Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello everyone, We hope you are all fine, healthy, strong and enjoy whatever makes you happy. We would like to share the content of the upcoming next update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. Here

Guys we had to add more fixes, for example this one: "Fixed issue that made big guns of smaller caliber to be grouped with secondary guns when player selected targets manually." So the update will c

iT KeEpS hApPeNiNg

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Those are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay post-battleship era technologies.

So does the 100+ kiloton warships. H-class was planned with steam/diesel propulsion (and so did Yamato at the first place).

The first gas-turbine-powered naval vessel was the Royal Navy's Motor Gun Boat MGB 2009 (formerly MGB 509) converted in 1947(c), no?

And don't forget, that's alternative history game, and unlike (unfortunately) nuclear propulsion, it's not even post-40s tech.

Edited by IronKaputt
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronKaputt said:

So does the 100+ kiloton warships. H-class was planned with steam/diesel propulsion (and so did Yamato at the first place).

The first gas-turbine-powered naval vessel was the Royal Navy's Motor Gun Boat MGB 2009 (formerly MGB 509) converted in 1947(c), no?

And don't forget, that's alternative history game, and unlike (unfortunately) nuclear propulsion, it's not even post-40s tech.

There's no real technology (in a game sense) in developing ships that large, more a question of resources and facilities to build it. Hybrid populsion systems, sure I agree definitely possible. Gas turbines are a different story since they were derived from aircraft engines first (including MGB 2009). They did not have the kind of power output for years to drive large surface ships. While you can argue jet engines were late 30s/40s technology, nuclear fission power was technically. Just so happens it's first use was in explosives, not power production. One the reasons the German's were behind in atomic bomb research is they were focused on a reactor use for power/propulsion.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, madham82 said:

There's no real technology (in a game sense) in developing ships that large, more a question of resources and facilities to build it. Hybrid populsion systems, sure I agree definitely possible. Gas turbines are a different story since they were derived from aircraft engines first (including MGB 2009). They did not have the kind of power output for years to drive large surface ships. While you can argue jet engines were late 30s/40s technology, nuclear fission power was technically. Just so happens it's first use was in explosives, not power production. One the reasons the German's were behind in atomic bomb research is they were focused on a reactor use for power/propulsion.

I agree with that, but then again: alternative history. I mean there's ton of what ifs to boost or delay certain tech and that's why I'm against hard time caps (if not for devs resources economy).

Two things I'm primary concern is laws of physics (is it even possible to give 60 inches of steel a proper hardening, speaking of 40s metallurgy) and, yes, artillery warships-era (and it goes till when BTW? - that's important) aesthetics.

Edited by IronKaputt
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

But what about caterpillar drive and warp engine?!

But what about a kerbal space program kraken drive that makes you go 5 times the speed of light?!?!?!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Koogus said:

But what about a kerbal space program kraken drive that makes you go 5 times the speed of light?!?!?!

Slipstream drive from star trekkings.

I wonder when we can get animu stuff? 😆😂

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

Slipstream drive from star trekkings.

I wonder when we can get animu stuff? 😆😂

Any particular? I don't mind my calico ship's cat start talking, but wish-granting albino thing sure looks like bad luck...🤔

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

So does the 100+ kiloton warships. H-class was planned with steam/diesel propulsion (and so did Yamato at the first place).

The first gas-turbine-powered naval vessel was the Royal Navy's Motor Gun Boat MGB 2009 (formerly MGB 509) converted in 1947(c), no?

And don't forget, that's alternative history game, and unlike (unfortunately) nuclear propulsion, it's not even post-40s tech.

The first use of marine gas turbines (and in the meantime combined propulsion) in a proper warship (as opposed to a small canoe)  was a 1960s british frigate.

that a small Motor Gun Boat did test the propulsion as a proof of concept in the late 1940s changes nothing. Turbinia tested steam turbines in 1895 and nobody will demand steam turbines in the tech trees by that date, because they didn't become a thing for larger ships until 11 years later (and then only because Dreadnought was so rushed).

same thing here. Gas turbines might have been present in very small ship testbeds in the late 40s, but they're a post-battleship cold war era propulsion system - out of the historical scope of a game like this.

As for the combined diesel propulsion, it was a proposed thing even before WWI. One of the Kaisers was intended to have steam turbines geared to the two external propellers and a diesel linked to the centerline one. Turns out, Germany couldn't produce diesels of the required power, the ship (PrinzRegent Luitpold maybe? can't remember top of my head) ended up commissioned with only two shafts as a result.

WW2 projects like H or Yamato might have considered combined propulsions at times during their design procedures. Neither of them reached the final design stage with them. H was to be fully diesel powered, Yamato final design (and as built) was fully steam turbine powered. So, there goes the idea again...


There were very good reason why those "combined solutions" didn't happen when they were proposed historically, and that actual combined powerplants in large warships never were a thing until the mid-60s, having them here would make little or no sense as a result. But if you insist on it then sure, include them...

But then do so with all the attached downsides that caused those proposals to never actually happen. And then they won't happen here either because nobody will use them...and then what's the point of having them then?. Let the developers focus their efforts on useful things, not on curio stuff that was proposed historically but that never flew because it wasn't really practical at the time.

Edited by RAMJB
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

There were very good reason why those "combined solutions" didn't happen when they were proposed historically, and that actual combined powerplants in large warships never were a thing until the mid-60s, having them here would make little or no sense as a result. But if you insist on it then sure, include them...

Isn't the same goes for diesels too? Never used on large warships? Pretty much why I asked at first place.

And if game would be mod-friendly so we could include our own stuff, I'll certainly try.

2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Let the developers focus their efforts on useful things, not on curio stuff that was proposed historically but that never flew because it wasn't really practical at the time.

Can't argue with that and that's why it was a question, not a request.

Edited by IronKaputt
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

Isn't the same goes for diesels too? Never used on large warships? Pretty much why I asked at first place.

Largest ships that used pure diesel power that I can recall off the top of my head are the Deutschland class Panzerschiffe. Compared to WW2 Germany's later Turbine designs they were very, very reliable (at least, again, by comparison to other Kriegsmarine ships that did have turbines.) To the extent that Engineering Officers who had crewed both a Deutschland and a Hipper hated being on the Hipper despite the better overall speeds and handling. I'm not sure how reliability could be represented in game however, cheaper running costs perhaps? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

Isn't the same goes for diesels too?

As Reaper Jack mentioned, the Deutschlands were diesel powered large warships, and actually historically significant enough as to make the inclusion of diesel as an option mandatory (if it was missing there'd be legion of people demanding the option to use diesels ;)). And of course the "H" battleships were never completed but they had been laid down by the beginning of the war, and they were diesel powered too.

A significant number of large merchant ships used during WW2 used diesel propulsion aswell. Understandable, as the main advantage of a diesel powerplant was mostly range. In fact that was their main selling point, more than reliability. That the Deutschlands ended up being much more reliable than the Hipper's was more a fault of the heavy cruiser than out of some inherent extraordinary reliability trait of the panzerschiffen. 
The Hipper class was an engineer nightmare because it's steam propulsion used ultra-high pressure boilers, which were a brand new technology at the time, which of course translated into having serious teething troubles and the inevitable reliability problems associated with all such kind of very new tech in an applied field as warfare. 
As a result the Hippers had machineries that were a pain in the butt to keep operational, a handful to maintain, and had the nasty habit of breaking down. Same story with the Twins. But a normal, conventional pressure, steam powerplant wasn't any less reliable than diesels might have been.

Of course there's also the lots of submarines (some of them truly massive) that used diesel-electric propulsion. Not exactly the same and of course it involves submarines, something this game doesn't make the player design (thankfully), but there's that too.

Edited by RAMJB
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

Any plans for gas turbines and combined propulsions?

Marine gas turbines are mainly derived from aircraft engines, so they came into use when jets ruled the skies.

 

9 hours ago, RAMJB said:

As for the combined diesel propulsion, it was a proposed thing even before WWI. One of the Kaisers was intended to have steam turbines geared to the two external propellers and a diesel linked to the centerline one. Turns out, Germany couldn't produce diesels of the required power, the ship (PrinzRegent Luitpold maybe? can't remember top of my head) ended up commissioned with only two shafts as a result.

You are correct, it was Prinzregent Luitpold. The Bayern-class battleship Sachsen would have used a similar layout, but it was never completed.

9 hours ago, RAMJB said:

There were very good reason why those "combined solutions" didn't happen when they were proposed historically, and that actual combined powerplants in large warships never were a thing until the mid-60s, having them here would make little or no sense as a result. But if you insist on it then sure, include them...

But then do so with all the attached downsides that caused those proposals to never actually happen. And then they won't happen here either because nobody will use them...and then what's the point of having them then?. Let the developers focus their efforts on useful things, not on curio stuff that was proposed historically but that never flew because it wasn't really practical at the time.

There were several combined powerplants used in service during our timeframe, many of them tested in combat. This is not including projects or incomplete ships. 

  1. The French destroyers of the Voltigeur class had a three shaft arrangement. The center shaft was driven by a reciprocating steam engine, for cruising. The outer two shafts were driven by turbines, for sprints.
  2. The French aircraft carrier Bearn had a four prop arrangement. The center two shafts were driven by steam turbines. The outer two shafts were driven by reciprocating steam engines. Like the Voltigeurs, this was intended to save fuel. However, Bearn was completed in 1927, by which time geared cruising turbines were well-established, and reciprocating steam engines obsolescent.
  3. The German light cruisers of the Koenigsberg class had a two prop arrangement. They were originally designed for steam turbine propulsion only, complete with cruising stages. However, "as an afterthought," two small, very lightweight MAN Diesels were squeezed in. These could be used to cruise up to 10.5 knots. These could not be coupled with the turbines, so each shaft could only be powered by either the Diesel or the turbines -- but not both at the same time.
  4. The German light cruisers of the Leipzig class had a three prop arrangement. They were designed with a combined plant from the start. The center shaft was powered by a set of Diesels, while the outer shafts were driven by geared turbines without cruising stages. As the Diesels and turbines were on separate shafts, they could all be run at the same time. However, there was a problem: "Where one of the two methods of propulsion had been disengaged and it was required to double-couple [that is, reconnect all engines], all shafts had to be brought to a standstill for about ten minutes while the change was made." That is, the ship would have to stop. Leipzig attempted this in the wrong lane of a channel and was rammed by the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. Incidentally, Leipzig also trialed a variable-pitch propeller, which was entirely unsuccessful and eventually replaced by a fixed prop.
  5. The Japanese seaplane carriers / light aircraft carriers of the Chitose class had a two prop arrangement with a combined turbine/Diesel plant. Unfortunately, I do not know many details. I suspect that it was an "and/or" arrangement, where either Diesels or turbines could drive each shaft separately or all of them could run together simultaneously.
  6. The Japanese training cruisers of the Katori class had a two prop arrangement with a combined turbine/Diesel plant. It was an "and/or" arrangement, where either Diesels or turbines could drive each shaft separately or all of them could run together simultaneously. All engines would run together to get the ship to top speed -- a sedate 18 knots. I suspect that the Japanese system had the same issue as the Leipzig class, where the ship would have to stop to clutch and de-clutch different engines.

In all these ships, the idea was to save fuel by using a more efficient reciprocating engine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't really count the combined triple expansion/Turbine ships as "combined powerplant" per se, though of course nominally it is. Both are steam powered powerplants in essence, then the actual machinery that converts the steam power into mechanic energy is different, but at the core the principle is the same. Use boilers to create steam, use steam to create power. I mean by that standard even "normal" turbine powerplants would be combined ones ,as some shafts would be ran by high pressure turbines and some others by low pressure ones...yet in the end they're not combined powerplants at all, are they? ;).

All the attempts at making a combined steam/diesel powerplant, of which as you mention there were some (though have to admit I had no idea about Chitose having something like that  too) were little more than experimental proofs of concept, and they didn't go very well at all. True combined powerplants didn't really become viable until well after WW2 was over, that's the point I'm trying to illustrate here :).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2020 at 12:19 AM, RAMJB said:

.....there's no news about an overhaul of the armor layout system that produces ships were, for instance, the "armor belt" of the designer might as well be swapped by "hull armor", magazines aren't always covered by your thickest armor, and has the effect of making the armored ends of ships so unrealistically armored that they make WarGaming-like "bow in" tactics look like a sensible representation of naval tactics.

Not to mention that it ruins the use of AP and force the use of HE when it makes no historical sense at all. Still waiting for some word about that side of the game to come. The current armour system is a game-breaking feature for me, as much as the unrealistic speeds achievable were.


Because people like me, who have an interest in naval history, when they see a 41knot battlecruiser with a 13 inch armored belt that covers it from waterline to freeboard and laughs at you shooting AP at strong angles, they're going to raise an eyebrow and not feel very interested. And I want people to like what they see so they buy the game ;).

I am of the same opinion, which ought to surprise nobody who's read many of my posts in Combat Feedback and previous Update Feedback threads.

Regardless of the fact the AI needs work, and I'm sure it will get some, if it is concluding the best tactic is to point its bow or stern towards you then there's something fundamentally broken somewhere.

As I've said many times, the bloated hit rates (and truly ridiculously high hit rates for late stage tech at very long ranges) have a cascade effect through the game. Suddenly the devs are posed with a problem of having to mitigate far more incoming shell hits than was typically the case, and I happen to suspect that's why the whole "angling of armour" (that I strongly dislike) is such a thing.

Perhaps some real work on armour zones/schemes, placement of vitals, damage and damage control will alter things significantly. Yet I feat the excessive hit numbers will force shells to be less destructive in some respects than they ought to be else ships explode/sink in a matter of minutes (which they can still do).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
for me the firts thing to  do is to modify the speed of boat
or more exactly the way of AI built ship  too faster than in reality !
the ships of that era could not reach this hight speeds
a cruiser or dreanought that held 30 knots was already a lot !!
the terrible french destroyer class fantasque still holds the speed record for "traditional" warships with 42.5 knots
it moved nearly 4000 tonnes of water, so at almost 85km / h ! imagine it is simply amazing !
the heavy cruiser and dreadnought can t do  this
they are too heay it is  not realistic,even our day the heavy warship (like aircraft carrier) have max speed around 30 knots , somes a little more perhaps
this speed 30 knots seems to be the best economic ratio reliability and efficiency
most of the navy retains that even today !
and i hope the consomption and ranged will be do in the game too
this monsters of several thousand tonnes at 30 knots empty there tank in few days  perhaps few hours !
so the diesel engine have too be implemented in the game too ...  for interresting campaign (exemple :  the graff spee)
 
Edited by liaxelot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DerRichtigeArzt said:

I guess it's not happening today bois. Stay strong and hope nothing game breaking happened. 

Lol. F-ing called it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mutsu said:

^

That would be my guess, they are a US based dev team so they might release it late in the evening for us in Europe

I am sorry but US based team? Don't they have offices in Kiev?

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

×
×
  • Create New...