Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SpardaSon21

  1. I've mentioned it plenty but I'll do it again: torpedoes in this game have better performance than IRL by far. The current 15" torpedoes in 1890 have the performance of the German 17.7" torpedoes at that time. The British Whitehead had a range of 730 meters on an 18" platform. Meanwhile secondary guns have far inferior performance to IRL stats. The German 10.5cm (4.1") gun had a range of 10,000 meters (far more than it is right now), and a horizontal breech, not screw. Same breech type for the 8.8cm/30, and that had a range of 7.3km. The 5cm( 1.9") gun? Range of 6.2km! Torpedoe
  2. Unfortunately the current performance of torpedoes is well beyond IRL torpedo performance. Right now the 1890 torpedoes have the range and speed of the German 17.7" torpedoes, not 15" ones. Things only get worse the bigger you get, sadly, with only IRL US post-war peroxide-fueled torpedoes and the Type 93 Long Lance getting equivalent performance to the 1940 tech ones in-game.
  3. Don't forget you can't cram on the secondaries Texas had, getting towers to fit properly is a pain, especially when superstructure is concerned, and I'm sure there's a lot more that needs to be brought up.
  4. You mean the 5"/54? It got introduced with the Midway class of carriers, and was later used by the Japanese for destroyers, and the French modified their 130's to use the same ammo. Arguably its weaknesses against air attack were only applicable against highly maneuverable but relatively slow-moving propeller planes. Post-war, jets and even some very early guided anti-shipping weapons are entering the picture, and you need the increased muzzle V, bursting charge, and range of a more powerful gun to counter those. The maximum vertical engagement height of the 5"/38 was about 12km, and the 5
  5. Yes, and the 5"/38 was also the primary weapon on destroyers, as well as secondary armament on CL's and CA's, and the British 4"/45 was also shared between capitals and escorts. It isn't only BB's and BC's we need to wonder about, given that smaller-caliber weaponry played an important role on all warships, at all time periods. Unless you're going to say the 18 3" guns and the 12 Hotchkiss 3-pounders on the St. Louis class of semi-armored cruisers were just there for the hell of it and not torpedo boat defense!
  6. That's my point. The game does a terrible simulating the advancements in centralized fire and direction. A maxed-tech ship will have its secondary guns aim and fire as if it was the year 1900, not 1940. I would absolutely hate that as well. A screenless BB should always be at risk of torpedo attack by destroyers, but it should be a high-risk, high-reward deal, far riskier than it is now. I'm not too well-read on the tactics of the early period, but my understanding was that a truly successful run, as in a run close enough to sink or cripple a battleship, would have the attacker und
  7. That sort of salvo firing became a lot less necessary once you had the target locked, and when you realize the Iowa's FCS systems would be the equivalent of a Gen 3 radar set in-game for both the main and the secondary guns... hell, even the 40mm cannons on US BB's got radar ranging systems during the war, with an upgrade to automatic direction and laying at the end. 10 5" guns at full fire rate with radar direction and laying would shred an Agano and its 2.4" belt, never mind an unarmored destroyer.
  8. Another thing to keep in mind is that overall effectiveness of secondary guns is well below what it was IRL. The ancient US 5"/51 got a rate of fire of 8-9 rounds a minute, or a 7.5 second reload rate, and a range of 17km. The 5"/54 introduced in 1945 had a four second reload time, and a maximum naval engagement range of 23.7~ kilometers. The short-barreled 5"/38 reached out to a 16km horizontal engagement range, and looking at the stats in Custom Battle a 5" Mark 5 has a maximum range of 12.7km and a fire rate You can, with a single barrel, triple-base propellant, autoloading, and light a
  9. Agreed. I've seen some very odd effects when firing pure HE against heavy armor in custom battles. Apparently you completely destroy a ship's machinery rooms with nothing but HE impacts to the belt... and somehow not a single lick of water will have been let inside the ship at the same time!
  10. There are two issues. First, speed by itself is a hefty accuracy penalty when you're trying to target a ship, when in reality going fast in a straight line just made you no more difficult of a target, only the ability to rapidly shift direction and throw off the gunners would be important. As a result a destroyer is safer moving in a straight line than it would be IRL. Secondly, torpedoes need a significant aiming time no different from gunfire, with even tighter demands on accuracy since you're not going to be able to correct your aim for a second volley. I don't believe that last part is
  11. Oh, I'm somewhat familiar with them, but they were purely paper concepts even less realistic than the American Maximum Battleship plans submitted at the request of Sen. Tillman since those at least had some restrictions on their size as a result of the Panamax limits. As far as I'm concerned the H-class designs are the naval equivalent of the Ratte, and should be treated with as much seriousness. But hey, why not go all the way and let the USA lay down 80,000 ton hulls with six-gun turrets in 1917 if the Germans get to build the H-44? Same reasoning, right? EDIT:
  12. I'm sorry. I must be the only person here who's seen AI-made ships in custom battle with 4x4 18" or larger guns then. For Christ's sake man, anything over 80,000 tons at full load is over the top. Even the Yamatos and their nine 18.1" guns only topped out at 73k metric tons. EDIT: Am I the only one who thinks its utterly ridiculous that 130k metric ton hulls even exist for a game that's supposed to end in the 1940's? That's a full third again what a modern-day Gerald R. Ford CVN displaces.
  13. Yeah, its funny how despite having "Dreadnoughts" in the name of the game the Devs are strangely reluctant to touch that time period, or anything sooner.
  14. That's fair. I still want them to do something about the deck pen, as well as resistance. Those seem to be the two major complaints right now.
  15. What the hell sort of 1930 design is this?12" guns, 8" secondary turrets, 7" casemates, a lone 4" turret in the middle on a barbette, and 2" guns shoved in tight as can be next to the barbettes.
  16. That frequently happened IRL, actually. The steeper the relative angle, the much greater the chances the AP cap would failingly fail (as opposed to successfully failing as intended). The 16"/50 got very, very close with 53.3, and the US 6"/47 was over that at 58, the 8"/55 at 54.3 when using SHAP. Regardless, both ranges and velocities in-game are well below what they should be. A 16" Mark 3 gun with Triple Base, TNT IV, and Super-Heavy has a range of 32.2km (34,995 yards) and a muzzle velocity of 719 m/sec (2,358 FPS), or far lower than the 16"/50 or even the 16"/45. And the USA wa
  17. Sure, and I'm not arguing specifically against that. What I am arguing is that the developers have made dubious decisions extrapolating hulls under evaluation for the IRL threat level to the greatly expanded one in UAD. The closest one came IRL to the amount of shell weight being chucked around in 1940 in UAD would be the US Maximum Battleships, the biggest of which were 72,600 tonne proposals in 1917, and equipped with 16" of belt armor, 15 18" guns, and a top speed of 25.2 knots. Frankly the fact the USN thought they could get that level of firepower, speed, and armor in under 80,000 metr
  18. Again, an 11% detonation chance, and only on one specific rack. I'll give you that I should have been more specific, but since the official word is that even just stacking the shells a certain way prevents a full ammo detonation, it should arguably have a reduced detonation chance over TNT. Especially since Explosive D is less explosive than TNT in the first place. God, I love NavWeaps.
  19. I didn't even mention Iowa for the reason it was so late to roll out of the slipways. I was primarily thinking about the North Carolinas and their successors in the South Dakota class. The Nagatos had been extensively and expensively modernized, and the Yamatos were assumed to have 16" guns (of course they didn't, but the Japanese had done a very, very good at keeping everything about them secret). Also, @Nick ThomadisI hope you don't mind the ping, but I have another document for you on US Explosive D shells: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-093.pdf Testing in the 8
  20. I'd argue that a major reason resistance is the biggest factor with modern ships is because of the preponderance of 18"+ cannons. It is very difficult to impossible to armor against those, even using ZoI. We have realistic hulls (to an extent...) but unrealistic firepower. The pride of the Kriegsmarine in the 1940's were a couple of 15" armed battleships with armor schemes older than Jutland. Italy's Littorios? 3x3 15" guns. The Dunkerques? 8 13" guns. We have modern hulls designed to stop gun calibers that were on their way out the door even before WW1 ended. Except of course, the pu
  21. That's because you can't put 5" guns in those top casemates, IIRC. Only 4" guns, and so the AI maximizes its firepower. Not like there's no reason to do that since there's no such thing as splash confusion, unlike IRL. Errmm.... Granted its far, far heavier than the South Carolinas themselves were, but its also far faster and has better armament. Keep in mind that in 1911 only the USN had switched over to an all-centerline, superfiring armament for their BB's. The German Helgoland had four wing turrets (two per side) and only two centerlines, and even the British St. Vincent class
  22. I would like to point out that Bismarck only lasted so long because Rodney and her 16" guns closed to point-blank range and raked Bismarck with HE, intending to cripple, not sink her. KGV and her 14"s hung back at range, firing plunging shots of AP that were again, intended to cripple and debilitate, not sink her. By the time of her final battle she was a limping, wounded beast, and the British wanted vengeance, not just victory, after Hood was sunk, which is why they did the naval equivalent of slowly beating a wounded lion to death with wooden clubs. Given that Yamato's 18.1
  23. Well, French industry has never been known for its efficiency, same as Italian industry so I'd hardly consider that a fair comparison with any other nation. That said, designing and building an overengineered anything due to pride is about as French as you can get. Well, maybe Italian as well. I mean, both nations had a construction situation so bad they had to sit down and hash out who was allowed to build what during the leadup to the war.
  24. One thing I'd like to point out w/ regards to the destroyer talk is that so far all cannons in the game are SP mounts with none of the extra weight inherent to a DP design. So, having a well-armed destroyer isn't entirely out of the picture. That said, while Mogador's stability was acceptable... the guns themselves were absolutely not. Heavy, overly complicated, poorly crewed, and completely bereft of remote firing due to poor results on the earlier La Fantastique ships. Add in poor maneuverability (so poor Volta's captain mentioned in his log Strasbourg was more maneuverable!), extensive
  25. I see you're encountering what a high Resistance does to incoming shellfire. The only thing German, Russian, and A-H BBs need to fear is a flash fire. At 1930 the German Super Battleship II has a Resistance of 133.9, with 105 from the base hull and extra from techs right off the bat, giving it a damage multiplier against shellfire of -67% before modules, or in other words taking a mere 33% damage from your shell's listed damage. Max out anti-torp, add a triple hull, and give it a turtleback scheme, and that resistance shoots up to 160.7%, negating 89% of all incoming gun damage. Max out th
  • Create New...