Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Suggestion: more unadded armaments, extend the timespan, and more


Recommended Posts

As the title suggests, is it possible to add more historically accurate weapons that are currently not present in the game? 

For example, currently main armaments goes step up in integral number of inches, so naturally something of not-so-conventional desighes got missed out, even if you ignore some round-ups. Some notable examples are, British 4.5" guns for destroyer main armament and battleship secondaries (http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-45_mk1.php), Japanese 14cm (5.5") guns for light cruiser main armament and battleship secondaries (http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_55-50_3ns.php), French 34cm (13.4") guns as battleship main armaments (http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_134-45_m1912.php), and Japanese 61cm (24") torpedoes (since currently in game the torpedo diameter only gets up to 22") (http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.php#61_cm_(24")_Type_93_(1933)_Model_1%2C_Mod_1%2C_Mod_2_and_Mod_3). 

Also, since we already has a Yamato-class battleship hull(which can be considered as the ultimate battleship), is it possible to extend the timeline to late 1940s/ early 1950s to cover up some of the last conventional gun cruisers? Examples include British Tiger class light cruiser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger-class_cruiser), and the Soviet Project 68K and 68bis cruisers(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapayev-class_cruiserhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlov-class_cruiser). 

Finally, just as how you choose what type of gunpowder/ explosive you want to use in your guns, is it viable to add a similar solution, but applied to torpedoes? Currently the torpedo in this game kinda feels underperforming and lacks customization (insert torpedo damage rant here), so I was expecting some changes, and this would be a nice addition. I would also suggest different fuse types for torpedoes, but I'll hold on to that one now. 

Thanks for reading! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding the odd gun sizes would certainly add a lot of flavour, especially if they get their own turret designs (so you can have 150mm turrets like on the German CLs or the secondaries on the WW2 BBs). Or the British twin 120mm turrets they used on destroyers, not to mention the 5.25 (133mm) from the KGV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just no.  Oh, I know, I'll get an 89mm gun instead of an 88mm.

Has anyone even bothered to look at the performance "difference" between a 13.4", a 13" and a 14", or a 5.5" v a 5" or a 6"?  Simply throw in the turret model options for flavour, and then let the powder and turret hardware choices to affect performance.  More detailed does not mean more realistic, in fact quite often, the opposite.  The Unity engine does not handle multiple computations at once well to begin with (KSP anyone?) and throwing in an infinite number of database entries to run algorithms, cross checks, and then display results will take the performance outside the ability of the engine platform to handle, much less PC's.

How about the much simpler solution to allow one to rename a gun/turret, that way one still gets their 120mm turret without the engine caring it isn't actually a 5", but for all basic performance metrics, is...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Pedroig said:

Has anyone even bothered to look at the performance "difference" between a 13.4", a 13" and a 14", or a 5.5" v a 5" or a 6"? 

The 5.25 had a much lower rate of fire because the shells were two-piece (due to the weight), so there would a massive difference between them and the regular 5 inch ones. They were better in the AA role due to the larger shells though, not sure about ship-to-ship combat. At least that's what Drachinifel says on that subject. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that there are a lot of ship weapons/equipment that will be added by the time of official release.  They've already stated that there are a lot more hull shapes to come, for example.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we see such standard equipment as sea plane catapult launchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hellstrike said:

 

The 5.25 had a much lower rate of fire because the shells were two-piece (due to the weight), so there would a massive difference between them and the regular 5 inch ones. They were better in the AA role due to the larger shells though, not sure about ship-to-ship combat. At least that's what Drachinifel says on that subject. 

Right, but that can be (and is reflected in game) as a SHELL variable, not a true gun variable.  5" guns using Heavy or Superheavy shells would obtain same game results.

11 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

But you don’t need an infinite number of database entries? You have it pre calculate  and attach a gun stats file and then it’s just this shell from this gun at this range will do this.

You said "enter gun data" that means I can enter ANYTHING from 2"-X" there is an infinite number of entries between 2-3", that's just calibre, still have all those other variables that would have a net zero impact on actual gameplay (considering there are already options to simulate them with components).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope, bigger guns with quad turret becomes a thing in this game.

Maybe not massively large but still, variety and all that.

Odd calibers would be a neat feature would make your ship more unique! (even if it's that much more effective).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hellstrike said:

The 5.25 had a much lower rate of fire because the shells were two-piece (due to the weight), so there would a massive difference between them and the regular 5 inch ones. They were better in the AA role due to the larger shells though, not sure about ship-to-ship combat. At least that's what Drachinifel says on that subject. 

You got it backwards the 5.25 was worse for AA because of its much slower fire rate, and better at anti surface because of its harder hitting shells.

The 5.25” gun had an 80 lbs shell which is at the limits of what the crew could man handle. Where as the US 5” 38 had a shell around 55 LBS which was much easier to deal with.

Sources:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_525-50_mk1.php

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have understood Nick Thomadis in his comment here 

so that they plan to add more calibers but now went for the most important ones.

 

After all, we don't have "even" quadruplet turrets, which were used by some. 

Let alone something as fantastic as a sixdruplet 16inch gun turret, necessary to create Tillman II.

 

And while maybe not all of the between guns will make it I'm sure that the more relevant onces will make it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SiWi said:

I think I have understood Nick Thomadis in his comment here 

so that they plan to add more calibers but now went for the most important ones.

 

After all, we don't have "even" quadruplet turrets, which were used by some. 

Let alone something as fantastic as a sixdruplet 16inch gun turret, necessary to create Tillman II.

 

And while maybe not all of the between guns will make it I'm sure that the more relevant onces will make it. 

 

You would be correct that’s my understanding also I was just trying to suggest a system where he wouldn’t have to manually make every gun size just a system that would allow us to do so. If it works in From the Depths it should work here too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

You got it backwards the 5.25 was worse for AA because of its much slower fire rate, and better at anti surface because of its harder hitting shells.

The 5.25” gun had an 80 lbs shell which is at the limits of what the crew could man handle. Where as the US 5” 38 had a shell around 55 LBS which was much easier to deal with.

The 5.25 had higher range, which, according to Drachinifel, made it very deadly as it surprised quite a few Japanese pilots.

I'll admit that the 5 is vastly superior when it comes to volume of fire and barrages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell all weapon data seems very much precalculated database stuff rather than historical performance. Even with the same caliber different guns produced by different countries in different era with different barrel lengths will produce different results, yet currently these are all uniform. It shouldn't be much of a difficulty adding more gun caliber based on this assumption. But it's also no more than a novelty to do so. 

I'd honestly rather to see more cusomization for the torpedo system though. Currently it feels... underwhelming and lackluster compared to the gunnery system. Besides the damage which is still up for debate whether it is historical or not, you can't change much about the torpedo, like its explosive filler, its fuze type, its range vs. speed mode, or just a quick reload system for a rapid second successive salvo (like IJN did, adds weight and greatly adds detonation chance), etc. Torpedo was a pretty important weapon on surface ships up till naval aviation and more modern FCS showed up, so I think it deserves its love. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More weapons? Yes, please, but only if they add something special, like japanese oxygen torpedoes, soviet 180mm B-1-K, german homing torpedoes (only for submarines?) and etcetera. I don’t see the point of adding for example 130mm russian guns, 138mm french, 135mm italian and 140mm japanese guns when there are five-inch and six-inch guns in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with extending the timeline. The devs really need to stick to 1936 as the absolute max date, and I feel even that is too much. Inserting bits and pieces of WW2 technology will simply take development resources away from elements that are crucial to the 1890-1930ish period and instead create these conundrums like how to model aircraft carriers without turning it into an aircraft carrier centric game in ~1940 and all of the development time needed to do a proper simulation of that. Even now we already have some WW2 era tech like a sort of radar FC in the game and yet it’s been reported that it hasn't been decided if searchlights will be visually represented... So please focus on the tech which is most relevant to naval warfare of the selected period. Save the WW2 tech for Ultimate Admiral: Carriers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean by late refit of the Yamato (which mostly focused on extreme amounts of AA IIRC), I see a Yamato-looking "hull" is there but that's not a huge deal in itself, the Yamato was laid down in 1937 so close enough to the game's timeline that a ship of similar appearance could have been built a few years earlier I'm sure, especially in an alt-history without the WNT. The radar FC (which doesn't appear to be modeled in any way besides "big boost to accuracy and spotting") is a bigger deal to me and if it stays in I hope it is at least limited to some sort of post 1936 "would you like to keep playing indefinitely?" game mode. And if not then that it can at least be modded out so that I’m not facing AI warships in 1929 packing pseudo-1945 tech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

Not sure what you mean by late refit of the Yamato (which mostly focused on extreme amounts of AA IIRC), I see a Yamato-looking "hull" is there but that's not a huge deal in itself, the Yamato was laid down in 1937 so close enough to the game's timeline that a ship of similar appearance could have been built a few years earlier I'm sure, especially in an alt-history without the WNT. The radar FC (which doesn't appear to be modeled in any way besides "big boost to accuracy and spotting") is a bigger deal to me and if it stays in I hope it is at least limited to some sort of post 1936 "would you like to keep playing indefinitely?" game mode. And if not then that it can at least be modded out so that I’m not facing AI warships in 1929 packing pseudo-1945 tech.

Respectfully I disagree because a lot of the fun stuff came around in 41-45.

Edited by Absolute0CA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's fine, but if I were to make a counterpoint, in another thread you requested no multiplayer because you'd like to see the game finished this decade. I'd argue that implementing multiplayer would take much less time then adding the vast amount of naval warfare tech and equipment needed to do a decent job simulating 1937-1945.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Commodore Sandurz said:

And that's fine, but if I were to make a counterpoint, in another thread you requested no multiplayer because you'd like to see the game finished this decade. I'd argue that implementing multiplayer would take much less time then adding the vast amount of naval warfare tech and equipment needed to do a decent job simulating 1937-1945.

Implementing multiplayer might be relatively easy, but that isn't all you have to do for multiplayer. You also have to make sure it actually works, make sure that it is balanced and fun, make sure there's actually something to do in it.


UA:D will probably have lots to do with friends, if you each play as different countries in a campaign, but Balance is going to be worrying, as might making multiplayer actually work. For two examples, look to War Thunder and From the depths.
War Thunder has a pretty horrible time trying to balance historical elements against gameplay elements because, in theory, each country has to be balanced against the others to be fair to the players of each nation. There isn't supposed to be any ludicrously overpowered things at any particular tier. I am personally pretty sure that they haven't achieved this. It's an extreme example and isn't anywhere near a 100% perfect analogy, but it makes me somewhat nervous for anything historical or pseudohistorical trying to balance multiplayer.

From the Depths Has had multiplayer since relatively early alpha. However, since there are no servers and it isn't particularly polished (which seems to be quite a likely scenario for UA:D), there are very many glitches such as things not being in the same place for both players and frequent crashes.
 

I think that it's probably a lot easier to simulate WWII era naval technology. A lot of it might have to be abstracted away and folded into tangentially related technologies, but let's use an example.
 

If we have carriers on the field of battle,

  • we need another hull.
  • Aircraft would have to have a finite amount.
  • The aircraft weapons would have to be ammunition.
  • Aircraft would have to somehow be recovered after attacking.

I've certainly missed a few things out, but these few points only seem to have one major problem with them, which might be solved by treating aircraft as vehicles from a mothership and Carriers as being aircraft ports; Perhaps abstract this as embarking new aircraft at sea when close enough to friendly ports?

This seems a lot easier than trying to make multiplayer work and be balanced to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So for CV's if they are gonna be added in, just do the following.

Limited fuel for planes meaning you cant just tenno henkai banzai your way too victory.

Limited ammo for planes for the same reason.

Not sure if plane HP and even affectiveness should determine how well they can still perform and how often.

Limited planes and reserves (if theres an airbase nearby you get far greater reserves).

Limited plane types so you can just dump every plane into yer carrier (i mean you could but it would be just plain werid).

With plane hp it can either be the whole squad or individual based. Also planes that don't die get damaged will suffer types of damage and performance issues with them to make it more realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...