Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

NuclearNadal

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About NuclearNadal

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  • Birthday June 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    airsoft and cold ones with the bois

Recent Profile Visitors

47 profile views
  1. A Pre-Dreadnought wouldn’t survive a 1v1. That being said when the Lord Nelson class were completed (in fact I’m pretty sure one of the academy missions uses Lord Nelson as a hull), a British report found that two of them could hold their own against some of the newer, actual, dreadnoughts of the time. Unless it’s a very specific situation, yes the B is unlikely to win.
  2. Magnetic pistols were in use with WWI U-Boats in 1917. British captured examples of them aboard UB-110 (I think) in 1918. No major warships were sunk with magnetic pistols. Merchant shipping was though, I have no idea where you got the “not a single detonation” came from. The US really only had bad magnetic pistols in the Mk.13/14 but around 44 they started to get decent ones and used them against the Japanese. The Germans had bad reliability for them but it was better then the US ones. An example of this was the KM# TIII, G7e torpedo. It specifically had an improved pistol for use with magnetic dets.
  3. What are some characteristics of campaign nations? For example: The British at Jutland had dangerously stacked Cordite outside the ships magazine. Will this have an in game effect? Another example: Austria-Hungary had lacklustre torpedo protection for Teggethoff. Will this be seen in game?
  4. As the tittle suggests, I’m curious as to whether this would be a good idea or not. The reason I ask this is due to the graphics of the big superimposed mount as an example. The big superimposed mount fits up to 14in guns but the medium superimposed only fits up to 8in guns. This means that if I wanted superimposed 12in guns, it leaves a gap between the turret ring and the edge of the barbette. Its nothing major but it might improve the look of the ships slightly.
  5. Indeed. I guess the question of whether to leave it as BB for pre-dreadnoughts is up to the devs/player base.
  6. Basing this off RTW as I have no idea what historically was used to classify Pre-Dreadnoughts after HMS Dreadnought but is a Pre-Dreadnought classified as a B or BB? RTW classes it as a B rather than BB. I personally like this as it makes it easier for quick glancing identification. Seeing BB at least to me makes me instantly go "Dreadnought" even though it could be a Pre-Dreadnought. Thoughts? Edit: Spelling
  7. Yes but in RTW II you can edit the BNAT.1920 file
  8. 18,000 ton, 28 knot, 8in armor CA. 28 5in in twin turrets.
  9. Yes it is, and again, I’ve seen the post about it. However based on the importance of the Torpedo in naval warfare, it feels quite important that it change and yes, I have posted about it before and perhaps to much but giving a scale of damage or in this case, non damage, is much better than a bunch of us whining and complaining a whole bunch until the damage it gotten right, multiple patches later.
  10. Seeing the communications variable under the RDF/Advanced Radio seems to currently be more for the campaign? But rather than ask it’s purpose at current, I’m curious as to whether or not signal flags will be implemented along with various other communication forms such as the telegraph or radio. As we know in irl at Tsushima, the telegraph for the first time played a vey important factor in the battle. The Russians had German sets that they didn’t quite understand (if I’m remembering it correctly) and the Japanese sighting report and communication exchange between the Orel and the Japanese was quite important. Will signaling be a factor in sighting/formations? RTW as a comparison has a random chance for a “signals misunderstood” causing a formation to break away in the wrong direction for a period of time. Edit: Grammar
  11. It’s a test I comepleted to back up the point. So far I haven’t seen anyone else give a measurable scale of torpedo hits>damage. This give the devs valuable information (hopefully) in order to properly balance and assess how much torpedo damage should be amplified. Notice how in previous posts I mention both super dreadnoughts and Pre-dreadnoughts and the respective amounts of torpedos required to sink them (+- a few). Now the devs can properly adjust given the type of damage received by various ship types especially the larger ones. Maybe I should bring it up again, just to make sure
  12. Below is an attached image of the error message received when trying to open the launcher. This error message has appeared before but this time was different in that it actually opened the launcher itself. The other times that I have received this error I have had to go to the task bar, find the game launcher that is "open" and end the program. This is despite the launcher not being open.
  13. Ok so I did a quick test in the modern battleship mission and I let the destroyers close to torpedo range and let them fire as many as they could. I counted them and it came out to 22 hits and to around 63% structural damage. This really needs to be fixed along with the damage model as while it’s a good concept it just has to many things that prevent catastrophic damage to ships.
  14. Torpedos are currently next to useless. The damage is next to nothing and even less with the TPS. I really do hope this changes.
  15. In the modern battleship mission I just let the destroyers fire their torps as they do minimal damage and I don't want to have to take an accuracy penalty.
×
×
  • Create New...