Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Shiki

Members2
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Shiki last won the day on August 7

Shiki had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

191 Excellent

About Shiki

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Ballistics, metallurgy, naval warfare, Washington (Treaty / heavy) cruisers in general, Japanese Treaty cruisers and Italian Treaty cruisers in specific

Recent Profile Visitors

279 profile views
  1. As noted in another post, we are sorely lacking in new, unique hull models for the majority of what is possibly the most important and diverse type of ships one can represent in this game: cruisers. Whether heavy or light, armoured or protected, semi-armoured or scout, we have practically nothing for this important type of warship (for the sake of convenience we're ignoring the battle- prefix). They are your fleet screeners, your reconnaissance, your commerce escorts and their raiders, your destroyer leaders and the ones responsible for driving them off. This following list is what I beli
  2. Usually these updates occur between 2 and 3 weeks after they post patch notes. Usually.
  3. Let's dive right in: this game could have been great. It could still be great. It would be even better if the development team actively communicated—or at the very least, hired someone to communicate—as they gave out in the past, but that's neither here nor there. We're not here to beat a thoroughly dead horse. Instead, I'm here to present some (relatively) minor quality-of-life improvements that I've compiled from my experiences playing this game: things I wasn't quite satisfied with, or thought could be done better. This is an alpha, after all, and we're here to test and provide feedback. He
  4. In summation: Deutschland (or from the previous teaser, "close enough to Deutschland"). Fusō after her first modernization. Sixteen (16) new reskinned and resized hulls. My Tone is more than likely going to be another Italian cruiser, or a resized Hood. New gun models for Deutschland & Scharnhorst artillery, as well as new gun models for Japanese artillery. You can now build 13,001-ton CAs, as opposed to 13,005-ton CAs. Torpedo equipment finally doesn't affect ships that don't have any torpedoes. AI is back to charging to point-blank and still won'
  5. To these statements I would like to point out that the German battleships and battlecruisers of the same period were able to achieve and sustain much higher speeds (all of the battlecruisers were capable of 26-28 kts despite only being designed for 24, for example, while the battleships after the Helgolands could typically make 24-25 despite their nominal 21-kt maximum speeds). While the quality of Imperial German turbine construction (with the exception of that one guy who dropped a hammer into Seydlitz's port turbine blades) is definitely part of the phenomenon, it does point to the fact tha
  6. Let's dive right in: the current system of how artillery - arguably the most important factor in the design, construction, and production of the modern battleship from inception to conclusion - works, sucks. As many people have already noted: - Shell weights are considerably off reasonable spec, let alone historical. - Gun ranges, a pet peeve, are considerably limited for all but the largest calibres. While these are just a few examples - albeit well-known - the inability to choose certain real-life influencing factors considerably limits not only our capacity to create historic
  7. Unfortunately, we do need precisely that many hulls if UA:D continues on the path of adding specific ships and then allowing you to deviate from that basic design. Since all of these ships differed appreciably from one another, they have to be added, and sooner rather than later- after all, even in a game about dreadnoughts, cruiser battles are going to be far more common and you'll have to spend a lot more time on them.
  8. A Baltimore - or more specifically, Wichita - based hull would be optimal, since all of the major prewar and wartime U.S. designs (Brooklyn, St. Louis, Cleveland, Wichita, Baltimore, Oregon City, etc.) used that same basic hullform: only the dimensions tended to change in regards to the hull (which works for UA:D since many hulls are upscaled/downscaled versions of one another anyway). For the Japanese, it's not quite as straightforward. The Myōkō class, for example, share a similar hullform: practically everything is identical across the two '10,000-tonner' designs, except for the fact t
  9. The weight of triple and quadruple turrets is necessarily more than a twin: after all, you have a much larger turret, with presumably similar (or thicker) armour, a larger barbette (which also needs armour) and heftier mechanisms for moving that greater weight. The weight savings lie in the arrangement of those guns: two triple turrets will weigh less overall than three twin turrets of equivalent calibre and mount protection, because the citadel - the amount of armour in the hull devoted towards the protection of the vitals - is commensurately shorter, and all of the mechanisms of a separate t
  10. @Nick ThomadisWill there be any possibility of seeing previews of the new hulls (like those shown in previous patch announcements) over the next few days?
  11. @Nick Thomadis If you can provide the information, what base will these new cruiser hulls be using? Will they be using existing assets or will we be obtaining hulls modeled on the County class vessels and potentially the Town-class light cruisers? The latter were the basis for several heavy cruiser studies in the 1930s, so I'm curious about the visual aspects of these new ships. Additionally, I'm curious if it would be possible to add variants with a displacement of 9,500 to 11,500 tons, to simulate Treaty-bound cruisers, available from 1920 onward.
  12. I can't help but feel like I feel like these could do without the simplification. After all, doing this would completely discount things like the Japanese undulating sheer flush decks (which had no continuous level of freeboard, being entirely determined by seaworthiness at the point in question) and their unique style of undulating clipper bow.
  13. What I would like to see from any hotfix patch in the coming days is to also include the French experimental battlecruiser hull - suitably downscaled - to the heavy cruiser category, from 10,500 to 14,000 tons. It's a clear candidate for re-creating classes like the C5 A3 and C5 SA1 proposals, as well as being a better hull for France's cruisers as opposed to something like, say, the downscaled Bismarck and Yamato hulls we have in that category right now.
  14. It's my belief that the average quality of the armour plates may help to explain the difference. The Americans and British simply had higher-quality armour than the Germans were capable of manufacturing (though not the Italians, as Terni Variable-Face-Thickness Cemented was the best shipboard armour to ever go to sea). The reasons for this difference are numerous but we can point out two main factors: the relatively long hiatus in the production of cemented naval armour post-World War I, and Krupp's testing procedures, which appear to have used uncapped AP projectiles. As for the Japanese
  15. 'Questions have been raised as to the wisdom of providing a vertical side belt less than the traditional standard—thickness equal to the bore of the main battery. Gunnery tests of the new composition KC n/A 320-mm armour plate showed that its thickness and resistance capabilities equaled an optimum thickness of 360 mm, but as thickness was increased, little was gained (the point of diminishing return). Krupp considered the thickness of 320 mm to be optimum and 400 mm neared the limit of effective production.' —Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, Garzke & Duilin (section on t
×
×
  • Create New...