Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts - Of Ironclads And Monitors
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has introduced Monitors and Ironclads in the update. Let's try these things out.
Join The 1000 True Fans: / stealth17gaming
Buy your games through Humble to support my channel: www.humblebund...
This is an affiliate link.
Get Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts here: www.dreadnough...
This video is not intended for children.
=============================
Social/support
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / stealth17gaming
Livestreams: / stealth17gaming
Join my Discord: / discord
Send in your Wargame replays: www.stealth17ga...
=============================
Patreon Supporters:
Colonel Brendryen
Colonel Metzger
Lt Colonel Elfwyn
Major Gosrith
Major Moleeman
Major Zeeshan
Major Wenke
Major Adams
Major JFHeasy
Major Duck
Major Grindley
Major Weber
Major Chung
Major JustGeo42
Captain Christensen
Captain Dave
Captain Ethanol87
Captain Martinez
Captain Iceman
Captain Morscher
Captain Jack
Captain Tam
Captain Pulliam
Captain Braugh
=============================
Cheers,
Stealth
"has no deck" Mate, the entire ship is deck.
Agreed
Haha yup,
sloped armor intensifies
Now you have to defeat a Yamato with only monitors
not possible. At all. with modern ammo and guns, even a pt boat could wipe those things off the map with a torp, let alone even an 3-6 inch secondary. And the Yamato was 3-4 times as fast as them in battle.
@@jklbubbublkj7939 If you have enough of them then the Yamato would eventually run out of shells 😂
@@fixinggood4595 1 Yamato vs 6,200+ Monitors
@@gorlack2231 Just ram them.
I'm up for trying crazy stuff, but unfortunately I can't select Ironclads as a class in custom battles.
IC Scranton crew: Fastest buckets in the Union.
And they bloody well proved that, taking two simultaneous flooding hits to finish her
Starts using the flooding water to put out the fires
Speak softly and carry a big bucket.
@@judahboyd2107 💯
And then there's USS Minnesota, an actual Sensible design.
Fun Fact: USS Minnesota was the Frigate that watched Monitor engage CSS Virginia, I guess this is a world where she was turned into a monitor.
i love how you were surprised that the guns on the CSA ironclad were cannons. Did you know that in your "turrets" are similar cannons?
also the USS Monitor had only 1 duel turret and it needed to face forward to reload. additionally if it missed the point it was going to stop turning the turret, it was faster to keep turning and go ALL THE WAY AROUND rather than stop the turn, and then start turning the other direction...
close, but not quite. The facing a certain direction was just to move ammo from the hull to the turret, and the having to turn the turret al the way around was due to battle damage. Because according to what you said, it would take a minute or two to change gears.
@@jklbubbublkj7939 while you are right about moving ammo and powder, the gearing system for how the turrets moved (at least on Monitor herself) was bad. you lifted the turret up, and then started spinning it. when it got up to speed it was generally faster (before battle damage) to just keep the turn going and wait for a full 360 turn rather than reverse the steam engines to change the direction of motion. a technology problem, not battle damage. battle damage tended to jam the turret or bend the spindle it was set on when the turret was lifted to rotate...
the issue you are talking about was a malfunction that resulted in monitor's crew just having the turret spine continuously, firing whenever the aim was generally correct.
I looked up this battle a little while back and thought that was pretty funny
@@coolpilot7819 probably the most important draw in naval history...
@@trinalgalaxy5943 What do you mean draw. Both ships claimed victory :D
Stalth 17: why are my guns not firing
Me, having reviewed the angles shown during construction: Mate, that ship is way outside of your available firing angles.
Not when it was right next to it
@@Stealth17Gaming for me it lookt like it you where just to close to get like the angle
@@Stealth17Gaming The last "long-range" shot they fired, was just on the border of firing angle, then it's your main "front" gun that start firing again. Don't forget that you removed the front "angled" secondary gun (for weight balance purposes), that's why you get asymmetric transition in your firing volume
@stealth17, how is it so hard to grasp that it was outside your firing angles? I was screaming at my monitor ITS OUTSIDE FIRING ANGLES MATE
Yeah, the firing angles on the casemates-IC are narrower than they look. Basically every time you were wondering why the broadsides weren't firing, it was because the target was just a bit too far ahead or behind. (I _do_ wish the game had a way to see while playing what your guns' firing arcs are.)
Also, when you find yourself losing a turning fight, /turn the other way/ and engage with the opposite broadside. Trying to follow those monitors when you just didn't have the turning rate to do so just kept them out of your firing arcs longer.
This is one of the better April Fool's additions I've seen to a game. Please let them leave this in, maybe make a separate category for special bonus ship types.
Next year: Armed Merchant Cruisers, take ocean liners to war, reenact the memetic battle of Carmania vs Cap Trafalgar. Bonus points if they include SMS Seeadler too, let you build the last sailing warship.
Alternately, expand on this ironclads build and go full steampunk with it; give the player torpedoes and barbettes, maybe even later ironclad-to-pre-dreadnought transition era equipment, but still with old fashioned elements, maybe even paddle wheels. Or heck, go whole hog and let us build steampunk airships :P
I’d love it if they extended the timeline to begin in 1860 (Glorie launched in 1859) so you could play from the first ironclads to the end of WW2 and the Yamato
Or SS Beaverford vs the Admiral Scheer, you get points for every second you survive.
They already have transports ingame, so just allowing them to be editable(a lot fo work actually despite me previously using the word "just") would be a way to get armed merchant vessels.
@@TheArklyte Yes, but the transports they currently have are just based on cargo trampers or Liberty Ships. To go full bore on merchant cruisers they'd need to give us parts to build armed liners as well. That said, I for one wouldn't begrudge some greater variety in transports, both for player construction and AI spawning.
@@sirrliv how to win campaign:
1)Design transport ship that you would produce.
2)Make it have biggest operational range and run 40 knots.
Well, that's pretty much it:D
well, your virginia scenario played out almost as historical one, that is - terribly sluggish
Well, not counting the day before the Monitor arrived i assume. The virginia kicked ass before that
@@gekkehobbykoe I mean that was mainly because the Virginia was fighting ships that were outclassed by it, the Monitor was on par with the Virginia in my opinion, and I personally would have built a very different ship here in UA: Dreadnoughts, a very fast Virginia with heavy enough armor and a few high caliber casemates, and use speed against the Monitors.
@@ilo3456 the ships would likely be on par in a river situation, but once the vessels are on open ocean, the Virginia would probably win because Monitor had less that a foot of the hull above the water and a poor seal around the turret, which would let water in, hindering or sinking the ship.
@@SamSchurger neither ship were fit for the open ocean.
@@lukeirot While that is true, Virginia wouldn't start flooding the moment the waves hit the hull. The monitors on the other hand, like I said, were very low in the water and had poor seals around the turrets. This would lead to water entering the hull. The gradual increase of water in the ship would make the ship even lower in the water. This would lead to water entering the ship faster, further lowering the vessel in the water. The water inside the ship would also impare the crew's combat capability. Later monitors had turret armour up to nine inches thick. This would be very heavy and would make the vessels more top heavy increasing roll in a wavy ocean worsening the previously mentioned issue. Hits from the enemy and recoil from the guns would also aid in roll issues.
Imagine a game like this, but for tanks. A game that allows you to create a hull itself and add components to it, skirmish and change the tide of war.
the game is called crossout
@@spawnthekid6876 no it's not. Cross out is a more grinder version of wt
@@05981matthew sprocket?
@@nuclearwarhead9338 i know really?? Ivr been asking for a game liie sprocket for yeara and happy ita here.
Well my good lad, Sprocket's the game for you. Looks like you've heard about it already.
When those two iron clads first met in battle it was a stalemate. neither could sink the other so they both gave up.
Virginia did far more damage than Monitor.
@@WadcaWymiaru how so? Neither ship was able to penetrate the others armor, the Virginia caused the Monitor's turret to no longer have the ability to stop spinning while the monitor caused the wood on the inside of the Virginia to splinter when it was hit.
@@collinwood6573 Virginia damaged and sunk other ships
@@hphp31416 I know that, but I was referring specifically to the fight between the two ironclads
@@hphp31416 So what. A tactical draw and a strategic victory for the US. Like the Battle of Jutland, the CSA was unable to break the blockade and the CSS Virginia was later burned when faced with capture by the US Army during its advance on Richmond. And no the CSS Virginia didn't cause the USS Monitor's turret to be unable to stop rotation. It was simply the level of control, lack of fine gearing and lack of visibility meant that continuing to rotate the turret made more sense then trying to stop and rotate back.
Great thinking! "Ultimate Admiral, American Civil War Ironclads" just rolls off the tongue.
i mean, "Ultimate Admiral: Ironclads" would suffice, and roll off the tongue
@@trotfox1138 do I need to explain sarcasm?
@@gekkehobbykoe no i was countering your sarcasm
I think both of u are too sarcastic now shhhh and watch the video
I do believe that an ironclad warship game would be interesting. No rangefinders, low gun range and speed, early torpedo boats, etc. I am bringing this up because my brother is thinking about a making a game about Ironclad warship combat, but admitted that he probably wouldn't make it. It seems that more people than expected find the idea fascinating, even though the likelihood that the game would be biased towards the British and French would be high.
Super realistic.
The two ships just shot at and pinged off each other for a good few ours before they ran out of amuntion and had to return to port
Historically, two ironclads meeting ended up a stalemate.
Difficult to board, it took advances in naval artillery to overcome a full ironclad.
And then all that technological growth gets more action and with the US Navy warships taking part in Japan's own version of a Civil War between the Imperial Court and the Shogunate Military.
Little known fact that early ironclads would often spend hours and hours shooting at eachother with zero effect. The battle was often decided by who ran out of resources first.
Virginia problems:
You removed the front most casemates, which were there specifically for the situation you found yourself in that you were getting frustrated with. The broadside casemates and main front and rear guns have abysmal firing arcs, what looked like about 15 degrees left or right from straight broadside (perhaps a bit better for the main guns). Whenever you moused over the 8" casemates the frontmost placed one was aiming as close to it as it could, which due to the firing arc was still behind the enemy, and the main gun couldn't aim far enough right to be able to hit it either, so none of your guns had good enough firing angles to hit them, and the only guns that could have been shooting at them in theory you removed to reduce the weight offset.
I have a theory on how the game calculates whether it can hit something, so it will fire the guns at them, and that is whether the guns have a firing arc that means it is capable of hitting the centre of the ship. This would mean that if a part of a ship is technically inside the gun's firing arc but the centre of the ship isn't the guns won't fire. This doesn't matter most of the time, as usually in this game you are fighting at ranges where this doesn't matter (it's difficult to notice if the centre of something is outside your firing arc by 25 metres when they are 10+ kilometres away). This may seem like a lazy way of doing this, but it makes sense from a design perspective. It is easier to implement and it works just as well for most cases, so if it is possible to do it this way and it doesn't effect gameplay much then a coder would always go with this over a more complex system that would would work the same in most cases but better in rare cases while taking 5 times longer to calculate every frame. World of Warships uses a similar system for determining if someone is spotted (I believe it is from your mast to their mast, which is why you can detect some enemies over very small islands but not when you would only see the end of their ship poking out behind a taller island). But when fighting with extremely restrictive firing arcs at ranges and ship speeds the game isn't usually meant to be fought at it makes a much bigger difference and can become very noticeable. If this is how the aiming is done then it would have also contribute to your difficulties in hitting that enemy at that angle.
Mobility, particularly when you wanted to turn to get guns on the enemy towards the end. I think there may be 2 reasons for this; first is that you didn't check if you had enough funnel capacity, which iirc affects acceleration. This may not have been a problem, we didn't get to see so we don't know. The other reason I'm not sure about but is the only thing I can come up with is the AI wanting to avoid ship collisions. It isn't meant to deal with ships 200 metres apart that in reality are in little danger of ramming each other, seeing as many ships you can build in the game can be that long on their own, so the AI collision avoidance activates when it doesn't need to, so it tries to slow down the ship to prevent the ram it thinks is in danger of occurring.
Those front casemates are absolutely not worth it due to Virgin'a massive fore weight offset. Plan turns in advance so the stern crosses the enemy rather than the bow. AI circles you in a predictable fashion so it's not that difficult, and the monitor will always out-turn you anyway. And at those ranges if you turn with bow facing enemy you're likely to have the horrific collision avoidance mechanism immobilize your ship.
Next year's April Fools update: introducing the world's first ironclads! (16th century Korean turtle ships)
ah, turn on the sulfur gas thrower
Oh yeah. Admiral Yi. 🤩
ruclips.net/p/PLhyKYa0YJ_5C45ST5eQr8Sn3vWc7YgLBf
I always thought it was neat how ironclads look like idealized geometric armor designs, and then all of that just melts away when everyone realized the sensors, equipment and guns wre way more worth it
I think your Virginia-style ironclad may have needed another funnel to get full engine efficiency.
Yes, the damage control parties and pumping technology during the Civil War were legendary! I'm glad the game models that aspect correctly. :)
Good thing I just watched Drachinifel's video on Hampton Roads!
That was definitely the closest battle I've ever seen time wise lol
It's very interesting how these tiny little ships handle. They lose huge amounts of speed when they turn, but their turning rate is actually very good (both in degrees/s and in turning radius), and they get up to full speed almost immediately once they straighten out. They have very little floatability - a single flooding hit will do more than 50% flooding damage - but very good dewatering capability (at least proportionally), so once the flooding is controlled they will regain almost all that floatability quickly. You were very lucky to get that second flooding hit before the first one was fixed in the first battle.
Edit: Well, the Turret-IC has decent turning at the cost of losing forward speed. The Casemate-IC has much worse turning.
Agreed, full rudder is not worth it - I go for 25 degrees at most unless doing something specific.
Virginia's turn rate is atrocious compared to the Monitors'.
well ones that only have one funnel for that big of a ship do. The enemy had no such issue in either scenario either because smaller ships or more funnels.
@@JGalt-em4xu hey it isnt their fault they reused a sunken frigate hull that was lit on fire, then using said hull for a new design of ship but overloading her by such a stupid amount she almost sunk, which worked in her favor because she didnt really have armour outside its casemate plate. and as such had like 40% more boat pushing against the water than it was design for.
Basically the ocean equivalent of early supersonic fighters
I hope they keep this in the game and they don't remove them with the next patch. Also a shame they can't be selected outside of the missions. Be fun to see them go up against a period appropriate navy.
Anyway, suggestion for a video: 1940s Nelson Fast Battleship
Concept: Similar mass, max armor thickness, and main guns as a Nelson class battleship and most importantly using the same hull, but built from the ground up with 1940s tech and made as fast as possible and with the best possible reload and turret traverse.
Secondary armament would ideally be a mix of triple 6” and 3” dual cannons, no torpedoes. If my estimates are correct, it should provide a good balance of defense, spectacle, and plausible design while using roughly the same mass as the real world Nelson’s secondary and AA guns.
Scenario: In an effort to improve their combat effectiveness, both _Nelson_ class battleships were given a total rebuild into fast battleships using the best technology available, including replacing their secondary and AA guns with a large suite of heavy, rapid fire dual purpose guns. While on their way back to port after a successful shakedown cruise to test out their new engines and heavy dual purpose guns, war broke out. Naval intelligence has confirmed that there is a force of german warships that are in prime position to intercept your ships before you can link up with other allied units. The exact composition is unknown, but it is believed to be composed of between 8 and 16 interwar destroyers and possibly up to two battlecruisers of the same era. (1)
Your objective is to fight your way back to port and get both battleships home with a secondary objective of destroying as many hostile ships as possible
(1) Exact mix is your choice for the best reasonable challenge.
Pity that the game didn't include third design of the era which was important step in evolution of the battleshipos - HMS Warrior. The only one of three that was realistically seaworthy vessel and could engage in long patrols.
Virginia and monitor were not meant for sea based travel, they were meant to fight in The Mississippi River and the Monitor was well named as it was meant to protect the union coastline from confederate naval attack, being a ironclad coaster monitor type warship
@@sternguard8283 "Monitor was well named as it was meant to protect the union coastline from confederate naval attack, being a ironclad coaster monitor type warship"
You do realise that the class was made after the ship and not vice versa?
Also, I'm not sure what you've edited and why I have your comment twice in my feed.
We need HMS Captain lol
Has slooooowly turning turrets - turns into the enemy instead of keeping the turrets both in the game. ;)
I have a challenge for you, I call it the Odd ONE out(you'll get that later) , the Scenario is it's 1942 the german Empire just finished their brand new commerce raider the SMS Einzelgänger. Her very first encounter is a US Convoy of 10 Transports escorted by 2 Battlecruisers and a heavy cruiser.
Your ship is as said a german Empire ship with 1940 tech the US ships are from the year 1925
You are to built one Battlecruiser.
Now to the fun bit of the scenario:
Due to restrictions on the budget for guns you are only allowed to have one gun turrets on any guns bigger than 8inch, from 8inch down to 4inch you can have 2 gun turrets and anything below can have 3 guns.
Ah forgot to mention engagement range is 33km
Graphics and gun sounds look really accurate
I loved how in the second game the Minnesota literally ran circles around you XD
Awesome mode! This made me seriously consider buying it now...
However I think the time limit is stupid and there should be an option to turn that off. It's just not necessary...
I can't tell is Stealth is trolling us, or that he genuinely doesn't realize the firing angle for the secondaries is basically 10 degrees
Genuinely
Historically, the Monitor had just the one turret and that may be why they are trying to limit you with the weight to just one without compromising the armor. Also, their battle at Hampton Roads resulted in neither really being damaged much even though they blasted each other for quite a while. The turret of the Monitor had some pretty big dents in it - and I'm not sure, its possible one of the dual guns was damaged, but I don't think so. Ultimately it was a draw because neither could really do enough damage to the other to make a difference. Now, this was a whole different matter when they fought non-ironclad ships, but ironclad to ironclad they were pretty equally matched.
20k vews and not even a thousand likes...
Honestly this deserves so much more.
Even though there were three gun ports on the front and back, it was only meant to have one cannon be pushed in and out of those three to get better firing angles. That’s why it was too heavy
In the first scenario the ship sank because a lot/all of the Virginia class ships had no armor below the waterline, to save weight
The reason _Virginia_ has such a weight offset was because she had a multiton ram at the bow below the waterline as part of the hull. IRL, its port section broke off after ramming the wooden sailing-steam frigate USS _Cumberland,_ causing flooding in the ironclad's hull.
Cool. The Ironclad and the Monitor...the very first. Though of course they rarely ventured out into open waters. Great fun.
Your 8 inch wouldn't fire cause the enemy was in the perfect blindspot were the 8 couldn't fire anymore, and the 9 inch didn't yet have the angle to shoot
The real Vergina had a turning radius of one mile, and had an anti ship ram. Imagine trying to line that up.
It will be great if they did a historical mission of the Battle of Hampton Roads in which the USS Monitor and CSS Virginia clashed each other.
Something about ironclads and monitors fighting in CQB is pretty cool.
The decks are low in the water and the cannons are low velocity so 'plunging' fire is relative.
Dude, those secondary guns only have about a 60 degree field of fire at most, he was in your dead zone between the broadside guns and the forward secondaries.
10 minutes of the second battle to discover maybe he sould turn right intead of trying to turn left.....................and in the end of the battle (30:00) again....TURN RIGHT!!!!!
8:22 now that's some fire power
@waldibert waynewwright i belive you are correct, im willing to bet that he managed to stay in the area that none of his guns could fire. it was only a slight sliver of about 10 degrees, but if he slowed down or sped up at all, he would have been able to fire
There was a really big monitor at one point, with I feel like 3 turrets. I’ll have to look it up. I know the Kallamazoo class was up there, but they only had 2.
It’s in a ship encyclopedia I have somewhere.
The USS Roanoke, which was a sister ship of USS Merrimack, which became CSS Virginia. The three turrets overloaded the wooden hull and the heavy armor added to the hull overloaded the same weak engines. The big steam frigates used steam as "auxiliary" power.
The two late war super monitors were the dictator and the puritan. As designed, tha puritan was to have 20" smootbores, the dictator had 15" smoothbores.
Now do super Yamato Vs 200 ironclads. :)
17:03 turn the other way then you can plunder both ships while they can't hit you cuz their turrets have no angle i think if you're on their tail i mean one is gonna shoot you but it's the farest one so chances he misses. idk if you see what i mean but it's like a crossroad imagine yourself in the middle and one car (the closest) is on your left but can't see (shoot) you because he's not facing you while the other (the farest) struggles to see (shoot) you cuz he's... far xD then make a left turn after you passed em to stay away from the farest car (vessel) and continue plunder the closest, he has three choices first he make hard left turn to regroup with his teamate then just go 90 degree left so you can shoot him from behind while he gets away, second choice he goes straight forward to try put some distance and get in your dead angle then just get behind him and open fire with main guns, third he goes right so you're going broadside battle while the other tries to catch up with you if you feel like your getting stuck between em reduce speed and let em pass then turn left (to show the supposedly less damaged side and hit em from the back again).
Looks pretty fun, i would love to see a fleet of ironclads.
Well, the iron clads are usually PADDLE wheelers, mostly stern wheelers at that. They aren’t meant for open ocean. Their low free board and enclosed paddles and rudders make them ill suited for open ocean. They work better in river, lake, or coastal areas. Plus, the Virginia was Armored with:
Belt: 1-3 in (25-76 mm)
Deck: 1 in (25 mm)
Casemate: 4 in (102 mm). You’re version was longer, heavier had an advanced loading system which added more weight, so yeah. Though now that you’ve played as the Virginia, you’d probably be better picking the rudder/speed perk.
Wrong, there were only a half-dozen "iron plated" river steam ships, with and without turrets with stern paddles. All monitors were equipped with single or twin propellers.
Ships with paddles were pretty much limited to riverine warfare. Screw driven craft had been around for years.
@@michaelsnyder3871 there were even timberclads with wood armor instead of iron.
31:00 You did. Turned ships AI off. It seems to be bot captain to help rookies, but probably it is bugged. Guns started firing again whet it was turned off.
I dont think he recognized that the triangular ship is a real ship (is it just me or him)
I like how the first enemy ironclad which was supposed to be Spanish, still had Confederate ensigns flying.
The CSS Virginia is kind of a sad ship to talk about because it was actually a scuttled steam ship that got raised, badly repaired, and shoved into combat.
well, in real life, Monitor and Virginia couldn't kill each other...so that pen chance makes sense.
Piece of history: the battle between the USS Monitor and CSS Virginia was the first ever Ironclad vs Ironclad ship battle in history and the Monitor is the first of two ship (that I know of) that gave its name to an entire class of ships, example the Erebus-class monitor ship of the Royal Navy. The second ship (again that I know of) that gave its name to a class is the HMS Dreadnought, which was the first all big gun battleship, so much that most of the battleship that were built before are now known as pre-dreadnought, the IJN Mikasa being the sole survivor of them. (Another piece of history, a pre-dreadnought fired the first shot of ww2 in Poland… and I believe it hit a mine 2 days before the war ended)
… I watched to many Drachinifel videos.
Fun facts:
1) the Virginia was a conversion of a captured U.S battleship
2) the in game main guns on it (fore and aft) were actually only 2, but 3 firing ports is true because you could move the guns
Now I want to see all those little turrets and what nots on other ships with unlock all
So the CSS Virginia was originally commissioned as the USS Merrimack, but when the CSS took control of it, they renamed it the CSS Virginia. When the USS Monitor and CSS Virginia met in combat, it was the first recorded battle between two ships with completely iron hulls. The battle lasted a few hours and both ships left with only minor damage because neither ship had the firepower to damage the other in a significant way.
The monitor's secondary tower looked liked a pill box.
As for the guns not firing, over each gunpoint was an armored shutter that sometimes jam blocking fire, the game may have been simulating that when the guns wouldn't fire. One other quirk of the battle was that the monitors brake for turret rotation broke, so they let it continue to rotate, just firing as the target passed into view each rotation.
The CSS Virginia 2as built on the salvaged hull of the USS Merrimack, which was full rig sailing ship with a supplemental steam engine. That's why it turned like a pig. The USS Monitor was designed and built by Swedish engineer John Ericsson who said, "she's shall live like a duck in the water, with the waves washing over her back." The Confederates were baffled by her, and described her as "a cheesebox on a raft."
An amazing battle!
I love how your first battle was more or less accurate, neither could really do much structural damage to each other, so they just kept shooting until the Virginia got stuck on a sandbar
Stealth I guess you didn't know but most likely the real Familia had an engine efficiency of sub 60%
Those early ships aren't maneuverable at all. It is easier to go straight ahead and wait for the other side of the guns to get an angle than try to turn. The monitor has a similar problem. I couldn't outturn a 2.5kn enemy Virginia going more or less parallel to my turn.
You need to adjust your playstyle. But I guess it's the only video we will see from this since you basicly did everything you can do with ironclads
30 Ironclads versus a super high tech Battleship
Did you know that the main part of the monitors were the deck? Most shells are noted to skip off the deck?? Yeah we’ll see how this goes
that looks really neat..
*The distant sounds of Minnesota and ‘The Office’ theme approach rapidly*
Scranton!
What?
The steam boat ship!
I'd be up for ww2 monitors in this game
ok so at that bit at the end it wasnt the secondaries refusing to fire, its literally the firing arc IS THAT BAD.
The Virginia was built as a ram. Rams generally had their main armament facing ahead with a narrow arch of fire as it was intended to fire directly ahead as the ship closed to ram. I believe the huge iron ram affixed to the bow is the cause of the high fore weight you encountered during the build. The day before meeting the Monitor, the Virginia rammed a conventional Union warship and sunk her w/o problem. it also destroyed several other wooden vessels with gunfire This threatened the Union navy's ability to close blockade the James River. Though the Monitor was able to evade ramming, neither vessels' armament was capable of penetrating their opponent 's armor. Like the German Highseas Fleet after Jutland, the Confederates returned to base (Norfolk) and dared not risk further encounters with the Union monitors. The crew eventually burned the vessel to prevent it falling into Union hands with the capture of the port.
i think peoble asked to have ironclad in dreadnought as a hull just hope they will add the hull to custom
A whole year late for my comment
but i think this is a good scenario for beginners to the game and warships in general
simple and to the point
I wonder if you can build the HMS Warrior? First British Ironclad
Like ships of wood and sail Ironclads shared the same danger as the wooden warships before them that the crew where more likely to die from shrapnel caused by the hits not necessarily the shot penetrating. But instead of just wood there was metal fragments and the rivets could break loose and go flying.
Wish this game was on console. I would pay it all the time. Makes it feel like Warship Gunner 2.
I think the issues with lack of speed may be due to the waypoint system, at 23:11 you can see that the green dotted line is quite close to the ship, and it immediately decelerates. The system purposefully tries to go to a location and stop. Since it wants to stop there it decelerates to do so, rather than continuing at the desired pace you set it to. This is also a problem that I believe occurs when you set waypoints off close to the side to attempt a turn, with the ship slowing down while turning mildly in that direction.
>has a ram on the front of the Virginia/Merrimack
>doesn’t use it
CSS Virginia's primary weapon was its ram so it would make sense that its 'main gun' is in the bow. Virginia's first victim was USS Cumberland which sank after being rammed; the collision however also heavily damaged the bow of Virginia which handicapped her in the fight with USS Monitor the following day.
CSS Virginia also covered a mile and ate up nearly 45 minutes to complete a turn. She wasn't the most maneuverable ship in the fleet.
This is absolutely brilliant!
Jesus Christ!
Having played sailing games with broadside cannon armaments as the only armaments.
This video had me yelling at the screen. "CONTINUE AT FULL STEAM AND FINISH THE TURN BEFORE MAKING COURSE CORRECTIONS DAMN IT! EVERY TIME YOU MAKE THE TURN INTO REVERSE YOU ARE KILLING YOUR MOMENTUM AND LOCKING YOURSELF OUT OF BEING ABLE TO MANOUVER YOUR GUNS INTO FIRING POSITION!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHRRRGGG!!!!" {Imaginarily start ripping out own hair}
You are not maneuvering because you have no momentum!
You have to give orders to go more than just a short distance as the game sees you as already near where you want to go and automatically slows down the ship so you don't overshoot the destination.
i know this is a older video, but i just got this game and did this mission. A key point in freeing up more waight is taking on less torpedoes. For some reason the game thinks that you Monitor or Ironclad DO have torpedoes on it :D
i did this with the Monitor and after some tickering with the speed and setting torpedoe ammo to reduced, i manged to get two towers with 2x12 inch guns in it :D lots of good firepower for the mission. Oh and i recuritted alot of vets for the crew making reloads really fast.
I would like to see the torpedoes missions. Great game and videos my friend
>caused a fire
just what is burning on the deck of a Monitor though o0
It would be cool if you could do the Austrian-Prussian fleet versus the Danish fleet from 1864
Stealth sinks Virginia in 10 minutes while the actual battle took hours with no victor
Interesting how you don't seem to get the concept of firing angles during the second battle. Your ship had a blind spot between the 9" and 8"
Players from more difficult vessel to vessel combat games learned that target leading takes both firing arc aim and the ship orientation.
Typically, it is more than just pointing at the ship and fire until it sinks.
You realise 2 10" single turrets is only the same firepower as 1 10" double turret, while being massively heavier, right?
Jordan Macdonald I believe the point is that a single gun turret reloads far faster, and gives it redundancy.
No, didn't realize. By default I went with two turrets. In this case a single dual 10" would have been more effective.
@@Stealth17Gaming Admittedly, two singles gives *slightly* better fire rate and better coverage, but the weight of the gun is only a small part of the overall weight of any turret, so you're almost always better off going with more guns per turret than more turrets. In this case, you probably could have gone up to 12" if you'd put them both in one turret.
Why is this way more entertaining than super battleships
Somehow...You managed to make your own USS Monitor looking even worse than the OG USS Monitor xD
But on a historical note: Neither of the ships could penetrate each other. Mainly because the Virginia had ammunition for Wooden ships and not Iron, while as the Monitor was actually prepared for a Iron ship. But due to the severe angling the Virginia had, the Solid-Shot AP rounds of the Monitor failed to penetrate. The crew of the Virginia experienced some mild splinters during the hours of battle. And the Monitors turret crews were like in a Bell being hammered. It didnt do anything to the turret, but making loud and constant clinging noises. That "battle" was amazing and both ships claimed the win of the battle in some funny circumstances. Because the Virginia thought the Monito would disengage. And upon seing that started to disengage aswell, but the Monitor was just turning around again (or smth) and when it saw the Virginia was diseangaging. It naturally claimed the battle for itself aswell xD
That entire engagement was just one big meme :D
Edit: The Virginia actually concluded multiple ramming attempts and succeded in a few :D Also both ships came as close as some few meters... To add to the Memes...So wouldve been probably just better to try and board the enemy ship
"Also both ships came as close as some few meters" They collided with each other about 5-6 times. But man, I can't imagine the turret crew of the Monitor having much hearing left after hours of both firing and taking many proper solid shot hits.
BTW you can totally put the guns on top of the CSS Virginia so you get bullsh!t turrets that work.
I tried this like 3 times and I just ran out of time before the battle ended lmao
Monitor - two 9 inch double turrets, about 7 knots speed, 8-10 inches belt, 6-10 inches belt extended 6-8 inches turret, 0 for everything else. Get as close as you need for 100% accuracy. AI is dumb and doesn't use armor their extended belt sufficiently or use bulkheads, you will eventually score penetrations on their extended belt and sink them via flooding.
Virginia - Lydite with max bulkheads, very heavy belt + extended armor, about 7 knots, use 5 inchers to keep costs cheap so you can get two of them. Again, AI is too dumb to use bulkheads and you'll sink them with massive fires.
On the Virginia I went with 11 belt, 11 belt extended, 11 turret, 11 secondaries, and like 1 inch everywhere else with 5 inch guns. The battle just ends before I sink both boats lol
Just watched the movie " the real story of the kelly gang" and this was tge inspiration for the armoured suit of ned kelly
I think the reason the gun stoped firing, was a max shells before maintenance. For example, Bismarck gun had a 300 shells lifetime, it was wierd to load the ship with more than 2400 shells.
The EFC for the 38cm SKC/34 was 250 AP rounds PER BARREL. She carried 1,200 shells and powder charges for these guns.
23:55, the dcp on that ship: GRaB ThE BuCkecTs MeN, I'tS OuR TiMe To ShInE!!!
You needed at least 2 funnels. Your ship simply could not produce the power needed to get up to speed so as soon as you tried turning it bled all of its speed.
Another stack doesn't help unless you put in another fire box and boiler, for which there isn't any room.
@@michaelsnyder3871 Incorrect for the time of this comment. In this version of the game (which was 1 year ago so of course things have changed) just adding stacks effected engine power.
Read the timestamp for when the comment was made next time.
ya the battle of hampton rhodes was the two just bopping each other before they ran out of ammo
the CSS Virginia moved like a slug had a ram in the bow( what do you expect shooting a cheesebox on a raft lol)
JK i was mistaken he recognize the ship.
One of the greatest naval battles...
Hello from russia, i like see it s for you channel, i waiting for this game to be released in steam)