Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>"Alpha-2 v.63" General Feedback<<< [LATEST UPDATE: 26/10/2019]


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

I don't know.
It is just silly to see BCs out classing BBs in various levels. Speed, armor, guns... what is so special in BBs then when BCs can simply match it and do better? Speed boost to give accuracy penalty to enemy ships, higher cruising speed for accuracy penalty and maintaining own accuracy boost. Armor can be equal or more than BB, guns can be equal caliber than super heavy...

I don't know. Perhaps i am just putting too much in to it.
Really dunno i might be too classicist and too dense to bend classes.

I do think the game does it pretty good, given there really wasn't an internationally set standard of classification until the naval treaties and even then there are gaps. As to how the game makes good of it, is that battleships got less speed but more resistance and battlecruisers got more speed but less resistance, the rest is up to the player and the building RNG and adding to it tonnage set a limit to what can be done.

I have played lots of "Defend your convoy" so seen many many different RNG configurations of BCs, not once have they felt out of class, is it a speed monster even 4" guns hurt it, is it heavily armoured it turns like a brick and can't avoid the torpedoes and on and on it goes, this pretty much repeats itself in missions with BBs same thing, you trade one thing to get room for another or compromise to get a little of both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Fellow Admirals, Your participation in the forum, your comments, suggestions, criticism, everything is deeply appreciated and acknowledged. We have been quite silent the last days, because we are

Admirals, a hotfix has become available. You can check it out. UPDATE 26-10-2019 -===============- Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Alpha-2 v.63  Hotfix: Game Speed limits are much softer now

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Alpha-2 v.63 Hotfix: Game Speed limits are much softer now. 3x is the minimum auto-adjusted game speed. 10x game speed became available when fleets are very far aw

Posted Images

44 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

Classes are relative to the British a BC was any Big gun capital ship over a set speed, not what it’s main armament was or how much armor it had, until the “fast battleship” classification came out it was what they used.

Ans like others have said CAs and CLs that we have seen are early era ones that are actually Armored Cruisers and Protected cruises not what we know from the treaties as Heavy cruisers and Light Cruisers.

And as for you having issue penetrating a ship with 20+ inches of armor with a 15” gun with 25” of penetration there’s a thing you’re forgetting. That penetration number in game is what it does against Iron Plate, NOT any of the more advanced armor. For example 20” of KC IV is actually 40” of Iron Plate with that 100% modifier. Should close range and switch to HE and burn them out rather than try to penetrate them in that case.

I'll give it a try.
Tho i wish they would provide effective armor strength instead of plate thickness.
20" but in reality it has strength of 40".... i am baka for not taking that in to consideration.
Kinda misleading. perhaps the thickens and strength values could be displayed somewhere. 
I am too class dense i am 100% certain of it... just need to drill it to my self that classes are bit more fluid :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Even when you hit, they do absolutely nothing.

8 inch guns could not penetrate a BB belt, but make no mistake a hefty pounding of 8 inch guns would make a BB all but a sitting target.

You dont need to pen just start fires and knock out modules, thats the whole point when it comes to using secondaries in the first place.

Also i wasn't talking about bb's but talking about smaller ships said secondaries would actually be able to pen regularly.

They are still useless regardless. too bad you can't set them to target superstructure or belt or deck (unless at a certain distance).

but still what said is correct hense why they need the buffs.

Edited by Cptbarney
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

You dont need to pen just start fires and knock out modules, thats the whole point when it comes to using secondaries in the first place.

Also i wasn't talking about bb's but talking about smaller ships said secondaries would actually be able to pen regularly.

They are still useless regardless. too bad you can't set them to target superstructure or belt or deck (unless at a certain distance).

but still what said is correct hense why they need the buffs.

I’m actually going to do a write up tonight that’s maybe going to be out tomorrow on why the devs got their current system horribly horribly wrong.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

I’m actually going to do a write up tonight that’s maybe going to be out tomorrow on why the devs got their current system horribly horribly wrong.

That sounds good, Secondaries and tetriarys need looking at. It's nice watching big guns making the smoll ships go boom, but id rather conserve ammo for actual threats that can end my Battleship, dreadnought, fast battleship, super dreadnought, battlecruiser, semi dreadnought etc. In a few shots.

Plus its fun as well seeing them fire and do stuff too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cptbarney said:

That sounds good, Secondaries and tetriarys need looking at. It's nice watching big guns making the smoll ships go boom, but id rather conserve ammo for actual threats that can end my Battleship, dreadnought, fast battleship, super dreadnought, battlecruiser, semi dreadnought etc. In a few shots.

Plus its fun as well seeing them fire and do stuff too.

Oh yeah I whole heartedly agree, one of the biggest problems they have right now is that they got the reasons for why guns are more accurate as they get larger mostly wrong, it’s not the gun itself it’s all the stuff that goes with the big guns that makes them accurate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been running into the issue of some ships sometimes taking inordinate amounts of punishment, hanging on with structure in the single digits for multiple salvos that cause significant damage, but the sections hit have already been completely holed so nothing happens.

I would suggest introducing some sort of hull break mechanic that could come into play once a number of adjacent hull sections over no more than two stacks (5 or even all 6) have been completely destroyed.

If that break happened amidships, the ship would sink, but if it was only the rearmost or foremost sections so destroyed, it could still survive at a massive penalty to its maneuverability and speed.

Something similar to what I'm proposing actually happened to Lützow on her way back from Norway in WW2:

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101II-MN-1038-06,_Kiel

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there might be an issue with the torpedo speed selection.

I'm trying the "torpedo the dreadnought mission" , selecting "optimize torpedo propulsion" to get 14km, 52kts torps.

Then in the constructor, select "fast" torpedo propulsion, expecting to get 7km, 68ish knots torps (what ? i like fast ^^), but the stats in the ship details stay the same, and ingame, the torps still travel waaaay over 7km (harder to judge speed though)

Has that one already been reported ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops replied to a few pages old cus of a mis click. 
 

:P

 

Anyways I do agree with the idea that 2 red columns amid ship should cause a ship to snap in half and sink, and it should be possible to do things like blow the bow or stern off a ship without sinking it: See USS New Orleans.

Edited by Absolute0CA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

You dont need to pen just start fires and knock out modules, thats the whole point when it comes to using secondaries in the first place.

Also i wasn't talking about bb's but talking about smaller ships said secondaries would actually be able to pen regularly.

They are still useless regardless. too bad you can't set them to target superstructure or belt or deck (unless at a certain distance).

but still what said is correct hense why they need the buffs.

Except that in real life even a measly little 4 inch gun could penetrate parts of a battleship!

A 4 inch gun could penetrate the mighty YAMATO!...On the bow, stern, and superstructure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

Ship like the Yamato did not have their armor on the hull surface. So you can pen them mostly anywhere on the surface.

That was generally a later trend of fast battleships most had it externally mounted for ease of replacement and repair. A Yamato style internal belt you have to cut the hull open just to service. Where as most older battleships and other armored combatants had exterior armor belts which are much easier to repair as you cut their bolts and they fall off ready to be replaced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Except that in real life even a measly little 4 inch gun could penetrate parts of a battleship!

A 4 inch gun could penetrate the mighty YAMATO!...On the bow, stern, and superstructure.

I don't know what that has to do with game mechanics but the yamato like most modern bb's up to that point had very lightly armoured decks and superstructures were typically poorly armoured to stop the ship from dropping into the ocean like a stone.

Also what @Absolute0CA said as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

@Absolute0CA Repearing armor is not what matters here. Placing the belt internally is much better for stability and weight distribution. Its also lighter.

But it severely reduces usable hull volume for a given displacement and means quite some volume can be flooded without even penetrating the belt. The first point sets off the weigt savings gained from being able to angle the plate, which anyway is only really that effective at rather long range (longer than practical battle range even for many WW2 ships)

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Finwenolofinwe said:

But it severely reduces usable hull volume for a given displacement and means quite some volume can be flooded without even penetrating the belt. The first point sets off the weigt savings gained from being able to angle the plate, which anyway is only really that effective at rather long range (longer than practical battle range even for many WW2 ships)

Yes it’s why Montana’s went back to an external belt internal wasn’t worth it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Absolute0CA @Finwenolofinwe

Put it that way:

With internal Belt, if your ship end up looking like Swiss cheese then so be it, you probably have lost already.

As for external belt, well... your ship may not look like Swiss cheese, but in all likelihood the damage have been done to armament, vital system and crew regardless. You probably have lost already anyways.

If you have a well separated compartment with allot of bulkhead then punching a holes in many compartment won't sink the ship. It might not even be much of a issue if you are lucky. but a single hit in the magazine and its the end.


Now say your internal belt cover half the volume of external hull, the saved weight can be added to the internal belt (or its roof, if you look at the citadel as a whole). This is not marginal. Having said that, if you scale up, surface grow to the square and volume to the cube. For very large ship you could have a very decent level of protection with external belt. But it will never be as strong as a internal one. Weight distribution will also make it more prone to capsize. It is also very hard and expensive to shape thick steel plate.

Swiss cheese that still float or steel box that sink?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

Actually the internal belt is much more likely to sink as the aforementioned internal volume issues. So I’d rather take an external belt on everything but a fast BB.

Having weight closer to center of mass is a huge advantage in case of flooding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Having weight closer to center of mass is a huge advantage in case of flooding.

The issue isn’t too weight with that it’s the amount of unprotected volume on the sides which is more likely to cause the ship to list and roll than the top weight of an external belt, and you have to remember the top deck is the same size what changes is the size of the side plates which means that there isn’t much difference in weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Further away weight is form center of mass stronger is the leveler it have in rotation. That matter allot.

You’re not speaking English go back edit this and try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

You’re not speaking English go back edit this and try again.

This is not quite English too. But it does seem pretty condescending.

Anyways, what I meant is: Further away a weight is form center of mass of a object, stronger is the leverage it have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Internal belts were a compromise. Iowa had it because they wanted to retain compatibility with the Panama canal and had to be within the limits of the escalator clause of the 2nd London Naval Treaty. The Montanas were going to be launched after the treaty expired in 1942 and at that point it was thought that the Panama canal was too much of a restriction so they cast those limitations to the side as got much bigger and went back to an external belt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...