| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Admiral Lady Dame Honor S. Harrington steadholder and duchess Harrington
Posts: 262
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Are we going to have a count down ticker on the forum for set 2 like we have for AAM North Africa 
Also does anyone else think that set 2 is coming out in March on the 1 year any
_________________
"I will not let my ship be shot from under my own ass"
Captain Ernst Lindemann of KMS Bismarck
 |
|
 Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:02 am |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| USS VIRGINIA (BB-13) wrote: | Are we going to have a count down ticker on the forum for set 2 like we have for AAM North Africa
|
I tried to put the WAS set2 at the same time with the AAM N.A. and I couldn't make them both work. So, I will place a ticker after N.A. is released, except if I solve the technical problem.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:05 am |
|
|
"Earn This."
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Quoted from the other boards, RB I assume.......
"In War at Sea news, I see that our website page for set II mentions the Graf Zeppelin. I was sorta hoping to keep that a surprise for you all, but I guess I’m not all that unhappy that it “leaked” (if we posted it online, I guess it isn’t really much of a leak). So I’ll had a little more info about the set: We’re going to include a Me109. Strictly speaking it should be the “T” for the carrier version, but we’re going to just go with one of the more widely produced –109’s and let you land it on the carrier if you like. Similarly, the Graf Zeppelin has a special ability that says you can base Stukas on it. Creating the navalized Stuka or Me109 to go with the carrier would use up too many model slots, and they wouldn’t be all that different from the land-based versions that saw widespread action historically.
Sorry if I misled anyone about the Graf Zeppelin; we’ve planned it for this set for several months now, after observing feedback about the Set 1 mix. (I try not to say anything plainly untrue when I’m posting or blogging, but I may sometimes allow mistaken speculation to stand uncorrected.) In any event, we’d rather avoid hypothetical units until we cover all of the historical ones that need covering, but here’s the deal: The Kriegsmarine is tiny, and the European Axis needed a carrier option. The first point is actually the more painful one, because if (when?) we get to a Set 3, we’re really up against it for German ships to model. (And yes, that means you can expect a Hipper-class cruiser in Set 2 also.) We’re going to have to get hypothetical with the German units long before we’d have to with any other navy. If you’ve got any ideas for German ships that ought to be in a Set 3—if such a thing should happen—I’m all ears."
I also assume that this was lifted from his blog originally.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:02 am |
|
|
Admiral Lady Dame Honor S. Harrington steadholder and duchess Harrington
Posts: 262
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
There was a 140,000 ton battleship Hitler wanted built by 1946.
mabye that could be in set 3?
P.S. cool sig Cpt Miller.
_________________
"I will not let my ship be shot from under my own ass"
Captain Ernst Lindemann of KMS Bismarck
Last edited by USS Virginia BB 13 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:06 am |
|
|
Holding the line...
Posts: 1655
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| USS VIRGINIA (BB-13) wrote: | There was a 140,000 ton battleship Hitler wanted built by 1946.
mabye that could be in set 3? |
NOOOO! 
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:06 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| USS VIRGINIA (BB-13) wrote: |
Also does anyone else think that set 2 is coming out in March on the 1 year any |
It has already been announced Set 2 will come out July 29th. The new web page for "Task Force" also says "July."
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:38 am |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, if he's going to do the carriers he might as well do the O class battle-cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Class
I tried to find that monster battleship but failed. Wouldn't have a name for it would you?
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:29 am |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:58 am |
|
|
Posts: 15
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't think we need the Fuhrer class. If their going to make that they might as well make the Satsuma and Montana Classes. In fact if they want to they probably could make an entire line of ficticious ships, but I don't think we need that until set V or so.  Graf Zeppelin is fine though because for all intensive purposes it was actually completed; it just never saw action. If they want to make a nearly completed euro ship I think they should go with Aquila not some super battleship that had no real hope of ever being completed. |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:48 pm |
|
|
Admiral Lady Dame Honor S. Harrington steadholder and duchess Harrington
Posts: 262
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | USS VIRGINIA (BB-13) wrote: |
Also does anyone else think that set 2 is coming out in March on the 1 year any |
It has already been announced Set 2 will come out July 29th. The new web page for "Task Force" also says "July." |
SWEET MAMA, Thats my birthday YEEEEEEHAAAAAA.
P.S. I don't think they will ever put the Fuhrur class in a game like this because it would just domonate everything.
_________________
"I will not let my ship be shot from under my own ass"
Captain Ernst Lindemann of KMS Bismarck
|
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:01 pm |
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Very good news about the Hipper class CA. I'm less thrilled with Graf Zeppelin because there are so many other large Rares that actually made an appearance in the war as more than an unfinished hulk. Graf Zeppelin was an attractive vessel, though, and will make for some interesting what-if scenarios.
The German Navy is not nearly exhausted, however, for WaS. There is a multi-ship CL class not yet represented.
Also, Narvik class DDs are missing as are several classes of large "torpedo boats" which were actually destroyers classified otherwise because of treaty limitations. These "torpedo boats" were over 300 feet long and displaced at least 1800 tons.
The rebuilt "Admiral Scheer" was an interesting vessel. Picture the "Graf Spee" with a modified "Atlantic" bow and her entire armored tower mast gone, replaced by a more slender (and graceful) structure similar to that of Deutschland/Lutzow. There is enough difference here to warrant a different model entirely except for Graf Spee turrets.
A Type VII U-boat would be interesting as would a Type XXI. Last but not least, a German raider deserves inclusion. My vote would be the Kormoran, which joined a mutual annihilation society with HMAS Sydney. A raider vs. convoy and escorts or pursuing cruisers game would be interesting particularly with some sort of "Disguise" SA allowing the raider to close to short range before shooting starts.
In addition, the Germans could use more aircraft. I understand a Heinkel 111 will come in Set II, which is good news as they were used in an antishipping role with torpedoes. I'd also like to see the versatile Ju-88 added; it's fast and maneuverable as well as being a dual-purpose bomb/torpedo threat and its higher defensive capability along with speed should set it apart from the He 111.
As a next-to-last resort, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau visibly differed in the placement of the mast (one of them with the mast stepped aft prominently, the other with mainmast coming off the funnel). This would make an interesting addition to provide both sisters with correct appearance--as would the planned, but never carried out, conversion from triple 11.1s to twin 15-inch main turrets. |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:55 pm |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2967
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
IIRC, the Germans weren't big cruiser fans. The only ones missing from the historical OOB now are the near-sisters Leipzig/Nurnberg (the latter slightly longer, but could pass for the same mini) and the antique Emden, again IIRC per Conway's.
They preferred putting the tonnage into more U-boats instead... and if we don't get a Type VII-series this set, or at least a Type I, I'm gonna be both surprised and upset.
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Could NeuralDream please update the first post in this thread with the new news?
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:26 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Aquarius wrote: | | Could NeuralDream please update the first post in this thread with the new news? |
I haven't kept track of all the latest news, so if you could edit my post, or tell me what to add.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:28 pm |
|
|
Grey Wolf
Posts: 416
|
|
|
Post subject: Updates
|
|
|
You could add the Graf Zeppelin, ME 109E, and Admiral Hipper class CA (although we don't know exactly which ship of the class is going to represent it). Also, a USS Yorktown has been officially confirmed, but we still don't know which one (probably CV-6 though).
_________________
AAM
BS 48/48 (109)
S2 45/45 (139)
CS 45/45 (114)
DD 44/45 (89)
RS 45/45 (201)
39 60/60 (217)
NA 60/60 (161)
EF 60/60 (184)
EW 00/50 (00)
WaS
S1 64/64 (249)
TF 60/60 (174)
FS 40/40 (100) |
|
| Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:52 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Updates
|
|
|
| AG124 wrote: | | Also, a USS Yorktown has been officially confirmed, but we still don't know which one (probably CV-6 though). |
I'm pretty sure it's not CV-6, since CV-6 was Enterprise. I think you mean CV-5.  |
|
| Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:21 pm |
|
|
Grey Wolf
Posts: 416
|
|
|
Post subject: CV-5
|
|
|
Yes, of course. 
_________________
AAM
BS 48/48 (109)
S2 45/45 (139)
CS 45/45 (114)
DD 44/45 (89)
RS 45/45 (201)
39 60/60 (217)
NA 60/60 (161)
EF 60/60 (184)
EW 00/50 (00)
WaS
S1 64/64 (249)
TF 60/60 (174)
FS 40/40 (100) |
|
| Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 330
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Algren wrote: | | I don't think we need the Fuhrer class. If their going to make that they might as well make the Satsuma and Montana Classes. In fact if they want to they probably could make an entire line of ficticious ships, but I don't think we need that until set V or so. Graf Zeppelin is fine though because for all intensive purposes it was actually completed; it just never saw action. If they want to make a nearly completed euro ship I think they should go with Aquila not some super battleship that had no real hope of ever being completed. |
The Montanas were at least intended to be built. Montana herself was scheduled to be laid down, but delayed and later cancelled. Montana is a realistic ship, Satsuma just as much. I believe the Fuhrur class was just a design study, the same as the USN's "Tillman" ultimate BB designs.
I'll even go one big step further and state that I don't believe Germany's Z plan was a realistic fleet program. To build, man, and support all those ships would require material and personnel that went into Germany's air force and army. It would also be a huge expansion from a small prewar navy, that was already expanding a lot due to the actual new construction.
Mike L. |
|
| Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:17 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| dracos42 wrote: |
I'll even go one big step further and state that I don't believe Germany's Z plan was a realistic fleet program. To build, man, and support all those ships would require material and personnel that went into Germany's air force and army. It would also be a huge expansion from a small prewar navy, that was already expanding a lot due to the actual new construction.
Mike L. |
You have a good point, it wasn't realistic to do the whole thing, but remember Germany was able to man and maintain a gigantic fleet in WWI, and that fleet was built in about 10 years, so it's not impossible, expecially when your totalitarian dictator really wants it to happen.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:09 am |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | | You have a good point, it wasn't realistic to do the whole thing, but remember Germany was able to man and maintain a gigantic fleet in WWI, and that fleet was built in about 10 years, so it's not impossible, expecially when your totalitarian dictator really wants it to happen. |
It took considerably longer than ten years for Germany to build it's WWI navy. Germany laid down it's first battleships in 1890 and it's naval expansion really got into high gear starting with the Kaiser Friedrich III class in 1895. So we're talking more like twenty years, rather than ten. |
|
| Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:28 am |
|
|
|
