LoSboccacc

I think it takes into account gun height. It's hard but it's doable to balance a 275t torpedo boat if you put the gun on deck. Pitch will be shit. Minimize beam and draft so you get the longest possible version of the model that fits in 275t if you really want a design with the gun on the lookout, there you go:

That is assuming everyone is stupid and it's producing barrels longer and stronger than needed or undercharging shells for shit and giggles

so yep, after a streak of victories, I got relieved from command:

so shell can still pass trough belts and whatnot. 2 inches ap from the light cruiser on the left caused a ammo detonation log confirm it wasn't some weird ange stuff, but a full 8.2inch hit here's the gun details:

I've joined a war on the losing side, have been winning every battle and turning the tide, to the point that the mediterranean is secure and we're bringing the fight to the english channel but apparently there's massive unrest and prestige loss and the government want a peace deal. even if we won every single battle. just because they're using their accumulated victory point in their score. even if the total war isn't going *that* bad:

I think it correlates with shell speed and not just caliber.

what do you mean you cannot influence pitch? hull parameter play a huge part in pitch control. it's perfectly doable to bring a 1890 ship design pitch below "orange":

can confirm the new mechanics for head on / tail on damage work now XD maneuvering and keeping range is so much more important, feels great. I wonder if that mission against the modern battleship is even doable now, I remember getting by only by cheesing the bow bounces

honestly not having yellow pitch/roll seems more a skill issue than a 106 patch issue

I don't know exactly how it happened. I was on the fleet screen with a bunch of ship selected, then went to the design screen, selected a refit, refit about a third of the ship from a class, didn't close the refit panel, changed to fleet view and got stuck into this situation where changing tabs show the tab content underneath the ship menu, with neither the ship menu nor the underneath panel working. in the picture you can make out the world panel under the ship list

I wouldn't call it's good simulation nor a good mechanic: First because it's backward: we're designing ships from scratch, not refitting old hulls. Hull form and other hull parameters being hard coded the way they are is already quite limiting, designers would have figured out an hull for the given parameters and not built a ship to fit whatever hull they had lying around Second because it would have been better simulated with techs. The power at which to move in water should depend from tonnage, draft, beam and hull tech level. The machinery weight to deliver that power should depend on machinery tech. That way it nicely follows the timeline, instead of leaving gaps wherever developer haven't had time to create a hull with the time correct top speed. Third because it's even more locking of players options that it's just coded forever in set pieces. I understand that generic hull builder was a dead end due it's complexity, but we don't have any way to influence hull parameters like resistance, stability and now top speed, such is the opposite of what irl designers would do. The fixed hulls I can live with, but a sistem to allocate cost between idk speed, stability, resistance and floatability would be great on top. Maybe with some tech mediated caps, to maintain country flavours. But still, Japan built Yamato and Britain built hood because they wanted to, not because they happened to have a fitting hull design.

I've specifically built a ship with turrets on a sector border and I don't see the magazine detonations everyone lametns even after putting the ship trough extensive damage in the "bordering" sectors i.e. first turret here: this is a later test where the citadel/outer belt have some armor as to reduce overpens: I think there must be other factors at play, i.e. citadel damage reduction isn't just a sum of armor but is applied to damage post penetration, and if it still passes a certain threshold, you still get internals crits.

and the new citadel/armor mechanics, they will make a lot of historical "tradeoff" design handle better in game. if we could get treaties for 1.07 it'd be perfect, but 1.06 as described would already surpass my expectations from when I backed this game, can't wait to get it

on the topic of torpedo changes, are torpedo going to run out of proplusion at some point? currently their engine endurance seem to far exceed their targeting range

ok ok but what this multiplayer speculation has to do with 1.0.6

or just show the effective values; effectve protection, weight and costs is what matters anyway since it doesn't track volume used, only tonnage

idk in all my attempts I spawned between the tr and the enemy ca, so I can just angle, make noise, attract all their firepower, after that is just absolute slaughter

can't you just enable the bit that allows unity to keep running in background, so we can alt+tab out of the terrible level loading times?

my "near jutland" solution, like most solution with destroyers involved, is absolute torpedo boat spam. 7 destroyer x squadron, 1 squadron x bc, with one squadron in reserve screening.

Idk I solved "The Modern Battleship" with a bog standard Yamowa, optimized for hitting - 16" mark 3, super heavy, all the long range bonus tower, veterans etc. Note however that the enemy vary a lot, I've seen anything from 13" to 16" guns generated for this mission BBs, so sometime they're just pushovers.

since everyone seems to be sharing anecdotal data it started at 5% and grew up to 11%, 9.1% hits is actually overperforming

armor turret isn't applied/saved correctly, and seem not to get the bonus from armor quality either

flash fire x5 tho, for a ship with 5 turret, I fully expect main gun crew: 0% or thereabouts

spacious quarters give you some reserves (still something small, but it's there) bc kaiser max got most of the core destroyed, with minimal life losses.

crew damage should scale better with penetration, this destroyer, all on fire after a "flash fire x5", has more of 40% crew being perfectly fine, with 87% of the people manning the main guns being a-ok in general it feels like damage control operations should drain more crew, especially in the earlier years; fires and flooding aren't that dangerous right now, I think I only ever saw crew disappear after direct damage, but they should be lost both as fire&flood spread and as damage parties venture in the hazardous area to fix them.