Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Please consider to add this sextuple turret and allow the third superfiring


Recommended Posts

I don't think it is a priority, but we can have it, eventually. Now, how much penalty should we assign this design. A rule of thumb about turrets is that twins are worth 1.75, triples 2.5 and quadruples 3.125. Extrapolating from this, by the time you get to six guns you really won't be getting much out of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, as long as you can't hit anything with them and your top stability gets turned to trash, again reducing accuracy. 

Quads were already pushing the boundaries of what was viable and as such were not useful until 1938 (On the KGV's) while the French ones were terrible until 42/43 when the dispersion problems were finally getting solved. Sextuple turrets in 1917...are just decoration. 

Triple superfiring is perhaps possible on certain designs, but your ship stability and center of gravity would take heavy penalties for them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of fantastical design. H 42- H44, Tillmanns, Super Yamatos.

God dammit, i would love a dlc, that allows us to bring in 2000‘s techs as a cheat in campaign, let alone plasma or laser weapons. Like Space Battleship Yamato or similar.

Because: the more options and variety, the bigger the fun, the longer i play. And i think it is a big sales argument also.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Teckelmaster said:

let alone plasma or laser weapons. 

And i think it is a big sales argument also.

Sales to who I wonder? Who is the target demographic for a realistic naval warfare simulator but that also wants laser or plasma weapons? 

Since the technology for gunnery is also trying to model as accurately as possible the technology through the game's timeframe, what practical laser existed in 1930? What warship could in 1930, 17 years before the first transistor even generate enough electricity to power a laser? How would it be operated and directed entirely mechanically? Since no effective military laser exists even in 2020, how would range, penetration of armour, and so fourth be determined? 

Before I be labelled a member of the No-Fun Brigade, there are many opportunities for wildly fantastic fun in even in a realistic game. For instance, here are some pictures of  casemated 9.5" and 10" guns. 

Canon_24cm_mod%C3%A8le_1884-Neurdein-img

RML_10_inch_18_ton_gun_Georges_Head_1891

 

Within a faithfully realistic sim you can still build crazy ships! Can you imagine if instead of the all big gun armament, a Sea Lord other than Jacky Fisher (the player) decided to scale up mixed-battery semi-dreadnoughts and build a ship displacing 20k tons that had 6 12" and 4 10" guns?! 😂 

It would be an interesting ship, never even tried in reality, integrate with all the existing game systems, be possible and realistic with the technology of the time, and allow the player to evaluate the real pros and cons influencing ship designers at the time and how to employ that design doctrine in battle.

In fact, I think the ship designer should allow more freedom because while 10" casemates were impractical, they weren't unfeasible and there is no reason to restrict the player from building casemates of that size (or possibly larger). All of the systems in game can already account for the mount's limited ability to have mechanical handling (if any, @RAMJB?) and what the weight, traverse, and elevation of that kind of mount would be. 

That also goes for learning all of the wrong lessons from the Spanish-American War and instead of large calibre guns building capital ships with massive batteries of 4" or 6" guns. Fantastical, not done in reality, but certainly possible at the time and should be made an option in ship designer, with all of the attendant drawbacks. Imagine a 1900 Ship of The Line with broadside cannon bristling from gun ports. There's no reason the player shouldn't be able to try that and a million why it wouldn't work that would be fun for players to discover. 

Quad turrets might've been more widespread, destroyer tonnage might've stayed very low, 7" guns could have been more popular. There are a million fantasy options that should be possible in the designer that are also bound by reality. 

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it doesn't eat into development time and resources much, small little easter eggs and cheats like ship, gun and turret designs that only ever existed on paper due to their ludicrousness seems reasonable, and perhaps even fun, if not outright funny to both developers making the game as well as players that discover them. As long as these are, as he says, locked behind a secret code or something.

Kind of like the game of "asteroids" you can load onto the TID in digital combat simulator's F-14 module in the RIO's seat.  

Edited by WelshZeCorgi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

if any, @RAMJB?

There are some already in place. Gun mounts have their own statistics wich account for some. The ship statistics generated by the ship designer account for some others. There are quite some that aren't contemplated, but what's in here allows for pretty crazy stuff to be designed, put to the test, and have to say as a credit to the developers, the drawbacks of widely unpractical stuff generally show up in the resulting battle performance. Maybe not in the full scale I would expect in some instances, but meaningful nonetheless. Which ain't bad at all for a game in alpha status.

 

 

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

That also goes for learning all of the wrong lessons from the Spanish-American War and instead of large calibre guns building capital ships with massive batteries of 4" or 6" guns. Fantastical, not done in reality,


It came within a split hair of actually happening. Specially after Tsushima. Because ironically, if Tsushima really proved something was that ranges were increasing really fast, that big guns were becoming progressively much better at firing quite fast, and that the very limited penetration of mid caliber guns (fast firing or not) soon would make them completely innefective against well armored ships at the ever-increasing ranges naval battles were fought at.

But Tsushima also saw a sterling performance of the japanese armored cruisers taking battleline responsabilities and roles, and quick firing guns did quite the number on the russian fleet. Not lethal damage, but still hugely impactful in the scope of the battle. So there wasn't a lack of voices afterwards who suggested battleships were completely obsolete by the armored cruiser with mid caliber quick firing guns. Nor there were before, if we're at that. There's a reason why the Spanish Fleet of 1898 was mostly centered aroudn the armored cruiser. By that stage there was a true doctrinal debate about which one was the true queen of the seas. Because by that stage 12 in guns would fire maybe once each two minutes while small QF guns were firing several times per minute and engagement ranges were so short that the lesser penetration of mid-caliber guns was still judged as good enough.

Quite surprisingly for many, one of the defenders of giving up big calibers after Tsushima was Jackie Fisher, as shown by his correspondence in the years prior to his access to the First Lordship. At that stage his "ideal capital ship" would've looked like an overgrown armored cruiser loaded to the brim with 9.2in QF guns in an unified battery (Fisher got that part wrong, but the part about an unified caliber for the main battery, he had it right). And of course, very fast. He made mentions of such a ship quite many times in his correspondence of the time.

Of course once he got to be First Lord there were many things he could push forth, but giving up 12'' guns wasn't one of them. Nor was giving up battleships (Even if that's exactly what he really wanted). Specially because by that stage it was clear that 12'' guns would soon be able to fire a couple times per minute themselves, rendering any arguments about smaller QF ones moot. And because not even Fisher could go over the RN establishment demanding battleships first, cruisers later.


But at any rate, what you mention wasn't that "fantastic". Like, at all.



As for sextuple mounts....sure. Give them 250% the reload time of the equivalent triple mount, an accuracy penalty according to it's impracticability, demand insanely brutally massive barbettes in order to place them on (not to mention wide enough ships to accomodate for them), make them prohibitively costly to properly armor because of their ridiculous size, affect your ship's stability in the proper measure demanded by putting that laughably massive ammount of topweight avobe your decks (and don't get me started on superfiring mounts!!!!), etc etc etc....

and if you still want to put them on your ships, all the power for you.

I've said it many times, as long as you pay the realistic price for the inordinately impractical stuff you want to toy with, you should be allowed to do so. But not for free, and not with those turrets operating as if they were twins. As long as the result and penalties attached to whatever impractical stuff you want to use are fairly represented, the game should let you get away with whatever you want to do with it. But always paying the proper price in the shape of compromises, so you then later on find out in war, why, exactly, those things were judged as completely impractical back in the day, and judged to be the equivalent of todays memes.

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh gods, the Tillmans...

Well, I'm not 100% against absurdly overgunned turrets, but at least make the number of guns a factor in turret size. A twin 15 inch mount should be slighly larger than a triple 11, NOT the same size as a triple 15. Likewise, the lack of flexibility in barbettes really ought to be addressed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...