Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SonicB

Members2
  • Content Count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

SonicB last won the day on February 12

SonicB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

387 Excellent

About SonicB

  • Rank
    Ensign

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. At a guess, the time period is because they were hoping to sidestep the issue of aircraft carriers... honestly, I'd love to see a little extension for AU purposes, but I don't think it'll happen unless there's an air power expansion or DLC much further down the line.
  2. Thanks for the detail! I'm not as familiar with late nineteenth-century design, when designers were still trying to figure out the basic construction of a barbette or turret armament. Bertin may well have been right; however, as you said, by the core era of this game the basic problems with multi-barrel turrets had been solved, and the choice of double, triple and later quad (or 2+2) turrets came down mainly to weight distribution, firing arcs and redundancy. I think that a technology gate, increased cost, and (perhaps) a higher chance of malfunction in earlier versions, if this is ever imp
  3. And that includes turrets of different sizes but the same calibre, as we see with King George V (4+2+4), Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria (3+2+3+2+3), and Nevada (3+2+2+3). All classes had a unified fire-control system and fired broadsides in unison, with no appreciable difference in rate-of-fire or accuracy between the larger and smaller turrets - assuming the quads on KGV actually worked as designed. The lesson here is very simple: guns should be grouped only by calibre. Furthermore, the difference between turrets of multiple sizes within that calibre should be in cost, weight, technology
  4. Yes, and the aiming calculation is different too. I really hope this gets fixed. It's a shame that HMS Dreadnought, the original all-big-gun battleship, doesn't have a unified main armament in the game named after her.
  5. PLEASE. (And also please allow optional barbettes for towers that currently have mandatory ones)
  6. Not to mention the inevitable screams for 'balance' that wrecks the campaign from PvP-only players who just got kerbstomped by some min-maxing douche with a 100-torp DD.
  7. I mean much as I don't want this to turn into yet another designer thread... I entirely agree, we need tower versions with the same stats but without barbettes and so does the poor AI. Putting a couple searchlights or some boats on an unused barbette was a nice gesture last patch but it's still just polishing the turd. Also I mean they did have interwar 'heavy cruisers' with hardly any protection like the Hawkins class, but really they were just light cruisers with the benefit of a personal trainer and great camera angles. Gorgeous ships though.
  8. I've noticed this latter issue is clearly something they haven't fixed yet. Most ships are happy with secondary or tertiary batteries, the AI wants quarternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary and even nonary batteries (I'll let you guess when I stopped and had to google.) Sometimes they are simply the same calibre with different mounts - which frankly could be fixed whenever devs decide to group batteries by calibre, but that clearly ain't happening. Anyway those two are bloody classic examples of what happens when you design a warship from the stern forwards and run out of money half
  9. I've noticed on this hull that the forward and aft 2" positions also seem to block the arcs of fire for the main armament.
  10. Jackie Fisher would be proud.
  11. For real? Rozhdeestvo is hilariously stern-heavy. Ioann's B turret can't fire straight ahead. Both ships have appalling and completely unnecessary distribution of weight towards the ends that would make them downright dangerous to sail in anything more than a light sea, as well as requiring a main belt almost the entire length of the ship. Yes, you could build one if you really wanted, but there is no sane reason why you would. It looks ridiculous because even the craziest naval architects in history (ohai 19th century Russia) wouldn't have built it, and they had a reason behind every desig
  12. What really stuck out to me was that ridiculous forward barbette. Only then did I notice that this 75,000t super battlecruiser had an industrial-scale farm of 9" turrets, which is also inherently a pretty dumb idea for multiple reasons I could go into at length. If you were specifically ordered to design a ship like that (hence my commentary) then I suppose it's not the worst thing you could do. Maybe stick a couple turrets sideways on the main tower like elephant ears, idk. I genuinely believe (as I said to Nick a few days ago) that this thread already shows how the AI designer has impr
  13. Ah, then it has changed since my version because (iirc) they used to be two older casemated light cruisers. They nearly always had at least bow/stern or one side tube, usually two.
×
×
  • Create New...