Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

akd

Tester
  • Content Count

    2,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

akd last won the day on July 2 2016

akd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,981 Excellent

About akd

  • Rank
    Master and Commander

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Big mistake baking caliber = turret diameter into the design. Will constrain and mess with the system from here on out, not allowing for historical trade-offs and balance, and requiring lots of fake offsets for balancing choice of less or more guns in the design. If the space required for a 1x XX-inch gun versus 4x XX-inch guns were the same, every ship historically would likely have mounted quadruple turrets. The overwhelming increase in firepower with no effect no effect on hull dimensions required or deck space consumed would far offset the minor issues that occurred (and were mostly sol
  2. The “sections” would then need to be variable in size and number. I mean, having the area armored increasing by 20% because a turret extends maybe 1% into a section would be a bit daft.
  3. The presence and relative location of shorelines and bases shaped the majority of naval battles, often at the tactical level (i.e. how and why ships conducted some part of their maneuvers, not just the strategic reasons for an encounter). That doesn’t mean ships were dodging in and out islands like first-person shooter cover.
  4. When was this said? I could only find the statement about “distant” land / islands, which may have been a response to an assumed request for WoW style nonsense, where ships are cruising around through narrow channels and using islands like FPS cover objects. That they noted that the underwater topography would have been more of a constraint than the actual shoreline would suggest that might be the case. Hopefully they are not saying that land will just be an ever-retreating skybox visual effect that has no tactical influence on battles whatsoever.
  5. Not sure what you are talking about here. Smoke rounds were not used in naval combat. Illumination rounds were essential to nighttime naval combat.
  6. This is actually extremely important, as one of the things the game treats as a “default” behavior is all ships in a division firing on the same target. In reality this was impossible due to the fire control confusion that would result. Making the shell splashes of each of the different members of the division a different color (and thus immediately distinguishable) was one of the first practical technological developments allowing effective concentration fire (multiple ships firing on one target). Nothing else really advanced this significantly until radio comms and fire control computers
  7. There is really no justification. Just a fake choice to provide more choices, but ends up undermining the tactical impact of the actual technology. The more meaningful decision was how long of a base to use and where to mount it, not coincidence vs. stereoscopic. https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding
  8. That has very little to do with actual gunnery. You don’t “know” definitively where the target is in relation to your estimate of future target position. Showing an aiming point in relation to an actual position is a gross simplification of the gunnery problem that removes a number of important variables (rangefinder error and course error in particular). An abstracted system could produce more plausible outcomes, although the current abstracted system does not.
  9. Yes, but if both observers are in the highest possible position in their ship (the observers' eyes are the respective mast heights), then they would both see each other (I mean the observers at the highest point in the ships, not the entire ships) at the same distance (this is ignoring complicating factors like refraction). Of course spotting was not one guy standing on a masthead looking for another guy standing on a masthead at distances where you couldn't even make out a single person standing on a masthead. But in theory, just looking at simple visibility to horizon (and to objects beyon
  10. If the both observers are at the highest point in their respective ships, then they (the observers) would see each other at the same distance. But that’s not particularly useful information for most of this era. If we are talking clear conditions with visibility out to the horizon, both likely would have seen funnel smoke already, and just seeing mast tops over the horizon does not provide enough additional information to target what you’ve spotted. Also, the topmost spotting position in a ship wasn’t necessarily the tallest point of the ship structure. And radar, especially early rada
  11. It's also based on visibility conditions, which can invert the relationship, making the lower/smaller ship more likely to spot to the higher / larger ship first (think battleship silhouette against a starlit sky versus destroyer below the horizon relative to the BB and a max visibility because of conditions that is less than the maximum possible horizon based on height). You are simply incorrect that height of observer will determine which ship is spotted first in all conditions, but in the current set of possible battle conditions allowed in Dreadnoughts, the top spotting position height
  12. Sorry, but the statement that a BB should always spot a destroyer first because it is taller is wrong.
  13. no one claimed it was harder to estimate the speed of a faster vessel.
  14. Size penalty should also be removed or minimized at point blank ranges (ranges at which simply laying the gun on target and firing would lead to a hit).
×
×
  • Create New...