ID
Password
FlashGuide
FlashGuide
HA Infomation

Off-Topic

  Index

  • crap ships..

    03. 27. 2012 07:32


jumong

i would like to ask if why navyfield is adding those cv and bb that have not seen action in wwII...since this game is based on wwII naval batlle events..why adding those crappy ships that have not seen or played a vital part in history...most of the new ships have spent their time in shipyard and are sold for scrap......tskk...pity

 

 

 

  • Re : crap ships..

    04. 02. 2012 11:14


jubdub1

Originally Posted by CNR4806

Originally Posted by vadarrog

Originally Posted by CNR4806

Originally Posted by vadarrog

Originally Posted by CNR4806


Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.

Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.


What part of sister ship do you not understand (It means they are the same ships/class), And yes i dont see the point of adding a kaga 1935. I mean i like this idea because i dont wanna be stuck with an ugly kaga 1928 but japan has lots of CVs so how else would you use them. KM was to busy trying to fight on land on many fronts. They thought that the war was going to last a few months to around a year. Thats why they did what they did. If you really want to make navyfield historically accurate then km would be under powered severly. Stop complaining, I still think you over react about everything.

What are you even talking about? It's jumong that's asking why NF is adding all those project ships and ships that never saw action during WWII, and I was explaining why by putting the facts out.

YOU overreacted, not me.


First, why would i be mad at what jumong posted. Matter in fact hes part of my fleet so why would i even bother putting the blame on him. Second, unlike you, even though you say your putting up historicly accurate facts it looks like you havn't done your research. Yes i did over react on the last sentence i put on my first post but i was just  pointing out your mistake. Actually i explained about everything for clarification on your post. DONT tell me historically accurate when i did my research before i posted. I KNOW what i'm talking about because FIRST, i'm japanese so i no what i'm talking about.

Why would I need to give a damn to the IJN, when my actual point is placed on US and KM over the issue of balance based on his imagination that only ships that saw action in WW2 are in NF? You're just distorting the topic.

Fact:
- KM has nothing more than BB3 (Bismarck) and no CVs at all
- US has up to BB4 (Iowa) and has all the way up to PCV (Long-hull Essex class)

Conclusion:
- Faction balance is non-existance without adding project ships or post-war-commisioned ships, since they are not "just" like each other in real life.

Simple enough for you to read? Or do I need to break it down further?



Does it really matter? The thread maker makes a really dumb statement; as we all know,



NAVYFIELD IS NOT EQUAL TO REAL LIFE.

  • Re : crap ships..

    04. 08. 2012 21:01


l2evoluti0n

While not all ships featured in NavyFIELD were actually laid-down, let alone saw combat, even those that were not were 'planned' for production during, and for the purposes of fighting, the war.  Germany's 'project' ships, for example, were part of Germany's "Z" plan; an ambitious naval expansion which Germany, prior to the war, had hoped it could complete with (of all things) the assistance of the British.

The British are, remember, a partly viking (a.k.a. Aryan) descended nation, and Hitler considered them to be racial kin of the Germanic tribes; fated allies, he believed, in his prophesized struggle against bolshevism.  The political climate in Britain had certainly not been sympathetic towards the Soviet Union in the years leading up to World War II, and a different/more temperate German leadership, one which less antagonized British pride, might have been able to win British favor in forming an alliance against possible Soviet aggression in Europe.

Imagine then, what had this been the case?  Would British naval attaches have been present and applauding in Hamburg as Germany launched the first of its "Z" plan's super-battleships?  Would Britain have turned a blind-eye as Germany, under an artificial pretext, invaded their common ancestral enemy - France?  Would they then-have been allies in the struggle against the Soviet Union in the West?  Could the U.S., similarly fuelled to support anti-Soviet regimes by its strong German minority, have - far from imposing an oil embargo - offered a lend-lease program to the Japanese Empire (to assist against Soviet expansion in the East)?

Would World War II's historical enemies, Britain and Germany, the United States and Japan, then-have fought in side-by-side against the Soviet Union in Atlantic and Pacific respectively?  This is purely hypothetical, but emphasizes the sort of scenario(s) that NF encourages you to explore.

  • Re : crap ships..

    04. 12. 2012 10:11


Renegade13

One point that both of you apparently don't understand (without worrying about your silly little tiff) - there is a reason that there is a Kaga 1935; just like the Akagi, the Kaga was heavily rebuilt from 1933-35.  What emerged was a substantially improved ship, able to handle larger and heavier aircraft, had better overall speed, and improved other areas of the ship and its handling (prior to the rebuilds, both Akagi and Kaga had three seperate flight decks, and no island... that is the reason that the early models look 'odd' to most people).

Now, please grow up.


Originally Posted by CNR4806

Originally Posted by vadarrog

Originally Posted by CNR4806

Originally Posted by vadarrog

Originally Posted by CNR4806


Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.

Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.


What part of sister ship do you not understand (It means they are the same ships/class), And yes i dont see the point of adding a kaga 1935. I mean i like this idea because i dont wanna be stuck with an ugly kaga 1928 but japan has lots of CVs so how else would you use them. KM was to busy trying to fight on land on many fronts. They thought that the war was going to last a few months to around a year. Thats why they did what they did. If you really want to make navyfield historically accurate then km would be under powered severly. Stop complaining, I still think you over react about everything.

What are you even talking about? It's jumong that's asking why NF is adding all those project ships and ships that never saw action during WWII, and I was explaining why by putting the facts out.

YOU overreacted, not me.


First, why would i be mad at what jumong posted. Matter in fact hes part of my fleet so why would i even bother putting the blame on him. Second, unlike you, even though you say your putting up historicly accurate facts it looks like you havn't done your research. Yes i did over react on the last sentence i put on my first post but i was just  pointing out your mistake. Actually i explained about everything for clarification on your post. DONT tell me historically accurate when i did my research before i posted. I KNOW what i'm talking about because FIRST, i'm japanese so i no what i'm talking about.

Why would I need to give a damn to the IJN, when my actual point is placed on US and KM over the issue of balance based on his imagination that only ships that saw action in WW2 are in NF? You're just distorting the topic.

Fact:
- KM has nothing more than BB3 (Bismarck) and no CVs at all
- US has up to BB4 (Iowa) and has all the way up to PCV (Long-hull Essex class)

Conclusion:
- Faction balance is non-existance without adding project ships or post-war-commisioned ships, since they are not "just" like each other in real life.

Simple enough for you to read? Or do I need to break it down further?



  • Re : crap ships..

    04. 15. 2012 12:03


CNR4806

Originally Posted by Renegade13

One point that both of you apparently don't understand (without worrying about your silly little tiff) - there is a reason that there is a Kaga 1935; just like the Akagi, the Kaga was heavily rebuilt from 1933-35.  What emerged was a substantially improved ship, able to handle larger and heavier aircraft, had better overall speed, and improved other areas of the ship and its handling (prior to the rebuilds, both Akagi and Kaga had three seperate flight decks, and no island... that is the reason that the early models look 'odd' to most people).

Now, please grow up.

I'm perfectly aware of the original three-deck designs of the Akagi and Kaga and their subsequent remodeling in real life, and I have no idea why you're bringing up something completely irrelevant to what you've quoted.

Now, attend your English class, please.

  • Re : crap ships..

    04. 15. 2012 12:31


l2ev0luti0n

Keep in mind that Akagi and Kaga were intially laid-down as a battlecruiser and battleship.  Still under construction, they were built 'into' carriers following the signing of naval treaties which outlawed the ships they would otherwise have become.  At the time, the full potential of aircraft carriers had not yet been realized, and so naval limitation-treaties focussed primarily on limiting the number, size, and capabilities of the big-gunned ships.  Under the tearms of the treaty, the Mogami class, for example, were armed with six-inch triples.  In anticipation of war, however, the Japanese had designed them to 'accommodate' an 8-inch double (with which they were rearmed at the onset of hostilities - hence, the Mogami CL and CA remod').

1 2