SpardaSon21
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by SpardaSon21
-
-
4 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:
If you play the rebalnace mod and struggle to unlock techs at the proper time that's something i would want to know about. I think i got mine at around 1917 IIRC
Alright, I'll give it a shot. I was tech-cheating my last campaign because I wasn't sure if or when GL would force a deletion of the save, so we'll see how it works with a more honest one.
Tech tree aside, I absolutely loved every single one of your battle changes. Everything felt far more natural. Was using 0.04, I think.
-
On 1/31/2023 at 11:59 AM, admiralsnackbar said:
Triples were a rare thing in WW1 and twin turrets on cruisers also sort of a rarity, so the timing seems historically accurate, but I agree I wish people figured them out sooner.
1918 is the year doubles made their introduction for cruisers and destroyers. I don't know what the year on them is in-game but regardless I doubt it will come at the historical time thanks to how over-crowded the Turret Mechanisms tree is, especially for the AI.
I still don't know why they put gun length there and not in the gun techs...
-
On 1/29/2023 at 5:56 AM, admiralsnackbar said:
Late game triple debuffs are not that bad. RN it's also a good way to compensate for the fact that triples duals have the same size turret ring.
Wasn't talking about turret debuffs, even if I did start with that, and I did notice you compressed them down, which is nice. Mostly I wanted turret size techs to show up earlier than they do if that's possible, especially DD/CL turret sizes.
God, that whole Turret Mechanisms branch is the most painful one in the game to research.
-
6 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:
Worth mentioning that an 8 inch gun MK V with a -25% reload can get 1 shot out every 7.5 seconds, of course the triple guns reload debuff might take that closer to 8.5, again that's a bit slower than demoines but faster than mogami or baltimore classes IIRC.
The turret debuffs are something I've wanted to bring up with you, especially since Game Labs has turrets handled pretty terribly, and IMO they should be next on the list after guns are good enough.
Triple large mounts were in use as early as 1909, when Dante Alighieri was laid down by Italy, and CL and DD twin mounts for main guns as early as 1918, if not sooner. Both the Omaha-class and HMS Enterprise were laid down in 1918, and Hovey and Long of the Clemson class were laid down that year as well. Earliest I can find for a CL with triples is the Mogami class laid down in 1931, but due to game constraints they wouldn't be able to be refitted to 8" guns as CL's.Then of course you have the Brooklyns in 1938, but there's not a single thing "light" about those since they were built on a heavy cruiser hull.
-
Can you please change it so exiting refit mode returns us to the ship designer instead of whatever previous menu we entered the ship designer from?
-
1
-
-
Quote
- Improved aiming and fixed issues that could cause a different aiming experience for players with different pc systems.
Jesus Christ, aiming worked differently based on your setup? No wonder people were reporting so many issues!
And yeah, let me throw my hat in the ring and agree that this is nowhere near suitable for a full release. Balance is still whacked, vital hulls and towers are missing, secondary barbettes need to be made more flexible or at minimum hardpoints fixed so they don't overlap the side of the ship, the UI needs to be completely remade to handle all of the new features that have been added... I'm sure others have more to add.
-
8
-
1 hour ago, Lima said:
I had a long fight. During the whole fight, I saw only a couple of hits in the main belt. Everything hits into the deck from any distance.
I assume that the mortar trajectory is an attempt by the developers to correct hits to other ships. Well, I can say that there really are much fewer such hits. However, the price for this is absolutely broken shooting mechanics.
Its a combination of far-too-heavy ammo (since the devs don't separate out the ammo from the shell for weight) and too-low velocity. In Shared Design as the USA in 1940 the triple 16"/56 Mark 4 with Capped Ballistic I/Triple Base/Super Heavy/Dunnite fires an AP shell that weighs 2195kg, or 4,839 pounds, or almost a full metric ton more what the actual super-heavy shells weighed at 2,700 pounds/1,225 kg. The muzzle velocity of 722/sec is also hilariously low considering those guns IRL at 16"/50 had a muzzle velocity of 762 m/sec... using what was essentially an upgraded form of Poudre B propellant.
One of the issues is that whatever the velocity of a base barrel is scaling it up jacks it up far higher or a lot lower than what it would be if that was the gun's normal length. Using that same ammo/shell/year combo with all Mark 5 guns a 6" gun that has a muzzle velocity of 865 m/sec at the base L/57 but shrinking it down to L/50 at -11% length drops the velocity all the way to 740 m/sec. I had no idea losing 7 calibers cost you 80 m/sec. Meanwhile the 8" L/50 at base length has a velocity of 810 m/sec. A 5"/41 has a velocity of 762 m/sec, but raising it to an L/50 by jacking the length up to a full 20% to make it an L/50 gives a muzzle velocity of a whopping 965 meters per second. The IRL 5"/54 only went 808 m/sec out of the barrel, and that was intended to take down early jets. Naturally the shell weights are all about twice what they would be IRL.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, anonusername said:
The correct answer here is to properly model the armored bulkhead at the rear of the citadel and allow sufficiently powerful shells to go through the destroyed stern and penetrate it from behind. Instead we get shells fired at broadsides magically doing a 90* turn into the citadel and ignoring the armor.
I know, right? But this is Game Labs we're talking about. And speaking about the transverse bulkhead...
12 hours ago, anonusername said:I wonder if it is possible to make AoN citadel reduce the penalties from stern/bow damage.
We'd need a proper AoN first. The way ships are set up the citadel goes from the waterline to the top of the hull. There is no discrete magazine to it nor is there a separate upper hull or casemate belt section, and AoN reduces the chances of an engine, flash fire, or ammo crit from a penetrating hit, so it is perversely to your advantage to make the citadel as large as you can if you have the weight to maximize your defense against any hit, even HE, especially since that extra armor weight lowers the center of gravity, reducing pitch and roll.
-
3 hours ago, anonusername said:
This was introduced because of player feedback, but went too far in the other direction IMO.
It was introduced not because of player feedback on damage models but because AI ships kept running away and their sterns kept eating all the shots leading to near-invincible ships, and rather than do the difficult but necessary thing and fix the AI Game Labs added the damage overflow.
3 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:If the flow of damage can be limited in the parameters I can try to tweak it down. I like the idea of being able to cripple a ship that uses all or nothing with HE or common shells but not necessarily sinking it outright.
That sort of thing should be exceptionally difficult since AoN ships were explicitly designed to prevent that sort of thing by having everything outside the citadel be of little to no value. Everything from ammo to fire control to primary damage control to even backup diesels were inside the citadel. The only thing the towers were necessary for was providing central rangefinding as opposed to turrets handling that individually, which is what the bunny ears on the B and Y turrets were for. I believe in an emergency one of those could even handle fire control for all three turrets thanks to how they were hooked into the fire control computer.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, o Barão said:
Well, that for me is a bold claim, but it is possible that I am wrong. I fully agree that it is possible to lower the chance by a great magnitude, but to be 100% sure is just too much IMO. But maybe I am wrong, and I would like to know more about this.
Anyone has a source of information that supports this statement?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/047/0404730.jpg
USS Boise took an eight inch shell to one of her 6" magazines. The powder ignited and burned out both of her barbettes and blew off several deck hatches from the pressure created by the burning powder, but there was no detonation of ammunition and the turrets themselves remained intact without the fires penetrating through their anti-flash protection. Thanks to the flooding any fires in the magazines themselves where put out almost immediately, and almost all of the powder that was released by stowage by the shell impact and debris did not ignite.
https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportCL47/WarDamageReportCL47.html#II-1
Quote15. The explosion of the shell in A-507-M ignited all cartridge cases out of tanks in the magazine, and two cartridges in tanks were pierced by shell fragments, ignited, and burst open. The majority of unopened tanks in A-507-M were badly crushed by the blast, but the powder in them was not ignited. The flame from this fire quickly passed into the lower handling room of turret II through the holes in bulkhead 35, ignited the powder in the hoists and burned up through the entire turret, bursting the powder hoists open along the seam on the various levels within the turret. This was the fire observed by the men abandoning turret I. The fire in No. II handling room passed through fragment holes in bulkhead 39 and through the door, which was deflected aft, into magazine A-515-M. Here it ignited several exposed cartridge cases. The door in bulkhead 45. was dished aft a little and flame entering through scuttles, around this door and through a splinter hole in this door burned one man in turret III handling room but started no fires. The fire spread to the lower handling room of turret I through the scuttles in bulkhead 29, set fire to powder there and burned up through the hoists in this turret, bursting them open as it did in turret II. All exposed powder did not burn, however, as several cartridge cases were found in the hoists with unburned powder in them (photo No. 18).
16. It is noteworthy that while unburned cartridge cases were found in the hoists of both turret No. I and turret No. II, there was no regular pattern of burned and unburned cases. This agrees with the performance observed in 5.25 inch turret flash tests conducted by the British in 1938.
17. The pressure generated by these powder fires did comparatively little damage. The first platform deck over A-507-M was deflected upward about 2 inches and the stanchions in A-507-M were pulled from the second platform deck, tearing holes in the deck over A-608-M. Bulkhead 35 was deflected about 2 inches in several places, but other bulkheads were apparently undamaged. Judging from the deflections of doors and hatches, the pressures developed in handling rooms No. 1 and No. 2 were greater than those in A-507-M except in the immediate vicinity of the shell explosion in A-507-M. Doors to magazines A-511-M and A-512-M were deflected 3 and 4 inches respectively, allowing flame to enter these spaces and the exhaust duct from A-511-M was charred up to the second deck but no powder in these spaces was ignited. Doors in No. I handling room (including the door to A-507-M in bulkhead 29) were all dished outward 3 to 4 inches, but there was no evidence of fire in magazines A-503-M, 505-1/4 or 503-1/2. Hatch 5-28 in No. I handling room was blown down into A-601-T.
18. The gases generated in No. II handling room either burned or blew the rubber gasket out of the armored hatch in the first platform deck, but the dogs held and the hatch remained in place. This also happened in No. I handling room. Gases from No. II handling room passing through the opening under the hatch into trunk A-414-T, however, blew the third deck hatch off. The hatch bent in the middle, pulled out of the dogs and pulled the hinge pads from the deck. It flew up and flattened the firemain overhead against the second deck. These gases distorted surrounding bulkheads on the third deck, and sprung W.T. door 3-35-2 into the warrant officers' mess room. There was evidence of fire forward of this door. How it got there is not definitely established but it is probable that sufficient flame was forced through the edges of the door to start a fire within. The dogs remained operable and the door could be opened and closed, but it was not watertight.
19. The series of powder fires described in paragraphs 15-17 above was apparently over very quickly. Flooding of A-507-M through the shell hole apparently quenched the fires there before the powder in containers had a chance to ignite and the powder in the handling rooms and hoists burned up quickly. While the fires were very intense, they did not burn long enough to do much fire damage - paint, for example, was singed and blistered but did not show any evidence of having burned, and rubber telephone cords in the handling room were not burned.
While I suppose it was technically a flash fire, it did not result in any of the T-72 style turret popping we see in game, and in fact the flooding caused was of greater concern than the fire given how short its duration was.
14 hours ago, TiagoStein said:As far as I know no navy used propellant that was inert to heat (.ie. something that could only detonate with electricity ) like C4 is.... so 100% reliability seems very very far fetched.
Cordite is mostly nitoglicerin, and I think everyone knows how that reacts to violence.
One woudl need to read this with care and check each one in detail : http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php
Which is why the USA was using a single-base nitrocellulose compound as its primary propellant (AKA modernized Poudre B ) until the end of WW2. See above for what happens in the worst case scenario of a direct hit to the magazines with such a propellant.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:
The twin 5 inch guns on iowa weighed something like 77 tons,
That's because they had all-elevation power loading for use as DP mounts. The twin SP mounts such as Porter and Somers used weighed a mere 35 tons for an automatic loading twin mount and all they gave up to save that weight was 50 degrees of elevation, 10.3 degrees a second of traverse rate, and 4.6 seconds of elevation rate.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Lima said:
Which hull and what mk? I designed the destroyers yesterday and didn't notice any problems there.
Mark 2 and 3, on all hulls near as I can tell.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Lima said:
Now AI is suffering very much from mines. AI does not prioritize mine hunter kit and the capacity of the shipyards is limited, so there are a lot of damaged ships and they are slowly being repaired. I decided to make a lot of destroyers for my new campaign and everything was fine until I got to STALINIUM GUN. Russian 102-127mm mk4-5 guns have a huge weight. No one has that much weight.
I love destroyers, and there are not so many unique hulls for them. The Russians have a beautiful hulls (italian), but this STALINIUM GUN is attached to it. I just can't watch a good hull suffer because of this wunderwaffe.
Noticed the same issue with USA 5" guns, too.
-
3 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:
There are a ton of cases where hardpoints exist on hulls but can't be used because the fit isn't quite right. [Be it secondary guns or secondary barbettes] -- The question is whether this restriction is a necessary evil to keep the AI from going insane and planting secondaries everywhere like it used to.
Even if that's the case, considering how barbettes are locked to hardpoints it means the player can't simply ctrl+click one in place.
Just now, Urst said:Need more secondaries
If I don't have at least 50 3" guns on the ship, how can I be safe from torpedo boats?!Someone's thinking like the Bureau of Construction and Repair.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Sobakaa said:
I'm not sure you can fix it, without making the AI consider the entire ship surface for secondaries placement and it'll be a nightmare... Perhaps more hardpoints or dynamic hardpoints can be introduced?
Hardpoints, especially secondary hardpoints, are a major problem. Especially when it comes to placing secondary barbettes because on 90% of the hulls the placement of the barbette hardpoint is too close to the side of the ship, and the barbette overlaps with the hull as a result and can't be placed.
-
18 hours ago, Lima said:
Space battleships with space marines are ready
Nothing quite like multiple, simultaneous, and devastating deep strikes on the enemy position.
-
9 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:
My guess is that understanding how the game goes from a damage value in the text assets to a final value from the various options and modules to the impact on a given ship is going to have to involve decompiling the games code. What is more realistic will depend on what can be changed and what is hard coded.
Oh, I was just talking about the listed damage stats. Its difficult to read your table due to formatting issues with the column titles, but it seems like your numbers for damage based on filler mass make more sense than Game-Labs base numbers. I wouldn't use US shells as a baseline since we skimped on filler mass relative to most other nations for AP shells, especially in later years, since as British shell performance at Jutland demonstrated you can have all the filler mass in the world but it won't matter if you can't get it into the ship.
-
17 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:
There may be some intermediate calculations that I don't know of that turn the vanilla damage into something else [aside from multiplying it]
Oh, I wasn't saying the developers actually put much thought into their gun stats because its obvious from how all over things are they clearly haven't. I was just saying that was their justification for the massive damage increases, and pointing out they weren't entirely wrong on it. Just mostly. I don't think they've bothered to actually math out what a rough filler mass to damage ratio should be, after all, certainly not like you appear to have done.
There's a video from Drachinifels that talks about how to actually damage ships, and to save you the hour or so the TL;DR is that there's a lot of things on steel-hulled warships that aren't actually essential to it being a warship like broom closets and laundry rooms and crew quarters that a shell flying into will have no real effect on, hence bursting charges to A. have high explosives detonate inside the highly confined space of a warship hull with all that goes along with high explosives detonating inside a highly confined space and B. cause the shell to split apart and increase the odds of one of those chunks hitting something valuable. Its also why ships laugh at overpenetrations because the chances of a 12" shell hitting something valuable as it passes through something the size of HMS Dreadnought aren't exactly high. That goes for even smaller ships, as demonstrated at the Battle off Samar where destroyer escorts took multiple overpens from all those IJN vessels and still managed to remain in fighting condition.
To do some quick math, a Fletcher-class destroyer like at Samar is 376.5 feet long over all, or 4,518 inches. That is 564.75 times the size of an 8" shell, and even on a destroyer there are a lot of places you can overpen with an 8" shell and do zero real damage considering the storerooms, crew quarters, messrooms, the ice machine room, wash rooms, etc. Sure, the crew won't be happy if an 8" shell overpens through the fruits and vegetables storage and wrecks all the relatively fresh food, but its not like the ship itself will have taken any damage.
-
One thing I'd point out with damage is that the game right now bases it on filler size, which as a function of shell weight generally cubes in relation to the gun bore. For example, the 16"/50 guns on the Iowas fired shells over twice the weight of the 12" guns on the Alaskas... which meant they had over twice the overall filler. 40.9 pounds for the 16"/50 AP shell, and a mere 17.4 on the 12"/50 shell. So the damage stat isn't entirely made up.
As to radars, the first gen in 1938 were used to determine target range and bearing for use in gunnery with far more accuracy than traditional optics, especially in occluded weather conditions like rain, fog, or nighttime, however the computing systems at the time still used manual inputs. Various automatic pointer systems were developed for turret crews in the 1920's that would take plotted information from central gunnery and then tell crews exactly where to aim, but it wasn't until the early 1930's with that a fully automated system of laying the guns is developed (but its still reliant on manual inputs of data), and after that with radar and the high-end computers like the Ford Mark 1 that you have a completely automated control.
EDIT: One thing I'd like to point out is that the final grade of FCS systems could almost completely nullify the effects of a ship's own battle maneuvers on initial acquisition and land all shots close enough to confirm location and lock. Of radar's effect on splashes:
"Spotting both 5-inch and 16-inch splashes, HC or AP, with the Mark 13 radar is comparable to deliberately drawing a picture of the splashes on paper and looking at it. At all ranges fired during this period, the most inexperienced officer, given a brief explanation of what to expect, can spot splashes accurately to within 100 yards, and to within 50 yards with some experience."
Source: http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery.php
Also, the USA was developing its own 18" gun during the late 1920's and then again once WW2 started: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php
-
3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:
Dude, the US Pennsylvania class total displacement was almost twice that of the Sankt Georg. 15,381 vs 8,200 t. You're comparing apples to oranges. A more or less correct comparison is SMS Sankt Georg vs USS New York. The Yankees are still bigger, but at least they are ~10% bigger not ~90%.
USS New York was also commissioned in 1893, or 12 years earlier and was also designed as an ocean-going cruiser, so that's hardly a fair comparison given the technology differences. I'm also not denying she's a fine ship, I'm just saying that when one is designing something purely for Mediterranean service one can make compromises one can't for an ocean-going vessel, unless you think adding another thousand tons of coal bunkerage wouldn't force the designers to make significant cuts elsewhere. For example, in a straight fight between a Littorio and a North Carolina my money is on the Littorio due to the heavier armor and faster speed... but then again, they had barely more than a quarter of the cruising range of the North Carolinas.
3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:Yes, the Yankees are second on my personal list of bad factions, although for the most part this is because they are on the other side of the planet and the global map is still quite clumsy. But, of course, the Americans need new hulls, no question about it. My opinion is that all factions need at least one common early cruiser hull, whose casemates support 6 and 8 inch guns.
Agreed, although I'd go further and argue the USA needs some 8" light cruiser hulls, too. The treaty cruisers of every nation had more in common with protected cruisers than armored cruisers in terms of protection scheme and overall design, and the USA was the only to adopt 8" guns as standard on those until Mogami, even going so far as to designate the Pensacolas as CL's until a couple years after commissioning in recognition of their light build despite their firepower, and we had some early protected cruisers with 8" guns such as New York and Baltimore, not to mention USS Olympia and her 2x2 8" guns.
Also, as I've pointed out in this thread, the new Mark 1 and Mark 2 turrets preclude cruisers with 6" broadside mounts, despite those being our standard protected cruiser guns and mounting scheme.
Then again, I could rant for ages about the horrible treatment cruisers get in this game, from the tech tree setup to hilariously tiny hull sizes compared to IRL... the USA should be able to build 9,500 ton CA's and 5,000 ton CL's in 1890 if we want to be historically accurate, and yet in shared design they don't get a 4k ton hull until 1893 when the 4,657 metric ton USS San Francisco had been commissioned in 1890.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:
The Austro-Hungarians built compact, heavily armed, but also decently protected and NOT slow ships. The Italians were faster, but everyone else - GB, France, the Yankees and the Russians were about the same speed, or slower.
With all this, their ships were also quite seaworthy and most surprisingly, cheap.These are real masterpieces of shipbuilding, almost unnoticed. You will see the skill of Austro-Hungarian engineers when you compare AН warships with ships of similar size and tonnage.
What are the chances of a pre-dreadnought 7-8 kilotonn cruiser of any nation when meeting SMS Sankt Georg, with its 240x2, 190x5, 150х4, 200mm armor and speed of 22 knots? Yeah, good luck.
Well, 2x9.4" is a pretty terrible main armament for armored cruisers, and compared to ocean-going cruisers unlike ones intended for purely Mediterranean operations a cruising range of 8,300km is tiny. In 1894 the USA was commissioning protected cruisers for commerce raiding with double that, at the same cruising speed of 10 knots and only 3 knots less in maximum speed. The US Pennsylvania class of CA's that was concurrent had a maximum bunkerage twice that of the Sankt Georg. Keep in mind its 3,900km from California to Hawaii, so good luck conducting Pacific patrols with a Sankt Georg. Yes, its a magnificent coastal defense ship, but I'd not want to take one of those out on a patrol into the Atlantic, never mind the Pacific.
And yes, range matters a great deal considering a British fighter pilot once said he'd prefer a Spitfire over a Mustang for a dogfight over Berlin if not for the fact he'd never have the fuel to return home in a Spitfire.
QuoteThe Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar-flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!
That was said by one Eric Brown, perhaps the single most accomplished test pilot of all time.
13 hours ago, Suribachi said:Basically, CV-6 USS Enterprise, like her sister CV-5 Yorktown, survived hits that both the Japanese and the Americans thought would sink her. The Japanese would announce that they sunk her only for her to return angrier than before. This happened three separate times. Each time, the crew performed the repairs at sea, with dry dock repairs mostly only happening during her retrofit in 1943. She earned her nickname "The Grey Ghost" due to this.
To this day, the Yorktown repair crews are the stuff of legend, especially in the US Navy.I think we can see where Gene Rodenberry got the inspiration for Montgomery Scott from...
9 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:...it's literally one and the same hull. Seriously, it's worse than not historical - it's boring. The hull of the battleship itself is not bad, and even a limit of 5 inches in the casemates is acceptable, you can increase them to 5.9 inches anyway and get version of Habsburg-class battleship.
The same thing about CA III hull - you can even build some kind of SMS Kaiser Karl VI even if it looks completely wrong.
But Erzherzog Karl-class battleship and SMS Sankt Georg СА completely closed, since 190mm guns in casemates are simply impossible on early AH hulls displacement of 10.500 or less.
Fast CA this is a copy paste of the old ВВ hull and with a stability of 25 plus 2'' casemates, it's just junk. Experimental CA It's not bad, but I don't see anything typical of Austria-Hungary in it like a bunch of QF 150-190mm guns in the central casemates. It's still better than nothing, I guess.
Early light cruisers are a typical set of junk, no better and no worse than many. Why the developers banned 6-inch guns in the casemates of light cruisers, I don't have any ideas.
When you enter the Dreadnought era, hulls becomes more diverse, but again, you don't get anything that other factions lack. Well, at least you have this archaic large torpedo boat, lol. By the way, this is a lot of progress, previously the player was stuck with the TB until something like 1910, when the DD2 hull appeared.
The problem with Austria-Hungary in the game, is that you don't have anything that other factions wouldn't have. At the same time, other factions have unique and interesting hulls that are interesting to play with.
The USA has the same issue, with the devs not liking main gun casemates (6"+ casemates are mandatory for the USA) or proper pre-dead and dreadnought hulls, with designs like Connecticut and its 4x2 8" turrets and Delaware and its five centerline turrets flat-out impossible. I don't think anyone asked for Maine considering it you know... exploded before doing anything whereas interest in a proper St. Louis, Omaha, or Delaware or Connecticut hull has been pretty consistent.
-
Cannot fit the 6" or 7" turrets on the bow mounts of the new US gunboat due to intersection with the central raised portion, even at maximum beam. Russian and Spanish 6" and 7" turrets fit though. The new US and Chinese 5" gun mounts cannot have dedicated barbette armor added until caliber is increased to 5.2". The fact you don't appear to have coded that in by default for all new 5" guns frustrates me after my several bug reports on it. The new US 6" and 7" Mark 1 and Mark 2 turrets prevent mounting on hull sides despite US light cruisers mounting 6" guns on the side decks. The new coastal defense ship hull lacks amidships 6" casemate mounts unlike USS Maine. For all nations, that hull and the new gunboat hull, and all other hulls that share their layout have their citadel machinery in the middle of the ship instead of below the waterline, causing extreme topweight.
Those are just the most glaring designer errors I've noticed so far.
-
1
-
-
On 12/7/2022 at 6:22 AM, Heet said:
Agreed on all of the points. I think the funnel placement influencing the machinery location is reasonable as they haven't truly created a below-deck design, so I wouldn't change that aspect.
We absolutely need proper distribution of components. As it stands there's no proper underwater citadel or even a waterline belt, since the citadel and citadel armor are the light-red-shaded part of the ship in the section viewer. Ideally citadel upgrades would shrink that part of the ship down closer to the waterline with each upgrade, with an "Upper Belt" armor section to represent non-citadel hull armor. I would also swap the resistance and armor buffs on AoN and turtleback because there's no reason AoN should have your ship more susceptible to internal damage than a turtleback design, especially since turtlebacks were used to maximize armor protection whereas AoN was about minimizing damage after a successful pen or over-pen.
-
18 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:
Did you remember what were the weather conditions modifiers when you encountered these stealthy torpedo boats? (the ones given by the game at top left, not the nice vibe displayed)
I haven't touched this game in almost a month due to a lack of bug fixes and overall frustration with incomplete and unexplained additions. You'll forgive me if I don't have anything on-hand to reply with.
-
1
-
UAD Rebalancing Mod For [v1.4.0.5 R2]
in Unofficial Mods
Posted
Assuming GL doesn't drop an update. Not that that would be a bad thing, to be honest.