Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Steeltrap

Members
  • Content Count

    526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Steeltrap last won the day on November 25 2020

Steeltrap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

658 Excellent

About Steeltrap

  • Rank
    Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Interesting. Could you provide examples/evidence of this?
  2. Frankly the game needs the means to input COURSE and SPEED for a ship, a formation, or an entire fleet, and everything subject to the order DOES THAT i.e. comes to that heading and speed. If you attempt to issue such an order and the speed exceeds the maximum of a ship included in the order, it does NOT accept it and gives you a "ordered speed greater than maximum of 'xyz' ship/ships". Again it's one of those irritating absurdities where we KNOW how navies did things yet the game for some inexplicable reason comes up with something entirely different from how things were done. Worse still
  3. I raised this quite some time ago, including asking for a "multiple ships firing at target" as a penalty in the gunnery system. Not that I expected that to make any difference, LOL.
  4. TL;DR? Yes, 6" and 8" shells can damage things. No, they WON'T damage anything essential to the direct survival of a BB, however, as they can't sink it or immobilise it or even stop its guns firing (although they can impair the accuracy of said fire). The game would benefit greatly from an improved damage model including greater details re location of essential elements, but it remains to be seen if that is in their minds at all. A crude "smaller calibre shells will do more meaningful damage to BB/BC" simply doesn't cut it at all. At the very least we ought to be told WHAT THAT MEANS in p
  5. [EDIT: Note to anyone reading, I wrote this before reading Coalminer's post above. Apologies for repeating much the same issues with slightly different flavour] Why should such gunfire be significant AT ALL, let alone MORE so? If you're doing it "for balance", might I suggest you STOP doing that? War ISN'T balanced. The idea is to crush your enemy utterly without taking a scratch. If you can get them to surrender without firing a shot, better still. If you are stupid enough to pit ANY sort of surface ship that ISN'T a BB class against another BB, guess what? Unless the circ
  6. A LONG time ago I laid out some thoughts about the nature of the mechanics the devs were building. I made some comments based on the fact that I am a contract business consultant who specialises in all things process related. In English that means I get hired on contract to go into large companies (they're all banks or insurance companies) and design/redesign their processes, regardless of what they may be (the skills required don't change based on the subject). I'll see if I can find it, because it addresses the very point you're dsicsussing. In my example I said I thought the
  7. Absolutely. There is a whole slew of articles and discussions over how the observed results of Tsushima affected thinking on gunnery, including shell types and designs. It's been suggested the apparent effectiveness of HE in that fight failed to consider many other relevant factors, for example, plus the fact that the Russian AP rounds did punch some holes in the Japanese ships yet more or less didn't explode. Much like the Brits and Jutland, it's interesting to wonder if there might have been any difference at Tsushima had those shells exploded as intended. If the solution were to t
  8. Hi there, I didn't say the HE/common round was not manufactured. Of course it was, shore bombardment being a thing. The point is that ships generally carried Armour Piercing (usually capped in one way or another) in far greater numbers UNLESS they knew they were undertaking a specific mission such as bombardment where they'd need a different shell load out. The Royal Navy is something of an oddity here as they replaced their HE with a CPC shell, or "common pointed capped". They had gone from a straight HE/common to a "common pointed" with a solid nose and base instead of nose contact
  9. TL;DR? The way the game treats HE v AP remains too crude and produces obviously flawed results. This is in part also due to the armour scheme being too crude. Yet it's also because of the simplicity of the "penetration of HE" calculation and a somewhat poor differentiation of the genuine differences between AP and HE, smaller and large calibres. The kraken in the bath (elephant in the room really didn't fit)? Navies all but eliminated HE/common shells for BB calibre weapons by the end of WW1. How do the devs plan to reconcile that FACT with the whole "oh no, ship is angled, break out the
  10. Technically the purpose of the magnetic triggers of WW2 was to have that keel breaking effect, which was one of the main purposes for being able to look up the draught of a ship and thus determine an appropriate depth at which to set the torpedo. Weather played a part, too, and you also generally wanted your torp as deep as seemed practical, but the idea was also to have the torp close to or even slightly below the expected keel depth for the reason you explained. We all know how badly those triggers turned out to be initially; most know the USN had all sorts of issues with their initial
  11. Pretty sure I responded to that before. The notes point out that the 'difficulty ' button as yet has no effect. I suspect that's why they've not bothered to fix it. I tend to wonder why bother putting it there if it doesn't do anything, but then I'm picky, lol.
  12. Yet there's only ONE I could find of a pre-dreadnought BB. Not the other ships, the BBs. ONE. There certainly are at least a handful of pre-dreadnought BBs sunk by torpedoes, however. To me it;'s another mechanic that has been put in the game in its current form on the basis of belief, NOT on the basis of a realistic appraisal of the realities of the day as best as can be determined. Doesn't mean it SHOULDN'T happen, DOES mean it should happen VERY rarely. Perhaps more importantly, it ought to be possible to build so it CAN'T happen at least against torpedoes of similar era
  13. No, I realised that, and tried to phrase my feedback in keeping with what I imagined your intention to be.
  14. Try a scenario where you shoot transports. Even 6" HE over-pen left, right and centre, regardless of the angle from which they strike. I don't know how a 6" HE shell is imagined to penetrate the flat side of a transport (what would be its belt) and not get fused by SOMETHING. I'm not convinced the normal hull plate of even a merchant ship of the period wouldn't be enough to fuse a 6" HE shell, let alone one that's clearly going to bump into all sorts of things in the ship (which I see frequently). I see this even when it's entered from directly astern and MUST be going to pass along
  15. French Suffren was torpedoed and sank in minutes from an apparent magazine explosion according the the German u-boat responsible who surfaced but found no survivors. It's the ONLY clear example I was able to find of the sort of thing the game models. I pointed all this out when giving feedback on the mechanism when it was being implemented, and did the same with flash fires, too (including the ridiculous sight of transports popping 4" shield mount guns all over the place, supposedly for "flash fire" reasons).
×
×
  • Create New...