Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

HMNZS Achilles

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About HMNZS Achilles

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Interests
    Military history and wargaming

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’ve done it in a number of modern battleship designs. Trying to get the smashing power of heavier guns with the volume of fire from lighter main guns filling in between the volleys from the big guns. The game design, for some very plausible reasons, has chosen to fire full battery salvos. The more common WWI WWII practice was to fire half salvos which had the target under attack more frequently (and Was also thought to result in lower shell dispersal patterns and therefore improved hit per shell averages). I’ve been happy with this as a design option - and don’t feel I’m mad 😜, just different 🧐
  2. Dependent on how the campaign mechanisms work. Get a quick build fleet into the water quickly on the basis that a hull in the water trumps a super warship still with years to go in the builder’s yard every day. Then depends on my country and what its objective is. Of the list Austria looks the one with (potentially) the least complex naval task. Control the Adriatic? Primary enemy, Italy. Torpedo dominant torpedo boats/destroyers, backed by cruisers, backed by battleships. short range.
  3. I’ve had that. Sunk two enemy battleships then got the last to 1% structure but despite many more hits I couldn’t get it to go down. I had earlier lost any ability to steer from a torpedo hit and finally got sunk by more swarms of torpedo volleys. close but no cigar. Another crack at this scenario timed out, again with me having destroyed steering with all the enemy eventually vanishing in the mist and me having no ability to turn to find them. I think I had killed two battleships by then. The game did helpfully keep telling me where their smoke was in my wake. 🙃 It is an intriguing scenario though and I’m determined to beat it. My latest design theory is ...... for telling if I get it to work.
  4. Thank you for opening this thread. I've only been playing around with the game since late in Alpha 5. I do have some thoughts on the complex simultaneous equation that is topic of gunnery. Agree rate of change is one of the more important factors in naval gunnery (probably two rates of change - rate of range change and rate of baring change, but any whoo) Essentially if there is a low rate of change the firing ship and the target ship are travelling roughly on same course at a very similar speed (assuming the rate of change calculation is correct) and while that is maintained the laying of guns on the point the target will be when the shells land is simpler. High rate of change means, therefore, course and or speed of firer and target are widely different then the prediction becomes a bit harder and the consequences of not correctly calculating rate of change more. Calculations were made by mechanical computers of varying levels of automation and plotted on a plotting table or its equivalent (at least once longer range director controlled fire came along). To overcome the many problems noted above with calculation (e.g. accuracy of range finding, correct deduction of relative course etc) observation of fall of shot is used to empirically correct the plot. So the longer both the target and shooter (both likely playing both roles of course) the better the accuracy of the plot should get even at a high rate of change (though not as good as low). The plot becomes less reliable when either the target or shooter changes course (and to a lesser extent speed) and the observed fall of shoot is likely to fall off target and the target will need to be reacquired and the accuracy the plot re-established. What's the game implication of that? And the game mech seems to be doing some of this,. A) Accuracy should build the longer both target and shooter both maintain course, and improve particularly following the fall of shot Accuracy should degrade when either change course, the bigger the change in course (well change in rate really) the bigger the degrade and more so if the shooter violently changes course because that will likely to throw out the gyro stabilizers that are key components of the plotting table/computer and they take a while to settle down again. C) A high speed target, even at 55 knots, that is holding a steady course (and therefore steady rate of change or range and bearing) should become a predictable target to a steady shooter. I don't think the game yet does that. Speed of target seems to be a permanent degrade on accuracy (though my testing isn't limitless yet). Happy to have the developers tell me I'm teaching them how to suck eggs and they are doing this. cheers.
  5. Standard and fast needn’t be a torpedo type selection. It was something all (most?) torpedoes could be set to do prior to launch. Run The motor faster, for higher speed, burning fuel more quickly with consequential shorter range, or running the motor slower, so the torpedo conserved fuel and ran longer but slower. This setting would be ordered by the Flotilla commander or the ship captain. Other settings included depth. The deeper a torpedo hits, the more destructive its damage effect is and the more likely it is to miss less important destroyers but hit deeper draft capital ships. Having all those super aware destroyers scattering from destroyers that are set to run under them would be a nice touch! Hydrophones, can’t determine the depth a torpedo is running at. While on that line of thinking, hydrophones an Sonar should be heavily degraded when its ship is running at high speed due the ships own hull noise and cavitation masking other noises. The other helpful outcome of downgrading hydrophone/sonar effectiveness at speed is that it means players have a choice to make whether their ships use high speed downgrade the effectiveness of gunnery solutions or travel more slowly to audibly detect torpedoes. They can still use lookouts to spot torpedoes being launched or leaving a wake, but lose the bonus of hearing them as well.
  6. That’s an interesting thought. Do you have examples of when warships with multiple tube batteries fired single torpedoes or only part of their salvo? I can think of a handful but I’d class them as edge cases rather than standard doctrine, which I’d characterize as, launch everything that can bare to maximise the chance of hitting with something and this may be our only chance. The exceptions include. a) submarines often launch one or two tubes of a possible salvo, depending on the attractiveness of the target. But not yet part of the design mech. b) examples of German warships hunting merchantmen might launch one of their scarce fish to dispatch a ship that had been captured. Admiral Hipper did this during the Norwegian campaign. c) scuttling a crippled friendly warship to prevent it’s capture. SMS Lutzow at Jutland is an example. But that’s about it. You know of others or perhaps a doctrine paper that some navy recommended part torpedo salvos for their surface ships? The way whole salvoes were fired did have some variations from the way the game handles it though. The width of a spread from a multiple mount could be varied by setting the gyro on individual torpedoes, using a key in a dial on the torpedo, to adjust the course it took after launch. The torpedo mount could also be ripple fired to launch each torpedo sequentially so they went in the water one fish at a time thereby spreading out the salvo a bit. But these are likely super details beyond what the game would like an overloaded player to handle. Though could add to the torpedo drop down menu (with a delay to activate once the setting is made - all those crew running around setting the gyros or firing sequences on the mounts).
  7. Couldn’t agree more the huge number of torpedoes that ships can carry turns this into a torpedo shooting game. Like the idea of limited reloads being no reloads And it could be half a set of reloads for standard and one full set of reloads for increased. That seems to be as many as were added for deck mounts and they had an additional stowage box occupying deck space for storing these that the game would do well to model. underwater torpedo systems stored more reloads. Up to 4-5 per tube. If the game feels it needs to have these exaggerated torpedo loads to appeal to its intended audience, then at least add additional storage areas on deck to store ally these torpedoes so players do get the trade off of carrying the hundreds of tons of these fish. still great fun buildinga fight ships
  8. Ahoy. purchased the development version this month. yet to find if it’s possible to save custom battles and particularly ship builds in this mode. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...