Ishtar
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Ishtar
-
-
16 hours ago, RAMJB said:
The Tillman battleships are smaller than the Yamato hull we already have in game anyways, and with the 90,000 ton limit in Rule the Waves their presence was only hindered by lack of sextuple turrets (doesn't stop the 7x quad turrets from surpassing it anyways)
-
personally I find radar masts ugly and naval warfare past 1955 or so incredibly boring, maybe RTW2 will change my mind when it reaches that stage
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:
For all those triggered people, wow you are overly sensitive.
I never said you had to play the multiplayer game? I said this: By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base.
Adding, guys, not limiting to multiplayer only. This means if you want to play a single player game it's still there for you to enjoy. FFS
Instead of actually reading the post I get a dozen negative responses from Anime avatar nerds. Just playing the tutorial missions was boring. I play a round or two and then go play something else. In other games, I might play for 3 or hours. So for me, a guy that likes this sort of game and knows more than the average person about the IRL shit there is no excitement in just trying to outsmart the AI with a limited ship tool set.
Like I said, the difference of selling 500k worth of copies or selling millions, residual income, expansions, high replay ability.
You fundamentally misunderstand the motivation, core design, and intended playerbase of this game. You're judging it from an alpha state without the main selling feature, the campaign, and calling it lame. It's basically as if someone played WoWS and stopped at tier 2 because there were no battleships.
-
5
-
-
Whatever they are, imo they shouldn't be permanent and be affected by your decisions or random chance throughout the game. Passives to research for example should be flexible by mid and late game to reflect the experiences of the nation and the desires of the admiral, ie make more torpedo runs and get better torpedo technology.
-
31 minutes ago, Muttdog1945 said:
The ability to mount turrets facing bow or aft like the HMS Agincourt or Brooklyn class. More freedom on the placement of barbettes and the medium on in particular. Using the Yamato as an example it would be nice to have 2 forward facing superfiring guns and a taller medium barbette behind them for a turreted secondary.
Turret rotation is already possible, press R
-
7 hours ago, Lobokai said:
Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck
Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat
Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat
Same as above
Another night action, this time against a ship not under way
A uboat and a night attack?
We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps
I assume submarine torpedoes are even weaker than destroyer torpedoes. You're not discussing engagement, you're discussing damage.
-
Graphical improvements would be a nice polishing feature, but I mostly want the damaged textures to be reworked. It would look much better as dents/explosion marks than just a uniform gray skin with clear lines. The hits don't have to be realistic, I just don't want to see that clear border between damaged and clean.
-
On the topic of Surigao Strait, Fuso never even made it to the American battleline and succumbed to two torpedoes, probably on account of her old age. If we're interested in ship sinkings in the era of this game, 22 September 1914 saw the sinking of three armored cruisers from 1-2 torpedoes each fired from a single submarine. Predreadnought Pommern took one to two torpedoes and sank, a French armored cruiser took two submarine torpedoes and sank, predreadnought Suffren sank from a magazine hit, armored cruiser Pallada sank from a magazine hit, predreadnought Goliath capsized from two torpedo hits, predreadnought Formidable sank from flooding from two torpedo hits (though the first set her low in the water and caused an abandon ship order), and an Ottoman predreadnought sank from a single torpedo hit.
It seems to be that torpedoes are primarily limited by the extremely effective bulkhead system when in reality their ability to cause progressive flooding doomed ships that didn't immediately sink. If ships in UAD didn't stop flooding after a single compartment, the torpedo modeling would be much more accurate without needing to increase the damage of torpedoes.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, goduranus said:
Where's the source data that says rate of fire should be faster? I read that battleship guns typically manage to fire 2+ round a minute in trials(was it 3 rounds a minute for the Bismark gun in trials?), but during combat generally fired a lot slower, less than 1 round a minute.
Washington fired slightly more than 1.5 rounds/minute at Kirishima
-
The accuracy issue in my opinion primarily comes from bundling it all together as one accuracy stat rather than separating it into precision and accuracy. Even radar FCS can't magically fix mechanical accuracy inherent in guns, but at 15km a high tech battleship will land the majority of its shells on a battleship. This is also evident in close range low tech battles where shells are going 10 degrees apart from each other despite being fired from parallel guns in the same turret. Mechanical precision and accuracy should be separated so we don't get those wonky close range scatters that are physically impossible.
-
3
-
-
I realize that many aspects of realism would have to be sacrificed for the sake of gameplay, but personally I think guns should just have realistic rates of fire as a maximum with modifications (mostly negative) to the final RoF. The nature of dreadnought warfare from Jutland involved quick firing guns at long distances rather than the strange close range maneuver warfare with long reloads we currently have. In exchange, long range gunnery should receive a nerf to accuracy and all guns should have a nerf to damage. It seems rather rushed that 6 shells of 16" will sink a 30,000 ton battleship (or drop its structure to red) when even old warships like the Kirishima took 20 shells from the Washington and took a few hours to sink. This would place the emphasis on long range gunnery and strive closer to what I see as a more realistic model. Visibility range should also increase as a result
I understand that modifications like autoloaders do increase reloads to near historical values, but the prospect of an autoloader on a battleship seems far fetched.
-
2
-
-
Will penetration values be based solely on realistic calculations, or will there be an element of game play balance thrown in there? Guns are certainly more effective now, but they still only have 2/3rds of their real life penetration values if we treat German KC n/A as equivalent to the final tier of armor.
-
15 minutes ago, Pedroig said:
Disagree, at least for the big guns, 2.5 rounds per minute was considered maximum firing rate through the end of WWII.
For the smaller guns, they don’t have a quick fire option, which for 6” guns could burn through the on hand rounds in about 10 minutes, with a 30 minute restock time under ideal conditions.
For casemates, no auto-stabilizers which means having to reload and then time firing with roll of the ship as well.
Washington was making 1.5 salvos a minute at Guadalcanal, so that isn't true at all
-
25 minutes ago, Pedroig said:
@Wakelessrex considering 90% of a welding engineer's job is metallurgy, I do hope you have an avid interest in metallurgy.
His statement of steel density is simply false, not, "not exactly true". I can easily get a light titanium steel alloy with about a 6 g/cm3 density or a heavy tungsten steel alloy with an 18 g/cm3 density.
I very much doubt any nation on earth could build a battleship armored in 18 g/cm3 steel, these extremes aren't really relevant. The British for example denoted their armor in pounds rather than milimeters/inches, suggesting that the differences in density weren't exceeding manufacturing flaws.
QuoteThis is the most important part of the page, because from what I can tell, the armour values given are average effective numbers, meaning they are already taking into account the vertical angling inherent to the hull design. From that, they then "add on" the deflection angle from horizontal alignment. The 90 degree target angle was basically a statistical impossibility to achieve in battle.
This is irrelevant when the game does the same thing. Changing the Resistance value (which is stated in the help menu to denote slope design) has no effect on penetration, nor does changing armor quality. This means we're basically shooting 18" guns that penetrate 26.5" of Iron armor at 1km.
-
1
-
-
1) How is traverse bulkhead armor modeled? If ships are bow in, these armor plates should be directly facing the enemy and therefore easier to penetrate correct? Can we set the thickness of the citadel ends?
2) Is the stated penetration value in terms of Iron armor? For example, would 20" of penetration versus 10" of final tier Krupp be enough?
3) I'm assuming the armor slider is in terms of actual thickness and not effectiveness, is this correct? 10" of Krupp would be twice as good as Iron etc.
-
Increasing displacement only lengthens hulls when it should make it a bit wider too. It also doesn't move hardpoints so on some ships the tower will be placed too far in the front. More hard points in general would be nice, but this is amazing so far.
-
3
-
what we know about the campaign according to the "help" section.
in General Discussions
Posted
Not a fan of Rule the Wave's battle generator mechanics, I'd rather something like total war with an abstracted convoy escort/submarine system