Absolute0CA
-
Posts
261 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Absolute0CA
-
-
Just had a thought that kinda relates to this: There's UA: Age of Sail right? what if you could continue its campaign play though into this game? And cover say half a millennium.
-
1
-
-
Lol if you think that's enough you're sadly mistaken.
here's the specs on the super Yamato's 18" mark V with SHS note the penetration figures.
Edit: Note those are inches of iron, not what every armor you happen be using so multiply armor thickness by 1+(multiplier)
-
1
-
-
We need to be able to converse with them as we literally rip apart everything they've tried so hard to achieve as harsh as it sounds, what they imagined is likely not what their players want and they should see to their players wants and needs to have the best game possible.
-
3
-
-
Maybe a Dev topic of the day/week thread where they pic what topic out of a list of community submitted concerns to cover. Ideally the suggestion thread would be done via a vote system where posts with the most likes would be given the highest priority.
-
3
-
-
52 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
Hence, the drive engines selection comes first, then as exactly as you've said "boilers were designed" next.
You of all people should appreciate that the wording is very important to apply correct application and description, you know as to all your postings of historical authenticities.
I don't think the designer tool will ever be develop to point of machinery placements (and weight off sets), it was suggested months ago and soon after announcement too but wasn't develop, this would be the closes practical solution to the cause.
I think we're talking past each other. Back in my fleet review thread I mentioned we should be able to pick boilers, fuel type, "engines" all individually. I think I may just not be getting how you're saying what your saying.
Edit: Yeah I had a total brain fart, IMHO boiler count doesn't matter didly squat as it would be directly to speed after boiler type, fuel, hull, and engines are all selected, so its very much a moot point stat IMHO
-
10 minutes ago, G777GUN said:
When a ship get its speed reduced the last thing I want is for that ship to block the rest of the line,
I agree and i didn't mean a 180 degree turn I meant turn about 30 degrees so it takesitself out of the path of the rest of the fleet while detaching.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, G777GUN said:
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?
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.
-
1
-
-
I disagree with this as its a purely semantic argument as boilers were designed for the design speed of the ship. What we do need though is Large and Small tube boilers and low, mid, and high pressure boilers.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Christian said:
that seems uhm kinda heavy
The dev's kinda had a critical research failure when it came to shell weights, like the Us 18" SHS was only 3850 lbs which is a far cry from the 2421kg projectile in game which is well over 5500 lbs if I remember my conversions right.
-
Totally agree, hope they let us import modded turret appearances.
-
2
-
-
What the hell did I just I watch?
I don;t have a clue but it was funny.
-
if a ship tried to fire in that condition it would backfire horribly.
-
very good idea, and maybe a ship previewer so we can take pics without being in battle.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Accipiter said:
lol you guys can't be serious about that connection between upper and lower belt,
Actually I am, though historically it was more against torpedoes that it failed but it did, resulting in flooding that if it had been up to par wouldn't have happened. This flaw weakened the Yamato's TDS by over half.
-
You need to do research my friend. Outside of a few Japanese destroyers and below water torpedo tubes, reloads weren't a thing, and the thing you have to remember with Yamato was those were air dropped torpedoes not ship launched 21"-22" ones. I understand your fallacy but please go do your research before you make an argument. And in game torpedo hit rate is hilariously too high. I'm averaging between 16.6% to 25% hit rates on torpedoes when historically they were at best 1-3% depending on circumstances.
-
3
-
-
Honestly would be cool to not only have randomized nations but also a map editor so we may create our own adventures, and maybe an option for all AI players because there's always tht time you just want to watch what insanity they get up to.
-
UA:D Torpedoes are more reliable, but far less damaging the general consensus is that we want reduced torpedo loads AKA no reloads or few but torpedos that do massive damage like IRL. Right now we got BBs that can take 15-25 22" torpedoes which is bloody insane. So you got it somewhat wrong.
-
6
-
-
The only weak section of armor is the obvious split between the main and lower belt that anyone with a partial sense of design should have caught as the major flaw that it was.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:
I suspect it's as much the damage model as the accuracy, although @Absolute0CA's example of accuracy numbers are a bit of a worry (were they all firing at near max ranges?). I sometimes set my guns to "save" so I don't waste so much ammo where the hit rate is only 2-3%.
Not sure of the solutions.
It was 2-4 km not super range but not point blank for it either.
-
You more or less said what is on everyone else's minds so... not much to say here.
-
12 minutes ago, DeiLwynnA said:
there are no friendly dds on the modern battleship mission, only have whatever you design/build
Whoops, got missions mixed up, yes I have with a pair of 16" armed ships though they have to have a minimum of 30kn and a 5" deck otherwise your borked.
-
Well bigger the target silhouette the more likely they are to get a solid lock... so I'm pretty sure it makes a difference though how much of a difference I don't know, and don't quote me on this either as i haven't studied it.
-
@goduranus to expand on my previous comment that was really inadequate. Fixed torpedo tubes were used up until the nelson class with Rodney being the last ship equipped with them, and the only ship to fire and hit something with their below water torpedo tubes in battle. The original idea wasn't so much for in the middle of combat as it was for finishing off crippled ships after the battle had finished. Though these below water torpedo tubes were massive compartments that if hit and were flooded were a dire threat to a ships operational capabilities. Though a torpedo detonation was considered an almost nonexistent threat it was still a flaw in a ships protection. Also you couldn't go faster than about 5 maybe 10 knots otherwise the torpedo could get either stuck or snap in half neither of which is desirable. It also required aiming the ship to aim the torpedo tubes and in the era they were employed you would get at most a 10 degree course correction after firing if the gyros were even adjustable at all.
-
1
-
-
Would love to at least have the option, more options is always good.
Submarines, Coastal Forts, MTB’s?
in General Discussions
Posted
Another good example why we need communication with the dev team we like to know how this stuff is coming.