akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
15 hours ago, Skeksis said:
In regards to the consideration of adding independent targeting for secondary's , what about assigning a target to each “director”.
Each “Director” can assign one target.
Each director to be assigned a weapons set.
After adding the main tower, If a player adds another director, then it can be assigned a weapon set like secondary's , so when in battle, with two directors there are two targeting options, main director with main guns and the second director with secondary's.
This can be expanded too, if players adds two more directors, one on each of the starboard and port sides, then the directors can be assigned the starboard and port weapons sets giving the player options of firing on targets on both sides.
Here's how the (new) targeting structure might look like (listed ancestor to descendant).
Fleet:
Default Target.
Main Director Target (lead ship).
Director 2 Target (lead ship).
…. (more).
Division:
Main Director Target (lead ship).
Director 2 Target (lead ship).
…. (more).
Ship:
Main Director Target.
Director 2 Target.
Director 3 Target.
…. (more).
All targets default to the fleets main director target, independent targeting only changes when the player selects a director and targets something.
The main fleet director is also the default target (in-case the main tower is destroyed).
If a director is destroyed then that extra targeting ability is lost.
If a descendant director or its target is destroyed then that weapon set is assign its ancestor target. If there is no matching ancestor or no ancestor target then the weapons are assigned to the next matching ancestor.
There could be an auto-assignment for directors and weapons, e.g.
if secondary's director is placed on the starboard side then all starboard secondary's (weapon set) are assigned to it.
if secondary's director is placed on the centreline and forwards, then forwards secondary's are assigned to it.
The same for main guns, if an extra main gun director is placed on the centreline and aft, then all aft main guns are assigned to it.
If an extra main gun director is placed on the starboard, then all starboard main guns are assigned to it.
Etc.
If no extra directors then no extra or independent targeting.
And the system could done for torps too, if a designer wants independent targeting torpedo's, then they would add a torpedo targeting system (a small director of sorts).
All-n-all it will be up to the designer to describe there targeting design for battle. Full the decks with Functionality I say!
But guns were entirely capable of independent fire, and that would of course be the norm early in the era. Don’t like the idea of an entire broadside of secondaries sitting idle because you don’t have late-era secondary directors. Directors should be an aid to targeting, not a hard gate.
-
1
-
-
Searchlights and illumination shells were essential factors in night combat in this era.
-
1
-
-
Easiest way would be to incorporate into models of single-barrel, open shield 2-5in guns and add to open bridge positions on TBs and DDs.
-
Well, I agree that main gun reload rates for mid- and late- era tech could be improved, but there is a much larger problem that needs to be solved first, or we will just see this problem compounded: accuracy is improved when shots are fired, not when their fall is observed (visually or on radar) and then processed through fire control!
Guns are almost reloaded and first two ladder aiming shots (shouldn't an effective ladder require 4 shots?) are still on the way to the target, but target is already "locked" at 1.4% accuracy.
First salvo is fired and accuracy is improved to 1.7%. The initial 2 shots have still not arrived down range.
Second salvo is fired and accuracy improves to 3.2%. First two shots fired are just now arriving down range but still haven't impacted!
Until this is fixed, increasing reload rates will only make this issue much worse.
-
Detailed examination of torpedo and other damage to BBs at Pearl Harbor:
QuoteThe five battleships attacked by torpedoes in the first stage of the assault had two different forms of underwater defense. The first, worked into the Oklahoma, Nevada, and Arizona during modernizations between 1928 and 1931, consisted of an external bulge or blister and internal compartments backed by a longitudinal torpedo bulkhead of 40-pound nickel steel armor and 20-pound medium steel plates for a combined thickness of 1 1/2 inches. The bulge, or outer defensive layer, was empty. Behind the original shell of the ship was a layer of fuel tanks, and behind that layer was yet another, then the inner, armored bulkhead which stretched vertically from the double bottom to the third deck. The maximum thickness of the protective layer was 14 feet, and the two void layers inboard of the bulge were filled with fuel oil to absorb the blast and pressure of an exploding torpedo.
The second system, originally built into the Tennessee and Maryland classes, covered the center two-thirds of each ship with a layer of five compartments with a total protective depth of 17 1/2 feet on each side. Immediately behind the shell was a void space 4 feet wide, while the next three compartments–each 3 feet wide–were wing fuel tanks. The bulkheads of these compartments were designed to be stiff enough to resist compression but resilient enough to bend under the pressure of an underwater explosion. Behind the liquid-filled layers was a void 4 1/2 feet wide; its inner boundary was an unpierced longitudinal bulkhead of special treatment (armor) steel with a maximum thickness of 1 inch. The empty and oil-filled protective compartments were strengthened and subdivided by transverse bulkheads, and the spaces behind the torpedo defense system could be rendered watertight in the event of an attack. Both systems of defense used voids and liquid layers together, but the system designed originally for the Maryland and Tennessee classes was superior because of its greater depth and because it held sudden flooding to a minimum after an explosion.
The evidence suggests that the torpedo defense systems of the Nevada and Pennsylvania classes, even as modernized, were inadequate. On the other hand, the system designed for the Tennessee and Maryland classes–which were not modernized in the 1930s–was far superior; it kept the West Virginia from capsizing and should have kept the California afloat. The Nevada‘s underwater damage resulted from one torpedo and two bomb hits. While still in her berth, the ship was torpedoed
-
Yes, this is forum is I think more for discussion of historical designs and components and how they might come together in the game. Your list is relevant here, but I think the other thread is a bit more pertinent to the feedback.
-
1
-
-
Agreed, but it should go in the ship designer feedback thread under general discussions.
-
1
-
-
Norman Friedman, although I'm sure Milton had some things to say on the economics of building battleships.
-
In all missions, variable conditions can have big effects on outcomes, so you might want to check that by hovering over the thermometer in the upper left. I believe you can "roll" up to a -40% malus to accuracy. And currently the malus is only to gun accuracy. Small torpedo boats will perform the same regardless of sea conditions.
That said, I agree that main gun reloads are too slow, at least for mid- to late- tech development levels. A big problem here, however, is that accuracy adjustments are made the moment the gun fires, not when the shot arrives. This is a compounding problem as you increase reload rate and range. You could be in a situation where accuracy has already improved for 3 salvos fired before the first salvo has actually arrived. Until that is fixed, substantially increasing reload rates will cause more problems.
-
My point was that we don't know if the reload sequence starts right from the moment the gun last fired. Also, this was likely filmed at 10-18 FPS and is played back at 24 FPS, so you would need to adjust time upward by an unknown amount.
Regardless, a single sequence isn't going to give the best insight into actual practical rates of fire. I would put more stock in trials, especially where times are averaged between guns / turrets and over time (to account for the ammunition supply problem).
-
That is cut together film. Can’t draw direct conclusions from it.
-
I don't think thee damage from partial penetrations is meant to be internal spalling. You are thinking too much in terms of tank armor and damage. I think AP in game is purely AP with bursting charge, so the damage is likely from the secondary effects of impact (which might cause structural damage to plates, etc.) and the bursting charge and consequent splinter damage. Bear in mind also that ships are not like tanks where all armor is on the exterior surface. Before being stopped by deck armor, an AP shell could do quite a bit of structural damage and might still be bursting inside the ship, albeit not in the vitals.
-
2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
At the moment, these are part of the technology advances in campaign. In missions, you do not see them in separate components, because their effects globally modify accuracy, aiming etc. for the ships, according to playing year.
This is a bit odd, though, as it means even TBs and destroyers benefit from technology that would take a very significant investment of space and cost for these small ships. I would like to see centralized fire control suites and gun / torpedo directors selectable in the ship design. For example, I might go for a single gun director with the most basic fire control computer in a destroyer design, but in a superdreadnought I might have a dedicated fire control room, 2 or more primary gun directors, a secondary gun director and a torpedo director, all at significant weight and cost.
-
Over many missions played, I have not noted an AI preference for single barrels on capital ships, except perhaps for some armoured cruisers (but this is perhaps not worth considering at this point as cruiser hulls are very limited relative to the range of tech boosts).
-
4 hours ago, Christian said:
also what prevents the main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun? which is significantly smaller than the main turret ?
Killing everyone manning the 4in gun and probably disabling the gun itself. Game is already very generous with allowances for superfiring guns and cross deck fire with no chance of damage.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the clear procedure Ink! Will get next instance to you.
-
Would like to see "reduced" torpedoes for TBs and destroyers give no reloads so there is an option to balance number of launchers (spread) potential against reload potential. Being forced to take two reloads per launcher is a huge amount of weight and vulnerable ammo for a torpedo boat. If we want to keep option for "what-if" crazy torpedo magazine options, there could also be an "extreme" load that would correspond to current "increased." Would also like to see reloads for on-deck torpedoes be a gated technology.
-
Still getting fairly regular crashes. They all seem to occur just as a ship takes a very damaging penetrating hit.
-
No, look up MAS-15 and what she did.
-
29 minutes ago, Ikahime said:
It looked like the other 4 inch gun, mounted on the regular deck (not sure what that's called) was shooting through the funnels as well, but This could be my imagination.
Ah, could it have been mounted in the elevated, circular platform between funnels on the late enhanced destroyer funnel? This also has unrestricted firing arcs under specific conditions:
1. If no secondary tower is mounted, it can fire straight to the rear.
2. If the bridge tower is mounted up on the forecastle, it can fire straight to the front.
I've also reported this, but if you find any other conditions in which the firing arc is not properly restricted by structures, you should report it. You can see the arc in green when you hover over the mounted gun in the designer. Areas where the gun / turret can't rotate at all are shown in red, but gaps in the arc due to structures are simply clear.
-
24 minutes ago, Ikahime said:
In speed basics 2, I scored some hits on the DD's rear 5 inch guns. I assumed this would prevent them from firing back at me, but while their forward turret was unable to rotate backwards, they had two magical 4 inch guns which appeared to be able to fire through the superstructure and funnels.
I also noticed that when I had done enough damage to them to allow me to catch up, my guns seemed to stop firing even though I was at point blank range. It wasn't until the enemy fixed the flooding and tried to run away again that my gunners decided to go back to shooting.
Both seem like bugs to me.
Currently, if the bridge tower on a destroyer hull is placed behind the forecastle rather than on it, weapons mounted on the forecastle will have unrestricted 360 degree firing arc (or rather, restricted only by other weapons mounted on the forecastle), including directly backwards through the bridge tower and funnels. Has been reported.
-
It’s trying to circle around to the back of the line, but yeah, poor choice of direction to turn. I usually immediately detach and give separate orders to any ship that take significant mobility damage as the automated AI behavior almost always causes problems. Much better to make a small turn out of line and stay on parallel course until line passes, then reattach (or just give follow order) at back of line. That avoids the sudden turns that often throw lines into chaos and confusion.
-
8 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The fire modes were meant to be on the division level too, but we left them to be individually managed to check what players wanted for them. We will make them too in the division level, for consistency.
We really need options for both, especially when it comes to torpedo behavior. Lead ship may be in a very good position for torpedo launch while trailing ship is in poor position. Forcing change in torpedo fire control may lead to some torpedoes wasted. But in other situations you may very well want the entire to division to launch to create a better spread.
-
They both fought major naval engagements in this time period. Of course they lost, but perhaps they won’t under your leadership.
Searchlight for Night Actions
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by akd
Yes, distances are often compressed for the purposes of composition and clarity in even the most accurate battle scenes, but in this case there is little or no exaggeration:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Black_Prince_(1904)
In-depth look at the night action during Battle of Jutland:
https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/