Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Hangar18

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would disagree that they should be better than reality. The guns don't function that way, the torpedos don't function that way.
  2. but im not basing this off a super battleship. the ship in my post is only 2k heavier than yamato and normal load. I can't even be sure it was max TDS, only the bulkhead count is known.
  3. Must agree that DM is probably the most important thing right now. Here is my experience with torpedoes these are 24" electric torpedoes The structure here was already heavily degraded. after 4 torpedoes somewhat spread across the mid section, and bow lead to the following float. Honestly it did not impair him all that much. and the guns still functioned enough to sink 3 ships. Awhile later, he again took another 3 torpedoes. Again the structure damage here is mostly from battle ships and battle cruisers at point blank. very minimal effect. What I did not show was the cruisers that were getting rocked in one hit. I very strongly suspect this is because they dont have a TDS. Torpedo damage is high. But its mitigated so much by the TDS that it makes it marginal. even areas where no TDS should be present seem to be reduced in damage. Which is something i think we can all agree on, should not be present.
  4. I agree there was a problem here, however im not sure if an outright damage increase was the solution. I think the TDS techs were just a bit strong. But i will gladly test and relay feedback.
  5. for now, i think its acceptable. its a visual thing. Mechanically things are fine.
  6. I'm not exactly sure how it works. But It seems to be decided when the shells leave the barrel what will hit. in other words, the shell flight is for show.
  7. CC was absolutely used for the Lexington class battle cruisers that were later converted to CVs. The designation for the Alaska converts was CBC Large cruiser makes sense because the class really has nothing to do with battle cruisers. They were not capital ships, and in their usage they were supposed to escort, and form up with the cruisers in a screening role, rather than with the battleships. America had a battle cruiser design, and it came with 16" guns. Which for the time period was beefy. The other plans they had were inspired by HMS Hood. 12" guns hadn't been capital ship guns for the USN in 35 years. On the Wyoming iirc. Battle cruisers generally used contemporary guns. In this case, Iowa was the contemporary, but Alaska has nothing close to the 16" guns on Iowa. You can look at any battle cruiser design ever put to dry dock, and you will not find one that resembles Alaska. They will always have the guns of their battleship contemporaries, and they are generally thinly armored, or armored equal to a battleship (Hood, and Iowa sort of.). Even looking at other oddities like scharnhorst and dunkirque, those ships have far better protection that's fit for a battle ship. You can also look into the ships layout, the rudder is of a cruiser design, rather than a battleship with a double rudder. This is because the ships origins are actually from the pensicola class cruisers. So to summarize, The guns were not capital ship level. The usage, and intended usage both indicate its not a capital ship. The armor is unprecedented among any CC designs, being drastically worse in protection of more recent capital ship, but being much better protected than the original concepts The design is of a cruiser, as is evident in the steering gear. The class much more resembles a cruiser that has been expanded, than a battle cruiser of any time period. (The hull form is literally an expanded Baltimore)
  8. Because the USN only had one class of them, the lexingtons. and they were converted to CVs. The Alaska class were not given the CC designation because they weren't battle cruisers by anyone's definition. Large cruiser is very fitting because its what describes them best.
  9. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php ctrl F BC
  10. BC was never used. CC was the battle cruiser designation, which was then retired. It was then applied to command ships, was retired again, and has not been used since. the only context of BC being used is for large command ships (CBC), and that originates from CB.
  11. This is just a small collection of things i noticed that seemed like they needed a touch up. The USN Modern battle cruiser hull cannot mount its historical 5" guns. I don't really think this is going to affect balance, but the copy pasted version in the battleship hull is able to. This has bothered me so much, and i can't believe no one has said anything about it. The battle cruiser abbreviation is not BC, its CC. BC has never been used (ever). The plans diagram, cannot possibly be correct. Stretch out that battle cruiser hull and try to stick a ABX turret layout on there. Lots of empty space but its still very short of what an Iowa should technically be. Beam is in the same category of being slightly off. I realize this is a small detail that doesn't affect gameplay but it will help the game look more polished whenever release comes around. Not a bug, but when going over modules, a tool tip to visibly see the numerical values that will change, would be great
  12. increases your chances of getting hit too by increasing target signature.
  13. I was looking a this recently. If you take radar 2 it almost makes the rangefinder choice pointless. IIRC its at like 10-12km but if you select the range finder, then go back to your gun, youll see the accuracy bump, just switch back and forth a few times and figure out which one is best.
  • Create New...