New ship reveal - Nelson

[GoldenRivet]

Here is something

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq129-1.htm

appears that the largest flag that would fly atop a navy vessel would have a fly length of about 38 feet

[Jimbuna]

Is it just me or is there a portho;e missing just below the quarterdeck?

[Alex]

LOL

I like very much the new turrets, can't wait to see that in action.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Alex

LOL

I like very much the new turrets, can't wait to see that in action.

Don't forget mate... they're likely to be pointed at you.

[Brag]

I wish these Ubi guys ( I want to call them scoundrels) would show some real in game footage instead of spoon feeding us ships we already know.


Bleah, Moo

t's depressing

[Alex]

@ GR :



Hehe

@ Brag : I concur with you, mate.

[cardiff]

Has nobody else noticed the secondary armament looks a bit high? they all seem to be sttod on a platform. Also this looks like the earliest version of the Rodney, the ships looked far more interesting later in the war with the addition of more anti aircraft batteries. Surely the KGV class battleships were far more used in the war, would have liked to have seen a preview of these (as not on main website) as the models have been flawed in previous games. Check the links for colourised pics of the rodney

http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/irootok...c/cc95a680.jpg

HMS Nelson

http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/irootok...6/16bfc083.jpg

[D.E]

Nice looking model. She even seems a bit weathered compared to the earlier shots of KM Bismarck. A step in the right direction.

Regarding very large flags;

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Battle_ensign

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by D.E

Nice looking model. She even seems a bit weathered compared to the earlier shots of KM Bismarck. A step in the right direction.

Regarding very large flags;

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Battle_ensign

I could be very wrong, but I don't think Battle Ensign's were used in WW2 with any regularity. Of course there is the story of the Arizona putting it up during the attack on Pearl. If I am wrong I would love to hear about it though

I do know that at least some US ships still carry them. During a joint US/Canadian Sinkex (Operation Trident Fury, HMCS Huron) one of the US ships, which I embarrassingly forget the name of, flew a Battle Ensign in salute as Huron went down. They may have brought it just for the occasion however.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Highbury

I could be very wrong, but I don't think Battle Ensign's were used in WW2 with any regularity. Of course there is the story of the Arizona putting it up during the attack on Pearl. If I am wrong I would love to hear about it though

I do know that at least some US ships still carry them. During a joint US/Canadian Sinkex (Operation Trident Fury, HMCS Huron) one of the US ships, which I embarrassingly forget the name of, flew a Battle Ensign in salute as Huron went down. They may have brought it just for the occasion however.

On the contrary, Battle Ensigns are still used today by the Royal Navy (not used often because we are not at war).

The link below makes reference to HMS Exeter as she turned to engage the Graf Spee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_ensign

Some ensigns are raised annually on sunken warships to commemorate those who went down with their ships, two examples are the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow and HMS Ardent in Falkland Sound...

The wreck of the 'Royal Oak' is now an official war grave and there is an annual commemoration service. Royal Navy divers go down to the ship and raise a White Ensign in memory of the 833 crew killed. Are there other examples of flags being 'raised' under water?
André Coutanche, 15 August 2005

Here is another example: Independent Television News (ITN) reported yesterday evening, 21 May 2007, on the raising of a White Ensign under the sea, in Falkland Sound above the wreck of Her Majesty's Ship Ardent and the placing of two plaques on the wreck:
"FOR THOSE THAT LOST THEIR LIVES ONBOARD HMS ARDENT FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS 21 May 1982"
during the landing of British forces on the islands in the Falklands War.
Colin Dobson, 22 May 2007

http://www.fotw.net/flags/gb-nav.html#undersea

[elanaiba]

Originally Posted by cardiff

Has nobody else noticed the secondary armament looks a bit high? they all seem to be sttod on a platform. Also this looks like the earliest version of the Rodney, the ships looked far more interesting later in the war with the addition of more anti aircraft batteries. Surely the KGV class battleships were far more used in the war, would have liked to have seen a preview of these (as not on main website) as the models have been flawed in previous games. Check the links for colourised pics of the rodney

http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/irootok...c/cc95a680.jpg

HMS Nelson

http://livedoor.2.blogimg.jp/irootok...6/16bfc083.jpg

Would that "later in the war" perhaps be post 43? Nevertheless, we always had an issue with representing dramatic silhouette changes or additions to armament. The later is mostly due to the occlusion maps that add a lot to the feel of the ship, even with the dynamic shadows. Still it can be done, but it takes much more effort per ship.

Regarding the secondary armaments, you're definetly right! We have a classic issue of both the guns and the ship containing the "pedestal".

As for the KGV, they will of course be included in the game. However, you have to understand that no matter what ship we might choose to show, somebody would come and say "why that ship makes no sense, it was the other one that was much more interesting to be shown".

One of the tricks of submarine games and free roaming is that the player should never completely know "whats around the corner". If all we included was the KGV, the game world would have been kind of poor. So, expect more, much more.

[kemeri]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

... So, expect more, much more.

That is how thread "Confirmed SH5 Bugs" should start

Nevermind, just joking.
Looking forward to get the Game

Originally Posted by Brag

I wish these Ubi guys ( I want to call them scoundrels) would show some real in game footage instead of spoon feeding us ships we already know.


Bleah, Moo

t's depressing

i understood you meant the UBI suits and not all UBI guys but i wanted to take this opportunity to make this statement about complaining about UBI.

i feel blanket statements like this can be missinterpreted to unfairly apply to "all" UBI guys and the devs or the guys just working for a living dont make the decissions shouldnt be blamed.

i want to ask that anyone who posts a complaint about UBI please make a notation that you dont mean the devs when saying things like this


thank you

[Brag]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

One of the tricks of submarine games and free roaming is that the player should never completely know "whats around the corner". If all we included was the KGV, the game world would have been kind of poor. So, expect more, much more.

Absolutely right!
One of the best statements about SH5 we've heard in a while

[bigboywooly]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

As for the KGV, they will of course be included in the game. However, you have to understand that no matter what ship we might choose to show, somebody would come and say "why that ship makes no sense, it was the other one that was much more interesting to be shown".

.

Personally
Would rather see some merchants/tankers
After all that is what I am at sea for
Though tis nice to see a battlewagon I dont expect to see them more than once - after I have sunk it anyway


Heres hoping there are more type= designations ingame than previous releases
Gives modders a greater scope to add a different class of ship that wont show where other should ie my old fave coastal merchants