Jay Gatsby
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Jay Gatsby
-
-
7 hours ago, RedParadize said:
The way I read this is that big guns will take longer to reload. At least I hope.
Atm smaller main and all secondary have no use at all, you are always better opting for the most accurate big gun available without any secondary.
In real life they where useful against smaller ship. It is clear that navy's did not always opt for the biggest gun possible, and for a variety of reasons.
You see, when you talk about realism its always a question of perspective.No it is the opposite, it is a nerf for secondary guns to buff the main guns, the Japanese opted for the biggest guns available for the Yamato, it is not a question of perspective
-
1
-
-
Sorry but why is there a nerf for small guns? We want realistic rates of fire for both big and small guns, not a "rebalance", we don't want unrealistic balances in this game, I don't understand the need for artificial balancing in this game, it's not even a multiplayer
-
9
-
-
8 hours ago, Schwieger said:
@Nick Thomadis -
So does this mean that we will be able to have quad turrets for all the large battleship calibre guns? Looking at what we have available to us, pretty much all the calibres from 9 through 18 inch are present (even the 17 inch gun, which does give me a few laughs), so can we expect to have quad 16 or 18 inch guns or other calibres that were either uncommon or entirely ahistorical?The purpose of this game is to create warships, it is not an historical game, if it is technically possible to create 18 inch quadruple turrets why not
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Christian said:
yeah quad turrets and stuff is still missing
i know its in the game as one of my friends who tried the unfinished and wip campaign came across it and screen grabbed it
Where did you get this picture?
-
2 hours ago, Finwenolofinwe said:
I feel like heavy and superheavy shells shouldn't do more damage than normal shells, but rather less, since the only way to increase the weigt ofg a shell of given caliber was to make the explosive container thicker, thereby decreasing explosive yield. The superheavy 16' shells the americans used on the iowas for example had a similar explosive yield to contemporary british 15'. Shell weight should mainly be a tradeoff between damage potential and AP-capability.
Just because you are comparing 2 different projectiles, this is not a fair comparison, in reality the British 15 inch has more explosive than the 16 inch Mk 8 super heavy but has much less penetration, in this game the design of the projectiles is standardized, the 16 inch Mk 8 super heavy has more explosive and more penetration than the lighter predecessor 16 inch Mk 5 (15.2 kg vs 18.55 kg of explosive), this is a fair comparison
The British 15 inch Mark XXIIb APC looks more like a semi-armor piercing than an armor piercing, it has too much explosive
-
9 hours ago, Jatzi said:
Pretty sure that's how it is. If you get triple turrets and look at the aiming modifiers it says triple turret technology -10% or whatever. Basically in the naval academy you don't have access to that tech. In the campaign you will. Seriously the campaign will be super different. Balanced tech progression rather than the random boosts you get in the missions changes a lot. You can actually play the campaign right not by using the left alt key when you click on it. It's very buggy and crashy and not polished or finished but you can totally see a difference in the combat in 1890 vs in the missions. I had a legacy BB take two torpedoes midships and die in seconds when everyone was complaining about torpedoes in the naval academy. Yeah they have serious issues with torpedoes and other things but just having balanced tech vs random upgrades in specific areas will help a lot in soothing people's concerns
I don't think so, because in the "The modern battleship" mission all the technologies are unlocked and the triple turrets are still less accurate and have slower reload than the single turrets
-
6 minutes ago, khang36 said:
yes delay mechanism did remove the interference caused by multiple gun turrets but they were not introduced until after ww1 so in game it would have to be a tech upgrade
Exactly this is how it should be👍
-
25 minutes ago, Christian said:
technically speaking single gun turrets do have better accuracy characteristics than double gun turrets
the blasts from the other barrel interferes ever so slightly with the other barrel
single barrel this cant happen
though you need 3 turrets to get a proper grouping salvo where as with twins you need 2 turrets and with triples you only need one
single gun turrets are the least space efficient for firepower and for getting the ability to get proper groupings
Single gun turrets have the same accuracy as multiple gun turrets because the multiple gun turrets have a delayed firing mechanism for each gun to ensure that the recoil of each gun does not interfere with the other.
-
I think that this game should aim to be as realistic as possible, there are too many unrealistic arcade aspects, such as the long reload times of the guns, reduced accuracy/range by using enhanced/automatic reload, single gun turrets that are more accurate and have faster reload than triple turrets etc.etc., this game has the potential to become a great game and the realism is the way, this is my suggestion and I believe many people think the same thing, I hope the developers will follow this suggestion, thanks.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, JANXOL said:
I know the modern ones can do that, yes. Didn't know about the des moines. And you could technically do that if you built the mechanism appropriately, the question is does in-game tech go to that point? I saw it mentioned that these autoloaders aren't meant to represent something as advanced as post-WW2 tech. So I guess the main question would be how advanced are we talking, and how much tonnage that would require. But as I said earlier to me it would be good to have 2 options - one with a lighter, limited elevation system, and one heavier without elevation penalties though possibly with a reduced fire rate.
The Des Moines was the first warship to have autoloaders for its guns, before that there were no autoloaders
-
1 hour ago, JANXOL said:
Agreed, but in that case the fire rate isn't the problem, as lowering the barrel is part of the "manual" reload. In case of autoloader's you'd need to either 1. Reduce elevation 2. Include the time of lowering the gun into firing cycle and lower the maximum autoloader fire rate. I see both options as fine to be hoenst, maybe two separate options? One for maximum fire rate at the cost of elevation, the other for max fire rate without sacrificing the elevation.
I've just discovered that in reality all the autoloaders for warships can reload at any angle, for example the 8"/55 (20.3 cm) RF Mark 16 of the Des Moines class has always a fire rate of 10 rounds per minute (6 seconds) indipendently from the angle
-
31 minutes ago, JANXOL said:
I mostly agree. There could be a range limitation for automatic loading, as the process requires the barrels to be lowered, especially for large calibers and long shells. And autoloaders only work within limited barrel elevations.
Even manual loading requires barrels to be lowered, because the breech must be aligned with the loading mechanism to reload the guns, anyway the maximum range depends by the maximum gun elevation and it is the same for both manual and automatic loading systems in reality, an autoloader is simply better than a manual mechanism, except that it costs more and is heavier than a manual system.
16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun
_ramming_powder_bags.thumb.jpg.9bc78dc8003962493a83ae19af3378d7.jpg)
-
19 minutes ago, halfmanhalfsquidman said:
Completely agree. If it is a game balance thing for future multiplayer then okay I guess, but adding more cost without affecting accuracy and range is probably better. Honestly though I feel like the primary audience for this game will overlap more with RTW than World of Warships (which I also play, but just because I love big battle boats and not for historical satisfaction)
It is not ok even for multiplayer because the reload of the cannons is very slow even with the autoloader, it is not real, not even in WOWS is like that, however the multiplayer is considered but it isn't a confirmed feature
-
3
-
-
Why does the enhanced/automatic gun reload reduce accuracy and range? In real life only the weight and the cost increase with an autoloader, accuracy and range are not reduced, I think that this game should be more realistic rather than arcade, avoiding situations like this.
-
7
-
-
2 hours ago, Niomedes said:
While that is probably true at the moment, I too feel that this should be a little more under the direct control of the player. I mean, I do just in general hope that we will at some point have more control over the hull form in general than just being able to choose a premade hull.
Not at the moment because we have pre-built hulls, perhaps in the future the hulls will be completely customizable
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Microscop said:
This option seems to be missing. I propose allowing us to chose from vertical, 10 degree, 15 and 20 inclination especially on more modern hulls altough even Hood built during ww1 had inclined belt already.
Inclined armor is especially effective at range where combined shell angle of impact and armor inclination combined result in over 30 degree angle which not only increases los thickness of the armor but also makes it far more likely for the shell to ricochet.
The inclination of the armor depends on the hull you choose I guess, for example the Yamato hull has an inclined armor, the main belt is externally visible
-
9 minutes ago, Captain Lust said:
No, it must be balanced first and foremost. Realism is important but should always come after balance to make the game worth playing.
The game would still be balanced because the double shot would be almost useless if not against ships built in fir, and would make the double shot a strategic choice for raking the stern, and would be easy to bounce
-
19 hours ago, Captain Lust said:
No, unless you remove carronades altogether...
The game must be realistic and I see no problem in this, then the carronades are effective up to 250 meters, the double shot would be useless at distances over 50 meters
-
Making the double shot more realistic by increasing the damage of 50%, and reducing penetration and range of 50% compared to the single shot, and making unlimited ammunition as it was in the past, this would make the double shot more strategic because it could only be used at very close range and would be useless over 50 meters, but it could be devastating and have a great impact on the battle if used at the right time, and would make the use of woods like fir to build a combat ship a more risky choice, and would favor the use of heavier woods for combat ships.
-
1
-
-
ISSUES: The map in the open world does not open and the chat window does not reopen once closed.
-
Wow amazing ships under construction!
-
It has 80 guns and is most likely a 2nd rate.
This ship is a third rate, and not a second rate. The thirds rates are from 64 to 80 guns, while the second rates are from more than 80 to 98 guns.
-
So far, there doesn't appear to be any plan to implement studdingsails. I believe I saw a response from Admin that they made ships look awful (like an elephant I believe the quote was?).
Before Studdingsails, I'd like to see the implementation of only flying enough canvas for the weather you're in. To have ships running around with every studdingsail flying all the time would be more distracting than not having them at all in my opinion.
The studding sails were very commonly used in the 18th / 19th century, so I think it would be wrong not to put them, then this type of sails were used during navigation, and pursuits, and were not used during the fighting, and then we should take a long for more time to be deployed.
HMS Victory with studding sails and top mast sails
-
2
-
-
Maybe studding sails could be added as equipment of the ship.
USS Monongahela
Amerigo Vespucci
-
2
-
_ramming_powder_bags.jpg.ba265b71baeaf217199802831014610a.jpg)
Small vessels underpowered.
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Jay Gatsby
No sorry, this is a realistic game, if you want unrealistic buffs or nerfs to make cruisers or destroyers at the same level of a battleship you should play at World of Warships, in real life a cruiser or a destroyer are inferior to a battleship, the game is called "UA: Dreadnought" for a reason, the other types of ships are secondary, moreover, a WW2 battleship has a superior accuracy than an old Dreadnought thanks to the radar and the modern Fire Control System, which is correct and this must not change.