Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'armor'.
Found 11 results
-
Too me it seems that the armor upgrades in game are a bit drastic. Getting any of the Krupp tier armor makes putting a ton of armor on too easy and it also makes the ships absolutely impenetrable, throwing 500mm of armor with Krupp IV makes the ship only vulnerable to torpedoes and the absolute largest guns. Does anyone else feel the same way? It just feels like smaller weapons even on battle ships, and I dont mean 5 inch guns, i mean the 13-14 inch weapons are just not viable for very long.
-
1. Make the Belt and Deck armor be the armor protecting the middle of the ship, and make the Extended Belt and Extended Deck armor be the armor protecting the ends of the ship 1a. On ships with a Citadel, add armored bulkheads as thick as the Belt 1b. Make is so that if the ends of the ship are flooding, the middle can’t flood unless the armored bulkheads have been penetrated, or have been partially penetrated multiple times. 1c. Make the Citadel long enough, on ships with no Extended armor, that if it is the only part of the ship that hasn’t been flooded the ship will still float, but only by a very thin margin. 2. Remove the barrette component and replace it with anti-flash mechanisms and/or improved ammo storage. IRL they reduced rate of fire/increased cost respectively, but also reduced the chance of a magazine detonation if the turret/barrette was penetrated. -
Firstly, I’m unsure about how the game’s armouring is placed. I am unsure whether the deck and extended deck are the upper deck or lower deck above the citadel, but either way I think it’s important to differentiate the two. I’d like to propose two new armour placements: 1. Citadel deck: the deck directly above the citadel. Tended to be thicker than the upper deck, which was also armoured on armoured cruisers and battleships. 2. Citadel slopes: diagonal armoured slopes from citadel deck to base of belt armour. They were mostly below the waterline, thus offering better protection without the need of a belt. These two placements would allow for differentiation of true armoured cruisers and true protected cruisers; the later lacking in belt armour completely. Both would allow for better protection of boilers, which seem to be rather vulnerable in the alpha despite a thick belt. They wouldn’t be available to destroyers or torpedo boats, or alternatively remove belt armour from destroyers while allowing for a lightly armoured citadel, as seen in later classes. Heres two diagrams from Wikipedia: Armoured cruisers layout: - In game, the deck becomes the upper deck, shown in thin red. - The citadel deck is the deck directly above the citadel. Often thicker than upper deck, sometimes not as thick as slopes. - The citadel slopes are the diagonal slopes and would by default be thicker than decks but not as thick as belt. Protected cruiser layout: - Citadel slopes and deck armoured. - No belt or upper deck armour. Hopefully this setup would allow players to keep their cruisers light and fast while still having a protected citadel with thinner armour. This is all down to player preference of course. Could also address the weight issues I currently see which is cruisers being far heavier than in real life, sometimes twice the weight. In both diagrams, the areas shown in grey are coal bunkers. It would be nice to simulate the added protection by allowing coal (and semi-oil to a lesser extent) to improve belt armour and citadel armour, and/or reduce penetration damage. This could scale with range/amount of coal on board. It would also reduce flooding in areas where coal is stored. -
current Iron Plate armor uses the US 1945 class B armor as a standard for quality 1 armor this means that 10 inches armor is 10 inches of effective armor (1 inch of us 1945 B steel is essentially 1 inch of RHA armor aka rolled homogeneous armor which is used as the standard for 1 inch thickness to 1 inch effectiveness) in reality Iron Plate had an effective thickness modifier of 0.5 to 0.55 so 1 inch of Iron plate armor would be 0.5 inches of effective thickness this meant a 10 inch iron plate is in effect only 5 inches of effective armor this means all types of armor in game over-performs by at-least 150% armor such as Krupp IV over-performs by 200% 240% if you account for 40% weight saving (a 1 inch armor plate of Krupp IV in game is equivelant to 2 inches of what would be the best quality battleship armor created in ww2 (around 1 quality in real life while in game is 200% more effective than quality 1 armor aka quality 2) (quality armor means how much effective thickness it gets from its actual thickness for example a quality 3 plate would have 3 inches of effective armor from a 1 inch thick piece of armor while a quality 1 piece of armor would have 1 inch of effective thickness from a 1 inch thick plate) this DOES NOT account for the fact armor gets lighter which was not the case in real life the density of steel armor remained at around 7750kg m^3 (yes you can do various things to it but generally armor weight remained the same) the current armor stats are as follows KruppIV -40% weight +300% cost +100% strength SHOULD BE around cost 100% strength +10% KruppIII -35% weight +220% cost +90% strength SHOULD BE around cost 70% strength 0% KruppII -30% weight +160% cost +80% strength SHOULD BE around cost 50% strength -10% kruppI -25% weight +100% cost +70 strength SHOULD BE around cost +40% -14 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey (nickel steel version) -15% weight +50% costs +45% strength SHOULD BE around+ 12% cost -26% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells due to low tensile strength Nickel-steel -5% weight +25% cost +40% strength SHOULD BE around cost +5-8% strength -30% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell due to low brinell -15% chance to shatter ap shells due too low tensile strength Compound: +5% cost +35% strength SHOULD BE around cost + 5% strength -35% +10% chance to shatter projectiles due to high tensile strength (introduced in 1876 so yeah ancient and horrible armor quality) - Iron plate -15% hull form +65% hull weight -25% armor weight (all types) -50% armor weight (belt, belt extended) SHOULD BE around -15% hull form (lets assume Iron armor back then was harder to shape properly) (IRON ARMOR DOES NOT increase the hull weight or reduce armor weight)-50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells due to low brinell hardness -50% chance to shatter AP shells due to the low tensile strength looks a bit complicated but the new armor would essentially have these characteristics Krupp IV cost 80% strength +10% Krupp III cost 50% strength -4% Krupp II cost 40% strength -10% Krupp I cost +25% -18 strength -2% chance to shatter ap shells -5 ricochet angle of incomming shell Harvey +12% cost -21% strength - 10% ricochet angle of incomming shell - 15% chance to shatter AP shells Nickel-steel cost +5-8% strength -26% strength -16% ricochet angle of incomming shell -15% chance to shatter ap shells Compound cost + 5% strength -30% +10% chance to shatter projectiles Iron plate -15% hull form -50% strength -30% ricochet angle of incomming shells -50% chance to shatter AP shells source used to determine armor values and effects http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Japanese_Vickers_Hardened_Non-Cemented_Face-Hardened_Armor_(VH) the less hard in brinell the armor is the more likely a shell wont ricochet off the armor the less tensile strength the more likely an ap shell is to not shatter on the armor this was mostly done to diversify and make a bigger difference out of the different types of armor in reality the effects would be less pronounced (specifically ricochet chance) than in real life (though shatter chance is quite realistic) what effect do these changes have on armor in general in general would improve the realism of the game while greatly increasing gun penetration for AP shells on top of this it would reduce the tendency to go bow in and charge enemy battleships until almost point blank range to effectively penetrate enemy armor it would reduce the tendency for large ships to fire high explosive shells when they shouldn't and would reduce what can only be described as an HE meta final conclusion armor is currently overperforming to various degrees this would make armor effectiveness realistic for the thickness compared to the currently super effective armor we have in game which overperforms by extreme amounts
-
I crafted this ship a few weeks ago - but just noticed the odd Side Armor. It is showing both Left and Right Side Armor as separate values. Rattlesnake Heavy with Left & Right Side Armor This is the only ship I have like this. A bug or ?
-
You recommend yourself as ultra realistic cannon balls game. Doubling on enemy is suppose to be a tactic presumably since balls may entirely pierce through both and any sides of armor of ship, to which end making making damage cross over through all three layers or just one or the other would be ideal so that firing from both sides on a ship isn't a major waste of 2nd ship on your side.
-
Hi Gents, I have stumbeld across a glitch in the matrix. I have a Agamemnon Live Oak/White Oak , Base Armor HP is 6361. Now I equip Bow Figure Elephant with +10% Base Armor HP and also Planking (4-5) +15% Armor HP. Normaly I would have ((6361*1,1+6361*1,15)-6361)= 7951 HP BUT it seems that only my planking with +15% is working and overwriting the Elephants +10%, so that I have in fact only 7236 HP. Thats not even +15% ! I thought that skillbooks and refits witch increase armor are not compatible with each other but my college has the same problem and he has equipt Elephant and Bridgetown Refit which should give him ~20% Bonus but he has also only 7236 HP. Another friend has Floating Battery +20% and Elephant +10% but also gets only 7236 HP. Is that how its intended to work or is it a bug ? Sorry for my English, but just pretend Germany won the war and you would have to learn german in school
-
Currently in the game a Victory can be penetrated at the waterline by 6 pounds shots to any range, and shots bounce only if the ship is very angled, in reality a Constitution should be immune to 12 pounds shots, and in the fighting Contitution vs Guerriere also 18 pounds shots have bounced at a certain distance, let alone the Victory. Where is the damage model 4.0? Constitution armor vs 12 pounder cannon http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/how-to-stop-a-cannonball/17510
-
Hello. I'm right now playing as a Navy Brig and after having a very hard time with the standard brig, I thought this one was going to be better but I was mistaken. This I am going to say it's true: I got more damage per battle with a Privateer than what I get with Brigs or Navy Brigs. My problem is not the firepower or the manueverability right now. My big problem that for this ship is that it pretty much is like a piece of paper. I can't stand seeing how in a single shot it's entire nose armor gets almst fully destroyed and almost the same for port or starboard, and rear. Two shots and it's done even when being shot by not that big ships, but if it gets shot by a constitution its done almost in the first set of shots. So, I cannot even approach ships without gettign destroyed before I can do a decent ammount of damage, and somehow in pve ships will manage to hit you without ranging shots in the first try. So yes, i'm despeprate with this ship, cause I thought It was going to be better and more resistant but no it is not and I have a long way to the snow.
-
-Copy.thumb.jpg.659200d15eabbbe97604d9c5896bf8a4.jpg)
Here is our presentation on the USS Constitution's innovative and heavy built hull and how we would like to see it represented currently and in the final damage model as the 'super heavy frigate' that it is. "The ultimate intention of this research and presentation is to assist Game Labs by providing unimpeachable empirical data, in improving and enhancing the quality of the final product which will not only improve the historical accuracy of the game and increase its playability, but also, by extension, the reputation of Game Labs and its community of fans." We ask for no flaming or responding to flaming and to read it if you are going to debate the contents, for or against, because it will be obvious to those who have read it when someone who hasn't comments extensively. Hope you enjoy and let the discussion begin. USS Constitution: Armor, hull thickness, framing & material and it's representation in Game Lab's Naval Action Citations are viewable by hovering over or clicking on the yellow quotations Video: http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/how-to-stop-a-cannonball/17510- 354 replies
-
- 6
-
-
- USS Constitution
- armor
- (and 4 more)
-
Update: I originally was looking at the old XML files and so the title of this thread is not accurate, I have updated the post accordingly. I knew it didn't add up with what we see in game, that's why I'd asked about possible hidden attributes, but no, it was just the wrong XML files However, my position that the Constitutions HP is far below what it should be still stands and here is some evidence for that. This may be the most in depth feedback I have given to the developers about this amazing game that we all love, but it is the most heartfelt opinion I have yet offered. The Constitutions armor and hit point rating does not match the physics of the wood and framing used on this ship. It doesn't match what is commonly known and accepted, nor the physics. Her armor rating doesn't represent a 2200 ton super heavy frigate with a 21 inch thick hull made of Southern Live and White Oak, built with the scantling scheme of a 74, zero space framing, innovative diagonal riders, lock scarfing and heavy Live Oak knees . The HMS Victory at the waterline has only 3 more inches of wood and it is made of the five times less dense and weaker English Oak. In fact the 21 inch maximum thickness I use is merely the most commonly repeated number, the wikipedia number, but the US Naval Historical Center states she has 25 inches at the waterline and that the 21 inches is the hull average! Let’s start with some details. Southern Live Oak, Quercus virginiana, indigenous to the Southeastern United States, is world renown for it’s strength and density. In fact even today the architectural formula for load bearing beams and walls allows for a reduction by up to 1/6th when using Southern Live Oak in place of any other type of oak! The hull and load framing construction of the USS Constitution was Live and White oak, with Live being the most predominant in the framing. With the Bellona and Victory it was English Oak. White Oak even is much stronger than both Red and English Oak. Furthermore the Constitution was built with zero spacing between her frame timbers, while the Bellona for example had 30 inches and the space was packed with soft woods such as pine and elm and most other frigates had between 8 and 10 inches spacing. If the speed of a ball during penetration was about 200 m/s, the velocity of the stress wave would be about 3000 m/s. The larger the space and the less dense the material between the spaces the more susceptible the whole structure is to the stress wave once the projectile has pierced roughly 2 inches into the wood. The density and hardness of the wood at the impact point and behind the impact point directly affects the deceleration rate and determines the share of energy that is absorbed in the penetration process. In short, the zero spaced supports in the USS Constitution and it’s construction of Live and White Oak would decelerate a penetration projectile much more rapidly than would the constructions of the Victory and the Bellona. Further, the denser and stronger Live and White Oak would be able to absorb the projectiles energy more rapidly and locally, reducing the structural damage the round could give. Simple physics states that a harder, denser target face, supported by harder, denser and more closely framed support is unsurprisingly harder to destroy. Splintering was a major source of crew casualties and even projectiles that did not fully penetrate could create a hail of splinters. Southern Live and White Oak's properties, specifically it's superior elastic modulus rating, are much more resistant to splintering than English Oak when hit with high speed projectiles. The one inch of total thickness difference between the Constitution and the Bellona and the three inches of difference with the Victory (or if the US Navy is to be referenced, the one inch difference with the Victory and the two inch superiority of the Constitution over the Bellona) would and should not account for the 2,391 and 3,402 point differences, respectively, in side armor values, even if the Constitution itself was made of the same English Oak. Its superior framing design alone, even if it had the same oak, would see it absorbing and surviving the exact same shot as the Bellona with less penetration and damage. Also it is to be noted that the amount of iron bolts and copper nails used in a single piece of planking of the Constitution accounted for an average of 25% of it’s weight, which British contractors also copied when they set about building their own super heavy frigates, determining that the Constitutions 3.3% of the face surface of the timber being occupied by bolts provided a high density of reinforcement to the hull that helped stop gun shots. Damage models I am aware that the current damage model takes into account the size of the ship and it’s overall structural mass and that damage model 4.0 will be of a completely different type. However when it is designed, it surely must take into account the details of what made ‘Old Ironsides’ such a powerful frigate and that wasn't just anecdotal evidence and the response of the British admiralty, who, when designing their own heavy frigates copied more than just the gun load out, (redesigned their framing to mimic the Constitution's), but it must take into account of the known physics of the wood and the framing. Even from 1811 forward the British 2nd and 3rd rates framing was changed using techniques found on the Constitution. The superiority of Southern Live and White Oak over English Oak as armor and structural framing I know the immediate response of many will be 'but the 74 has to be more powerful than a frigate!' First of all physics do not follow preconceived hierarchical arrangements we all make and are guilty of. It should be what it is and the devil is in the details. The fact remains that the 74's and even the 64's will still have a superior weight of broadside regardless of what is done to the armor, and captains being equal, will still have a clear advantage over the Constitution, and a cautious Constitution captain would wisely use his ships speed to decline a 1v1 with a Bellona on the open world sea.
- 12 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- constitution
- hull
- (and 4 more)
.thumb.jpg.4c0e7a3263bc9ddb7ac7cb3ff3df1338.jpg)
-Copy.thumb.jpg.659200d15eabbbe97604d9c5896bf8a4.jpg)