Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

coalminer

Members2
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

coalminer last won the day on February 3

coalminer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

84 Excellent

About coalminer

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Just wanna drop by and say cheers for keeping up with the bug hunting over the past few months despite the (by now rather standard) silence from the devs. I hope they've atleast seen this.
  2. Yamato's bulbous bow was extensively tested in towing tanks and she was built before the end of WW2, advanced hydrodynamics was a well known subject and further improved upon by the availability of advanced CFD. The Iowa classes were also completed before the end of WW2. Why bring up the Vasa and Mary Rose where actual first hand documentation is scarce for wooden sail boats when the Turbinia was built, tested and improved upon by well known methods in 1890s? on the 2nd, the term "fair winds and following seas" has probably been around for a long time (since the age of sail at the very le
  3. Perhaps you can point what where specifically it provides the centre point of gravity on this image? All i see are armaments and armour layouts which also does not include any weight numbers or stability calculations and machinery spaces. This image on wiki is credited to Janes which as far as I am aware would not have access to such (back then) state of the art engineering drawings. Since we are citing wiki, looking at the preceeding Formidable class which the Mikasa is based off on, these numbers are provided (Freeboard was 23 ft (7.0 m) forward, 16 ft 9 in (5.11 m) amidships, and 18 ft
  4. Lord Kelvin was around before the pre-dreads and the major calculations (basics of buoyancy) not to mention sailing and ship design experience was already very mature by then (iterative design improvements is well ingrained in the naval architecture design cycle). Saying that naval architects didnt know how to trim vessels back then is kind of very farfetched. This assumption also seems to completely ignore machinery weight which is a sizable amount and typically located further aft. This aside, it only further highlights the glaring need for more improved designer otherwise everyone's desi
  5. Hulls are going to be imbalanced anyway with the fixed approach taken with certain nations having inherent advantages simply based on available hulls, I'm going to assume its going to be more number and % tweaking in the future to "balance" the nations because thats how technology, naval design and warfare worked(/s). The fixed towers would likely also be a similar issue. It seems to lean towards new = best, big = better when it comes to towers, components (smoke stacks). +++++ On the 10% increase, this has also been demonstrated in the past that random numbers are pulled out for "balance
  6. Like many of the more active community users who gave alot of useful feedback, I have also more or less given up on this. The arbitrary resistance % given to hulls is just as far from reality as possible. Damage resistance should purely come from internal arrangements (which doesnt exist), armouring scheme (which doesnt exist) and a few other abstract ideas that barely resemble real world physics (bulkheads, citadel, floatation %). The example being a 20" armoured DD hull will always be more shell resistant than a 500k tonne BB hull with 0 armour. All the response we got from the devs is eithe
  7. This game has some technical portions to it but most of it is not realistic or outright fantasy. a completely flat sided square steel box with 0" armour plating installed is not anywhere less resistant to a ship shaped hull form with also 0" armour plating installed. Stating in patch notes that "special hull resistance characteristics making it especially durable even against battleships." makes 0 sense because arguably, a destroyer hull with 20" armour mounted would be more resistant to gun fire than a 500K displacement BB with 0 armour. Modifiers and barely comprehensive damage models a
  8. custom battle with unlocked mode is probably as close to sandbox for now but it still restricts gun technology and superstructure to the underlying hull type. although i suppose one big issue with mixing parts is further clipping and turrets not fitting to the integrated barbettes and thus restricting builds.
  9. Yea... thats the general sense in most of the feedback threads which has unfortunately been ignored or has received no acknowledgement from the devs. A campaign at this stage with the in game mechanics would probably be the same as custom battles because the AI will churn out speedboats while most of the core concepts do not work well(e.g gunnery, armour, etc.). Would it be naval game? yes, but would it be realistic (as advertised)? probably not. The use of language such as "New model that can recreate the German “Deutschland-class” cruisers such as the “Graf Spee”. In-game it can be
  10. The last time there was a serious discussion on this the devs simply chose to ignore everything and close the thread. As that was not the first time they have done it, i am just going to assume the worst and this game would not be something i am still interested in (to put it lightly).
  11. Seeing this response in the Alpha 12 feedback thread has killed any of my remaining interests in this unfortunately. This seems to imply that they do not intend to change the way armour is distributed or customised on the hulls (which most likely means no changes to gunnery/damage systems) beyond tweaking numbers and modifiers for "balance". Oh well, had some fun here and there but probably wouldnt come back until something else big comes along.
  12. Yea was kind of lazy to do this during work hours, uploaded the images below. https://imgur.com/881kAkDhttps://imgur.com/881kAkDhttps://imgur.com/a/zfZqdV7 Its easy to recreate, just place down the rear tower and play around with the mega funnel, a number of placements are invalid.
  13. Seems like underwater guns are caused by the hull not recognising guns being too far off? (see the 2 6" triples above the B quads, it was an accepted design according to the designer. Also theres a weird bug with the new UK Modern(? i forgot the name the highest tech level one) where the mega funnel would fit/not fit depending on where the rear tower was placed. Ran out of attachment space, will upload images if required.
  14. On the unique layouts i would prefer if the team built generic hulls (either with a stepped or flush hull) and through the use of barbette placement freedom, allow us to build such layouts. The integrated barbette and towers are quite restrictive and has been rather unpopular in the past.
×
×
  • Create New...