Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

On 3/22/2020 at 1:23 PM, TAKTCOM said:
 

Nice to hear. Can game ships ever do reverse maneuver aka  "astern propulsion" ?

 

I think that's a feature unique to tug boats and smaller craft. From what my dad said about the tug he trained on in the army they had to stop and then reverse the engine to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 476
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Off the top of my head: 1. Spotting and targeting should be relative, but there should also be less tower-dependent differences in visibility, at least for broad classes of ships. 2. Better

Happy New Year everybody! The next update "Alpha 4" is in progress. Among all the new improvements we are going to offer, there will be new hull designs. Here is a new ship that you will soon be

Is there a possibility of unused weapon points being removed from the model when in game?  Lots of empty casemates and secondary spots.  It would  look good if the game could "fill in" those areas to

Posted Images

i would like to see 4/5/6 gun turrets and not whole number calibers, like the french 13.3 gun i think, or british 13.5 and so on. And maybe multiplayer in future for my desisgns versus others.

 

i would really like to design Lyon and normandie, so i would need the quadrouple gun and werid caliber.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

*quietly waits for alpha 6*

i think hes on a 2 month cycle. so we might expect something on the 15th or so next month.

wish we could get a Q&A. or maybe like some behind teh scenes snap shots.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, The Fundamentalist said:

Reverse Thrust would be helpful for avoiding torpedoes, but I think it would become too much of a menace with the AI to implement, especially given that all the battles are at sea. 

A warship weighing several thousand tonnes cannot reverse in any way that would be meaningful in combat due to simple physics. 

Tugboats and harbour craft weigh less, move with less momentum and are designed for manoeuvres like that. "Reverse" on a warship is intended to slow the vessel or for moving about moorings, not battle. 

I don't believe there is a single example of a ship in combat moving backwards.

Edited by DougToss
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone
yes the reverse can be used in combat
more precisely to help short turns!
precisely to avoid a torpedo burst sufficiently spotted early
rudder full of one side with the propellers against on the same side and your boat turns 2 times faster! of course this is not done in 5 seconds at the risk of breaking everything. and it also depends on your speed, boats of several thousand tonnes do not maneuver like a bicycle.
the forces in presence being colossal, everything must be done in order with sweetness, but of course that yes they must add the possibility of going back! and besides it is incredible that this possibility is not already present!
and even if you feel like going backwards in combat? why not we should be able to maneuver the boats as we see fit! whether it is useful or not in terms of tactics!
so yes i hope the reverse will be implemented in the alpha6 version

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been discussed well before, but most ships can "crash stop." While the ship is still moving forward, the engines reverse and the screws generate braking power. However, this process typically takes a long time, so despite the name it is not very rapid unless a very powerful reverse engine is used. To avoid an obstacle while traveling at high speed, turning is usually better. Reversing the screws will tend to reduce rudder authority, too, so likely a turn with a crash stop is not as useful as might be thought.

Reversing in combat would be fairly rare, and I can only think of a few situations where it might be done.

  1. Most notably, if one ship rams another (intentionally or by mistake) or grounds, it might need to reverse out. If traveling at low speed, a crash stop might be attempted to prevent collision.
  2. Another theoretical situation for reverse would be if the bow was greatly damaged. The ship might proceed backwards to port, to avoid straining forward bulkheads. However, in such a state, the ship would be in great danger to any attack, as so any further combat would be unwanted, to say the least.

    Damaged_USS_New_Orleans_(CA-32)_reaching

    This is how the cruiser USS New Orleans was forced to travel after Tassafaronga, until better repairs could be made. Temporary repairs were made at Tulagi, and the ship then proceeded in reverse to Australia, where a steel stub bow was fitted. The ship was not attacked during that time, to my knowledge. After some investigation, it seems that what actually happened was that, fearing a collapse of the forward bulkheads, reverse was attempted while travelling to Tulagi, rather than to Australia. However, the ship was uncontrollable in reverse and slow forward speeds were used instead. Seems Wikipedia has a garbled account. Not sure of any other examples.

  3. American aircraft carriers were expected to be able to operate in full reverse. Friedman has a interesting passage on the subject, when the Essex class was designed: 'The fleet wanted both high speed and high sustained astern speed, the latter “to permit landing in the forward arresting gear without true wind (22 knots has been given as the desirable relative wind for safe carrier deck landings). . . . Alterations have recently been completed permitting the Lexington to operate astern at 20 knots, which has apparently been accepted by the ship without serious objection.” Such operation, which may seem bizarre to a modern reader, was valuable both tactically and from the point of view of damage-limitation. Although earlier carriers had been fitted with arresting gear forward, it appears that the Essex class was the first in which such astern operation was a major design consideration. Perhaps the greatest virtue of recovery over the bow was its contribution to the survivability of the carrier’s air capability, despite the vulnerability of an unarmored flight deck. That is, a single bomb hit at either end would still leave one elevator, one takeoff deck, and one set of arresting gear intact. Forward arresting gear was not removed from U.S. carriers until 1944. High astern speed placed a considerable strain on any conventional geared-turbine plant; for a time, Preliminary Design considered substituting turbo-electric drive, intrinsically capable of generating full power astern and also superior from the point of view of damage control. That was why it had been adopted in U.S. battleships during World War I and also in the battle cruisers that ultimately became the Lexington and Saratoga.' 

    BV2zNSSn0_82fhaSWoCA-skoSCghsNMLktjS3K0rhyalpNm_TFRboFWsM7G0MpIXGZVYn-NZ-jcnC3LQQ69YmYUWsIoynEs

    I am not sure if this was actually done in combat operations, but here is a picture of USS Yorktown CV-10 landing a plane in full reverse. You can see a full deck park at the stern, a key advantage of this idea; the ship could land planes but soon be ready for full takeoff. 

  4. Finally, a ship might potentially (I guess) be attacked while reversing in port or on trials or maybe during search-and-rescue operations when picking up survivors.

The idea of "bow-tanking" is rather stupid and to my knowledge was not attempted by anyone. Closest concept would be a chase or approach scenario, which would not involve the pursuer stopping and becoming a sitting duck.

Edited by disc
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, liaxelot said:

Hi everyone
yes the reverse can be used in combat
more precisely to help short turns!
rudder full of one side with the propellers against on the same side and your boat turns 2 times faster! of course this is not done in 5 seconds at the risk of breaking everything. and it also depends on your speed, boats of several thousand tonnes do not maneuver like a bicycle.

Are you talking about something like this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes  for  exemple !!

and every body can say what he want  !

i m a sailor  YES A SHIP MAY GO BACK
EVEN AT HIGH  SPEED, and this is tested during the operational test at sea before certificate bye the navy

IF THIS IS NOT THIS LOGIC OF MOVEMENT AND IMPOSES SOFT CONSTRAINTS WITH THE MANUFACTURERS, IN PARTICULAR OF THE INVERTER .

but to avoid torpedoes a ship can break is speed by  order full back ! you are right  to say that in some conditions conserve the speed and turn full will could be the best solution

but on narrow formation without space to turn the last solution is to break the speed ! and quikly ! emergency reverse !

perhaps you spoil the propeller and inverser, but better to be hit bye one or severals torpedoes !

so i m sure  YES the reverse as to be implement in the game !

kind regard

Edited by liaxelot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Are you talking about something like this?

The manoeuvre trials alone that the USN puts those nuke carriers through are really remarkable and brutal. Pretty sure they include things like running full astern for hours at a time, too.

I vaguely remember reading something about them years and years ago when the Nimitz class was new and top of the pile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to write a thread about "ship mobility and manoeuvrability" generally, because I am not happy about what I'm seeing in a game stressing realism as a significant selling point.

There's far too much "arcade" for my tastes, and I for one think it's better to stop it NOW than cater to the broader public's relative ignorance about the nature of manoeuvring what were pretty large ships for their days (and more often than not THE single greatest collection of all sorts of technologies to be found in one manufactured item) using machinery that didn't allow for simply opening the throttles from a standing start. As an example, part of the grounds for using the naval diesels in the Deutschland class of WW2 (the so-called 'pocket BB') was greater economy, greater reliability and, very importantly for a raider, far greater responsiveness over a steam turbine power plant.

Maybe the devs have plans to alter the performance of ships, I don't know. But I'll raise it anyway as I've time to burn and it's something that bugs me, especially when coupled with what I consider to be the hugely excessive gunnery penalty attached to straight line speed. The FACT that it would take very large warships, BBs/BCs in particular, many minutes to work their way back to top speed even after dropping only a few knots, is something that ought to be reflected. These things aren't speed boats, you don't do doughnuts in them then reach top speed a minute or two later.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 6:49 AM, DougToss said:

 

A warship weighing several thousand tonnes cannot reverse in any way that would be meaningful in combat due to simple physics. 

Tugboats and harbour craft weigh less, move with less momentum and are designed for manoeuvres like that. "Reverse" on a warship is intended to slow the vessel or for moving about moorings, not battle. 

I don't believe there is a single example of a ship in combat moving backwards.

That's what I was getting at. Perhaps more of an "emergency brake" option than a "reverse" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 7:52 AM, Steeltrap said:

I'm going to write a thread about "ship mobility and manoeuvrability" generally, because I am not happy about what I'm seeing in a game stressing realism as a significant selling point.

There's far too much "arcade" for my tastes, and I for one think it's better to stop it NOW than cater to the broader public's relative ignorance about the nature of manoeuvring what were pretty large ships for their days (and more often than not THE single greatest collection of all sorts of technologies to be found in one manufactured item) using machinery that didn't allow for simply opening the throttles from a standing start. As an example, part of the grounds for using the naval diesels in the Deutschland class of WW2 (the so-called 'pocket BB') was greater economy, greater reliability and, very importantly for a raider, far greater responsiveness over a steam turbine power plant.

Maybe the devs have plans to alter the performance of ships, I don't know. But I'll raise it anyway as I've time to burn and it's something that bugs me, especially when coupled with what I consider to be the hugely excessive gunnery penalty attached to straight line speed. The FACT that it would take very large warships, BBs/BCs in particular, many minutes to work their way back to top speed even after dropping only a few knots, is something that ought to be reflected. These things aren't speed boats, you don't do doughnuts in them then reach top speed a minute or two later.

Please go ahead. I'm all for more realism. I do not know by heart, but if true about the advantages and disadvantages of turbine versus diesel engines, your suggestion on reaching top speed could easily be addressed by either giving the turbine and earlier engine types an acceleration penalty compared to diesel engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/29/2020 at 4:38 PM, Tycondero said:

Please go ahead. I'm all for more realism. I do not know by heart, but if true about the advantages and disadvantages of turbine versus diesel engines, your suggestion on reaching top speed could easily be addressed by either giving the turbine and earlier engine types an acceleration penalty compared to diesel engines.

Part of the issue is the acceleration appears to be linear, which is to say you accelerate as rapidly from 29 to 30 knots as you did from 19 to 20.

Reality is you get diminishing returns, with acceleration NOT being linear.

As far as turbines v diesels, the difference is how quickly you can generate power from a "normal cruising" state. Acceleration is always the end result of applying force via the propellers.

In the case of a big marine diesel, you can bring the power plant to full output relatively quickly compared with a steam turbine arrangement. A steam turbine's performance is limited at any given moment by how much steam you can produce and sustain producing. Maximum power output requires ALL boilers operating at full designed pressure (technically 'overpressure' but let's not complicate things). While cruising I believe there were different 'steaming conditions' regulations that would govern just how they'd balance readiness to add power vs efficiency of fuel use.

Regardless, a steam power plant needs steam (d'uh, lol) and you can't suddenly dump more cold water into the boilers and magically produce a lot more steam in a matter of minutes, which is what I was getting at when I mentioned the difference in ease of going from an efficient cruising state to a high power state.

I'm also sure someone will have more exact knowledge of all this (it's pretty complicated if you choose to get into the details) and they may choose to correct/add to the discussion, but the general point is accurate enough for our purposes IMO.

Cheers

p.s. I've posted a separate topic about acceleration etc as I said I would.

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So...what would be a normal number of times to refresh this forum each day in the hopes of seeing an "Alpha-6 Feedback" thread?

Asking for a friend.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Alcar said:

So...what would be a normal number of times to refresh this forum each day in the hopes of seeing an "Alpha-6 Feedback" thread?

Well, friend of mine does it every five minutes and I think its totally...ok.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2020 at 11:34 AM, FafnerDeUrsine said:

I think that's a feature unique to tug boats and smaller craft. From what my dad said about the tug he trained on in the army they had to stop and then reverse the engine to do that.

Regular steam engines have to spin down before spinning up the other way with a reversing engine. Thus the iconic scene in the film Titanic. In the case of that ship, only the two outboard props could go into reverse, while the center engine could only be stopped which hurt rudder Control. One of the primary features of turbo electric drive was the fact that all you had to do to go into reverse was reverse the polarity on the electric motors. In other words, a turbo electric ship could go backwards at full power. 
 

In short, reverse on a reciprocating steam engine required specialized equipment and took a significant amount of time. Turbo-electric resolved that problem, but was significantly heavier and more expensive than reciprocating engines and later steam turbines.

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...