Spitfire109
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Spitfire109
-
-
And can we please get some actual Italian dreadnought hulls, towers, ect. Cant even come close to replicating the style of Italian battleships in the dreadnought era. Or any of their cruisers at all!
-
Simple want, there were so many pre-WW1 dreadnoughts featuring triple barrel turrets such as Dante Alighieri or the Russian 1st gens. I don't know why this hasn't been said already!
-
Will custom battles or battle deployments for custom and campaign become a thing?
Or the ability to use two ships of the same type but different class in custom battles become a thing?-
2
-
-
Update broke the US dreadnought hulls.
Cant put guns on its front barbette. -
Ladder aiming broken again lol.
-
2
-
-
Proper Italian dreadnought hulls for 1910-1930.
Along with superstructure and proper gun turrets. -
How far along in the "Chapters" Is this mod?
And are things still moving along with it? -
And although the new US Dreadnought hulls look nice you still cannot make a proper New York, Wyoming, or Texas out of them.
-
I wanna make a Dante, a Cavour, an Andrea Doria.
There are no hulls for it proper though.
As well as the double and triple turret mixing being a severe downside still. -
28 minutes ago, Hussarball_PL said:
ctrl+alt+shift+z
Thanks!
-
Ive been looking for a hotkey to turn off the hud for better screenshots and cinematic recording. I cant find any answers or any info in the game. Is this a feature?
-
7 hours ago, Pappystein said:
While I understand what you are talking about. There WAS dispersion issues the more barrels you added. This is A reason that modern (in context here) Battleships had bigger turrets. The gun barrels were further apart to allow for such over-pressure/dispersion effects. Look at the difference in distance between the 16"/45s on Colorado vs North Carolina, for a visual clue in as to when these issues were "solved"
But I *DO* agree that how turrets are handled for accuracy really REALLY needs a look. Also there are many turret types NOT COVERED. Going to use Nevada as above.
Her Turrets were 1,1,1 guns in A and Y (or 1 and 4 if you prefer) and 1,1 Guns in B/X (2, and 3) They were not triple and twin turrets as earlier classes! They were INDIVIDUAL GUNS and not a mono-block turret like say the twins on the New York class that predeceased them. This is commonly called "individually sleeved" I believe.
Drachinifel did a good job covering this in basic detail on his New Mexico 5 minute post from about a week ago.
https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel
Another example of this. The French never built a Quad Turret for their main Battleship cannons. They built Twin Twin turrets. Where the Left half and the Right half were really no different than a twin turret. Each Half operated independently from the other... with the exception of Azimuth aiming (because that is from the rotation of the gun-house which both twin turrets shared!)
So as a solution. Utilizing the Mk Turret system... Mk III (or IV) should loose the Interference issues of the Mk1 and 2 for any number of barrels Accuracy wise. And it really does not make sense to have a re-loading penalty for big turrets. Little cramped turrets (looking at you 14" US BB 1,1,1 turrets! SHOULD have a reload penalty and it shouldn't go away!)
Historically, By the Time Quad Turrets came around to everyone, the interference issue was pretty much solved.
You are correct, the guns essentially being too snug together caused some dispersion. But It definitely didn't harm the accuracy to the point it does in game and It defiantly didn't hamper ladder aiming like it seems to do in game. Considering all the guns are the same size and thus same same splash sizes. So though maybe a small penalty because that's just a quirk of double, triple, ect guns, but not to this nearly crippling degree.
-
Ive really noticed that if you want to try and make historically inspired designs of say Nevada, Cavour, or KGV you are penalized for no logical reason. Several cruisers, battleships, and even a few destroyer models had this practice of a few of their main gun turrets had a different number of rifles and I've found nothing really that says this barrel arrangement was detrimental. As it stands in the game, if you try and replicate such ships you are penalized even though each gun is the same caliber and size. This really kills ladder aiming for some reason and the ammo pool is for some reason all not one thing. I believe this also hurts you if you have Wing and Centerline guns. Even though we know full well the German BCs at Jutland suffered no accuracy difficulties at Jutland due to wing mounted turrets.
As a side note Id very much like if the battleships volleyed and not just fired the guns off as soon as they reloaded.
Here's some historical examples.
USS Nevada herself, B and I believe Y turret are both doubles while A and X are triples.
Her Italian counterparts Andrea Doria and Cavour actually had an exact similar layout. They did suffer accuracy issues but not from the gun arrangement.http://i.imgur.com/YbL8z9V.jpg
And maybe the most famous example is KGV. From everything I've read and watched about the class is the unreliability of the Quad turrets, which are mostly just a quirk of Quad guns, but her accuracy as a ship seemed more than adequate.
-
6
-
-
22 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
*UPDATE 20* (30/6/2022)
- Fixed critical campaign bug which caused wars to be declared multiple times.
- Fixed other bugs which prevented peace treaties to be achieved.
- Various improvements on the campaign AI.
- Battle AI improvement to keep a more effective distance.
- Improved GDP mechanics to affect better the province growth. The growth of each province is saved so that if it changes hands, it will generate the respective income (Due to the new mechanics, if you attempt to load old saves, the growth will be zero for the whole game, so the saves must be reset).
- Fixed bug which prevented you to select your port if an enemy task force was very near to it.
- Fixed other minor bugs related with task force movement.
- Improved tension mechanics so that tension will not be caused if you have good relations with a nation, unless you amass a very large fleet.
- Improved further the instability mechanics for the ship design, based on your feedback.
- Fixed some minor problems reported for the new hulls.
- Fixed issues of ballistics to evaluate angle of hit better, affecting mainly the deck hits which previously could often cause full penetrations or overpenetrations at a small angle of hit.
- Fixed buggy tooltip offset for monitors with uncommon resolution settings.
- Fixed problems that increased a lot the building time of ships.PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO RECEIVE THE UPDATE (Saves had to be reset)
The battle AI improvements affect Academy and Customs too, yes?
-
35 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
*UPDATE 18 * (24/6/2022)
- Fixed bugs of alliances. Some times an alliance did not break as it should, and later it was impossible to go to war with that nation, because it caused errors.
- Fixed old issue that could cause battles to start too near. This fix will affect the campaign and the custom battles.
- Definite fix of the "ping-pong" damage bug rarely caused by engine damage (needs checking by you).
- Battle AI improvements as per some recent feedback.
- Beam/Draught now affect ship's center of gravity and weight offsets more accurately.
- Other minor fixes.PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD (Saves are not reset - Due to Ship weight mechanics changes, saved ships may become slightly broken - ongoing campaigns may have large delays due to building errors - It is advised to start a new campaign)
What specifically has been improved for the AI?
-
3
-
-
Please set the AI in custom battles to be super aggressive or something in a patch or next update. Its so annoying trying to test ships and your opponent just turns and flees.
-
2
-
-
As far as the game is concerned certain armor and gun layouts are locked out for a good while. Well behind what was historically available for many nations. The French wanted quads on the Normandie's before cancelation and Nevada had AoN armor in the early 1910s. This should be adjusted.
-
6
-
-
Im trying to use quad guns for France in 1920, as they were gonna make quad ships in around 1916. Is there a way I can do this? Some sorta cheat or command prompt I need?
-
Id still like to see no Belt armor limit on CAs, there were many heavy cruisers and armored cruisers in existence with less than 101mm of belt armor.
-
4 hours ago, Skeksis said:
ASW (anti-submarine warfare).
I think this is going to be very important for light ships, especially to enforce the principles of all naval doctrines, i.e. to include them!!!
At the moment we can game the game and not even include, this is enabling unconventional warfare.
Destroyers and Light Cruisers should be the principle escort, i.e. to protect 'transport capacity' and capital ships against submarines. This principle then forces the player to build them, forces out conventional destroyer and light cruiser battles, forcing the player to fight effectively and therefore ultimately requiring the player to deploy more and design comprehensively.
Ok, anti-submarine warfare is a WIP but without its implementation, on Destroyers and Light Cruisers, campaigns could be unconventional.
E.G. Conventional doctrine: Battleships and Battlecruisers should have zero or near zero ASW (even negative) stats or effects (forcing them to be escorted), Heavy Cruiser some, Light Cruisers more and Destroyers having the most effective elements against submarines.Id say that if they eventually add Sea planes launchers for ships that could really help Larger vessels with ASW and of course it should be added for recon reasons.
-
Will there be a Beta for this Update soon?
-
4 minutes ago, o Barão said:
No need to exaggerate. This is a far cry from what actually happened.
Not exactly, Duke of York literally ambushed Scharnhorst due to its Radar and such being nearly completely destroyed by the cruisers. It had also lost speed and couldn't fire back effectively due to severe damage to its RF equipment. And yes, Duke of York obliterated Scharnhorst.
-
On 4/24/2022 at 3:43 AM, Steeltrap said:
You can't have it both ways.
If Nick is going to insist on the game "priding itself on realism" then a cruiser armed with 7" and 5" guns against a capital ship with 14" belt and 7" deck armour MUST get smashed with next to no damage done in return.
This whole "we need shells to damage things they realistically couldn't because 'fairness' demands it" is the ANTITHESIS of "priding realism".
War ISN'T fair. The idea, if you've a brain, is to make it as UNFAIR FOR YOUR ENEMY as you possibly can. If you're NOT thinking that way, don't start a war and don't be in charge of one.
But apparently it's necessary because reasons.
There are a LOT of mechanics in this game that are simply miles from realism.
Seeing a capital ship trashed by small calibre naval guns, ESPECIALLY by fire, is absurd UNLESS there are some truly remarkable conditions involved. Point blank fire at night, such as happened around Guadalcanal, is a case where it's possible, but that's because the armour on the IJN BCs wasn't all that great and 8" USN guns at a few thousand yards had enough penetration to deal with it. At the same time, however, USN South Dakota (in a different battle) got hit by at least 23 hits from memory, up to and including 14", and suffered NO 'loss of ship threatening' damage. The Captain's battle report pointed out the fires that started in the superstructure were small and rapidly extinguished.
The "lessons" of Tsushima, especially about effectiveness of HE and dangers of fires, were in fact INCORRECT. Proper analysis of the results proved what everybody already knew: ships sink through loss of buoyancy, which means water entering the hull. I don't believe (again, haven't checked) that a single Russian ship sank due to fires. It was all mines, torpedoes or penetrating hits at/below the waterline. Sure, fires can and do impede crew efficiency. The likelihood of fires making a ship impossible to survive, however, is extraordinarily small unless, again, some truly peculiar circumstances are present. The obvious exception was CVs in WW2 of course, but that's an entirely different subject and doesn't belong here (and even it isn't cut and dried).
Interestingly enough, none other than Jellicoe himself understood that last bit, making the point that the HE fire at longer ranges might prove distracting but that the killing of ships wouldn't be possible until their armour might be penetrated at ranges of approximately 10,000yds or less. That's more or less what he stated leading up to Jutland, and his battle plans were made with that general premise central to his thoughts.
Apart from any other issue, a shell that doesn't penetrate the main armour of a hull (or anything else for that matter) ought NOT start a fire. It takes remarkably little armour to defeat an HE shell. Approx 3" of standard WW2 armour would defeat a USN 16" HE round. The idea a 7" or 5" round hitting armour greatly over its capacity to penetrate yet it can STILL start a fire is bollocks. The shell burster WON'T function in pretty much every case of a 'partial' penetration, and it is largely a function of the bursting charge that fires start. An HE shell, as I said, would simply detonate on the surface and leave a shallow dent. It WON'T start a fire INSIDE that armour.
None of this ought to be news to people who have read a lot on the subject. Go to www.navweaps.com and look around in the historical article section and there are all sorts of great material. Nathan Okun is a person with his own section in navweaps because he's such an expert, and has designed programs you can download that will simulate the performance of various guns striking various types of armour with various types of shells. It's astoundingly detailed, and fascinating. Also gives you an idea of how complicated it really is.
Problem the game seems to have had, and I've not bothered with it for a long time now, was the rush to ensure certain things were possible resulted in those things happening SO many times more than anything vaguely close to verified historical realism that it became almost a parody.
Turrets popping off like champagne corks due to flash fires, for example? Happened all the time in game. Even 4" guns on open mounts without direct ammo feeds etc on Transport ships could have "flash fires" (which didn't stop those gun firing afterwards; I don't believe I EVER managed to destroy a TR's guns before the ship itself sank). Now go research how frequently that happened historically. Same goes for flash fires leading to magazine explosions YET the ship not sinking. That's astoundingly rare for the first element, and all but IMPOSSIBLE for the second. Yet again, saw it many times.
We went over all this and a crap ton more for a few years around here. Didn't really make any difference, there wasn't much appetite for something that deserves the right to claim it prides itself on realism.
Maybe it's changed now?
If someone I trust says so, I might check it. I've not seen anything to suggest the battle mechanics have addressed the many obvious problems, however, and until they do the rest of it (campaigns etc) is of no interest to me. Why would I go to all sorts of efforts to design ships and all the other things required in the campaign if the battles themselves remain as silly and predictable as they were?
Cheers
You sure do love just quoting numbers. I bet you loved math back in school. If it was all just numbers than this game would always be decided before battle even commences. Oh! The other guy's ship is simply larger than mine. I shall now perish and die. You forget the several times in at least WW2 where squadrons of CLs and CAs managed to hold their own or even gain advantage over capital ships due to superior position, numbers, training, or various other factor. When Belfast and her squadron found Scharnhorst in the north sea they didn't look at it and say "Oh no our puny pathetic 6' guns cannot HOPE to harm the ships 350mm belt!" instead they tightened their belts and said "Come on chaps! Jerry wont sink himself!" And you know what happened? Those cruisers so beat the hell out of the battleship so severely it didn't even see DoY coming to blast it with the 14's. Though had DoY not been there I'm certain either a close range torpedo attack may have been tried. Importantly though the Scharnhorst was essentially taken out of the fight from repeated hits from weapons you'd say couldn't harm it.
Yes, HE is very very strong right now. Too strong but this game IS in Alpha and trying to both make it fun and realistic is hard. Especially since you can really replicate everything in real life in a game.
But cruisers severely damaging and disabling a BB with gunfire alone is far from impossible.-
1
-
-
This would be lovely. A good way to know how much the difference between the different armor types actually are. Lets you more accurately measure how much armor you have.
-
4
-
>>>v1.6 Feedback<<< (Latest version: 1.6.0.6 Optx5)
in General Discussions
Posted
I still think we need some greater flexibility of what turret housing we can use. When double, triple, and quad barrel becomes available, and armor limits need to be less restrictive on the low end.