Woodrow

I'm very curious arkhangelsk can you provide historical examples where shafts had snapped under such maneuvers? When you disagreed with my historical examples posted earlier, you mentioned SHP as the driving factor. I disagree with this, mainly on the premise that properly designed systems will have matched components. That 3000 SHP destroyer will not have a shaft and screw that would be appropriate for say a battleship of a much larger power output. Put into terms of cars, you could drop the clutch with a matched system with say 200 BHP for a quick takeoff (not so great for the transmission of course). Swap that V6 out to a V8 putting out 450 BHP and you will destroy the transmission and or the rear diff (in a RWD car). But, do the same for a car with a matched drivetrain and you can do that with much reduced risks. Now where you have issues in ships is if the screws are still spinning at full speed and you fail to slow them down (through engine braking or backing off the power and allowing to slow) and them slam them directly into reverse, you will have problems, but most likely those problems would occur in the gearing section (though equally likely as severe as a snapped shaft). You also have to remember basic maneuvering, ships use reverse to slow down. Nice wiki article link for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astern_propulsion Done, common maneuver with its own specific flag signal to display that this maneuver is occurring to other ships. Again, I await the references for snapped shafts done under this maneuver and the circumstances in which they occur. One final note, I agree that under these maneuvers in the game and accuracy malus should be appliedin addition to when crew is simulated, there should be a malus there too, dependent on how drastic the manuever was conducted.

To arkhangelsk, I easily found two more historical books regarding the use of full reverse from a full head of steam in the direct attempt to avoid torpedoes in war time. One book called "British Destroyer vs German Destroyer:Narkiv 1940" https://books.google.com/books?id=jw5kDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=reverse+engine+to+avoid+torpedoes&source=bl&ots=nopNKsdws0&sig=ACfU3U0ycq9wHcdH2k9AYuzFTq3mWXtcVw&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWwsC70_7nAhVKrZ4KHfyWCOUQ6AEwEXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=reverse engine to avoid torpedoes&f=false And "Notes on Naval Progress" https://books.google.com/books?id=i8byk1kcbtwC&pg=RA2-PA111&lpg=RA2-PA111&dq=reverse+engine+to+avoid+torpedoes&source=bl&ots=WdW1YqXR80&sig=ACfU3U2_xMpAclq0MzZVIl6c56mYrxHF3A&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWwsC70_7nAhVKrZ4KHfyWCOUQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=reverse engine to avoid torpedoes&f=false This discusses a Corvette going to full reverse in 90 seconds with a from full speed of 12 knots, of course she didn't go full reverse, but the effect was to reduce to 3-4 knots in that time. Google is surprisingly easy to find these historical examples of such uses in war-time, which is what we are trying to do with this game, simulate this extreme maneuvers to survive. I seriously doubt a Captain at the time, upon sighting a torpedo would find the risk of some damage to outweigh the risk of eating a torpedo outright. Properly done, these manuevers would just put extreme wear on the engine components. Another way to think about it, most warplanes had War Emergency Power (WEP) throttle setting, this would put extreme wear on the engine, but was used just for those cases and then documented in the maintenance log should the plane survive.

I don't believe that is correct, a quick search yielded the following: From the book: International Marine Engineering page 365: "A most efficient method of direct reversing is employed by which the engine is automatically slowed down before the reverse action takes place. By thus provided effective cushioning the wear and tear which is likely to occur by reversing is avoided." Next from a business insider article regarding a near collision between a US & a Russian warships in 2019 titled 'Russia blames a US warship for a near collision, but a naval expert is poking holes in its story': "Unlike a car, a ship doesn't have brakes, so the only way you can slow down is by throwing it into reverse," Bryan Clark, a naval affairs expert and former US Navy officer, explained to BI recently. "It's going to take time to slow down because the friction of the water is, of course, a lot less than the friction of the road. Your stopping distance is measured in many ship lengths." Please note, that quote is from a former USN officer and expert. Next, those who know of the Titanic are aware of the fact that the ship did a reverse while still at speed in an ultimately futile attempt to avoid the fateful iceberg. Finally, the KMS Bismark, when she lost control of her rudder attempted to steer the ship using only her screws (which involved one screw going in full reverse while she was still at speed. It should be noted that this maneuver was also attempted during her sea trials to see if this could be used. Sea trials proved only small adjustments could be made this way and there was some regret for having three screws instead of 4.

I'm going to agree that this scenario is driving me nuts. I managed to make a BC with 8x2 18" with Heavy Shells (going for gun tech boost) with 40kn speed. What usually happens? These stupid stern pursuits. How absurd are these pursuits? Well, I managed to chase bot the BB and the CA given both extensive damage, they are down to 18kn speed while my speed has been reduced to 35 . I decide to finish of the CA first ( he has a max of 8.5" armor). I literally drive my BC up his stern shooting with %10 acc, scoring hits, and most surprisingly, getting a good amount of deflections too, on a heavy 18"! You can guess what happens, my ship drives through him, pushing him aside, he still has %20 structure (because apparently red sections become damage sponges) and of course as I drive by him, hi hits me with the torpedoes (which was what I was trying to avoid). I know I could have changed tactics slightly, but the point of that exercise was to ascertain the absurdity of these stern pursuit issues and I think this does as well. I don't have a problem with the AI running, but fix the damage tables / angles. If I am hitting a ship from the stern, the reduced armour section, the shell show go right on in, not bounce because the system things its an extreme oblique angle.

Actually, it is no longer representative. On 06-Oct-2019, Nick Thomadis in the thread ">>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<" under the "Shipyard Discussions" said the following: " The Auto-Designer is made in a way that player can easily understand what to do, create his ship fast and send it to combat. Making the system even more detailed, with cut parts (we tried that) would raise so many questions about usability for players, even ourselves the developers, that the game would lose a lot of its playability. We will add several more design options but not cut parts. Much later, we can try to add more complexity, but first we have to focus on finishing the game's campaign. " I'm sorry I couldn't get the quotation trick to work from one thread to the next. Anyways, that issue was brought up on the first page of discussion. I admit, that initial video is what brought me to invest in early access in the game. From the tone of his response, I do not expect that form of designer to return and instead us to use pre-formed hulls. I would find that acceptable provided they have a very large selection of hulls to work with to make up for the loss of cut parts. An even better idea would be to allow easy use for modders to input original hull designs. Regardless, I do feel the video as is with the direction stated by the admin to be misleading.

New to this game, very much enjoy it so far, but I've found an oddity that defies physics. When selecting shell weight, the trade off from selecting a heavier shell is reduced muzzle velocity but an increase in range. From a physics perspective (and anyone the reloads and shoots firearms regularly could tell you) weight of the projectile itself does not increase or decrease range. All things being equal, only two factors affect projectiles range: 1) Muzzle Velocity & 2) Ballistic Coefficient (how much drag a projectile has). Again, with small arms and large rifles, your limitations on muzzle velocity are based on the maximum pressures the rifles can withstand. So, if you are firing a heavy shell and a light shell out of the same barrel with the maximum powder charge its rated for, the lighter shell would indeed have a higher muzzle velocity, but it is extremely unlikely that the larger shell would have such an improved ballistic coefficient to overcome that reduction in velocity to out-range it (and why would a naval artillery shells have such drastically different BCs). To further buoy the point, the below link from the USS North Carolina museum warship site shows the fact: http://www.battleshipnc.com/16-inch-main-battery-big-guns/ Note the lighter HE rounds out-range the heavier Mark 8 AP shells by about 2 miles.