arekP64

Apparently plenty of barbettes cannot be installed where it used to be possible making it impossible to make a Yamato for example, sometimes just moving the whole superstructure causes placement error I am mostly facing with 'Mount 2' error in some weird places.

In my opinion it makes sense to make carriers as a end tech to unlock it as in pop-culture its widely accepted that carriers killed battleships, just like it would make sense for end tech of the torpedo boats to be submarines as they and destroyers effectively replaced them, however it is worth noting there were some torpedo boats designs which did made it to and past 40's but that's more of a minority. Just a small off topic which potentially kinda faces the same issue, fleet submarines I don't care they were a failed concept from the 30/40's I want them as part of my main fleets.

ah shit, I confused Normal maps with UV's, again. Sometimes when I dig through files I find that some dev's tend to call Normal maps in the files as UV's. I don't know why are they doing this, but they do and they infected me with this. That's why I was asking why do you need UV's (normal's) for it, my bad.

@CptbarneyI remember you were mentioning about adding UV maps, I'm having a hard time finding a reason to use them on such model. In quite a few places I can see it's a high/mid poly but I can't see the exact mesh so its hard to say.

Well this is unlikely, as missiles can always be designed to be faster and at some point you are just hitting point when it requires to redesign entire protection system if not make it impossible. A good example is Kinzhal, its a new Russian mach 10+ anti ship missile which as of right now is only intercept-able when its still attached to its parent aircraft. I've heard some rumors that this missile can go so fast that it can create plasma around its self which would make it undetectable for radar, altho I'm not sure what's the speed when it's created, pretty sure its something over 2km/s which is around mach 10. When it comes to practical way of getting through the CIWS the only other option than Kinzhal is just to throw more high velocity missiles at it, unless you're target have Kashtan as its CIWS then you can scream "F YOU" and it will be as effective since every Kashtan turret can track up to 6 targets simultaneously with either radar or TV-optical and can send lead and missiles at it. The problem conventional guns faces is the maximum velocity they can give to the rounds which is 1.8km/s and that's when they're leaving the barrel. There are 2 candidates for alternative however, railguns with approximate 4km/s and CLG (Combustion Light Gas) guns which uses Hydrogen and Oxygen to propel 45mm round to a speed of 7.2km. However this still doesn't fix the issue with impact velocity at longer ranges, this would pretty much restrict those guns to the same role as they are today they would be just better at it if nothing more. CLG's may have some potential, but they development is pretty much limited to artillery and tank guns, but they do have some interesting performance. Theoretically they max range is ~200km, but you know they use liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen, which you may guess may not be the best idea to have them on your boat, this two liquids are very explosive even on they own.

@Cptbarneythe reason for most of the ship having a single barrel is due to making the design simpler, after all most of them have RoF of like a 1 round per second or more. Second reason is that modern ships mostly relays on missiles after all they can carry heavier warhead, they are easier to upgrade than ship guns, have higher accuracy for lower price (there is one German ship in which firing a single shell is more expensive than firing an ASM, unless they fire unguided shells) and have higher chance of going through CIWS protection. usually those turrets are meant to be used as AA, part of CIWS and against light surface crafts, think of it as a big ass flak gun. Its just that the rules has changed since those old days and now we relay on different systems.

Good News I did managed to find some of them via Facebook, so here they come... Pilsudski class light aircraft carrier Ive based some of its stats on Kuznetsov if I recall correctly. Ship with Bismarck turret was a Poseidon class cruiser while barely smaller blockyboy is a Seaker class destroyer, they were more designed according to rules which sometimes were pain in the ass as I was more of a Red guy (Soviet/Russian) than Blue (NATO) and most of the equipment restrictions were based of of NATO, for example you couldnt make Mi-24 according to its specifications or IFV with bigger gun than 30 or 35mm AC. Oh and that number in the right bottom corner? its frame rate from my old PC, that moded version of KSP needed half an hour to start up and it was crashing about half of the times on it. My current PC should be able run it, after all it can run cranked up DCS.

I literally just discovered this topic, there are some cool things you posted here guys. I remember I that I did a simple aircraft carrier in KSP for a role play, which was inspired by Kuznetsov I'm not sure do I still have any screenshots of it, but if Ill find it I hope you won't mind it here.

That snake ship reminds me a ship ive made once in Battleships craft, and the third one... is that Union class drop-ship which miscalculated landing zone on reentry and splashed down in the water

Adding an option of carrying only a single salvo of torpedo would as like 4th ammo load option would satisfy one group people without hurting anyone in the process, the issue may start with making it a rational choice gameplay wise or making AI chose to do the same. We all know how good it is to carry more, but we also know TB and DD carry a second salvo or more were less common than single salvo.

Current year warfare works kinda in the same as before with the exception that regular shells are a bit more useless now. CIWS a sending a ton of led against anything within range, including missiles and potentially they could even engage larger sheels, its all about detecting targets. Ships by air are primarily engaged by anti-ship missiles which are always guided by radar or sometimes they can be targeting radar source, or go to GPS/INS coordinates and at terminal phase manually controlled by the pilot who launched them with the use of TV cameras. Essentially AA defenses got better, so the rocket did as well, if anything was rendered obsolete were conventional sheels since they have very predictable trajectory and torpedos against surface targets, on the other hand anti submarine still have they place. CIWS is a main reason why modern anti-ship missiles are being designed to be stealth or just really fast, back in Falklands War a flight of 2 Argentinian aircrafts has launched 2 active radar missiles against British destroyer, one missed while second managed to penetrate CIWS defenses and sunk it (it stayed afloat for a week before sinking). They're also the reason why missiles are favored over shells, sometimes you can get to more extreme case like Kuznetsov where ship-borne missiles are favored over aircraft ones, that's also why Kuznetsov is Aircraft Cruiser (my second favorite ship class after Submarine Aircraft Carriers) not a proper Aircraft Carrier. During second world war loses suffered by carrier aircraft by Japanese were rather high, it was either 40 or 60% I can't remember, they were high lets say. and accuracy of the attack was about 30%? which as much as weird it may sound it actually led to a logical conclusion that Kamikaze attack were the most reasonable due to accuracy and amount of damage inflicted per lost pilot and aircraft, since all of the return fuel can be converted in to warhead mass. If it was me who was implementing carriers in to the game I would make them unable or have insanely slow reload time for aircraft in battle but, by sending aircrafts against enemy fleet be able to create battle where you have only aircrafts, or whatever you managed to synchronize attack with, against any enemy ship in that area (AI would also be able to do the same so be quick and surprising with your attacks). I wouldn't want to have a popup message saying: Oh your fleet of Light cruisers was sunk by aircraft, but a BBs which were part of the same group were not even hit once. TRUST ME I know how bizarre conclusions can auto resolve options do, you can pull of 0 casualty in battles where auto resolve says its 100% win, but it gives you like 50% casualty rate. Same thing I would do with the submarines, I loved games with submarines since they were stealth games, but with big ships instead of assassins or something, in WOWS it was one of the features I really wanted, but I quit before they added it (assuming they did). Also we cannot forget that fleet submarines existed despite having like what? only a single battle they were somewhat successful? Back in ww2, nowadays submarine is essential part of carrier escort. Also French were cheating Washington Treaty restrictions for cruisers by just building Submarine Cruisers. Also if anyone will start complaining that aircrafts are OP just tell them to use Pom Pom guns

Oh yes, this kind of size battles would be difficult to make them work properly, however I would still be interested in some form of smaller supportive missions for the ground forces. but if it would came you would need to pull off something like, lets say overlord, I would actually go with auto resolve mechanism. I know how stupid AI can sometimes get with huge armies, I saw it way too many times in Campings in Wargame. Sometimes I just forget how warfare during ww1 and prior looked like

Well if you look on steam for Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail you can see on photos some land battles going on, I would expect something similar in Dreadnought, or potentially even more. I remember there was one fight during WW2 near Baltic Sea where a small group of German forces was couldn't retreat fast enough and they were cutoff. They stumbled upon a guarded village which was guarded by T-34/85s when best tanks they had were 2 or 3 Tiger 1s, luckily for them they had some support from destroyer or a cruiser near coast which provide very effective artillery barrage which managed to take out guarding units and let them to crush soviet forces in the village and continue to retreat. I would wish to see something similar taking place in the camping like this.

Well I guess we can call it a Japanese destroyer update. there are some neat parts added and hulls, but I've noticed that you've removed ability to rotate towers. I kinda get that it could be used to cheese a bit an extra barbette or two (if you lucky), but this means you can't make something what looks a bit like Ise-class or other ww1/post ww1 Japanese dreadnoughts anymore, until you add dedicated hull and towers for them of course. I really liked taking on of those Yamato superstructure like second tower and then rotating it and connecting to the main tower so they looked like a single long superstructure on a cruiser, sometimes I was also doing this to achieve very specific look of the ship as well. Well I hope next update like this one will include more cruiser parts and hulls since right now this field feels a bit empty. oh and that new ammo-rack explosion? It's not an ammo-rack explosion its a World War 1 era ballistic missile being launched! btw from what ship are those new 4 inch Japanese turrets comes from?

Dreadnought style heavy cruisers