SpardaSon21
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by SpardaSon21
-
-
14 hours ago, Suribachi said:
Pearl Harbor base started construction in 1908 and continued until 1918 into what we mostly now recognize as the Pearl Harbor Naval Station. Additionally, Hawaii did not officially become a US state until 1959. So in oversimplified terms, the US leased the land Pearl Harbor was built on from Hawaii for a while if I recall correctly.
I could be wrong, but since the Development Team still needs to work on and implement the smaller nations into the campaign, it is very possible there might be an event associated with it much like how the canals are built now in popups.Yes, but in 1887 the US signed a treaty with the Hawaiian monarchy granting us exclusive use of Pearl Harbor, not just for commercial shipping of Hawaiian sugar exports, but for the repair and refueling of naval warships. However, the harbor was small and had a narrow, shallow entrance, so the capacity was extremely limited, with a correspondingly small naval base. Following annexation, it grew rapidly due to its excellent location, which could be done via event.
-
21 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:
Ok, nuclear shells exist. So Abuse_claws' proposal isn't completly unrealistic.
Nuclear shells, nuclear torpedoes, nuclear depth charges...
-
8 minutes ago, Lastreaumont said:
A vision a little too cataclysmic I think.
I agree that a hit ship that survives to the taken damages should probably need to be decontaminated before repair, but I'm not sure for the others.
And the firing ship is not too far away from its target too. It certainly won't fire an ammunation that implies to scuttle it too.
Nuclear is dangerous, but not as dangerous as you seem to think about it.Oh, a damaged nuclear reactor should be able to scram safely and kill itself before it can cause any trouble for sure. I was just making a reference to the nuclear warheads the Navy whipped up for their 16" guns (W23, with an estimated 20kt yield). They shouldn't have bothered because the Army managed to make one that fit in an eight inch piece in 1957 (W33 with a maximum tested yield of 40kt), and a 155mm nuclear shell in 1963 (W48, with an estimated 72 ton yield).
If you think that's bad and/or impressive, we managed to fit a tactical nuke with a yield larger than Little Boy on the Skyraider, a single-engine piston plane, by sticking a 20kt warhead on a massive rocket so the pilot had time to fly away after toss bombing it.
-
Where's the fun in that? One 16" shell from the USA later and the enemy fleet is going to need to scuttle any ships still afloat to avoid contaminating their home waters if they sail home.
-
6 hours ago, Wowzery said:
Yeah, the cruiser tech doesn't make much sense. I can build dreadnoughts most games by 1900, but battlecruisers lag way behind. And for most of that I'm still designing cruisers like a pre-dreadnought.
There are far too many techs in the cruiser tech line, and 90% of them are "You can build larger cruisers now!" And those techs alternate between heavy and light for that all the way down, nothing combined in the least. You can build an unlimited tonnage BC the minute you minute unlock them, but somehow your naval architects need more time to design cruiser hulls that have a thousand tons more displacement.
Boiler techs have the same problem. Funnel types and more funnel types, and they need to be researched separately for cruisers/destroyers/capitals so it takes an eternity for all of that, which is how you get the ridiculousness of semi-coal diesel engines.
The devs have consistently refused to consolidate these massive, gigantic tech lines for whatever reason, never mind that they're an active impediment to gameplay and overall QoL.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Abuse_Claws said:
unless there's an actual bug in UAD
I wouldn't discount that.
-
On 11/9/2022 at 3:35 PM, UncleAi said:
I hope can reduce radio and radar weight. The XX% tower weight is ridiculous.
Well, minesweeping and depth charges are a fixed weight and not any sort of percentage, so there's hope the devs finally do something about it. Yes, this means its going to be a lot easier to mount a radar set on a BB than a destroyer but guess what? That's exactly how it was IRL. American radar picket destroyers even removed their torpedoes to free up weight for the biggest radars but oh... we need those on all of our destroyers in the game.
-
8 hours ago, SodaBit said:
I've got some ship balance feedback here, but it's actually pretty amusing, so I wouldn't exactly mind if this issue goes unfixed for the time being.
November, 1930, I'm refitting my old "CL's" with RADAR and other new technologies I've picked up over the past few years, when I notice something incredible.
I've managed to make a ship with an 80,000 kilometer operational range. In 1930.
This Sub 10,000 Ton CL Somehow Carries Enough Fuel to Circumnavigate the Globe Twice Without Refueling.
(Assuming she can sail in a straight line the whole way, but still)
I think we can safely tune back the operational range modifiers a bit. All this CL is going to do is sit in harbor and lay mines, not try to beat Von Spee at his own game. Not the most critical thing in the world, but it's just a bit much imo.And you'll run out of fuel after a single trans-Atlantic crossing thanks to how the game works.
-
2
-
-
The biggest issue is that instead of flaws being inherent to the design they're separate for each ship in the class, so instead of "Yeah okay, this class of ships isn't quite as good as I wanted" which is something a player can work around its a roll of the dice with every single ship.
And of course its applied irrationally, with gas turbines having a +10% chance of flaw when realistically they're about as mechanically simple as you can get and you don't even have separate boiler systems to worry about as a result of switching to gas turbines, especially because if the low cruising speed (worse than plain steam turbines) is any indication they're not even reduction geared. That's not getting into the fact that you somehow have fewer vibrations in your ship when you add heavy and complex gearing systems to your drivetrain instead of just hooking the propeller driveshafts right to the steam turbines...
-
3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
- Ship costs / Optimal Hull speed balances, your old saves will have weight differences, if you try to use them. This change will address overpowered ships which were not costed sufficiently and the ability to sustain very large fleets in campaign.
Why do you keep on making these changes? This is perhaps the one type of change you keep doing nobody asks for. All they serve to do is make things more frustrating for players because they inevitably come with various issues.
-
5 hours ago, Lima said:
I think it's good that AI can find a way to fight, but I don't understand why a stronger Russian fleet isn't coming to Japan.
Kamchatka. The Russian AI has become self-aware.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:
I played an American campaign up to the save reset, and I was really enjoying myself. Some of the issues I was having are things that have already been addressed/planned—resupply at allied ports, occupation of minor nations, turrets rotating into the superstructure. But for the US specifically, I was really missing appropriate hulls for flush-decked destroyers and standard-type battleships. Not sure what hulls you have planned to include in this update besides Maine, but I think those two things are really important to capturing the look of the early 20th century US Navy, and the standard type hulls would help a lot compared to the “South Carolina but bigger” options I had in this campaign.
The Standards are absolutely vital, but we need a proper US dreadnought hull available sooner, too. The South Carolina type hull was used for that class and that class only. The Delaware-class immediately after it, and indeed, laid down less than a year after and commissioned into the fleet in 1910, the same year as the South Carolinas, had a much more familiar shape and gun layout to them:
Raised forecastle all the way to the middle of the ship, and enough deck space for five turrets on the centerline, three of them in the rear with one superfiring turret bow and stern each. The fact the South Carolina is the default hull for US dreadnoughts when it was only built in response to a strict weight limit imposed on the Navy by Congress, all later ships not built to such an arduous and unreasonable restriction, is a travesty.
We're also missing our unique predreadnoughts and their massive secondary batteries, especially their heavy casemates, which is another essential part of the early USN.
And no, I haven't yet played the beta because surprise, its one gigantic bug-fest of poorly-implemented features. Like every other major update this game has had.
-
6
-
-
1 hour ago, Norbert Sattler said:
Why is a ship coming in underweight considered a defect? Is that not a positive?
Speaking of which, why can ships only come off the stocks either as designed or with debuffs, but no buffs?
While it might have been more rare than defects, ships did at times come out better than expected too.The US treaty cruisers up until the New Orleans were about a thousand tons underweight... mostly in the hull, which meant they were extremely top-heavy and had extremely bad roll characteristics. We were forced to add underwater bulges to counteract the roll which also slowed them down slightly.
-
12 hours ago, TiagoStein said:
The game prices are not Dollars. They are generic moneys to keep comprable between nations. It would make too much confusion to keep currency conversion in game.
Doesn't really matter IMO. Fuel is far too expensive compared to the base cost of the ship. Again, filling up an Iowa costs $6 million USD in today's dollars, but in 1936 that would have been roughly $291k, or 0.291% of the total build cost of $100 million dollars.
-
3 hours ago, jtjohn1 said:
Oh and my entire 16 ship fleet in New York Harbor took more than 2 months to fuel...
What, were they refilling the tank one hand-carried bucket at a time or something? All those laborers would explain the high costs...
EDIT: Using the Global 20 ports average for HFO/bunker oil I got $6,831,571.5 to fill up an Iowa's 8,983 metric tons at $760.5 per metric ton.
That's in today's dollars, so you are definitely on the high end of prices. Keep in mind the Iowa's at construction time cost roughly $100 million each and their total operating costs (crew/fuel/ammo/maintenance etc.) in 1990 were $58 million per year, so the numbers Game-Labs are using are beyond screwy.
-
Cruiser hull weight limits need to be seriously looked at. The starting limitations are well below historical values. USS New York (ACR-2) was laid down in 1890 and weighed a staggering 9,043 metric tons at full load: well, well above the in-game 1890 limit for heavy cruisers of a mere 4,500 tons. For comparison, USS Chicago, a protected cruiser laid down in 1883, weighed 4,600 metric tons, or more than the heavy cruiser limit!
You will also need to add the ability for light cruisers to mount 8" guns, as USS Charleston and USS Baltimore, both protected (light) cruisers, mounted 8" guns. Baltimore and Charleston were even built to a light cruiser hull pattern:
Before anyone asks, yes, those 4 8" guns fore and aft on Brooklyn was considered light armament by the USA at the time. USS New York (ACR-2) laid down in 1890 had six 8" guns, and USS Brooklyn (ACR-3) laid down in 1893 had eight 8" guns, 2x2 fore and aft and 1x2 on either side amidships.
-
5
-
-
Navweapons.com has loading times and ranges for guns. Nothing about accuracy, sadly, but I can try asking around. For weight, the best thing you can do is slash tower weight dramatically. There are massive knock-on effects from how heavy they are, especially with ship balance and stability from having one of the single heaviest objects on the ship positioned so high. End-game BB towers, both main and secondary, will reach 3k, if not 5k in the case of the USA, once you start adding the necessary upgrades to them like radar, RDF, and acoustics. In reality they would have been a thousand, max. Slashing the weight increases those upgrades do to almost nothing would also be a massive help in that regard, and it would also be very historical considering how little weight they actually did take up. Could balance by increasing the cost on them, especially radar and sonar, because those sets were top-end electronics for the time, never mind the fire control systems associated with radar gunnery.
-
5 hours ago, Sapphire said:
9-12 inchers need a partial nerf which I'll hopefully match with their IRL status. But aiming to add the rebalance in the new update I'll release in my mega mod
Good to hear. There were a few threads a while back about gun accuracy you should read up on, even if as a refresher. God knows they died a while back when it became clear Game-Labs wasn't listening.
-
On 9/19/2022 at 2:46 AM, Sapphire said:
Sadly until I do a full rework of the accuracy file changes like that would unbalance everything. For reference you can view the accuracy and range here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ed64VXMyhhfWYZv6PhUtIpNV1qt9mZKwKXcWiYMFl-k/edit?usp=sharing (Range is in meters)
Me and another modder are considering redoing it but with the next update so soon we might end up waiting.
If I hadn't seen how bad things were there with random jumps at short range and oddities at longer range I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. I mean, its not like 12" guns are horribly OP and need a nerfbat, you know? Evening things out for more consistency at a given caliber range and flattening it out so bigger guns aren't straight-up better than smaller guns at being secondaries would be a big improvement.
-
@SapphireIf you can, please make it so accuracy doesn't scale so hard with range. As it is right now adding range even with an accuracy penalty will give you a net gain in accuracy at a fixed distance, and an accuracy boost but a range decrease will reduce your accuracy at a fixed range. Alternatively, just have the range/accuracy ratio be flat for all guns up to a range based on the caliber, so for example an 8" and a 6" gun will be just as accurate as shorter ranges but the 8" gun will be more accurate at longer ranges.
-
20 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
The real question to answer is, if you had Dreadnought II (USA) and Dreadnought III both available in 1910, which hull would you choose to design? IMO, the majority would choose the latter.
You mean the Dreadnought II (USA) in the game right now? Well, that hull's a hello kittying joke since its nothing more than the SoCa-style hull. If it were a Wyoming-style hull with the flat deck and only a few cutouts for secondaries and had room for six main gun turrets, I'd take the US one in a heartbeat.
-
1
-
-
On 9/11/2022 at 10:32 PM, Skeksis said:
Every nation gets its Dreadnought III flat deck hull by or about 1910, except...
Who else, the United States.
But instead gets a Dreadnought II (USA) in 1912, South Carolina Class, a built-up superstructure hulk with very little design options. And the US doesn't get any flat deck hulls until 1919, and then gets two of them, Dreadnought III and Dreadnought IV.
It seems to me that there is a lack of design options for 1910 campaign starts and a lack of flat deck design options from 1905 (Dreadnought (USA)) to 1919.
For gameplay, Dreadnought II (USA) should be push back to 1906, the year when USS South Carolina was laid down, and Dreadnought III hull availability set to 1910 or at least less than 1914.
Alot of people are going to be playing the 5 new nations, especially the US.
Or they could change the South Carolina hull to a Small Dreadnought hull since not only is it massively smaller than any other dreadnought, but we only built a single class to that style, and use the Delaware as the basis for the Dreadnought I hull. Wyoming and New York can be Dreadnought II, with the early Standards being III, and New Mexico onwards being Dreadnought IV. But I'm not getting my hopes up there, and neither should you.
You also misunderstood my earlier request. It wasn't that the USA shouldn't get a Large Armored Cruiser hull, but that it should have a raised central casemate area like our historical designs of that time period had. The Tennessees were almost 16,000 metric tons fully loaded, which is far heavier than most cruisers of the time, and contrary to how casemate cruisers are designed in game, entirely flat on that central battery, both the hull and deck, allowing players a great deal of room for mounting towers, funnels, and even secondary guns. If you also look at pictures, there is more than enough room on both bow and stern to mount an extra superfiring main gun turret, allowing said design to be used as an ABXY design.
Really, that hull is both much flatter and longer than you think it is. It is in fact what you might call a midcastle design, as your later post referenced.
And @o Barão the USA absolutely needs all of those proper hulls. Historically speaking, US cruisers were ton for ton the world's finest. The Italians designed some better armed and armored ones, but those were Mediterranean race horses with less endurance at cruising speed than US ones had at flank speed. Even if you don't fill the ship up, you still need to add a lot of displacement if you want the room for 2,000 tons of coal bunkerage.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Skeksis said:
Every nation has there 'Large Armored Cruiser' hull by 1910, except...
France, they get theirs in 1914.
And the United States, it doesn't get one at all. Their next heavy cruiser hull is 'Heavy Cruiser I' and that's in 1919. So United States gets 'Armored Cruiser IV' hull in 1897 and then the nation has to wait until 1919 for its next improved hull, 22 year gap. While other nations have the advantage of 'Large Armored Cruiser', i.e. advantage of a flat deck to design on.
It's alittle unfair. Sourced from custom battles database.
The USA didn't build any flat-decked armored cruisers though. Our large armored cruiser hulls had a massive central casemate battery of 6" secondary guns. 14 for the Pennsylvanias and 16 for the Tennessees. Of course, that's still a problem for the obvious reasons that you can't stick historical casemates on any nation's ships, let alone American ships that had an entire TB flotilla's worth of small guns as a tertiary battery and said hulls were first laid down in 1901 before commissioning in 1905.
Those outermost guns in the central battery are 6" guns, with the rest being 3" guns, for 11 3" guns and 8 6" guns per side, for a total of 22 and 16.
Again, Game-Labs, we need historical casemates, especially if you're adding the USA to the campaign where massive secondary batteries and even tertiary batteries were a key hallmark of our designs for the dreadnought and pre-dread eras, especially the Connecticut pre-dreadnoughts which had two heavy cruisers worth of firepower per side with 2x2 8" turrets, 6 7" casemates, 10 3" casemates and 6 1.9" casemates.
-
3
-
-
On 9/4/2022 at 5:15 AM, Cptbarney said:
Interesting, i wonder if you can mod in 3d models like ships, towers, guns etc. If so might do a mod myself although my coding skills are pretty limited and would be a first for me too.
I'd love to have some proper towers. Right now both the size is all over the place with them.
Spotting and visibility and fog.
in General Discussions
Posted
You are the only person saying that being unable to spot a TB that's 500m from a battleship in broad daylight is acceptable. Not even the devs are saying that because they're not saying anything at all. Stop it, and get some help.