BobRoss0902
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by BobRoss0902
-
-
I mean I play various submarine simulators, usually its process of elimination and assistance with a book of their silhouettes.
So the way I go about it is.
Size and shape of hull, it is usually very easy to guess ship class from this.
Mast count and funnel count, this will narrow it down significantly.
Location, and size of said funnels which will narrow it further.
Guns/torpedo count and location, this will usually be the final identifier I need.
If I can't identify it by now I start looking at the finer details. Does the bow have a solid area in the front to prevent seawater from getting on the deck? How many hardpoints are there for guns if there are no guns mounted?
The actual superstructure at least in my experience is almost never looked at, unless its something obvious like Nelson's but even then ships with really unique superstructures are even more unique in the other places I described. Additionally some ships are just difficult to identify, it would be very easy to miss identify a Hipper as a Bismarck, and so then your reading with your range finder clocked in to find the distance of a Bismarck would say it is way further away than it is.
On top of all of this, most of this is assuming you have a perfect 90 degree angle to the enemy, if he is angled to you it makes it a ton more difficult to identify his angle, and speed, although it is still quite possible to measure the range so long as the highest point of the ship is visible.
-
1
-
-
A while back a dev said that they want to impliment CV but they would be stratigic map only, so not in battle.
-
1
-
-
The main website mentions something along the lines of AI having different personalities, I think this would be a great way to implement a sort of rival admirals system, perhaps you could have different traits for them, like lets say Japan gets Admiral Yamamoto, it could increase the likelyhood of them constructing battleships/edit their fleet composition to have more capital ships as well as certian bonuses that increase as the tonnage of the ship increases, like for example a 70k ton ship might get 2% off construction, while a 80k ton ship would get 3% off construction and so on until a maximum of 5% off.
I would want to be able to pick these sorts of bonuses for the player character, and have them randomised for the enemy. Perhaps we could add a system where if you are particularly effective with light cruisers the enemy would start to shift their thinking to use more light ships. It would also be cool if when fired from admirality you have to create a new character and have a temporary debuff to all things while the new admirality gets set up, this could make events like when in the Russo-Japanese war Admiral Makarov died due to being decapitated by a struck mine.
Your admiral could gain xp and certian events could radically change his thinking like lets say with how a Uboat pulled America into WW1, your admiral could get a negative trait of "Hates submarines" and this would decrease submarine construction time, and efficiancy, or if a friendly ship strikes one of your own countries mines could get a trait like "Cautious about mines" and it could decrease the amount of mines your country will lay.
But these negative traits could also be overcome, for example lets say with the "hates submarines" trait, if one of your submarines damages an enemy capital ship, or if they sink enough convoys it could be decreased to "dislikes submarines" which provides a moderate debuff to submarine efficiency and construction, and then if after that they sink an enemy capital ship, or even more convoys, the "dislikes submarines" trait could be removed entirely.
Personal ideas for traits
"Bragger" Makes enemy less likely to go to war as they think your fleet is more intimidating than it is, but it also adds to enemy espionage.
"Big ship builder" "Small Ship Builder" all of them have similar traits to what I described earlier
"Hates submarines" "Loves submarines" as well as some things in between
"Raider" Creates more convoy attack missions, build Cruisers faster/cheaper (excluding BC)
"Decisive Battle" Creates more major fleet actions, and builds BB, and BC faster.
"Knife fighter" Increased secondary battery effectiveness, belt armor effectiveness increased mildly when you get closer
"Long Range" Increases long range attack effectiveness, decrease deck armor weight slightly
I think it would be really REALLY cool to see some RPG elements included, as well as a rival admiral system, please do tell if you guys have ideas for admiral traits.
-
1
-
-
On 6/8/2020 at 1:42 AM, Aceituna said:
(i don't know how to say it in english but that thing when sun shines at something polished it makes that visible affect)
I think the word you are looking for is reflection.
-
5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
Well that is good news!
Was hoping for a Bayern and a Kaiser Style superstructure But hey - rome wasn't built in a day
Btw. - could we please get the “Modernized Dreadnought” for Germany added?
Yea that’s a pity - got a little hyped about the campaign too. The single missions are not too interesting to me - fortunately we have customs battles!
I personally have been playing HOI4 and then recreating naval battles in custom.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
We have a lot of work to do to get campaign to a playable (interesting and fun) state. We don't want to raise expectations and don't want you to be disappointed, so this is why we cannot state any definite dates regarding campaign. Before offering the campaign we must finish several preparations for releasing the game on Steam Early Access.
I mean I and a couple other people have voiced the same opinion that we would happy to play a campaign no matter how broken it is.
There was a beta for a game I played a while ago that had a disclaimer every time you booted up campaign that the campaign might be broken, and that it was in development, and I personally think it would be a good medium between people that want a complete campaign before campaign update, and people like me who would gladly play it no matter how broken.
But it's your game and I respect the way you are going about making it.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Ahh so the campaign isn't coming this patch? @1MajorKoenig @BobRoss0902 @HusariuS might have to wait a bit lads if dis is true ;w;
I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.
-
1
-
-
Folks, with everyone getting finiky about the next update I thought I should probably remind that I recently calculated the average time between updates. I got some very consistant results and we got 40.5 days between updates. I excluded the outliar of initial release to alpha 2.
Just saying this cause I've been seeing a ton of "whens the next update" and "how often are updates?" threads lately.
Look, if it aint here in 3 weeks then we can riot ok?
-
1
-
-
QUAD TURRETS QUAD TURRETS!
That is all.
-
3
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Alcar said:
Updates have been averaging 5-8 weeks.
Have not seen a thorough road map, but there have been posts by developers indicating that the campaign will be in the next one.
Something along the lines of 40.5 days with very consistant results.
I calculated it a while back.
-
9 hours ago, Tousansons said:
In game perspective this will be rather easy.
Pick Germany. Build a fleet. Don't pick a fight with someone way bigger than you. Keep a good and relevant naval strenght for the rest of the campaign.
Pick Japan. Build a fleet. Don't pick a fight with someone way bigger than you. Keep a good and relevant naval strenght for the rest of the campaign.
I fail to see where it will be un-fun to play. Just don't repeat history and you'll be fine.
Seeing as how the website is very adamant that you will be in control of only the admirality rather than the government, I don't think you get to decide when and who you go to war with. You might be able to influence but the AI gets the final say.
-
Both the High Seas fleet and Kriegsmariner had the exact same problem. They tried to pull a Japan where if they can't build a big fleet, they would build the biggest meanest ships to float on the seas, and when they were designed they were extremely advanced, but between Germany's unwillingness to put significant funds into the Navy and the lack of resources for ship construction they were often stuck on the back foot where, their ship that would have been ultramodern had it hit the seas when it was first scheduled to, it would be practically untouchable, but every single time the delays due to lack of funds and resources ment that their fancy new ship was now a generation behind every time despite the only way for them to win on the ocean was for them to go with the philosophy that resulted in the Yamatos.
There wasn't really much the Navy could do about it either, and with this context in mind it makes it sound like it will be extremely un-fun to play Germany, or even possibly Japan as Japan almost fell into this dillemma many many times, and actually did during WW2.
-
2 minutes ago, DougToss said:
NATO tanks use the 120mm guns now and have for a while. Hate to be pedantic about that, just saying that NATO went from 90mm to 105mm to 120mm for the reasons you describe.
There is definitely a reason 3-5" guns were used for as long as they were by protected cruisers. Some protected cruisers did have a mixed battery with 7-9" guns in single mounts fore and aft, and RTW and RTW 2 have exceptions to the rules to accommodate this.
As for UA:D, firepower and protection are a mess right now as is displacement so ships not only can be over-armed compared to historical counterparts, but there is no real downside to doing so. Definitely something that needs to be addressed.
With reguards to displacement, I've found that if you don't max out everything you actually get a fairly realistic ship, I'm pretty sure this will just end up being a problem that stays in custom and naval academy due to the costs of maxing out a ship.
-
Ok so I was fighting an enemy with who had bigger guns(and more), was slightly slower, and had slightly less armor. I set up my guns to be similar to Nelson's firing arrangement and used my higher accuracy to keep a good distance and fight him from there. I had a massive portion of his ship burning and I had flooded a decent portion of it, and killed his rudder as well. But then he scored a critical hit. He hit one of my magazines, killing my engines and leaving me down from 20knots to 6knots, as well as reducing my structure status as similar to his.
That's why I love this game, its that sense of chance. You can never really be safe or let your guard down no matter how well you design your ship or how "equal" footing you think you are with the enemy, because there is always that chance that he will get lucky and score a critical hit. Same goes for you, you never really give up until the end because there is always that chance that you will score that lucky hit.
-
2
-
-
A current issue with NATO tanks is that they use 105mm guns that have been used since the end of WW2. Due to the nature of caliber and penetration ability it doesn't matter how hard you try, you will inevitably have to up the power of your guns no matter how good the tech is behind them due to the simple fact that there is only so much you can do with a certain caliber. Now what does this have to do with UA;D you ask? Everything, the reason why no navies ever wanted to up their gun caliber and why armies today don't want to up their tank guns are one and the same. Cost, and effectiveness. Your average Abrams tank today is not going to come across peer opponents on a daily basis, further increasing reluctance to improve their guns. Same could be applied to pre-WW1 navies, often times they were simply used to keep colonies in check, and fight with random minor nations. So when it comes to say cruisers which usually are not facing peer adversaries, often times they would end up quite neglected in the guns depart.
So its usually a combination of things that keep countries from wanting to upgrade their guns, and while technology can definitely close the gap, it will never be able to fully get the same effectiveness as just upgrading to a higher caliber.
-
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:
Plus dat name doe, King karl the great. I think if i saw a ship named that and that big i would expect it to rekt everything that exists in the world lol.
gib 20-22inch guns pls.
Gib 40 inch guns like those weird ottoman cannons.
-
1
-
-
#CampaignOrRiot for next update lmao.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Personally i really like this idea, would add a greater depth to the immersion of the game as whole and make it much more interesting as well since you can be a bit naughty in making your ship a bit more chonk.
You could lose pretige, have ship construction slowed down, funds taken away or external sanctions placed, maybe lose a ship or two and the other things you suggested as well. Makes me wonder what the limits we can set with treaties will be, im actually excited for the campaign but im willing to wait for a more stable release.
I think the two most important things that treaties will be able to decide is tonnage and gun size.
-
6 minutes ago, Aceituna said:
I like it too. Anyway i got an idea: This might be connected with the inteligence feature that was discussed before-if your spies would discover that some country is cheating on treaties you could choose to reveal this information (to hurt it's prestiege etc.) or keep this information for yourself if you wouldn't like to rise tension.
Also probability of somebody noticing might differ by how much you violate this treaty (it would be different if you extend limit about 1000 tons or about 10000 tons.
Or you could use it to blackmail top leaders in said other nation.
And yeah I was thinking let's say they ban anything above say 14 inch guns. A 16 inch gun is much more likely to be called out than a 15 inch gun.
-
4
-
-
Yes we will be able to save ship design and produce multiple of the same class.
I got something from a dev a while ago about retrofitting. They want to make retros possible but as of right now no it is not possible.
-
2
-
-
A major defining thing about the Washington naval treaty was how every nation tried to find their own way to barely skirt around it, or just outright ignored it in some places.
I think it would be a great mechanic if there was a system involved with naval treaties where let's say you are building a new ship, and a treaty limits it's tonnage, you can try to squeeze a few extra tons in and hope no-one notices, maybe put funding to shut people up about it, and if it becomes too common of knowledge, you could be faced with an ultimatum to scrap your ship that you put so much effort in, or face war/sanctions or other form of punishment.
The AI would also be guilty of trying to skirt around naval treaties. Maybe implement a system where some admiralities are more prone to it than others.
I personally it would make the game just that much more interesting rather than being forced to abide by treaties without a doubt.
-
9
-
-
On 5/28/2020 at 4:46 PM, Fuems said:
I'd brought this up before, though it was probably as relative in that thread - so at the risk of redundancy, I'm still desperately hoping to see usable secondary mounts on the Hood and Nelson -styled forward and rear towers. I don't know if these specific spots were intended for small (50-76mm) secondaries or casemate mounts, but at the moment neither can be placed.
yea thats an issue on some U.S superstructures as well for quite some time now.
-
While many mock pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts for having torpedo tubes there is actually a very good reason as to why they had them. Often times the gun technology was not up to date with the protection during this period, if two pre-dreadnoughts were to find each other and engage in 1v1 combat, neither would really be able to do much damage due to the emphasis on secondary arms rather than the all big gun design dreadnoughts are known for, as well as the fact that the armor on both ships would usually be enough to deflect any shells that came their way.
This is the reason why at the battle of Tsushima most of the capital ships of the 2nd pacific squad were lost due to fire and shrapnel rather than the penetrating catastrophic hits you would see in battles like the Battle Of The Denmark Straight. Guns simply did not have the penetrating power to get through hostile armor. The same issue was seen with ironclads, where an ironclad couldn't sink another ironclad, but anything other than an ironclad was pretty much dead if they ran into on 1v1.
However the torpedo acted as an equaliser of sorts, now smaller ships would have a fighting chance against a capital ship if they played their cards right. But now we go back to the issue of an ironclad not being able to sink another ironclad, the torpedo was able to effectively ignore armor, so when you have an issue of your conventional weapons not being able to penetrate enemy armor and instead having to rely on crew casualties, and things that are more based around chance rather than skill such as fires, and ammo detonations. You can start to see why it would be very tempting to put torpedoes on capital ships.
They already fought at close ranges, within torpedo distance due to lack of gun tech, the guns themselves were unable to actually do damage to the ship itself outside of fires, spalling, etc... and there was this new weapon that was going to change everything, now your capital ships wouldn't just be resigned to fighting smaller ships, now they could actually threaten each other. And while hindsight is 2020 about the usefulness of fixed underwater torpedo tubes on a battleship, it makes significantly more sense if you think about it from the eyes of the time period.
EDIT: The reason why dreadnoughts continued to keep them was there was still leftovers from the mentality of "Capital ships will get in close and form a line of battle" for quite some time even after the launch of HMS Dreadnought. It is also part of why it took so long for many navies to dump the idea of casemates entirely and switch to the more practical less but more useful and with wider arcs of fire turret secondaries.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:
I made a comment quite some time back that the missions in the Naval Academy were having an unfortunate side effect, perfectly understandably mind you, of teaching people to think if they don't sink everything they've failed.
I say "unfortunate" because sinking things is, as you said, a bonus and obviously the best result. Controlling the area of battle and potentially denying the enemy the use of damaged ships for many months was the important thing strategically, and fighting battles of little to no strategic value is a great way to lose a war, lol. Jutland is one of the best examples, obviously, with the German's tactical victory (based on ships and lives lost) but the UK's strategic victory (Germany didn't achieve any sort of decisive result, didn't break the blockade, and its fleet never again challenged the RN in any significant way).
Warships generally could (and did in some cases) absorb surprising levels of punishment because they were designed to do just that, and the world's most powerful navies had got pretty good at their designs over the years. We all know of the BCs at Jutland and HMS Hood precisely because those were unusual, tragically so. We remember Bismarck because of Hood and also because of the fearful pounding he (according to my book written by an officer of Prinz Eugen they referred to Bismark as their big brother, and the author remarked that the last time he saw Bismarck was as they split up causing him to say "There went our big brother.....we were going to miss him very much") took in an unwinnable battle.
There again is the story of the Germans losing the strategic (and in this case arguably the tactical ultimately) battle.
The service histories of "the twins" (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) are further illustrations of the point about what 'victory' looks like as they spend significant periods of the war out of action being repaired (and upgraded at the same time). The fate of Gneisenau was a particularly strong illustration of that point.
If your enemy can't use their forces effectively, because they're damaged or resource constrained (fuel for example) or any other reason, you've more or less won.
None of which, however, means we ought to accept/expect design choices that see ships soaking up ridiculous punishment when those ships have no business being able to do so. I have always been very much frustrated that "max bulkheads" is some sort of 'undead granting design choice', LOL, where even a Transport can take 30 and more 6" gun hits and not sink IF it has those magical bulkheads and you don't hit it repeatedly in a short period from the correct angles.
We'll have to wait and see what happens with damage, armour and damage control models. I've already written elsewhere that I believe the gross inflation of hit rates is itself a poor choice with consequences throughout, and one of those is ships are shown as taking vast punishment seemingly unaffected. Even WITH the models corrected, 5 times the hits as was realistically scored will necessarily push the game away from being realistic in that the hits themselves will need to be 5 times less damaging than history suggests they ought to be else everything sink crazily quickly (as still tends to happen at present).
Cheers
On the subject of bulkheads, they could do the sort of things they pull off in game, the reason why Bismarck was still floating upright well after even every single gun on board was forcefully silenced was due to the fact that she was so well divided into sub compartments, I personally think there should be more options for bulkheads so that achieving that level of efficiency should be more difficult than sacrificing some weight as well as have tech limitations. There needs to be downsides to such a level of subdivision, I'd say when crew is a thing, more bulkheads make it more difficult for crew to escape or something like that.
-
3
-
On the topic of range.
in General Discussions
Posted
So about range, I think there should be ways to overcome range, wether it be overfilling your ships with coal, causing them to have a tendency to explode/worse crew performance, or if it should be similar to the Russian 2nd Pacific squad where you bring supply ships and refuel mid ocean, same goes for guns like how Graf Spee had a supply ship that had quite a few shells on board with her.