Urst
-
Posts
183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Urst
-
-
1 hour ago, Harwood_39 said:
Alas no, I deleted the original design thinking I had refit it. Also did that to 2 CA designs. So on the "ship design" tab the design doesn't appear, it only does in the "fleet" tab.
Also the hulls are now obsolete, so I can't build progressions anyway.
If you go to your fleet and select the active ship you want to refit and hit "view" you should be able to hit the refit button from there.
-
6 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:
So everything you say is shifting goalposts and you're demanding a change specifically to fit your personal tastes, everyone else be damned, even though you're literally the only one complaining.
All right then, I'll just leave you to your tantrum. Enjoy.
No. It's not my fault your reading comprehension skills are lesser than that of an 8th grader, but my "goal post" has not shifted. You made one up all on your own which was completely different from the real one. You made a baseless assumption. My "goalpost" is having a good hull that isn't getting in the way of allowing me to make a good ship. I've been making dual fore and aft 4" gun destroyers from the second that I get the DD I hull. There's 100% no point in using the flush deck over DD III because the tumors get in the way of letting me make a destroyer design that's good and anything close to what would make sense as an evolution of the designs I've had so far.
The tumors look terrible and force a terrible design. If you want to make a terrible design like a Clempson then put the extension on a tower piece instead of blocking off design avenues for every other player.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:
Nope.
4x1 4in main for all three classes, one forward, two side-mounted on the forecastle behind the bridge (which you can't do in-game), and one aft.
The only reason I used 3in mains is because I chose to use the Armed Tower for the secondary, which can't take anything larger than 3in guns. I could've used 4in or 5in mains if I built it just a bit differently.
If Nick were to put a note in for his model guy to enlarge the forecastle signal mounts to actually mount armament, you could make extremely passable four-stackers.
I never said a single thing about the IRL classes. I don't care about the IRL classes. I want to be able to mount 2x 5" guns for and aft and I so the flush deck, which isn't flush, is useless. Remove the tumors.
-
32 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:
4" single. And you can:
In FRONT not BEHIND, and they're supposed to be 2x 5" singles.
-
6 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:
You're supposed to put funnels between them and nothing more. Do an image search for the ships in question and it'll make more sense.
I did and you're supposed to be able to put 2x 5" guns in front of the tower, which you cannot physically do with any tower in game.
-
1 hour ago, killjoy1941 said:
That's supposed to mimic the high-sided, extended forecastle of the Caldwell, Wickes, and Clemson class.
You can't put anything* inside of them and they look nothing like any of those destroyers.
*other than funnels
Let the towers and barbettes clip through, at the very least. Otherwise, delete the tumors. -
So... When're the tumors being removed from the U.S. "flush deck" destroyer? Cause it's 100% not flush deck at the moment.
-
Bow underwater torpedo tube is now a turret, apparently.
The wing tubes can fire direct front, too.
This is on US light cruiser I, IIRC.
-
8 minutes ago, MDHansen said:
non-removable lifeboats bugs me too. Aesthetics and historical correctness* be damned, I want to build a ship
*i know this is like cursing in church around here 😬External lifeboats are a fire hazard, so they historically put on as few as they can get away with, actually.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Aldaris said:
That's a bold armor scheme, Mr. 61000 tons British battleship.
No armor = Best armor! Their shells are fused to penetrate at least a foot of armor, so if all they hit is thin mild steel and wood they'll never arm!
-
Economy for the U.S. continues to be broken. I should barely be getting enough money to maintain 3 battleships, 2 light cruisers per major port, and 3 destroyers per all ports while they're in Limited mode, until a war is declared at which point the budget should increase by 10 times, only to be cut back to where it was again after the war forcing me to delete 90% of my ships to not be in the red.
(this is a joke)-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Lima said:
My God. As a regular user of Tube Powder, I feel like an idiot. If it so, it would be good to change the description.
Rate of fire and avoidance of flash fires is the reason I use Tube Powder
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Lima said:
Okay, guys, I have a really big question.
I understand correctly that Cordite III should be more accurate than Cordite II? And that Tube Powder I is more accurate than both of them?
EDIT: Alright, here is our test dummy
And here are the accuracy results for Cordite II / Cordite III / Tube Powder I
As you can see, Cordite II that gives the debuff to accuracy is actually the most accurate.
It's because it has the highest range bonus. Your accuracy at each increment is based on your maximum range as well as your actual accuracy. It shouldn't be, but it is.
-
2
-
-
It's not just on US Experimental Battleship, but on just about every single hull. The ship says it's got a fore-weight offset, the line says it's an aft-offset.
-
58 minutes ago, Werwaz said:
Another thing that I noticed is that damage bleeds far too easily into the citadel, which means a few big HE hits to the fore and aft can sink a ship without ever penetrating the citadel, which makes armor even weaker than it already is, especially on ships with poor resistance stats like USA and Britain.
"no armor is best armor"
-
1
-
-
Why are almost ALL of the new quad turrets literally just British 5.25" dual gun turrets modified to have two double sets?
-
1
-
-
On 9/12/2023 at 4:21 PM, kineuhansen said:
any update on1.4
Don't rush þem. I'd raþer þey take 2 years to release 1.4 þan have þem not actually finish þe game.
If þey don't even give us a wrap-around map I'm going to stuff þe teams boss' mailbox wiþ physical letters demanding þat þey let þe game be finished. -
7 hours ago, Terminus Est said:
Pls change the mkII gun models for german CLs
To what? You have to at least give an example of what you þink it should be.
-
We need our 3" Mk. 5 U.S. guns to be þe 3"/50 Mk. 34. I know it won't happen, but still. Also, U.S. Mk 4 and 5 2" guns should be Bofors Guns like þey used to be.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php -
1 hour ago, Kiknurazz91 said:
I second this!
Or a default formation þat we can set before entering combat as part of our overall tactics.
-
2
-
-
Still waiting for a wraparound map.
-
7
-
-
1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:
So, no news at all?
Unless we find some major new bug þat needs to be fixed NOW we're probably not going to hear anyþing until 1.4 is ready. Personally, if we hear noþing for a year or two and finally get 1.4 wiþ everyþing we've been asking for, I'd be perfectly happy.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Capilla said:
I think that instead choosing caliber and lenght for every gun on every warship we should have something like a weapon station designer were we could shoose turret, armor thickness, barrel lenght, caliber... that way it would be easier to manage our weapons stations and we could have standarized turrets on our ships. Just choose one of your weapon stations and place it on the ship. More spacious turrets would be heavier but have better reload or more gun barrels...
Also fully developed 2, 3 or 4 gun turrets should have the same reload speed as long as the turret is big enought. Lets say for example that 2 possible stats for a big and wide turret are:
- optimal number of barrels: 3
- maximun number of barrels: 4
At the optimal number of barrels or lower, the guns of same caliber have a fixed reload speed and if you go higher you get a penalization.
Weapon system components would be:
- casemate/turret (visual component with stats like barrels capacity, armor sections, maximun caliber limitation (number of barrels below the optimal would make space for bigger guns), armor sections (roof, sides, front, rear), maximun elevation or some kind of range limitation)
- Gun barrel (visual component with stats like caliber, lenght, recoil/vibrations...)
- breech/loading system (the ones the game have are ok)
- Traverse system (the ones the game have are ok)
Instead of developing every single component in a separete way, turrets and barrels would be grouped by generations. Developing Mark 3 components would make Mark 1 obsolete but still make posible to use Mark 2 designs. Also the turret body would act as a ship hull and make it a base for future design refits. Once the ship mounting a weapon station gets a refit then the turret is upgraded to the last version. That way you would keep a turret body but change the gun barrels and make sure the refit version still fits on the ship.
This also would help the AI to have more consistent designs and avoid having 10 diferent calibers on 3 ship classes...
Wrong. MAXIMUM number should be 6 barrels for every caliber so I can make my MAXIMUM Battleship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship?useskin=vector#/media/File:"Maximum_Battleship"_Design_2.jpg-
3
-
22 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:
Also, make it possible to retain old guns during refits. Mk 3 guns sometimes do not fit in places Mk 2s do.
Or let us choose our model.
-
3
-
>>>v1.4 Feedback<<< (1.4.1.1 Opt x2 latest version)
in General Discussions
Posted
We should be allowed to choose between a turret or a deck gun at the very least.