lempereur1]

Alot of people passed over DG:RJW becasue of past RJW games from other companies.

The DG campaign game is so awsome that anyone who does get into it finds that its the best naval sim they have ever played!

[WallysWorld]

The DG campaign game is so awsome that anyone who does get into it finds that its the best naval sim they have ever played!

Hear! Hear!

The only naval sim that comes close to DG is SSI's old "Great Battles" series. I played the North Atlantic campaign from the German side many times.

[Heinz Fischer]

I still have to admit I kind of dream of an even wider WWI campaign than just Jutland, but Jutland will do! You have to admit though that there's plenty else in WWI that could potentially be done in this engine, but NOT before Jutland!

Admittably I've always been a bit partial to raiding operations (not surprising since I love sub sims) and the chases related to them. Eh, perhaps in another title ;)

[Hinchinbrooke]

Jutland!! YES!! Just what the proverbial doctor wanted ordered!! :)

[Hinchinbrooke]

..........nice shot of Tiger leading the line............. ;)

[Haida]

Awesome! Looking forward to it.

In answer to "Can you guess the names of the above ships?", clockwise from top left:

1. (Hinchinbrooke already got it) - Tiger
2. - Seydlitz
3. - Kaiser class
4. - Nassau class

[Hinchinbrooke]

Question for Jim and Norm:

With such a large battle are you planning to model every class, i.e., a separate Neptune (as opposed to Colossus/Hercules), or KGV's (as opposed to Iron Dukes), etc., etc.................. Obviously, I hope you do, along with Agincourt, Canada and Erin, but that's quite the task............. just on the British side.

[caseyjay]

Woke up this morning and saw SGS email ... Jutland??
.. so I slapped my face ... and it hurt!!
.. so Im not dreaming!! it's real!!

http://emoticons4u.com/fam/fam24.gif


If I had a tail I would be suffering RSI by now :laugh:

Norm and the rest of you guys at SGS, thank you ad infinitum :cool:

[Mish]

I bought Distant Guns in respect of Norm and his brilliant idea and efforts to create the game of pre-dreadnought age. And I hoped my money would be used in improving this game. What I would buy is the add-on with bug fixed (still lots to fix in this game), map editor, campaign/battle editor and pre-dreadnought fleets of the other countries rather then Russia and Japan.

As for the Jutland - I'm sorry but I'm not interested. :(

[HMSWarspite]

I hoped the next one would be WW1 but never dreamed that they would actually start with Jutland! That's a serious number of ships!

I hope that the fleet handling options will get a little attention. Thinks I think are essential that aren't in DG are

- better division orders (i.e. options other than just 'follow'). We need something that keeps fleet formation through turns, or relative position to other ships, not just follow. I don't fancy deploying the Grand Fleet from cruising formation to line with the current orders - I would imagine a mess!
- better target options (other than leader or nearest). We need 'target opposite number in line', and 'target nearest ship to this point' (to have your fleet automatically concentrate on each ship as it comes to a turn point)
- firing on ships at very close range needs to be sorted (the sub 500yds issue). Also, firing through own ships/masking, and firing on targets with friendlies close. At Jutland, ship and smoke masking certainly drove the thinking of the commanders very often, whether justified or not.
Also, the tendancy to blow up needs very careful consideration (it's the old issue: 3 RN ships blew up, and one more nearly did - is this the mean, was it very unlucky, or even was the RN very lucky not to lose more (Lion for example)). I can see this being one hot topic!

Oh, and (in case you haven't seen from my name I am a bit of a Warspite fan. Screenshot please? Pretty please? (All 4 QEs would be good!) I'll buy your game if you do... (of course, I'll buy it anyway, but you don't know that!)

[Rhetor]

It's great to hear that I might get a chance to crush the British navy.

I take it for granted, that the tactical AI will be improved, and a scenario editor added.

[Zakalwe]

Brilliant news.

Although I abandoned DG now, as I rediscovered SH3 with the great GWX mod, I for sure will purchase Jutland.

But I strongly hope you will concentrate not only on the eye-candy but improve the AI also.

Looking forward to this game.

Z.

PS.: Jim, if you need a helping hand on a German manual again, feel free to ask.

[Commodore Rob]

I cant wait I am drooling already!!!!

[Jim McConnell]

Hooray! :D Personally, I'm delighted to learn that WW1 in the North Sea will be the next DG subject. Now that we know, we can better target our wishlists ;) .

I strongly second Waspite's comments, particularly his call for improved targeting options. If DG/Jutland will indeed support a "real numbers" campaign environment for North Sea circa 1916, i.e., the full historical fleets for both sides, then it will need to simplify the admiral's job even further, beyond DG/RJW.

Now I think DG/RJW was the best naval game yet produced. But it seems to me that DG/Jutland will really need some sort of "divisional targeting orders" construct. With this many ships (hopefully) involved :) , we'll need to focus on being admirals, not gunnery officers.

I won't touch the "how often should RN ships blow up compared to KM ships" question, a subject which can lead to fierce debates methinks :hush: , beyond saying that I hope Norm doesn't "hardwire" some fixed "critical hit %" into the game, that whatever he decides to do, it will be "flexible".

Questions: Will there be submarines? Will there be Zeppelins? Will there be aircraft?

Will there be a scenario editor?

Will there be a multiplayer campaign environment?

[Daedalus]

Well this is good news. I just get logged on from my move and here is the data that I was hoping for.
Man is this going to take away from family time!

[KG_Jag]

Up until DG, I bought every game that Norm put out. However poor public relations (much of which appeared on this forum) and an unacceptable (to me) copy protection system stopped me from buying DG.

I can watch the PR myself. What copy protection (please give complete details) will be utilized and on how many of my computers can I install Jutland if I buy a copy of the game?

[Daedalus]

Hooray! :D Personally, I'm delighted to learn that WW1 in the North Sea will be the next DG subject. Now that we know, we can better target our wishlists ;) .

I strongly second Waspite's comments, particularly his call for improved targeting options. If DG/Jutland will indeed support a "real numbers" campaign environment for North Sea circa 1916, i.e., the full historical fleets for both sides, then it will need to simplify the admiral's job even further, beyond DG/RJW.

Now I think DG/RJW was the best naval game yet produced. But it seems to me that DG/Jutland will really need some sort of "divisional targeting orders" construct. With this many ships (hopefully) involved :) , we'll need to focus on being admirals, not gunnery officers.

I won't touch the "how often should RN ships blow up compared to KM ships" question, a subject which can lead to fierce debates methinks :hush: , beyond saying that I hope Norm doesn't "hardwire" some fixed "critical hit %" into the game, that whatever he decides to do, it will be "flexible".

Questions: Will there be submarines? Will there be Zeppelins? Will there be aircraft?

Will there be a scenario editor?

Will there be a multiplayer campaign environment?

Well we had a few U.F.O's in the last game so I can forsee a path to the airships. It would make it great would it not. I for one can hardly wait till I get more data on this.

[vertical]

Sweet! What I was hoping for. :)

vertical

[Lempereur1]

What bugs are you referring to?

There are no bugs being reported right now.

Also, what version are you playing?

[Lempereur1]

What poor PR are you reffering too?

Kinda of funny that you say that when Distant GUns and Storm Eagle Studios win ArmChair General 2006 Wargame of the Year and they comment that our customer service and support is the best they have ever seen...

This forum here is not our offical support area. This is the Distant Guns community.

Did you buy Distant Guns? Did you have a problem?

If you didnt, how do you know what kind of service and support we have?


You can install our games on as many computers as you like, but you have to pay for each one you wish to run at the same time.

We sad to hear that you are missing the best Naval Simulation ever made. Our copy protection is here to stay.

[KG_Jag]

What poor PR are you reffering {sic} too?

Jim, remember (when this forum was still SZO) the posts and threads that Don removed and then much later reposted? There was also much discussion about the issue on Google Groups Historical Wargames forum. I believe part of it had to do with a comment you made concerning a type of fish. I can provide links to the Google discussions, if you would like. The original SZO posts may be a bit more difficult to find since we are now Gamesquad. By the way this is the Gamesquad forum. The Distant Guns topic is one of very many.

Thanks the information about being able to install the game on a single computer. That is a negative for me. By the way, I am not a pirate but personally use three different computers, depending on where I am from time to time.

I'm still waiting on your response about copy protection. As I recall that information was slow in coming when you were asked the same question on this forum about DG, just before it came out.

[Zakalwe]

Hi,

you can use your licence of DG on as many computers you want. But only one at the same time.

F.E. your licence is currently on computer A, you know you want to use it on computer B. You transfer the licence back to SES servers (then your install on computer A is in demo mode) and pick the licence from the SES servers on computer B, enabling the full mode. All you need is a connect to the internet on both machines. Licence transfer can be done with any data media aswell (CD, USB stick etc.).

Greets

Z.

[Don Rickles]

This forum here is not our offical support area.
Where is the official support area?

D.

[Lempereur1]

You email us. That way we get right to your issue.

Here have a look at the award Armchaor General gave us...

Armchair General Magazine: Interactive Military History (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?page=1&p=3170&page=3)

"The developer’s support has been overwhelming and receptive to player’s suggestions and comments",

Speaks for itself...

[Lempereur1]

You can find out all about our copy protection in our FAQk.

Its on our website.

But I guess no matter what we post or say, your response will be the same.

Enjoy!

PS: Say hi to MR. Fisshy for me..:]

[bill44]

I hoped the next one would be WW1 but never dreamed that they would actually start with Jutland! That's a serious number of ships!


Also, the tendancy to blow up needs very careful consideration (it's the old issue: 3 RN ships blew up, and one more nearly did - is this the mean, was it very unlucky, or even was the RN very lucky not to lose more (Lion for example)). I can see this being one hot topic!



Those magazine explosions were a direct consequence of the poor cordite storage practices that the british employed, having powder bags stacked outside of opened flash proof doors to speed up the firing.
I dont know how that could be replicated in the game.

Norm, Jim, you guys in my opinion have a first rate game and a customer based service that is second to none, i will be buying Jutland. :clap:

[Lempereur1]

Bill,

thanks for the kind words!

We have debated the magazine explosion issue, and we may include a switch to have ot both ways!

[RedMike]

Look forward to Jutland. Very cool indeed!!
:cool:

[HMSWarspite]

Those magazine explosions were a direct consequence of the poor cordite storage practices that the british employed, having powder bags stacked outside of opened flash proof doors to speed up the firing.
I dont know how that could be replicated in the game.


Not with you: without knowing anything about the game detail mechanics, I would just handle it as a % chance of magazine explosion (which is already modelled), following any penetrating (main) mount hit. The tricky bit is what value to apply to the %!

In addition, the additional powder storage in the turret ammo supply system to speed rate of fire is only (IIRC) one theory as to the high number of explosions. There are also concerns about basic flash tightness, weak main armour leading to straight penetrations to the magazines, and also the stability of British cordite, although personally I think that last is not relevant. For the record, there was one Ge ship that nearly had the same problem but the flash didn't make it to the magazine, only the hoist. Having lost the entire C & D turret crews at Dogger Bank and nearly the magazine, due to cordite flash Seydlitz managed to lose C turret at Jutland for the same reason. The effects were minimised by changes made after Dogger BAnk. As I say, the devil is in the % you put on each side! :D

[Don Rickles]

You email us. That way we get right to your issue.

Here have a look at the award Armchaor General gave us...

Armchair General Magazine: Interactive Military History (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?page=1&p=3170&page=3)

"The developer’s support has been overwhelming and receptive to player’s suggestions and comments",

Speaks for itself...
when you release you must get miny mail from everyone reporting a same bug! ;)

game good everybudy?

i prefer to get word from other gamer.

review sell to miny ads to all! :lier:

d.

[Shanghai Slim]

game good everybudy?

i prefer to get word from other gamer.



GAME GOOD.

Any other questions we can answer for you? :)

[bill44]

For the record, there was one Ge ship that nearly had the same problem but the flash didn't make it to the magazine, only the hoist. Having lost the entire C & D turret crews at Dogger Bank and nearly the magazine, due to cordite flash Seydlitz managed to lose C turret at Jutland for the same reason. The effects were minimised by changes made after Dogger BAnk. As I say, the devil is in the % you put on each side! :D

Yep, the Germans learned a lot from Dogger Bank, I have read that the ship was saved by the actions of one of the crew who, worked the red hot wheels that opened the doors to flood the magazine, losing the flesh off both hands. Lion would also have gone the way of the other 3 BC's had it not been for Royal Marine, Major Francis Harvey, who with his dying breath ordered the magazines flooded.
Queen Mary is an interesting one, she was hit forward, and her forward magazine went up, destroying the forward part of the ship as she sank by the bow, P&Q magazines which ran the beam of the ship exploded, tearing the mid section apart, men could be seen scrambling out of the turret doors of the after turret, the aft magazine then exploded, 1 officer and 5 ratings survived.
Now lets see that modelled :laugh:

[Jim McConnell]

Not with you: without knowing anything about the game detail mechanics, I would just handle it as a % chance of magazine explosion (which is already modelled), following any penetrating (main) mount hit. The tricky bit is what value to apply to the %!

In addition, the additional powder storage in the turret ammo supply system to speed rate of fire is only (IIRC) one theory as to the high number of explosions. There are also concerns about basic flash tightness, weak main armour leading to straight penetrations to the magazines, and also the stability of British cordite, although personally I think that last is not relevant. For the record, there was one Ge ship that nearly had the same problem but the flash didn't make it to the magazine, only the hoist. Having lost the entire C & D turret crews at Dogger Bank and nearly the magazine, due to cordite flash Seydlitz managed to lose C turret at Jutland for the same reason. The effects were minimised by changes made after Dogger BAnk. As I say, the devil is in the % you put on each side! :D

Warspite, though I agree that there are many theories as to the root cause of RN magazine explosions at Jutland :) , I most emphatically can't agree that a fixed % chance of a magazine explosion after a penetrating main mount hit would be a good solution for the DG/Jutland game engine. You give some of the reasons for my disagreement yourself, in your second paragraph.

I would agree that unstable cordite, though the identifiable cause of some non-Jutland magazine explosions in RN ships (e.g. Vanguard), was likely not a factor in the magazine explosions at Jutland.

But the ammunition handling practices of RN ships, particularly Beatty's BC's, might surely have been a factor, indeed, some would say WAS surely a factor. As for the KM's experience with Seydlitz at Dogger Bank, IIRC the KM stored their propellant charges in brass containers until unpacking them in the turret. Thus the turret flash which nearly destroyed Seydlitz at Dogger Bank was contained short of the magazine. Whereas the RN stored its propellant charges in silk bags, even in the magazine, thus making their charges more susceptible to flash along the entire ammo passage route.

So it seems clear to me that the practice among the RN's BCF of accumulating "ready use" propellant charges at several locations along the "route of passage" between magazine & turret might significantly affect a ship's chance of a catastrophic magazine explosion. The RN took steps to correct this problem after Jutland, but the capital ships never met again, so the effect of the procedural improvements was never put to the test.

It seems to me, then, that this should be modeled as a factor separate from the penetrating main turret hit itself. Perhaps with a variable % factor, depending upon the period in the war during which the action is fought. This % should be variable within a fleet for a given action; the ammo handling practices of Grand Fleet at Jutland differed from those prevalent in BCF.

This would give DG/Jutland the maximum flexibility for future expansion into other WW1 time periods & theaters. Personally, I'm looking forward to actions between the Turks & the Russians in the Black Sea some day :cool: ...

[Hud]

The British cordite charges had black powder igniters. The safety coverings for these were being removed in the mags. They were supposed to be torn off when the charge reached the gun. So not only were they stacking ready to use cordite but exposing the igniters as well. Effectively laying a fuse all the way back to the mags. Lion had a new gunnery officer prior to Jutland and he was horrified by some of the practices he saw. He also removed a lot of over age cordite. The problem was partly caused by anxiety to achieve a high rate of fire to match or surpass the perceived German rate and possibly lack of understanding of cordite properties. This has been argued endlessly on other forums. To get back to the simulation sea conditions and vis are giong to be important in DG Jutland, DG RJW still in my opinion has too many "nice days". North Sea weather can be pretty grim as I know from experience. Incidently Jutland was the first battle I ever saw wargamed when one Xmas my grandfather(who was there) and some of his former rather illustrious colleagues used my grandmothers dining table and various eating implements to recreate the battle. I have to admit that I was more interested in having my meal and was rather annoyed at these gentleman. My grandmother was furious by all accounts. It wasn't Christmas dinner I know that much. Sorry to ramble on with such piffle must be age. Am I too old to be playing games?

[HMSWarspite]

I most emphatically can't agree that a fixed % chance of a magazine explosion after a penetrating main mount hit would be a good solution for the DG/Jutland game engine. You give some of the reasons for my disagreement yourself, in your second paragraph.

I didn't mean to imply 'totally fixed %'. I meant fixed at the time of hit. For example, a mount with no ammo, or that was knocked out without explosion previously shouldn't expload (either no cordite, or managzine evacuated and flooded as a precaution).

But the ammunition handling practices of RN ships, particularly Beatty's BC's, might surely have been a factor, indeed, some would say WAS surely a factor.
I wasn't saying it wasn't a factor (double nagative anyone). I merely pointed out it wasn't the only possible factor,


Perhaps with a variable % factor, depending upon the period in the war during which the action is fought. This % should be variable within a fleet for a given action; the ammo handling practices of Grand Fleet at Jutland differed from those prevalent in BCF.

This would give DG/Jutland the maximum flexibility for future expansion into other WW1 time periods & theaters. Personally, I'm looking forward to actions between the Turks & the Russians in the Black Sea some day :cool: ...

A real subtlety would be a composite factor made up of:

Fleet base % (reflects baseline practices, =f(navy, date etc), x ship variation (random to reflect degree of variation from fleet SOP, and set at game start, or tied to the ship, or ship type - old unrefitted BCs get a bigger one, new superdreads get a smaller one)

As a real treat, give the same ship base variation as a variable on rate of fire (the ships that 'cheat' fire fast and die quickly!)

However this is all chrome, and the source of much debate unless the overall average explosion rates are felt right! How many turret hits were there at Jutland, vs how many blown up. Off the top of my head I know of 4 for 3 (RN), and 2(IIRC) for 0 IGN.

[Don Rickles]

GAME GOOD.

Any other questions we can answer for you? :)

Thanx, i will try jutland game with demo.

d.

[Haida]

We could debate this for a long time. For the British battlecruisers the combination of weak armor, unsafe handling of cordite and the instability of the cordite itself all contributed to them blowing up so easily.

Another factor is the German shells had much better penetrating power than the British shells. If the British shells were as good we might have seen a couple German battlecruisers blow up too.

From a gameplay standpoint I think it's a must to model in these dis-advantages for the Royal Navy at least until the end of 1916. Otherwise the game will be too difficult for the High Seas Fleet player.

Another interesting point, do you model the sinking of the Magdeburg and the British ability to read German signals? This was a huge advantage for them. Because of that the High Seas Fleet was never able to trap a smaller portion of the Royal Navy like they planned, because Room 40 always knew what they were up to.

[RCNVR]

I think that trapping part of the RN is likely to be a major feature of Jutland (the game not the battle) as Grand Fleet (GF) vs High Seas Fleet (HSF) will probably result in an RN victory at a cost. And of course this was the German plan which did not work due to Room 40. The numbers are simply too high for the HSF to win.

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
Along with how they deal with aircraft, submarines, better wireless, higher speeds, longer gunnery ranges (director control), better torpedoes, larger fleets, weather, mine fields every where, the list just keeps going on. This IS a big job to do right.

Another big questions will be the fog of war issue. Give any of the commanders the same visual ability in DG and Jutland either would not of happened at all or I suspect that the HSF would have been beaten (depends on which side is the player) I don't think we will get the same results unless the designers really rig the game (hopefully not)

Personally I am looking forward to fighting some of the smaller scale battles which could have gone either way. Hegoland (spelling), Dogger Bank, I am not sure about any other significant ones in the North Sea unless you include some of the Channel engagements.

By the way Warspite do you want the rudder problem of HMS Warspite modelled in the game?

[Shanghai Slim]

(reconsidered, deleted)

Carry on. :)

[KGB]

And what about the gameplay of the Jutland ?
Will there be Dogger-bank battle ?
The Folklend battle ?
What about armoured cruisers Scharnhorst & Gneisenau and their journey ?

Can we use Bayern class Superdreadnought in new title ?

Sorry if this questions are dumb, well, I'm just wondering :p

PS: check link to the 4th photo
It must be http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Images/Jutland/Jutland%20Screens/Jutland_Batch_01_04_1024x768.jpg
instead of
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Images/Jutland/Jutland%20Screens/Jutland_Batch_01_03_1024x768.jpg

[Rhetor]

I would like to second the question about the "Bayern" class. How could I forget about these?

So please tell me, will I be able to sink "Iron Duke" with 380mm shells, apart from 280 and 305mm? :D

[HMSWarspite]

...

By the way Warspite do you want the rudder problem of HMS Warspite modelled in the game?

Already is: do a search on my posts, and you will find the story of an Aux cruiser of mine in DG that was punishing IJN cannon fodder and then got the rudder jammed and ran itself ashore! :cry: I presume this will read across into Jutland.;) The thing we haven't got modelled (I think) at present is freeing rudder, and sailing off again, having taken the fire of a significant part of the HSF! We could transfer the % chance of blowing up debate into the 'did Warspite turn one complete circle or 2 at Jutland?' debate!:yummy:

[Bullethead]

Those magazine explosions were a direct consequence of the poor cordite storage practices that the british employed...:

I disagree. The German practices were no better. The main difference was in the chemical properties of the different Brit and German propellants. The Brit propellant burned very hot and very quickly even when unpackaged (think det-cord) whereas the German propellant did not. This violent burning of the Brit propellant created huge overpressures in confined spaces, which were more than the surrounding structure could stand. Thus, the Brits blew up when they had internal propellant fires, but the German ships didn't.

At Dogger Bank, Seydlitz had both aft turrets engulfed in a propellant fire that involved some charges in the magazines themselves, not just those en route to the guns. The total was over 6 tons of propellant. Yet the ship did not come close to exploding, because the fire wasn't quick and violent enough for that. It didn't even displace any of the structure. If German propellant would have caused ships to explode, certainly Seydlitz would have gone kerboom.

OTOH, Lion at Jutland had just 8 charges (all in approved, shielded waiting positions) ignite from a smoldering fire from an earlier hit in Q turret. The violence of this combustion seriously deformed the magazine bulkheads below decks, even though the blast (not fire, but blast) was partially vented through the missing parts of the turret roof. If Q magazine hadn't been flooded already, this almost certainly would have blown Lion to bits, because the magazine doors and scuttles weren't flashtight from the working chamber side.

So why did Pommern blow up? The best guess is that this was due to shells, not propellant. The shock of the torp hit (in a ship with no torpedo bulkheads and 2ndary magazines next to the skin all along the length) probably armed some fuzes, which were then triggered by being tossed about. It should be noted that Konig nearly suffered a similar fate from a freak shell hit below the belt that blew through the torpedo bulkhead and the coal bunker inside it, and then destroyed a 2ndary magazine. Charges ignited but the flood of seawater quenched them. After the battle, however, some armed shells were found buried under the wreckage and coal.

Thus, IMHO, Brit ships should be much more likely to blow up than German ships. And not just Brit BCs and ACs, but the BBs as well, because they all used the same propellant. If circumstances had permitted a real battlefleet engagement at Jutland, I'm sure 1 or more Brit BBs would have blown up from propellant fires. German ships could blow up as well, but it was a more difficult to make it happen because it seems to have depended on heavy shock reaching the magazines, and the dreadnought-era ships were designed to avoid this problem as much as possible.

[KGB]

Bullet, lets step aside of cordite problems that Brits had in Jutland, and lets speak about hit-location and damage (as well as damage control) systems we will see in Jutland.

AFAIK there were spokes about non-penetration damage to ship hull, coming back to DG. We found out that there were no such kind in original DG, as well as there were no underwater shell hits in original title.

Bu we all know, that both of these are more than possible.
Lets speak about Tiger, for example:

In vanguard to fight Tiger got 10 hits from the German 280-mm AP shells from which eight have put most serious damages on the left board within 39 minutes. Two shells have got in the right board of the ship, but have not left greater destructions. From total of shells three have got in the main armored belt; in one case there was a 228,6-mm plate penetration, in other - there was only a cave-in of armored plates on 0,9 m. Consequence of this hit was flooding of one board branches. In two cases the top 25-mm and armored 76-mm of a deck made the way 280-mm shells, and only one of them has fallen to a main deck and not penetrated it. Three hits in turrets were accompanied by great concussion; in two cases shells passed throuh booking (the fourth and the third turret), one shell has cracked the reservation of a tower pipe.
At penetration of splinters of booking of the third tower for some time the equipment of submission has failed. As a result of one hit there was a fire inside of the ship on the left board near a cellar of 152-mm of artillery. Struggle for survivability consisted in correction of submission in the third tower at the left instrument, in flooding two cellars (one 152-mm of artillery and the third turret) for prevention of explosion and in fire extinguishing.
5 % of structure of crew have suffered 61 person.

So, as we can see, the non-penetration damage can be, and in fact is, very serious.

Can devs tell us anything about Jutlands hit-location system ?


Edited:

Here is screenshot for 280mm shell concrete places of hit Tigers hull.
View at Left board:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jutland_Damage/Draw/09.jpg
View at Right board:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jutland_Damage/Draw/12.jpg

[Bullethead]

KGB-

I'm quoting you out of order here because it's easier for me to answer that way....

So, as we can see, the non-penetration damage can be, and in fact is, very serious.

I agree with you completely on this. Brit shells at the time of Jutland seem to have been rather like RJW-era shells. They tended to break up or explode on impact rather than penetrate because they were 1) too brittle, 2) filled with shock-sensitive picric acid, and 3) had no real delay fuze. In the whole battle of Jutland, only 1 Brit shell penetrated heavy armor (although this was a 15" shell at about 10km, so the odds favored the shell), and relatively few penetrated even medium armor. However, the non-penetrating hits still caused serious damage to a number of German ships just from the shock of impact, the leaks the hits started from dislodging hull plates, and the spray of hot shrapnel.

AFAIK there were spokes about non-penetration damage to ship hull, coming back to DG. We found out that there were no such kind in original DG, as well as there were no underwater shell hits in original title.

I believe you are mistaken about this. The following is quoted from the RJW game manual, page 41, in the Weapons Effects section:

"... Regardless of whether a weapon penetrates the armor, it will do damage to unarmored areas of the ship near the point of impact. Weapon damage is dependent upon shell weight, velocity at impact, and location of impact. Impact locations below the water line are particularly damaging. ..."

Both Jim and Norm posted several times that in the whole real RJW, there were zero penetrations of heavy armor, and yet ships still sank. IIRC, they mentioned this to explain why there was no difference between AP and HE shells in the RJW game. Because neither was likely to penetrate, and because both were likely to explode on impact, there was no real difference in their effects on the target, and thus no need to account for them separately in the game.

Shells in the RJW game do in fact hit ships below the water line. When ships capsize, you can see the shell holes in the red paint.

[KGB]

KGB-

Both Jim and Norm posted several times that in the whole real RJW, there were zero penetrations of heavy armor, and yet ships still sank. IIRC, they mentioned this to explain why there was no difference between AP and HE shells in the RJW game. Because neither was likely to penetrate, and because both were likely to explode on impact, there was no real difference in their effects on the target, and thus no need to account for them separately in the game.

Shells in the RJW game do in fact hit ships below the water line. When ships capsize, you can see the shell holes in the red paint.

I was wrong, of course. Yes, there are hits below the waterline, and they are very dangerous. Checked this today already. :D

But, speaking about non-penetration damage I didn't explained my thought clearly. Though there is, of course, damage to the non-armoured parts, there were three main results of non-penetration hits:
1) Damage to the bearing elements of the hull,
2) outside boarder damage as the result of armour plates identation.
3) Bulkhead damage

Maybe all this three types are somehow released in DG: RJW, but don't knowing the game-mechanics I can't say it for sure.

[Bullethead]

But, speaking about non-penetration damage I didn't explained my thought clearly. Though there is, of course, damage to the non-armoured parts, there were three main results of non-penetration hits:
1) Damage to the bearing elements of the hull,
2) outside boarder damage as the result of armour plates identation.
3) Bulkhead damage

Maybe all this three types are somehow released in DG: RJW, but don't knowing the game-mechanics I can't say it for sure.

Game mechanics are Norm's thing, not mine. And even if I knew the answer, which I don't, I couldn't tell you :).

However, as a player/customer of the RJW game (which I had NOTHING to do with as an SES employee), and as somebody with an obsession for naval stuff, my thoughts are that you don't always have to penetrate the armor to do penetration-type damage. If you hit armor hard enough, big fragments of armor will fly inside even if the shell and its explosion stay outside the armor. And because these armor pieces have absorbed the kinetic energy of the shell, they're red-hot. So in this case, almost penetrating is almost as good as really penetrating. You should get most of the same damage effects on things such as turrets, which had lots of dangerous and/or vulnerable stuff just inside the armor, but less effect on bigger, less flammable areas such as engine rooms.

I assume that this type of "almost penetration" is what causes BB turrets to be destroyed from frontal hits, and BBs to suffer propulsion damage, in the RJW game. If the shell was very unlikely to penetrate, how else could it do this type of damage?

[HMSWarspite]

Game mechanics are Norm's thing, not mine. And even if I knew the answer, which I don't, I couldn't tell you :).

However, as a player/customer of the RJW game (which I had NOTHING to do with as an SES employee), and as somebody with an obsession for naval stuff, my thoughts are that you don't always have to penetrate the armor to do penetration-type damage. If you hit armor hard enough, big fragments of armor will fly inside even if the shell and its explosion stay outside the armor. And because these armor pieces have absorbed the kinetic energy of the shell, they're red-hot. So in this case, almost penetrating is almost as good as really penetrating. You should get most of the same damage effects on things such as turrets, which had lots of dangerous and/or vulnerable stuff just inside the armor, but less effect on bigger, less flammable areas such as engine rooms.

I assume that this type of "almost penetration" is what causes BB turrets to be destroyed from frontal hits, and BBs to suffer propulsion damage, in the RJW game. If the shell was very unlikely to penetrate, how else could it do this type of damage?


Non-penetrating but damaging hits don't have to be due to 'physical' damage (although splinters and spalling are a big problem). Dont forget the pure kinetic energy a big shell represents, and then there is a big explosion a few feet (or inches) away. Damage to (for example) mountings can be due to overpressure (incapacitates crew and fragile stuff like optics), damage to lighter things (sighting hoods etc), or there is the old favourite - mounts don't rotate well if you distort the raceway even slightly. All of these could count as 'damaged' or 'destroyed' in DG terms. I believe (althougn would have to do some research to substantiate) that loss of function of main mounts in DG/WW1 timeframes was due to non-penetrating damage at least as often as the 'easy' mental picture of 'shell makes hole in armour and exploads inside' model. I think that in WW2, with better armour and more complex mounts, the balance swings even further. What is certain is that auxillery damage (hoists, electrical supply, etc) are at least as damaging as main penetrations in tersm of numbers in WW2. Finally, barrel hits also are pretty effective (so are prematures in the barrel, but thats another story!)

[Hud]

When a projectile hits armour plate you can get a "scab" effect. The shell doesn't penentrate but its kinetic energy is transmited through the plate causing a "scab" of plate to be detached from the inside. That of course would cause damage as well as weakening the plate.

[vertical]

How knowledgeable this forum is concerning the subject matter is border line scary (this is a compliment) :). And this is coming from someone who's been visiting simulation forums for a decade or so now.

All right, that's about all I can contribute to this analysis of WWI era damage control. Carry on, gentlemen. It's an interesting read.

(thoroughly impressed) vertical

[KGB]

When a projectile hits armour plate you can get a "scab" effect. The shell doesn't penentrate but its kinetic energy is transmited through the plate causing a "scab" of plate to be detached from the inside. That of course would cause damage as well as weakening the plate.

Weakening - yes. As well as destroying the plate's fixture.
The shrapnel, which is created as the result of kinetic energy transforms to thermal and forming the shockwave inside the material can be dangerous.
Well, in fact it was dangerous for small, contrained cabins of tanks.

For battleships this was not so vital; but in fact the most dangerous results of non-penetration hit in Jutland (for main-caliber turret) was the kinds spoken already - turret jamming.


Damages of turrets and secondary artillery. Damages of turrets were characterized by figures of hits: one - in the third turret of "Lion", two - in the first and third turrets of "Queen Mary", one - in the third turret of "Malaya" and one hit in the first turret of "Warspite". Only 8 cases (Wilson totals 13 hits in turret of the English ships (" the Linear ships in fight ", p. 183)).

Hits in two cases spent to forward plates of 280-mm of the reservation to their punching and to penetrating shells inside of turrets with ignition of ammunition, consequence of that were big fires as fire extended downwards, reaching artillery cellars. In a number of cases for the ships it came to an end accident.

Deformation of forward armored plates and their cave-in inside of towers came to an end them jamming with loss of ability to rotate. Also, there was a damage of internal mechanisms of a tower ("Tiger", " Princess Royal").

From concussion left also out of operation the hydravlic mechanisms of turrets. At damage and cave-in of the reservation of a tower pipe its splinters jammed inside and caused out of operation charges submission ("Tiger"). Roofs of turrets were not always penetrated, but there was a case when the shell has got inside of a turret ("Lion"). In two cases has occured plates deformation ("Warspite") and its failure from bolts ("Malaya").


PS: There are some things in DG engine, that must be fixed and/or improved in Jutland.
Here is a pic of this:
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t127/Snz_kgb/DGbugs.jpg

[Hud]

I would thoroughly recomend reading D K Brown "The Grand Fleet Warship design and developement 1906 -1922" He covers a lot of these topics in great technical detail and as former Deputy Chief Naval Architect of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors knows his stuff. This book together with Cambell,s book and Dr Brooks work on "Dreadnought gunnery and the Battle of Jutland" I find indespsable. One thinks DG Jutland could be as controversial as the real battle!

[Daedalus]

Bugs? you must have an older version, this one has been working and stable for months!
I know as I play this game almost every day and I will for as long as I can. :) Be sure you are updated to the last release and that way if you are having issues it will take care of them. If you need post here and let us know what is up.

[Zakalwe]

KGB,

as for No. 2 in your pic I seem to recall Norm or Jim saying these splashes near and behind the ships are from shells passing through the hulls.

I think something similar is written in the manual.

Z,

[KGB]

KGB,

as for No. 2 in your pic I seem to recall Norm or Jim saying these splashes near and behind the ships are from shells passing through the hulls.

I think something similar is written in the manual.

Z,

No, I've checked this more than 10 times.
No passing through hull, i.e. the pic I've shown is true for any type of shells, from 305mm to 76mm and less. Well, I hope u won't say that 76 mm shell can pass through Adzuma or Iwate ?

[KGB]

Bugs? you must have an older version, this one has been working and stable for months!
I know as I play this game almost every day and I will for as long as I can. :) Be sure you are updated to the last release and that way if you are having issues it will take care of them. If you need post here and let us know what is up.

I have latest version, and still having bugs, unfortunatelly.
:cry:

[Bullethead]

Non-penetrating but damaging hits don't have to be due to 'physical' damage (although splinters and spalling are a big problem). Dont forget the pure kinetic energy a big shell represents, and then there is a big explosion a few feet (or inches) away....

Most certainly. At Jutland, about 1/2 of the destroyed turrets (in game terms) in surviving ships were the result of non-penetrations. All the Brit ships that blew up were almost certainly hit on turrets but, except for Invincible, we can't be exactly 100% sure of that, nor know if there was a penetration or "the next best thing".

Be that as it may, you're talking about 1/2 to 1.5 tons of supersonic steel specifically designed to punch through anything in its path. That's gonna hurt even in a best-case scenario.

[Bullethead]

How knowledgeable this forum is concerning the subject matter is border line scary (this is a compliment) :). ...

There's no grog like a naval grog :D

Warships have always been the most complex war machines every made at their particular point in time. As such, they've always been incredibly expensive, so there has always been way fewer of them than any other type of military hardware. This has also always meant that admirals have been raised believing you have to very careful with your fleet (you're not going to get another one), unless you're sure you can win the war Right Now.

All this has always meant that naval battles are few compared to land or air battles. More importantly for grogdom, such battles as were fought were more likely to have been indecisive. Thus, there's always something for grogs to speculate about. And because of the relatively few numbers of warship types at any given time, it's pretty easy for the average grog to hold most of the stats in his head or at least within easy reach from his computer. And there's less argument about the stats because the expense of the major ships mean that most things were written down in great detail (if you can find it).

Thus, naval grog arguments have to get much deeper into the technicalities and what-ifs than other types of grogs, because they have fewer combat results as agreed touchstones. And every naval grog thinks he's got as many facts at his disposal as the game developers, because there aren't that many facts out there to begin with, compared to other types of warfare. So IMHO it's much easier to satisfy WW2 tank grogs, for example, than it is naval grogs :D

[HMSWarspite]

There's no grog like a naval grog :D

Warships have always been the most complex war machines every made at their particular point in time. As such, they've always been incredibly expensive, so there has always been way fewer of them than any other type of military hardware. This has also always meant that admirals have been raised believing you have to very careful with your fleet (you're not going to get another one), unless you're sure you can win the war Right Now.

All this has always meant that naval battles are few compared to land or air battles. More importantly for grogdom, such battles as were fought were more likely to have been indecisive. ... :D

A very good point. Going back to my table top WW1 campaign, as CinC Grand Fleet, there was a problem in the game objectives. The HSF managed twice or three times to catch my pre-dreadnoughts on their own. I helped him, by using them as bait! (I think the umpire was 'nudging' encounters to stop me ending the campaign in the first 2 months of the war - not having much disincentive to be at sea en mass, the GF was always close but 'just too far away!'). Having lost about half a dozen pre-dreads, for maybe 1 of the HSF, I still felt very happy- the GF was getting stronger as ships completed, and the HSF wasn't (or at least only slowly). There were peripheral benefits such as one engagement between our BCs in early 1915, where I finally got a BC (VdT I think), but the main thing was he had 30 of the most modern DDs excorting them, but not enough CLs. This would have been a good idea, except my sub-commander (commanding the Harwich force of 8 CL, and lots of DDs) got yelled at for 'doing a Nelson' and sailing his force through my line without orders as the German DDs lined up for a smoke screen to cover the Ge withdrawl. I had to appologise for calling him an idiot! Result: my BC firing masked for 10 minutes, but a massacre of the Germans - only one German DD made it off the table (under a copy of the rules IIRC: the umpire ruled that it was the North Sea, and obviously there was a sea mist. We just muttered 'cheats'!). Anyway, to return to the point: after what was 3:1 to HSF in terms of engagements, I was still in possession of the GF, was not under any circumstances going to split it, and it was hence just a matter of time before I caught the HSF at sea, or the Ge player realised that going to sea was pointless. I did not have any real concerns for my minor ships, so long as the GF was intact, and hence the early part of the war was very much more active than RL. I was not really inhibited by anything except loss of Dreads, and mitigated that by never going to sea with less than the full fleet.

To explain my point (at last!). There is a problem with victory conditions for Jutland and North Sea WW1 games in general. There must be some sort of balance between incentive to fight (to make it a 'game'), and victory conditions that don't reward the GF just hammering in, because the inherent superiority means that any vaguely likely complete disaster is likely to be strategically useful. Even losing 1:1 in dreadnoughts is fine in a game, but I don't think the commanders of the RN would have lasted long if Jutland had been something like a 8:8 'draw'. Strategically, that is very effective however (HSF now close to 50% of it's size, GF still 66%+). Even in a single short mini campaign like Jutland, there needs to be something to counter the 'death or glory' approach in the mind of the RN commander. I am a strong believer that the RN ships must not be 'doctored' to make them less effective for game balance. You need to create the real uncertainty in Jellicoe's mind ('the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon'). Something in the victory conditions must hinder the RN - any result that swings the balence of naval power in Ge favour must be a huge German win. There must be something that discourages the RN just pressing on regardless. If you could wire up the game to give an electric shock each time a RN dreadnought gets hit, that would do it! Or more realistically, count RN losses as 10x German ones or something.

In fact the real result must be seen as no better than a draw to the RN in 'game terms', even though strategically it was a win. This was largely due to the HSF realsing how lucky they were not to get more badly beaten rather than the pure losses. In terms of relative effect on the fighting power of the real result, the RN could (and did) just shrug it off and come out stronger: it changed the design of the Hood for a start (for the better).

Sorry for the length, but ever since the table top campaign, I have puzzled over this, and have not really come up with a solution that doesn't have one or other side deciding the best way to play the game is not to turn up!

(Oh, and ironically, the campaign finished when I finally met the HSF with the GF in summer 1915. The engagement was inconclusive tactically, with many ships damaged on both sides, and at least one German, and one RN explosions. I pulled off, because we were close to the Ge minefields. I had 6 BB at sea the following week and most of my fleet in a month, and the HSF would have been in repair for 1 year plus (due to lack of dry docks, and I had inflicted 60% more damage to his fleet of fewer ships). Thus the campaign closed with a RN victory, and the HSF player would have done better by staying in the pub...

[Shanghai Slim]

(...) I have puzzled over this, and have not really come up with a solution that doesn't have one or other side deciding the best way to play the game is not to turn up!

How about using an approach that factored in the value of shipping, in a manner similar to Distant Guns. Use incentives to reward arrival, protection or interception of merchantmen.

You could also offer tempting rewards to the Germans for successful completion of missions to shell the English coast.

"Victory point" systems can reward or incentivize any kind of behavior. Penalties can discourage others. You could let the user adjust the of reward/penalty levels to change the level of difficulty, or to balancing multi-play in scenarios with special goals, and could always provide optional or default "historical" settings.

[HMSWarspite]

How about using an approach that factored in the value of shipping, in a manner similar to Distant Guns. Use incentives to reward arrival, protection or interception of merchantmen.

You could also offer tempting rewards to the Germans for successful completion of missions to shell the English coast.

"Victory point" systems can reward or incentivize any kind of behavior. Penalties can discourage others. You could let the user adjust the of reward/penalty levels to change the level of difficulty, or to balancing multi-play in scenarios with special goals, and could always provide optional or default "historical" settings.

The snag with a shipping based approach is that the only place where shipping is a problem for the RN is the channel, and east coast. The channel is easy to protect, and the HSF appearing anywhere near it is enougth to give Jellicoe a really good high (far to restricted in room, and easy to cut off again). The east coast (and channel) are better defended (and attacked) by light forces. Minefields are also good...

The bombardment of coastal towns works as an incentive (as in RL), but sooner or later the German player asks himself 'why am I doing this? It is effectively Russian roulette, unless I get lucky, or the GF splits itself'

You might come up with a prestige/politics based approach - the Germans get points for each day each BB is at sea (reflects the challenge to RN supremancy, and the effect on neutrals). The RN gets nothing, except a small number of points for sinking warships, and loses a lot for losing ships. This would give the germans an incentive to pop out to sea, and discourages a RN close blockade... Then you might get more variety.

One thing we don't know is the scope of the campaign. A few weeks around May 1916? Or something more wide ranging? Or no campaign, just battles? I hope not the latter. Or at least the battles should start with light forces in contant and heavy forces many tens of miles apart...

[Brother Belcher]

Hello all !

This is my first ever post on ANY forum ! I've been interested in WW1 & WW2 Battleships for many years now and own several good books on the topic although I'm no expert. I must say this title has got my Naval juices flowing ! Reading HMSWarspite's posts on the possible campaign game has got me thinking. Please be aware I don't (currently !) own Distant Guns and I only know what I have gleaned from these forums and screenshots.

Hopefully any campaign will be long enough to simulate more than just Jutland itself. While i look forward to fighting that battle I'm more interested in the build up and operations in the North Sea in general. Jutland was a one off battle in over 4 years of skirmishing and planning and came about by numerous factors.

Each side had its own strengths/weaknesses and responsibilities. In a short campaign I'd hate to see both fleets come out of their corners and go "hammer and tongs" at one another. It didn't happen in real life. Fair enough in a short battle or scenario but not in a campaign.

The High Seas Fleet should be rewarded for aggressive tactics such as bombardments, sweeps, mine laying, ambushes and patrols etc. The risks should be real. Likewise the Grand Fleet should also sweep, patrol, cover, mine sweep etc. Light forces can do the day to day naval activities (scoring victory points ?) with the ever present risk of interception by superior enemy forces. This would require supporting forces and counter measures. Room 40 perhaps ? Regular patrols can provide juicy targets for swift hit and run raids.

Presumably a large battlefleet sortie took planning and coordination and would not sail at the drop of a hat although I'm aware with the help of Room 40 the Grand Fleet could be brought to readiness for steaming with a few hours notice. Wouldn't want the despatch of battle fleets to become some kind of klickfest with little or no bearing on reality.

Both sides should be mindful of losses. It was this self preservation and unwillingness to take risks which resulted in only one battle which was largely undecisive. In actual fact warship losses on combat were quite low considering the huge sums of money spent on these ships with all their state of the art technology. In otherwords they were very valuable and not to be risked unless "the game looks worth the candle". Bringing overwhelming forces against a divided or isolated force was a tactic used by both sides. The High Seas Fleet should have the added handicap of needing to score victory points to negate the Grand Fleets slow strangulation.

The player should have the ability to plan missions when circumstances are in his/her favour. Enemy ships in dock for repair and maintainance or abstract withdrawals to other theaters (Falklands/Dardanelles ?). Newly launched and worked up reinforcements.

Well I've rambled on too much for a first post but there's lots of pent up lurking inside. While I'm sure the combat/visuals of Jutland will be great its the feel and flavour of WW1 and all of the ingredients that I want.

Now give me your best broadsides and tell me the game engine can't handle what I want or it's only going to be single scenario's. Either way I'll buy it.
Many thanks if you've read this far !!

Cheers

Brother Belcher.

[asheshouse]

One of the biggest problems facing the fleet commanders on both sides even once battle was opened was knowing where the rest of the fleet was.

On the British side Jellicoe was desperately short of reliable information on the German fleets position as the two sides approached.

Inaccuracy in estimated positions of the Battle Cruiser force relative to the Grand Fleet maintained a real "fog of war" up to and throughout the encounter of the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet.

Few of the Battle Cruiser Fleets cruisers remembered their prime role in a fleet action of locating and identifying the enemy and passing this information back to the commander.

Because of errors in estimates of position Jellicoe was suddenly faced with an encounter with the head of the German Fleet much sooner than he had anticipated.

If this game can accurately simulate the fog of war experience, reflecting both lack of knowledge of the position of parts of your own forces as well as the enemy then it will be superb. Of course I would always want to see a replay of the action with all sides visible to work out what actually happened.

[Haida]

The snag with a shipping based approach is that the only place where shipping is a problem for the RN is the channel, and east coast. The channel is easy to protect, and the HSF appearing anywhere near it is enough to give Jellicoe a really good high (far too restricted in room, and easy to cut off again). The east coast (and channel) are better defended (and attacked) by light forces. Minefields are also good...

This assumes that there won't be any U-boats in the game. U-boats nearly starved Britain out of the war during the unrestricted campaign in 1917. On the other hand the U-boats mostly operated on the west coast which is not really part of the game I guess. I don't know if the game engine will support subs but wouldn't it be nice for the German side, and the Brits would get them too. Minefields will need to actually work in the game, which they don't in DG. Devs: please make them work!

The bombardment of coastal towns works as an incentive (as in RL), but sooner or later the German player asks himself 'why am I doing this? It is effectively Russian roulette, unless I get lucky, or the GF splits itself'...

That is exactly why the HSF bombarded the coastal towns, to split the Grand Fleet and trap the smaller portion. It nearly worked too. Because of those raids the battlecruiser fleet was relocated to Rosyth. If it wasn't for Room 40 and the over-cautious Admiral von Ingenohl the HSF plan might have worked.

You might come up with a prestige/politics based approach - the Germans get points for each day each BB is at sea (reflects the challenge to RN supremancy, and the effect on neutrals). The RN gets nothing, except a small number of points for sinking warships, and loses a lot for losing ships. This would give the germans an incentive to pop out to sea, and discourages a RN close blockade... Then you might get more variety.

I like that idea. You might also give the RN points for attempting to intercept the HSF raids. The RN player would have to do this by strengthening the Channel Fleet and/or putting capital ships at Rosyth as was done in RL, since Scapa Flow is too far north. This would discourage the RN player from following a "fleet in being" strategy.

[HMSWarspite]

This assumes that there won't be any U-boats in the game. U-boats nearly starved Britain out of the war during the unrestricted campaign in 1917. On the other hand the U-boats mostly operated on the west coast which is not really part of the game I guess. I don't know if the game engine will support subs but wouldn't it be nice for the German side, and the Brits would get them too.

I was assuming that the game would be concntrating on the surface fleets, with U boats in support (sort of mobile minefields on the strategic map). Although, your example is a further reason why the RN doesn't put to sea with the GF! I want a surface ship game, not a strategic U boat campaign (although that would be a good game in its own right, but a waste of the DG engine...)

[Shanghai Slim]

The snag with a shipping based approach is that the only place where shipping is a problem for the RN is the channel, and east coast.

Forgive my lack of historical knowledge, I’m a midget in the company of titans here. What I was actually thinking on shipping was a North Sea-based campaign which rewarded the RN for maintaining the blockade, and rewarded the Germans for shipping that got through (similar to DG). The reward system need not be symetrical. The rewards could be quantified as some seen/unseen victory points, or in some other abstract form. For example, in DG the level of shipping reaching China influenced the availability of Port Arthur, in Jutland shipping getting past the British blockade could be rewarded by additional resources of some sort for the HSF (manpower, ships, fuel/ammo supplies, reduced repair time, access to ports, whatever).

If the game scope is world-wide, German cruiser campaigns against allied shipping could simularly be rewarded, with disproportionate rewards for German successes to reflect the effect on the morale of the public (allowing single cruiser operations to have significant impact on the campaign outcome, just as in real life)


The bombardment of coastal towns works as an incentive (as in RL), but sooner or later the German player asks himself 'why am I doing this?

“Why am I doing this? Because I’m kicking @ss in victory points! If I pull off 3 or 4 or X successful coastal raids, the RN must try to inflict devastating losses just to have any hopes of winning.”

Just adjust the incentive levels to reflect real life (or playability, whatever your goal is). If a human British player sits idly by while AI German warships repeatedly shell British coastal cities, he is in no danger of being sacked like his real life counter-part. To replicate the historical (dis-)incentive, give the Germans high or increasing points for pulling these raids off.

Whatever strategies you want to dis-/encourage can be handled this way. I think this is pretty basic game theory.

You might come up with a prestige/politics based approach

Exactly! You could mix and weight the point systems you mentioned with whatever other ones you want, e.g. tactical successes + shipping + effect on homefront morale, etc.

Of course, since we don't know anything about the scope of the new game, all this is putting the cart leagues ahead of the horse. :)

[Brother Belcher]

Regarding a campaign game I agree that prestige/political factors would add to the flavour. Obviously a single battle or scenario would focus on sunk ships and damage inflicted.

In a campaign game a timid German player should suffer eventual slow strangulation and therefore be encouraged to mount offensive missions. Apart from the obvious weakening of the enemy by direct engagements the propaganda and moral boost of these successful missions was equally important. The German Navy was a relatively new creation and eager to prove itself and justify its enormous expense. Equally, the Royal Navy had a long tradition and great things were expected from the British population. Neither side could afford too many disappointments. A succession of failures should result in the sacking of the Admiral or what ever position the player represents. In other words, Game Over !! :laugh:

Bombardment points should reflect the distance travelled, simulating the greater risks and rewards of the operation. A successful German attack on a northern British city "in their back city yard" would be a tremendous propaganda and moral boost and an outrage to the British public.

If the Germans are to be rewarded for days at sea to stimulate aggressive behaviour then they need to be sufficiently near to British waters. No point in rewarding them for cruising up and down within easy retirement to safe harbours.

Equally if a fleet remains inactive or not sufficiently aggressive for long periods of time then any accumulated points should gradually erode. This would prod the German player into action and encourage the British player in his "bottling up" of the Germans. However German fleet operations need to be balanced somehow to avoid unhistoric activity and a rapid accumulation of victory points by constant steaming and missions.

The actual missions (sweeps, bombardments, minelaying, patrols, raider breakouts etc I hope) would be the magnets to draw the fleets together although on their own and even without a significant engagement they would contribute in a small way to the score. For example, regular successful minelaying off the English coast would not only buiild up a prestige/moral score but would hopefully snag a few victims and also invite attack. In turn the minelayers would require supporting light forces. Before long we have ambushes and "live bait" !

After all, the bulk of a campaign game is the little missions. We all want fleet battles and the respective populations of the time demanded them. Even including Jutland the amount of ships sunk in battle was quite low compared to the size of the combatants involved. Battles are important, for the players enjoyment as well as any game objectives. I just hope the smaller pieces of the jigsaw are included and can be made to fit in a logical manner.

I know a lot of this is speculation as we have no firm details of the campaign game but it makes for interesting reading and discussion.

Cheers

Brother Belcher

[HMSWarspite]

“Why am I doing this? Because I’m kicking @ss in victory points! If I pull off 3 or 4 or X successful coastal raids, the RN must try to inflict devastating losses just to have any hopes of winning.”

The problem is that (unless the game is rigged) you will likely only get 3 or 4 successful coastal raids, before the RN catch the HSF. Unless there are counter incentives, there is only one way such an encounter can end in a DG style battle: OK the RN ships may be a bit more fragile, but they pack a LOT more weight of broadside. You need some really poor shells to offset that issue. At any time during the war, the HSF fleet is inferior in numbers to a significant degree and this rises throught the war.

(Some random stats:
Nassau class 1908: 12x11" (only 8 can fire on broadside)
Heligoland class 1911: 12x12" (ditto)
Kaiser class 1912: 10x12" (cant rememer if they can fire cross ship - either 8 or 10 gun bs)
Konig 1914: 10x12" (all can fire broadside)
etc
RN
St Vincent 1907 10x12" (8 gun BS)
Neptune 1909 10x12" (as Collossus)
Collossus (1911): 10x12" (in theory 10 bs, but probably really 8)
Iron Duke: (1914) 10x13.5 (all on BS)
Queen Elizabeth (1915) 8x15"
etc
BB at Jutland = 24 RN all dreadnoughts, + 4 fast battleships (QEs), for 114x12", 110x13.5, 48x15"
20 HSF (including 6 pre-dreads), for 48x11", 128x12" (and 24x11" pre-dreads) Generally speaking RN ships are all 1 or 2 gun 'sizes' bigger, and German higher numbers of guns do not give bigger broadsides. Shell weights (APC) are also informative: RN 12"=850lb, 13.5"=13-1400 (depends on mark of gun), 15"=1920lb. HSF 11"=666lb, 12"=890lb. You need a LOT of shell, and ship quality to overcome that in a DG game!
BC 9(RN): 5(HSF) - although it has to be admitted that without the fast battleships life could be exciting for RN BCs!)

None of this reflects the RL difficulty of effectively engaging, that does not really occur in DG!

[KGB]

The problem is that (unless the game is rigged) you will likely only get 3 or 4 successful coastal raids, before the RN catch the HSF. Unless there are counter incentives, there is only one way such an encounter can end in a DG style battle: OK the RN ships may be a bit more fragile, but they pack a LOT more weight of broadside. You need some really poor shells to offset that issue. At any time during the war, the HSF fleet is inferior in numbers to a significant degree and this rises throught the war.

(Some random stats:
Nassau class 1908: 12x11" (only 8 can fire on broadside)
Heligoland class 1911: 12x12" (ditto)
Kaiser class 1912: 10x12" (cant rememer if they can fire cross ship - either 8 or 10 gun bs)
Konig 1914: 10x12" (all can fire broadside)
etc
RN
St Vincent 1907 10x12" (8 gun BS)
Neptune 1909 10x12" (as Collossus)
Collossus (1911): 10x12" (in theory 10 bs, but probably really 8)
Iron Duke: (1914) 10x13.5 (all on BS)
Queen Elizabeth (1915) 8x15"
etc
BB at Jutland = 24 RN all dreadnoughts, + 4 fast battleships (QEs), for 114x12", 110x13.5, 48x15"
20 HSF (including 6 pre-dreads), for 48x11", 128x12" (and 24x11" pre-dreads) Generally speaking RN ships are all 1 or 2 gun 'sizes' bigger, and German higher numbers of guns do not give bigger broadsides. Shell weights (APC) are also informative: RN 12"=850lb, 13.5"=13-1400 (depends on mark of gun), 15"=1920lb. HSF 11"=666lb, 12"=890lb. You need a LOT of shell, and ship quality to overcome that in a DG game!
BC 9(RN): 5(HSF) - although it has to be admitted that without the fast battleships life could be exciting for RN BCs!)

None of this reflects the RL difficulty of effectively engaging, that does not really occur in DG!

Well, if there will be any way to get two of laid down Mackensen BCs to life, as well as two built and two laid down Bayern class BBs, the HSF can get superiority in some cases to GF.

Lets just speak about theories.
If there would be such an opportunity, I will separate my HSF in two parts -
BCs and BBs.
And the most active part would be, of course, BCs named:
Von der Tann, Moltke, Goeben, Seydlitz, Derflinger, Lutzow, Hindenburg, Mackensen and Graf Spee (maybe also laid down, but not completed as others of their class Prinz Eitel Friedrich and Furst Bismarck).
9 BCs will smash any other fast ships of GF, and would have very good opportunities of running from other BBs of GF.

So there is only one main question for me now - would SES make Mackensen class BCs and Bayern class BBs operational ?

[HMSWarspite]

Well, if there will be any way to get two of laid down Mackensen BCs to life, as well as two built and two laid down Bayern class BBs, the HSF can get superiority in some cases to GF.

Yes, but if the GE get to advance those ships, the RN would have built Renown & Repulse quicker, and probably Hood (and her 2 sisters Howe and Rodney). Have fun... Or did you mean as an artifical game balancing technique with no bearing on RL?

Lets just speak about theories.
If there would be such an opportunity, I will separate my HSF in two parts -
BCs and BBs.
And the most active part would be, of course, BCs named:
Von der Tann, Moltke, Goeben, Seydlitz, Derflinger, Lutzow, Hindenburg, Mackensen and Graf Spee (maybe also laid down, but not completed as others of their class Prinz Eitel Friedrich and Furst Bismarck).
9 BCs will smash any other fast ships of GF, and would have very good opportunities of running from other BBs of GF.

So there is only one main question for me now - would SES make Mackensen class BCs and Bayern class BBs operational ?

The problem with running the German BCs around is the 5 QE class fast battleships - the original HSF BCs just cannot cope with them. If you allow extensive extra BCs and the BC sqd running around a lot by itself, I would (as RN construction chief) accerate my BCs as above, but also maybe build more QEs (or similar). 30kt German BCs are too few to matter, and the others can slow you down to be caught by QEs.

[KGB]

Yes, but if the GE get to advance those ships, the RN would have built Renown & Repulse quicker, and probably Hood (and her 2 sisters Howe and Rodney). Have fun... Or did you mean as an artifical game balancing technique with no bearing on RL?



The problem with running the German BCs around is the 5 QE class fast battleships - the original HSF BCs just cannot cope with them. If you allow extensive extra BCs and the BC sqd running around a lot by itself, I would (as RN construction chief) accerate my BCs as above, but also maybe build more QEs (or similar). 30kt German BCs are too few to matter, and the others can slow you down to be caught by QEs.

QEs are 2-3 knots slower.
Separated fleet of QEs will be possibly destroyed when they'll meet 9 BCs, knowing that these BCs were very well armoured, in some ways even better than UK BBs, were faster and more accurate.
If we look to the real WW1 issues, we can expect that most HSF BCs will survive that encounter, but more than half of them will be, supposedly crippled. But again I suppose that most of QEs will be sunk and/or crippled.

PS: All of this thoughts are just my thoughts based on the fact I, as a HSF commander, would get Mackensen class BCs, with their VERY fat and wize-placed armour and good 355mm guns.
If not, than the results of 7 HSF BCs vs 5 QEs battle are far from being predictable.

[HMSWarspite]

QEs are 2-3 knots slower.
Separated fleet of QEs will be possibly destroyed when they'll meet 9 BCs, knowing that these BCs were very well armoured, in some ways even better than UK BBs, were faster and more accurate.
If we look to the real WW1 issues, we can expect that most HSF BCs will survive that encounter, but more than half of them will be, supposedly crippled. But again I suppose that most of QEs will be sunk and/or crippled.

PS: All of this thoughts are just my thoughts based on the fact I, as a HSF commander, would get Mackensen class BCs, with their VERY fat and wize-placed armour and good 355mm guns.
If not, than the results of 7 HSF BCs vs 5 QEs battle are far from being predictable.

You missed my point: if you get 9BCs including Mackensens, I don't get 5 QEs, I would build another 4 (slightly improved I suspect), or possibly the 4 Hoods and Renown/Repulse (or maybe even both - all BCs were slowed in response to German lack of building! The UK could and did outbuild Germany throughout the 20 years before the war). I think you are under rating the QEs as well: Warspite took a lot of hits at Jutland without sinking! Whilst the Hoods are fragile, you wouldn't like the 15" much. You might get away, but I suspect with the fright of your life!

Also the western front is now very short of shells etc (due to the effort spent on the naval race)

[RCNVR]

I would agree with Warspite on this. The RN was easily able to out build the HSF in WWI and also in WWII.

Also after about 1916?? the RN started to get improved shells that did not break up on impact/fail to explode/explode prematurely etc. With the better shell and generally heavier shells than the HSF encounters might be different compared to the Jutland results. It would also be interesting if you factored in the improvements in training, gunnery etc that the RN worked on after Jutland. These are not really what ifs as they actually happened.

[Bullethead]

You missed my point: if you get 9BCs including Mackensens, I don't get 5 QEs, I would build another 4 (slightly improved I suspect), or possibly the 4 Hoods and Renown/Repulse (or maybe even both - all BCs were slowed in response to German lack of building!

I figure there would definitely have been the 3 R-class BBs that were cancelled (Renown, Repulse, Resistance), and thus no Renown-class BCs and no "Outrageous"-class, either. Maybe 1 or 2 Hoods, but I think not. This kinda figures on Fisher not coming back as well as the Germans continuing to build. Still, without Fisher's return, I doubt there would have been many, if any, more BCs built after Tiger. I think the RN was kinda disillusioned with the type even before Jutland and would have preferred decommissioning some of the 12" BBs when more R-class came online, and then maybe building some improved QEs instead of BCs.

Plus, there would have been a few less CLs and DDs, and probably fewer subs as well. While the Brits could build lots of stuff, they couldn't build EVERYTHING and certainly couldn't man everything, what with the BEF needing guns and cannonfodder at such a rate.

I think you are under rating the QEs as well: Warspite took a lot of hits at Jutland without sinking! Whilst the Hoods are fragile, you wouldn't like the 15" much. You might get away, but I suspect with the fright of your life!

In my previous experience, the QEs ate the German BCs for lunch. The speed difference wasn't enough to really notice, the QEs could shoot as far as they could usually see, and the German BCs couldn't. Thus, any battle starting at 20kyds+ tended to stay at about that range, and the German BCs hardly ever got a shot off, meanwhile being smacked around by plunging 15". The Germans were in dire straits because they couldn't run away and couldn't close the range fast enough to do real damage while they were still able to. So mostly the QEs would empty their magazines and pretty much wipe out the German BCs for the foreseeable future. Those that didn't sink were maimed for the duration of the war, usually. The only real German hope in such cases was for sundown or bad weather.

OTOH, if the range was such that the German BCs could reach the QEs, things were much more interesting. QEs weren't the toughest BBs in the GF and 12" could hurt them. Still, usually the awesome power of the 15" won out anyway.

[KGB]

After upgrading the project, Hood was completed in 1920, while she was laid down in 1916.
I think she was one of the best, due to almost identical armor as QE class, and 30 knots speed. But still - she was completed in 1920, so u will have to wait 6 years after the war starts, to get her.

As for R-class BBs, they were too slow to catch HSF BCs, and Baeyrn class were undoubtely better.

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

[Rhetor]

After upgrading the project, Hood was completed in 1920, while she was laid down in 1916.
I think she was one of the best, due to almost identical armor as QE class, and 30 knots speed. But still - she was completed in 1920, so u will have to wait 6 years after the war starts, to get her.

As for R-class BBs, they were too slow to catch HSF BCs, and Baeyrn class were undoubtely better.

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

All the possible engagements listed above might be possible, if Jutland were somewhat similar to TOAW - a huge database of ships, powerful editor, and there we go.

Hopefully the editor in Jutlant will allow us at least to manually select what vessels we want to have in our task force.

I would personally choose a Falklands-in-reverse scenario - Moltke and Goeben vs. some British ACs. That should be fun :laugh:

[HMSWarspite]

After upgrading the project, Hood was completed in 1920, while she was laid down in 1916.
I think she was one of the best, due to almost identical armor as QE class, and 30 knots speed. But still - she was completed in 1920, so u will have to wait 6 years after the war starts, to get her.

As for R-class BBs, they were too slow to catch HSF BCs, and Baeyrn class were undoubtely better.

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.


The R class is confusing this discussion: they are the next class after the QEs but nothing to do with the dabate. The remaining 3 would not have been cancelled after Jutland (or in response to an accelerated German BC program) because they were nearly complete anyway (completed MArch, May, May abd December 1916). The Bayern similarly are a differenent question.

Hood class were slowed considerably when the German BC building slowed. I have Hood ordered (original design) Apr 1916, laid down (final design) Sept 1916, launched Aug 1918 completed March 1920. Note the nearly 2 years to complete due to the end of the war. Her sisters: Anson, Howe and Rodney were ordered in April also (except Anson in July) 1916, laid down Sept with Hood, but cancelled Oct 1918 having barely proceeded. As a comparison the QEs (admittedly smaller ships) took from 12-20 months to build and 4-10 months to complete (the 10 being Barham, the rest all taking 3-4).

I do not agree with your assessment of fire control.The idea that the BC could close the ramge against QEs unscathed is not supportable. There is an endless debate about relative FCS (particularly optics) performance. The case is by no means clear. I have even seen a conclusion that stated the German system was faster to get the range at the start of the battle, but fell off in performance rapidly in action, whereas the British system degraded less, and might have been overall superior under true battle conditions. The debate is somewhat academic as the chances of getting unrestricted visibility in the North Sea are somewhat limited.

[KGB]

I do not agree with your assessment of fire control.The idea that the BC could close the ramge against QEs unscathed is not supportable. There is an endless debate about relative FCS (particularly optics) performance. The case is by no means clear. I have even seen a conclusion that stated the German system was faster to get the range at the start of the battle, but fell off in performance rapidly in action, whereas the British system degraded less, and might have been overall superior under true battle conditions. The debate is somewhat academic as the chances of getting unrestricted visibility in the North Sea are somewhat limited.

That's the case of 2,4 kms more range QE's have, have almost no chance to be a matter in North Sea. In ocean - yes, still not great, but that does matter.
I don't want to begin a debate about UK FCS of WW1 time. Some says one, others say another.
My opinion, that in general HSF FCS was better.

[Hud]

The 1914 battleship programe was to have been 3 R's as Bullethead states plus 1 QE to be called Agincourt. The contracts had been awarded & I think some work had started. There was also a proposal that the Canadian govt fund 1 or 2 battleships . These would possibly have been modified QE's.I think for 1915.The gestation of the Hood is an interesting topic itself starting from a proposal in late '15 for an "experimental" battleship based on the QE's. Refering to Bullethead's comments re range, both the British 13.5 and 15 outranged the German heavy guns partly to do with elevation but other factors as well. In fact Chatfield's anxiety on Lion at the commencement of the action was that they didn't open fire when they had the range advantage. Interestingly in terms of DG Jutland relevance Chatfield at a conference in the '20's about increasing the elevation of the battlefleet's guns said the governing factor in range was visibility. As regards shells the Britsh had by 1918 almost replaced their outfit with the so called "Greenboys". Pre war when Jellicoe was DNO I believe he wished to continue the shell tests against I think the old "Colossus" & "Edinburgh" with regards to oblique impacts but was promoted & I understand the testing was never completed. Jutland could have been interesting if that had happened. All dreadnoughts of this period had their vunerablilities. "Malaya" was almost lost after she was hit by her starboard secondary battery. The whole battery was put out of action & the flash nearly set off her 6" mags. "Warspite" suffered from "cranky" steering for the rest of her life as a result of the damage she suffered. Commenting on the "Bayern" class "Baden" was thoroughly examined at the end of the war and showed that German design parameters were different to British. They accepted hull stresses up to 15% greater and had lighter hulls. "Baden's" bottom for example was almost half the thickness of corresponding British ships. The German ships had much more elaborate constuction techniques which is why ship for ship they were more expensive to build and took longer to build. Their torpedo flats were often a source of concern eg "Lutzow". Pre 1914 & throughout the war Britain could outbuild anyone with the exception of the U.S.A. The main constraint was not slips but money with the gov of the day wanting to cut back arms spending for social programes. I think it is fair to say the Germans lost the building race by 1914 particularly as they were being hamstrung by demands from the army. Any threat by the the Germans of new construction during the war would have been met by Britain and given the utmost priority whatever the Generals on the Western Front thought. The "Hood's" 3 sisters were only cancelled after it became known the "Mackensen's" were unlikely to be completed.

[Hud]

The R class is confusing this discussion: they are the next class after the QEs but nothing to do with the dabate. The remaining 3 would not have been cancelled after Jutland (or in response to an accelerated German BC program) because they were nearly complete anyway (completed MArch, May, May abd December 1916). The Bayern similarly are a differenent question.

Hood class were slowed considerably when the German BC building slowed. I have Hood ordered (original design) Apr 1916, laid down (final design) Sept 1916, launched Aug 1918 completed March 1920. Note the nearly 2 years to complete due to the end of the war. Her sisters: Anson, Howe and Rodney were ordered in April also (except Anson in July) 1916, laid down Sept with Hood, but cancelled Oct 1918 having barely proceeded. As a comparison the QEs (admittedly smaller ships) took from 12-20 months to build and 4-10 months to complete (the 10 being Barham, the rest all taking 3-4).

I do not agree with your assessment of fire control.The idea that the BC could close the ramge against QEs unscathed is not supportable. There is an endless debate about relative FCS (particularly optics) performance. The case is by no means clear. I have even seen a conclusion that stated the German system was faster to get the range at the start of the battle, but fell off in performance rapidly in action, whereas the British system degraded less, and might have been overall superior under true battle conditions. The debate is somewhat academic as the chances of getting unrestricted visibility in the North Sea are somewhat limited.

I tend to agree with you Warspite. The 3 other Hoods also had their design and armour layout slightly modified.The German FCS did need highly trained operators with a special aptitude. After the examination of Baden the British concluded there ws nothing to gain from changing from co-incidence to streoscopic rangefinders. Where that is valid for the game is you could expect the Germans to get the range first providing the British commander allows them to approach to within their range. Hence the importance of visibility.

[Bullethead]

Speaking about range, I doubt that WW1 class BBs could get 2-3% oh hit at maximum range, and I think also that HSF FCS were superior, so I doubt that QE's could cause any substantional damage while HSF were closing in.

Actually, at Jutland during the so-called "battlecruiser phase", the QEs were consistently hitting the German BCs at 20kyds or so, to which the Germans could not reply. Barham and Valiant achieved nearly 4% hits here, although Warspite and Malaya weren't so good. Still, 5BS on average achieved about double the hit rate of BCF, usually at longer ranges and in pretty much the same visibility conditions.

The only reason the QEs took any damage at Jutland was due to incompetence when BCF+5BS met HSF. The signals officer in Lion (Seymour) should have been fired after Dogger Bank, and Evan-Thomas had such a complete lack of initiative that he kept on going towards certain destruction while waiting for the proper signal, before making his turn. By the time Seymour pulled his head out and E-T finally obeyed the signal, the leading elements of the HSF, plus the depleted 1SG, were all in range, so 5BS got hammered, Warspite and Malaya both nearly being lost as a result.

Had Seymour done his job right, or had E-T an ounce of tactical savvy, the QEs wouldn't have taken a scratch in the whole battle.

Again, that is not low crew quality that caused accuracy problems for GF, well, actually not the greatest reason.

I don't know about this. The GF shot very well, due to constant training. BCF's shooting, however, sucked. BCF got about 1/2 the hit rate of GF units. This was the subject of much contemporary comment, and official steps were taken to rectify the problem. This is why, at Jutland, 3BCS was with the GF and 5BS was with BCF. And BCF can't claim (as Beatty's partisans did later) that its poor shooting at Jutland was due to a visibility disadvantage, because 5BS was right there with them and shot much better.

If Jutland project will be close to real world, than I can tell that nine BCs are more threat than 5 QEs. But if those QEs will got at least one Hood - that is absolutely another story. Not speaking about R class BBs - they will never catch BCs.

Given 20kyds+ starting range, competently handled QEs should have no fear of anything the Germans really had, in whatever numbers. Mabye some never-finished German BCs were faster, but they wouldn't have used that speed to close in alone and get hammered by all the QEs while the other German BCs were still out of range. So most of the Germans would be held to the speed of their slowest ship, and that wasn't fast enough to dictate the range.

Bottom line: once the QEs are at a range where they can shoot and the Germans can't, they can keep that range and the Germans can't do anything about it. And the QEs could hit well enough at such ranges to cause much damage to the Germans.

I have a strong feeling that German players will come to hate the QEs as much as RJW Russian players hate the IJN ACs and the Chitose PCs.

[Rhetor]

I have a strong feeling that German players will come to hate the QEs as much as RJW Russian players hate the IJN ACs and the Chitose PCs.

I am affraid that if the AI stays as it is now, most of the advantages of the QEs would not transpire. The AI again would recklessly close the range steaming straight at player's flagship.

The reason why the Japanese ACs are so hated is only the fact that they are so damn well armored, that they pretty often are able to survive Russian pounding, and break their battle line. I am affraid that won't happen, if AI-controlled QEs tried that against Hochseeflotte.

[KGB]

Given 20kyds+ starting range, competently handled QEs should have no fear of anything the Germans really had, in whatever numbers. Mabye some never-finished German BCs were faster, but they wouldn't have used that speed to close in alone and get hammered by all the QEs while the other German BCs were still out of range. So most of the Germans would be held to the speed of their slowest ship, and that wasn't fast enough to dictate the range.

Bottom line: once the QEs are at a range where they can shoot and the Germans can't, they can keep that range and the Germans can't do anything about it. And the QEs could hit well enough at such ranges to cause much damage to the Germans.

I have a strong feeling that German players will come to hate the QEs as much as RJW Russian players hate the IJN ACs and the Chitose PCs.

Jutland

UK big caliber shells fired: 4538
Big caliber shells hits:101
Hit % = 2.23

Germany big caliber shells fired: 3497
Big cliber shells hits: 121
Hit % = 3.46

These are pure digits, and they convinced me, in better accuracy that HSF had.

Going in sharp course angles making any hit chances even smaller, so I am sure in my chances to catch up QEs. And 5 ships vs 9 means victory to 9 ships fleet. In general QEs were armoured like HSF BCs, if you will forgive me that common words, they were slower, but had more powerfull guns. In total it would be 40 381mm vs 16 355,6mm + 16 305mm, + 28 280mm. Plus maybe Hindenburg (8 305mm), and Goeben (10 280mm).
Plus, possible 2 more Mackensen class BCs (of total 4 laid down ones)
Also, after Jutland HSF ships got their MC guns maximum elevation angle increased, so mostly all guns from 280mm to 380mm got range of more than 20.000 meters.

Speaking about more R class ships or more Hoods, we can also mention Erzatz York class BCs, which were very same to Mackensen, in armour and speed of 0.5-1 knot slower, but had 8 380mm main caliber guns.
Only Erzatz York was laid down in Ciel though, in July 1916.

[Rhetor]

Jutland

UK big caliber shells fired: 4538
Big caliber shells hits:101
Hit % = 2.23

Germany big caliber shells fired: 3497
Big cliber shells hits: 121
Hit % = 3.46

These are pure digits, and they convinced me, in better accuracy that HSF had.

Going in sharp course angles making any hit chances even smaller, so I am sure in my chances to catch up QEs. And 5 ships vs 9 means victory to 9 ships fleet. In general QEs were armoured like HSF BCs, if you will forgive me that common words, they were slower, but had more powerfull guns. In total it would be 40 381mm vs 16 355,6mm + 16 305mm, + 28 280mm. Plus maybe Hindenburg (8 305mm), and Goeben (10 280mm).
Plus, possible 2 more Mackensen class BCs (of total 4 laid down ones)
Also, after Jutland HSF ships got their MC guns maximum elevation angle increased, so mostly all guns from 280mm to 380mm got range of more than 20.000 meters.

Speaking about more R class ships or more Hoods, we can also mention Erzatz York class BCs, which were very same to Mackensen, in armour and speed of 0.5-1 knot slower, but had 8 380mm main caliber guns.
Only Erzatz York was laid down in Ciel though, in July 1916.

The problem is that Britain would without any doubt build more ships than Germany could. The capacity of British shipyards and political will to build the strongest navy in the world were greater than in Germany. That is why in any hypothetical scenario German Navy would always be a numerically inferior force.

Be that as it may - I would really like to have a powerful editor, with many "what-if" ships, or a utility to "clone" existing types - imagine a clash between 28 QEs and 21 Bayerns :-D

Ah, and one more thing - I'd like to have "Goeben" in my fleet :-D

[HMSWarspite]

Jutland

UK big caliber shells fired: 4538
Big caliber shells hits:101
Hit % = 2.23

Germany big caliber shells fired: 3497
Big cliber shells hits: 121
Hit % = 3.46

These are pure digits, and they convinced me, in better accuracy that HSF had.

Sorry to be picky, but this shows that the HSF achieved more hits at Jutland. It does not prove either that it was due to 'accuracy' or that HSF had a generically better fire control. Break down the numbers: Beatty's squadron was truely appalling at gunnery (especially Tiger), and was engaged for the longest. This distorts the results. The 5th BS achieved approximately double the hit rate (IIRC - I don't have the stats - anyone help here?). Also, whilst I an not a huge fan of the 'poor visibilty for the RN' excuse, you do need to consider to what degree this is relevant.

Do you have the breakdown of hits between the BCs and the BBs on both sides?

Going in sharp course angles making any hit chances even smaller, so I am sure in my chances to catch up QEs.
Not sure I follow you. Are you implying that sailing more or less straight at the enemy makes you harder to hit? If so (and forgive me if you do not mean this), this is actually a complex issue of fire control, and differing fire control practice between the HSF and RN will affect how fast the range is got (don't know which way though!) In general that situation will give a rapid range rate (rate of reduction in range), however if the enemy's speed and course are anything like correctly assessed, this is easy to take out on the fire control table. The ship being 'end on' actually helps hit rate relative to parrallel courses, since range is harder to get right, and scatter of shells in a salvo tends to be higher in range than azithmuth ('angle'). Finally, any shooting that does get done by the approaching fleet is with very few guns (although not relevant in this case if the range is too great to fire anyway)

And 5 ships vs 9 means victory to 9 ships fleet. In general QEs were armoured like HSF BCs, if you will forgive me that common words, they were slower, but had more powerfull guns. In total it would be 40 381mm vs 16 355,6mm + 16 305mm, + 28 280mm. Plus maybe Hindenburg (8 305mm), and Goeben (10 280mm).
Plus, possible 2 more Mackensen class BCs (of total 4 laid down ones)
Also, after Jutland HSF ships got their MC guns maximum elevation angle increased, so mostly all guns from 280mm to 380mm got range of more than 20.000 meters.
We are not really arguing a 9:5 battle - you are right, this would be very difficult for the QEs. But this is not a realistic scenario. You could argue that the HSF vs a single battle sqd of the GF is a RN defeat, but this discussion started when I explained that (in a game) no RN player is ever going to let that happen.

Speaking about more R class ships or more Hoods, we can also mention Erzatz York class BCs, which were very same to Mackensen, in armour and speed of 0.5-1 knot slower, but had 8 380mm main caliber guns.
Only Erzatz York was laid down in Ciel though, in July 1916.

You are missing the point. In RL (and in any realistic campaign) the RN could and did outbuild the IGN at every stage. In fact there was a view by one historian (I wish I could remember who) that by even joining the naval race, the Kaiser sealed his own (and Germany's) fate in WW1, because he could never win it, or even seriously challenge Britain.

BTW Goeben was Turkish by 1916 - you might as well have all the Austrian BB in the HSF as well!:laugh:

[KGB]

Sorry to be picky, but this shows that the HSF achieved more hits at Jutland. It does not prove either that it was due to 'accuracy' or that HSF had a generically better fire control. Break down the numbers: Beatty's squadron was truely appalling at gunnery (especially Tiger), and was engaged for the longest. This distorts the results. The 5th BS achieved approximately double the hit rate (IIRC - I don't have the stats - anyone help here?). Also, whilst I an not a huge fan of the 'poor visibilty for the RN' excuse, you do need to consider to what degree this is relevant.

Do you have the breakdown of hits between the BCs and the BBs on both sides?

Unfortunately not.
There is no certain info on how many hits caused each BC or BB - same HSF or GF.


Not sure I follow you. Are you implying that sailing more or less straight at the enemy makes you harder to hit? If so (and forgive me if you do not mean this), this is actually a complex issue of fire control, and differing fire control practice between the HSF and RN will affect how fast the range is got (don't know which way though!) In general that situation will give a rapid range rate (rate of reduction in range), however if the enemy's speed and course are anything like correctly assessed, this is easy to take out on the fire control table. The ship being 'end on' actually helps hit rate relative to parrallel courses, since range is harder to get right, and scatter of shells in a salvo tends to be higher in range than azithmuth ('angle'). Finally, any shooting that does get done by the approaching fleet is with very few guns (although not relevant in this case if the range is too great to fire anyway)

Well, yes I'm speaking right about that. I mean that forecastle projection is much less than board projection, and in that case even when salvo covers the ship, there is much more probability of zero hits, than when it would be board projection. Also, it is harder to pick and follow certain range in that case.

We are not really arguing a 9:5 battle - you are right, this would be very difficult for the QEs. But this is not a realistic scenario. You could argue that the HSF vs a single battle sqd of the GF is a RN defeat, but this discussion started when I explained that (in a game) no RN player is ever going to let that happen.

In that case I fully agree with you. Of course, no in-game GF player will ever gonna make this happen.


You are missing the point. In RL (and in any realistic campaign) the RN could and did outbuild the IGN at every stage. In fact there was a view by one historian (I wish I could remember who) that by even joining the naval race, the Kaiser sealed his own (and Germany's) fate in WW1, because he could never win it, or even seriously challenge Britain.

Agreed. I didn't say Germany could outbuild UK, I've only said that they could build ships they've laid down, at certain conditions.
BTW Goeben was Turkish by 1916 - you might as well have all the Austrian BB in the HSF as well!:laugh:
If there will be a chance of not giving one of the strongest ships to Turkey - I won't let that happen.

[Rhetor]

You are missing the point. In RL (and in any realistic campaign) the RN could and did outbuild the IGN at every stage. In fact there was a view by one historian (I wish I could remember who) that by even joining the naval race, the Kaiser sealed his own (and Germany's) fate in WW1, because he could never win it, or even seriously challenge Britain.

I consider the whole German huge navy programme as one of the most stupid mistakes ever made by any country. The fleet achieved completely nothing of value, save adding Britain to Germany's enemies, and giving some people a hundred years later a great topic for a computer simulation game :-D

[Bullethead]

... Beatty's squadron was truely appalling at gunnery (especially Tiger), and was engaged for the longest. This distorts the results. ...

I agree on the overall results, but it seems that New Zealand actually shot worse than Tiger (which definitely shot very badly, no argument).

BTW, I've always wondered why the Brits used Tiger, their newest, best-armed, and best-looking BC, as a penal colony, knowing this must inevitably affect her gunnery.....

Do you have the breakdown of hits between the BCs and the BBs on both sides?

From Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, pages 354-5:

1SG: 1670 heavy shots, 65 hits, 3.89%
HSF BBs: 1917 heavy shots, 57 hits, 2.96% (including point-blank vs. Black Prince during night)
HSF less BP night action: ~1900 heavy shots, 45 hits, 2.37% (all extreme range vs. 5BS in "RttN" or with no good targets in BB phase)

1 & 2BCS: 1469 heavy shots, 21 hits, 1.43%
5BS: 1099 heavy shots, 29 heits, 2.64% (average between excellent Barham/Valiant and bad Warspite/Malaya)
GF BBs: 1593 heavy shots, 57 hits, 3.70% (largely undisturbed by return fire due to lighting)
3BCS: 373 heavy shots, 16 hits, 4.29% (~10kyd range w/advantage of surprise)

[Bullethead]

I consider the whole German huge navy programme as one of the most stupid mistakes ever made by any country. The fleet achieved completely nothing of value, save adding Britain to Germany's enemies, and giving some people a hundred years later a great topic for a computer simulation game :-D

Amen to that! What were th