Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Reaper Jack

Members2
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 Excellent

About Reaper Jack

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Using that, Avenger has misread the extended armor as well, which should be 35mm for the belt and 60mm for the deck. Making the in game armor significantly lighter than his previous posts.
  2. Get rid of that extra TEN THOUSAND tons you've slapped on for no apparent reason, and the ship weight will also be reduced to well under Bismarck's historical tonnage. She should also have Long Range and Barbette II at the most. Her Extended Armor is also nowhere near that thick and her Anti-flooding should not be above level II. Her turret armor was a known weakness and her TDS was bad on paper, though turned out pretty decent in actual combat. Her Shells should also be Light, not Standard with her guns having full Reload in game, between these two things the 380mm guns will reach about their
  3. I've made all those same types with roughly historical equipment and vastly superior armor, and by vastly I mean in the region of 30-40% better. Armor is too light. The OP for this thread uses the Algerie as the example, where in game the armor weighs one third of what it did irl for equal belt thickness. I've seen Heavy Cruisers of 11,000 tons with 300mm+ belts in game as well while still sporting 15 guns and going 30 knots. A LOT of the weight mechanics are completely off. I can design the same ship in RTW with about the same parameters and the weights given are completely different.
  4. Algerie is also the example I used a ways back when I said armour was embarrassingly light. RL Algerie's belt armour alone (not deck or turrets) is 1,500 tons. The same belt in game was something like 450. This along with engines also being too light is the main reason all the AI ships are speed demons with insane armaments. I once saw an 11,500 ton cruisers with 15 203mm guns and a 367mm belt. That sort of belt would weight more than half the ship's entire weight in real life.
  5. I've noticed that accuracy seems to be having some issues after the patch; especially with quad guns. While the aiming itself seems to be fine, sometimes the guns seem to aim at a position that is not where the enemy ship will be. I had volleys that were quite obviously aimed two ship lengths behind the target at ranges as low as 2km (With 50-90% hit chances.)
  6. WW1 is a bit of an odd area for DD's agreed; as around 1916 (post Jutland) is when the switch was being made from Night Attack massed tactics to Escort Roles for Destroyers. Though Torpedo Boats made some very well documented successes in WW1; with the Italians using a patrol boat to sink one of the Austrian Dreadnoughts (admittedly a day after it had been transferred to the new proto-Yugoslav Navy without them knowing.) As I've mentioned in my other posts; torpedoes have a physical size, more than two full reloads should take up both considerable space on a Destroyer to the point of mai
  7. This. a DD's primary roles were ASW and AA. Ship to ship combat for DD's was only employed on a major scale by the IJN (hence Long Lances designed specifically for this along with the other IJN torpedo specials like the powered loading equipment and turreted mounts) as neither of these roles has much use in game right now, all Destroyers revert to Torpedo Boats instead. While other nations certainly used their Destroyers against other surface ships, the cases where this resulted in the Destroyers winning the engagement were rare. Most of these engagements ended in either a stalemate, fai
  8. It has, by myself and others, the devs decreased the possible available reloads as a result. I know that for myself at least I was left unsatisfied as no ship in history ever carried more than one full reload for all tubes with some extra torps to spare on occasion (usually Japanese ships) except for subs, which would carry multiple reloads; type IXs for example carried at least 2 reloads per tube with a couple torps left over at full load. Most of us who discussed this before also felt that reloading mid combat should be impossible without special equipment such as what the IJN used.
  9. As others have pointed out before me as well, realism and gameplay are linked. Real life ship designs work or do not work because they are subject to real life conditions; if those same conditions are not simulated in game, then the ships that are best to use will not be anything like real life designs that worked historically. Right now this is why the ships that work in the single use scenarios are almost always the biggest, heaviest, most armored or bust. Most of the gameplay issues you mention are AI problems, and Nick has confirmed they are working on making the AI much smarter.
  10. One of the biggest problem with armor in game right now is it weighs barely a quarter of what it did historically. For example, the Algerie class has a belt armor of 110mm at a weight of about 1500 tons (and is around Krupp III equivalent) whereas 110mm of Krupp III belt armor in game weighs significantly less on an in game Heavy Cruiser, to the extent where you could slap multiple extra main battery guns on board to make up that deficit. This is imo the main reason AI ships tend to have so many guns. Armor simply does not weigh enough. This is also why in game Heavy Cruisers of even 12k
  11. Yeah this is what I was getting at. I'm aware that single launches were rare historically, though they did happen. Having that control is needed right now when your DD has 3 or 4 launchers.
  12. The problem with only carrying a single torpedo reload at the moment is simple. In real life, you could launch one tube at a time, you did not have to launch a full 'salvo' every time you wanted to fire a torpedo at something. Right now in game the ship just dumps all torpedoes onto a single target when launching no matter how few or many are in the tubes. If we had manual torpedo firing (click a button to launch one torpedo at a time) a lot of the problems with having historical reloads go away.
  13. Unless we're talking dockside camouflage as used by the Tirpitz, Gota Lejon and the rather amusing Japanese jungle paint schemes, then no, this was generally not the intention. 'Camouflage' on ships was generally used for aircraft recognition (in the case of the German stripes and swastikas and painted turret tops specifically) or to break up a ship's silhouette and make it harder to identify, the most famous example of which is the infamous dazzle camouflage employed by the USA. The Kriegsmarine in particular however experimented with a number of paint schemes to make their ships appear
  14. It should balance itself out with the cost. Sure, you could build a 100k ton plus BB, but you have to then build the drydock to build it, and the docking spaces to berth it, and this is on top of the ship already being three times as expensive as a normal Battleship. Personally I don't plan on building anything that exceeds 60k tons and might not even go for 18 inch/457mm guns at all, once things are properly implemented there really won't be much point to them except to hunt Battleships, but at that point you're better off using a smaller fleet of the same cost to do that.
  15. 6-7 Long Lances is enough to sink as many cruisers/destroyers or on average 2-4 Capital Ships. 100 fired is if we're still talking IJN, a single volley from two 6 ship squadrons of a DD group leader (CL) and 5 DD's If that was my result I'd be overjoyed as the IJN admiral. 12 ships of 2 CL's and 10 DD's equates to about 35,000-40,000 tons of steel, or the same as a single Colorado. If those ships can get into range like that, fire, and sink that amount of warship every time they do then even if this happens only once a year those ships have paid for themselves 4 or 5 times over whil
×
×
  • Create New...