Jutland campaign AAR

[CountDeMoney]

I'm considering downloading this today.  Anyone else have it? Any other reviews?

There is a demo. To be precise, you can (need) to download the full thing then you can evaluate it. You can play most of the scenarios for 10 minutes or The Duel (dreadnought one on one) for full time. Also includes the demo scens for the US expansion. BTW if you purchase soon you might be lucky enough to get the expansion for free as I did.

But, the DRM is way too assholish for me to recommend the game. Decide for yourself.

Yeah, I just downloaded the demo, I'll play with it in a bit.

I really don't care about the DRM.  Unlike some of you LIVE FREE OR DIE types, stuff like that doesn't bother me.

[CountDeMoney]

Downloaded it, played the demo for a few hours.

Pretty cool sending flotillas of destroyers to their deaths to break up formations.

[dps]

British BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.

It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore.  Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.

Well, the Barham wasn't there (in WWII) for very long.   

[Viking]

British BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.

It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore.  Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.

To the best of my knowledge the Rodney was the only BB to sink another BB during WWII.

[Alatriste]

British BBs: Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Warspite, Orion, Conqueror, Monarch, Thunderer, and the BCs Queen Mary, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger.

It would certainly have interesting results on WWII, given that 3 of the 5 best battleships in the RN at the start of the war aren't there anymore.  Then again, maybe they'd build 3 more mediocre Rodneys.

To the best of my knowledge the Rodney was the only BB to sink another BB during WWII.

Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.

[CountDeMoney]

Granted, you could say Hood was a BC,

Hood is a BB, because that's more embarrassing for the Brits.

[Warspite]

Granted, you could say Hood was a BC,

Hood is a BB, because that's more embarrassing for the Brits.

[Viking]

Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.

Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.

[Alatriste]

Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.

Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.

Ooops. My bad, of course the 'Duke of York' was the BB that sunk 'Scharnhost', not 'Rodney'.

But anyway, what's the difference between a 'fast battleship' of WW2 and a BC from the Great War with heavier, armour? I would say the distinction lost all meaning after 1922; all battleships built in the 30s and 40s combined the speed of a battlecruiser of 1914-18 with the weaponry and armour of true BBs, excepting one-of-a kind and not too successful concepts like the 'Scharnhost' or 'Alaka' classes (both probably better defined as very big heavy cruisers).

[grumbler]

Wrong. There were at least three other sinkings, USS Washington sunk Kirishima, Bismarck sunk Hood, and British BBs sunk Bismarck. Granted, you could say Hood was a BC, but then you can hardly consider Scharnhost, armed with 280mm/11" guns, a true BB.

Hood was a BC, The Rodney sank the Bismark (with the KGV supporting), The Kirishima started life as a BC and was upgraded and the Scharnhorst was very much a BC, or even a very heavy CA.

If we are going to be dickish about things because of designations, Bismarck was not a battleship, it was a Panzerschiff (armored ship) just like the Graf Spee and pretty much every other German ship larger than the cruisers.  If we are being realistic instead of pedantic, though, we will recognize that Hood, Scharnhorst, Bismarck, and Kirishima were all actually battleships, no matter what they were called.

Battlescuisers have battleship armament and cruiser protection.  Fast battleships with (or without) a weak main armament are still battleships, because they have battleship protection.  Hood had both battleship protection and battleship main armament.

[Agelastus]

And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".

[grumbler]

But anyway, what's the difference between a 'fast battleship' of WW2 and a BC from the Great War with heavier, armour? I would say the distinction lost all meaning after 1922; all battleships built in the 30s and 40s combined the speed of a battlecruiser of 1914-18 with the weaponry and armour of true BBs, excepting one-of-a kind and not too successful concepts like the 'Scharnhost' or 'Alaka' classes (both probably better defined as very big heavy cruisers).

Neither of these were "one of a kind!" 

You are correct, though, that no real battlecruisers were built after Renown class, because the development of the small-tube boiler meant that you could have a powerplant powerful enough to drive a battleship at hull speed without sacrificing armor. Scharnhorst was an intermediate battleship design, to allow the German shipbuilding industry to work out their bugs (from long unemployment) without risking anything design-wise.  When re-armed to 15" guns, there would be no question that they were battleships (having roughly the same tonnage and protection as the Queen Elizabeths).  They were perfectly suited to their missions (though radar had made their missions obsolete by the time WW2 broke out).  The Alaska class was the classic example of building a design that was specifically proposed to oppose an enemy class that never appeared.  They were large cruisers, being built on a cruiser hull (and almost unturnable because that hull form didn't translate well on the larger scale - the Alaska had a larger turning radius than any carrier or battleship, and almost as large as an oiler).

[grumbler]

And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".

Love the idea, but kinda doubt it's veracity given the time of design (maybe the Hood was called this at one point).  Got a cite?

[PDH]

Don't argue with Grumbler, he was retired by the time the Dreadnought was designed.

[ulmont]

And HMS Vanguard, possibly the best armoured battleship of all time, was officially the oxymoronic "fully armoured battlecruiser".

Love the idea, but kinda doubt it's veracity given the time of design (maybe the Hood was called this at one point).  Got a cite?

http://books.google.com/books?id=-EfYyhrtOq8C&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=%22fully+armoured+battlecruiser%22&source=bl&ots=9IOn7K6saS&sig=lUttvyMwV57BhmGRWKM-3IPxlB4&hl=en&ei=jpSSSr6rMo-OMYLOqZIK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=%22fully%20armoured%20battlecruiser%22&f=false
http://www.military-genealogy.org.uk/3823/HMS_Vanguard