Absolute0CA
-
Posts
261 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Absolute0CA
-
-
Never noticed this but if it’s an issue I’m behind it, and I’ll watch for it in the future.
-
I mentioned this before in my fleet review a while back and totally agree.
-
2
-
-
Right now the formation system is a steaming pile, and can't handle ships of various speeds or battle damage very well if at all... It also handles large groups extremely poorly like i had a group of 80 ships on the one mission, admittedly they were steaming piles of shit, but that wasn't the point the point of it was testing the system and well they can't maintain formation because every time you need to reelect the entire fleet the lead ship changes causing the fleet to turn into an invincible furball, and the same happens if the any of the core lead ships are damaged or you make too tight of turn, with said 80 ship fleet I never even saw the enemy as they were so confused they actually couldn't plot a course where they needed to go and I only managed to get about 10 ships out of that furball with manual control. If they expect this to work in the campaign where there might be 100+ ships in a larger battle they are sadly mistaken.
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, goduranus said:
Where's the source data that says rate of fire should be faster? I read that battleship guns typically manage to fire 2+ round a minute in trials(was it 3 rounds a minute for the Bismark gun in trials?), but during combat generally fired a lot slower, less than 1 round a minute.
Most of us realize that it’s just combat moves at a glacial pace and we want it to go faster, that’s why there was such an uproar over time acceleration dropping when ranges close.
-
13 hours ago, SiWi said:
well right now a turret fires all shots when ranging and then all turrets wait for the turret to be ready again...
which is something I hope the devs change you at least give you the option to change, aka give order to fire at will and not full salvo,.
Agreed, would be nice to set things like 1/3rd of guns used in ranging shots for ships with 3 gun turrets, or 1/2 for ships with 2 or ladder where its one turret at a time. Basically the more options the better options is love, options is life.
Also would be nice to have a Us style "Final Defensive Fire" order for like when a torpedo boat squadron is closing in too close. Lets the ship fire faster for a time but at a cost of a significantly reduced fire speed after.
-
1
-
-
I figured out secondary hit rate/destroyer main battery hit rate for 4" guns was about 1 hit in 1140 shots fired... 2" wasn't much worse at 1 in 1280 shots fired...which is abysmal to say the least. And this was against torpedo boats. Might be higher vs larger ships but this is where it count's and that quite simply isn't workable.
-
4
-
-
Since I took a 2 day break from the forum I'll be spamming replies here for a bit:
To reply to the OP Rate of fire across the board needs to be increased to realistic, and I wouldn't say that the main battery's need to do more damage... but they do need to be brought up to realistic armor penetration capabilities.
-
Unknown battle fleet before its total destruction at the hands of a super battleship.
-
4
-
-
AP works it’s just it doesn’t work as well as it should.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
But muh post doe....😟
Did I ninja you?
-
Actually the issue is that we only got about 2/3rds the AP we should have. The 18” only has 48” at the muzzle when it should have something like 78”
-
Torpedo gyros sucked for more than a 15 degree corner, had risks of torpedoing the launcher when it breaks and causes it to run in a circle.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Illya von Einzbern said:
Every idea and tech can be sold for the right price
Or stolen with enough bribes.
-
1
-
-
Battleship Oregon firing on hostile battleship circa 1902, image taken from rigging of Battleship Virginia.
-
2
-
-
The loss of speed from an external belt was actually shockingly minimal historically only about .25 knots which is almost nothing... unless your dealing with a fast battleship and well that can be another 10-20k horsepower to reach top speed.
-
21 hours ago, Zacplin said:
I hope we can have quard gun turret in the future updates, like the one in Richelieu or King George V.
The French "Quad" was actually a Two-Twin being that it was Two pairs of Twin turrets that were mounted in a single turret and divided by a blast bulkhead so you only lose half the the armament in tested. So TL;DR its not a true "quad" and the British Quad would be more accurately called a 4 gun turret as they each had their own cradle.
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, CenturionsofRome said:
Not to mention that WWII era radars can be knocked out by the percussion of large caliber guns firing.
That was only Bismarck and Tirpitz, everyone else that had radar didn't have that issue.
-
2 hours ago, RedParadize said:
I would not bet on the "make" part. Thick steel is hard to bent in curved shape. Specially for complex curve of hulls. If you are ready to accept the lost in speed simplifying the curve is a option trough.
It’s expensive because the hull structure is a lot more complex rather than have the armor mounted externally which you can easily bolt through the hull. So basically you’re putting holes in your box that is the ships structure for the armor requiring a much more complicated system.
-
1 hour ago, Tyrendian89 said:
Drachinifel does contest like this every now and then for his Youtube channel - sets out the framework and criteria (class, era, displacement etc), and then asks his viewers to send in ship designs that match that using various existing tools. We'd obviously be using the ship designer in UA:D, but the rest could kinda stay the same... maybe once it's fleshed out to a near-enough-finished state (Steam Early Access release or something), the Devs themselves could hold... dunno... one such contest per month, feature the winning designs prominently somehow. Wouldnt really need further prizes either - this isnt some MMO where you can get currency or swag...
That’s where I got idea from and me and him have been talking and we came up with the idea for a collaboration between the UA:D team and him. Where the would put out a free designer only version of the game for his channel to have design contests on.
P.S. Sorry Dev team if I’m not supposed to share this. Have a good day!
-
3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:
Further away weight is form center of mass stronger is the leveler it have in rotation. That matter allot.
You’re not speaking English go back edit this and try again.
-
27 minutes ago, RedParadize said:
Having weight closer to center of mass is a huge advantage in case of flooding.
The issue isn’t too weight with that it’s the amount of unprotected volume on the sides which is more likely to cause the ship to list and roll than the top weight of an external belt, and you have to remember the top deck is the same size what changes is the size of the side plates which means that there isn’t much difference in weight.
-
Actually the internal belt is much more likely to sink as the aforementioned internal volume issues. So I’d rather take an external belt on everything but a fast BB.
-
45 minutes ago, Finwenolofinwe said:
But it severely reduces usable hull volume for a given displacement and means quite some volume can be flooded without even penetrating the belt. The first point sets off the weigt savings gained from being able to angle the plate, which anyway is only really that effective at rather long range (longer than practical battle range even for many WW2 ships)
Yes it’s why Montana’s went back to an external belt internal wasn’t worth it.
-
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:
1
These aren’t the stereotypical ship types you know. Many ships into the 1920s were designed with casemated secondaries. And the CA is actually Armored Cruiser and not. Heavy Cruiser of the Treaty era. And the CL is a protected cruiser not a light cruiser.
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:2
This I agree with we need a lot more freedom here.
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:3
Placement of machinery is definitely lacking.
Also you got Turbo-Eletric propulsion wrong, it’s roughly 10% heavier than geared turbines. Though it has significant advantages in compartmentalization, and ease of manufacturing for a developing nation, and as you mentioned you have all the power now so you can slam reverse without having to bring steam down and up again. One of the US’s Turbo-Eletric battleships actually avoided 2 collisions in 5-10 minutes as the ship inform of them pulled a stupid and turned into their path. So they slammed reverse to avoid, then had to slam full ahead to avoid the ship behind them with the more traditional steam propulsion running into them.
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:4
Been saying this since day one turrets and guns should be split, you can have a high quality gun on an absolute turd of a mount.
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:5
There’s actually a lot more than four torpedo propulsion types. Steam, Electric, Combustion with stored air, O2 enhanced combustion, and obviously there should be speed settings. So at least 5 types of propulsion with at least 3 speed/range settings. Also torpedos don’t spread enough right now we should be able to pick torpedo spread.
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:6
Once again preaching to the quire we’ve been asking for this repeatedly. I suggest you go read all the threads to see what’s already been asked for.
3 hours ago, sRuLe said:7
It’s not, it’s intended as a single player game like Rule The Waves first and foremost.
-
3
-
Has anyone beat "modern Battleship" using more funds?
in General Discussions
Posted
I did it first try with 4 ships with 4x3 15" armed ships since the 15" guns were actually better than the 16" with more funds. Admittedly it was only narrowly, and i had to mirco both my BBs and my DDs.