goduranus

Hmm Lancaster

Edit: Ah, I forgot the other example of attack by land based aviation, the sinking of Force Z

Also, once you've heard about something that works, it's already much easier to build it because you now have a goal in mind, than building it for the first time, without knowing whether it would work or not.

I am not an expert on naval equipment, but when was ship mounted gun stabilizer invented? I imagine trying to hit a 10m tall ship's side would be quite hard at 3km when the ship is rocking with the waves, without some sort of stabilization. For reference that is the thickness of a ~3mm line at 1 meter from your eye, I've been on a freighter once, and I'm pretty sure the ship rocked around a lot of more than that amount.

Seeing there is a hot debate in the Carriers thread, I want to bring your attention, once again to land based aviation.The game is about ships, but ships of the period had to confront the reality of land-based guns, land-based torpedoes, land based radar, and land based aviation, which could be far more threatening than carriers because air groups are far more mobile over land, and land-bases can have so many more planes than a carrier could carry. (Germany used something like ~250 land based aircraft to cover Scharnhorst over the English Channel) In the enclosed seas of Europe, and the island chains of Asia, where carriers would not strictly be needed, air planes launched from land bases would act as recon, drop bombs, drop torpedoes, drop mines, launch rockets at warships, or at least wear the warships down by keeping them on alert as the warships advanced.

Wut man? Tirpitz has torpedoes, and Scharnhorst and Mogami.

I think it would make more sense if fire killed crew that could fix flooding elsewhere, and possibly can also disable the water pumps by burning through their wiring or cutting off the fuel supply.

In a lot of these research and build ship games like PTO, Pacific Storm, Master of Orion etc the player could easily gain an unrealistic technology lead by end game, which trivializes the challenge. I hope technological edge would be subject to more erosion in game, like in real life, where once somebody develops some new technology, it quickly spreads around. Like the turbines, some British guy develops it, sells it to the British navy, but then go to France and try to sell it to France, pretty soon everybody was building their own dreadnoughts. Maybe have it so that in the campaign layer, research cost decreases by 50% for every other great power that has already developed the technology or sth.

It's probably got to do with the fuel mix or funnels you're using, maybe also your ship was too large, which requires a bigger engines and generates even more smoke. Generating too much smoke makes your ship more visible and obscures your own view. Try using cleaner fuels, smaller ship, slower ship, and better towers for spotting.

From playing Silent Hunter, it seems like most WW2 era torpedoes already have gyros that turn them toward any direction after they hit the water. So then, why bother with using torpedo turrets? Why do large ships not simply use fixed tubes like small boats and subs do? or even, just drop torps into the water like depth charges, and then have the torp turn itself toward the gyro heading? Also, gameplay wise, can we get a torpedo gyro upgrade that expands the torpedo launch arc in this game? to simulate these gyros that lets torps turn a little more after launch.

Wait a minute, stern belt extended should lead to ammo detonation! It's less armored, so people just don't put any important stuff there. I shouldn't even do the full structural damage imo, seeing how it is out of the way of most things.

Don't fret so much on carriers, first we need to be sure we get planes or not. It could be land based aviation for all we know.

Carriers are all the rage the the Pacific, but most of European waters are within the range of land based aviation, particularly the Baltic where a war with Russia would be fought. While dive bombers were a 1930's thing, the torpedo bombers were available in World War 1. Planes were crappy back then, but there were no effective AA or fleet based interceptors to stop the torpedo bombers.

Just been curious how they do it. Say if a battleship launches a spotter plane. By the time the plane runs out of fuel 4 hours later, the battleship would presumably still be chasing something, so it wouldn't be able to stop to pick up the plane. Would they detach a cruiser to pick up the plane? But cruiser would have its own plane it needs to recover, and wouldn't have a place to put it. I guess maybe the plane would ditch, then have a destroyer pick up the pilot? Also anyone found any videos of warships actually picking up a floatplane from the sea?

I don't think it really needs to be carriers, it could well be land based aircraft dropping torpedoes and bombs that your battleship will have to contend with. But you know wut, I would like there to be more land based gun and torpedo batteries, and *gasp* coastal defense guided missiles.

I am pretty sure a lot of reasons for shells missing are not simulated, like ship swaying in the sea, and the unstabilized guns of that period shifting with the wobbling of the ship due to off center mounting and stuff like that. Were those effected included in the simulation, shooting a gun accurately from a ship would probably be a lot harder than it looks. I haven't seen ships actually missing from 300 meters in game, maybe it just bounced off.

I often see that small calibre guns would be locked on, while the large guns are still aiming. I am no expert in this matter, but I thought different gun batteries would targeting information, so once a single battery locks on, all guns on the ship would be able to lock on.

Same, also there need to be an option to adjust barbette thickness for both primary and secondaries in the ship designer

@Agathos, sometimes it really is bad luck. RNG can give you a bad streak. My own feedback: I feel that turret are too hard to disable by gunfire compared to real life. In most battles I read about, ships usually would have a a number of turrets disabled before the ship itself goes down, but in game, turrets hardly ever get disabled. I think what's going on in real life is that turret machinery are getting jammed by shock or splinters, so turrets can be relatively easily become disabled by shells that would have been able to penetrate turret armor.

I want asymmetric multiplayer! Where our fleets get uploaded, and fight their great battles under AI control, and we will have tournaments.

What is structural damage trying to represent? I have scarcely heard of any ship that was destroyed without flooding or ammo explosion. Maybe structure damage should just make flooding harder to repair? Or perhaps the health bar is attempting to simulate crew loss? Imo I would prefer a system where subsystems and turrets on a ship were more easily disabled, and the ship becomes abandoned once it loses a sufficient number of subsystems, but the hull itself doesn't get destroyed except by ammo explosion or flooding.

Yeah, in the final mission, guns have 10% chance to hit at 25km with 10 inch deck penetration. It's pretty unrealistic for map to be not big enough for astern battle like that, seeing how it was a common design philosophy for some ships from that period.

On the super battleship mission, I was happily steaming away from the enemy, keeping my ship 20km apart to pen the enemy's deck armor, but some 40 minutes into the fight, my ship hit an invisible wall and got abruptly turned around! Then it was swiftly caught up by enemy destroyers and got torpedoed. Argh, ragequit!

But there's never been a cold war ship building game. Except for Warship Gunner with its outrageous missile spams.

Since late game there'd be radar and all, I suppose once we got radar and ECM, it's only a stone throw away from guided missiles or nuclear power, then we'd get great ships like Ticonderoga and Kirov. The foundations for ship maneuvers and damage modeling already exist, it's only the AI that would need some tweaks to understand how to use these. I'd buy that DLC. It's like how War Thunder started with Operation Barbarossa, then evolved into Jet Age, new ERA, and Lock-on