Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

On the subject of bulkheads, they could do the sort of things they pull off in game, the reason why Bismarck was still floating upright well after even every single gun on board was forcefully silenced was due to the fact that she was so well divided into sub compartments, I personally think there should be more options for bulkheads so that achieving that level of efficiency should be more difficult than sacrificing some weight as well as have tech limitations. There needs to be downsides to such a level of subdivision, I'd say when crew is a thing, more bulkheads make it more difficult for crew to escape or something like that.


The trade-off was, and is to some extent already, higher displacement for the same level of speed and firepower. 

Until the game sets up more varied win conditions, having ships you can't sink regardless of how many shells you put into them is a very bad idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Finally, the anticipated new update is available for you! Read everything about it in our blog! https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/alpha-7-gameplay-optimizations ==Restart your g

Guys when we will able to save design in CUSTOM BATTLE ? It's quite time consuming not having this feature yet. When ? So everytime i/we don't lose 20-30 min because of the design. WHEN ? please is an

Hello everyone,  We have just deployed a hotfix including the following: Alpha-6 v73 Fixed a rare bug which happened when you clicked on "secondary guns mode" on a ship with main guns, torpe

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
On 5/31/2020 at 1:42 PM, BobRoss0902 said:

Ships historically if you didn't get a catastrophic hit would be pretty spongey tho.

 

Sinking a ship is usually just a bonus, damaging it and forcing the enemy to take it in to port was often what happened putting it out of action for often times until the end of a war.

Jutland, Distant Guns and Steam and Iron recognize that. Winning battles is not about sinking ships, any more than land battles are won by destroying each piece of enemy equipment. 

If the only way to win is to sink the enemy outright, gunnery and damage models are going to stay whacky by necessity, because the game design is at odds with the stated goals of realistic outcomes. Ships would have been designed and employed differently indeed if control of the sea came only from sending hulls to the bottom. 

By that logic, what is the purpose of a protected or light cruiser? They should clearly have 8-9" guns if their own utility comes from swiftly sinking ships. 

e: With bulkheads, the penalty can't be that it makes it harder for the crew to escape, because the point is that they make it so the crew doesn't need to escape. For the player, that is a non-choice. You would always take maximum bulkheads, what's the advantage of saving the crew of a sunk vessel compared to the vessel not sinking? It takes a few months to train a crew, assuming you don't already have crews ready, a naval reserve, etc. etc. versus years to build a new ship.

Using up displacement has got to be the penalty, as well as being gated by technology and possibly hull sizes. 

Edited by DougToss
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In custom battles, can the AI please stop building super-ships that are completely unable to be sunk by normal battleships?

8f66d532d4.png

This shit is effing ridiculous. This monster sank two Iowas and barely took any damage in return. It's positively broken.

Edited by Masonator
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masonator said:

In custom battles, can the AI please stop building super-ships that are completely unable to be sunk by normal battleships?

8f66d532d4.png

This shit is effing ridiculous. This monster sank two Iowas and barely took any damage in return. It's positively broken.

I mean it's a 92,000 ton battleship. It kinda makes sense it has ridiculous amounts of armor. Yamato, the largest battleship ever built was only 70,000 tons at full load and had a 16 in belt and 25.6 inches on the turret faces. Imagine what 30,000 more tons would allow. I hope you know that such dreadnoughts are not going to be built in the campaign except for like super late game and probably when it's not really necessary. Maybe the AI goes too far with armor but the player is capable of building an unsinkable dreadnought, the AI should too.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jatzi said:

I mean it's a 92,000 ton battleship. It kinda makes sense it has ridiculous amounts of armor. Yamato, the largest battleship ever built was only 70,000 tons at full load and had a 16 in belt and 25.6 inches on the turret faces. Imagine what 30,000 more tons would allow. I hope you know that such dreadnoughts are not going to be built in the campaign except for like super late game and probably when it's not really necessary. Maybe the AI goes too far with armor but the player is capable of building an unsinkable dreadnought, the AI should too.

Plus dat name doe, King karl the great. I think if i saw a ship named that and that big i would expect it to rekt everything that exists in the world lol.

gib 20-22inch guns pls.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Plus dat name doe, King karl the great. I think if i saw a ship named that and that big i would expect it to rekt everything that exists in the world lol.

gib 20-22inch guns pls.

Gib 40 inch guns like those weird ottoman cannons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BobRoss0902 said:

Gib 40 inch guns like those weird ottoman cannons.

Captain, we've been outfitted with the new super cannons! 

Excellent Jerry! Now we just need to work on firing them faster than once a week! 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jatzi said:

I mean it's a 92,000 ton battleship. It kinda makes sense it has ridiculous amounts of armor. Yamato, the largest battleship ever built was only 70,000 tons at full load and had a 16 in belt and 25.6 inches on the turret faces. Imagine what 30,000 more tons would allow. I hope you know that such dreadnoughts are not going to be built in the campaign except for like super late game and probably when it's not really necessary. Maybe the AI goes too far with armor but the player is capable of building an unsinkable dreadnought, the AI should too.

Displacement in this game is way higher than it would ever be irl. I built my ships according to all of the numbers for USS Iowa - it came out at well over 71,000t for a ship that displaced 48,000t in real life. This can be observed on every type of ship across all nations, the hulls and components all weigh massively more than they should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Displacement and mobility are both pretty crazy right now. I'd love to take a look at the math for some of these systems because I don't know where the numbers we see are coming from.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Masonator said:

Displacement in this game is way higher than it would ever be irl. I built my ships according to all of the numbers for USS Iowa - it came out at well over 71,000t for a ship that displaced 48,000t in real life. This can be observed on every type of ship across all nations, the hulls and components all weigh massively more than they should.

Components, especially engines, weigh too much while armour weighs too little at the moment. Guns seem to be in a good place weight wise. I don't know where you got that Iowa number from though, it's far too low. The Iowas weighed 58,000-60,000 tons at full load (the game uses full load weight.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Masonator said:

Displacement in this game is way higher than it would ever be irl. I built my ships according to all of the numbers for USS Iowa - it came out at well over 71,000t for a ship that displaced 48,000t in real life. This can be observed on every type of ship across all nations, the hulls and components all weigh massively more than they should.

when you do it, check the demensions of the ship in the bottom left, the battle cruiser hull might be more fitting for your test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2020 at 4:05 PM, Reaper Jack said:

The heaviest cruiser belt in history was the Des Moines

Not technically correct. The Alaska, as well as the finished hull of stalingrad both surpass it

 

On 5/31/2020 at 8:13 AM, Steeltrap said:

Funnily enough, I happen to think one of the most crucial root causes of all these problems lies in the grossly inflated hit rates. If you get hit 10 times as often as you might in reality, everything ELSE becomes 10 times as significant in the sense that if the damage or armour or damage control systems are insufficient, that over the top mass of hits will VERY quickly illustrate any issues.

Agreed, and it is also the cause of the bow tanking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gunnery model is the single biggest problem, and as @Steeltrap mentioned, has bled into every other issue. 

Ships have to be designed to be more mobile or protected than any real designs afloat because they will be hit more often to a frankly,  insane degree. 

When hit rates drop down to anywhere near reality, and ideally match firing tables and exiting formulas, it will be much easier to get mobility and protection right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Not technically correct. The Alaska, as well as the finished hull of stalingrad both surpass it

 

Agreed, and it is also the cause of the bow tanking.

Alaska's are not cruisers any more than the Hood was a cruiser. For the exact same reasons. The USA called them Large Cruisers so they could get the budget through by pretending they were not capital ships, and a cruiser is not a capital ship. 

The Stalingrad (Can tell you've  picked that up from WoWS as no Russian class of supercruiser/battlecruiser was called thus, it was the Kronstadt class) never had her armor fitted, and little more than the keel and lower hull was complete, like all Russian capital ships of that time period, the USSR's failure to produce functional armor meant they were the ultimate in vanity projects, and were ships that could never have been completed, so starting them was pointless, in that sense they are not different to the Montanas, i.e. pure speculation. Additionally these ships at full load would have weighed upwards of 42,000 tons, which is absolutely Battlecruiser territory. 

Yes the idea of the Battlecruiser was dead by the mid 40's, however in function and role both the Alaskas and Russian fantasies were Battlecruisers, they are in no way, shape or form even close to being regular cruisers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 8:31 AM, Cptbarney said:

Plus dat name doe, King karl the great. I think if i saw a ship named that and that big i would expect it to rekt everything that exists in the world lol.

gib 20-22inch guns pls.

SMS St. Siegmund: build H-45 with six-gun turrets in "Sink Australia" mission.

There 22-inchers came from BTW?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

armor model. gunnery numbers can be tweaked easily enough.

The armour model's failings are more apparent because hit rates are an order of magnitude greater than they should be. Ships have to be protected against more hits than they would ever be expected to receive. 

Also 22" guns? Can we be serious for a moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Look at the guns used in historical big-gun naval battles, and let's get gameplay right for the 11-16" guns where it really counts rather than get caught up in flights of fancy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

I think 20" guns should be the absolute maximum and only in single turrets. 

 

9 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Absolutely. Look at the guns used in historical big-gun naval battles, and let's get gameplay right for the 11-16" guns where it really counts rather than get caught up in flights of fancy.

I understand your argument that 508 mm (20 inch) weren't used in real historical battleships. But we are able to design H-class in-game (which was only planned). And for H-44, 508mm guns were really planned (they were supposed to be in double mounts). So i think that it would be nice if we get them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals#H-42_through_H-44

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royal Navy also designed carriers that were made out of ice. I'm not saying don't allow the fantastical calibers, I am saying that right now there is no reason not to build massive warships with massive guns, when in actuality there must've been some reason... seeing as nobody actually ever did so. 

I'm sure given enough time, expenditure and effort, dual mounts of 20" were within the edge of possibility, I'm just saying that the way things are working now, you would be a fool not to have 10 x 20" guns because the AI certainly will and there is no real penalty for so doing. 

I mean, 12" guns were popular for a reason, right? We've yet to see that in-game. The Germans used 11" guns. The very reasonable causes for them doing that aren't really represented yet. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, DougToss said:

The Royal Navy also designed carriers that were made out of ice. I'm not saying don't allow the fantastical calibers, I am saying that right now there is no reason not to build massive warships with massive guns, when in actuality there must've been some reason... seeing as nobody actually ever did so. 

I'm sure given enough time, expenditure and effort, dual mounts of 20" were within the edge of possibility, I'm just saying that the way things are working now, you would be a fool not to have 10 x 20" guns because the AI certainly will and there is no real penalty for so doing. 

I mean, 12" guns were popular for a reason, right? We've yet to see that in-game. The Germans used 11" guns. The very reasonable causes for them doing that aren't really represented yet. 

Sure it's not essential and there are other much more important work to do in the game development at the moment. I only say that because we are already able to build H-class it would be nice if we could put correct guns at it someday.

Edited by Aceituna
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

I think 20" guns should be the absolute maximum and only in single turrets. 

 

33 minutes ago, DougToss said:

The Royal Navy also designed carriers that were made out of ice. I'm not saying don't allow the fantastical calibers, I am saying that right now there is no reason not to build massive warships with massive guns, when in actuality there must've been some reason... seeing as nobody actually ever did so. 

I'm sure given enough time, expenditure and effort, dual mounts of 20" were within the edge of possibility, I'm just saying that the way things are working now, you would be a fool not to have 10 x 20" guns because the AI certainly will and there is no real penalty for so doing. 

I mean, 12" guns were popular for a reason, right? We've yet to see that in-game. The Germans used 11" guns. The very reasonable causes for them doing that aren't really represented yet. 

Splitting hairs here, but if the Japanese were able to build a triple 18" mount, why do you think it would be hard to build a twin 20"? The gun is the truly difficult part, the mount is more a question of expense and weight. 

12" guns are currently some of the best at accuracy and ROF in the game. They have an usual buff to accuracy when compared 13", 14" and 15"s. Many of my designs for fighting large numbers of smaller ships use triple 12"s. They are actually the best gun to mount if you are facing DDs, that and some 8" secondaries. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DougToss said:

I'm sure given enough time, expenditure and effort, dual mounts of 20" were within the edge of possibility, I'm just saying that the way things are working now, you would be a fool not to have 10 x 20" guns because the AI certainly will and there is no real penalty for so doing. 

[sigh]

That's why we need some sort of ingame treaty, there player can set limits for AI (displacement, caliber, etc) - doubles as difficulty settings.

I fully understand people who don't want to built "ludicrous" ships and I respect their wish. Please respect other's wish to design monstrosity with quad 20-inch superheavys.

Edited by IronKaputt
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronKaputt said:

[sigh]

That's why we need some sort of ingame treaty, there player can set limits for AI (displacement, caliber, etc) - doubles as difficulty settings.

I fully understand people who don't want to built "ludicrous" ships and I respect their wish. Please respect my wish to design BBs with 4x4 20-inch superheavys.

You should be able to build them sure. 

The cost of doing so should be as immense as the Yamatos was historically (and worse for even bigger ships) and stunt your navy in other areas, again, as it should. There needs to be a push and pull system, where you can't just get the best toys without there being a drawback or some sort of pay off, this system not existing is actually causing a lot of the game's issues right now aside from armor not being modeled correctly yet. Mostly with ships that can have it all, armor, huge guns and speed. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...