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

[ThatZenoGuy]

5 hours 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.

Internal belts are more expensive to make and repair though.

 

[RedParadize]

21 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Internal belts are more expensive to make and repair though.

I would not bet on the "make" part. Thick steel is hard to bent in curved shape. Specially for complex curve of hulls. If you are ready to accept the lost in speed simplifying the curve is a option trough.

Edited October 29, 2019 by RedParadize

[Absolute0CA]

2 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I would not bet on the "make" part. Thick steel is hard to bent in curved shape. Specially for complex curve of hulls. If you are ready to accept the lost in speed simplifying the curve is a option trough.

It’s expensive because the hull structure is a lot more complex rather than have the armor mounted externally which you can easily bolt through the hull. So basically you’re putting holes in your box that is the ships structure for the armor requiring a much more complicated system.

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, Absolute0CA said:

It’s expensive because the hull structure is a lot more complex rather than have the armor mounted externally which you can easily bolt through the hull. So basically you’re putting holes in your box that is the ships structure for the armor requiring a much more complicated system.

And that's what I said. If you are ready to accept the lost in speed then it is definitively a option.

Edited October 30, 2019 by RedParadize

[Absolute0CA]

The loss of speed from an external belt was actually shockingly minimal historically only about .25 knots which is almost nothing... unless your dealing with a fast battleship and well that can be another 10-20k horsepower to reach top speed.

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, Absolute0CA said:

The loss of speed from an external belt was actually shockingly minimal historically only about .25 knots which is almost nothing... unless your dealing with a fast battleship and well that can be another 10-20k horsepower to reach top speed.

Where did you get that?

I do not know about external belt on battleship. But what I do know about is sailboat. A non-folding prop can make you lose a knot easily. The paint can make you lose another if the boat is big. Sea life too if you do not clean up often.

Edited October 30, 2019 by RedParadize

[ThatZenoGuy]

5 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I would not bet on the "make" part. Thick steel is hard to bent in curved shape. Specially for complex curve of hulls. If you are ready to accept the lost in speed simplifying the curve is a option trough.

External belts are typically 'straight', not curved.

[RedParadize]

@ThatZenoGuy That would definitively make more sense yes. I can't avoid saying this, external belt on this picture is not external for the most part. Its inside the torpedo bulge. I am not so sure that it can be considered as external. That does not make it easier to make or repair than a a internal one.

Edited October 30, 2019 by RedParadize

[Christian]

Belt armor is almost always NON curved because making curved plates takes significantly more effort and money 

casting curved shapes is ALOT easier than rolling them like ship armor is 

 

this is also why you notice thicker plates on ships are usually always straight

 

[Christian]

On 10/28/2019 at 3:22 PM, Illya von Einzbern said:

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

well thats one thing but when you actually realize how powerfull late game armor is you realize there is almost no point in shooting AP

most armor in game is overperforming by 2x compared to real life iron should be 50% as effective as it is thick but here we are at 100%

Krupp IV should be just as effective as it is thick (100%) while here we are at 200% 

thats when we assume Krupp IV is 1940s armor and iron armor is iron armor from the 1860s 

 

most battleships in the late missions have 12-15 inches of kruppIV which is 24-30 inches of effective armor

which means unless you are point blank with a 16-18 inch gun you will not pen

 

maximum pen i have gotten at point blank range is 36 inches with 18 inch guns super heavy shells and best penning powder

Edited October 30, 2019 by Christian

[Captain_Sir_Loughton_Peto]

11 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

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

Thats pretty rude mate.

[ThatZenoGuy]

6 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@ThatZenoGuy That would definitively make more sense yes. I can't avoid saying this, external belt on this picture is not external for the most part. Its inside the torpedo bulge. I am not so sure that it can be considered as external. That does not make it easier to make or repair than a a internal one.

Yamato for example IS an 'external' belt. Some of the belt goes into the TDS, but nowhere near enough to be considered 'internal'.

I will post an internal belt.



As you can see, the entire thing is behind LOTS of metal, joints, bulkheads, etc.

With an External belt you at most have to remove a tiny bit of metal, internal belts require a significant amount of the ship to be removed to access the belt.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Adding armor does help to compensate hull instability like roll and pitch for which i am really glad for.
There are few ways to make hull stable but that either means no casement guns or casement guns and loads of armor on the belt and extend to compensate the roll and pitch that they cause. Well in campaign you can perhaps research more stable hull designs. The hull stability helps a lot with accuracy ^^

Losing speed from the armor kinda feels bad but acceleration deceleration should be affected by the weight and that seems to be the case. Do correct me if i am wrong.


I thought that the armor quality meant that 10" armor is only x% effective and not the other way round like 10" and quality 50% armor is only 5" effective and with krup 4?
the 100% meant that 10" armor is 10" effective less likely to crack when hitted. 

[RedParadize]

@Illya von Einzbern its not adding armor that help with pitch and roll. Its adding any weight that is not part of sub assembly like guns and tower. 

I think it's a error. Its like all the armor was added at the center of mass instead of being reparted trough the ship. Its pretty obvious when you add sides gun. A single 3" on one side have a way too big impact on roll.

Belt extended should make the pitch worst, same for mid belt in relation to roll. Heavier engines should make it better as its right on center.

[PainGod]

2 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Illya von Einzbern its not adding armor that help with pitch and roll. Its adding any weight that is not part of sub assembly like guns and tower. 

I think it's a error. Its like all the armor was added at the center of mass instead of being reparted trough the ship. Its pretty obvious when you add sides gun. A single 3" on one side have a way too big impact on roll.

Belt extended should make the pitch worst, same for mid belt in relation to roll. Heavier engines should make it better as its right on center.

 

Why would it be in error? Unless you add armor to components that are responsible for causing the CoG shift towards one end or the other, adding mass that's evenly distributed would decrease pitch and roll moments as the net difference in mass for the bow and stern stays the same, but their overall weights increase. If you add armor to the middle, you get the same pitching moment, but it's affecting a larger mass, thereby reducing its overall effect.

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, PainGod said:

 

Why would it be in error? Unless you add armor to components that are responsible for causing the CoG shift towards one end or the other, adding mass that's evenly distributed would decrease pitch and roll moments as the net difference in mass for the bow and stern stays the same, but their overall weights increase. If you add armor to the middle, you get the same pitching moment, but it's affecting a larger mass, thereby reducing its overall effect.

This is not about center of mass have to align with its opposing force: center of lift (buoyancy). But even if you align the two you still have to deal with moment inertia.

There is a plus side and a minus side to this. If weight is concentrated at the center of a object it have a lesser moment inertia. It will be easier to rotate than a object with its mass at its periphery. Now for ship it mean that having mass concentrated near its center will make it react more to wave, that's a bad thing. But on the plus side it will react less if compartment get flooded. If the mass is away from its center, then its the opposite. It will react less to wave but more to change in center of lift. For something top heavy like a battleship that can be a huge problem.

Is that clear? I can quickly draw something if you want.

Edited October 30, 2019 by RedParadize

[Cptbarney]

Damm armour making is far more complex than i thought it would be lol.

I would probs end up building the ship back to front and upside when looking at dem plans.

sod knows how peeps did it back then.

[Illya von Einzbern]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Damm armour making is far more complex than i thought it would be lol.

I would probs end up building the ship back to front and upside when looking at dem plans.

sod knows how peeps did it back then.

They draw the shape of the ship first then bunch of mathematics monkeys had to calculate the weight distribution and miniatures to test the hull stability.
Before any ship hulls were made miniatures were made to have reference material. Miniatures are still quite common altho new 3D simulations now days are so good that the miniatures are cute relics.

There were quite a few top heavy or poorly calculated ship hull designs that led to disasters. Adding more weight/ plates to top heavy ships actually balanced them with out loss of speed (Takao-class top heavy originally but balanced with extra weight to hull and bulges)

[Agathos]

Folks, as interesting as your discussion is, i think you are getting a bit offtopic for the general feedback thread on the current version.

[Tikibarted]

Status dialog is off screen to the left in native 1920 X 1080 display, can only see the last three letters.

Not really getting this whole "switch to HE" thing, seems to be a bad hangover from WoW.  Can't think of a single incidence in history of a ship switching to HE on purpose, can only think of ships ready for shore bombardment being caught with the wrong ammo in the loading train.

Also not getting the tactic of pointing at the enemy to maximize "armor angle".  Another WoW stain?  historically, the exact opposite was the case with examples being Holland at Denmark Strait, Oldendorf at Surigao, and Harwood at River Plate all turning to "open their A arcs of fire".  Can't think of a single encounter where ships were used tactically like T-34's.

 

Enjoying the ship builder, but it would be nice to see the effects of selecting high speed and some machinery choices on the required hull volume.  It would drive/illustrate why some battle cruisers had that gap between X and Y turrets.  Also, can't seem to re-create historic ship layouts, which seems odd and may indicate something wrong in the calculations done by the game.

 

All in all, still having fun, great work!  look forward to the finished product.

 

 

 

 

[Jetu]

On 10/31/2019 at 4:53 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

They draw the shape of the ship first then bunch of mathematics monkeys had to calculate the weight distribution and miniatures to test the hull stability.
Before any ship hulls were made miniatures were made to have reference material. Miniatures are still quite common altho new 3D simulations now days are so good that the miniatures are cute relics.

There were quite a few top heavy or poorly calculated ship hull designs that led to disasters. Adding more weight/ plates to top heavy ships actually balanced them with out loss of speed (Takao-class top heavy originally but balanced with extra weight to hull and bulges)

What comes to mind is the Tomozuru Incident

[DarkTerren]

7 hours ago, Tikibarted said:

Status dialog is off screen to the left in native 1920 X 1080 display, can only see the last three letters.

Not really getting this whole "switch to HE" thing, seems to be a bad hangover from WoW.  Can't think of a single incidence in history of a ship switching to HE on purpose, can only think of ships ready for shore bombardment being caught with the wrong ammo in the loading train.

Also not getting the tactic of pointing at the enemy to maximize "armor angle".  Another WoW stain?  historically, the exact opposite was the case with examples being Holland at Denmark Strait, Oldendorf at Surigao, and Harwood at River Plate all turning to "open their A arcs of fire".  Can't think of a single encounter where ships were used tactically like T-34's.

 

Enjoying the ship builder, but it would be nice to see the effects of selecting high speed and some machinery choices on the required hull volume.  It would drive/illustrate why some battle cruisers had that gap between X and Y turrets.  Also, can't seem to re-create historic ship layouts, which seems odd and may indicate something wrong in the calculations done by the game.

 

All in all, still having fun, great work!  look forward to the finished product.

 

 

 

 

After laying down smoke to hide the carriers from Japanese gunners, they were soon making desperate torpedo runs, using their own smoke for concealment. The ship profiles and aggressiveness caused the Japanese to think they were cruisers and full-sized destroyers. Their lack of armor tended to aid clean penetration of armor-piercing rounds before Japanese gunners switched to high-explosive (HE) shells, which caused much more extensive damage <------ taffy 3 battle off samar

Edited November 3, 2019 by DarkTerren

[Tikibarted]

On 11/3/2019 at 4:28 PM, DarkTerren said:

After laying down smoke to hide the carriers from Japanese gunners, they were soon making desperate torpedo runs, using their own smoke for concealment. The ship profiles and aggressiveness caused the Japanese to think they were cruisers and full-sized destroyers. Their lack of armor tended to aid clean penetration of armor-piercing rounds before Japanese gunners switched to high-explosive (HE) shells, which caused much more extensive damage <------ taffy 3 battle off samar

Thank You!

That report came from the American survivors, and I would only consider it a supposition.  Japanese sources, though admittedly spotty, mention no such switch to HE.  I could be wrong, and frequently am, but even if true, this seems an isolated incident to base a game mechanic on.

Again, thank you for you great input!

 

[Illya von Einzbern]

There is a case when Type3 ammo was used against ships.
This was done when all the other ammo types were used.
If i remember correctly (correct me if i am wrong). In Taimenchi Haras (not 100% sure) book he mentions seen dancing men on a deck of american ship after it got struck by Type3 white phosphor rounds. Not exactly HE but there are few cases where other ammo types were used in desperate situations. 

[AnonymousPepper]

So uh... am I just an idiot, or is the weight limitation, like, oppressively small on the early destroyers and torpedo boats we get to play with? Like I'd love to toy around with them a bit, but there seems to be basically no wiggle room to do anything.

Is this intended and historical?

Edited November 5, 2019 by AnonymousPepper