Christian

do keep in mind that bigger ships usually means more space for firecontrol and directors an example is the yamato who had the largest rangefinder (to my knowledge) ever mounted to a ship (and no less than 5 of them) if we could build 50 battleships to go around patrolling everywhere and do everything which CL and DDs did in real life like escorting fire support convoy protection and the countless countless other things they did then yes that is how its gonna be in the campaign problem is we dont have the resources to build 50 battleships to do that (and if we do thats highly unrealistic even for USA) a battleship will always out gun a cruiser it just has better firecontrol, guns, armor and directors simple as that problem is you dont have 50 to 100 battleships to go around doing the job that destroyers, destroyer, escorts, cruisers and minesweepers do battleships were made to fight fleet engagements and sink anything they face so that once the enemy fleet is destroyed they can go around bombarding islands and positions with immunity (in the case of fast battleships also go around hunting down and sinking anything they wish) they cant do the special jobs with the same versatility as smaller ships can also battleships take way more to run in supply costs also the loss of a battleship hurts way way more than a cruiser or destroyer so it makes alot more sense to send those on missions like convoy escort patrolls and light firesupport compared to sending a battleship though historically battleships were used for escort (like renown in ww2) though that was mostly due to the germans sending out battleships for raiding convoys

essex is 90 planes i have no idea which essex you are looking at this is essex in 1943 36 F6F-3 Hellcat 36 SBD-5 Dauntless 18 TBF-1 Avenger http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_essex.htm and here is the 1944 loadout 54 F6F-3/5 Hellcat 24 SB2C-3 Helldiver 15 TBM-1C Avenger midway is 137 planes with this loadout 64 F4U-4, 4 F6F-5N 64 SB2C-5 4 F6F-5P http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_midway.htm only with postwar planes which included twin engine fighters and the a2d attackers was it around 90 planes at what range are you getting 18% hitrate with battleship main guns lol hello kittying 7km combat ranges ? usual hitrate at combat ranges would be 7-3% and closing to sub 15km range it would increase to 10+% 1 no need for protection when you arent getting fired at kinda like artillery units in ground combat there is ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a carrier being gunned down and said carrier had no recon planes or carrier capable planes 2 and non carriers dont have high dependancy on good weather for proper combat ? 3 and battleships also have high target detection dependancy the only diffrence is their scouting abilities are shite what happends if you dont detect your enemies see surigao strait 4 if your target detection is interupted in a BB you cant do much the carrier will just steam away while launching recon after recon the second it sees something it bombs the hell out of it the battleship will need to wait until the target is picked up again and if its a dd cv or CA it will most likely be out run 5 does it matter ? no once the BB is detected the aircraft carrier can just harras it from 200km + range and shit all over it sure a fleet might survive a 40+ aircraft attack a single ship wont wait until you get pincered by 20 torpedo bombers and 20 dive bombers

i mean you do oxygen torpedoes had a tendency to combust the second they were hit and explode look at chokai for example she was crippled by a single 5 inch hit to the torpedoes and the fact you would only have a 5-10% hitrate at best depending on year this would make it alot easier to dodge as the torpedoes are less likely to be in a super tight spread right on your ships i mean british did develop fleet submarines like the M class and so on which were a thing in ww1 although their succes was not good

yeah it should not be able to fire when underwater

shh you need to be within a very short distance to penetrate a 15" belt of krupp IV using this we can see that a 15" krupp iv belt will make you immune to 18 inch mark 3 guns with what seems to be super heavy shells + ballistite at 10km range this is not taking into account angling which would just reduce performance even more theres a reason to why the HE meta exists

back on topic yamatos weakspot likely wouldnt matter against AP or HE shells as it would likely be unable to fuse or explode once its passed so far underwater unless its a diving shell generally speaking the belt armor has a bunch of connection points since its made up of a bunch of plates but in practice they are welded and bolted so well together that their protection does not suffer from not being one piece of steel i dont actually know how yamatos armor was held in place but i know iowas was held in place by a bunch of large bolts with a cement backer behind the plate to keep the bolts in properly

torpedoes are too consistent and easy to use they are too good in ease of use but they underperform in damage making them more historical would make them more challenging to use but would give a better payoff when you do have that opportunity thus when you set up a nice attack you get rewarded and it feels nice where as now it really dosent do much it will also makes subs not useless when they come into the game because 6 torpedoes and a reload long enough to get run down and rammed is not fun the 6 sticks wont sink anything except destroyers and small cruisers

i would love more turrets even if they had no diffrent buffs just having the artistic choice is nice

this would also allow for all rear machinery and boilers so we could make nelson like ships +1 im all for it

hmmmmmmmmmm why does the 18 inch shell weight 2421 kg the 5 inch weights 44 kg that seems uhm kinda heavy i mean historically speaking the german 21 inch gun had 2100 kg projectiles american 5 inch had a 25kg projectiles muzzle velocity also seems very low at 717 m/s though it might be because of super heavy shells were you using super heavy shells on all the guns ?

@Lobokai as far as i see it you have nothing to back up your claims or sources to tell me where you got said claims from if you do you are just extremely hesitant on sharing them if you dont wanna back up your claims i suggest we finish this conversation il send a response to each of your point in PM as to not clog up the chat i request we continue in PMs as again we clog the chat

one gets instantly sunk by a 5 inch shell the other takes 3 maybe 4 well placed shells on the topic though id like to see a submarine designer so we could make sourcouf like submarines (even if impractical) or cruiser submarines mtbs would be nice especially if you are playing italy or in the med they could be used were quite succesfull for them in ww1 so i would like to have the ability to use them

i mean it depends on what you consider trash sure you could probably make a very deep tds but have it be really bad but even then TDS design peaked in 1915 and the fast battleships and 1940s battleships only had worse TDS designs the only reason they were stronger was because of the depth of the systems which allowed them to obsorb more explosive force a good article on it which i recomend reading http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php

they wouldnt neccesarily have to return to port just need a munitions vessel to resupply them once the campaign comes out there should be no need to send them all the way back just to get new torps they should just only get 1 set when in battle between battles they then restock in case of extra torpedo reloads they would have x amount spare torpedoes that would take 5-30 minutes to reload

though the range for said battle was also quite high if i remember right

also a better citadel model would be nice perhaps like a citadel viewer or something along those lines would also be nice if citadel changed depending on what kind of citadel type you choose for example turtleback vs AON

depends with washington and south dakota they both had a 1.7 rate of fire when fighting kirishima generally the first shots are ranging shots and at the ranges ww1 ships where firing at combined with the hitrates combined with their ammo supply per gun yeah there were reasons why they waited to fire fast and corrected their shots having a 3% hitrate while only firing at 1 rof with aimed salvos with only 90 rounds per gun and shooting at 2-2.5 rof very very quickly empties the magazines with even lower than 3% hitrate its better to conserve ammo and fire slower than to empty it all in 45 minutes and have 0 rounds left while having a sub 2% hitrate main problem is also running out of ammo before you have sunk the enemy ship is not really preferable and with the 20-25km hitrates BBs were getting in 1940 that very much was a possibility

eh half is a bit of an overstatement it weakened the torpedo protection but the thing that matters most with any TDS design is depth sure it made the protection weaker but as both musashi and yamato showed it really did not matter much when both survived atleast 10 torpedoes with an above average warhead sure design is to some extent important but the depth of the design is the single most important aspect of any torpedo protection this is also why the french richileu even though it did not have an amazing TDS design its still better than all other anti torpedo designs just because its deeper than every other design

of course its not a simulator but the way its done right now is far from the best way it could be done but pointing out history can contribute to feedback on the game pointing out the historical reason for AP usage and the historical AP performance helps bring the game away from the HE slugfest it is currently there should be more focus on angling and proper armoring and design of a ship right now its just HE meta with he shells being flung everywhere games like rtw and rtw 2 nail the torpedo gameplay while they dont have super torpedoes like the long lance their torpedoes are roughly on par with the american mark 15 the torpedoes are extremely potent late game but its also easy to see when an enemy lines them up to fire at you it also forces you out of a close range yolo brawl its also more skill based as you cant just launch torpedoes and expect a hit you need to set up proper attacks with your ships against the enemy ships or they will all miss when the enemy ships dodge them because they see the obvious attempt at a torpedo attack having them be a skillful inconsistent weapon which delivers large damage when it hits feels alot more rewarding (in my oppinion) than just sailing broadside to a group of enemy ships and waiting until they finally hit and just doing that over and over again also i believe torpedoes in game already have far too much range i havent done any tests but it feels like they have 15+ km range in 1920 also yeah sure it dosent need to be a simulator but there is no reason to make it an arcade shooter like wows or have blatantly unrealistic things in game (like the current torpedoes) i think the game should strive to be as realistic as possible while also having good gameplay (huh this reminds me alot of rtw for some reason) as long as features are not prohibiting fun and good gameplay i dont see a reason why we cant have it be as realistic as possible also the long lance made the tradeoff in firepower by having it basically be a bomb on the ships it was mounted on i see no reason as to why this tradeoff could not be in game as shown by the uss white plains a single 5 inch hit could cripple a japanese cruiser if it hit the torpedoes because they were so volatile also yes sometimes it does pointing out the historical reason for AP usage and the historical AP performance helps bring the game away from the HE slugfest it is currently there should be more focus on angling and proper armoring and design of a ship right now its just HE meta with he shells being flung everywhere when is gameplay not the most important factor for a game? i fully believe the current torpedo system is not only less realistic but also alot less rewarding and fun

of course long lance torpedoes should not be in the game in 1900 but the torpedo is one from 1933 is not exactly late ww2 tech we are speaking about the british too developed a torpedo with similar performance (granted quite a few knots slower but around same range) here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_PreWWII.php and this is from 1925 also even without these good torpedoes torpedoes still had amazing success even with their limited performance this can not be seen any better than at the battle of tsushima where Japanese destroyers and torpedo boats performed excellent and the whitehead torpedoes came into their own there are several instances of torpedoes being used to deadly effect WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY USED even if they arent the super performing long lances a good example is surigao strait and the battle of samar and the night battle of tsushima though surface torpedoes were never gonna be as effective as bombs or aerial torpedoes simply because they required to be within gunrange (some far within some outside) to launch them this is especially true for german and british ships who had abysmal torpedo range it should take significant effort to use them properly it shouldnt just be launch torpedoes and wait for results you need to set up proper torpedo attacks or the enemy will just dodge the torpedoes kinda like in rtw if you have played it if you make a super obvious torpedo run the AI dodges nearly every single time but if you properly set up a torpedo attack you can get devastating results on top of that single torpedo hits are unlikely to sink ships but will cripple them and reduce their speed significantly rendering them a hindrance to the enemy battle line due to low speed making the enemy dodge more also makes for the skillfull use of torpedoes to force the enemy to turn away or turn in also currently torpedo accuracy is wayyyy too high there needs to be an angle error when launching torpedoes this would also help make long range torpedoes less homing and more spread and hope

the type 93 long lance is from 1933 and entered service in 1935 calling it 1944 tech is stupid mod 2 of the long lance came out in 1936 the only type of long lance which came out in the 40s was the mod 3 which came out in 1944 and all it changed was a 780kg warhead instead of a 490kg warhead and worse range by more than 20% fuso and yamashiro were sunk at decently close range uss laffey sailed right past IJN Hiei at around 20 meters distance during the battle of guadacanal fuso/yamashiro again also yeah technically correct but the ranges at which torpedoes were fired during the guadacanal battle with Hiei and the range of the battle at surigao strait it is almost point blank also yes hiei is a battlecruiser but my point remains battle of Surigao strait close range engagement battle of guadacanal with destroyers getting within 100 meters of battleship (its a battlecruiser but still) and you are cherry picking tech because you assume destroyers cant get within a 2km of a battleship in the middle of the night in 1935 fun fact in 1940 radar was HORRIBLE which allowed for ships to close within 100 meters before spotting eachother in battle as seen with uss laffey and IJN hiei example of shitty radar and night spotting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan whats this a sub 6km engagement also as can be seen with radar it only detected the italian ships once 6km away and this was in 1941 https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/ night engagement sub 1km range during the battle of jutland HMS black prince gets pummeled by german battleships There were six battleships: West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, California, and Pennsylvania. All but Mississippi (which had been in Iceland on convoy-escort duty at the time) had been sunk or damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor and repaired, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia having been rebuilt. Four heavy cruisers (USS Louisville (flagship), Portland, Minneapolis, and HMAS Shropshire) carried 35 8-inch (203 mm) guns, and 54 6-inch (152 mm) guns were mounted by four light cruisers (Denver, Columbia, Phoenix, and Boise). Added to this were the smaller guns and torpedoes of 28 destroyers and 39 motor torpedo boats it took 28 destroyers and 39 motor torpedo boats to pull it off and im sorry you can say 67 destroyers but that number includes torpedo boats so saying 67 destroyers is a lie you very well should have known about here is the battle map only 20 destroyers actively engaged the japanese ships to point blank distances banzai dds are not a thing ???? Some time around 23:15,[5] the Allied ships were sighted by the patrolling Fubuki, which followed them surreptitiously. At 23:06, when they were about halfway across the mouth of Bantam Bay, Perth sighted a ship about 5 mi (4.3 nmi; 8.0 km) ahead, near Saint Nicolaas Point. It was thought at first that the ship was an Australian corvette, but when challenged, she made an unintelligible reply, with a lamp which was the wrong color, fired her nine Long Lance (Type 93) torpedoes from about 3,000 yards (2,700 m) and then turned away, making smoke. The ship was soon identified as a Japanese destroyer (probably Harukaze). Waller reported the contact and ordered his forward turrets to open fire.[6] what about the battle of samar where american destroyers charged head first into heavy cruisers to make torpedo attack and came within 5km of the ijn cruisers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(DE-413)#The_Battle_off_Samar first of all no they did not have torpedo reloads see http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/uk_torpedoships.htm according to you every navy has torpedo reloads ive proven that wrong until now please source your claims its annoying to go debunk everything you say which of conways books he has a few give me an excerpt from the book a picture would be nice i dont believe you otherwise after everything you have said so far i have no trust in your words http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/"W"_Class_Destroyer_(1917) no spare torpedoes go check navypedia also no spare deck torpedoes or mounts for them again no mention of torpedoes outside of the tubes what fletcher are you looking at the fletcher does not have reloads for its torpedo tubes here are the deck plans http://abbot.us/dd502/index.shtml?img=plate04 allen m sumner destroyer for good measure too http://www.dd-692.com/shipyard.htm neither has reload https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/ddtubes/index.htm#pg8 this here explains the torpedo loading procedure note this is not torpedo loading gear or torpedo storage bins but the loading mechanic is for a 5 inch practice loader as mentioned in this what is according to you "an actual naval guide" i can provide plenty of statements from books problem is you wont believe shit from them i cant just throw the book over at you and say THIS IS CORRECT YET I HAVE NOTHING TO BACK IT UP EXCEPT I READ THIS BOOK THAT SAID IT when you actually require the book to confirm if that is written or not you are challenging the trustworthiness of my sources now id like you to provide a source or reason why they are untrustworthy heres one of the sites reference links http://www.german-navy.de/information/references/index.html the german v1 destroyer carried a single torpedo for reloading its center torpedo launcher problem is providing night engagements from an era filled with american radar yet we have examples of 3km fighting and points where dds were close to ramming battleships ONLY PROVES MY POINT FURTHER it only proves that very close range night engagements are not impossible unlike what you claimed all 8 were sunk in combat how else would they sink do you think a storm came and put 2 torpedo holes in them ? none of them were dead in the water prior to torpedo impacts so before it was 1 which was already dead in the water aka 4 outta the 5 ships were still sailing now you say 4 out of 5 were torn to shreds can you decide on which one is true ? again an era where night battles became longer and longer ranged by providing examples of VERY close range battles in 1940 it only further adds to my point that a 1920s or 1910s battle in the middle of the night would be happening at below 2km distance which is supported by https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/ except the exact opposite it should be happening even more night battles should basically make you blind again https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/ PS this is a list of things id like you to source spare torpedoes capable of being reloaded in battle being stored on the fletcher spare torpedoes being stored on the admiralty class Why? A typical destroyer would carry x2-3 its rack in reloads. 15-22 on target launches sinks a ship in combat is probably about correct. It took well over 50 launched torps to take down Yamato in conjunction with nearly 100 bombs. The number of torps you need to fire is nearly spot on. Also, the vast majority of US Pacific DDs did carry reloads when they were available Mediterranean DDs on patrols sometimes did not have reloads, but that is an entirely different logistical situation As far as reloads, most RN Destroyers carried a reload per tube,

i wouldnt mind CVs but im afraid they would screw up balancing we already have a dreadnoughts game which needs to be finished once thats done we can think about carriers though id want to be able to build and fight with cvs them being abstract just kinda takes away from it all and makes cvs into more of an rpg like ability rather than an actual combat unit

dosent really make sense to take out the long lance torpedo just because it performs better than all other nations in surface torpedo sinkings combined does it ?

despite the fact that the americans lost way more ships to torpedoes than gunfire in total the us lost 8 heavy cruisers during the war 5 of them were sunk to ship-borne torpedoes all of the heavy cruisers to sink due to torpedo hits took atleast 2 torpedoes in rapid succesion and sank thus its reasonable to assume that the cruisers would have sunk even if no gunfire had been evolved (2x 490kg warheads will do that to ya especially when the 490kgs have an RE factor of 1.1 to 1.2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II#Heavy_cruisers_(CA) this list seems to indicate torpedoes were much more a weapon than naval guns with 82 mentions of torpedo and only 25 mentions of gunfire and only 16 of those are DEs and larger the rest are river craft and submarines

@Lobokai the mark 10 is a 1915 torpedo made by america honestly what did you expect they had a torpedo with about the same reliability in 1942 usa was not exactly known for their state of the art torpedoes they generally sucked ass (british 1917 mark 5 torpedo having almost the same speed and range performance as the american mark 15 surface torpedo) might i attract your attention to a 21"Mark IV and Mark IV torpedo ? most torpedoes by 1915 were not amazing but they were not that bad and the lack of tps made torpedo hits disasterous yes we do heres why hitrate depends almost intirely on range to target and the ability of the target to predict your torpedo attack when a destroyer comes charging in close and suddenly pulls a hard turn showing its broadside to you do you think that the enemy ship wont dodge ? the closer to the enemy and the less predictable an attack the higher the chance of succes also 1-3% accuracy is quite a bit lower than what was achieved by the japanese of which the largest targets engaged were cruisers this means that the more nimble and faster ships (dds and cruisers) were engaged yet the japanese managed a 6,7 % hitrate in total the average hitrate is 6,71% with an average of 16,71 torpedoes required per hit http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.php the japanese had several battles with 25% hitrate of their torpedoes the improved damage of the torpedoes would make hits extremely dangerous but on the other hand the lower hitrate would force destroyers to close the distance and attack mark 13 torpedo has a diameter of 22,4 inches not 22 inches http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.php US destroyers dont have ready to use torpedoes and the few us destroyers which did have torpedo reloads (benson porter and a few others) but they do not seem or look to have the equipment needed for torpedo reloading nor does it seem like the torpedoes are stored anywhere near the torpedo launchers also the ones which did carry torpedoes only carried 4 spare torpedoes which was not enough to even completely reload a single mount http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_benson.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_sims.htm and in the case of sims the spare torpedoes were removed only us ship with full launcher reload capability http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_porter.htm these 3 classes of ships (and the subclass gleaves under benson) are the only us destroyers to carry reloadable torpedoes and 2 out of 3 of them couldnt even reload a single launcher fully this makes no sense so because japanese had better more reliable and more succesfull torpedoes they had reloads ? while the americans with worse torpedoes did not? that would negate any number of torpedo advantage only a few german dds are mentioned to have torpedo storage http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_torpedoes.htm BUT there is no visible torpedo boxes or cranes or equipment which would in any way indicate that they could be reloaded http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/zerstorer1934/index.html this website (specifically focused on german ships) says no german destroyers have reloads no italian destroyers had torpedo reloads (according to above mentioned website and according to all i have shown) if you wish to dispute these conclusions then provide evidence one cant just say torpedoe reloads were a thing without providing any sort of proof again there is no equipment visible on italian german american russian or french destroyers that indicate that they can reload torpedoes in combat or outside of combat and the only nation outside of japan to have torpedoes onboard outside of those in the torpedo launchers is the germans but even then i can find no proof that they did carry additional torpedoes you yourself mention why hitrate was so low also reliability for contact detonators in ww2 was VERY high on all torpedoes except german and american torpedoes though all nations that had magnetic detonators suffered from their unreliability japanese did not have a magnetic detonator but put all their effort into a contact detonator this is also one of the reasons why japan had such a good torpedo THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE of it failing to explode on contact with a warship @sRuLe http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_gnevnyy.htm project 7 does not have reloadable torpedoes and neither can i find anything like it in pictures or any equipment regarding it Storozhevoi (or fidonisi) does not have torpedo reloads http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_fidonisi.htm novik had no torpedo reloads http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_novik.htm G and V classes dont seem to have torpedo reloads according to this site http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/index.html clemson class does not have torpedo reloads http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_clemson.htm jaguar/vaquelin has no torpedo reloads http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_chacal.htm le fantastique does not have torpedo reloads http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_le_fantasque.htm