Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Triple and Quad turret weights need to be turned down slightly


Mutsu

Recommended Posts

They can be a bit excessive, for example I was building a late WW1 era dreadnought and the 356mm triple turret 2308t, for comparison the weight of USS Iowa's turrets were 1708t. The current weight of those turrets almost makes you want to stick to double turrets simply because triples and quads just weigh far too much.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mutsu said:

They can be a bit excessive, for example I was building a late WW1 era dreadnought and the 356mm triple turret 2308t, for comparison the weight of USS Iowa's turrets were 1708t. The current weight of those turrets almost makes you want to stick to double turrets simply because triples and quads just weigh far too much.

Yeah maybe they are somewhat too heavy right now.

But I do think that there has to be a reason to at least try to keep using double turrets (and not as just an limitation until the others are unlocked). If you can stick the same ammount of cannons while having lower displacement (and having less deck occupied by turrets, and less barbettes further saving weight), why bother with the double and single (thought no idiot is ever gonna stick a single main turret on a ship) barrel turrets?

Germans often used a 4x double setup instead of a 3x tripple one because they believed they would gain better firecontrol, and if a turret was destroyed, they would only lose 25% of total firepower instead of 33%.

Edited by Stormnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general point, I've noticed the chances of turrets getting knocked out on an adequately-protected design are next to nothing, so there's no real redundancy penalty not to go with triples and quads as early as you can get them.

Compare and contrast with the turret reliability and resilience we see in historical battles, where turrets being rendered inoperable, permanently or temporarily, by mechanical failure in battle was a genuine concern - even caused by relatively minor damage to ancillary systems outside the armoured belt and barbette.

If this can be added to the game then there should be no need for (largely artificial) nerfs to ROF and accuracy for multiple turrets, as well as what I agree is a rather heavy-handed weight penalty. The King George V class gives us a good starting-point to set accurate turret weights, as its 14" quad turrets weighed 1,582t each, while the twin turret with the same armour thickness and type of gun weighed 915t. The guns themselves only weighed about 79t each. (source.)

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Datamine.

At current (A11), turret gun weights (total, not per-gun) are as follows:

  • Casemate: 60%
  • Single: 100%
  • Double: 160%
  • Triple: 250%
  • Quad: 330%

Armor weight is directly proportional to the gun weights, so that doesn't change the relative comparison.

Reload time has the following barrel count dependent modifiers from start -> maximum tech, stacking multiplicatively with global reloadmodifiers (so other techs/components don't change the relative comparison):

  • Double: +50% -> +35% (year 1909)
  • Triple: +70% -> +52.5% (year 1924)
  • Quad: +85% -> +70% (year 1934)

Accuracy has the following barrel count dependent modifiers, again stacking multiplicatively with global accuracy modifiers with the same years as above:

  • Double: -10% -> -0%
  • Triple: -20% -> -5%
  • Quad: -30% -> -15%

This leads to the following raw efficiencies (= barrels * accuracy / weight / reload time) at endgame:

  • Single: 100%
  • Double: 92.6%
  • Triple: 74.8%
  • Quad: 60.6%

The KGV figures above would imply something closer to a linear increase in turret weights: around 220% for a triple and 280% for a quad. I still wouldn't use quads but at least it would be closer.

Edited by Evil4Zerggin
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 x 2 turrets do also have some advantages in ranging, since you can fire two 4-barrel salvos instead (4 shells are thought to be the minimum for efficient ranging) of either one salvo of 6 and one of 3 barrels or mixing barrels from separate turrets like two from A and two from B, then the remaining barrels from those two turrets and two (or all) from Y.

Is something like this implemented in the game?

I have no clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to pop in another, earlier example of relative turret weights: the Conte di Cavour (1914) and Caio Duilio/Andrea Doria (1915) classes carried their 12" battery in three triple  turrets weighing 670t each, and two twin turrets weighing 500t each, again with the same armour thickness on all turrets. (source)

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

An even more illuminating measure is to consider the marginal efficiency of each additional gun, i.e. the marginal RoF added divided by the marginal weight added:

  • 1st gun: 100.0%
  • 2nd gun: 80.2%
  • 3rd gun: 43.0%
  • 4th gun: 16.4%

Losing 20% efficiency on the 2nd gun is usually a good trade for the deck space. However, I'd only use a 3rd gun if I'm swimming in everything except deck space, and I'd even consider shelling out (har) for autoloading first. And the 4th gun's marginal efficiency is less than one-sixth that of the first gun!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More guns in a turret should be proportionally lighter, not heavier, due to objects getting more efficient to armor the larger they get.

A cube with 6m squared surface has 1m cubed volume, an object with 8m cubed volume has 'only' 16 meters of surface area.

That is to say making the volume 8 times larger makes the surface area only 3 times larger.

The downsides of more guns per turret is...
1: More guns knocked out per turret penetration, although this is countered by the fact larger turrets can be armored more, proportionally speaking
2: Less accuracy in theory due to shell disturbances, essentially a non-issue with delay coils.
3: Individually turrets are heavier and more complex, so slower to turn, more breakdowns, etc.
 

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...