Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Steeltrap

Members
  • Content Count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

146 Excellent

About Steeltrap

  • Rank
    Midshipman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks. I suspect it won't matter given people are unlikely to revisit and change their votes, but appreciate you taking the time to do it. There already was a CV thread. I suspect adding it here is going to confuse things. General rule of polling? Work out what you want to know and from whom, limit the scope, ask clear and unambiguous rather than potentially misleading questions. Cheers
  2. Challenging an idea is NOT "being toxic". Personal attacks, I agree, are a different matter, yet I'm not aware of anyone else stooping to that level. I thought this is a forum where people get to discuss the merits and pitfalls of the game and/or ideas on how to change it. If people can't handle discussing ideas directly yet politely, their own or others, I suggest the problem is theirs and not everyone else's. If people want to add A when there are grounds to argue A does not fit in the game's stated aim of accurate and realistic portrayal of the various naval weapons and ships built through the period covered, why shouldn't someone provide that counter point? The topic is planning next upgrades. Which means opportunity costs, which means saying choose A over B, or even don't do B at all. If I think A is preferable to B yet you feel the other way around, are you suggesting neither of us ought to comment to that effect? If so, the thread could just become an endless wish list with the devs none the wiser as to what or why or when. Nor sure how that helps anybody.
  3. Someone added screenshots of the damage and damage control models from Great Naval Battles (not sure which one). I've said many times it had the best systems for those things I've ever seen. The "GNB of the North Atlantic: 1939-43" also had a "shell tracker" so you could trace the progress of a hit on an enemy. If it went though armour you could see it go into a number of compartments before exploding and causing fires, or if it was a hit that included holing the target on the waterline you could see it start flooding. For your own ships you had limited crew resources to allocate when it came to stopping flooding or stopping fires. You also had limited pumping capacity, and you could also counterflood. It really focussed your mind on what was THE most critical thing to address. Included multiple decks and an entire armour v penetration system etc. You can see the location of various vital systems, too. "GNB NA 39-43" was released in 1990. Contemplate that for a minute, lol. ======================================================================================== I want this: Advanced damage control system.
  4. I have pointed out many times that "Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-43" had by far the best damage and damage control models I've ever seen in any naval warfare computer game, and that was released in 1990 (FFS!!!). Thanks for taking the time to add screenshots.
  5. The one good thing we know is the damage model, including the whole armour scheme re citadel etc, not to mention damage control and crew resources etc, are all either missing or rudimentary. I had fun the other day using a BC in the 'Armed Convoy' mission I used to test various ideas. It has a fore and aft mounted 2x9" turret, then another fore and aft 2x8", and another 2x8" in each wing turret position broadside for a total of 4x9" and 6x8". I built it as part of experiments on what the recent changes to 'secondary' guns can have at certain periods of tech in the game. Anyway, I hit a Transport (11,000t) with 14x9" and 22x8" HE rounds in the space of about 90 seconds. It had maximum bulkheads. It got down to about 6% floatation and had loads of fires. I stopped firing to confirm what I suspected. Sure enough, it survived. Same battle I sank a pre-dreadnought BB with 3 penetrating hits that caused flooding. I had a few other 9" and 8" bounce, sure. Thing is, it sank in less than 3 minutes from the time I fired on it from about 6.5km. At least we and the devs all know it's bonkers. I had written somewhere, possibly even in this thread, that I think bulkheads ought to have certain restrictions when it comes to the AI. It ought NOT allow the AI to build BBs with lower than "standard" bulkheads, for example. The difference it makes is HUGE at present, let alone if a BB has 'many' or, lord forbid, "maximum". I also believe there need to be a clear difference between the consequences of a high bulkhead count on a Transport and a warship and also BETWEEN various warship classes. Merchant ships up to and including WW2 had relatively little compartmentalisation, with tankers proving the most durable as their tanks worked as compartments. For tankers, their cargo was less dense than water which also helped, although of course this assumes the tanker didn't explode in a mass of burning fuel, or go off like a giant bomb if carrying aviation fuel. Merchants are not built in the expectation of explosive munitions hitting them, warships are. Equally, you can build a 'relatively durable' CL but there's no way you can make one that will soak the sort of punishment that a pre-dread BB, or even a proper armoured cruiser, can take. Right now the bulkheads are a blunt instrument that affect degree and spread of flooding, controlling of flooding, and the same for fires. I would expect a more developed system, including addressing the things you've said, ought to correct this. Most ships, including warships, will be compartmentalised to the extent that is warranted by their anticipated use. Battleships have high levels of compartmentalisation in part because of their sheer size and that they, more than any other warship, were expected to dish out and receive hits from the most potent naval weapons available. Lighter warships still seal off engine spaces, boiler rooms, magazines etc at least to some extent. They're more easily holed as the protection is far less than a BB, and they also have much lower buoyancy reserves, yet they still have certain basic compartmentalisation requirements. Meanwhile, as @RAMJB and @akd are discussing, bulkheads and damage control are interesting topics. I know the USN in WW2 very quickly communicated their lessons from early Pacific battles, one of which pertained to flooding. They made very clear that the most dangerous period for any ship that was holed in any way was the first 10 minutes and, most specifically, maintaining lateral stability as best as possible. This meant as much focus needed to be put into counterflooding to the degree the ship could do so and the damage allowed as containing the flooding itself. To paraphrase our friends' discussion, the best compartmentalisation means diddly squat if you capsize, lol. Anyway, I'm sure it will improve. Right now, however, it does result in some rather daft results, lol.
  6. I was using that statement or variations on it as far back as Alpha testing of WoWS in which I was involved, LOL. Here's a chart that the Royal Navy used as part of their wargame rules of 1929. It does a great job of highlighting the strong element of diminishing returns; you can get from 0 to 20 knots or so in most of these vessels in 10 minutes, but getting from there to the theoretical top speeds can take ANOTHER 20 or 30 minutes after that, even for DDs (V&W Class, Amazon and Ambuscade) or cruisers (County Class, Leander). I suspect anyone who's played WoWS will find it rather shocking. 😮 (Source: http://hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs4.htm ) Cheers
  7. As a general comment on polls, I have worked on them (internal/staff and external/customer directed) for major corporations in the past and I can attest writing good ones is not as simple as it seems. One thing, for example, is you ALWAYS ought to provide a "don't know/undecided/want more info" option. Faced with a blunt yes or no, most people will vote 'yes' if the topic is something they think they might want, even if they do so simply to avoid being seen as saying they don't want it and influencing the devs to rule it out. If I reveal the results on this, we have 33 votes with 87.88% (29) choosing "yeah". That's no surprise whatsoever, in part due to what I said above. To be blunt, the more a poll delivers a massively one-sided result the less valuable it is; commonly due to the topic or potential flaws in its design, or both. The problem I have with polls like this is they are generally inadequate in their specifics. What, for example, is meant by "support aircraft"? Does that include the "fire and forget" fighters mounted on ships in convoys, especially the Arctic ones, designed to intercept scouts like the Fw Condor either to drive them off or hopefully shoot them down? I'm not at all having a go at you for putting up the poll, it's just I find it mildly frustrating that people say "yes" without having enough relevant info to make an informed choice. Let's face it, most of us are ALWAYS happy to have more features and toys, lol, so I'm not saying I'm any different from everyone else. 😁 If we ARE going to make polls like this, we owe it to each other AND the devs to flesh out what we mean BEFORE we ask the questions. I'd suggest saying "we want another bunch of things that require development work but we've no specifics so you work it out" is not very helpful, lol. This was pretty much exactly the point I was making over and over in the "should CVs be included" thread. If you implement them accurately, they alter the nature of naval warfare irrevocably. Bear in mind, too, that whatever ends up on a CV starts off as land based. Not especially relevant in the Pacific, but anywhere you're operating within land based range it is. That's a large zone around Europe including the Med. I have no particular issue with scout planes. My own preference is they add to the ability to spot things at the strategic map level but have NO role in combat. I know spotting planes were used quite a bit with shore bombardments, but I don't recall them being common or significant in the ship v ship gunnery combat that occurred in WW2, and the 40s are the "end game". Cheers p.s. I didn't vote because an "undecided/need more info" option wasn't available.
  8. Hope these are of some use. 'Full' salvo with turrets firing simultaneously = 5 shells. Note that I have some manual rudder applied, hence my questions about whether it's something to do with changes to the ladder aiming system as I know making hard turns can through a target out of lock. I also saw last night that the target lock status was flicking for a fraction of a second to 'ladder aiming' but going back to locked yet both turrets fired. As an aside, I've also found that if only ONE of your main turrets can fire it immediately puts the target out of lock even IF the initial lock was achieved by that single turret. Not sure why that should be the case, as it means if you're choosing to use only fore or aft turrets you get initial lock but then lose it and have to go through ladder aiming again. 'Staggered' salvo where turrets fire with slight separation = 6 shells. Don't believe I had any rudder applied, and that might not be the cause anyway as I can't say for certain the 5 shell simultaneous firing doesn't happen when rudder is neutral. I have more that show how the ship was firing a few 5 shell salvos then shifting to the 6 shell staggered for a few then back to 5 shell simultaneous. I took a few screenshots so the ammo count changes are apparent, but these 2 images take up my available space. If you want to PM me somewhere I can mail I can do that if necessary. As I said, I don't like those hosting sites due to their cookie and other policies and I don't have a 'general' email account just my personal ISP one.
  9. I've noticed on my designs using triple main gun mounts that sometimes they get stuck with one turret firing only 2 guns even when the target is locked (so not ladder firing). Specifically, this is on designs mounting 2x3 main gun turrets, one mounted in the bow and the other near the stern. Interestingly, I've found this appears to be tied to WHEN the guns fire. A. IF the guns fire as A FULL SALVO, BOTH turrets at once, then one of them fires 2 shells instead of 3. Thus 5 shots are fired. B. IF the guns fired SLIGHTLY STAGGERED, so one turret within a second of the other, then BOTH turrets fire 3 shells. I've seen my ship alternating between a simultaneous salvo of 5 shells and a staggered one of 6. It will potentially do a few of one then a few of the other. It's not clear to me why. Might this be somehow related to changes you made to the Ladder Aiming system? For example, is ONE of them firing only 2 as it's making small changes that keep the target qualified as locked, in which case linked to my or my target's manoeuvres over a certain threshold? If so, would be nice to have that signified. Or is it a bug? I've some related questions, too. I note in the info presented about gunnery on screen when mousing over target we see the hit chances for a single gun but also any gun of 'n' salvo. I don't know if the gunnery model in fact treats these odds differently based on the number of shells fired IN any salvo. Here are my related questions: 1. Does the gunnery model mean that firing 5 shells in a salvo is treated any differently from 6? 2. Does the gunnery model treat turrets firing separately, even if a second or less apart, as two different calculations or as the one salvo? To put the two together, we get: 3. Does the fact my guns are sometimes firing only 5 shells from 6 available barrels, or firing all 6 but slightly staggered, mean the hit calculations are different from if all 6 were being fired as a full salvo? I have some screenshots but have fallen foul of the total file posting limits. Suppose I need to convert and compress them. If it appears to be a problem and you'd like me to gather any specific info on this please let me know as I'd be happy to do so. Cheers
  10. I didn't say never was, lol, and I know you didn't say I did, but yes I'm aware sometimes different choices were made. Fusos decided moar guns > armour, the wisdom of which probably wasn't really tested. As you know, HMS Nelson was designed with entirely the opposite in mind, having the smallest area to armour while retaining the firepower. Both, as always, involved compromises. Regardless, we're talking general armour scheme design principles. In the case of a 'turret farm design' I would expect them to address that either through forcing you to have less armour generally because the area to be armoured would be so much larger that the weight would be prohibitive. The alternative would be to allow more specific armouring, but I don't know that they want to bother with that level of complexity and I don't blame them. Cheers
  11. Whether it's meant to or not, typical design is to be consistent. If the rule is changing a selection in the Div button means it changes across all ships, then it ought to change across all ships ANY setting that can be selected individually unless doing so makes no sense. In the case of ammo AND deciding when to fire, both those ought to work at the division level. Frankly speed ought to as well, which would remove a lot of the nonsense we see with the AI trying to 'follow' and failing awfully.
  12. I can confirm I have seen this happening as well. Not sure why. I'm going to post a related one if I don't find it already raised (which is why I found this one). Cheers
  13. I raised this as an issue and was told it's not implemented yet which is fair enough. Would like to raise it as a reminder, however. Ammo explosions DO NOT alter available ammunition counter. Even with the highly simplified magazine system in place, it would be nice if they did reduce a certain % of available shells. Cheers
  14. 1. I've never seen ammo detonation of torpedo reloads despite penetrations destroying the submerged launcher. 2. As you said, the problem is a mismatch between the armour zones and the placement of the magazines. As it stands magazines can effectively be located behind 'extended' belt and deck whereas they really ought not be. You probably saw the general discussion topic where various armour pictures were presented: That shows the issue pretty well.
×
×
  • Create New...