Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Friedrich

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About Friedrich

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's a bit more to it than that, but in essence yes. Also, for additional components I'd like to see properly scaled components always present. For example, the German Superbattleship's superstructure and funnel aren't to the same scale, causing the models to be out of alignment. In that specific case a larger funnel is probably needed for gameplay reasons as well, since there's only room for the one funnel and even the largest one isn't enough to support the kinds of engines such a high tonnage ship requires. A lot of other components are a similar story, where you can tell that
  2. Fundamentally the issue is that adding more guns to a turret doesn't have any bearing on the size of your barrettes, so if your triple turret tech is reliable enough, there's literally no reason not to use triples. Even weight isn't a major factor since you can get more guns in fewer turrets for the same weight.
  3. Yeah, basically this. I get why it was done, but it still raises an eyebrow and would ideally not be how displacement worked.
  4. That is to say that they are a bow and stern with a slabsided hull between them. This is a uniquely american design characteristic which was only in place due to restrictions imposed by the panama canal. If one looks at british or german ships you'll see that, lacking this restriction, they have a very different overhead profile to their hulls. Have the devs commented on this yet?
  5. This sounds less like artillery and more like a scramjet missile with a gunlike launch platform. Interesting, but probably not revolutionary considering that the technologies presumably involved could be applied to current missile designs, thus making this a merely evolutionary change.
  6. If OP is still around could you add my own suggestions regarding turrets/guns to the list? I agree with so much of this and it would be nice to have everything in one place to refer back to.
  7. First, that was their ideal. The fatal shot shouldn't have been able to pull the plunging fire through the deck armor into the magazines at that range, though at a longer range it would've been vulnerable to just that. So b-lining it into their presumed zone of immunity was the only sane thing to do, wasting no speed on major turns. Second, at sufficient ranges slight adjustments are all you need. Third, what do you mean the escort carriers didn't have any guns in the fight? They were suckering them into 40mm range! Goddamn, Taffy 3 was awesome.
  8. Well first, most of the game takes place before then, so developments that only arise in the 40's are endgame content not representative of the 1890 to 1940 (not sure what the actual end date is, but it's 1940 in custom battles ATM) timeframe the game is set in. Second, that doesn't actually help, since you are mostly accounting for your own manuver, which just makes this tactic even more of a no brainer since now there's basically no downside to it. You don't even need to restrict yourself to slight course adjustments, you could be swerving and weaving your way through the oceans and sin
  9. That's not actually true. I think it was against Bismark where a British ship evaded her fire by making slight course corrections into the splashes of the last salvo. The result was that Bismark would fire her guns, and the shells would land pretty much right on top of where her target would've been had those adjustments not been made. Now obviously this only works at long ranges, does nothing against torpedoes, and makes your own firing solutions require somewhat more frequent range corrections, but it's a real tactic, and an effective one at that, performed during at least one peer engagemen
  10. I'm not holding out much hope, seeing as none of the other Ultimate games got it, nor appear likely to receive it. Still, it's not like I'm happy about that, and a change in trajectory towards being more mod friendly would be a pleasant surprise.
  11. Yeah, the principle concern has to be with the foundational systems. Making super complicated stuff which tracks stockpiles of ammunition in detail and stuff like that isn't important for the base game, although the functionality to mod it in, and mod support in general, is something I would very much hope to see in the finished game. Not sure about the shell types you mentioned though. There's Armor Piercing, Semi-Armor Piercing, High Explosive, Star/Illumination-Shells... and that's about it. Unless we count special cases like the japanese diving shells, american super heavy shells, bri
  12. So basically mark would alter the fixed stats like range, muzzle velocity, rof, etc, while quality is more the variable stats like accuracy (of the guns, not your firing solutions). Actually now that I've articulated this, I really like the idea of this distinction, and think that shells, charges, barrels, etc should all have their own (semi-hidden) quality stats for historical authenticity. So Iowa would have mediocre charges, meaning it's main guns will have variable muzzle velocity and range giving them poor vertical accuracy (deviation in distance traveled, not angles) or Littorio hav
  13. The changes in course don't have to be as large at high speed, so even if the ship alters course by only a few degrees upon receiving fire, at 35+kn it should end up outside the typical spread of most ships at long range. I'm glad we agree on what the model ought to be though, and pleased that the current build is at least oriented in that direction. Does the ship AI actually perform balanced evasive maneuvering as I described, or is it not that responsive?
  14. What would the difference between quality and mark be? I presume mark has to do with things like barrel rifling and breach design, while quality has to do with the manufacture of them, but what would the actual effect be? Making barrel length separate from bore diameter is a no brainer and goes along with my own issues regarding turret/barbette diameter as things which really ought to have been part of the ship designer from the outset, although not quite to the same degree. They are important enough that the high changeover cost is worth it, and I will expect it to be made, but I don't envy t
  15. Uh... that's problematic, since the US armor was not nearly as good as British or German armor of the WW2 period. If Class B is Krupp IV, British and German armor would be a VI or VII. I can't remember if US armor was 85% of British, or if the British was an 85% improvement, but either way it's a pretty significant improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...