khang36
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by khang36
-
-
On 1/20/2020 at 12:29 PM, Skeksis said:
Unless one side is on the run, including oneself, now that’s interesting and alittle bit of realism too, ‘to be on the run’.
Also Nick has said that he’s working on retreat intelligence, spotter planes is the countertactic to that. With countertactics it opens up Nick and his team to developing this AI as far as they can, to perfect this AI evolution.
Yes but with the current time constraints the likelihood that you will be able to catch a fleeing ship before time runs out is pretty low. As i said with the current constraints imposed on battles right now even using float planes as scout are of limited utility, both side spawns close enough to spot smoke so we will know where they are with out the need for scout planes. With the limited time available for combat if they manage to flee far enough that we can not spot smoke we will never be able to close the distance fast enough to engage before time runs out.
I am all for planes but the dev will need to revamp combat first for them to be relevant in combat.
-
With how close the two side are at a start of battle it is almost impossible for the two side to miss each other removing any use for float planes in battle scenarios.
The only use i can see are all campaign level stuff like having better intel before battles(knowing what kind of ships will be in the battle), and higher chance of encountering enemy surface raiders and other intel related benefits.
-
Speaking of fire control system did ships have such things for their non-main guns pre ww1 or were they just local control
-
On 12/11/2019 at 7:59 PM, RedParadize said:
Is that confirmed? Where did you got that from?
I would welcome a armour overhaul. The ability to go for the "all or nothing" armor scheme would be nice. What would be even better we had to care about layout inside the hull. Like engine and ammo box placement. All of it would restrain where you can place stuff on deck and influence how long the main belt is. That way making a Nelson would be something.I do not recall where but i remember one of the devs saying that the current citadel options are just a placeholder untill they implement proper amour schemes.
-
11 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:
This might not be so far from the truth because training mechanisms are relatively delicate mechanisms. I'm not sure if they should be flipping out at 5" shells, but if they mostly control whether the turret can continue to train, a suitable amount of delicacy might be appropriate and realistic no matter how much armor you tack on them. Maybe the yellow was just an obscure part inside that did not take the 5" inch shells' impact well. Let's see what the final product feels like first.
Well as far as damage goes the training equipment has to be designed to work with the recoil of the guns that sit ontop of them so for a twin 13 inch turret it would make sense for them to get jammed for say an 11 inch shell but somthing as small as 5 inches would for all purposes do nothing to to the barbette. And even then most problems of jammed turrets can be resolved with in an hour.
-
You can assign individual ships their own targets. You need to hold down the ctrl key as you assign a target.
-
4 hours ago, Cairo1 said:
I Frankly Disagree wholeheartedly about a multiplayer focus. While it could be fun to cooperate, or compete with a single friend I would rather see development time spent on improving the designer, and to see a greater level of depth given to the campaign.
further more I would rather see a reduction in technology, no radar, or ships like Yamato, rather 1880-1920 then 1910-1945. the post WWI era of aviation and the carrier while interesting detract from the purity of naval combat and theory that dominated Jutland, Tsushima, and Santiago bay. We should see central battery ironclads or barbette ironclads to the super dreadnought, not carriers, and anti-air cruisers.
While I agree something akin to Naval action with what will be developed from this game could be most enjoyable, I think many of us who are participating here on the fourms and giving our feed back are people with sincere intrest in Naval History, and an apreciation for this epoch in combat, not the casual gamers who grind for rare premiums, or hop into matches for some relaxation.
_Plan.thumb.jpg.4379a1eabfc2d08e4729c77ca05b99f9.jpg)
Based on the what bit of the campain i have been able to play before they patched it out it is pretty much 1880 to 1945
-
1
-
-
If you set ships to AI mode in naval accademy you somtimes see the ai will have the ship retreat after taking damage usually happens with destroyers.
-
On 11/5/2019 at 12:42 AM, Lobokai said:
Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck
Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat
Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat
Same as above
Another night action, this time against a ship not under way
A uboat and a night attack?
We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps
Every website i have seen said the Pommern was only hit by one 12 inch shell which had no apparent effect on her performance and was sunk at 2 or 3 am(some sites cited 2:10 or 3:10) with all hand from a torpedoe hit launched by the HMS Onslaught.
-
Largely speaking fire should should only be causing structure damage and greatly effect the performance of the ship (spotting, accuracy, ect) untill they are put out.
The only way i can realistically see a ship being lost to fire is if the entire ship is lit a blaze and all combat station were rendered inoperable.
-
1
-
-
It is the r and t keys
-
3 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:
I do agree with Absolute0CA.
Historical values on guns would be lovely how ever i would like to extend that to also fit ship classifications.
No more CLs with 9" guns. Ship with 20.3cm guns were considered CAs for it's gun caliber.
No more BCs with 16" guns. Other thing i find slightly disturbing is that some BCs have more armor than BBs and greater speed along side with big guns and loads of big guns.....
I thought BCs were high speed lightly armored semi big gun platforms and not BB replacements.
These are some things i have been noticing when playing the naval academy. AI ships are quite random and not really following the proper parameters of said class they try to be.
Honestly the best BC i have seen is the 18" one
I wondered how the kek it penned my 20" belt armors like hot knife thru butter 
. Surprising? yes but man that was just silly 
Well CLs in the game are more appropriate to call them protected cruisers than light cruisers and historically there had been a few ships armed up to 10 inches as was the case with the Naniwa-class.
-
Honestly i would prefer if accuracy was more uniform across calibers as accuracy was largely determined by fire control and gun tech.
-
4
-
-
i have this problem as well after the i installed the hotfix
-
8 minutes ago, Jay Gatsby said:
Single gun turrets have the same accuracy as multiple gun turrets because the multiple gun turrets have a delayed firing mechanism for each gun to ensure that the recoil of each gun does not interfere with the other.
yes delay mechanism did remove the interference caused by multiple gun turrets but they were not introduced until after ww1 so in game it would have to be a tech upgrade
-
2
-
_Plan.jpg.86b1f7c2c3c2e91a26358d6a2580e502.jpg)
I wondered how the kek it penned my 20" belt armors like hot knife thru butter 
. Surprising? yes but man that was just silly 
Propellant discussion
in General Discussions
Posted
Well unless you are trying to sink tincans then HE is the only way to go. Part of taffy 3's survival in the battle off Samar is in part due to Japan using ap shells which did minimal damage due to over pen.