madham82

If by nerf you mean the lessoning of impact of the pure fantasy concept that speed somehow makes a ship harder to hit, then yes that "fixed" some of the unrealistic tactics/designs being used when it came to TDs and DDs (as well as the AIs infamous BCs). It still has been removed completed, which it should, but we don't see the huge issues with speed like before.

Nothing has changed, the problem has been in the game for as long as I can remember. The issue is TDS is a flat reduction. This means each torpedo has it's damage reduced by X%. Being hit by 1 or 50 doesn't degrade the performance of the TDS. It's a huge problem as IRL even the best TDS systems would eventually become useless after multiple strikes on the same side. Torpedo damage is fine, just watch what happens when you hit a ship without TDS. It seems level 4 and 5 are the worse. I made a thread some time ago where I put 150+ torpedoes into one of the AI's 100K+ ton monsters before it sank.

Read the Scharnhorst's history. While going flank in bad seas is a fair call, passive sonar was used several times in WW2 to detect torpedoes at cruise speeds. Back to your issue, at what ranges was this taking place? Smoke in game is not handled very realistically, but that wouldn't hide a torpedo launch if you were close enough IRL anyway.

Please stop with the BS about speed (seeing it has been exhaustively discussed). Speed is a variable. The difficulty is to account for rapid changes in it or lack of accurate speed calculation to begin with. Absolutely nothing to do with the value. Go watch Drachinifel's video on gunnery. Not once is high speed mentioned as a problem. Also Jackie Fisher's statement is about the concept of a BC, fast enough to escape from anything with guns bigger than it is armored against (i.e. an actual dreadnaught).

So that would prove it is an arbitrary penalty which shouldn't be there. Hull size would have nothing to do with the weight of one propellant over the other. The actual weight of propellant is what matters. It could certainly be a case of name of the attribute not actually conveying what was intended, but then again why does the hull size matter.

I don't think anyone knows what the purpose of some of these are. Example, the propellant one. Anyone actually know if you put a single gun on a large hull does it have more rounds than a smaller hull? Too many assumptions to say these "are working as designed".

Since you are referring to the British experience at Jutland, look at the other side in that battle too. German BCs were a great example of balancing. No the issue that ended the BC concept was the Fast Battleship (i.e. Hood) and the treaties afterwards. While she wasn't armored as well as QE when completed, the differences weren't as significant in expected battle ranges. She was a far more effective design because of her speed advantage over traditional super dreadnaught designs, especially for a country with a large overseas empire like the UK. Also BS is not the accepted acronym for Battleship (more commonly used for a certain kind of fecal matter ). That is BB.

Yea speed, course, range, and bearing should be easy to find the UI. Other items deserve to be "mouse-over" type displays.

I agree. If a ship has insufficient funnel capacity, one would think it would make the smoke denser. As the engine still produces the same amount, just the funnel can't evacuate it as quickly. So more funnels over capacity would make the smoke thinner, and reduce interference.

It says armor piecing bombs and projectiles and all other projectiles over 3". That definitely implies shells. Also found this note checking on the US 16" Mk7: 1a. The nose color indicates burster type, with yellow denoting Explosive D. A narrow colored band below the nose indicates the splash color. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php#ammonote1

It is the real deal, the school that is. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/NNPTC/

There definitely is a "problem" with the AI logic. Whether it is a bug or not the Devs would have to confirm. You can spot the issue easily based on my experience. The enemy keeps it's stern to you no matter what. You start to outflank them, they turn to opposite side to keep stern on. Essentially steering in circles if you have enough speed to keep off their stern. Another example is the enemy turns away after you land a significant hit. That's not opening the range, that's the AI trying to save itself.

That's actually a backwards way of thinking about. Think of it more like this, a smaller shell was built that had equal penetration to much larger shell. It wasn't a good thing the 18.1" had similar power to 16". But you are definitely on point with the bursting charge.

Let me just leave this here for reading. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.php

Without the treaties, aircraft carriers probably would have never been more than supporting ships (that was still the prevailing doctrine in the 30s and early 40s among all nations with them) for far longer than most would think. Some nations may have never built them, as most of the first carriers were ships converted due to the treaty restrictions. In fact, even with the treaties it is not until the late 30s that carriers actually had the ability to deliver effective strikes. So one is left to wonder if there had been no treaties, what would BB design have looked like in the 20s and 30s. Clearly the Japanese thought they needed massive firepower, even though they were ahead of everyone in carrier strike capability. Just highlights the conflict between the old guard and new technology in terms of philosophy. My personal opinion is the treaties stagnated the development of super BBs long enough for carriers to prove their value, but that was after 1940 not before.

I don't remember anyone complaining about an Iron Cross (which predates the Nazi rise) or anything about an admiral. I remember an SS cap and uniform.

See this thread:

I'd say use this one, but have the accuracy penalty reduce then eliminated as the gun mark increases (to account for the development of tech to reduce shell interference). Reliability should be the main drawback to multi gun setups.

Steam keys will be given out once the game launches on Steam. It was supposed to happen last year, but obviously that was delayed.

Honestly I see lots of people for the idea and only one against. How about a poll to get a better idea of what the player base wants instead of assuming.

Perhaps an even better point, given the state of the AI formation control wouldn't some kind of map help better manage the inevitable wonky behaviors? I mean we all want the AI issues fixed, but I'm not so sure all of them can be really eliminated.

My suggestion is the hybrid approach. Look at how Supreme Commander used a roll out zoom to give you the classic 2D map. Then you can seamlessly zoom between 3D and 2D. I see good points on both sides, so I always defer to player choice in cases like this. Can both be satisfied by my suggestion. I think yes, but the real question is what the Devs think anyway.

Short answer no. There was a post long ago (before I joined) where the idea was abandoned because the AI had issues with it. Also your character icon or whatever it is, they are wearing an SS death head. I hope that was not intentional.

Think you'll get more information in the Game Technical Issues section. I can tell you from my experience the game is not optimized in the least. It pushes my graphics card harder than any other game I have.

Yep I understand. Some changes to better balance for sake of the players is all any of us is asking.