Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Why I almost never use these 8 component types


Recommended Posts

On 8/28/2021 at 6:04 PM, shingo3130 said:

What could be done is make older choices get certain buffs as time/technology progresses (to a limited extent) to simulate a technology being perfected over time. Or, when we have the campaign, older technologies should be more reliable.

This is a pretty good idea.

 

Aside from that, I mostly disagree with the OP. The one that's really bad is oil 2 which can weigh more than oil 1, and will weigh more than 3.

* Aux engines help engine reliability. Sure the slow down is capped, but the modifier for target maneuver is really big, and an unmoving target is extremely easy to kill. I don't use the final upgrade because the improvements aren't as weight effective as the ones before.

* Shafts help a ship turn, this decreases enemy accuracy, and helps the ship evade torpedoes.

* Bulkheads combined with the amount of bulkheads are worth their weight. They are keeping your engines from flooding.

* Barbs are ok, you wouldn't run them if you capped out armor... But if you weren't capping out armor, then they would be more valuable.

* Anti flood 2 is good for the water pumping. 

* Citadel is great for when don't want to slather the boat in armor.

* Turret rotation is subjective. You either need it or you don't. If your turrets are rotating you take a fat -50% to chance to hit. So for any screening ships that change course a lot, this is important. For any large caliber ships, it can be just as important because if the range decreases then they are forced to turn, and even if it's just a few degrees, you can force that debuff.

* Light shells are fantastic when you can use accuracy by volume. Any low caliber gun can benefit. The damage is percentile based, so losing the damage is not a big deal, and if you're only shooting light ships, then penetration doesn't need to be that high.

 

Honestly it just sounds like you're playing the game entirely differently. Loading up on armor on the outside to try to prevent damage from ever occuring, as opposed to going for a AON and just accepting some damage.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Drenzul said:

I think the problem is 'super heavy' sets both the charge of the shell AND the blasting charge.

So the shell is heavier but has more power sending it forwards.

Really need to split them up so light shells with super heavy blasting charge have the longest range and can be 'sniper' type rounds, but need a big disadvantage from the increased blasting charge.

Agreed on the powder charge being a thing we can adjust.  Also, the single biggest advantage of superheavy shells was the fact they had very consistent performance at range to go with their reduced barrel wear.  Up close the US 8" SHAP rounds are a clear loser compared to the lighter, faster rounds.  But once you hit 16,000 yards the super-heavy shells are traveling a mere 10 ft/sec slower than the lighter shells despite having 300 ft/sec less muzzle velocity, which combined with their greater sectional density means they start having superior belt penetration despite their steeper impact angles.  As a result, an effective ZoI becomes extremely difficult and one really needs to start making tradeoffs in terms of speed to accomplish that, hence why US CA's where so much slower compared to their Japanese opponents.  I'm not going to bother talking about the Kriegsmarine or Royal Navy cruiser designs, because the less said about them the better.

 

Also, too much velocity can be bad for accuracy at range due to excessive barrel and turret vibration.  While it can be dealt with, you do end up needing to add complexity and weight to do so.  There's a reason you had timing circuits and later on a switch to individually sleeved and mounted guns, and why only the USN went with three gun 8" turrets.

Edited by SpardaSon21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Drenzul said:

I think the problem is 'super heavy' sets both the charge of the shell AND the blasting charge.

So the shell is heavier but has more power sending it forwards.

Really need to split them up so light shells with super heavy blasting charge have the longest range and can be 'sniper' type rounds, but need a big disadvantage from the increased blasting charge.

Light shells with lots of powder is an excellent way to burn barrels. The British found this combo to be disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hangar18 said:

Light shells with lots of powder is an excellent way to burn barrels. The British found this combo to be disappointing.

Not sure what you mean. A light shell with X amount of powder will cause less barrel wear than a heavy shell with X amount of powder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drenzul said:

Not sure what you mean. A light shell with X amount of powder will cause less barrel wear than a heavy shell with X amount of powder.

I do not believe this is correct. There's other things going on here, like burn rate and pressure. But generally ships flinging light shells fast had horrific barrel life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hangar18 said:

I do not believe this is correct. There's other things going on here, like burn rate and pressure. But generally ships flinging light shells fast had horrific barrel life.

Generally depends on the total back-pressure. Same amount of powder would result in lower pressure with a lighter shell, all else been equal, so less wear on the seals e.t.c.
Pressure would be at best equal with lighter shells. 

Quite often the barrels designed to fire lighter shells were however thinner than the same calibre turret designed to fire heavier shells so did tend to wear out very quickly. This may be what you are thinking of.

The only other factor would be the degradation of the rifling but I would expect a heavier shell to also do more degradation to the rifling as well so at best I'd expect very little difference in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Drenzul said:

Generally depends on the total back-pressure. Same amount of powder would result in lower pressure with a lighter shell, all else been equal, so less wear on the seals e.t.c.
Pressure would be at best equal with lighter shells. 

Quite often the barrels designed to fire lighter shells were however thinner than the same calibre turret designed to fire heavier shells so did tend to wear out very quickly. This may be what you are thinking of.

The only other factor would be the degradation of the rifling but I would expect a heavier shell to also do more degradation to the rifling as well so at best I'd expect very little difference in that regard.

Faster projectiles will, for the same overall energy, wear out the most important part of a modern gun, the rifling, faster than a heavier, slower projectile.  Its not about the overall barrel thickness but the rifling, since if the rifling goes the bourrelets on the projectile have nothing to grip into, and you start getting windage issues and the associated problems with velocity and accuracy as you lose your seal.  That is of course assuming perfectly even wear on the rifling, and it never is, and uneven rifling causes problems of its own.  Then again, if we're discussing USN versus everyone else, the USN had one critical advantage in its favor nobody else did: US industry and wealth.  Starting in the mid-to-late 30's every single cannon was chrome-plated on the interior for greater hardness and corrosion resistance, so its hard to make a truly fair comparison there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Faster projectiles will, for the same overall energy, wear out the most important part of a modern gun, the rifling, faster than a heavier, slower projectile.  Its not about the overall barrel thickness but the rifling, since if the rifling goes the bourrelets on the projectile have nothing to grip into, and you start getting windage issues and the associated problems with velocity and accuracy as you lose your seal.  That is of course assuming perfectly even wear on the rifling, and it never is, and uneven rifling causes problems of its own.  Then again, if we're discussing USN versus everyone else, the USN had one critical advantage in its favor nobody else did: US industry and wealth.  Starting in the mid-to-late 30's every single cannon was chrome-plated on the interior for greater hardness and corrosion resistance, so its hard to make a truly fair comparison there.

Not sure this is true, greater barrel velocity will increase wear on the rifling, but so will a heavier shell.
And a heavier shell puts more strain on the breach which is a common failure point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Not sure this is true, greater barrel velocity will increase wear on the rifling, but so will a heavier shell.
And a heavier shell puts more strain on the breach which is a common failure point.

Which is why you slow your projectile down to decrease the overall wear, you know?:P

Also, breeches have never, ever been a weakness of the USA.  Barrels at times yes, as the early brown and smokeless powder naval cannons demonstrated, but not breeches. If you want to talk about breech failures, ask the Brits.  They have lots of experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Which is why you slow your projectile down to decrease the overall wear, you know?:P

Also, breeches have never, ever been a weakness of the USA.  Barrels at times yes, as the early brown and smokeless powder naval cannons demonstrated, but not breeches. If you want to talk about breech failures, ask the Brits.  They have lots of experience.

I did, I asked myself and was well aware lol ;) British boy here 

But yeah thats why with HE shells they could use a lower charge at higher gun elevation as HE damage doesn't depend on projectile velocity.

And if you want to see true barrel fun, look at some of the fun various nations had with early cannons (like 1400s).
Ignite fuse and run was a common tactic!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Drenzul said:

I did, I asked myself and was well aware lol ;) British boy here 

But yeah thats why with HE shells they could use a lower charge at higher gun elevation as HE damage doesn't depend on projectile velocity.

And if you want to see true barrel fun, look at some of the fun various nations had with early cannons (like 1400s).
Ignite fuse and run was a common tactic!

 

Ah yes. "Fun".  Or as a Dwarf Fortress player might say, !!!FUN!!!.

  • Like 2
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...