Niomedes
-
Posts
145 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Niomedes
-
-
1 hour ago, Skoggatt said:
I think the it should be the same for both. Historically "dreadnoughts" were just an evolutionary step in the design of battleships, not a different class. RTW only distinguishes them so that the more powerful dreadnoughts can be worth more strategic points than older battleships.
Making all battleships prior to them obsolete is a development which warrants destinction.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, terrible said:
3) the time limit for the naval academy missions is a bit too short because its quite annoying to see the time run out even though you know you can finish the mission if you have a bit more time
The time limit is part of the challenge, and I never had a problem with it. For many missions, there's even too much time.
-
This scenario can be won pretty easily if you know what you're doing and build your battleships accordingly with lots of armor and gunnery that is optimised for long range precision. In fact, I've never lost it even once.
Aside of that, Fire rate and engagement Range for most ship types really seem a little short, and could be increased significantly without retracting from realism, but rather while increasing it. -
1 hour ago, Jatzi said:
Pretty sure that's how it is. If you get triple turrets and look at the aiming modifiers it says triple turret technology -10% or whatever. Basically in the naval academy you don't have access to that tech. In the campaign you will. Seriously the campaign will be super different. Balanced tech progression rather than the random boosts you get in the missions changes a lot. You can actually play the campaign right not by using the left alt key when you click on it. It's very buggy and crashy and not polished or finished but you can totally see a difference in the combat in 1890 vs in the missions. I had a legacy BB take two torpedoes midships and die in seconds when everyone was complaining about torpedoes in the naval academy. Yeah they have serious issues with torpedoes and other things but just having balanced tech vs random upgrades in specific areas will help a lot in soothing people's concerns
Tried that, and for me it says that it can't load the world scene since there is none. Well, guess some people are just luckier than me^^
-
6 hours ago, Christian said:
first of all
they dont the 12 inch guns in game dont have more than 13,5 degrees of elevation (13,5 degrees elevation still allows for 18km range)
why would iowa be unable to fire forwards at an angle ?
ive heard of people saying the iowa couldnt fire directly forewards with 2 turrets for some reason with no backup for that claim ive also heard people say the same about the yamato but also no backup source despite the fact the ship was rated by the japanese to handle even more recoil which prompted the development of 51cm guns which were cancelled in 1941 after pearl harbor after one gun had been completed out of the 2 guns and one mount ordered
if that is the claim then please source it
https://wwiiafterwwii.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/missourifiring.jpg?w=809
3 examples of iowa firing at an angle forewards
either way it dosent matter because the rear turret is also covered with 20mm guns around the muzzle and in this case the rear turret has 20mm guns around its muzzle in almost a 30 degree arc
not to mention a 40mm gun right next to one of the barrels when its firing broadside
that was not the original claim though the claim was that the gun would be ripped off which is not the case
the 20mm guns are also significantly smaller than the 4 inch guns
so because they learned from their mistakes we shouldnt be able to make the same mistakes ? or do the same mistakes as them?
sure they werent informed that torpedo boat attacks would occur during battles
but neither are we ? if we havent had a battle with torpedo boats with battleships against us what prevents us from making the same mistake (assuming a new player who has not faced torpedo boats)
to counter torpedo boats and destroyers
more secondaries means more destroyer and torpedo boat deterrence and also allows my ship to quickly dispatch enemy ships
if i feel its acceptable to sacrifice some degrees of firing angles on main guns for better secondary armament i think i should be able to do it
Can't confirm that they have a lower angle than 25° when firing at very long distances as in the last mission, the angle seems to be more along the lines of even almost aüproaching 45 degrees.
Of course Iowa and Yamato can fore at an angle. It would be considerate if you read what I wrote, which is that Iowa can't fire at an angle which puts the guns in its front at risk. And that is because the bow of the ship is squarely in the way, which is pretty evident by just looking at it. You even posted a few pictures of Iowa yourself, so just look at them. The guns need to be raised at what looks like at least 10°.
And yes, the gun would probably be ripped of if it was directly in the blast of the main artillery, as it was in the original picture. That's however not the case with Iowa.
And as for whether or not we should be allowed to repeat the mistakes made in game ? Probably not. The only thing you're accomplisshing with that is people not understanding what they do wrong since the game at this point will become so complicated that nobody will really know what's going on without an engineering degree. There are already enough people in this Forum asking questions which should be pretty easy to figure out by themselves. You're asking at the very least for that to increase tenfold.
And if your objective is to quickly dispatch enemies, shoot them with your main artillery. What more secondaries actually means in this game is less precision due to tons of guns engaging the same target, esepecially if they are of different calibres.
-
7 minutes ago, Christian said:
the 25 degrees of elevation was the best you could get from guns in the dreadnought era unless you are russian you need to stick with 15 or under until you get 14 inch guns
also looking at the ship it wouldn't be able to fire the guns directly forwards in that setup anyway since the bridge is in the way
and unless you wanna fireball half the bridge on each side by 4 giant fireballs and clouds of smoke not only roasting anyone not behind several metal walls in that superstructure but also choking anyone in there out with smoke go ahead
british 12 inch guns were limited to 13.5 degrees of elevation until they got 13.5 inch guns
guns from the united states were limited to 15 degrees of elevation until they got 14 inch guns
japanese 12 inchers were also limited to 15 degrees elevation
russian guns however could do 25 degrees of elevation
german ships first 13.5 degrees upgraded they could do 16 degrees
also if it was the case that they could fire over each other ships like the nassau would be able to fire 5 turrets while facing forwards towards the enemy which was not the case
considering the gunhouse shape id say british guns
Guns in the game seem to in general have much higher elevations than even 25°, which allow them to fire over each other when engaging distant targets perfectly well in most battles. Firing directly forward however, isn't possible due to the placement of the superstructure anyways, so the setup works perfectly in its own context.
10 minutes ago, Christian said:this would not be the case as has been demonstrated with ww2 battleships
as can be seen there is no lack of 20mm oerlikons or 40mm bofors mounts right in front of the muzzle of the 16 inch guns
despite ships like iowa having significantly more firepower than a 12 inch gun
for comparison the 12 inch gun used by the british had a 117kg propellant charge the iowa had a 299kg propellant charge almost 3 times as much
id also like to note the 4 inch gun IS SHIELDED but only from the front this would allow the gun to be placed close to the 12 inch gun and the front shield would protect the 4 inch guns crew from the majority of the blast (its accuracy is probably gonna be effected but they wont have injuries)
as seen in the picture the 12 inch guns barrels are longer than the 4 inch gun is away thus the muzzle would extend past the gunshield if the gun could elevate above the 4 inch gun
Iowa can't fire forward at an angle which would put the mounts of the Anti Aircraft guns in front of its main abttery at risk anyways, so placing it there isn't a problem. Aside of that, those guns wouldn't be crewed during a regular gun battle, but only during anti Air operations. This is entirely different from your suggestion of placing a gunhouse-less secondary right in the firing arc and blast radius of a main gun.
18 minutes ago, Christian said:
also the ship pictured here (the USS Maine) has cross deck firing
but its important to note the rear gun if fully elevated to its glorious 13,5 degree elevation would basically make a giant fireball right next to the 37mm gatling gun and the walkway said 37mm gatling gun is its anti torpedo boat guns and both are quite likely to be used at once if torpedo boats are present
this would also be true for whenever the ship was firing both guns directly aft at high elevation or directly forwards at high elevation
First of all, crossdeck firing was eliminated for a reason. Second, the design choices which lead to the placement of Anti torpedo boat guns in the blast zones of larger weapons were informed by the notion that Torpedo boat attacks wouldn't occur during gun battles, which turned out to be wrong. That's also the reason why all secondaries on later vessels tend to be placed somewhere where they are not a threat of being subjected to the blast of a main gun.
18 minutes ago, Christian said:we should be able to place enclosed secondaries anywhere as long as there is enough space damned the firing angle consequences
Why though ?
-
4 hours ago, Christian said:
there is absolutely no reason why he shouldnt be allowed to place a 4 inch gun there though
several ships had bad turret designs for extra guns example french pre dread
which again limits the small turrets fire arc dramatically
maybe but there is still no reason to limit design creativity when there is clearly space for a deck gun
and as can be see here
That's the very french Pre Dreadnought I was talking about when mentioning that it was discontinued for a reason. But even here, the firing arcs are still at about 140°, while the Main gun retains 180°. So it's still superior to the setup you want to have, while still being discontinued for being bad.
4 hours ago, Christian said:these are dreadnought turrets you are lucky to get 25 degrees of elevation you would hit the in front turret in addition to that in order to get 25 degrees of elevation on those guns you need a range in excess of 15km at which distance you wont hit and will run out of ammo before you win
also what prevents the main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun? which is significantly smaller than the main turret ?
its a dreadnought which is using mixed caliber main guns (not good idea to begin with yet its not disallowed) but we cant sacrifice what is basically 10 degrees angle of fire for a 4 inch gun ?
also we can already place small guns in front of big guns basically making them unable to fire directly forewards i see no reason why we shouldnt be able to limit the firing arcs of bgig guns even more by placing additional armaments
Those 25 degrees are still more than enough to fire over the turret. As to what prevents the Main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun ? Well... The gun blast, which is going to cook the 4 inch gun's crew alive, and rip it clean off the ships hull.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, MajorDamage® said:
I have a litle issue tho with this, in the one BB vs 3 TB's mission.
Now i do equip the better towers, 6 inch secondarys, better ammo and sutch, but i always run out of time, last try i did i was scraping hulls with the TB's, as i thought being point blank would help with accuracy yet the gunners seem to prefer aming at the moon for some reason, the vast majority of the main gun's fire was short or completly off, what am i missing besides the points above? 🤔
Do you use Triples or doubles ? And closing distance to stay right next to them does decrease accuracy.
-
I'd like to see multiplayer.
-
Fire rates in general are very low in this game when compared to reality.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Maachlan said:
Oh, I didn't mean to make it sound like that was unintended, I was just offering a potential reason his guns may have stopped firing.
Oh, well, damn. Didn't see that. Sorry.
-
3 hours ago, imeoin01 said:
So far I'm enjoying the game, but there are a few difficulties I'm having.
1: How do you use torpedoes effectively. When using torpedo boats against the battleship, it always seems to dodge them and when I try to get closer to it, the battleship always damages my boats and even destroy the torpedo tubes.
2: How do you sink ships fast. There have been situations where I need to sink multiple ships and it takes me ages to sink one and chances are I won't have enough time to sink the others.
3: How do you build ships without them getting overweight. There was a situation where I tried to design a battleship with plenty of guns on it, but it ends up being overweight. However when I click the random design, its able to make a version with even more guns that I tried to make and it wasn't overweight.
The system does seem a nit complicated and I find it would be handy to have some basic tips on how to do certain things in the naval assignment rather then leave it to guess work or luck. There will be a situation where the program designs a great ship and I complete a mission. But when I try the mission again I would fail loads of times and I wouldn't know how I won the last time. I wouldn't call it learning to get better. Its more like you got lucky the first time, but you will keep on failing.
1: You can set the torpedo firing rate to save or manually control torpedo launches. You can also use electric motors to decrease detection chance. All of this will make hits easier.
2: Larger calibre weapons, better fire controls, heavier shells and a wise selection of targets and ammunition. Close the distance to get higher hit chance if you absolutely have to.
3: Use oil instead of coal, more advanced armor than the steel plate, more advanced engine types, reduce engine size by adjusting for a lower speed, reduce armor thickness, and maybe add less guns ? I.e., simply reduce the number of heavy components on your ship I guess.
The system really isn't complicated at all, and actually rather intuitive if you spend some time reading trough the tooltips on the components. It might take some time to get used to it, but you'll get the hang of it eventually. -
Yeah, Multiplayer is currently only being considered. But it would be a genuine shame if there was no multiplayer. I honestly wouldn't understand it if they refused to add it.
-
Yes. The devs have already confirmed that commerce raiding will be a thing.
-
2
-
-
On 5/20/2019 at 1:32 AM, LeBoiteux said:
- Swiss : 2
Imagine being one of the two Swiss dudes, fighting in the American war for independance.
-
1 hour ago, Jay Gatsby said:
The inclination of the armor depends on the hull you choose I guess, for example the Yamato hull has an inclined armor, the main belt is externally visible
While that is probably true at the moment, I too feel that this should be a little more under the direct control of the player. I mean, I do just in general hope that we will at some point have more control over the hull form in general than just being able to choose a premade hull.
-
2 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:
In that particular case the objective might be for instance to have a heavier broadside. Or there could be other scenarios, placement of guns should not be solely left to what you think is not a "stupid" idea. Not to mention this is already allowed in game in other configurations.
It's not about what I think is a stupid idea indeed. It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea. I mean, why would you EVER limit the firing arc of your main battery if you don't absolutely have to do so. Also, you're not substantially increading the weight of your broadside substantially by adding a 4 inch.
2 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:As a for instance the first image you quoted would only have affected the 12" turret directly to stern in arc, if even that much no more than that 6" further down.
Here we can see an AI ship with two side turrets, you may call this "stupid" but I don't think it should not be allowed.
This on the other hand isn't stupid, and I wouldn't call it stupid either. In contrast to the first picture I responded to, the two guns in this picture can actually rotate 180 degrees and are thusly NOT restricted in their firing arc. They're far enough apart for their barrels not to collide with the gunhouses of each other. Furthermore, those are main battery turrets of a large calibre, which means that they're going to fire with relatively high arcs most of the time, which in turn means that both turrets will almost always be able to fire in their full firing arc due to them firing over each other in those fringe cases in which they're engaging a target directly behind or in front of them.
2 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:The designer I should hope is meant to allow players freedom to create what they want with the tools they are given. Sure within some bounds if you like but obscuring slightly firing arcs is hardly unreasonable for a ships weapon designs, lots of that in historical precedent to the extent those 4" guns would have obscured that 12" turret. Especially that first image.
What you presented in the first picture isn't just slightly obscuring the firing arc, it's completely preventing the main battery turret to rotate to 180°, or even over more than roughly 100°. And there is no precedent for something like this being present on any Dreadnought or later ship. The only ships with similiar setups I can recall are french Pre dreadnoughts, and they're kinda notorious for their Ill-conceived designs.
-
On 10/5/2019 at 12:41 PM, Tréville said:
I've watched some gameplay videos from the alpha and I'm wondering if the full game will have hull building like shown in the teaser with slotting different, modular hull section types in and out?
In the current alpha you have to select pre-build hulls.
Probably not. The Devs said it was to complicated to implement.
-
19 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
A Custom Battle editor will be offered. Removing any limits would not only break the system (because our auto-designer is programmed to act smartly for designing the AI ships, and without limits it would just create ugly looking ships with spammed assets) but teach the player wrongly about how everything works.
This is the dev's answer to a similiar question that was asked earlier.
-
So far, the devs have said that this won't be an option. They might change their mind at some point, but atm, it'sa definite no.
-
1 hour ago, Wakelessrex said:
I have two photos now to illustrate that I think that weapon placement is very restrictive and weirdly so, I get that you want to keep some restriction for your own ideal of realism or so the AI can better handle the designer but I think this could be tweaked greatly even within a conservative model. I showcase here that I cannot put even one 4" gun in the space here on the deck that I have when realistically I think I should be able to place at least 4 in there if the player should so choose.
I felt like Collating images of the issues I found, and I thinks others have in game to better give you an idea of what we are talking about. That said I would also like to offer some suggestions specifically for the designer and ask a few questions as well.There is no room for any turrets there, unless your objective is to purpousfully reduce the firing Arcs of the 12 inch gun there. And that would honestly be a stupid Idea, since main guns should always have the best possible firing Arcs.
-
1 hour ago, Maachlan said:
Sometimes it seems like it's possible to out run the rotation speed of your turrets. If an enemy ship is dead in the water and you're passing it at high speeds your guns can't rotate fast enough to keep on target.
That's intended behavior. Your gun's rotation speed is limited according to their size, weight and the gun rotation modifocation you selected.
-
Well, you are right in that the actual battlecruiser concept developed in beitain is older than the Heavy cruiser concept, which only came about to replace armored cruisers in the first place. Heavy cruisers however first appeared in the royal navy in 1915, the later treaties only served to regulate their properties, as they did with most ship typds. The german equivalents however, are reversed in this regard.
The german battlecruisers were a developement of essentially larger Heavy cruisers with even more armor, comparable speed and larger guns. Germany developed their Heavy cruisers together with their 'kleine Kreuzer', which don't even have a british equivalent, to patrol their colonial empire. The 11 and 12 inch guns their battlecruisers used were also used by some older german battleships still in service, but in general not really battle line weapons anymore
-
32 minutes ago, JANXOL said:
That is not correct to my knowledge. Especially since "battlecruiser" idea is older than "heavy cruiser" which only came into being because of the naval treaties (and is descendant from light cruisers, rather than ACs). The German Battlecruisers were indeed different than British ones in that they were heavier armored and carried smaller guns, but note that these "smaller" were still battleship-grade caliber (11 and 12 inch).
Regarding the battlecruiser's resistance in game, i think it would make sense for them to be *slightly* less resistant because of their hullform, and it would also make sense for the armor to weigh more than the same armor thickness on a dreadnought (because battlecruisers tend to be longer and thinner (sleeker) and hence the belt would be longer, at least when not using AoN). Otherwise I see no reason why the hull would be inherently weaker than a dreadnought hull.
Has anyone won 'Torpedo the Dreadnought' ?
in General Discussions
Posted
That's an overexaggeration. The missions aren't that hard, you probably just haven't figured them out yet. A general tip could be to not blindly charge into close combat, unless you're playing the torpedo boat/destroyer missions