Search the Community

Id like there to be no upper or lower, especially lower limit on the armor for ships. This is especially needed on heavy cruisers or certain BBs and BCs. Some ships historically had lower armor due to treaty restrictions or the need to maximize certain other traits. Things like the Kongo cant really be replicated easily. Or certain heavy cruisers like the Pensacola or Furutaka only have 76mm belts which isnt allowed on Heavys.

current Iron Plate armor uses the US 1945 class B armor as a standard for quality 1 armor this means that 10 inches armor is 10 inches of effective armor (1 inch of us 1945 B steel is essentially 1 inch of RHA armor aka rolled homogeneous armor which is used as the standard for 1 inch thickness to 1 inch effectiveness) in reality Iron Plate had an effective thickness modifier of 0.5 to 0.55 so 1 inch of Iron plate armor would be 0.5 inches of effective thickness this meant a 10 inch iron plate is in effect only 5 inches of effective armor this means all types of armor in game over-performs by at-least 150% armor such as Krupp IV over-performs by 200% 240% if you account for 40% weight saving (a 1 inch armor plate of Krupp IV in game is equivelant to 2 inches of what would be the best quality battleship armor created in ww2 (around 1 quality in real life while in game is 200% more effective than quality 1 armor aka quality 2) (quality armor means how much effective thickness it gets from its actual thickness for example a quality 3 plate would have 3 inches of effective armor from a 1 inch thick piece of armor while a quality 1 piece of armor would have 1 inch of effective thickness from a 1 inch thick plate) this DOES NOT account for the fact armor gets lighter which was not the case in real life the density of steel armor remained at around 7750kg m^3 (yes you can do various things to it but generally armor weight remained the same) the current armor stats are as follows KruppIV -40% weight +300% cost +100% strength SHOULD BE around cost 100% strength +10% KruppIII -35% weight +220% cost +90% strength SHOULD BE around cost 70% strength 0% KruppII -30% weight +160% cost +80% strength SHOULD BE around cost 50% strength -10% kruppI -25% weight +100% cost +70 strength SHOULD BE around cost +40% -14 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey (nickel steel version) -15% weight +50% costs +45% strength SHOULD BE around+ 12% cost -26% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells due to low tensile strength Nickel-steel -5% weight +25% cost +40% strength SHOULD BE around cost +5-8% strength -30% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell -15% chance to shatter ap shells due too low tensile strength Compound: +5% cost +35% strength SHOULD BE around cost + 5% strength -35% +10% chance to shatter projectiles due to high tensile strength (introduced in 1876 so yeah ancient and horrible armor quality) - Iron plate -15% hull form +65% hull weight -25% armor weight (all types) -50% armor weight (belt, belt extended) SHOULD BE around -15% hull form (lets assume Iron armor back then was harder to shape properly) (IRON ARMOR DOES NOT increase the hull weight or reduce armor weight)-50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells due to low brinell hardness -50% chance to shatter AP shells due to the low tensile strength looks a bit complicated but the new armor would essentially have these characteristics Krupp IV cost 80% strength +10% Krupp III cost 50% strength -4% Krupp II cost 40% strength -10% Krupp I cost +25% -18 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey +12% cost -21% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells Nickel-steel cost +5-8% strength -26% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell -15% chance to shatter ap shells Compound cost + 5% strength -30% +10% chance to shatter projectiles Iron plate -15% hull form -50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells -50% chance to shatter AP shells source used to determine armor values and effects http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Japanese_Vickers_Hardened_Non-Cemented_Face-Hardened_Armor_(VH) the less hard in brinell the armor is the more likely a shell wont ricochet off the armor the less tensile strength the more likely an ap shell is to not shatter on the armor this was mostly done to diversify and make a bigger difference out of the different types of armor in reality the effects would be less pronounced (specifically ricochet chance) than in real life (though shatter chance is quite realistic) what effect do these changes have on armor in general in general would improve the realism of the game while greatly increasing gun penetration for AP shells on top of this it would reduce the tendency to go bow in and charge enemy battleships until almost point blank range to effectively penetrate enemy armor it would reduce the tendency for large ships to fire high explosive shells when they shouldn't and would reduce what can only be described as an HE meta final conclusion armor is currently overperforming to various degrees this would make armor effectiveness realistic for the thickness compared to the currently super effective armor we have in game which overperforms by extreme amounts

So lets start off with a current aspect of the game that I think the Devs are going to address but im not sure. This games armor system is a bit...limited, and quite easy to exploit. As it stands armor layouts in the game are not accurate in the least. Belt lines cover the entire ship and extended belts and extended decks are far too easy to make impenetrable. Makes battleships and Heavy cruisers rather insurmountable to ships with smaller guns, and super structures dont really seem to get hurt as easily as they maybe should. As we all know the actual armor layouts of warships is quite the complex layout. I hope the game will evolve to a point where we can have a more detailed representation of this. It would be nice to sorta customize things like where the belt armor goes or even to be able to place things like a torpedo bulge on the hull. It would also make going bow in less viable as you cant just easily make a bow armored up to 200 or more millimeters. I dont expect it too be exactly true to life, but some more detail would be nice. Furthermore the current citadel and armor composition are pretty boring and too... gamey. The fact Krupp IV would make something like 250mm of armor be treated like about 500mm to 600mm of armor seems sorta strange to me. I suppose this will be balanced out in the campaign with financial costs but it still makes me think that the game will be won buy whoever can afford the thickest belt. Im not an expert and perhaps one of you who has a bit more knowledge on something like that could explain it better, but I have a feeling that the Krupp armor shouldn't just be X% better than something. Lighter for sure, but a simple % seems too simple. I would also like to see a more visual representation of what the different types of citadel protections do and look like. From what we see Turtleback and All or Nothing seem exactly the same, except that one does this and one does that. It would be nice for people who dont know what those are from doing research or are new to naval history to be able to see what those are doing for the ship, not just stats on a screen. Onto the more entertaining stuff. Trying to build replicas. Uhh... this is supposed to be New Mexico. We are missing two 5inch sponsons, and I think its a bit too short on length... but most of it is there! She also is 2000 tons too heavy but putting it at 32000 tons shortens the boat too much. And im still not exactly sure what armor makeup and aiming system to use for her. Its not easy to find that sorta information. Hmm... im not sure that I got her really. Hopefully in time the games dockyard will let us actually make these ships in full. Post some attempted replicas you guys have attempted.

Too me it seems that the armor upgrades in game are a bit drastic. Getting any of the Krupp tier armor makes putting a ton of armor on too easy and it also makes the ships absolutely impenetrable, throwing 500mm of armor with Krupp IV makes the ship only vulnerable to torpedoes and the absolute largest guns. Does anyone else feel the same way? It just feels like smaller weapons even on battle ships, and I dont mean 5 inch guns, i mean the 13-14 inch weapons are just not viable for very long.

1. Make the Belt and Deck armor be the armor protecting the middle of the ship, and make the Extended Belt and Extended Deck armor be the armor protecting the ends of the ship 1a. On ships with a Citadel, add armored bulkheads as thick as the Belt 1b. Make is so that if the ends of the ship are flooding, the middle can’t flood unless the armored bulkheads have been penetrated, or have been partially penetrated multiple times. 1c. Make the Citadel long enough, on ships with no Extended armor, that if it is the only part of the ship that hasn’t been flooded the ship will still float, but only by a very thin margin. 2. Remove the barrette component and replace it with anti-flash mechanisms and/or improved ammo storage. IRL they reduced rate of fire/increased cost respectively, but also reduced the chance of a magazine detonation if the turret/barrette was penetrated.

Firstly, I’m unsure about how the game’s armouring is placed. I am unsure whether the deck and extended deck are the upper deck or lower deck above the citadel, but either way I think it’s important to differentiate the two. I’d like to propose two new armour placements: 1. Citadel deck: the deck directly above the citadel. Tended to be thicker than the upper deck, which was also armoured on armoured cruisers and battleships. 2. Citadel slopes: diagonal armoured slopes from citadel deck to base of belt armour. They were mostly below the waterline, thus offering better protection without the need of a belt. These two placements would allow for differentiation of true armoured cruisers and true protected cruisers; the later lacking in belt armour completely. Both would allow for better protection of boilers, which seem to be rather vulnerable in the alpha despite a thick belt. They wouldn’t be available to destroyers or torpedo boats, or alternatively remove belt armour from destroyers while allowing for a lightly armoured citadel, as seen in later classes. Heres two diagrams from Wikipedia: Armoured cruisers layout: - In game, the deck becomes the upper deck, shown in thin red. - The citadel deck is the deck directly above the citadel. Often thicker than upper deck, sometimes not as thick as slopes. - The citadel slopes are the diagonal slopes and would by default be thicker than decks but not as thick as belt. Protected cruiser layout: - Citadel slopes and deck armoured. - No belt or upper deck armour. Hopefully this setup would allow players to keep their cruisers light and fast while still having a protected citadel with thinner armour. This is all down to player preference of course. Could also address the weight issues I currently see which is cruisers being far heavier than in real life, sometimes twice the weight. In both diagrams, the areas shown in grey are coal bunkers. It would be nice to simulate the added protection by allowing coal (and semi-oil to a lesser extent) to improve belt armour and citadel armour, and/or reduce penetration damage. This could scale with range/amount of coal on board. It would also reduce flooding in areas where coal is stored.

I crafted this ship a few weeks ago - but just noticed the odd Side Armor. It is showing both Left and Right Side Armor as separate values. Rattlesnake Heavy with Left & Right Side Armor This is the only ship I have like this. A bug or ?

You recommend yourself as ultra realistic cannon balls game. Doubling on enemy is suppose to be a tactic presumably since balls may entirely pierce through both and any sides of armor of ship, to which end making making damage cross over through all three layers or just one or the other would be ideal so that firing from both sides on a ship isn't a major waste of 2nd ship on your side.