Finwenolofinwe

Mk1 6 inch are still turreted for US and UK, which makes for awkward designs at best, especially with the ridiculously huge US turrets. Also could you perhaps change the Mk3 japanese Guns to the Yamato design used for some Mk2? That one has practically bugged me since release, even though it is only a minor difference.

Is the obstructed firing arc on the new hulls of this type intended? Even if that bucket were to block fire the angles seem a bit severe

I believe the main problem is that turrets are far more survivable in game than they aver were in reality. Eben ricochets stood a decent chance of at least temporarily jamming a turret. In game there does not seem to be any temporary disabling of turrets and they seem to often survive even full penetrations.

Is there any intention to rework damage? I feel partial penetrations should be far more damaging, especially on turrets. Seydlitz for example (probably the most heavily damaged capital ship to have detailed data on the damage available) had all her guns disabled and was almost sunk by 21 heavy caliber hits and one torpedo. None of the hits were proper penetrations of turret or main belt. Similarly Derfflinger and Von der Tann were reduced to one operational turret each, at least from my recollection also without full penetrations. Even Seydlitz's turret fire at Dogger bank was caused by only blast entering the barbette with the shell stuck in the armour.

Did you change the date at which gun marks become available? The Mk3 guns unlock far later than they used to for custom battle. The Mk3 12" which used to unlock in 1905 now only becomes available in 1912. This is a problem as frankly half a shot per minute makes not much sense for dreadnoughts and if i recall correctly recent improvements in reload speed were what made the all big gun armed ship viable to begin with.

Could you consider adding main gun barbettes to the French Experimental Dreadnought hull? The Dreadnought 1 is pretty restrictive and with barbette choices the experimental one would come pretty close to the Courbet and Bretagne classes.

It should be noted that another 6ft tall person would be visible as sticking over the horizon and (with sufficient magnification and clear air) clearly outlined against the sky at almost double that distance.

That may well be, a penetration proper of the conning tower still seems very unlikely. Splinters entering through slits or spalling are far more believable causes of casualties. This (in addition to the crampedness and horrendous visibility) was considered enough of an issue that the RN simply dropped the concept and went for more extended splinter protection. And that is even assuming the Admiral was in the conning tower which i have been unable to confirm and would consider unlikely due to space and more importantly visibility issues. Edit: Also while there were issues with very thick plates (especially the turret face plates) i think you are very much overstating. Also WW1 quality or production armour would not exactly be a rarity in any navy and many did not advance much further. Edit: Penetration tables are difficult to trust and often contradictory. I personally would not put too much faith into any table considering american armour more effective than british or german plate without further explanation of the samples used.

The boats on the central crane funnels for the german hulls still block firing arcs and turret placement. Is this intentional? Otherwise great fixes.

Also there seem to be no mounting points for torpedo tubes on any of the hulls based on the new german hulls.

There are some Issues with the new funnels: The boats on the central funnels (all of them as far as i can tell) block both placement of turrets and crossdeck-firing, making them effectively rather pointless. In addition the german battlecruiser 1 hull only has the choice of central funnel 1 and central funnel 2 which makes it very hard to build a design with more than one funnel and impossible to recreate Von der Tann which the hull is supposed to represent. Please give this hull more funnel options.

Have british Mk3 guns gotten bigger? At present it is impossible to build an Invincible- or Indefatigable-inspired design on the Battlecruiser 1 hull, simply because the side guns don´t fit in any way approaching the real ships. Some patches ago this was easily possible.

Stationkeeping right now is attrocious. Even changing a squadron's speed is likely to break it up, let alone something as simple as a 8 point turn. On a similar note at the very least the options to turn in succession and to turn together are a must when maneuvering.

Hey all, I'm having a lot of fun trying to recreate historic ship designs, but a thing which bugs me to a probably unreasonable degree is that 9 inch guns are listet as primary weapons for BBs. As far as I know there was no ship with 9 inch primaries built during the relevant era anyone would call a battleship (please correct me if wrong) and building any proper Semi-Dreadnought is almost impossible due to this, even though there already is a hull based on the Lord Nelsons ingame. With exception of Spain, China and interestingly enough Germany every power in the game built at least one shipclass with turreted secondaries between 8 and (in case of Japan's Satsumas) 10 inch caliber, with between 9 and 9.5 inch being the most common.

But it severely reduces usable hull volume for a given displacement and means quite some volume can be flooded without even penetrating the belt. The first point sets off the weigt savings gained from being able to angle the plate, which anyway is only really that effective at rather long range (longer than practical battle range even for many WW2 ships)

The shell did not act as intended, threfore no, it wasn't a hit. And while damage to White Pains was considerable her combat ability was hardly impaired, so in that sense it can be seen as minor. Yamato or Nagato (? i think it was Nagato) would certainly have scored direct hits in one of their next salvoes and one proper hit would certainly have been enough to sink her, but observing the explosion and the smke from the damaged engineroom they switched target, so White Pains was probably actually saved by the incident. Those are the facts as far as I know them, i dont think they diminish the acomplishment of even closely straddling a target at those ranges and if anything show the ridiculously bad luck the IJN had that day.

Actually a near miss that got lucky, the longest range confirmed hit in naval gunnery would bee a tie between Scharnhorst and Warspite, each hitting at about 24 km (that's 26 thousand yards)

I feel like heavy and superheavy shells shouldn't do more damage than normal shells, but rather less, since the only way to increase the weigt ofg a shell of given caliber was to make the explosive container thicker, thereby decreasing explosive yield. The superheavy 16' shells the americans used on the iowas for example had a similar explosive yield to contemporary british 15'. Shell weight should mainly be a tradeoff between damage potential and AP-capability.

Actually on all but the smallest ships there wouldn't be anyone on deck during combat, simply because the shock of their own guns firing could be rather hazardous and even misses could generate quite some splinters. the only places where you would see people in the open on anything larger than a light cruiser would be open spotting positions on some early masts and the odd secondary and AA-gun without an enclosed gunshield (although often the lighter secondary's and AA crews would take shelter deep in the ship when they were not needed in combat, which in later periods (due to extended effecive ranges on main guns) was actually most of the time

Hey, I seem to have a similar problem, also still waiting for the activation mail