Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steeltrap last won the day on September 20

Steeltrap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

545 Excellent

About Steeltrap

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Fuze activation required a resistance equal to 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of armor at 0 degrees obliquity or 0.375 inches (1 cm) at 65 degrees obliquity. That's the fusing information from the so-called superheavy USN 16" AP shell, more accurately the 16" AP mk 8 mods 0-8, and the Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (which featured a delay of 0.033 seconds). Gee, a 16" AP shell, and its fuse will be activated by resistance offered by a mere 1cm of armour struck at 65 degrees of obliquity? It DOESN'T ricochet harmlessly even at THAT angle? A question: I wonder had I asked how much armour and
  2. I noticed that, but it also says in the version notes that difficulty is a placeholder and has no effect, which is probably why you can't change it back.
  3. The only reason I write these sorts of things these days generally is in the hope that Nick and the team might see them and give them due consideration. There have been so many nonsensical claims made on this forum over the last 12 months** that some people with VERY extensive knowledge simply got sick of correcting them. Some of them quit after a while, which is a shame because finding replacements for people with many books and thus able to provide detailed citations on the relevant stuff, some of which HAVE been provided in the past to make the point (which of course the people calling
  4. Gunnery Model Issue: Losing and Reacquiring "Target Locked" Modifier Some aspects of the gunnery model/aiming have bothered me for a long time, one of which is the VERY slow regaining of "target locked" status if you've turned so the target is now on the opposite side of your ship. What often happens is if you fire while some of your guns are obstructed, you lose lock. After that happens, it can take AGES to achieve lock again. Here's the problem, however. If you tell your ship to target something else, then tell it to target the original target on which you just lost locke
  5. With respect to the possible differences in fusing it's far more complicated than the issue of time delay alone, given there also are matters of base or nose and caps and a host of other things. Regardless, the explosion of an HE shell on the surface is NOT a penetration, yet the game displays such hits AS penetrations while allowing the same armour to produce a ricochet of AP (which itself is almost entirely BS under those conditions except perhaps in a vanishingly small number of cases). Yet AP bounces almost always, and HE never does. If an HE shell were striking very thin armour
  6. The overhead view is really the one that's best for comparison, if one can find any. The German BBs are the obvious exception to the more "slab sided" general characteristic, as they WERE more teardrop shaped than a relatively equal width down much of their lengths as other BBs tended to have. Bismarck Otherwise the more modern designs of most nations were more similar than different due to the inherent characteristics they were balancing. If you look at the King George V class against say the North Carolina class, they're much more the same than different (USN 'fast'
  7. I took the points @Friedrich was making as an illustration of how the current gunnery model has significant issues because you're often better off doing manoeuvres for no other reason than the penalties they apply given they are greater for what's shooting at you than for you shooting back. In other words, aren't you both sort of agreeing? One saying "this is what the model encourages" and the other saying "well that's dopey because it's NOT generally how things were done". Yet another example of the chronic issue of "we KNOW many of these things, they are well documented. Why aren't
  8. Agreed, except the problem as it stands is we are NOT doing that, not even close. It's still not clear to me what the "it's not meant to be a sim" minded people think of the list of issues I've pointed out. Do none of them trouble them? To be clear, I am not meaning that as any sort of slight for those less interested in somewhat more realistic mechanics, I'm simply curious as to how far from any claim to realism the game needs to be before it will trouble them. As I've said many, many times, I don't expect "realism" because there's no such thing with today's technology. But I won't
  9. I have FREQUENTLY stated that I do NOT expect "100% realism", as though that would be possible regardless. What I DO want is patently ABSURD situations to be addressed. By which I mean aspects that are SO far removed from ANYTHING within even a very generous and broad definition of "reasonable" or "accurate" or, dare I say it, "at least makes some sort of sense". THOSE I want addressed. CLs and CAs that are nigh indestructible because of MAX bulkheads while the pre-dread BB next to them is sunk by 2 hits that cause flooding in the bow and stern and apparently the BB had no transverse
  10. My point was that in 99.9% of cases a secondary build WAS having half a brain because not only was it less than ideal for all other situations, a secondary build on most BBs won't even be very effective against DDs. I would have thought that was perfectly obvious. Who builds full secondary on BBs where that makes no sense? I try to view people in the best light I can, not the worst, and only the worst would be taking full secondary builds on anything other than VERY few BBs. In which case most DDs charging a BB are NOT dealing with secondaries as a great threat. That's the point I made,
  11. Personally I find this introduction of additional bling underwhelming. AI, damage model, armour model and damage control are where things have stalled. Second tier I'd add the other core factors of the gunnery model itself (any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example? LOLWTF), manoeuvring (ship performance but also formation station keeping) and visibility (how do the devs justify early 1900's ships being able to shoot at ships they can't see simply because another of their ships can? I'd really like to know how tha
  12. You're correct, most BB players who take a secondary build DO have half a brain, if that much LOL. Makes largely no sense to build for secondary other than Massa and arguably the Germans, although even there it's not necessarily the ideal build for German tiers 9-10. DD rushes aren't the greatest threat to BBs, although it was true back when I played that the lower tier ones (tiers 4-5) could charge your same tier BB and there was very little you could do due to the absurd dispersion at even close range. No, the greatest dangers are the ridiculous HE spammer ships and CVs. BBs who di
  13. I made a comment a LONG time ago that this game would sink or swim in large part on the basis of the AI. My favourite surface naval combat game was Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-43, released in 1992 (!!). It allowed you to play as German or RN in the Battle of the Atlantic. It had some really great elements to it, one of which for example was the damage/damage control system. It included the rather remarkable ability to "follow" a shell that penetrated an enemy. You'd see it go potentially through a compartment or two then explode. That could also go DOWN decks
  14. This is exactly what I had in mind to suggest, just haven't got around to it. I want to be able to position my ships as I please, not according to a limited available format; think of it as the formation equivalent to having fixed available barbette locations vs more flexibility. No issue with the AI using certain 'vanilla' formations, nor players electing to use them as well. I, however, would like to be able to choose to place my ships, and formations, as I wish if I can be bothered. While it's more programming and thus more work and testing etc, the whole matter of how ships are m
  • Create New...