goduranus
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by goduranus
-
-
I would love to see 1960's 100k ton warship built in 1930 being sunk by my 1960's radar guided antiship missile built in 1930.
-
Stop feeding this thread and just let it die.
-
Also, weapon arc display is especially important when you have ships you did not build for yourself, also especially true for torpedoes. It's often hard to tell which torpedoes are functional, and which ones are destroyed, making it hard to maneuver the ship to line up for a torpedo shot.
-
When you're angling the ship to maximize your armor, you often have to ride on the edge of turret's arc limits, and it is often hard to tell whether the targets are in the arc of every turret or not. I would like to suggest that there be some kind of indicator on the ship status display, of whether the designated target is in the arc of each turret. So that you know if you need to relax on the ship angling to bring more turrets to bear
Also I would like a display of what the turret arcs are on the ship model itself during battle or the ship's status display. Ideally the arc display is hidden until you mouse over a weapon group, to reduce visual clutter.
-
I don't think you would need that for most of the campaign, "Long Range" probably means something like I-400 crossing the Pacific to bomb the Panama Canal sort of range. Most of the battles in European waters probably falls within Short range, and patrols in the Atlantic would be Medium range.
-
1
-
-
So, Lyddite boosts HE but reduces AP, TNT buffs AP but doesn't do much to HE. Why not just choose Lyddite on HE Shells and TNT on AP shells?
-
These were some of the cutting edge naval propulsion technologies available or plausibly available around the time period, suitable for making very fast torpedo crafts, weren't developed for military use in the real world, but were plausibly available to build had the need to do so not been superseded by aviation. Hoping to see these in game to ruin a battleship's day, particularly in the possible absence of airplanes.
Hydrofoil, 35kn in 1909! Imagine That!
QuoteBetween 1899 and 1901, British boat designer John Thornycroft worked on a series of models with a stepped hull and single bow foil. In 1909 his company built the full scale 22-foot (6.7 m) long boat, Miranda III. Driven by a 60 hp (45 kW) engine, it rode on a bowfoil and flat stern. The subsequent Miranda IV was credited with a speed of 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph).[6]
Ground Effect, this one is technically a plane though.
QuoteBy the 1920s, the ground effect phenomenon was well-known, as pilots found that their airplanes appeared to become more efficient as they neared the runway surface during landing. In 1934 the US National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics issued Technical Memorandum 771, Ground Effect on the Takeoff and Landing of Airplanes, which was a translation into English of a summary of research up to that point on the subject. The French author Maurice Le Sueur had added a suggestion based on this phenomenon: "Here the imagination of inventors is offered a vast field. The ground interference reduces the power required for level flight in large proportions, so here is a means of rapid and at the same time economic locomotion: Design an airplane which is always within the ground-interference zone. At first glance this apparatus is dangerous because the ground is uneven and the altitude called skimming permits no freedom of maneuver. But on large-sized aircraft, over water, the question may be attempted ..."[4]
Air Cushion, 70 knots in 1930!
QuoteIn 1915, the Austrian Dagobert Müller von Thomamühl (1880–1956) built the world's first "air cushion" boat (Luftkissengleitboot). Shaped like a section of a large aerofoil (this creates a low pressure area above the wing much like an aircraft), the craft was propelled by four aero engines driving two submerged marine propellers, with a fifth engine that blew air under the front of the craft to increase the air pressure under it. Only when in motion could the craft trap air under the front, increasing lift. The vessel also required a depth of water to operate and could not transition to land or other surfaces. Designed as a fast torpedo boat, the Versuchsgleitboot had a top speed over 32 knots (59 km/h). It was thoroughly tested and even armed with torpedoes and machine guns for operation in the Adriatic. It never saw actual combat, however, and as the war progressed it was eventually scrapped due to the lack of interest and perceived need, and its engines returned to the air force.[4]
In 1931, Finnish aero engineer Toivo J. Kaario began designing a developed version of a vessel using an air cushion and built a prototype Pintaliitäjä (Surface Soarer), in 1937.[8] Kaario's design included the modern features of a lift engine blowing air into a flexible envelope for lift. Kaario never received funding to build his design, however.[citation needed] Kaario's efforts were followed closely in the Soviet Union by Vladimir Levkov, who returned to the solid-sided design of the Versuchsgleitboot. Levkov designed and built a number of similar craft during the 1930s, and his L-5 fast-attack boat reached 70 knots (130 km/h) in testing. However, the start of World War II put an end to Levkov's development work.[9][10]
-
1
-
-
That's this one. There is no English version I believe.
On 11/1/2019 at 1:31 AM, goduranus said:A strategy game with tactical combat like PTO!
-
Ahh, yes! All this talk made me fire the game up and have a go at the game myself. Carriers are even more powerful than I remember. Even this puny 26 plane carrier wiped the floor with the boss ship. I was careless and took a lot of damage from land based missiles, and almost died.
No idea why it's got no sound, it was booming loud in game and I couldn't adjust it, guess the game's just too old.
-
Yeah, but how much do HE shells penetrate? the game doesn't say
-
2
-
-
It seems that HE need to penetrate to do damage? But what is the penetration value of HE shells? Seems like 1-2 inches it will go through, but exactly how much?
-
1
-
-
That game series has 3 PC versions not released in the West, imo are better than the PS2 versions. Later missions can get quite over the top with all the lasers.
-
Wut? Nobody wants a double or triple hull battleship with a drill in front?
-
2
-
-
Sometimes you have a superior navy, and your ships will mostly be chasing the enemy around(Britian), engaging them with your forward turrets and taking hits on the forward extended armor. Other navies are inferior navy(France/Germany), and more hits will come from behind.
So, it would make sense for some navies to put more armor on the front, and others to put more armor on the back.
Also, doing this will help redistribute weight balance. Although, honestly it will probably make weight balance more problematic as you would put more armor in the same place where you have more turrets.
-
1
-
-
I thought this game studio was known for making realistic games, where the reward for playing come not from fast paced action, but from methodical execution of logistics and tactics.
-
Maybe the game could just run in 2x speed as a baseline, and then Slow would bring it to 1x.
-
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.
-
On 11/1/2019 at 5:48 AM, Tousansons said:
The others naval RTS I know doesn't include aviation. And after that there are plethora of turn based wargames, or strange hybrids like battlestation but they are not the subject of UA:D (an RTS)
In the end we both agree on one point. "Yes, but not now."
This PTO is a pretty good naval game, with decent Ship/Air interaction imo. And it's got at least workable armor/penetration mechanics.
-
1
-
-
Oh yes! I found the picture I was originally going to post when I saw the title "ridiculous designs"!!
-
That was flooding.
-
1
-
-
A lot of naval game start the player off with historical countries, but you know how to play these countries optimally by reading history, so it's less interesting. What if the campaign's world map is randomly generated? Or at least it could be on good old Earth, but countries' borders are randomized, and you'd have to work with the resources and constraints of that randomly generated country.
Could spice things up.
-
4
-
-
Crew wouldn't abandoned a ship that's not sinking unless the enemy has clearly won. They'd see if they drive the enemy off and then to tow the ship back. Even if the ship was irreparable, they would at least inspect it for damage analysis.
The current mechanics would result in the ship being instantly lost on the campaign layer as soon as there is too much structural damage.
-
I agree! God damn, show me one battleship that was lost because of structural damage, without flooding or ammo explosion.
-
1
-
-
A strategy game with tactical combat like PTO!
3 Guns 2 Shells
in General Discussions
Posted
Is that really a bug? or just not having good enough towers on your ship to counter the enemy's maneuvers throwing off your aim?