Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

So I tried this mission I think 5 times? Complete and utter failure. One try had 2 battleships that were for all intents and purposes superior to the AI's in every way (checked their loadout and compared it to mine), another was 12 battlecruisers (obviously this one was more money), another was 3 almost exact replicas of a King George V but with 16in guns. All were completely slaughtered and the best only got it to around ~60% structural integrity. Meanwhile, their ships are stunningly accurate and deal anywhere from 200-400% more damage, completely regardless of actual loadout between ships. One example was the only time I attempted a 1v1. My ship was obviously improved tech, with 4x3 18in with all the bells and whistles to deal damage. I actually got "lucky" with the enemy design for this one as well, 5x3 16in with pretty weak armour around 13in max outside the tower. I had higher hit chance, higher weapon damage, higher pen value, EVERYTHING. Didn't matter in the slightest. My shells would plunge into the extended deck and deal ~80 damage, theirs would hit my 20in belt and deal ~150-200. I was predicting 5% accuracy, had around 2%. They predicted around 3%, hit 9%.

I looked up this mission to see if anyone else has had the same issues and if this mission in particular is just completely broken and the AI has stack overflow or a misplaced decimal in it's AI code. Nothing conclusive, a lot have reported similar to me, some have said it was relatively easy for them. Regardless, I got fed up as aside from like 2 other missions ("Battlecruiser vs Dreadnought" that I'm still having trouble with and working on and the other was "There can be only one" which wasn't that hard I guess, I literally just built Iowa and Yamato equivalents are pretty beefy so it was a pain in the ass, but I did have issues with the AI having crazy accuracy) I don't have any issues usually and win fairly handily. This one was just ridiculous though and seemed like they were using 21st century tech sometimes. Worst I saw was ~75% accuracy at 18km from 20in guns. That's literally smart munitions, not fun at all.

So I finally got fed up and said hello kitty it.

More Funds

Konigsberg Class battlecruiser (German obvs)

33k t displacement

44 kn top speed

Kitted for max speed and maneuverability while having max survivability with light armor. 6in belt, 4in turret, and no more than 2in on anything else. Max barbette and citadel to reduce chance of flash fire.

Only 2x1 9in gun, one fore one aft, only to meet min requirements.

Now for the peacemaker. 60 21in torpedo tubes... on EACH SIDE

Fat English bitch sunk 3 battlecruisers before she went down. Again with insane accuracy but I was so fast I closed rapidly. She took (I counted when she was at 1% integrity so this isnt an exaggeration) 192 21in torpedoes. As one final 'hello kitty you' and spit in the face of realism from the game, she never dipped below 96% flooding, had to literally blow the ship apart with torpedoes. So yeah, not a fun mission at all.

I didn't even mention how some of their ships were completely physically impossible. Like really? 6x3 20in guns with 16in belt armour on a 135kt hull going 36 knots? Really? Congratulations Game Labs, you've gone back in time and invented the sextuple naval nuclear reactor used in Enterprise 40 years early. Oh, and also rewrote the laws of physics for that thing to float in the first place.

Otherwise, very fun game. I'm enjoying it a lot.

image_2021-08-21_194731.thumb.png.9d8247334311fd33605942c8eb5c7e8d.png

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

Yeah, numbers are pretty random sometimes.

Sometimes, I have a hit chance of 90% because I have the best technology and guns, while the enemy has 50%, yet I miss every shot for 4 salvos in a row while the enemy hits me with at least two shells every salvo, like... those chances don't seem to be very accyrate xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2021 at 11:45 AM, myrsnipe said:

Im on this mission at the moment and was greeted with this, 18x 19 inch guns, holy cow naval academy is more of a puzzle game at times when taken to the extreme

Screenshot (1).png

Yeah I'd just restart right there. That design is a joke. While It could probably stay afloat, you would absolutely need multiple nuclear reactors to propel it faster than single digit knots. Even then it wouldn't be able to fire more than a couple guns at a time or it'd capsize and/or shake itself apart. 

The devs seriously need to implement hard limitations on speed and firepower. The British experimented with an 18in gun shortly after WW1 and completely canned the idea of using them or the 20in guns that was a test run for because it was shaking the ship apart and launched rivets everywhere when it fired. Yamato was a herculean effort and it's likely A-150 (Super Yamato) would never have been practical and would've been canceled. As for size and speed, anything bigger than 100k tons should barely be able to move. Yamato was state of the art tech (1940 in game terms) and she could only make ~28kn. Let alone monsters like this going faster through some form of magic. Hell, my battlecruiser shown above isn't physically possible either, I just cheated reality because the AI couldn't be beaten otherwise barring extreme luck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2021 at 3:52 AM, tuskedkibbles said:

Yeah I'd just restart right there. That design is a joke. While It could probably stay afloat, you would absolutely need multiple nuclear reactors to propel it faster than single digit knots. Even then it wouldn't be able to fire more than a couple guns at a time or it'd capsize and/or shake itself apart. 

The devs seriously need to implement hard limitations on speed and firepower. The British experimented with an 18in gun shortly after WW1 and completely canned the idea of using them or the 20in guns that was a test run for because it was shaking the ship apart and launched rivets everywhere when it fired. Yamato was a herculean effort and it's likely A-150 (Super Yamato) would never have been practical and would've been canceled. As for size and speed, anything bigger than 100k tons should barely be able to move. Yamato was state of the art tech (1940 in game terms) and she could only make ~28kn. Let alone monsters like this going faster through some form of magic. Hell, my battlecruiser shown above isn't physically possible either, I just cheated reality because the AI couldn't be beaten otherwise barring extreme luck.

I think you're exaggerating a lot. Ships actually get more efficient the larger they get due to square cube law (make a ship 2x as big and you can have 8 times the displacement despite only having 4x the area to cover in armor).

You can scale boilers/turbines up to any size really, or just increase their number to maintain efficiency, a 100k ton battleship would only need a bit more horsepower than a Yamato already had. 

18 inch guns were entirely practical, especially with the automation Yamato's turrets had, 20 inch guns would've been big heavy bois but still entirely possible, although such weapons would be total and utter overkill for all but the most ludicrous paper designs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that 20s are entirely possible, especially with the alternate history UAD is currently in. The reason 20in guns and related technology were never seriously developed is that airplanes could deliver a "shell" (of sorts) with precision right on top of the enemy and with greater range than guns. Additionally, while most nations discarded the treaties on the start of World War II, during the Interwar period, the Washington Naval Treaty and the London Naval Treaty kept navies from gaining practical experience with building and testing such large ships and guns.

Without airplanes, though, 20s would have been a priority, because at that range, each inch is a huge increase in firepower (diameter to area obviously includes a square that helps vastly increasing the progression)

Edited by AurumCorvus
Comma deletion
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AurumCorvus said:

Agreed that 20s are entirely possible, especially with the alternate history UAD is currently in. The reason 20in guns and related technology were never seriously developed is that airplanes could deliver a "shell" (of sorts) with precision right on top of the enemy and with greater range than guns. Additionally, while most nations discarded the treaties on the start of World War II, during the Interwar period, the Washington Naval Treaty and the London Naval Treaty kept navies from gaining practical experience with building and testing such large ships and guns.

Without airplanes, though, 20s would have been a priority, because at that range, each inch is a huge increase in firepower (diameter to area obviously includes a square that helps vastly increasing the progression)

Without the treaties, aircraft carriers probably would have never been more than supporting ships (that was still the prevailing doctrine in the 30s and early 40s among all nations with them) for far longer than most would think. Some nations may have never built them, as most of the first carriers were ships converted due to the treaty restrictions. In fact, even with the treaties it is not until the late 30s that carriers actually had the ability to deliver effective strikes. So one is left to wonder if there had been no treaties, what would BB design have looked like in the 20s and 30s. Clearly the Japanese thought they needed massive firepower, even though they were ahead of everyone in carrier strike capability. Just highlights the conflict between the old guard and new technology in terms of philosophy. 

My personal opinion is the treaties stagnated the development of super BBs long enough for carriers to prove their value, but that was after 1940 not before.   

Edited by madham82
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2021 at 1:06 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:

I think you're exaggerating a lot. Ships actually get more efficient the larger they get due to square cube law (make a ship 2x as big and you can have 8 times the displacement despite only having 4x the area to cover in armor).

You can scale boilers/turbines up to any size really, or just increase their number to maintain efficiency, a 100k ton battleship would only need a bit more horsepower than a Yamato already had. 

18 inch guns were entirely practical, especially with the automation Yamato's turrets had, 20 inch guns would've been big heavy bois but still entirely possible, although such weapons would be total and utter overkill for all but the most ludicrous paper designs.

Oh boy. Well to preface, I was a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, so not just talking out my ass here, I may not be an expert on steam/diesel engines from the interwar, but I like to think I know more than your average world of warships fan lol.

As for your comment's contents, to put it bluntly, no. While what you said regarding the laws of physics are technically correct, it's correct in the same way that if I strap 20 booster engines to a shuttle it'll leave orbit faster, like sure theoretically. I also said in my comment that the aforementioned ship would stay afloat, and it could be propelled don't get me wrong, but the concept of "just put bigger engine on it lol" is literally the same as trying to get something into space with "bigger booster rockets." Like yeah technically, but in practical application no. Completely disregarding the limited technology of the time (which would completely prohibit going much bigger, if the US could've made Iowa go 40kn they would have done it), bigger engines usually result in diminishing returns as the weight of the turbines/boilers/etc themselves and the space they take up completely negates any advantages. For example the old USS Enterprise had 6 reactors, newer ships only have 4. Big E was fast as shit, I know guys who served on her who say she went over 40kn, pushing 45, which is insane, like absolutely insane (I've heard varying claims some even upwards of 50, but as I have never met anyone who was on the bridge I went with the average claims). Ford and the Nimitz class wish they could go that fast, but it's just horribly cost and space inefficient. Not to mention there's no point, the ship can't do anything at that speed, god forbid this hypothetical battleship tries to make a sharp turn, she WILL capsize going that fast. When making emergency turns you have to slow down or you could tip over, and that's in a normal ship. Gonna be a bit more likely when you are sailing a small island with like 18 monster cannons strapped to it. God forbid you try to fire while turning, you guessed it, capsized.

Then there's turning. This thing would take over an hour and dozens of miles to turn around, it would be completely unnavigable in anything smaller than the North Sea. I'm talking literally not being able to turn around at full speed inside the Baltic (exaggeration but you get the point), let alone something like the Channel. Our carriers have only 4 reactors nowadays because of the limitations of the conventional fleet (and cost, which don't even get me started on the budget advantage the AI must have to make its BC's and BB's have 20in guns but still go 30kn+). The cruisers and destroyers (and frigates before they got pulled) can't go faster than a couple knots over 30. I mean sure we could put bigger engines in them, but it'd make the ships too big and the engines wouldn't be worth the space they take up.

TL:DR

Your statement is scientifically correct. Bigger engine=faster. That said, we don't have the technology TODAY to make a 150k ton battleship go 30 knots, let alone faster with conventional tech. You could do it with nuclear reactors most likely, but even then I don't know how fast it would be. At some point you wouldn't get anything out of more reactors because you're limited by the number of screws. Not to mention the physical limitations of the metal used to make them. If you just keep slapping more power into it you could literally shoot the screws off. I can ask some guys I know who work in boiler rooms of conventional ships, but they'll just tell me the same thing most likely. UAD allows ships that especially given the time period, are completely impossible technologically (though not physically in theory).

My problem with the game is that there's no real downside to bigger. A 150k ton is going to destroy everything else, no questions asked, because the real life limitations of the ship (completely unfeasible to turtleback, too long at bow and stern to all or nothing, slow, laughably expensive, can't avoid anything whether it be torpedo ship or land, very easy to spot and hit) are essentially non-existent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2021 at 3:18 PM, AurumCorvus said:

Agreed that 20s are entirely possible, especially with the alternate history UAD is currently in. The reason 20in guns and related technology were never seriously developed is that airplanes could deliver a "shell" (of sorts) with precision right on top of the enemy and with greater range than guns. Additionally, while most nations discarded the treaties on the start of World War II, during the Interwar period, the Washington Naval Treaty and the London Naval Treaty kept navies from gaining practical experience with building and testing such large ships and guns.

Without airplanes, though, 20s would have been a priority, because at that range, each inch is a huge increase in firepower (diameter to area obviously includes a square that helps vastly increasing the progression)

Sure it's possible. So is slapping Schwerer Gustav in the middle of a ship. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. As I said the British experimented with 18in guns pre-Washington Naval Treaty and found them to be inefficient to the extreme, discarding them entirely and opting for 16in guns in the post-war (downsizing of course to 14in due to the WNT). The Japanese got it to work in the late 1930s sure, but they got the tech for 18in guns to function at acceptable levels at the very end of UAD's timeframe (Yamato launched in 1940, commissioned a couple weeks before the end of 41. UAD allows 20in guns in like 1918, which is a joke. 18in guns caused ACTUAL physical damage when the Brits were testing them for the G3 battlecruisers in the very late 1910's/early 1920's. That was the Brits, at the time the most advanced naval power by a significant margin.

Regardless, A-150 never left the drawing stage and had sceptics amongst the Japanese Navy even before Midway. The US and UK never even entertained anything bigger than 18in after very briefly testing 18in guns and finding them pretty much inferior to 16in guns. Even Montana and Vanguard stuck with 16in guns and it's not like the allies were hurting for resources. The only nations that seriously entertained 18+in guns beyond the testing phase were Japan and Hitler (yes Hitler, not Germany, the H-Classes as Hitler saw them were ridiculous in the eyes of most of the admiralty), and Japan only pursued the concept because of Kantai Kessen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tuskedkibbles said:

Oh boy. Well to preface, I was a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, so not just talking out my ass here, I may not be an expert on steam/diesel engines from the interwar, but I like to think I know more than your average world of warships fan lol.

Right, and my uncle works at Nintendo. That makes me an expert on video games for some reason.

Being a nuclear engineer (lets face it, you're not, don't lie on the internet please) means you know stuff about nuclear engineering, inherently it gives no further knowledge. 

6 hours ago, tuskedkibbles said:

As for your comment's contents, to put it bluntly, no. While what you said regarding the laws of physics are technically correct, it's correct in the same way that if I strap 20 booster engines to a shuttle it'll leave orbit faster, like sure theoretically. I also said in my comment that the aforementioned ship would stay afloat, and it could be propelled don't get me wrong, but the concept of "just put bigger engine on it lol" is literally the same as trying to get something into space with "bigger booster rockets." Like yeah technically, but in practical application no. Completely disregarding the limited technology of the time (which would completely prohibit going much bigger, if the US could've made Iowa go 40kn they would have done it), bigger engines usually result in diminishing returns as the weight of the turbines/boilers/etc themselves and the space they take up completely negates any advantages. For example the old USS Enterprise had 6 reactors, newer ships only have 4. Big E was fast as shit, I know guys who served on her who say she went over 40kn, pushing 45, which is insane, like absolutely insane (I've heard varying claims some even upwards of 50, but as I have never met anyone who was on the bridge I went with the average claims). Ford and the Nimitz class wish they could go that fast, but it's just horribly cost and space inefficient. Not to mention there's no point, the ship can't do anything at that speed, god forbid this hypothetical battleship tries to make a sharp turn, she WILL capsize going that fast. When making emergency turns you have to slow down or you could tip over, and that's in a normal ship. Gonna be a bit more likely when you are sailing a small island with like 18 monster cannons strapped to it. God forbid you try to fire while turning, you guessed it, capsized.

Use paragraphs or spacing please, for a nuclear engineer I sure hope your engineering texts aren't this bad.

We're not talking about rocket engines, we're talking about boilers and turbines, things you can very effectively scale up, or just add a higher number of. Some of the Iowa class's boilers were used in other ships, just in a lesser amount. The opposite would be equally possible to do within reason.

The Iowa class was already about as fast as you could make a battleship without cutting into armor weights and stacking boilers on top of each other, additionally Iowa was a 'slim' ship for her size, meaning it was harder to fit boilers into her without extending the citadel.

The ship in the original picture is 'only' 29 knots, that is 1 knot faster than Yamato who was over 70 thousand tons. The ship in question is 'only' 125 thousand tons.

So you might need six shafts, but that's entirely possible, it'd be impractical due to costs, but still possible if you 'really' wanted it. Enterprise was an OLLLLLDDDD nuclear ship, her reactors were individually pretty terrible and hence when the Nimitz came about each reactor was more powerful individually, making it easier to maintain her and reducing costs.

The whole myth of "Enterprise could push 45 knots" is just that, a myth. There's no concrete evidence that she ever did such a thing, therefore we can exclude it.

Large ships can turn with surprising amounts of speed, US carriers can turn rather fast for their massive size, a battleship of slightly greater size could logically turn just as well. Yamato herself was one of the most agile ships in WW2 despite her ponderous appearance.

And no, firing a broadside in a battleship moves it a fraction of a centimeter tops due to how physics works, that statement you have made alone makes your claim of being a 'nuclear engineer' dubious, as physics is heavily involved in that role. Hell I ain't even a nuclear engineer and I know that!

6 hours ago, tuskedkibbles said:

Then there's turning. This thing would take over an hour and dozens of miles to turn around, it would be completely unnavigable in anything smaller than the North Sea. I'm talking literally not being able to turn around at full speed inside the Baltic (exaggeration but you get the point), let alone something like the Channel. Our carriers have only 4 reactors nowadays because of the limitations of the conventional fleet (and cost, which don't even get me started on the budget advantage the AI must have to make its BC's and BB's have 20in guns but still go 30kn+). The cruisers and destroyers (and frigates before they got pulled) can't go faster than a couple knots over 30. I mean sure we could put bigger engines in them, but it'd make the ships too big and the engines wouldn't be worth the space they take up.

It'd turn slower than any WW2 battleship due to its size, but its a good thing the ocean is absolutely gigantic. Such a monster would only be used in the large expanses of the Atlantic and the Pacific, no one in their right mind would use such a ship in the Baltics. Modern ships have completely different roles and thus their percentages of engine-to-ship are different, how about we stick to WW2? 

6 hours ago, tuskedkibbles said:

TL:DR

Your statement is scientifically correct. Bigger engine=faster. That said, we don't have the technology TODAY to make a 150k ton battleship go 30 knots, let alone faster with conventional tech. You could do it with nuclear reactors most likely, but even then I don't know how fast it would be. At some point you wouldn't get anything out of more reactors because you're limited by the number of screws. Not to mention the physical limitations of the metal used to make them. If you just keep slapping more power into it you could literally shoot the screws off. I can ask some guys I know who work in boiler rooms of conventional ships, but they'll just tell me the same thing most likely. UAD allows ships that especially given the time period, are completely impossible technologically (though not physically in theory).

My problem with the game is that there's no real downside to bigger. A 150k ton is going to destroy everything else, no questions asked, because the real life limitations of the ship (completely unfeasible to turtleback, too long at bow and stern to all or nothing, slow, laughably expensive, can't avoid anything whether it be torpedo ship or land, very easy to spot and hit) are essentially non-existent. 

TL:DR you're a colossal liar and I'm calling you out on your lies. You're either not a "Nuclear Engineer", or your the single most incompetent one out there, and I fear there will be another Chernobyl soon.

We had the technology in the 30's to make a 150k ton battleship go 30 knots, it'd be a huge pain in the ass and be ludicrously expensive and impractical but we'd still get it done, boilers and turbines got better over time but not ludicrously so. Additionally we're talking about 29 knots, which surprisingly means far less horsepower needed.

Historically there was little downside to going bigger, hence why everyone did it. Some exceptions would be...
1: Cost, as you might find yourself literally out of cash trying to build monster ships
2: Numbers, bigger ships logically mean LESS ships, therefore you can only be in so many places at once, bad idea if you're a colonial empire
3: Size restrictions, the panama canal, dock sizes, etc. Yamato required colossal docks to build and maintain, larger ships could only be built in a handful of places in the world, without some serious alterations to existing docks and significant dredging.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tuskedkibbles said:

Sure it's possible. So is slapping Schwerer Gustav in the middle of a ship. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. As I said the British experimented with 18in guns pre-Washington Naval Treaty and found them to be inefficient to the extreme, discarding them entirely and opting for 16in guns in the post-war (downsizing of course to 14in due to the WNT). The Japanese got it to work in the late 1930s sure, but they got the tech for 18in guns to function at acceptable levels at the very end of UAD's timeframe (Yamato launched in 1940, commissioned a couple weeks before the end of 41. UAD allows 20in guns in like 1918, which is a joke. 18in guns caused ACTUAL physical damage when the Brits were testing them for the G3 battlecruisers in the very late 1910's/early 1920's. That was the Brits, at the time the most advanced naval power by a significant margin.

Regardless, A-150 never left the drawing stage and had sceptics amongst the Japanese Navy even before Midway. The US and UK never even entertained anything bigger than 18in after very briefly testing 18in guns and finding them pretty much inferior to 16in guns. Even Montana and Vanguard stuck with 16in guns and it's not like the allies were hurting for resources. The only nations that seriously entertained 18+in guns beyond the testing phase were Japan and Hitler (yes Hitler, not Germany, the H-Classes as Hitler saw them were ridiculous in the eyes of most of the admiralty), and Japan only pursued the concept because of Kantai Kessen.

We have advanced radar fire control sets, making the end-date ingame at least 1945. Blame the devs for adding such a thing if they intended a 1940's end date.

The British during the interwar and WW2 era turned out to be one of the worst ship designers short of Germany, their finest warship put afloat used WW1 era guns and didn't even have an angled belt. Not to mention half of the technology aboard being ripped from the US lmao.

The 18 inch Japanese gun fired an underwater optimized shell with as much penetration as the finest 16 inch munitions made years after it, and still maintained a bursting charge twice as large.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans thought it was entirely possible to make a ship weighing 63 thousand tons, going 30 knots, with 12 16 inch guns in the 1910's despite hilarious budget issues and national industry not being that stellar, in 1940 that entirely correlates to a dedicated first world nation making a 125 thousand ton warship going 29 knots with a ludicrous amount of 19 inch weaponry.

Edit: Of course one short year later they revised this to a much more practical design.

80 thousand tons, 25 knots, Yamato levels of protection, and 13 18 inch guns in the 1910's!

Edited by ThatZenoGuy
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

The 18 inch Japanese gun fired an underwater optimized shell with as much penetration as the finest 16 inch munitions made years after it, and still maintained a bursting charge twice as large.

That's actually a backwards way of thinking about. Think of it more like this, a smaller shell was built that had equal penetration to much larger shell. It wasn't a good thing the 18.1" had similar power to 16". But you are definitely on point with the bursting charge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, madham82 said:

That's actually a backwards way of thinking about. Think of it more like this, a smaller shell was built that had equal penetration to much larger shell. It wasn't a good thing the 18.1" had similar power to 16". But you are definitely on point with the bursting charge. 

My point is that a shell designed explicitly in a bad way, still managed to stay on top. 

If the Japanese focused on more traditional shells they would've blown the 16 inch guns out of the water.

Edit: also specifically it held this advantage over 16 inch shells until Battleship cannons stopped being made, it was never SURPASSED, at best it was equaled.

Edited by ThatZenoGuy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2021 at 1:18 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:

you're not, don't lie on the internet please

I only quoted this, pretty much just so you get a notification. I may be misreading but it looks to me like you got actually angry at my posts. Sorry I caused irritation, that was definitely not the intent. Ultimately as long as you enjoy the game that's the only thing that matters.

I don't think continuing this thread is going to do anyone any good so I'm not going to respond to anything else. Feel free to take that as I can't or you win or whatever. Like I said I don't think it's a good idea to continue.

Though I would suggest in future not insulting people you are (presumably) trying to have an adult conversation with. Though on the funny side, if you're an American, you'd probably be pretty depressed about some of the people we have in the nuke program lol.

Either way, happy gaming man.

1631135910828.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tuskedkibbles said:

I only quoted this, pretty much just so you get a notification. I may be misreading but it looks to me like you got actually angry at my posts. Sorry I caused irritation, that was definitely not the intent. Ultimately as long as you enjoy the game that's the only thing that matters.

I don't think continuing this thread is going to do anyone any good so I'm not going to respond to anything else. Feel free to take that as I can't or you win or whatever. Like I said I don't think it's a good idea to continue.

Though I would suggest in future not insulting people you are (presumably) trying to have an adult conversation with. Though on the funny side, if you're an American, you'd probably be pretty depressed about some of the people we have in the nuke program lol.

Either way, happy gaming man.

1631135910828.jpg

Wow a hat! I can do this too! Turns out I was in NASA! 
6bfe100f-b877-4775-8a55-db4844b70fc5.jpg
Stop lying on the internet, its embarrassing, petty, and ultimately serves no purpose. We're all anonymous nobodies and therefore none of us should start jerking off in front of everybody else.

Teenage level physics dictates a ship will not move much at all when firing all of its guns, nuclear tier physics is far beyond that. So again, which are you? A liar? Or a future Chernobyl in the making?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2021 at 2:21 PM, tuskedkibbles said:

I only quoted this, pretty much just so you get a notification. I may be misreading but it looks to me like you got actually angry at my posts. Sorry I caused irritation, that was definitely not the intent. Ultimately as long as you enjoy the game that's the only thing that matters.

I don't think continuing this thread is going to do anyone any good so I'm not going to respond to anything else. Feel free to take that as I can't or you win or whatever. Like I said I don't think it's a good idea to continue.

Though I would suggest in future not insulting people you are (presumably) trying to have an adult conversation with. Though on the funny side, if you're an American, you'd probably be pretty depressed about some of the people we have in the nuke program lol.

Either way, happy gaming man.

1631135910828.jpg

Thanks for your service man. Good call not arguing any longer with the "I'm a dragon trapped in a human body" kid

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2021 at 4:50 PM, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:

Reading this was absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the laugh lads. 🤣

Yeah it was quite something. Funny enough, I already knew when I added that picture that he was going to claim I pulled it from the internet, so I was going to add a note with my username, but I'm driving cross country right now and I didnt have a pen in my car at the time lol.

Not entirely sure how to respond when someone gets like that. It's as if I personally insulted him and everything he believes in. Very weird.

On that note though, if anyone is interested, this guy is a naval expert and goes into almost this exact thing in the first 30 seconds of this video. Some of you are probably familiar with him, if not check out a few of his videos and it will be very quickly apparent that he knows what he's talking about. But yeah, first 30 seconds he addresses the exact issue of titanic ships.

He also brought up an issue that I didn't even think about, ships like the above are laughable from an infrastructure perspective. But infrastructure limitations are probably beyond the scope of the game so that can I guess be handwaved.

On 9/13/2021 at 1:31 PM, Hangar18 said:

"training command"

🤔

 

Yep, NNPTC and NNPTU are both part of the nuclear training pipeline. Once we go to the fleet we get standard ship/boat covers and what not, no distinguishing marks for what your rating is.

On 9/13/2021 at 3:32 PM, madham82 said:

It is the real deal, the school that is.

https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/NNPTC/

Yep that's the one, most miserable place in the Navy. Also the only thing I have that says the nuke stuff. The prototype one too but that just says naval nuclear power training unit.

11 hours ago, neph said:

Thanks for your service man. Good call not arguing any longer with the "I'm a dragon trapped in a human body" kid

Appreciate it. And yeah, not much point talking to people like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm becoming increasingly convinced it's a straight pipeline from listening to Drachinifel's 6hr drydocks while falling asleep to spending 50 bucks on UAD. At least, I hope it's not just me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2021 at 4:47 PM, tuskedkibbles said:

I had higher hit chance, higher weapon damage, higher pen value, EVERYTHING. Didn't matter in the slightest. My shells would plunge into the extended deck and deal ~80 damage, theirs would hit my 20in belt and deal ~150-200. I was predicting 5% accuracy, had around 2%. They predicted around 3%, hit 9%.

Back to the main topic, I've noted this too. I simply don't understand it, and chalk it up to not being able to tell when I'm firing HE or AP (without manually overriding it & forcing ALL my guns to fire the same shell... we need per-caliber or at least main/secondary control over loading type)

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

Back to the main topic, I've noted this too. I simply don't understand it, and chalk it up to not being able to tell when I'm firing HE or AP (without manually overriding it & forcing ALL my guns to fire the same shell... we need per-caliber or at least main/secondary control over loading type)

The silver shells are AP the orange ones are HE. The AI auto control of ammo type is usually pretty good from what I've observed:

If AP can pen the hull but HE cannot - usually uses AP
if both shell types can penetrate - usually uses HE
if neither shell types can penetrate - usually uses HE

And this is both for main and secondaries. 



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...