HusariuS
-
Posts
270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by HusariuS
-
-
11 hours ago, TravisBartlett said:
Prove your Might Mission is broken. Despite many different builds, cannot complete due to low accuracy of main caliber weapons even with main guns researched. It is not fun to be ammo detonation every 5th try or see your DD's get picked off before they can even help. In custom battles DD's are much harder to hit. In this mission, enemy has OP accuracy making the mission not very fun at all. Please re-balance, 7 hours on a single mission is ridiculous.
I have tried conventional builds, forward all builds... Cannot build BC strong enough or accurate enough to complete.
Please balance or turn off some random happenings for a better play through.
OR... give some tips?
Try by using my design:
On 3/3/2020 at 6:30 PM, HusariuS said:Ships of Victory - Prove your Might.
With my 13 attempt... i finally managed to do it!
I won with this design by choosing Main Guns of Lower Caliber & QF, many number of secondaries guns and thick armor.
Instead of trying to win at long range, i've told to myself "f**k it!" and decided to punch him with my Sword.
And i did it.
lol
-
3 hours ago, Ninju said:
Thanks for the surprise!
BTW. Is the placement of the main guns on the IC hull is intentional?
-
5
-
-
Initianing Ramming Speed...!
...and I failed.
-
5
-
-
Rather than using names for Hull like "Modern Battleship II" it would be better to just use the names of the hulls that they are representing, like that: Queen Elizabeth Hull I , Queen Elizabeth Hull II , Yamato Hull I , South Dakota Hull I etc.
You already did that with N3/G3 Hull so why not do this with every hull in the game?
In case there are in the game some generic hulls, you could name them like that: Italian Battleship Hull I , Italian Battleship Hull II , Italian Battleship Hull III , Generic Battleship Hull I , Generic Battleship Hull II etc.
-
6
-
-
Ability to change "Mark" or in other words "Tech level" of armament on our ships would be nice.
For example: If we can use Mark 4 381mm gun, we can change it to the older versions like Mark 3 for more money that we can spend on something different.
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, GUTB said:
Does the game model ballistic computers? I assume that is baked into tower tech levels.
As fas as I know currently, we do not have any sort of ballistic computers for ships, only rangefinder, radar and RDF.
-
2
-
-
Battlecruiser KMS Victoria Louise lead ship of her class:
Designed to perform long-range attacks on enemy convoys and engage cruisers and smaller warships.
Her design was based on the Scharnhorst-class with focus on bigger main armament and increased top speed.
(1099m/s speed for 330mm shells :3 )
KMS Victoria Louise searching for her pray:
Enemy convoy spotted, main guns starts opening fire on them:
Two images taken from her deck:
Soon after first volley hit, the enemy squadron with main force of 1 CA and 4 CL + ~12 DDs started closing in to Victoria, to prevent from sustaining any unnecessary damage and being intercepted by much stronger enemy force, Captain of KMS Victoria Louise, begins to shoot at the enemy cruisers while slowly withdrawing from the action.
Photo taken from HMS London showing HMS Dido showing her sustained damage and capsizing, with fire on board after she was hit by three 330mm shells from KMS Victoria Louise:
EDIT: Fu*k you "Poor sector of fire".
-
5
-
-
It happened to me twice, in both cases on "The US Super Battleship" mission, I do not remember exactly first time when it happened to me, so I will only tell you about the second time it happened to me as it was not long ago:
1. "The US Super Battleship".
2. About 5-8 minutes in real time (about ~1 hour in game time).
3. Zero, my second try on this mission and first mission of the day.
4. Three Battleships and all DDs were spotted and engaged by my only one Battleship, I'm not sure but the game crashed soon after the fourth Battleship showed up.
5. BB Long, DD Medium.
6. 10x until the enemy fleet was spotted, after that I was playing on x5 speed.
7. Yes, both main and secondaries + torpedoes from enemy DDs.
8. No.
-
1
-
-
Rear Tower VII is reversed for some reason.
Hull: Modernized Dreadnought II
Custom Battles + Unlock All + 1940
Graphic: Beautiful
-
I have used Mixed Tech bonus.
Design:
Won 3 out of 5 battles, it's battlecruiser so it's not easy to win against a dreadnought.
You can sacrifice 127mm secondaries for either more armor or bigger main armament but i do not recommend using 330mm guns with balanced tech because of their long reload.
Anti-torp is not needed cuz you are fighting only one dreadnought that will most likely not hit you with torpedoes unless you will get really close, but by that time, he would already eradicate you from existence.
Firepower Tech Bonus is pretty weak, because yes your main armament is much better in every case, but you must sacrifice many aspects of your survivability, including speed.
Surv&Man Tech Bonus is a little bit better than Firepower Tech Bonus but your main armament will suffer incredibly.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:
Ship's size has NO impact on effectiveness of hypdrophones. However, the larger your ship, the more surface you will need to dedicate for hydro to use. That's a structural weakness. Unless you are ok with limited arcs of scanning - but then you'll have to adjust your heading to get a reading from a particular direction.
Additionally, you can never get a reading from an area directly behind your ship. It's called baffles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baffles_(submarine)
If you know good sources of informations about IJN Warships and their equipment like radars, I would be grateful for posting a link for that site.
EDIT: Thanks :3
-
1 minute ago, Shaftoe said:
Why? Did they extend out of the hull and couldn't handle incoming water pressure at higher speeds? Otherwise there's no need for a ship to go so slowly in order to use them. However, if it had particularly poor hydrophone, then it might not have been effective. You need to be a little more precise with your wordings.
Honestly, I don't know about the reason for it.
Maybe I'm poorly searching but every time when i was searching for some electronic things that were used by IJN, I can't find any good source of information.
For example: radars or hydrophones.
I know only that Yamato-class were using Hydrophones Type 0 that were mounted in the bow of the ship and could be used only at low speed or when stationary.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:
In fact, you are incorrect about 5 knots. You are wrong, because you erroneously generalized many uses of hydrophones as if they were one in the same. In fact, same rules apply to nowadays submarines, too.
I know, I was mainly talking about Yamato-class battleships, and they're hydrophone could be used only when stationary or at low speed (like ~5knots).
-
Just now, Cptbarney said:
Didn't iowa and scharnhorst have hydrophonics too?
They should have, but I don't know how effective those were.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The main reason we do not have yet Hydrophones/Sonars in large capital ships, is that usually they were not fitted with them, because of the noise of their engines and thickness of their hulls, their results would be not accurate. Maybe we can allow some hulls to get this as a special option, but we need more opinions on this matter.
As far as I know, Yamato-class battleship were using hydrophones, they were installed somewhere in the front of the ship and could be used only when stationary or at very low speed (below 5 knots if i'm correct).
-
3
-
-
Yep, it happened to me once in Alpha-4 when I was doing my first try on that mission but i didn't experienced it anymore.
-
Battlecruiser III Hull have a "placement" for short barbette, but it is incorrectly placed.
-
23 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Hmm havent ran into problems like that so far with miss trento, i dont think trento had 3 turrets and 2 at back. Think she had 4x2 203’s i believe.
once my pc is free ill see if i can replicate the problems
The best design i could make:
But that empty space....
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, madham82 said:
I meant 3 turrets in the forward section, not triple barrels. Is it even possible with the new hulls to get this to work without a huge weight offset?
Oh ok.
About possibility...
-
2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Why is she broken? I know you cant fit the fat funnel at the back. Thats the only problem i’ve had.
Using best towers possible, you might encounter trouble with weight offset, unless you don't mind having only two main turrets.
At least I was having problems with her weight offset so maybe i'm just broken.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, madham82 said:
There's being a stable platform for gunnery and there's being stable for sailing in rough seas. If I remember, those IJN cruisers were not stable in rough seas and suffered hull damage. Believe one British naval expert seeing the specs on them mentioned something about them being made of paper or the Japanese were lying about their specs 😁. They also had triple forward turrets.
Triple turrets were used only by the Mogami-class before they were rearmed to 5xII 203mm Turrets instead of 5xIII 155mm.
Yep, but they managed to repair that stability later in the war.
-
But this hull is just broken:
-
40 minutes ago, dasHopsili said:
modern light cruiser hulls like this are pretty awful since they allow very little creativity. they have just 1 spot for both main and secondary tower and their weight ofset is so horrible that you cant use 2 front guns on them. also the auto designer creates horribly inblanaced ships with -50% weight instability pretty much making the japanese light cruisers unuseable
.thumb.png.bc888faa46ecb98a8595267570713691.png)
Not every modern cruiser was at least having two turrets at the front of the ship.
For example:Königsberg-class
Leipzig-class
It really depends on the hull.
Besides, some ships in reality didn't have best stability, if I'm not mistaken, Takao-class cruisers and Mogami-class cruisers suffered from instability of the hull (it was later repaired in some way but I do not remember how they did it).
-
Second screenshot:
-
2
-
.png.2a6d794e84c7e1298deac0753c3f030c.png)
>>>Alpha-5 Feedback<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
I like when my ships look beautiful.
So yes, you can get rid of that 2.2% fore weight offset.