Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

I just played alpha and it took over 30 torpedo hits (all above 21inches) to sink my 117k tonne german bb in the h class mission (did that on purpose to see how it compares to alpha 5).

Makes me wonder how the damage models will fair for other stuff as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 381
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals, We would like to share information about the upcoming major update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. Here is what is included: Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Alpha-5 SPECIAL

Tomorrow we release! Sorry for waiting so long captains!

Guys, the team needs a little more time for testing. We want to make sure that the new damage system is not containing any bugs. Thank you a lot for your patience!

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

I made a smoll joke about the tier 10 bb kremlin which is the project 28 (i think) battleship in world of warships.

Then forum explodes LOL.

Whoopies. 'w'

ill avoid that in the near future although im not sure if we can prevent others from doing so but eh.

I wish i played nicks darth mod in total war (not sure which total war it was, was it empire?)

What have you done...

xD

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

I wouldn't call insinuations of a couple passive-aggressive nerds an "explosion". Boys just like their documents very much - I understand. Perhaps, a little too much to take a moment and look back on Soviet military development of the era and realize that what paper-evidence they have means very little. Particularly aforementioned foreign sources which miraculously got "comprehensive insights" into extremely secretive Soviet military of the era. Not only it was secretive, but also fluid. Last moment changes were normal. In other words, if there is no completed, or at least sufficiently completed ship, then there is no substantial evidence. Boys are wasting hours of their time arguing over sheets of paper, insisting that the USSR (which cancelled those projects) was IN FACT unreasonable enough to complete them in such a poor state. 

Despite all the technicalities they spin, in the end their positions are full of contradictions. 

You yourself are being the contradictory one. You ask for proof, then deny it when it comes. We have known examples for the USSR completing things in such poor states - see the Pr.26-class cruisers and most of their destroyers - because they didn't know it was in a poor state. That's in benefit of hindsight, which we have because it happened eighty-three years ago. If I provided working technical drawings of their flaws and the official Soviet reports saying 'this is fine', or if I provided the evidence of the Italian architects which inspected the captured Sovetskaya Ukraina at Nikolaev, you probably wouldn't accept those either. Your replies have been inflammatory, insulting, and do not provide a single counter to my reasonable points.

That being said, I don't want to escalate things further, so I'll drop it here. If you actually took the time to read it, thank you for joining me before on my brief history lesson. If you didn't, oh well. I enjoyed writing it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shiki said:

You yourself are being the contradictory one.

You ask for proof, then deny it when it comes.

We have known examples for the USSR completing things in such poor states - see the Pr.26-class cruisers and most of their destroyers - because they didn't know it was in a poor state. That's in benefit of hindsight, which we have because it happened eighty-three years ago.

If I provided working technical drawings of their flaws and the official Soviet reports saying 'this is fine', or if I provided the evidence of the Italian architects which inspected the captured Sovetskaya Ukraina at Nikolaev, you probably wouldn't accept those either. Your replies have been inflammatory, insulting, and do not provide a single counter to my reasonable points.

That being said, I don't want to escalate things further, so I'll drop it here. If you actually took the time to read it, thank you for joining me before on my brief history lesson. If you didn't, oh well. I enjoyed writing it.

Let's re-iterate. You started lecturing others in a condenscending tone, and now you are also the first to pull out? Despite me openly saying (back yesterday) that I am not interested in arguments with armchair engineers/captains/admirals/whatever you call yourself... How typical. Lol.

While I am still not arguing whether Pr.23 were great ships or not, I must point out that proofs must prove something specific. Your facts could indeed be used as proofs, if we were arguing something else. But all I am saying is that Pr.23, with this many flaws (alleged or real) was never completed, and therefore making claims such as those you make - based solely on papers - is... incorrect. Those drawings and reports mean very little in light of the fact that they weren't used to complete even a single ship of the class.

Soviets approved and then changed many things. That's how they designed and built their tanks and warplanes - the process was heavily iterative, partially due to the fact that the country did not have all resources it needed. But as those resources became available, many initially underperforming machines were re-iterated, upgraded.  You should know that.

Yes, maybe it's not a very smart approach, but it clearly indicates the fluidity of their R&D and procurement, and therefore nothing written (that wasn't actually built) should be considered a "fact set in stone", at least not in this case. Especially if some of poor design decisions manifested in earlier ship classes and were discovered during the course of operations, particularly in WW2 period. Ultimately, even if those ships were completed after the war, and the lead ship of the class was every bit as bad as you insist, surely following ships would have been improved to address those problems - again, that's not uncommon practice worldwide.

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

Let's re-iterate. You started lecturing others in a condenscending tone, and now you are also the first to pull out? Despite me openly saying (back yesterday) that I am not interested in arguing with armchair engineers, admirals (or however you call yourself). How typical. Lol.

While I am still not arguing whether Pr.23 were great ships or not, I must point out that proofs must prove something specific. Your facts could indeed be used as proofs, if we were arguing something else. But all I am saying is that Pr.23, with this many flaws (alleged or real) was never completed, and therefore making claims such as those you did based solely on papers is... incorrect. Those drawings and reports mean very little in light of the fact that they weren't used to complete even a single ship of the class. Soviets approved and then changed many things. That's how they built their tanks and warplanes. You should know that. Yes, maybe it's not a very smart approach, but it clearly indicates the fluidity of their R&D and procurement, and therefore nothing written that wasn't actually built should be considered a "fact set in stone". Especially if some of poor design decisions manifested in earlier ship classes and were discovered during the course of operations, particularly in WW2 period.

Consider that the Soviets did manage the t-34 which changed tank design forever and the Yak-9 they sure seem more competent then some people opinion at creating very capable machines of war... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Joryl said:

Consider that the Soviets did manage the t-34 which changed tank design forever and the Yak-9 they sure seem more competent then some people opinion at creating very capable machines of war... 

Red fleet have Chapayev and Sverdlov cruisers after WW2. And these are enough good ships. So no need to give an example tanks and planes.

Another question is that the first Soviet cruiser - Kirov, as well as the first Soviet destroyer - 7 series were quite unsuccessful. You can recall the first series of submarines, the "Decembrists", which were also far from perfect. Most likely, the project  23 would have different faults, defects and errors committed by both designers and workers. We have Yamato with its anti-torpedo protection problems, as an example of such flaws.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Let's re-iterate. You started lecturing others in a condenscending tone, and now you are also the first to pull out? Despite me openly saying (back yesterday) that I am not interested in arguments with armchair engineers/captains/admirals/whatever you call yourself... How typical. Lol.

While I am still not arguing whether Pr.23 were great ships or not, I must point out that proofs must prove something specific. Your facts could indeed be used as proofs, if we were arguing something else. But all I am saying is that Pr.23, with this many flaws (alleged or real) was never completed, and therefore making claims such as those you make - based solely on papers - is... incorrect. Those drawings and reports mean very little in light of the fact that they weren't used to complete even a single ship of the class.

Soviets approved and then changed many things. That's how they designed and built their tanks and warplanes - the process was heavily iterative, partially due to the fact that the country did not have all resources it needed. But as those resources became available, many initially underperforming machines were re-iterated, upgraded.  You should know that.

Yes, maybe it's not a very smart approach, but it clearly indicates the fluidity of their R&D and procurement, and therefore nothing written (that wasn't actually built) should be considered a "fact set in stone", at least not in this case. Especially if some of poor design decisions manifested in earlier ship classes and were discovered during the course of operations, particularly in WW2 period. Ultimately, even if those ships were completed after the war, and the lead ship of the class was every bit as bad as you insist, surely following ships would have been improved to address those problems - again, that's not uncommon practice worldwide.

I apologize if I seemed condescending at all during any of my posts. That was not, is not, and will never be the intention, and if you take it that way I'm sorry. I am trying not to make a bad situation worse.

That being said...

I proved everything I set out to prove. Pr.23 was flawed at the time of design and all four ships laid down showed that, from all credible first- and second-hand accounts. Beyond that, I don't need to prove anything - you're the one making conjecture about how they could have approved and then changed it, or re-iterated and upgraded it. My basis of fact is that: fact. It is an immutable proof that the Soviets were in the process of constructing four large, massively flawed battleships of 59,000 tons. A battleship isn't a tank or an airplane. You can't just make so many mistakes and say 'whoops, we'll get them right next time!' The finances, time, and resources required to construct even one battleship of that size make it an investment which can't possibly afford to go astray from the beginning. It's a fact that rather than trying to fix Pr.23, that project was written off and Pr.24 was developed postwar on a new technical basis - and Pr.24, by accounts and from what I've been able to find on it, had the potential to be much better than Pr.23 could have ever hoped to be. The experience gained wasn't wasted - they learned how not to build a battleship.

I'm begging you, don't let nationalistic pride cloud your objectivity. Every nation starts off on a rocky foot - the Japanese with Fusō (oh god, Fusō, I could go twice as long on how bad she is) are a prime example of their first major battleship having insurmountable flaws that three interwar major refits couldn't fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Joryl said:

Consider that the Soviets did manage the t-34 which changed tank design forever and the Yak-9 they sure seem more competent then some people opinion at creating very capable machines of war... 

Unfortunately downplaying Soviet capabilities in Western countries is common, but this isn't the case for this time period. The last Russian battleship was built in WW1 and was more a long the lines of HMS Dreadnought. That's a 20 year lapse in design and construction. The Soviet tank and aviation industry never saw that kind of lapse like the Soviet Navy did. Can you imagine if they had that kind of abandonment in tanks or planes?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shiki said:

I proved everything I set out to prove.

Pr.23 was flawed at the time of design and all four ships laid down showed that, from all credible first- and second-hand accounts.

Beyond that, I don't need to prove anything - you're the one making conjecture about how they could have approved and then changed it, or re-iterated and upgraded it.

My basis of fact is that: fact.

It is an immutable proof that the Soviets were in the process of constructing four large, massively flawed battleships of 59,000 tons.

A battleship isn't a tank or an airplane. You can't just make so many mistakes and say 'whoops, we'll get them right next time!' The finances, time, and resources required to construct even one battleship of that size make it an investment which can't possibly afford to go astray from the beginning.

It's a fact that rather than trying to fix Pr.23, that project was written off and Pr.24 was developed postwar on a new technical basis - and Pr.24, by accounts and from what I've been able to find on it, had the potential to be much better than Pr.23 could have ever hoped to be. The experience gained wasn't wasted - they learned how not to build a battleship.

I'm begging you, don't let nationalistic pride cloud your objectivity. Every nation starts off on a rocky foot - the Japanese with Fusō (oh god, Fusō, I could go twice as long on how bad she is) are a prime example of their first major battleship having insurmountable flaws that three interwar major refits couldn't fix.

1. Indeed, you did. I suppose you might prove 2x2=4 as well. I wouldn't mind.

2. It is not uncommon at all to have first/second-hand accounts claiming that X was flawed at the time of construction. This is also how things get corrected by the time they're commissioned into service. I can agree that the version of project at your disposal may have been flawed, but since no ship was ever built, that basically means nothing.

3. I would suggest you to learn the meaning of word "conjecture", or at least how to use it properly. I referred you to widely accepted Soviet practice of iterative development: they do something, and can totally change it midway or even start over - that's how their bureaucracy worked. They did it so many times it became their modus operandi during that era. If there were flaws, then they would have been certainly fixed and/or rectified. Insisting  that the USSR would have commissioned the entire class of flawed battleships, being aware of their unusability, just because - is one hell of a conjecture on your part.

4. I really loved this one: "My basis of fact is that: fact". That's just brilliant. Always keep insisting on that, especially when people tell you that your facts aren't related to key matter of the case, or don't directly prove your points. 

5. "It is an immutable proof that the Soviets were in the process of constructing four large, massively flawed battleships of 59,000 tons" - yes, they were. So what... did they build them, or at least got to the parts where those flaws were already made - beyond ability to rectify? No, they really didn't. In fact, they refused to complete those ships, so what's your problem, again? Is it really all about the papers? Lol.

6. Here you come around and prove my point. "Instead of fixing one they designed a better one"... If there is nothing to fix (again: no ships built) and some flaws became apparent, then why not to change everything, if you can? It doesn't really matter what it's called. If they decided to pick an improved project - that's definitely their right. 

7. "I'm begging you, don't let nationalistic pride cloud your objectivity" - Boy, you do love throwing big words and making loud statements. If you're begging me, then I am asking you: cut the BS, will ya? You don't make good impression.

Edited by Shaftoe
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

I don't want to be mean but... Guys, if you want to talk about that, go to this part of forum:

https://forum.game-labs.net/forum/187-shipyard-discussions-ship-designer-warships-and-their-components/

 

This topic is about upcoming update, not about historical discussions :)

If our esteemed internet-engineer will just oblige everybody and stop repeating himself and begging, I'd gladly do as I said and quit it. In fact, I'll do you a favor: I'll quit it regardless of his responses. 

But let's be fair: at this point this topic is no longer about the upcoming update: now it's about dreaming, bit-ing and moaning about the delay. 

@Nick Thomadis You see what has become of us? Roll it out already. Before it's too late.

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

You know, unironically, arcane and abstract arguments erupting about the nature and efficacy of the Soviet admiralty genuinely entertain me. Also, if you get this many naval enthusiasts together, its bound to happen.

...anyways, we're two days past the update. That hardly makes them Blizzard. Free Hong Kong.

 

Edited by VarangianGarde
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

you mean the upcoming update that was suppose to release 2 days ago lol

gud thing i said friday as a back up lol.

they probs found something thats broken or a major bug that needs fixing (which is understandable dont want a battlefield 4 opening lol).

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

the delay is so bad that this has now become the most active thread lol

 

Today it's just bickering. Tomorrow it may turn into a riot. And by the end of the week, we may have a whole forum civil war on our hands. I hope they'll make it in time...

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

Today it's just bickering. Tomorrow it may turn into a riot. And by the end of the week, we may have a whole forum civil war on our hands. I hope they'll make it in time...

So do i, this must one of the more anticipated alphas besides alpha 3.

Imagine the list for alpha 6 lol probs be twice as long for most categories xD

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

So do i, this must one of the more anticipated alphas besides alpha 3.

Imagine the list for alpha 6 lol probs be twice as long for most categories xD

The answer is simple: many new hulls.

 

And I am still waiting for more DD hulls and superstructures/barbettes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...