Mhtsos
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mhtsos
-
-
Well, that is a surprice alright.
I did hope that the team would fix/improve the glaring problems the game still has (armour/damage/ballistics and ship design) before they moved out of alpha.
The same that we reported since November.
But I guess some will like it nevertheless.
4 hours ago, shaitan said:For what I was hoping for the game, I'm with Doug on this one. If the current mechanical state of the game is how it is going to be, definitely disappointed. Campaign may still be fun regardless, if it provides a decent challenge/some interest mechanics to play around with pretend ship design ala Rule the Waves, but yeah, the combat feels lacking in its current state because it is to far towards the gaming abstraction for my specific tastes. That's fine though, doesn't mean it is a bad game, just not the game I have been hoping for ever since I played Great Naval Battles decades ago.
Same here, since I read about this, I hoped for a recreation of that amazing series with the addition of player designed ships (based on realistic restrictions).
Unfortunately, apparently this is not the case. At least with the state of the game at the moment.
-
2
-
-
After one battle (1894 1B vs 1B + 2 torpedo boats) I saw that pretty much nothing important changed:
A) Bulkheads are still the king of protection/tanking:
The 200t torpedo boats took each 2x8" HE hits and around a dozen of 2 & 3". One went down the other chugged along with half hit points. Full bulkheads.
The enemy B took two torps in different places and just slowed down with half health. Medium bulkheads + torp protection.
B )Ships are armoured boxes.
Angling the ship and bow to enemy still is the cheese the AI factor no.1.
C) The gun laying/accuracy still uses some arcane formula that is just weird. Shells are not moddelled.
Eg. A two-gun volley from a single turret can have the "shells" (or lights) go in trajectories that have more than 30 degrees difference in less than 5km. Like cross-eyed lazers or something.
|
As I mentioned in most of my previous feedback, the core aspects of a naval game (at least one that aspires to be realistic) are the accurate damage, armour and gun modelling.
Unfortunately, 9 months have passed since I got this game and the core issues/pains are still the same.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:
we're in not even out of alpha yet. Theres another whole step even after we finish alpha test. The early access version is scheduled to go to steam in 2020, although its possible that it couldve been delayed to rona, or bugs. That's not released however, that is just going into beta. Final product could very well be 2021
Thats assuming they keep the original deadline.
A campaign is more important than immediate balance. We are not here to play a finished game, we are here to bug test.
Never said anything else, but let's be honest, most people here payed/joined for playing the game early. Feedback is good and all, but if it was another type of SW, alot less will be willing to do it without a salary (not to mention giving them 40+€ for the honour of bug hunting and testing a piece of software). We are generally trying to help them as customers and alpha testers, I agree, but it's not a job.
|
The ballistics/damage/armour modelling is not a matter of bugs or even balance, but a matter of overhaul. At least if we want to claim that this is a realistic oriented game.
As I mentioned before, those models in theory are supposed to be finished during alpha, as they are core/basis of the gameplay experience, not something that should be delegated for beta/steam launch.
At least that's my opinion.
-
3
-
-
12 hours ago, HusariuS said:
Most likely the devs are trying to make as many hulls as possible to give us good enough numbers of hull variations for the upcoming campaign, and when they do that, we will see more updates focusing on improving things like armor scheme and adding new features.
I don't know, it seems that doing that is the opposite of what I think logical. It's like puting the cart before the horse.
Shouldn't they fix the core issues before venturing to create a campaign? And the issues I mention aren't just balance, it's a rework/overhaul of the damage model that is more fitting to a (semi-arcade) tank game to a ship game at the moment. Not to mention the ballistics and the lack of a real physics for the projectiles.
I mean, OK I get it.
People need more than a handful of missions and skirmish, but I personally cannot enjoy the game in this state and I am quite worried that we'll stuck with this model even after release.
-
3
-
-
Some thoughts on this update.
The flash fires are well... flashy but in most cases just a bit more damaging than good hits. Had DDs suffered from 2-3 of those and kept going. A BB suffered a bit more damage, akin to a torpedo hit. Also they seem way too frequent in some matches.
I though that flash fires did far more damage and appeared far less frequently IRL.
Anyhow, I guess that could be easily fixed with some rebalancing.
|
The point that I didn't like is that the damage, penetration and armour models are still pretty much the same.
The ships are still floating armoured boxes that soak damage.
Is there a plan to fix/create a more realistic model that or this is it?|
Overall nice update, some nice DDs/CLs, but I started to get a bit afraid that we'll stuck with a sub-par model for penetration/damage/armour.
-
3
-
-
First battle seems was a tie as pretty much expected.
The best part is that the most damage done and the almost one-hit-sink was when one of the two deployed Monitors hit and full penetrated the belt armour (most likely under the waterline because it started sinking) the other.
It would be an absolute awesome moment, if that wasn't my fleet...
Well, at least I now know that friendly fire works. 😛
-
1 hour ago, Hangar18 said:
oof thats a nasty exploit.
A List of things that rub me the wrong way
* Bigger is better has almost always dominated in this game. As gun caliber increases, so does cost and weight. 18" guns are somewhat discouraged by weight and cost, and thats fine, they actually arent too far of historical values (100t off). However lower caliber guns, such as the mk5 305, those are nearly double their actual weight. I think lowering weight and costs of the lower caliber guns to incentivize their use over the biggest gun possible, might be a decent way to bring a bit more balance. Historically, there have been times where lower caliber guns have out performed higher caliber guns, such as the 12" mk8 over the 14" mk6. Tech matters.
* Shell weights are off by a huge margin, which contributes to the above.
* The way armor thickness is handled...100% to thickness means armor values skyrocket quickly.
* Range finder bonuses are not accounted for in the gun stat UI. (stick radar 2 on, and then switch between the 2 top range finders, the accuracy stats don't change)
* Gun accuracy seems to have steps...with peaks at 305, 381, and 457 why?
* 127mm guns not fitting on things they should have historically. (minor)
* Snap points for towers.
* Torpedoes are a hazard to have on deck, and a hit to one should be a detonation.
* Ship length does not seem to contribute to its handling at the moment, though the tooltip says it does.
* Way to easy to stack speed on large ships
* Armor model is obviously really simple right now.
One of the most annoying problems until this point. The +118% (Krupp IV) buff leads to absurd armour values and tankiness in modern/superBBs that rivals shore the Antlantic Wall...
The armour model is improved, but I do really hope they can make more realistic. It still is a box, with some variation, but a box nevertheless.
|
Speed is also still not really affected by hull shape. Stubby/chonky BBs can easily make 30kns+.
-
After some testing I liked the changes, but some issues remain.
The speed-daemons persist. Some crazy 30+knots BBs from early-to-mid 1900s hulls and other equally improbable designs appear from time-to-time.
Also, I've seen again designs with 13" main and 10" secondary.
|
The damage/penetration model, although improved it again seems...monolithic?
Huge areas are covered by armour and the APs are again under-performing when hitting areas that in theory could penetrate.
I hope that is fixable (aka the damage model can be made realistic) and not just "re-balanceable".
|
Anyhow, I like that you try to improve things and see the feedback.
Regards
-
Tested again after the hotfix.
The issues reported earlier still persist, although it was nice to see that now the BBs with minimal bulkheads didn't sink when the flooding contained in the first 1/3 of the ship.
Although it was discouraging to see that the flooding did go on for the duration of the fight and went away just before the end of the battle.
The fires are utterly harmless now, even with the anaemic damage control of the above ships.
|
As people mentioned before, the issues seem to be more systemic than something that needs hot-fixes.
The damage model and targeting model really need addressing and overhauling.
|
Otherwise we are stuck in a very unrealistic see-saw of patches that over/under stress a value/effect.
I personally prefer for the team to dedicate on these core issues, before venturing in the "new features" area.
-
After the latest match, I can attest that secondaries now (in many cases) are far more accurate than the main battery.
Eg. in a 1916 BB (undamaged) with single 6" @ 7-8km that had more accuracy than the main 13" vs a CL .
Something that shouldn't happen, as in theory the single secondaries are under local aim and the main battery has a beefy tower/main controller.
|
I think that is a symptom of overcompensating "adjustments" to feedback from here, as is the return of the HE spam.
-
2
-
-
Thanks for the update.
Had a few of random battles.
Nice additions to loading animations, hulls, barbettes and turret design.
The ships also seem less agile (very positive in my book, no more wows stuff happening).
Excellent that now you can assign secondary turrets to other targets.
|
Biggest negative/setback is that HE is again the ultimate winner when the enemy has armour (or you don't get an ammo explosion).
The AP, even if achieves full penetration, does abysmal damage per calibre.
The floods from common, became very rare even if the hit is on waterline (or below) and the fires are over before they began.
Unfortunately, it is still possible to have capital ships with unrealistic speeds.
My last battle the enemy BC was maxing to 45knots with 1930 tech hull, 8x15" guns and 9+in of belt armour...
|
Summarizing, some good stuff, some setbacks, but generally good update in my book.
-
2
-
-
My priorities are:
- An armour model that makes sense. Now the ships are just armoured boxes. I would like to see real ships, not tanks in water.
- Damage model. The bulkhead number is the single most significant factor that will determine if the ship is going to be a damage sponge or a tin. DDs soak hundreds of 5-6" if they have maxed bulkheads. Also, I almost never seen a ship lost to extensive fire -even if it burns from end-to-end, all due to the aforementioned OP bulkhead modelling.
- Accuracy and the factors that determine it. Now is too abstract and in many cases it doesn't make sense.
- Shells that are actually modelled. Now they are only decorative and just pass-through ships that are not the target.
- More flexibility on ship design. Even if it is only for player.
|
I believe the above are the most important issues with the game that have to be solved before we go on the campaign.
-
6
-
Another testing, custom battles 1902 USN BB vs austrian-hungary and french BBs (three battles in total).
I must say that the secondaries are far more effective in early BBvsBB, but the ships themselves are very-very prone to sink via flooding.
I mean I one-shot one BB with a single 12" hit. It went down via flooding in a few seconds (X3 speed)...
My ship almost got down to 70% flooding after a 6" hit in the rudder area. In a BB with normal bulkheads, reinf. I bulkheads, double bottom and anti-flood...
Maybe tone it down a bit? I mean it is very positive that now flooding is a real threat to BBs, but this is too much.
-
Thanks for the fast update/hotfix.
|
Played a few custom battles with the new patch.
A 1935 BC vs 1933/34 CA and CLs with a couple DDs.
Second battle as French BB vs Italians 1922 CLs + DDs, after that another with same time/navies but CA vs CL + DDs.
The ships indeed sink easier now, without the prolonged 5% sponge.
Torpedoes are more lethal, especially when they hit smaller ships. My big 1930s BC took 6 toprs no problem.
The small ships have much-much improved accuracy vs the big ships.
Big ships' (BBs and BC) secondaries still have single digit accuracy vs the smaller ships in the same ranges. Eg. in a enemy DD push/attach at around 4-5km, they had almost 80+% accuracy for their 5". My 6" secondaries had 1.4%. The smaller 3" tertiaries had 1.9%.
That was the case when I had only one 1920s CA vs their 1920s CL and DDs. I think that the border is the CL? Because my CA was quite minimal/small and comparable in size with a CL in all but better armour.
-
23 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:
The discussion of secondary has gone in a strange direction.
Did secondary become more effective in alpha 3? Yes, they are.
Did current meta game is still "ONLY BIGGEST GUNS"? Yes, they are.
Why is this happening? This is due to a simplified model of armor, which allows you put armor every inch of the ship, removing vulnerabilities.
Large guns can still do something, because you can’t put 20 inches everywhere, but small and even medium guns are ineffective against something armored larger than a small cruiser.
Does it reduce the dynamics of the battle? Yes. Is this bad in terms of design limitations? Yes. Does this not correspond to how it was in reality? Yes.
How can this be fixed?
First, the secondary must be able to shoot at secondary targets. So yes, one ship must be able to shoot at several targets. And then the secondary guns will shoot at the destroyers, or merchant ships, and the main batteries will fire at the enemy’s capital ships. You don’t really need 12-18 inch guns to sink unarmored ships when Yamato is aiming at you.
Second, while game armor will look like
instead of this
...any guns other than the most powerful were useless. Just look at pictures above. This is Indiana-class battleship launched in 1893. The thickness of the armor at high is 18 inches. In fact, it was a fairly narrow strip, but in the game it will cover 2/3 of the hull profile. DIXI.
Secondaries (>5") are quite effective against torpedo boats/DD/CL, IF they hit.
That is the main problem for me. That you need to be in knife fighting range to hit anything with your secondaries, and that is not even the case with older designs that you cannot hit anything period.
Armour in game is far more relevant for BBs/BCs vs BBs/BCs engagement, not regarding secondary effectiveness.
-
4 hours ago, Mhtsos said:
This.
In a test run, enemy CAs 8" done almost the same damage as my BCs 13". Both cases reported "penetration" and done around 15-20hp dmg and started a small fire. My ship at least used 13" AP Mk3.
The above with the armour still being too OP, lessens the impact of having large guns apart from the latest monsters.
Small guns are even worse, as they cannot hit a barn from point-blank.
|
Anyhow, I am glad that they included the additional stuff, especially the custpm battle.
Re-tried with modern (1940) US BC, 13"+4"+2". All maxed for accuracy. This time in the same range (2-4km) the 4" had around 50% and the small ones around...90%.
I say that it should be more consistent because the other BC was tech from 1928, not a huge difference in that range.
|
Anyhow, I love the new barrel up-down when reloading, the penetration marks, the destroyed turrets and the slick new late-game main towers. Also, it is very positive that at last the almost-dead ships are not having excellent accuracy or even fight back when around 5-10%.
The damage model for stern/bow to enemy should also improved, it took some dozens 13" and some hundreds 4+2" to sink a 1920/early 30 CA.
-
2 hours ago, Tankaxe said:
I hope everyone enjoys the new update but I feel it only tip toed to the larger issues. I recently experimented in the custom battles of a task force cruiser battle (1926) and unfortunately it was a mess. ships that were set to screen abandoned their charges and sailed bow first into the enemy. Since their were a lot of light forces present they all proceed to get hit by torpedoes and due to how clunky the formation system is their is nothing I could do about it.
My personally designed heavy cruisers armed with 11" guns were pitiful when it came to engage the enemy. Starting at 12000m apart I've yet to see any of their accuracy percentages grow beyond %12. Destroyers were worse as my 5" armed secondary's struggled to hit and struggled to do damage. Even the main guns of 11" still do pitiful damage when they hit, I've rolled damaging hits that only gave 4.2dmg! Light forces still have major issues that need to be resolved because without torpedo spamming they don't do much
I returned back to capital ship fights and the issues were still the same. Armor piercing, luckily, is much more capable of landing hits but almost never cause serious damage. I might knock out a chunk of health here and there but the process of just repeatedly banging an old ship with 18" gun fire is frustrating. I believe the issue is that since citadels dramatically reduce the chance for an engine or ammo hit its quite difficult to land a ship that can do a lasting blow
The placement system leaves me unimpressed as the only major change I see is that Yamato has hardpoints for folks to try a Nelson style ship but not much else. The ability to move our structures without snaps would be nice. Also the towers we get is restricting on what secondary armament I can mount on a ship.
Despite the doom and gloom I like the new hulls and the more modern turret designs for secondary's look great. I'll gladly follow along and see things improve and wish the devs best of luck
This.
In a test run, enemy CAs 8" done almost the same damage as my BCs 13". Both cases reported "penetration" and done around 15-20hp dmg and started a small fire. My ship at least used 13" AP Mk3.
The above with the armour still being too OP, lessens the impact of having large guns apart from the latest monsters.
Small guns are even worse, as they cannot hit a barn from point-blank.
|
Anyhow, I am glad that they included the additional stuff, especially the custpm battle.
-
14 hours ago, Steeltrap said:
Wall of text follows, so here's a TL;DR
All in all I think the appearance of crazy randomness does not do the game justice and the devs might well do themselves and the players a service by taking the time to be reasonably explicit about how things ought to work. We can provide better feedback if the devs let us know what they regard as things working as they intend, rather than us listing what we think seems peculiar but not being sure one way or another.
Back on topic re effectiveness of AP shells, I've found a few things to be true.
In part the choice between AP and HE is a matter of extremes.
If the AP will likely bounce off as the armour around or greater than pen, or if it will over-pen with the armour much lower than the pen, HE is better. If the AP value is around that of the armour, logically that's the time one would expect to use AP. Simple enough in theory.
A lot of the questions seem to resolve around various unknowns, or at least unknown to me so perhaps others can help.
How does pen of HE vs AP work? One thing that seems a bit misleading are the big numbers you can get with pen of extended deck/belt with HE. Worse, however, is you can see big numbers and pen of what one would expect to be the normal armoured deck section amidships. That's a bit of a mystery to me because when I look at my own guns' deck pen values, normally they're way lower than the likely deck armour of my targets at normal ranges until you're using late tech with plunging fire at 20-30km.
The bit I struggle with is seeing that happen to my own ship. I can see what gun hit me and from the enemy class, go to their info cars, look up their gun performance, and that info would have me believe it simply ought not be possible. If my deck is 4" of Krupp III, for example, how is a 14" mk2 gun doing a large number with an obvious HE shell? How is an HE shell seemingly doing significant damage to a well-armoured target when an AP shell, designed to do that, frequently is being ineffective? It's sometimes the exact opposite of what we know was true in reality (I try to avoid using that word, lol).
Then there's the damage model. Kills by "structure loss" are far too common, although it's also true that ships like transports remaining afloat with 1% structure while absorbing hits that would wreck a WW2 Cruiser seems bonkers.
AP to my mind IS the most dangerous ammo when effective. It's the one that will KO main guns, start flooding and do all sorts of internal mayhem. The trouble appears to be HE can be just as good at much of that, in fact sometimes more so, and in cases where it simply to my mind ought not to be the case.
There's also the situation of lots of ships going "pop" as soon as they present a largely bow or stern on aspect as a large calibre HE shell, or sometimes a smaller AP one, triggers ammo explosions. Seems the AI design logic might not have been amended to reflect the altered performances of shells with the last update, particularly with respect to citadels and bulkhead upgrades.
"The Modern BB" scenario can see you blowing huge chunks out of enemy BBs at range with plunging HE fire. That just can't be correct. Wrecking the upper works, superstructure generally, funnels etc, sure. Damaging areas not covered by "all or nothing", sure. But doing large damage through multiple deck levels on the compartment graphic, including right down to the bottom and starting flooding? Sorry, no, that's just bunkum. Multiple decks of various thicknesses designed to trigger fuses then absorb resulting explosions and splinters was obviously a widely studied design question, with varying results. But I'm all but certain what we're seeing with HE shells against decently armoured large targets is just not correct. At the same time, those same HE shells sometimes do next to nothing.
And, yes, the armour multiplier system v penetration seems off as well. We know that "immunity zones" were a thing, but they typically operated at range band that was quite distant, at least for WW2.
In WW1 leading up to Jutland, Jellicoe had quite specific instructions for the ranges at which he expected the various guns of the fleet to open fire and also that the fire was to be "deliberate" and not to shift to rapid fire until hits/straddles were occurring. He also quite specifically stated he didn't believe the gunnery would become decisive until at ranges of 10,000 yards or closer, because the Lyddite AP rounds were not expected to be able to penetrate to vital parts of the main German battle units outside that range. He stated he believed the longer range shots would be disruptive to the superstructure and upper works, but not killing blows. As an aside, I read they were aware of French experiments with different alloy shells and TNT that were proving significantly more effective, but the RN had already ordered more of their current ammo and doing the extensive work on improving shells wasn't seen as viable at the time.
All of which in my mind points to the devs having to do a significant rethink about the damage model, right down to the hit boxes, armour calculations, shell impact and non, partial, full and over penetrations. Also the limits on HE damage and "structure kills" at least for warships of greater than a certain tonnage, although there is a case to be made that for the purposes of a battle and campaign that might still be acceptable. Bismarck, after all, was structure killed before sinking, and even if the RN had sailed off and left her there, she wasn't ever going to do anything other than sink eventually.
So here's what I'm after:
- greater clarity about how the system does AP and HE penetration calculations.
- limitations on HE damage against more heavily armoured/larger tonnage warships
- easier destruction of non-combatant ships; TR absorbing multiple 5", 6", 8" and even 12" or greater while remaining afloat has to end. I don't mind if it takes several minutes to sink, but looking at the ship and thinking "it's flooding, afire stem to stern, structure down to 10% and flooding getting worse, I can shoot something else" only to find 5 or more minutes later it's still afloat and flooding is getting better is, I think, a bit ridiculous. (I failed a run of the Armed Convoy scenario because I left a TR like that and it didn't sink, lol).
- players being able to understand the implications of their choices when it comes to levels of armour they choose to allocate.
This.
The game devs absolutely need to rework the damage model.
IMHO one of the biggest problems with the game right now, along with the hit% of secondaries and the weird formation AI.
-
I tried the all-tech-unlock cheat in the semi-dreadnought mission for the lols/variety.
With a simple BC with good-decent towers/rangefinders/radar I and historical arrangement (3 X 2 12" + some 5") the enemy BB's accuracy is almost double.
When it had 15-17% accuracy, my guns had only 8-9%.
I use full speed, only small maneuvering/ course adjustments and no target change. The above numbers were after some time when the guns were locked.
The best part is that beyond 8Km the BB still landed multiple hits almost every second barrage.
What is happening? o.0
Cheating AI or just...works as intended?
-
1 hour ago, RedParadize said:
@Absolute0CA You cant wish for a 18" that can pen 76" inch of armor and at the same time wish to make secondary guns relevant!
Why is that impossible?
It was like that IRL, otherwise we might as well remove secondary guns. Now they are mostly dead weight.
-
1 hour ago, OldSaltyOne said:
If you are playing in a destroyer class ship the best ammunition you can use is High Explosive and aim at the super structure. 152 mm guns can do a quite a bit of damage. With torpedoes you more or less kind of have to lead the shots. 12 inch guns try aiming at the water line of the ship for a citadel hit which will do a ton of damage if you hit the right spot. Lead the target. The other games that I do play with those types of ships I can cripple cruisers and or delete them from the game in a single salvo. I suggest work on your aiming a bit more and you should be able to work that out. The other thing is 12 inch guns are best at around a range of 14 KM away too far out trying to snipe your dispersion goes to literally garbage in a trash pile.
You are replying to the wrong game.
You cannot manually control your armament in this game.
-
7
-
-
Please remove or alter the restriction on the time acceleration(aka "its too dangerous to do it message with greying the buttons).
The trigger seems to be bugged or not properly implemented.
Some times it triggered and disabled the x2,x3,x5 for no reason, others it allowed only x2 when my CL was sinking.
I had to play 30+min in X1 and I just quit in the semi-dreadnought mission.
Waiting for the RNG of the pre-dreadnought BB secondaries to hit CLs in x1 for 20-30min is just too much.
|
The secondaries still are close to useless even in <2km range - for 6" casemate and single turret that I used twice.
Better than before, but not so much. Also, some times the secondaries seemed to refuse to shoot, even well within their range. The main battery was shooting normally.
-
6
-
-
43 minutes ago, SwaggyB said:
That's because it never happened. There is no evidence the Yamato scored a hit at that range and the damage caused to White Plains was from a shell that missed and exploded underwater causing minor damage to White Plains, therefore, not a hit anyway.
The longest range hit was Giulio Cesare, delivered by Warpsite.
Yes, all the sources I have access to mention that the yamato had a lucky(?) near miss with minimal damage, but if the person above has more info (more updated?) then I will certainly want to see it. It may be that I only know outdated and/or bad info that rotates between publications, as many times happens in niche historical sources.
I know for the warspite one, as it is well documented from various sources.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
I hardly count "Making a giant crater in the bottom of the ship and crippling it" a 'near miss'.
A normal shell would not have damaged the White Plains. The Japanese "Diving Shell" however was capable of such a feat, ergo it counts as a hit.
Does an artillery shell which lands 4 feet from a car and blow it up not count as a 'hit'? I guess that 'near miss' blew up the car, right? *wink*
Recent investigation using US and Japanese sources have found that Yamato scored a hit on White Plains (after getting very, very good straddles on her first and second salvo) at 34.5 thousand yards. The single longest range hit on a warship ever.
In contrast Iowa with her 'superior gun control and radar' managed much less impressive feats. Strange how that works...Almost...Propaganda tier levels of information... 9_9
As for Iowa's 16 inch guns, that was more related to her shells.
America could spare excessively costly manufacturing processes and materials in their shells, additionally they were designed purely for above-water hits.
Japan was a much poorer nation with much worse materials and their shell design traded some above-water performance for the single best below-water performance of any shell used by any nation.
Despite all these shortcomings the 18 inch gun had more penetration in just about every single range which was realistic.The accuracy of a gun (fire control excluded) has got to do with mostly shell quality of finish (Most nations were about equal, even Japan had 'high quality' finished shells, just not made from good materials and ergo not as good at penetration), powder reliability (also about even for everyone, maybe some exceptions like the Russians or Italians), and how worn the barrel is.
As ships ingame all have 'fresh' barrels and equalized powder/shells, the larger gun would therefore be the most accurate as long as its the same tech level.
I never seen that before, can you share the source?
-
1
-
Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts - Steam Release Plan Update
in General Discussions
Posted
I agree.
The core gameplay mechanics are literally the building blocks of a game (at least like this one).
Personally, I am not interested in a wows clone with a campaign and a basic ship designer.
Some definetely will like it, but I am not one of them (and I believe a significant part of the community here).