Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


akd last won the day on July 2 2016

akd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,764 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. FYI, in the upper left accuracy panel, the first number in parentheses next to a given gun caliber is the total number of guns that are currently bearing on the target.
  2. Mark 5 guns, super heavy shell and ballistite will get you there, although not with the correct MV.
  3. "Mk I" 16-inch suggest a gun from the 1890-1900 era, something more like this: http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php There is no direct equivalence to naming system in game to historical guns that varied nation to nation.
  4. No, it doesn't work that way. The enemy may have a different tech level, however, which might mean access to radar that you don't have if you take the extra funds option.
  5. “Salvaging” crew from abandoned / sunk ships would be an excellent ancillary role for destroyers.
  6. I elaborated above. “Superimposed turret” would be better written as “turret with superimposed gun arrangement.”
  7. That was not a turret on a turret on Virginia. It is essentially a two-tiered, two-caliber quad turret. Open AA / anti-torpedo guns on top of turrets could not be used while main guns were active, so presents a big problem.
  8. It’s a fixed housing on top of the turret, not a separate turret. The idea was that the faster firing 8in could engage the target while the slow reload process for the main guns was underway. With tech that improved main gun reload rates, the whole idea became pointless.
  9. I think the sounds are pretty good. Lack of modeling speed of sound decrees immersion and might contribute to them feeling off to some degree.
  10. There is a bug that can cause a battery never to achieve locked status and switch to salvo fire. The only way to get rid of this stuck cycle is to switch targets, but you can’t do that in this mission since it is 1v1.
  11. I agree with the AI having no inherent advantage. I think there are a couple of design issues that make this feel like a problem when it is not inherent to AI abilities: Spotting is not relative and many scenarios pit you in a small number of ships against a more numerous enemy. If even a single enemy ship of any type spots you, every enemy ship in range instantly opens fire. This can lead to you accumulating hits much faster than you can deal with your current single target, which in turn degrades your accuracy. Devs have mentioned that ships that don’t see the target themselves will in the future have an accuracy malus, bu this doesn’t adequately address the problem for a number of reasons: This is mostly nonsense. Ships were not sent forward to act as remote gunnery directors for other ships. The only examples I can think of this occurring are with shore bombardments, which is a much simpler gunnery problem. Ships in this era should need to see their target to engage with a few exceptions: Second Generation Fire Control Radar (early radar was search only) Very advanced fire control computers and complex fire control rooms could allow for a ship within a division sailing together to control fire for other ships in the division, and / or incorporate their data in its own solution. This is mostly predicated on ships within a division knowing their exact relative distances and bearings to each other. dedicated aerial spotters with radios, probably only able to correct fire for a single ship at a time Even with an accuracy malus, it will still feel off when a mostly unseen fleet is all firing on your ship unseen. IMO, spotting should be relative and should take cues from the Combat Mission series: When a ship is selected, you see only enemy ships it can see itself (with exceptions above). When no ship is selected, you see all enemies that any ship in your fleet can currently see. Differences in towers between ships of a broad class can lead to significant differences in spotting range, which gives the AI an absolute advantage if your are on the disadvantaged end rather than the marginal boost you would expect where if one ship can see and fire on another it should in very short order be able to see and fire in return, but there might be significant differences in the technology carried to deliver accurate fire. Save for radar, primary means of spotting was Mark I eyeball with the assistance of binoculars. The distance at which ships can see and target each other should be governed primarily by conditions.
  12. Bear in mind that the crew would likely immediately abandon ship if brought under fire by u-boat without any support nearby, so there would effectively be no damage control and it could still take a very substantial amount of time to sink a ship with gunfire.
  13. They should still fire as a single battery, however, as should side and centerline guns of same type. Hopefully a solution can be found.
  14. Everything you wrote before last indicates a change from status quo, and none of it is tied to directors. Guns / turrets of same type are grouped batteries, then director technology adds bonuses to accuracy that are consistent with fire control through a director. So early on you get "centralized firing" but without the benefits of the actual technology installed.
  15. Greater factor overall would probably be splinters from near hits penetrating unarmored / poorly armored hulls.
  • Create New...