I like your rendition. I don’t think the Bismarck deserves ER5, maybe the Tirpitz does, but IMO not the Bismarck. I really think the Bismarck deserves hull 6 for a few more points.
On KBismarck, there is a very interesting discussion on what German radars of the Second World War were truly capable of. Apparently, there is evidence that Tirpitz could have been equipped with Radar on par with that of the Iowas after 1943 (if I recall correctly, they were just as good in the area of Fire-Control but not at searching, but I could be mistaken).
Hm. Had Bismarck returned to France safely, she would "justify" a later-war card for her, with better AA, better radar and better fire control? Interesting. I suppose one could just use the Tirpitz card with the class limit of 2, however.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
While I find the Bismarck to be a very serviceable game piece, I do find the 8 Armor stat a little unsatisfying. By mid-late WWII standards, Bismarck's gunnery and speed were "pack" at best, but the level of protection on her displacement was pretty high. I don't believe this warrants hull 6, but a 9 Armor / 15 Vital on Bismarck would have made a lot more sense than the 9 Armor / 15 Vital on Richelieu (which happens to be one of my favorite ships both historically and in game, and by all accounts a very well armored if unusual ship). The difference between 8 Armor and 9 Armor is significant, particularly when you consider the gunnery values on most of the early war BBs in the game.
Bismarck had high armor weight relative to displacement, which isn't actually to say that it had an outstanding amount of protection relative to that displacement. Instead, it more likely reflects an inefficient and outdated scheme of protection (not surprising from a country whose naval architects hadn't designed a new capital ship since before Jutland). That the ship took a beating before going down isn't particularly telling, either; virtually all large capital ships of the big gun era proved extremely resilient in the face of gunfire and other above-the-waterline damage. Even the relatively thin-skinned first gen British battlecruisers absorbed quite a bit of punishment at Dogger Bank without much impact on their fighting qualities. Virtually all "catastrophic" losses of battleships and battlecruisers during the two World Wars resulted either from underwater damage (torpedoes or mines) or from magazine deflagrations that were ultimately caused by shoddy ammunition handling. The ones hit by bombs and shellfire tended to die by inches.
While I find the Bismarck to be a very serviceable game piece, I do find the 8 Armor stat a little unsatisfying. By mid-late WWII standards, Bismarck's gunnery and speed were "pack" at best, but the level of protection on her displacement was pretty high. I don't believe this warrants hull 6, but a 9 Armor / 15 Vital on Bismarck would have made a lot more sense than the 9 Armor / 15 Vital on Richelieu (which happens to be one of my favorite ships both historically and in game, and by all accounts a very well armored if unusual ship). The difference between 8 Armor and 9 Armor is significant, particularly when you consider the gunnery values on most of the early war BBs in the game.
Bismarck had high armor weight relative to displacement, which isn't actually to say that it had an outstanding amount of protection relative to that displacement. Instead, it more likely reflects an inefficient and outdated scheme of protection (not surprising from a country whose naval architects hadn't designed a new capital ship since before Jutland). That the ship took a beating before going down isn't particularly telling, either; virtually all large capital ships of the big gun era proved extremely resilient in the face of gunfire and other above-the-waterline damage. Even the relatively thin-skinned first gen British battlecruisers absorbed quite a bit of punishment at Dogger Bank without much impact on their fighting qualities. Virtually all "catastrophic" losses of battleships and battlecruisers during the two World Wars resulted either from underwater damage (torpedoes or mines) or from magazine deflagrations that were ultimately caused by shoddy ammunition handling. The ones hit by bombs and shellfire tended to die by inches.
Well, the Brits certainly thought very, very highly of her and they knew their naval architecture. I'm with SWO, that Bismarck had better credentials than Richelieu (historically) yet in this game ... they are not even a fair fight. I think that she was not "super", yet she was quite the "threat". I'd rather she be a "threat" in this game (especially early-war, not late-war).
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
Both the primary euro-axis battleship classes are showing thier age.
Ive been touting an operational littorio class battleship with mild defensive SA for some time. May well be an option for germany as well but it takes us in to New-kagi territory which isnt everyones cup of tea
Bismarck had high armor weight relative to displacement, which isn't actually to say that it had an outstanding amount of protection relative to that displacement. Instead, it more likely reflects an inefficient and outdated scheme of protection (not surprising from a country whose naval architects hadn't designed a new capital ship since before Jutland). That the ship took a beating before going down isn't particularly telling, either; virtually all large capital ships of the big gun era proved extremely resilient in the face of gunfire and other above-the-waterline damage. Even the relatively thin-skinned first gen British battlecruisers absorbed quite a bit of punishment at Dogger Bank without much impact on their fighting qualities. Virtually all "catastrophic" losses of battleships and battlecruisers during the two World Wars resulted either from underwater damage (torpedoes or mines) or from magazine deflagrations that were ultimately caused by shoddy ammunition handling. The ones hit by bombs and shellfire tended to die by inches.
Well, the Brits certainly thought very, very highly of her and they knew their naval architecture. I'm with SWO, that Bismarck had better credentials than Richelieu (historically) yet in this game ... they are not even a fair fight. I think that she was not "super", yet she was quite the "threat". I'd rather she be a "threat" in this game (especially early-war, not late-war).
I suspect that the Brits were always cognizant of the limitations of their own modern battleship class, and morbidly conscious of the fact that Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't built to Treaty restrictions. I also suspect they didn't actually know the precise armor specifications or layout of the Bismarck-class until after the war. Then, too, the loss of Hood colored everything from the Royal Navy's perspective.
To your second point, Bismarck suffers a bit from the usual first set costing issues as relates to later sets, but the ship is a legitimate "threat" to any Allied ship with an early war availability.
Has it occurred to anyone that they got it right on points in the first set and everything that follows is what’s wrong?
I make no judgments as to which is "wrong," just noting that there is a cost imbalance there. For what it's worth, I think that all the straight speed 2 BBs in the game, and especially ships that had real life speeds in excess of 30 knots are all effectively nerfed to some degree by the WaS format and rule set, and Bismarck is no exception.
I make no judgments as to which is "wrong," just noting that there is a cost imbalance there. For what it's worth, I think that all the straight speed 2 BBs in the game, and especially ships that had real life speeds in excess of 30 knots are all effectively nerfed to some degree by the WaS format and rule set, and Bismarck is no exception.
Well said. I agree that there's plenty of evidence to support that the first set was expected to be the only set ...
I do wish that the game had more "speed variance", as historically a 28 knot ship escaped 24 knot ships easily ... but not in this game.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
I make no judgments as to which is "wrong," just noting that there is a cost imbalance there. For what it's worth, I think that all the straight speed 2 BBs in the game, and especially ships that had real life speeds in excess of 30 knots are all effectively nerfed to some degree by the WaS format and rule set, and Bismarck is no exception.
Well said. I agree that there's plenty of evidence to support that the first set was expected to be the only set ...
I do wish that the game had more "speed variance", as historically a 28 knot ship escaped 24 knot ships easily ... but not in this game.
I mean, even a difference of a knot or two could pay real tactical benefits at times. Bismarck's brief career provides an excellent illustration of that phenomenon; in the fight with Hood and Prince of Wales, Vice-Admiral Holland was forced to accept an unfavorable tactical position in order to bring the slightly faster Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to battle.
Bismarck had high armor weight relative to displacement, which isn't actually to say that it had an outstanding amount of protection relative to that displacement. Instead, it more likely reflects an inefficient and outdated scheme of protection (not surprising from a country whose naval architects hadn't designed a new capital ship since before Jutland). That the ship took a beating before going down isn't particularly telling, either; virtually all large capital ships of the big gun era proved extremely resilient in the face of gunfire and other above-the-waterline damage. Even the relatively thin-skinned first gen British battlecruisers absorbed quite a bit of punishment at Dogger Bank without much impact on their fighting qualities. Virtually all "catastrophic" losses of battleships and battlecruisers during the two World Wars resulted either from underwater damage (torpedoes or mines) or from magazine deflagrations that were ultimately caused by shoddy ammunition handling. The ones hit by bombs and shellfire tended to die by inches.
Well, the Brits certainly thought very, very highly of her and they knew their naval architecture. I'm with SWO, that Bismarck had better credentials than Richelieu (historically) yet in this game ... they are not even a fair fight. I think that she was not "super", yet she was quite the "threat". I'd rather she be a "threat" in this game (especially early-war, not late-war).
The Richelieu certainly seems to be a mix of early war and late war ship. RB wanted to include France in the game. If Set I was designed as a probably stand alone game, and there only being 3 slots for the French, was Richelieu something of a compromise piece for RB? If RB ever writes the story of the game's design, I would read it.
I make no judgments as to which is "wrong," just noting that there is a cost imbalance there. For what it's worth, I think that all the straight speed 2 BBs in the game, and especially ships that had real life speeds in excess of 30 knots are all effectively nerfed to some degree by the WaS format and rule set, and Bismarck is no exception.
Well said. I agree that there's plenty of evidence to support that the first set was expected to be the only set ...
I do wish that the game had more "speed variance", as historically a 28 knot ship escaped 24 knot ships easily ... but not in this game.
Think of the poor Iowas and Shokakus, among others.