Possibly - its not based on the gun as both ran at around 2800fps muzzle velocities and had similar ranges. Given that I was assuming the reputation of the guns on different ships - be it mounts, mounting style, fire control and level of wear in specific ships - that made the difference for the statting rather than something inherent in the guns then there'd have to be something similar for the L47 9.2s as their basic physics are not really much different. Wiki at least lists the shell identification issue for KEd VIIs, there's no local control and like the Lord Nelson the two 9.2 turrets on each side were under a single firing group. So it all depends on exactly what it was feature wise that made for the weakness. If it isnt the fire control set up but the amount of firing the guns had done and the propellant buildup causing problems (which it was according to Navweaps) then if the ship has fired less then there are reasons for it not having weak.

Another option is the ammunitino used - 2CRH and 4CRH I think are two of the shells available, and it made a difference what you had in the magazine - also powder level - if one class fired routinely on lower powder due to supply limits per shell then it makes sense as well

THis all might come down to sea stability of the vessels and so its position as a platform in question not the guns....for the 7.5s I simply don't know the guns seems to have the same sort of physics. Again any of the above ideas may be relevant

However I don't know enough to settle on an answer - in all of this I was merely offering possible options, not arguing a final case.

I agree completely. remember its just a game. We are having similar arguments right now so it is understood from your point of view. Also with this game you should not expect the level of play to be the same as games like Seakrieg because its not that type of game.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

rcbecker1 and Myrm,

I'm very appreciative of your comments on this.
This isn't me trying to 'expect Seekreig's level of detail' as I deliberately shunned Seekrieg as the system my friends and I would use to decide our campaign. It was too complicated for the kinds of use that I would be getting out of it, whereas Victory at Sea was fast, simple and reasonably complex. I can use it to simulate ships we build in such a way as to keep the battles fairly fast, but also to represent the ships in an 'individualized' manner.
What this is, I guess, winds up being me trying to understand the system from the "Developer's POV"- looking at why a specific trait was given to one vessel and not to another. This way, I might take these things into consideration myself when the time comes and use the special qualities appropriately with our ships. If Weak is used to represent, for instance, the awkward placement of the 9.2" guns or the problems with spotting... things like that help me find the right 'balance' when I begin converting our ships.

Thanks to both of you.

I cant tell you your answer since i did not work on the first book and dont play WWI.
Mainly I help stat out ships as a basis then David Manley did the finals so I cant tell you his reasoning. I like you can guess and make my judgements which may or may not agree. Also if I think something is different like all games I change little things here and there to make me happy.
some things are obvoius if you look at the stats and the real guns you can figure out most of it but at this time I cant give out exact formulaes. In fact Im arguing some of these right now for what Im working on.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"

Ok, not arguing but working out the reasoning.

_________________
"Official Naval Boffin"