Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Excellent

1 Follower

About arkhangelsk

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

109 profile views
  1. What interests me is: 1) Can that gun shoot from that position (on the ship designer graphic, IIRC it'll be all red)? 2) Does the fact this gun cannot shoot affect the others (the AI often waits for all guns to line up before it fires)? Is it at least smart enough to shoot only the guns that can shoot?
  2. First, the accuracy was rounded up - it is closer to 3.25% (rounded up to 3.3) than 3.3 proper. Second, (1-0.0325)^12=0.327315092=32.7%
  3. Try putting on more speed to reduce the number of hits - with the current ruling you can make your ship go 36 knots with 12 18" guns. I think the intent of this mission is to teach you how to distribute fire. You need to know when to stop hitting the battleships (I've been able to kill two of the three before the last one put itself into the Hard to Kill Retreat mode) and start going after the destroyers so they don't torpedo you, then go after the battleship again while you still have some ammo left so you can stab it to death.
  4. Let me put a ball in on BuckleUpBones' side, because I can kind of see a point. While I appreciate analysis, I can also see how it can be overdone and overshadow the overall holistic feel of the system as a whole. In other words, once you see a "bad number", it sticks to your mind like a dead pixel, and all considerations as to its contribution to the overall system, or that it might have a justification disappear. You see the bad number and your immersion is significantly reduced. Here let me use the much-hated speed malus. On paper, assertions like speed matters not with accurate plotting (a.k.a. against a faster target I'll just pull more lead) sound convincing. Further, it can be argued on a Virtual Course plot, two ships paralleling each other at 30 knots produces the same plot as both at zero knots - a dot indicating zero relative movement. Thus, in theory the speed malus should not exist. Okay, but historically there have been a number of instances that suggest that once speed gets above about 25 knots, the hit rate can get much lower than predicted. The speed malus plausibly reaches 90%. It must be noted not all of them involved high relative speed. Nowaki was not that much faster than Iowa, so she cannot generate more than a few knots worth of range rate unless she charges Iowa which was clearly not what happened. On some virtual course plot she'll look just like a ~5-knot ship. In the Battle of Java or Komdandorski the ships were broadly paralleling each other for much of the fight, And by the way, this also shows that they weren't always destroyers or "violently maneuvering". The only common thread is that the ships are uh, fast. I don't think I've ever heard of thousands of shells being flung at a slow ship and missing since the advent of director firing, regardless of its maneuvers, aspect or size. There are only so many times we can blame the poor gunnery of the ships involved (in effect, calling them "exceptions") before at least suspecting ... maybe the core problem is that they are fast, and the reasons we use to dismiss that being a factor aren't as strong in reality as they are on paper. The fact is that parallel @30 knots does not look the same as parallel @0 knots once you take your head out of the Virtual Course Plot and into the True Course Plot, and the assessment of course not always as precise as it might feel on paper. There's also the point that historically, destroyers are not insta-killed by battleships. I really don't think they've ever been that hard to kill once competent FCS shows up in UA:D and you are willing to use the main armament, but they definitely die easier than ever in Alpha 4 (of the new missions, Modern Battleships vs 12 destroyers is by far the easiest to steamroll). Apparently, the size malus was effectively nerfed in the face of complaints of its theoretical implausibility, and we are seeing the results. We get rid of the speed malus too, and destroyers WILL start being insta-killed. Look guys - if we don't want lots of dead destroyers, it's between the speed malus and the size malus. We already HAVE a maneuver malus too in case everyone has forgotten. But of course, none of this seems to matter - people see "speed malus NINE-ZERO percent" and vision of all other things uh, disappear. There's not a lot of discussion of whether the game overall "feels" right in terms of how fast ships are dying overall. A disproportionate amount of discussion is on killing the NINE ZERO percent speed malus 😅
  5. Actually, we have a pretty good idea where the main belt is. Right now, the ship is divided into 7 blocks lengthwise. The center THREE blocks are Belt. The other blocks are Extended. Further, due to weight balancing the aft turret often HAS to go on the extremity, so basically if you want to protect that one you have to armor the entire length of the ship.
  6. Check and compare the stat cards. It is already done.
  7. Usually, nations put their best in guns, torpedoes and armor plate. The same is not as true of TDS, where the standard is more like the minimum. Usually, the standard for a battleship would be to resist your own weapons. For the Japanese in the 30s would be a 24 inch torpedo with over a 1000 pound warhead. They settled for 880 pounds resistance (before they added some weak points in a hasty attempt to improve the ship's shell resistance). Of course, this being a game, you can choose to make a wiser choice These four points actually relate to a fundamental tension between the "History" buffs and the Free Campaign buffs. People always want historic guns, historic hulls and historic everything, but they are not as aware of how they are likely to reduce one's ability to go their own way when creating their own nation's navy. The problem (geography and economy) should be realistic - that you are are forced to follow the historical solution should be minimized. By the way, anybody that feels the game is giving them too much information already HAS the buttons within the game to get rid of it - each window can be rolled up by clicking on that down arrow on its upper bar
  8. Actually, it seems that the HP requirement is by type (BB, BC) rather than by Hull Form. If you ask for a certain speed with a certain displacement, the computed HP (and HP required per ton of ship) is always the same as long as you remain within the same type. Hull Form only changes the weight of the engines required for that purported HP.
  9. The main practical functionality of the Target Signature modifier is not its visibility, but the chance to hit. While I don't deliberately shoot for "minimum signature designs", the fact I don't put a bunch of secondaries on my ships is usually enough to give me an advantage in signature. And I do see the difference in hit rates. But they still often detect me first. If the primary function of the modifier is the hit chance, since the volume of the ship is the same it shouldn't be changing just because has turned from a side to a end-on profile. From that perspective, perhaps the better route is to reduce the amount of things that have signature. Towers, sure. Main guns, certainly. But secondary guns probably should just have the increase waived - one by itself isn't that much of a deal but once people (or AI) start putting them on, they put a bunch of them on and it adds up.
  10. Oh, I think I know what happened now, thanks - I confused the V-pen and the H-pen because at the ranges I was in the Side penetration should be larger, but it isn't because of the extreme angle. As for this, it is roughly as per the table - unmodified (using Black Powder), the 17" Mk 5 has a deck penetration of 14.7 inches of iron at 10000m. Every penetration value in this game is of iron.
  11. The other points I don't predict on begrudging if they are put in and work right, but I must point out these two are a significant philosophical choice. What is more important - making historical ships or being able to decide your own way in the campaign. If you limit countries to "historical guns" (even making them the exact caliber to the millimeter), you are limiting them to take the same path as in history which is much less flexible and free.
  12. Not really (at least as per the read-out hit chances). You have 6 guns, so your chance of getting at least 1 hit is 1-(0.74^6)=about 84 percent. His chance of getting at least one hit is 1-(0.84^15)=about 92.7 percent. And his hits are worth more. If you are getting hurt less, it's likely because of your FORTY-FIVE inches of armor.
  13. I'm not thinking specifically of your post, but the grunts all over the place about the toughness of ships against torpedoes. For your pictures oh goddarnit it only ate 7 torpedoes. I also notice it only has 8 14" guns which means there's probably quite a bit of weight left for a good TDS. Just feed it about 5 more torpedoes and see how it reacts first. When people are talking about how overly tough ships are to shells and torpedoes, I think it must be remembered that ships in real life almost certainly did not have the equivalent of the game's maximum damage mitigation systems. Between catalog specs and more subdivision no one can see, the choice in real life is obvious. My technique when designing the Yamato in the link is based on the idea of first building the ship to the Standard displacement (which was about 71000 t by Wiki) with the range locked at Very Short, put in all the "surface stats", fill the unused displacement up with protective systems, then increase the range to Very Long while increasing Displacement to the Full Load, then shrinking the range bar back until everything is within weight limits, and finally another touch-up.
  14. I actually have just done a test that gives me reason to suggest that the torpedo model is overall not working too badly. https://photos.app.goo.gl/PUJRScGSmHA4dh8e7 Basically it is a Yamato-class battleship dying to 9 hits once you actually give it the bulkheads and antitorp facility the real thing might actually have, instead of the best thing there is. Because Yamato's torpedo defense and even subdivision clearly isn't "the best there is". It is a knowingly compromised and flawed design for the sake of haste and draft. Using the 130,000 ton battleship that did not exist in real life with the best in-game torpedo protection and bulkheads and using it as a basis to say things are too tough simply is not on. Now, I'll go confirm how fast the components die if I use maximum defences. https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mk8cGSECuMCQ1etx9 Total number before dying: 59. It has to be noted that not everything was damaged even after 12 hits.
  15. The angle of the ship was approximately 90 the whole time I closed. It is one of those situations much complained about - you close and close at a ship already on Retreat mode and it keeps pointing its stern at you. (BTW, the reason why the distance was opening in the above shots is that I have, like many people, expended my entire ammo stock of 17" shells and am forced to retreat).
  • Create New...