Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steeltrap last won the day on April 27

Steeltrap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

701 Excellent

About Steeltrap

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I volunteered to run such a thing quite some time ago but without moderation rights, at least in that thread, it would be too unwieldy. It would also require genuine commitment from the team to classify the things as needing a fix soon, later, or nice to have soonish, or nice to have but not in the next 24 months. Without that a list could become an increasing source of irritation, which one might suggest is why it's not been pursued. If the same things are on there over and over and over without any comment or commitment from the devs, what would that suggest or achieve? In part per
  2. The potential downside of that is the turrets can get jammed, or at least could in the past, when in the battle. It could be that's been corrected, however.
  3. Yes, you've put more precisely what I was getting at when I split the factors that 'generally' determined likelihood of hitting something. You need to be able to make an estimate as to where to shoot that in fact overlaps where the ship is when the shells arrive AND you need to be able to put the shells there. The latter element is what I had in mind when talking about 'other factors' such as mount, propellant charge consistency etc, things you can't do much about. I wrote a much longer (what a surprise) and detailed discussion of all this stuff a long time back (it seems to me
  4. The discussion of aim lock etc simply reinforces something I've written many times, namely the decision to base accuracy predominantly on the calibre and mark of the gun firing as opposed to the fire control system directing it is a fundamental flaw. As with all fundamental flaws, it has cascading effects. Which gets back to the question I have asked many, many times. Why is it the basic design does not simply do its best to replicate KNOWN FACTS from the period then fine tune, rather than make often seemingly arbitrary decisions then modify to try to ameliorate the loudest voic
  5. When it's a stand alone fantasy setting like StarCraft? Sure. When it's a multiplayer shooter etc? Sure. When it's a very specific set of historical technologies within a narrow application? No, take your balance and [beeeeep], LOL. If you sell it on the grounds of realism etc etc? Take your balance and [beeeeeep] even harder. What's next? Make another game called "Flat tops" and recreate the battle of Midway where we have F-14s being balanced against Zeroes because some players are too lazy or stupid to realise why WW2 fighters might not be a great match against radar
  6. The USN Mk8 "super heavy" 16" AP round had the following: The Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (BDF) had a delay of 0.033 seconds. 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. Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php HMS Glorious wasn't sunk by a load of "over pen" 11" rounds. From wiki: Scharnhorst switched her fire to Glorious at 16:32 and scored her first hit six minutes later on her third salvo, at a range of 26,000 yards (24,000 m), when one 28.3-centimet
  7. Am curious to know what game that is.
  8. Great points. I've made reference to Okun's work around here before, and even suggested the devs themselves ought to have been familiar with it as part of their background research. There's a reason he rates his own section of NavWeaps. Whether they are or not I've no idea. Jellicoe himself said he expected only the AP rounds at ~10-12k yards to do the killing damage. HE was expected possibly to do extensive damage to upper works etc etc that might prove disruptive, especially to gunnery spotting and director equipment. This was with the RN using Lyddite, and we all know how well THAT, al
  9. I really would love to see the real world data/experience on which these decisions are made. What's the obsession with making SMALLER guns better a better? While we're at it, much of the "over-pen" is, frankly, largely bullshit. The ONLY things that ought to matter are: 1. The effective force encountered by the shell as it strikes various things 2. The sensitivity of the fuse compared with the value in 1 i.e. if the fuse requires resistance equivalent to striking 2" of armour at 90 degrees, did the value in one meet this threshold? 3. Time delay of the fuse 4. Str
  10. Am curious to know what scenario that is. Believe it or not, the fact is this game greatly OVERSTATES how accurate these guns were. The final iteration, supposedly late WW2 tech integrated radar fire control direction, have hit rates that are utterly absurd. We've said over and over that THE most significant governing factor when it comes to accuracy between same calibre guns on different ships ought to be fire control tech yet for most of the tech development it appears that is NOT the case. No, it's simply "bigger is better" because accuracy is tied largely to the guns yo
  11. Now where have I heard that before? 😝 😁
  12. Hardly surprising given the delineation between 'heavy' and 'light' is solely based on armament and not a reflection of armour, which I know you know but I suppose some might not (although I wonder if that's true on this forum). It's interesting to note that the captain of USS South Dakota made a point in his official report on the combat in which she had her superstructure shot up that the presence and use of the armoured conning tower was vital to the preservation of the bridge/command crew. This was at a time the RN decided to ditch theirs on the grounds their crews didn't use them yet
  13. I wrote a post quite some time ago now where I said were I doing this from scratch I'd have done what the designers were known to do. Which was? Well, they were given parameters such as: - maximum dimensions (such as the 'famous' 108ft beam for USN BBs so they could fit through the Panama Canal, a rule USS Montana was in fact going to drop) - a required maximum speed, sometimes a specific number other times a range - endurance (i.e. how far can you go and at what speeds?) - main armament calibre, which typically also had implications for... - armour thicknesses on
  14. Believe me, we have been banging on about these things and others for more than a year. Have picked away at the gunnery model for ages. Same goes for the point you raise about gunnery directors and fire control needing to be the MOST important determination of accuracy, not some crude % of any particular gun's range. Then there's the issue of propellant and bursting charges being the same, the fact 4" guns on transports cause "flash fires", and on and on. Doesn't make any discernable difference. The Devs appear to be building their idea of "reality" and where it conflicts with clearly doc
  • Create New...