Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Draco last won the day on October 7

Draco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

164 Excellent

1 Follower

About Draco

  • Rank
    Able seaman
  • Birthday 03/19/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

162 profile views
  1. No no don't be, I mostly agree. I don't mind having the ability to build 100.000t+ designs as long as the infrastructure required to keep such vessels running far outway their individual utility in a campaign setting... but that is A: really hard to judge until campaign actually comes out and B: not a very comforting thought when you face your third H-class/Tillman in a row while trying to test a more reasonable design. We'll just have to wait and see.
  2. No, but such "a-historical" details (they do actually have historical precedence, look up the H-class designs) can be fixed by hyper-realists in mods once the game is launched. We've all seen the meme-ships, but RN the devs need to focus on campaign mechanics & formations instead of wasting even more time trying to fix the AI auto-designs with anti-meme ship balancing, because as we've seen time and again, even if they do fix the meme ship problem, somebody is going to cry foul over the fixes and how they spoil the realism, and we will have waited another couple of months going back and
  3. Man we're hard to please huh? When they work on campaign we cry about hulls, and when they release less features to give us new hulls we cry "glorified hull update!" Sigh...
  4. I don't think the Mk.III is perfectly analogous to either the IRL 16"/50cal or the 16"/45cal. If you play the academy missions you'll find 16" weapons up to and including Mk.V that better resemble the real world weapons (not perfectly, but a lot closer). Nick has stated that these more advanced versions will be researchable at a faster rate than the custom battles unlocking years seem to indicate, so judging everything only by what is available in custom might be a misstep. Still, even these later marks of gun that we find in academy missions outperform their IRL equivalents in their deck/
  5. On that note, succesful deck pens should also be far more likely to cripple a ship than as of present. There aren't many examples of actual deck penetrations from real life, but the few ones we have almost universally crippled the ship in question then and there. Examples would be Rodney disabling all of Bismarck's engines and rear turrets with a single hit during her last stand, or Warspite dropping Julio Cesare's speed by 1/3rd, resulting from both a secondary ammo det. and severe engine damage, again, from a single hit. Of course, assuming that the Hood was actually sunk by a deck hit
  6. Zerg's graph program doesn't appear to allow him to leave something as a non-value, so when the guns no longer have range they will just rapidly trend toward zero, rather than stop mid-graph. Same with the angle of fall graphs, a 2" gun can't shoot 20 kilometers, so it just trends towards the extreme when it runs out of data, in this case the 90 degree/40 km extreme. Once again nicely done zerg I could compare it to another compilation of numbers from navweaps, but I think everyone would be better served with the conclusions right off the bat. Implied angle of fall is problematic, since
  7. I made these with this data http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.php Figured a real life comparison with Zerg's data might clarify. Horizontal pen is taken from the EFF data bar, which is defined thus: EFF Effective Limit - The projectile will usually retain intact its explosive filler cavity, a seated base plug, and a working fuze. Other damage to the shell is not addressed in this definition. The Effective Limit may be at a velocity equal to or above Holing Limit, or it may be impossible at any striking velocity under the given impact condi
  8. Yes, everything is in equivalent armour pen against baseline iron armour. Helluva graph Zerg, nicely done! Made with excel?
  9. Yeah exactly they settled for around 30km immunity zones IRL, 8 inches would be fine for that, and 10 inches would probably be fine in our little reality where 20 inchers are an actual thing. Yeah exactly, Nick solved this back in patch eleven with the plunging fire hotfix. Didn't really notice how much it had drifted back in this direction before a couple of days ago. Now mind you, it's still a lot better than back when you needed 27.5" of deck to create a 25km outer immunity zone, but, well, still not entirely fixed I guess 😐
  10. well... I don't think that's the case. All the fall angles seem consistent with real world equivalents for a given shell and velocity, it's really just the pen values against angled armour plate that are inflated. I mean, most navy designers were pretty well aware of the potential disasters that could result from plunging fire, so why would literally all of them continue to design even their heaviest battleships with a maximum of 8" of deck armour if they knew a 16" deck plate was required? Occam's razor. They didn't because it wasn't.
  11. Yeah, think of it more like a super-sized 88 on a tiger tank trying to pierce the sloped armour of a really really big T-34. 6" field guns really stop being a good comparison once heavy armour plates become a factor. At that point you need to compare it less with land artillery and more with tank battles.
  12. Figured a lot of players and forumites on here would appreciate some of the more advanced physics mechanics of the game being explained in an easily accessible format, one that is maybe also a bit more user friendly than some of the graph-heavy content on navweaps and other more scientifically inclined web sources, so I've compiled some of Drachinifel's more illuminating and easy to understand content, to give everyone who feel they struggle with understanding the more hyper-realistic finesses of the game a good place to start. Hope Y'all enjoy Rangefinding & fire-control:
  13. Sorry no. I'll elaborate. Here's another visualisation, stolen, again, from navweaps, detailing AP qualities of the 16"/50cal Mk.VIII. The 16"/50cal has the ability to elevate to 45 degrees off horizontal, and because an artillery fall of shot trajectory, once wind resistance is taken into account, looks roughly like this: The 16"/50cal has the potential to have a fall of shot all the way up to 53.25 degrees off the horizontal. As you can see on the navweaps data sheet, penetration of equivalent armour thickness only shifts from being greater at the vertical than the horizontal o
  14. Now I do concede, most deck armour was not face hardened like the belt, and most (at least super BB era) belt armour was indeed angled, and you could just do a more easily codeable representation of that by having vertical pen be slightly higher than horizontal at 45 degrees if that is not going to be modelled in the full version of the armour scheme rework you've been talking about. still... 11.4-36.7 at below 45 degrees seems... a bit much maybe?
  15. Right. First off, sorry for the condescending tone. Not helpful. Bad Draco. Sorry. So we have a ship, it has a shell incoming at very long range. The gun firing the shell has the ability to elevate to 40 or 45 degrees, allowing the shell to descend at 45 degrees or above like so (the golden line). Now if the shell descends towards an armoured surface at above 45 degrees, penetration is higher against deck than belt (assuming no differences in thickness, quality, the belt armour being an internal belt config that's already angled somewhat ect.) However, if the shell descends at ex
  • Create New...