These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battleships, and their use

First post
Author
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-01-20 03:01:28 UTC
Just fit a neut on the thing.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Raiz Nhell
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#22 - 2015-01-20 03:02:17 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
... and real world battleships did so well unescorted or caught unawares:

Battle of Taranto (6 battleships lost mainly to biplanes)
Pearl Harbor (8 battleships lost or out of action entirely due to aircraft)
Bismarck (damaged by a biplane before being caught and sunk by a surface fleet)
Yamato (sunk by aircraft)

many more examples


This is exactly why BS were decommissioned after WW2


100% certain this is BS...

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf War 91

And many more involved BB's in the fleet compositions... and they were very effective at their role.

There is no such thing as a fair fight...

If your fighting fair you have automatically put yourself at a disadvantage.

Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-01-20 03:05:15 UTC
Raiz Nhell wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
... and real world battleships did so well unescorted or caught unawares:

Battle of Taranto (6 battleships lost mainly to biplanes)
Pearl Harbor (8 battleships lost or out of action entirely due to aircraft)
Bismarck (damaged by a biplane before being caught and sunk by a surface fleet)
Yamato (sunk by aircraft)

many more examples


This is exactly why BS were decommissioned after WW2


100% certain this is BS...

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf War 91

And many more involved BB's in the fleet compositions... and they were very effective at their role.


The USA decommissioned 90 percent of its BS fleet after WW2 because of the sheer overshadowing of carriers. They were completely annihilated by bombers, and their guns were mostly ineffective.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2015-01-20 03:06:13 UTC
Raiz Nhell wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
... and real world battleships did so well unescorted or caught unawares:

Battle of Taranto (6 battleships lost mainly to biplanes)
Pearl Harbor (8 battleships lost or out of action entirely due to aircraft)
Bismarck (damaged by a biplane before being caught and sunk by a surface fleet)
Yamato (sunk by aircraft)

many more examples


This is exactly why BS were decommissioned after WW2


100% certain this is BS...

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf War 91

And many more involved BB's in the fleet compositions... and they were very effective at their role.


- Coastal Bombardment once you had air superiority.
- They had the capability to fire Nukes from their main guns.
- they became cruise missile platforms

They were not fighting ships by that stage they were mobile artillery platforms.
Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-01-20 03:09:30 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Raiz Nhell wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
... and real world battleships did so well unescorted or caught unawares:

Battle of Taranto (6 battleships lost mainly to biplanes)
Pearl Harbor (8 battleships lost or out of action entirely due to aircraft)
Bismarck (damaged by a biplane before being caught and sunk by a surface fleet)
Yamato (sunk by aircraft)

many more examples


This is exactly why BS were decommissioned after WW2


100% certain this is BS...

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf War 91

And many more involved BB's in the fleet compositions... and they were very effective at their role.


- Coastal Bombardment once you had air superiority.
- They had the capability to fire Nukes from their main guns.
- they became cruise missile platforms

They were not fighting ships by that stage they were mobile artillery platforms.


Thank you
Lugia3
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#26 - 2015-01-20 03:16:34 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:
Lugia3 wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hal Morsh wrote:
Do you know how sad a frigate would be if you hit him?


Sure, but once they are under 10 km, that will never happen. He will simply shoot down your drones and orbit you at 500 laughing and eating a Twinkie as he whittles you down to nothing. You would have to get lucky and pop him on his way in, but lets be real, it takes like 15 seconds just to target ONE frigate, they would be shitting on you before you even had them targeted.


This is where "not being caught" comes into play. Tanks are not meant to engage in head-to-head combat with F-16's.


Right, I get that, but that's a lot easier said then done when your max speed is 1000 m/s, and it takes about 6 months to get to the top speed, and your aggressor is MUCH faster. I really want someone to tell me what my purpose in a BS should be so I can actually fly and enjoy them


1) I'm not saying you should MWD away, I'm saying you shouldn't have put your solo battleship where a frigate can get under your guns in the first place.

2) Battleships are fleet ships meant to hold the field. Foxcats (Navy Apocs/Golden Fleet) are currently the hard counter to Ishtars and other hac fleets because they can do a lot of damage on targets far away, while having the tank to not explode. After the enemies have either fled or died, you can freely attack or repair whatever structure you came for.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Raiz Nhell
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#27 - 2015-01-20 03:18:48 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Raiz Nhell wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
... and real world battleships did so well unescorted or caught unawares:

Battle of Taranto (6 battleships lost mainly to biplanes)
Pearl Harbor (8 battleships lost or out of action entirely due to aircraft)
Bismarck (damaged by a biplane before being caught and sunk by a surface fleet)
Yamato (sunk by aircraft)

many more examples


This is exactly why BS were decommissioned after WW2


100% certain this is BS...

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Gulf War 91

And many more involved BB's in the fleet compositions... and they were very effective at their role.


- Coastal Bombardment once you had air superiority.
- They had the capability to fire Nukes from their main guns.
- they became cruise missile platforms

They were not fighting ships by that stage they were mobile artillery platforms.


Thank you



Their role changed... the guns were still effective...

Same in EVE... BB's need to be supported...

A well rounded fleet with Megathron's as DPS "should" beat a well rounded fleet with Thorax's as DPS...

There is no such thing as a fair fight...

If your fighting fair you have automatically put yourself at a disadvantage.

Paranoid Loyd
#28 - 2015-01-20 03:21:03 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:
So, the only strength of the battleship is fighting other battleship and larger, it needs friends in smaller ships to save it from everything else? So basically, what u are saying is, a fleet of cruisers and frigates can just ignore the battleships in the group because they are not a real threat to them.
No not at all, a Dominix for example can very effectively kill small ships and large ships as long as there are not too many of them. But it is still slow and very vulnerable while solo.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#29 - 2015-01-20 03:21:22 UTC
Oh hey whats going on in here!
Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-01-20 03:23:22 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:
So, the only strength of the battleship is fighting other battleship and larger, it needs friends in smaller ships to save it from everything else? So basically, what u are saying is, a fleet of cruisers and frigates can just ignore the battleships in the group because they are not a real threat to them.
No not at all, a Dominix for example can very effectively kill small ships and large ships as long as there are not too many of them. But it is still slow and very vulnerable while solo.


Ok, what about the gun based battleships?
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-01-20 03:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Pok Nibin
Actually, after Pearl, the U.S. battleship fleet was never replaced. They built cruiser class and destroyer class ships, with (as was said) an eye to increasing their aircraft carrier strength. What Pearl Harbor did was prove the obsolesence of the battleship.

Some would say Lord Admiral Nelson did that when he introduced his method of attacking a "line", making the "ship of the line" obsolete. This, in large part, was why the U.S. Navy's first main battle ships were frigate class - USS Constitution.

However, battleships were seen to have other uses, such as holding harbors hostage. Being able to level a seaside city from a couple of miles away - diplomacy by "other means." So, they were continued to be manufactured well into the 20th Century. And, as was said, with a rather inglorious history to accompany that.

WWII introduced the efficacy of air power, and the aircraft carrier allowed you that mobility afforded by a moveable airfield. It hasn't been supersceded, yet.

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

Erica Dusette
Division 13
#32 - 2015-01-20 03:27:38 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:
I mean seriously, a BS poses almost zero threat to anything smaller then a BC and can EASILY be overcome by any t1, t2, frig or cruiser that has any sense and the ability to get in close.

Wow, you've obviously never heard of Suddenly Barghest™.

Jack Miton > you be nice or you're sleeping on the couch again!

Part-Time Wormhole Pirate Full-Time Supermodel

worмнole dιary + cнaracтer вιoѕвσss

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2015-01-20 03:27:59 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:


Ok, what about the gun based battleships?


Depends, pick a race.
Raiz Nhell
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#34 - 2015-01-20 03:31:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Oh hey whats going on in here!



I was wondering when you'd come along and recite the Baltec1 prayer for more Megathrons
Lol

There is no such thing as a fair fight...

If your fighting fair you have automatically put yourself at a disadvantage.

Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-01-20 03:32:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:


Ok, what about the gun based battleships?


Depends, pick a race.


Hyperion
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#36 - 2015-01-20 03:38:54 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:


Hyperion


Smallest large blasters, 2x webs, more tracking enhancers than damage mods. Optional extras are neuts (med are best) and smartbombs. Hype gets a big dronebay, get lots of warriors and med drones. Drugs are also great, use them with the above and you can get med blaster tracking out of large blasters. Implants a good too, you can get good results for not a lot of cash spent.
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
#37 - 2015-01-20 03:41:35 UTC
Provence Tristram wrote:
The general state of battleships IS rather distressing. I often feel like EVE should just rename itself "world of cruisers."


hehe, it certainly feels that way to this ~6 month old newbie sometimes.

I'd like to see battleships get a buff and returned to their rightful place as Kings/Queens of Subcaps, a title that has seemingly been claimed by the Tengu in K-Space and the Proteus in J-Space.

Raiz Nhell wrote:


The Prince of Wales and Repulse...

But when BB's are in a fleet comp they make a mess...

Trafalgar

Tsushima Straits
Leyte Gulf
Jutland


Trafalgar is actually a seriously bad example in this particular context.

Nelson's fleet was nicely organised into a rather unorthodox two-line formation while the Spanish/French fleet was pretty strung out and disjointed. Once the battle was joined, Nelson threw the standard tactical manual overboard and split his already outnumbered fleet to engage targets of opportunity (a very nutshell description of Trafalgar). Throw in the to-be-expected signalling translation problems bound to crop up when speakers of different languages are communicating by way of signal flags.

Nelson's victory came more from the skill and discipline of his crews against the raw, mostly seasick, crews of the French and Spanish who had spent the last 3(?) years being blockaded into Brest and/or Cadiz (amongst other ports the British blockaded along the Biscay coast).

So, in EVE-Effect, the British were a pack of All Skills At V (bitter)vet pilots in T2 ships against the French/Spanish pack of Trial Account Newbies who couldn't even afford faction ammo.

Also, in this example, the British 74s were more like EVE cruisers compared with lumbering behemoths like Santissima Trinidad.

But yeah, all in all, please give battleships a buff!

Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze

This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2015-01-20 04:00:01 UTC
A point of order - Pearl Harbor did not prove the obsolesence of the battleship. The loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse proved battleships needed air cover. Pearl Harbor involved battleships at anchor and not ready for combat.

It proved necessary to reactivate battleships for Korea, Viet Nam, and in the 1980s to counter the Kirovs. The battleship was not obsoleted until the VLS missile launcher appeared - it was just that only a few were needed rather than large fleets.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.

Raiz Nhell
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#39 - 2015-01-20 04:10:50 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
A point of order - Pearl Harbor did not prove the obsolesence of the battleship. The loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse proved battleships needed air cover. Pearl Harbor involved battleships at anchor and not ready for combat.

It proved necessary to reactivate battleships for Korea, Viet Nam, and in the 1980s to counter the Kirovs. The battleship was not obsoleted until the VLS missile launcher appeared - it was just that only a few were needed rather than large fleets.



I think what we are trying to argue towards is that BB's need support...
Solo PVP in a BB will usually end in a lossmail unless you are reasonably certain what your up against and fit to counter that...

The BB is not a jack of all trades ship like the cruiser hulls can be

There is no such thing as a fair fight...

If your fighting fair you have automatically put yourself at a disadvantage.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#40 - 2015-01-20 04:13:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
OP... here's a bone for you.


- a solo battleship is a target (the same holds true for any capital or supercapital ship).

- a group of organized battleships with logi support is a goddamn wrecking ball and should be feared by anything that can't run away fast enough, outclass it, or bring more people.

- battleships could maybe use an extra slot (mid or low) to increase their fitting options and/or performance.