Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About draconins

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I assume positioning of radar? If you have correctly scaled drawing of Yamato and Bismarck, and know the positions of the radars you can measure its position. The search radars actually prominent enough. You can use anatomy of the ship book for both of them (Anatomy of the ship : Janusz Skulski and Bismarck: Stefan Draminski and Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Bismarck by Stefan Draminski). The Yamato one has new edition with some additional (and some removed) called Battleships Yamato and Musashi (Anatomy of The Ship). Both are physical books, and not really lengthy as it is mostly dr
  2. The search radar specifically, not whole radar set. Other including FCS were intact until the tower being destroyed by direct fire in later action. IJN knew the blast effect early on, and many of its equipment placed, hardened, tested, or shielded for this problem. There was a 28 October 1942 Musashi test trial, which include the testing of newly equipped radar, (not september 1942 as some other source says). During the trials the radar display is damaged by gun blast. This was fixed by at least November for second trial on 28 November 1942. No further report of blast damage on
  3. While I generally agree that ships does not have linear acceleration like you said, it can be difficult to actually fully emulate historical values in the game. This is as engine and hull actually have different performance on different speed. Some hull form may not have fully known information. For example IRL, Yamato, we don't know for example what is the bulbous bow design speed for Yamato, is it in intended for cruising speed or for top speed? This is as bulbous bow generally have specific handling characteristic which make the ship more efficient for specific speed but may be worse f
  4. Can you take screenshot how your ships launched your torpedoes? you will need to attack from multiple direction in this mission
  5. Can I have your battle configuration, or is this naval academy mission? Do you know the armor thickness configuration? Your 98.6 is basically for at least 1 hit for all 9 guns, however more than half of your hit is Ricochet (104hit) based on stat on top right, hover on the icon to see the details. Also your enemy is super armored, it has like 10.3 to 50.1 inch armor (with quality), so it would be quite difficult to brought down even when angled correctly. Depending on their armor configuration, you may need to either fight at closer range (if belt is weaker) or longer range (if deck is weaker)
  6. Another check to my library, and the one I use did mentioned that the protection on aft steering is considered outside citadel. From Anatomy of The Ship Battleship Iowa, pg 12 I also scanned the armor arrangement scan from later page as part of configuration should be clearer than the one shared by @disc
  7. This looks good! Thank you for the update, especially for the formation! Question in this formation control: would player be able to assign location for the subformation? For example assigning some group destroyer on say 45degree forward portside, or assigning it 30 degree portside? or it is more like automatic and fixed? whether player can still break ships into different formation in different direction? I mean splitting for example say some group of ships to east some group to west? as the formation changes sounds like you instead controlling big ship formation how yo
  8. Torpedoes still effective in certain condition, it is just there are tech to make it less useful or more useful. Even in prior WW1 "destroyer" originally created to counter torpedo boat, as torpedo attack is dangerous to capital ships. It was originally "torpedo boat destroyer". IJN invested and train heavily for torpedoes hence their torpedoes really powerful. In real life though some aspect is less useful due to technology, for example radar make ambushing using torpedoes difficult. Please do not judge all torpedoes just by WWII US torpedoes, if US torpedoes mishap in the game, you won'
  9. Owari is indeed second named Kii class, however third and fourth planned were Suruga and Omi, though not yet had formal "naming". Both are old provinces of Japan. In english wiki this is not present, but checking japanese wiki, it is there https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/紀伊型戦艦 . Also in https://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_kii.htm. The name itself indeed used in the future as Minesweeper and Supply ship. Suruga itself is another possible name for the improved Yamato. Other possible names are Harima and Iyo, both to my knowledge never used in Japanese military ship. On reusing
  10. Sorry I don't understand what do you mean here? What I am saying is that Shikishima is lead class already existing ships. I had many referring to name of Kii or Omi as possible name either for 4th Yamato or new A-150, and the names were already planned to be used for cancelled ships. Both were old provinces of Japan and does fit into convention. Based on what Wakaza being suggested? I have heard Echigo but that was mainly fandom, but i read this was suggested as 5th Yamato (Kai Yamato), planned as improved shinano/Yamato, referred as hull 797, this was superseded by A-150 design. Battl
  11. While I love to have this, I think this should be part of future minor update. However I have complaint if Shikishima name being used, as it is very fictional name for A150, and only used in WoW to my knowledge. This is especially more so for a ship which already lead for the class for pre dreadnought battleship which is covered in timeline of UAD. Most reference of probable actual name A-150 would be either Omi or Kii. Kii basically a planned lead ship name which is originally planned for other old ship though it was cancelled due to washington treaty. Omi is another name in that class w
  12. Naval ops does not model the heavy armor extending the citadel for protecting underwater stern, it only uses the citadel proper only at waterline, similar how you don't usually use term citadel for the Barbette protection extending upward. For the percentage, I only remembered from the reference mentioning it before, I simply don't remember where, I may be wrong too though in this part I remembered when I read this, I was surprised that the number matched how naval ops model the VP. This is also why I said not to use hardcoded 53%, it is simply limiting and you may want make "monster" ship. An
  13. While I generally agree that the damage modelling can be more realistic, I disagree in your specific battle screenshot, as you basically over pen nearly everything, in close range where trajectory is almost flat. I don't believe this is simply issue of of damage modelling nor about bulkheads. You are shooting above waterline. If you are shooting from farther away, I think it is more believable. This is a good reason to use even smaller guns with low angle capability, especially in the larger warship you use. Of course in real life the warship supposed to hit the waterline with smaller gun
  14. Battle of Savo Island and Battle of Tassafaronga Pay attention to your gun size "Mk xx" the higher the better your accuracy is, in that mission I would recommend boost tech, and try to use 13 and 14 inch guns (10+ guns recommended) with best accuracy possible, so you want best stereo rangefinder, but you do not need best bridge towers. Increasing shell weight can help. Make sure at least you prep your armor against 12-14 inch guns. Initially try to "kite away", try to maintain long range battle initially (15km-25 km) but keeping accuracy level above 5% (in fact set to save) and damage
  15. I think the changing difficult mode is not yet implemented, that is what it mean by "it does not change anything". I believe you can change difficulty in the future for individual mission hence button is there for each mission. At the moment, it does not matter.
  • Create New...