Christian

yeah partial pens seem to appear too often even when the armor is so thick there is no way it should even cause dents 12 inch guns shouldnt do anything to 20 inch thick harvey/krupp plates and wouldnt spall

ah ok makes sense

yeah ok that was what i thought wasent sure if the other factors i suggested could be implemented such as ricochet and shatter chance they were mostly meant to start some idea i look forwards to more balanced armor quality modifers (or in my oppinion best case made completely realistic)

i was mainly worried due to this the first gun is a MK-3 turret while the last gun is a MK-1 turret yet the reload speed remains quite trash (by 1910s standards) and both guns seem to have the exact same penalty over single guns

one way to have them could be along the lines of the better they are the less accuracy penalties the ship receives for going fast so dreadnoughts have high penalties if they are moving fast but 1940s battleships can move as fast as they like targeting speed would also be improved long range accuracy increase (10+km) could be improved quite a bit) there could be diffrent firecontrol computers like there are with rangefinders some are suited for battlecruisers and have alot less accuracy penalties at high speed while others increase accuracy in general but are bad at high speed just some idea i thought i would throw out there

friend on discord posted it

@Wakelessrex yeah probably a good idea might be the case but as previously stated on ships like the USS maine there were ships which had its anti torpedo boat guns next or close to the main guns also as shown earlier its not just 20mm mounts 40mm mounts were also in the muzzle lines you are also forgetting while the 4 inch gun might be bigger the muzzle blast close to it is 3x less powerfull and the 4 inch has 6x the weight if you wish to discuss it further in pms we can but as far as im concerned i see no way to make you change your oppinion either way even if we cant place non encased 4 inch guns (with open gun mounts) we should atleast be able to place enclosed 4 inch guns or other size enclosed guns as Nick said gun placement which does not make sense would be highlighted in yellow guns which have gun-houses (complete protection 360 degrees against weather to the gun) should be able to be placed close to other guns regardless of size BUT they would be highlighted in yellow to tell people its not a good idea to place them there (if they significantly interfere with other guns) this would say to newer players its not a good idea to place it but you can

what im trying to say @Niomedes is that the 4 inch gun is further away than the 20mm weights 6 times more and the main gun muzzle blast next to it is less powerfull thus it should not get blown off makes sense right ? so let me get this right you are saying a 600kg gun that is 1/4th the barrel lenght away from the muzzle of a gun with 3x as much muzzle power of the gun below should not be ripped off ? while a 4 inch heavy gun that weights 4 tons (around 6 times heavier than the 20mm above (thats what the game says) that is more than 3 times further away from the muzzle on a gun 3x less powerfull than above should be ripped off i have shown the first picture the 4 inch gun is much further away from the muzzle than the 20mm and in the second pic i showed the 4 inch is right behind the muzzle (under the barrel) like some of the 20mm oerlikons would be if the guns on the us ships were turned

yeah quad turrets and stuff is still missing i know its in the game as one of my friends who tried the unfinished and wip campaign came across it and screen grabbed it

if the ship had to be going bow on against something and had the 2 front turrets elevated at 10 degrees aka the enemy ship was running away fast at night at 14km distance and the iowa was on the chase the blast would go right into the oerlikons in case the iowa wanted to fire backwards with its turret (running) it would still fire right over several oerlikon 20mms sure its elevated but the muzzle blast is still right next to it if the muzzle blast cant damage anything which isent close to directly in front of the muzzle then this position shouldnt have any problems right so let me get this right a 4 inch gun atleast THREE BARREL LENGTHS away FROM A 12 INCH GUN is not ok but a 20mm gun 5 meters away from a 16 inch gun is fine in real life a 4 inch gun UNDER THE BARREL is considered too close to the muzzle blast yet the gunshield protects the gun from any muzzle blast as long as the 4 inch gun isent firing at the superstructure of its own ship THE BARREL HAS TO ELEVATE OVER to fire or the barrels will hit the 4 inch gun YET THESE guns ARE IN NO WAY in danger ? the barrel barely goes over most of these 20mm guns when they are turned or they are right next to the muzzle (left or right side of it) when it fires yet surely they wont be ripped off but the 4 inch gun will also the 2 bottom ships are using 16 inch guns the top ship (in game) is using 12 inch guns the 16 inch guns have 3 times as powerfull a muzzle blast

which harvey/krupp armor ? just saying krupp and harvey dosent really mean much in itself krupp armor could also be one of these types of armor German Thick-Plate Improved Krupp Cemented 'New Type' (KC n/A) German Krupp "High-%" Nickel-Steel German Post-WWI "Krupp Non-Cemented" (KNC) Armor German Thick-Plate Improved Krupp Cemented 'New Type' (KC n/A) we arent exactly lacking diffrent types krupp armor and this is not including british krupp armor back to the point harvey vs krupp Nathan okun lists Original Krupp as a quality of Q 0.828 while he lists harvey as Q 0.766 (this should also showcase the importance of which harvey it is notice the tensile and yield diffrences) and notes for Harvey Nickel-steel armor which has a quality modifier of Q 0.791 now the important part in that giant wall of text this means that yes a 10 inch plate was roughly 10% to 20% better than Harvey Nickel steel (assuming its not thin) so this statement is perfectly correct BUT 10 inches of krupp in game armor is not 12 inches of real life harvey armor in effectiveness 10 inches of krupp in game is more than 25,457 inches of real life harvey armor in effectiveness krupp performs 254.57% better than real life harvey does it should only perform 10-20% better this is due to the fact it has a 1.95 quality modifier in game so going from that alone 1.95 is 254,57% bigger than 0.766 thus its 254,57% better now the problem is Krupp 1 armor in game gives a 25% bonus over harvey not a 10-20% bonus (15% is the intermediate between the 2 so we assume thats the general increase it gives) combine this with the fact that its already too strong its 70% stronger than US class B armor plates from 1945 aka it has a quality modifier of 1.7 in game Iron Plate in real life according to nathan okun has a 0.55 modifier Krupp 1 in real life according to nathan okun has 0.828 modifier in game its at 1.7 in short its over twice as good as it is in real life and because krupp weights 25% less than it did in real life we have armor which effectively has a quality modifier of 1.95 (ps changed the strength values in the what they should be suggestion section to be a bit more balanced and a bit more realistic especially moving from harvey to krupp)

single barrel turrets also reload faster 1.02 has a -33% decrease from 1.53 58.8 has a 50% increase from 39.2 which means that this ship should have close to twin barrel gun effectiveness

no they were loaded both at the same time in single gun turrets you had a single ammunition elevator and crew for it and the handling room and the loading part (the turret) in a double gun turret you have 2 ammunition elevators the crew for it a handling room for both guns and a larger turret with more crew generally speaking adding another barrel is just putting another single gun with reloading and all the other gear next to the one already in there really the only diffrence is the twin gun usually takes up more width in the turret which usually makes the turret bigger though the general deciding factor for how big a turret is is gun size and how cramped you can make the hoists and how little space you need for reloading the main factor limiting reload speed is not so much crew but more the capability of the ammuniton elevators and how good the mechanical loading gear in the turret is this is mainly due to the fact humans cant lift 12 inch shells so the more assistance the equipment gives the better twin turrets dont have any less of that than single turrets good diagram showcasing the layout of the hoists in a triple turret its basically 3 guns next to eachother with the accompanying hoist a single turret would have been the exact same except just 1 gun and 1 hoist a better comparison between dual and single would be as can be seen the only diffrence between the dual and single gun in this case is the size of the gun house and the amount of space and hoists given to each gun both guns have ready service projectiles and power (its hard to see on the top one and its not listed but its there if you look at twin 5"38 blueprints) and both have 2 hoists per gun one for powder one for projectile (powder is not mentioned in the single 5 inch gun but it also has a powder hoist https://www.okieboat.com/Copyright images/5-38 mount plan 1024.jpg http://041864b.netsolhost.com/Gunnery/5inch/imgC7.gif these 2 links show the crew in each gun (top is twin bottom is single) its also interesting to be noted that the twin gun turret has almost twice as many people operating the guns as the single one does they both have 3 people to aim sight the gun a checker a pointer and a trainer though they arent named the same in the diagrams they do the same jobs and should be named the same the only 2 other similarity is they both have 1 fuze setter the twin gun has twice as many powder men projectile men hot case men and gun captains the guns both have a mount captain (its called spade man in the single one for some reason) but the twin mount lacks the gunners mate pictures so you can visibly see how the crew layout is and get a better 3d perspective http://www.armed-guard.com/bag081.jpg (single) https://i.imgur.com/iu0VCWk.jpg (twin) but crew count needed per gun is lower for the twin 5" gun while retaining just as high a firerate accuracy and reliability with just as many people to operate the guns themselves but the crew needed for other stations per gun decreases this in all leads to the gearing class destroyers having a total gun crew for the 5 inch guns of 42 men (for the turrets not for hoists and all that) while the fletcher has a gun crew of 55 (turrets only) which leads to 1 more gun firepower yet 13 crewmen less on the gearing which saves space on the destroyer for other things

one thing i dont like about single guns is for some magical reason they have 50% shorter reload this makes no sense from a historical nor mechanical perspective generally speaking single guns were just as bad as twin barrel guns as can be seen this twin turret suffers from TWICE AS LONG reload as a single turret 1.02 has a -33% decrease from 1.53 58.8 has a 50% increase from 39.2 i dont see why twin turrets should get punished this much in reload (its also a MK-3 turret so its a High tech turret)

the only thing limiting the Iowas line of fire is the bow of the ship is that the first turret needs to raise its guns to fire over the bow the 2nd turret does not need to raise its guns to fire right over the bow and can fire even with 0 degree elevation the only difficulty the ship would have firing at 0 degree elevation with number 2 turret is it would likely obscure number 1s rangefinders due to the smoke/fireball it might also be a potential blinding hazard to the rangefinder operator though iowas powder does burn rather cleanly https://i.imgur.com/pEGp0zh.jpg if we look at the sideways diragram of the iowa and north Carolina and the north dakota classes it is to be noted the top ship has several 20mm aa guns in the way the following pictures show that main caliber naval guns did not rip out minor aa guns on deck and if they did the americans were apparently happy with replacing them constantly after firing the main guns note 2 40mm mounts in front limiting angle of fire for the front turrets NOTE THE REAR TURRET its limited to basically only fire broadside since the 20mm oerlikons block the main gun from firing any angle aft 40mm mount placed right in front of the main gun oerlikons placed in front of the front gun oerlikons placed at the rear turret limiting angle of fire again if it were true that guns were ripped off by the muzzle blast all of the 20mm placed close to the main guns (like right in front of the muzzle) would need to be replaced every time the battleship fired over or close to its bow and in the case of BB-9 any time the rear turret did not fire an almost perfect broadside http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/usa_battleships.htm source for placement of guns

there is a round counter when you hold the mouse over your ship though it is for all combined guns of the same mounts triples and twins will have seperate counters (and listed as seperate guns) but 4 twins will have ammo combined an individual round counter might be a good idea as you are not always firing a full broadside thus some guns (front or rear) might run out faster

yes as niomedes stated 1 inch of krupp IV is 2 inches effectiveness you can see enemy armor once the enemy ship is identified it has a + number next to the armor value thats the % of how much better the armor is than Iron Plate

1: ah yeah i should have been more clear with cost but much like how the game handles it right now its 80% EXTRA cost over the worst armor so in this case its 80% more expensive than Iron Plate 50% more expensive would also be 50% more expensive than Iron Plate 2: partial pen in game might be trying to simulate spalling aka hitting a very thick piece of armor with a very big gun might cause spalling behind the armor though im unsure if this is the case from nathan okuns table it seems there can be significant PP and NFF diffrences (Partial Pen and Effective limit) for example japanese 16 inch gun has 4 inch diffrence between them at point blank aka while you cant effectively pen 30 inches of armor at point blank you can partially pen it (partial pen for said gun is 32.8 inches limit and eff limit is 28.8 inches) thats the best explanation its simply trying to simulate spalling though it makes 0 sense that 10-12 inch guns are also causing spalling those guns shouldnt have enough energy to spall such thick armor

yeah im no metal expert and neither am i an armor expert but there was generally no mention anywhere of armor getting lighter neither have i ever heard of naval or tank armor getting lighter point is still you are not getting a piece of armor to be 40% lighter than pure Iron Plate while having twice as much effective protection from the armor article http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Grüson_Chilled_Cast_Iron_Land_Fortification_Armor i can not find a single mention of armor getting lighter if you can go ahead and source it but considering it is nowhere to be mentioned in both tank and naval armor i dont see it being the case this might be true but even if we go by this the guns in game are still underperforming by alot as shown with the 16 inch gun which has a mere 7 inch penetration at 20km distance compared to the real life 17 inch to 16 inch pen at 20km distance the fall of shot is around 15.5 degrees that 7 inch plate (178mm) is gonna be 184mm thick in effectiveness aka all in all you get 3.37% more effectiveness at 20km with non inclined armor (we dont have inclined armor in game) which is not enough to be of any meaning to get 16 inches of effective belt armor the shell would need to hit at a 64 degree angle the highest angle the shell is gonna reach is 52.8 degrees angle of fall which it can only reach when firing out to 40km at longer distances it will matter more but at 20km it does not matter and guns in game underperform by enough that it would only be comparable in pen at 40km in real life compared to 20km in game also what makes you think in game penetration characteristics takes into account enemy ship belt angle or impact angle how do you know the in game pen values are not against a 90 degree plate

current Iron Plate armor uses the US 1945 class B armor as a standard for quality 1 armor this means that 10 inches armor is 10 inches of effective armor (1 inch of us 1945 B steel is essentially 1 inch of RHA armor aka rolled homogeneous armor which is used as the standard for 1 inch thickness to 1 inch effectiveness) in reality Iron Plate had an effective thickness modifier of 0.5 to 0.55 so 1 inch of Iron plate armor would be 0.5 inches of effective thickness this meant a 10 inch iron plate is in effect only 5 inches of effective armor this means all types of armor in game over-performs by at-least 150% armor such as Krupp IV over-performs by 200% 240% if you account for 40% weight saving (a 1 inch armor plate of Krupp IV in game is equivelant to 2 inches of what would be the best quality battleship armor created in ww2 (around 1 quality in real life while in game is 200% more effective than quality 1 armor aka quality 2) (quality armor means how much effective thickness it gets from its actual thickness for example a quality 3 plate would have 3 inches of effective armor from a 1 inch thick piece of armor while a quality 1 piece of armor would have 1 inch of effective thickness from a 1 inch thick plate) this DOES NOT account for the fact armor gets lighter which was not the case in real life the density of steel armor remained at around 7750kg m^3 (yes you can do various things to it but generally armor weight remained the same) the current armor stats are as follows KruppIV -40% weight +300% cost +100% strength SHOULD BE around cost 100% strength +10% KruppIII -35% weight +220% cost +90% strength SHOULD BE around cost 70% strength 0% KruppII -30% weight +160% cost +80% strength SHOULD BE around cost 50% strength -10% kruppI -25% weight +100% cost +70 strength SHOULD BE around cost +40% -14 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey (nickel steel version) -15% weight +50% costs +45% strength SHOULD BE around+ 12% cost -26% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells due to low tensile strength Nickel-steel -5% weight +25% cost +40% strength SHOULD BE around cost +5-8% strength -30% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell -15% chance to shatter ap shells due too low tensile strength Compound: +5% cost +35% strength SHOULD BE around cost + 5% strength -35% +10% chance to shatter projectiles due to high tensile strength (introduced in 1876 so yeah ancient and horrible armor quality) - Iron plate -15% hull form +65% hull weight -25% armor weight (all types) -50% armor weight (belt, belt extended) SHOULD BE around -15% hull form (lets assume Iron armor back then was harder to shape properly) (IRON ARMOR DOES NOT increase the hull weight or reduce armor weight)-50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells due to low brinell hardness -50% chance to shatter AP shells due to the low tensile strength looks a bit complicated but the new armor would essentially have these characteristics Krupp IV cost 80% strength +10% Krupp III cost 50% strength -4% Krupp II cost 40% strength -10% Krupp I cost +25% -18 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey +12% cost -21% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells Nickel-steel cost +5-8% strength -26% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell -15% chance to shatter ap shells Compound cost + 5% strength -30% +10% chance to shatter projectiles Iron plate -15% hull form -50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells -50% chance to shatter AP shells source used to determine armor values and effects http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Japanese_Vickers_Hardened_Non-Cemented_Face-Hardened_Armor_(VH) the less hard in brinell the armor is the more likely a shell wont ricochet off the armor the less tensile strength the more likely an ap shell is to not shatter on the armor this was mostly done to diversify and make a bigger difference out of the different types of armor in reality the effects would be less pronounced (specifically ricochet chance) than in real life (though shatter chance is quite realistic) what effect do these changes have on armor in general in general would improve the realism of the game while greatly increasing gun penetration for AP shells on top of this it would reduce the tendency to go bow in and charge enemy battleships until almost point blank range to effectively penetrate enemy armor it would reduce the tendency for large ships to fire high explosive shells when they shouldn't and would reduce what can only be described as an HE meta final conclusion armor is currently overperforming to various degrees this would make armor effectiveness realistic for the thickness compared to the currently super effective armor we have in game which overperforms by extreme amounts

yeah this seems unrealistic at ranges up to around 18 km both ships should be able to see each other when they open fire one ship could gain the range advantage if it opened fire at lets say 30km with radar and so on but i think capital ships should be instantly spotted if they open fire below 18 km or 15 km range would make the most sense

technically speaking single gun turrets do have better accuracy characteristics than double gun turrets the blasts from the other barrel interferes ever so slightly with the other barrel single barrel this cant happen though you need 3 turrets to get a proper grouping salvo where as with twins you need 2 turrets and with triples you only need one single gun turrets are the least space efficient for firepower and for getting the ability to get proper groupings

1: would be nice to know since almost all bow on shots seem to result in bounces when they should simply go through the thing bow plating and hit transverse bulkheads 2: seems so as penetration does not seem to change depending on the selected armor (could be wrong though) 3: in battle it says minimum armor thickness to maximum armor thickness (1-10 inches for example) and then says a number from +35 to +100 if it says +100 it seems to mean +100% effectiveness which would indicate that the actual armor thickness is 10 inches but its effectiveness is 200% of actual armor thickness which means krupp IV armor which in turn means that the armor value you select in the designer is without the added benefits of the armor type so 10 inches of armor is 20 inches of effective armor with krupp IV

hey if they are reliable and work might as well use them over new and unreliable fish

autoloaders is a 1945+ thing fast manual loaded guns such as the 5"/38 and japanese 100mm gun were still manually loaded even though their maximum rof was 20-25 round per minute (for short periods of time) as the hoists could only supply 15 rounds per minute generally all angle loading is reserved for sub 6 inch guns (aka manhandled guns basically 5 inch guns and below) for example the american 5"/38 the crew was expected to uphold a firerate of atleast 15 round per minute (we have a museum ship in denmark which has the 5"/38 i asked one of the gunnery veterans and they claimed they were expected to uphold 18 round per minute though as the hoists can only supply 15 rounds per minute i doubt this) if a gun is labelled at dual purpose its quite likely it had all angle loading or at least improved angle loading