G777GUN
-
Posts
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by G777GUN
-
-
6 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:
The really should just fall out of line by turning to the side so the rest of the line can pass, there's a reason why its called falling out of line and not turning out of line. The damaged ship keeps orientation to the line if at all possible as to disrupt the battle line as little as possible.
When a ship get its speed reduced the last thing I want is for that ship to block the rest of the line, which happens ingame quite a lot because its turns a full 180 in an attempt to sail to t the back of the line. When using a line of pre-dreadnoughts the ships are already slow and they are more of a pain when this happens.
Took a bit of time but here be images:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iz_AUbpGz8Z5kXq5KYNaTZoqveQky6g7
Here is my suggstion to the DEVs.
Instead of making the ships attempt to go to the rear of the line just make it so the damaged ship just detaches from the line. For now. The player can then decide what to do with the damaged ship. -
Okay. I get why they made the ships turn round ingame, mainly because they slow down the fleet but shouldnt they just make the okay ships overtake the damaged ship?
QuoteAccuracy was not its main forte! We never made small changes to try to match every tiny change station, but rather larger changes to keep our spot. Trying to make micro speed adjustments to huge steam plants is a losing game.
Makes sense. Especially in different weather conditions where maintaining a ideal speed is near impossible. I think a lot of navies as like that.
Hmmmm. Can I ask... Since you are basically the shield for the aircraft carrier what where to happen if your ship took too much damage or had an engine failure. Like lets say an actual conflict, what would be the course of action.
Abandon ship and sink it (if not already sinking). Or if anything happened to the carrier... would you just do the same thing and abandon the carrier, take on whatever survivors and sink it. If ofcourse you cant get the ships back?
Or fight until the very last bullet is used?
-
Now with saying that /\ it looks the DEVs will have to sort out what shell types and how many they will aloow a player to carry in their ships.
-
2 hours ago, Hellstrike said:
There were also 15 inch HE shells with up to 102 kg (224 lb) of Lyddite. Which is five times the weight of the AP bursting charge.
And AP bursting charges varied by up to 20% depending on the nation. The German ones were around 18 kg, the Italian ones 22kg (380/381 mm shells)
Unfortunatly there isnt much cited showing HE to be effective in history. I think HE was mainly used just used against weak targets or to mess up ships. at close range.
But mind though its HE it doesnt mean that it wont be able to blast through armour (or even belt armour depeding on a few bits of data, what it made of, how thick is the belt and how much can the HE can blast through. Think of the KV-2 (the russian derp tank), that thing killed Tigers in History using basically HE power.
But most of the time in history everyone was just using AP since it was destructive enough even against lightly armoured or no armour targets. Because fragments, breaking stuff, killing people and causing flooding
Come to think of it this entire segment gives you an idea of just effective HE was:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php
"Outfits for all battleships and Renown were originally limited to APC. The Renown class later carried 60 APC and 60 CPC, then 72 APC, 24 CPC and 24 HE and at the end of the war carried carried 84 APC and 36 CPC per gun. The Courageous class were originally designed for 80 rounds per gun but this was increased to 120 rounds following the Falklands battle, where ammunition expenditure was very heavy. The Courageous class initially carried 72 APC, 24 CPC and 24 HE but all HE was replaced by mid-1917 and the immediate post-war outfit was 36 APC and 84 CPC per gun. The Royal Sovereign class may have carried 104 rounds per gun as commissioned. In the 1920s, 6 shrapnel rounds per gun were added to most battleships while the outfit for Renown was changed to 96 APC, 24 CPC and 6 shrapnel rounds per gun plus a total of 70 practice rounds. As completed, Hood had an outfit of 289 CPC, 672 APC, 30 shrapnel (stored only in the bow shell rooms) and 82 practice rounds. After her 1929-1931 refit, she carried 160 CPC (TNT burster), 640 APC (Shellite burster), 48 shrapnel and 96 practice rounds. The three follow-on "Admiral" class battlecruisers would have had their outfits reduced to 110 rounds per gun for "A" and "B" turrets and to 100 rounds for "X" and "Y" turrets due to changes in arrangement of the magazines and shell rooms - see the Mount / Turret Notes below for additional information. In the latter years of World War II, surviving ships replaced five APC rounds per gun with HE unless they were assigned to bombardment missions, in which case the proportion of HE was greatly increased. Outfits for monitors during World War I was 10 CPC and 90 HE per gun while during World War II it was 30 to 60 APC or CPC and the balance HE. Monitors usually carried 8 practice shells per gun. HMS Vanguard when commissioned carried 95 APC, 5 HE and 9 practice shells per gun."In short HE does not look effective if they didnt bother carrying much of it. It had reasons to be on a ship but not much use out of it.
-
2
-
-
I just spam torpedoes on some missions. Lately I am just testing different design ideas for when Campaighn comes out. My brother wants me to get him the game but will wait till they develop the game a bit further.
I feel somewhat envious though. If my predictions are right. Each country will be able to develop tech from history and even the ones that were on the drawing board. Yikes.
-
5 hours ago, Christian said:
yeah they dident really have anything better
the major problem is that 18 inch guns in game from 1930 penetrate less Iron armor than a 12 inch gun in real life
Ah. Well I hope in future you can change the weapons for the year they were created and per country.
I mean I dont normally go by the games standards as I said earlier it will just be basic data until (in short) the game improves. In game you have some very unrealistic guns like triple 15 inch guns in a British style round turret. Or Yamato style triple 17 inch turret that can be fitted to a HMS deadnaught hull in Destroy a full fleet mission. Even if the gun is a tad bit smaller I dont think this will fit on HMS dreadnaught.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-45_mk10.php
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1.phpI wouldnt mind the British single 18 inch gun in game. Despite its drawbacks. Designed in 1915 with development most likely from the from guns of the time period. I bet this gun does far better than any other gun for the time.
TO ALL PLAYERS THE GAME IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT-
1
-
-
Great photos of battledamage. Amzing how accurate the japanese were. You can see in one photo that there is a ship that lost both its gun barrels on one of its turrets.
-
Right.
I have went through all the missions again on FANTASTIC setting.
No problems encountered. -
USE TORPEDEZEZEZ PEOPLE. Force them to sink for now. I always fir torpedoes to ALL my ships. Even if they are just 15 inch they will still cause flooding.
-
55 minutes ago, akd said:
“Salvaging” crew from abandoned / sunk ships would be an excellent ancillary role for destroyers.
Good idea.
I ran over my crew.
By accident. Poor souls
Short story:
Somehow the enemy AI ship decided that DESPITE burning and half sunk could have impecable accuracy despite my guns still having problems hitting the bloomin target at 500 meters. I pulled up alongside... fired torpedoes... waiting for the impact... BOOM.... Detonates my rear magazine and ship sinks.
Then the Battleship behind the that blew up went over the lifeboats at 40mph+ and some of those boats dissapeared into the hull and were never seen again. It was the mission where you must chase down two enemy battleships.
Wouldnt mind if they put in exploding lifeboats animation in the game. Heck why not crew morale aswell. -
3 hours ago, Christian said:
of course for the time period it wasent a particulairly great gun (on top of the ship only having one gun) but it still shows just how much iron plate could be penetrated by a sub par shitty gun firing a shitty shell
iron armor is so brittle and easy to dent that bouncing shells off of iron armor is almost impossible as the shell will just dig into the armor unless its at a very high angle
the armor is REALLY bad
another example is the 12 inch gun on the canopus class
bit more modern its from 1890
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-35_mk8.php
this also brings into perspective just how shit the 16,25 inch gun was because it actually performed worse than a 12 inch gun made around the same time
Well it was just what they had for the time period. Everything was well... crappy. Plenty new ideas still being integrated and such for the time period. Heck even the link for that big gun it, says it was "too ambitious". Heck that gun was only tech development.
About the armour. Still Iron was better than nothing if thats your only choice.
Still Iron can deflect incoming shells if the angle is just right but against a gun head on at point blank. Oh crap. -
2 hours ago, Christian said:
Krupp and harvey nickel steel is actually quite comparable at thinner thicknesses but krupp becomes better at thicker thicknesses (mostly due to the hardening process of krupp having less of a deep hardening advantage on a thin plate)
also as pointed out Iron Plate armor is pretty trash
a gun from 1888 firing a non capped shitty ap shell http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php
can penetrate
also yes that means currently out 18 inch gun which has 36 inches pen maximum at point blank is comparable to a 1888 16,25 inch gun
It depends if the folks that made the game have went through this yet. I dont think they have. The guns are pretty much just basic data (if you can call them that :p) the same as the armours, for the moment until different nation guns are implemented.So far Iron Armour is just there to be armour to deflect the standard AP projectiles. One could argue that its the projectiles that also should be looked into and changable, again thats a future thing.
But for now got to help them make just basic combat more realistic.
If you put that gun in the game, that monster 16.25 inch cannon. It would most likely miss despite being so powerful (which they even say in your link). And even if it did hit it might bounce off. Thus making Iron armour not a bad idea for the time period.
Bet that gun would cause some very serious flooding if it did hit. -
On 10/28/2019 at 11:51 PM, RedParadize said:
I must have spent 500 16" shell on it just to get it from 12% to 6%, not even exaggerating. That ship only have a barbette and few casemate guns left above the waterline, but because I can't get on his side his engine and middle hull can't get hit. This is a bit annoying.
I can just hear the echoes of dead captains from WW2 and WW1 calling BS to just how much damage that ship has and its STILL sailing about. However have you tried using AP. Even so....
Okay here is an idea. CO2 poisoning. Lets be honest there is no way those people in that ship are still able to breathe. Damage control is gone. Wounded are everywhere. There is no working vents or structure for that matter. The crew is pretty much wiped out above deck. Heck the funnels are destroyed.
The ship is basically dead.
BUT I bet that ship can still hit you a few times even with its casemate guns which are saying LOCKED. There is no more command structure also, its gone.
This ship would be blind and manuevering would be impossible. Btw that thing would be killing the crew at full power.-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Yes pls, izumo, nelson, dunkerque and other funky styles would be really cool to have, plus gives more interesting ways to play.
That ship there looks like the izmail, such an awkward turret scheme for angling lol.
I think its the Gangut. Or suppose to be. Never heard of the Izmail. Will look it up later.
The turret design is actually not a bad idea. Just means your ship can be shorter and better armour protected around the vitals. One big downside is you cant mount any deck decondary guns. So in WW2 it might be a problem. Because planes.
Another thing is that the game does not take into consideration top weight. This russian ship would be far more stable than others.
Not to mention that angling is something this shiip could do well while engaging or retreating. Stay at 45 degrees of your target and that armour give an effective thickness of 300mm's or more.
-
2
-
-
How do you open the development console because somthing came up.
Also where would one normally find the log/txt file for the Devolopment console. -
I have noticed improvements in the gunnery. Still though just because you dont have the best tower still dont mean that it should miss at point blank range. Which is what he is on about. Its just not hitting the target that can be frustrating.
5 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:I have to remind that small damage is not shown in floating info. Secondaries might hit often, making small structural damage, igniting fires and flooding, but this is now not visible in UI. You can check the ship damage window and it should include the full update of damage according to sections being hit.
-
Can the Devs plz make the parts of the ships just go anywhere the player wants?
I want to be able to build a Nelson class BB instead of the generic usual ships.
-
7
-
-
On 10/25/2019 at 9:37 PM, Asthaven said:
Small caliber guns still have blind gunners.
16% Hit chance, that's how much I got while being 200m away from enemy ship. Not to mention that enemy was nearly stationary and so did Helena.
During 5 minutes, Battleship that was 4 km away managed to score more hits from main battery than these two cruisers all together
Agreed. Small caliber guns are just too inacurate. Within 500 meters all negative figures that make the gunners innacurate should be lifted. Its even worse against TB's especially on a rough day because they spend most of the time sailing like bloomin submarines.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:
I finished "SuperDreadnought or Battlecuriser" mission a few minutes ago, on the first try. Everything seems to be working as it should.
What graphics are you using. I am going throaugh all the missions again.
-
Right...
My game was updated and I have noticed a new feature. It now has a automatic time slowdown. This is extremely helpful as the game does not feel so choppy anymore. I used to have to slow down the game myself if I felt it was going to crash.
I have also managed to pass the new missions. The new mission 'Defeat the Semi-Dreadnaught' was beaten on the first try. It went like this.
Let the game to play as normal aka x1 speed, and set the ships up for combat.
Then oncethats done I set to x5 to let the ships get in posistion then begin my attack move.
Once the enemy fleet is sighted I generally reduce speed to x2 however the game automatically did this for me. Which is really good. It also shows the game starts to get stressed when multiple ships are in play.
I mangaged to pass the entire mission and only had 6 ships left. You cant see the Light Cruiser as it is offscreen. I could of increased the speed as the game would of allowed me to do so since so many ships were sunk, but then being so close to the enemy and the threat of torpedoes it is not advisable.
I will go through a few of the older missions again. The biggest issue looks to be sorted but will check just to be sure.
What I will do is set the graphics to the maximum. I normally keep it low for games like these especially since its in Alpha. What I mean is, what people must remember. There are a TONN of calculations the game must make so try and go easy on the game itself and dont rush it.
-
2 hours ago, Asthaven said:
90 to 100 would be too much, It would make for very one sided and unfair battles at times. But it should be no less than 75 - 80%
Some battles IRL could be classed as unfair. But then war is war.
I remember when I put player controlled ships into Silent Hunter 4 and seeing the AI trying to hit a target at long distance was time consuming. But merchant ships... turn off the AI and get close, when you got close as 2000 yards you manually operate your big THIC turret and aim at the poor Liberty Ship.
And thats with a Admiral Graf Spee aka best merchant raider
-
3 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
Looks like projectiles are 'psuedo physical' but are actually just RNG pellets like in Homeworld 2.
Huh...
Considering Homeworld 1 could do physical kinetic projectiles in the 90's, I think we can do that too.What annoys me is IF you hit anything else then technically it should count as an actual hit. So I hope they fix this.
But now its RNG system looks the shells have a mind of their own. I mean look at this? These shells should not disperse this much at such a close range. The shells should be bunched together since they dont have enough time to disperse. Maybe the barrell was bent?
I
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, sarrumac said:
Merchants do absolutely nothing to my BBs. i do not know what is going on there.
Merchants guns are not exactly powerful. But I guess some were armed with 6 inch guns. Anything less will just bounce off a BB.
-
After 17:45 watch the shells pass through a ship without causing any harm. Now why is that???
>>>Combat Feedback<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
30 degrees is acceptable. Its just enough to let ships past. Problem is the way the game works right now is it would be easier just to make the ships detach from the line. I completely agree that the ships should not detach from the line but right now its the short term solution because easier for the game developers to do. An auto detach feature when ships are too damaged.
Right now how the ships work is pretty standard movements. In the future they will most likely make ship movements more complex. However making a ship a ship wait while the line goes foward and wait to get to the rear of the line to follow the very last ship might be a stretch for now. Depends if the DEVs can do it.