Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

That’s not what's happening, at least in Academy Missions. There has been no reports of AI failures here, the AI is building to a criteria and it’s working. Doug has not and probably can’t produce any evidence of academy failed designs. I think there’s still some randomizing in Custom Battles, some internals are still in development and are just randomized for now. Also you can still set the exact setup every time and you will get a different AI every time, this is good for Custom Battles but maybe that means some of the randomization is here to stay.

Adaptive AI is far superior to X.

The campaign AI (designs) is going to be adaptive based on technology at any given time. Technology advancement (like tech speed) would most likely have some randomization and adjustments exacted from the player status. The results will be different and unexpected playthroughs.

Sure, playing against historical ships would be fun for about at least one playthrough, but doing it over and over again is not, not for everyone.

And you know this adaptive approach Dev’s have taken is actually very advance game development, ‘ultimately’, in the end, the team is producing a far superior game, a game base on adaptive AI. It wouldn’t surprise me that whole industry is watching this development very closely.  

Adaptive AI is the future and we are witnessing it. So I support it.

No report of AI failure... The fact is that the AI is being allowed to cheat most of the time with superior tech, numbers, or whatnot. That's not hard because they build good ships, it's handicapping the players. Jesus Christ, do I have to spell it out to people in the year 2021?

Read my arguments again. I, too, agree that there has to be variety. And "AI" <-- seriously, there's no "AI" it's just the program putting strings of code together - can help with that variety. All I'm saying is that there need to be MORE parameters that control how the "AI" is putting stuffs together. Adaptive AI... look, if you spend a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of effort, yes in theory, you CAN make something that is really good at mimicking human behavior BUT all we get is a "hit or miss" AI and a barebone, restrictive, gamey-arcadey-WoWS feel from the designer to the gameplay. IF that's what you enjoy, OK, say so. The ship designer for the player could be so much more. I don't hide behind elaborate arguments, what I want from the game is this and this is what sold me the project: A realistic, expansive war ship designer that could be played by folks who aren't designing ships for a living. And since the AI has been the ONLY obstacle for the project to head toward the direction I supported when I paid my money, I will voice my frustration here plain and simple. I will say this one last time,

THE AI IS JUST PART OF THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS THE SHIP DESIGNER IS SO FRUSTRATINGLY RESTRICTIVE DUE TO THE AI INABILITY TO DESIGN ANYTHING COMPLICATED AND THUS SOMEHOW THE PLAYERS ALSO HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED LIKE THE AI (WHICH, POLITELY SAID, IS BAD GAME DESIGN). BUT SOMEHOW, WITH SUCH A SYSTEM, THE AI STILL MAKE WACKY, UNREALISTIC, OVER-THE-TOP BORDERLINE FANTASY SHIPS. THIS DOES NOT HELP AT ALL WITH THE DEVS PUMPING OUT SUPER-THIS, SUPER-THAT PATCH AFTER PATCH NEGLECTING EVEN THE EARLY DREADNOUGHT ERA THAT THE GAME ADVERTISED. WE WANT A CHANGE OF DIRECTION.

There. I probably spoke for a few people here who are feeling as frustrated.

 

Edited by ColonelHenry
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 887
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Greetings Admirals, The next major patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has just become available! This large update is the precursor of the first campaign version of the game. We decided to rel

Hello all, We understand your anticipation for the campaign and it is welcome. The last patch which you all play has revealed very few remaining issues that we already sort out to fix in the

Hello all, Tomorrow a new hotfix patch will become available. It will include the following: *Hotfix v90* (30/9/2021) - Refactoring of the Auto-Design code, addressing various issues that coul

Posted Images

3 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Yo am I the only one who hates it when the enemy spots you from like 200 miles away? Like I understand if you have a large ship and they have good spotting devices then yeah I understand. But most of the time the AI has enormous ships (even bigger than most of my BBs btw) and sub-par radar which makes you wonder how the hell do they spot me before I spot them? Like seriously my largest ship is the base H-44 class BB and the A.I still builds vessels larger than that and yet they spot me first every single time? It's annoying and kind of unfair, like why bother investing in radar and stuff if the enemy still spots me from another planet. I don't know if it's a bug or that's how it's suppose be but it getting on my nerves. (wow look at this novel I wrote.)

I think it's either because they built low visibility ship (like using smaller towers, lower weight barbettes, smaller funnels, etc). But most of the time when I build BB with radar, the enemy always get spotted. You might want to give us a few images.

I do agree however about DD, CL clashes always end up with enemy ships going "invisible" which is dumb as hell because they are like 7-8km away... how can our ship NOT see them is beyond me. And this needs to be addressed.

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

Doug has not and probably can’t produce any evidence of academy failed designs.

lol seeing as you discounted pages and pages of relevant quotes from texts on the subject as "irrelevant" I can see how you'd think that. 

Unbelievable. I'll buy you a copy of Brown's books, because so far as I know your perspective on naval architecture is coming from paddle boats. You tell me the fundamentals of good ship design, and I'll show you where the AI falls short. Since you seem unaware or apathetic of qualities like top weight, stability, seakeeping, or any other constraints of reality, I don't know how better to explain to you why these designs fail. 

I apologize for being short with you, but honestly - you're writing off academic sources to prattle on about what feels cool, there's no way for me to address that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Doug has not and probably can’t produce any evidence of academy failed designs.

Check the clown car topic for one of the MANY I found yesterday while (re)completing the first half of the academy missions. They're getting better, but still nowhere near consistently realistic or competitive.

(You probably won't see anything wrong with it, but we've disagreed in the past about what constitutes a dumb design choice, and I venture to say the naval history folks here will be in my corner.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:

Ping me whenever the 1.0 Core Patch comes out. Thanks, everybody have a good month/few months. 

With how the game updates are going, might be next year when we see core patch one but lets hope its gonna be much sooner.

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

All you would have to do is skim any of the historical studies that are incessantly linked in these threads to see that navies of all nations realized that the ballooning cost and size of warships were causing tremendous difficulties for their building programs:

I'm sure. But you know what? They'll almost always end up choosing to build a bigger, more expensive, more heavily gunned ship in the end. Right up until there's literally no money or the ships are starting to die in storms.

Because no one wants to be the guy who made SMS Blucher when his opponent made HMS Invincible. No one wants to be the one who made USS Michigan just because they want to skimp on tonnage only to realize the world is moving to a 21 knot battle speed!

By the way, give the names of the books you borrow text from. Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought. Isn't it? I don't think the game has freeboard per se, but it does have stability (=accuracy) reductions as you add more topweight (turrets) and of course the more you put on the ship the more expensive it gets. I don't think Rule the Waves has that stability reduction (and lots of people have complained about the AI made ships there too), nor does Warship Commander.

10 hours ago, DougToss said:

This game is not just about building ships in the abstract - the strategic layer is about fleet building programs, not individual ships. If the AI designs ships that will bankrupt their nation, or are impractical, or have no doctrine that provides them with worth, then they are badly designed ships. Full stop. 

Right now, there's no nation and no cost limit (at least in Custom Battles). There's no real weather, either.

10 hours ago, DougToss said:

A designer that trends towards badly designed ships is not working. It's obscene to point to the largest most heavy gunned designs and smugly say "See? Destroyers weight 2000tn and have 12 5 inch guns." 

What is the criteria of "badly designed ships"?

Edited by arkhangelsk
Add comparisons to other games.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Draco said:

The only AI designs that are currently competitive with a properly balanced "realistic" design are german and austro-hungarian modern and super BBs, and they are only competitive because their ridiculously high resistance modifiers reduce 18" penetrations to the equivalent of 12" penetrations on any other navy's hulls in terms of final damage dealt.

The AI has no concept of stability, which apart from being problematic in terms of seakeeping would also realistically mean they couldn't hit anything beyond 10km even with 20+ 20" barrels pr. hull.

They also have a bad habit of not applying any fire control direction what-so-ever, which would realistically reduce their effective range to only 1-2 km, regardless of barrel size and number.

Finally they actively under- armor their ships and instead riddle them with anti-torp V and tripple-hull bottoms, maximizing resistance modifiers over realistic armour schemes, Which IRL would have no impact at all on a ship's ability to withstand gunfire.

In short, the AI's ships as of now would be ridiculously ineffective IRL, and their ability to be even marginally succesful in game speaks to the persistent lack of realism resulting from a bad habit on part of the devs to balance the gameplay towards making the poorly designed AI ships pose a proper threat instead of fixing their ridiculous design practices.

If this game wants to sell itself as anything resembling simulator/realism like gameplay then this faulty balancing must be adressed.

As it stands, the game is already decidedly less realistic than WoWS, and that is saying something.

The potential buyer base is mostly made up of historically enthusiastic gamers who experience immersion through realism, and in order for the game to succeed commercially, the concerns of that player base must be properly satisfied.

Period.

Sad truth is that WOWS playerbase is the no.1 target audience of most naval related things nowdayes including this game. Nothing has ever done as much harm to naval community as wows.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@arkhangelsk, I appreciate your reply and how you’re engaging with my arguments and sources. Below is a short list of the texts I have read to provide feedback for the game:

Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era
Norman Friedman

Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942
Willmott, H.P.

The Naval Warfare of World War II: The History of the Ships, Tactics, and Battles that Shaped the Fighting in the Atlantic and Pacific
Charles River Editors

Jutland: The Naval Staff Appreciation
Schleihauf, William

The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command
Gordon, Andrew

The Grand Fleet
Brown, D.K

Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations
(Ret. ) Capt Wayne P. Hughes Jr.

German Battlecruisers of World War One
Staff, Gary

DREADNOUGHT GUNNERY AT THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND FIRE CONTROL AND THE ROYAL NAVY 1892-1919 (Cass Series--Naval Policy and History) by John Brooks 
 

Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East, 1919-1939 Preparing for War against Japan (Cass Series--Naval Policy and History, 22) by Andrew Field
 

Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904-1914 (Cass Series Naval Policy and History) by Milan Vego 
 

Prelude to Dreadnought
John Winters

Nelson to Vanguard

Brown, D.K


Warrior to Dreadnought

Brown, D.K

 

Struggle For The Middle Sea

O’Hara, Vincent

Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941
David C. Evans
 

I would just say, because they are the prolific experts, any book by D.K Brown, Norman Friedman and Vincent O’Hara

 

British Cruisers of the Victorian Era
Friedman, Norman

Osprey New Vanguard titles
Angus Konstam et al

 

Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactic and Technology
Norman Friedman

Before Jutland
Goldrick, James

Warships of the Great War Era: A History in Ship Models
Hobbs, David

Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945
D. K. Brown

Sunburst
Peattie, Mark R.

Dreadnought, Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War
Robert K. Massie

Neptune's Inferno
James D. Hornfischer

Avalanche Press articles: http://www.avalanchepress.com/line_WWIISea.php

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barbette and superstructure placement has improved on some hulls, but nowhere near enough.

ZxrTDMN.jpg

Please can we get stuff like this sorted? I'm really tired of having to compromise my designs because the AI (apparently) can't handle the freedom we were all advertised when buying into the alpha.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seems like the biggest complaints are AI, Designer, gunnery and i guess spotting as well maybe.

Those four need either re-designs, updates, additions and changes to them to make them more fluid (so easier to edit and also flow better inside when playing the game for spotting you could have progressively more detailed models as the identification percentage goes up and/or by distance).

We should also have, some ship details hidden unless we have spy's, backstabbers or whistleblowers who reveal these details (and also building said ship in your own docks).

Once those are done, we should get a far better game and then we can move onto more complex AI movements, weather (dynamic pls), and god knows what else could be added or needs fixing.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

We should also have, some ship details hidden unless we have spy's, backstabbers or whistleblowers who reveal these details (and also building said ship in your own docks).

Who knows if they plan to implement an espionage mechanic, but that is a really good idea. It feels very metagamey to be able to see the basic type and shape of your opponents long before your ships officially ID them, but to know literally all the details as soon as they do.

(I won't even start on how scummy it feels to see the reload times on enemy torpedoes, as that's another argument.)

I'd be here for much quicker identification, but fewer displayed details on performance, construction etcetera unless you have good intelligence.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SonicB said:

(I won't even start on how scummy it feels to see the reload times on enemy torpedoes, as that's another argument.)

Welllllll if you really wanna stretch it you can say your crew is using some very good binoculars and have the eye sight of Superman in order to see the enemy loading the torpedo. But jokes aside it does feel a little unfair to the A.I that you can juke them just by seeing they're reloads.

Edited by CapnAvont1015
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah AI this single topic just feels like it has more control of the project than us tester do lol. From ship design to combat the AI is somehow the prime reason that causes changes that become very controversial here from scrapping the original designer and dictating what ships the player should build.

 

Anyways I still support a sort of template system for the AI to use. RTW had a similar mechanic and they didn't have as many issues with AI designs as UA:D has. Of course, they had a problem with late game AI ships being capped by treaty battleship while the player can build their super BBs but lo and behold the modders came in to add their own design and now the AI can still remain competitive with their own super BBs. 

 

Though to be realistic and the large number of resources spent on the current designer I doubt such a drastic change would be possible.

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

I think you’ve misunderstood or didn’t read properly. I have not disputed history or your feedback on history or even what was historical or what or wasn't correct. All I have done is to debated that auto AI designer is still the better option rather than a fixed library.

Please re-read my opening reply.

Sure AI designs won’t re-produce carbon-copies of history but it will manage and supply competitive challenges. Afterall that’s what the game makers are trying to do. And I'm also saying that the current content is here to stay, Dev's aren't going to delete anything.

I understand that you only want historical ships and historical values but IMO, the adaptive path Dev's have taken is the better way to provide those challenges, long term, for replayability, and they will get it working 99% before v1.0.

Don't put words into other people mouth like that. That's insulting and I'm not going to stand for it. Having a design bank doesn't mean throwing the AI away. No one is talking about completely delete AI or whatever. We still need this "AI" to provide variety and I think at  least most people here would agree with. What we do not agree with is the fact that the current "AI" is bad at designing ships that LOOKS authentic or competent half the time. We also do not agree with how the designer is being gutted just so this "AI" could barely work.

Of course, you can't refute our designer complaint because you can't OR you like what it is currently because you like designing super-this, super-that and of course, the current direction of the game is 50 super-thisthat every content update. (how does it feel to get words put into your mouth?)

A lot of people bought this game to stay away from WoWS or to support a more realistic naval game but I digress, SUPER-WOWSERS give people that dopamine rush better than a well designed, time consuming, realistic design.

If this is what the game is going to be, here, I have this to say to the devs and the people who like to put down 60-70k ton BB everyday.

 

Edited by ColonelHenry
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

What we do not agree with is the fact that the current "AI" is bad at designing ships that LOOKS authentic or competent half the time. We also do not agree with how the designer is being gutted just so this "AI" could barely work.

Let me just add to this. I'm seeing some arguments in this thread that (x autodesign complaint) is acceptable because a small minority of IRL vessels--let's say 10%-- were actually built that way.

Never mind that most of them were not considered successful; the problem right now is that these should be statistical outliers in the designs we're seeing, but they're not. If anything, I see 90% fruity weird layouts of some sort, and 10% designs that are actually typical of the period.

This is because there is no historical probability weighting (representing centuries of actual ship design experience) that the AI has to adhere to. It's free to put things wherever the hell it wants within its own specific rules. While the rules seem to be improving, they can never be detailed enough to accurately represent every consideration of naval architecture that made real life ships look the way they did.

Therefore, the AI really does need templates that represent typical, believable designs. It should be allowed to deviate from those templates, but the randomness should be weighted so that for every fruity Nelson or G3 layout, we see ten that look more like Bismarcks or South Dakotas.

As form generally follows function in warship design, this should give us not only more realistic-looking designs, but better balanced and more challenging opponents.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SonicB said:

Let me just add to this. I'm seeing some arguments in this thread that (x autodesign complaint) is acceptable because a small minority of IRL vessels--let's say 10%-- were actually built that way.

Never mind that most of them were not considered successful; the problem right now is that these should be statistical outliers in the designs we're seeing, but they're not. If anything, I see 90% fruity weird layouts of some sort, and 10% designs that are actually typical of the period.

This is because there is no historical probability weighting (representing centuries of actual ship design experience) that the AI has to adhere to. It's free to put things wherever the hell it wants within its own specific rules. While the rules seem to be improving, they can never be detailed enough to accurately represent every consideration of naval architecture that made real life ships look the way they did.

Therefore, the AI really does need templates that represent typical, believable designs. It should be allowed to deviate from those templates, but the randomness should be weighted so that for every fruity Nelson or G3 layout, we see ten that look more like Bismarcks or South Dakotas.

As form generally follows function in warship design, this should give us not only more realistic-looking designs, but better balanced and more challenging opponents.

You know 'em 13 destroyers built with double barrel DP 5 inch guns out of 169 destroyers built of which the rest were armed with single barrel long 5 inch guns during 1930s = typical US destroyers had double barrel turrets even though the destroyers in WW2 that would be mass produced with the double barrel DP wouldn't be entering the war until 1944.

 

Edited by ColonelHenry
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ColonelHenry and @SonicB said it better than I could, though @akd and @Steeltrap have said much the same before too.


The AI designs ships poorly in both concept (9 gun destroyers) and execution (9 gun destroyers that explode in a stiff breeze). The defence of the poor AI ship design seems to be coming from players who also design, what I will call poor ships, but  you can call fun, innovative, meme, super, I don’t care.

 

To understand why the designs the AI is churning out are unacceptable requires understanding why ships were designed as they were, and that seems to be too onerous for some. That’s fine! The game allows for trial and error - but understanding what constituted error is why historical ships emerged as they did, and why the designer should aim for historical ships. 
 

We want the AI to build ships well, and therefore the best way to ensure that is defining what “well” looks like for it. It’s the exact same process that happened in history, but we don’t want the AI producing error after error, we want the AI skipping that intermediary step and building ships as if the AI represents a competent naval board and shipbuilding industry. 
 

Put another way, the current situation is as if the only ships encountered in Age of Sail were the Vasa, the Mary Rose, and Santisima Trinidad. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tankaxe said:

problem with late game AI ships being capped by treaty battleship while the player can build their super BBs but lo and behold the modders came in to add their own design

 

Here's the thing: with a design bank, plus the AI adding variation but within set constraints and modular templates, devs can give us a ship designer that does not constain us to oblivion. Actual freedom to experiment with the limits of what is possible. Right now, none of that is possible because of arbitrary limits on flexibility and freedom made to coddle and handhold the AI.

 

You can't, however, mod a fundamentally flawed ship designer. You know, the core of the game. The minimum viable product.

 

As long as the devs keep using the AI's high degree of freedom as an excuse, replayability is hampered by it greatly and so is the player's imagination. The devs seem to care far more about the AI's freedom than the players' freedom. Not sure if they are writing an academic paper or a naval game.

 

Does anyone honestly think the AI can handle differing belt heights, transverse bulkheads, actually modeled torpedo belts, magazind armor, engine subdivision, and the like? Because those and more added variables would reset a lot of the lauded progress in the AI.

 

There is the potential to make something great here, but it seems that the devs are either being misled or are deliberately ignoring this critical functionality of the game.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Don't put words into other people mouth like that. That's insulting and I'm not going to stand for it. Having a design bank doesn't mean throwing the AI away. No one is talking about completely delete AI or whatever. We still need this "AI" to provide variety and I think at  least most people here would agree with. 

I'm very sorry, ColonelHenry, but I have to say that your actual position is dangerously close to the complete deletion of AI. The basic problem is the remaining flexibility and discretion the AI will have after your "design bank", and if you are not going to allow even a destroyer with 3x3 = 9 5-inch guns, you are implying the AI under your scheme would have so little discretion it might as well not be there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

I'm very sorry, ColonelHenry, but I have to say that your actual position is dangerously close to the complete deletion of AI. The basic problem is the remaining flexibility and discretion the AI will have after your "design bank", and if you are not going to allow even a destroyer with 3x3 = 9 5-inch guns, you are implying the AI under your scheme would have so little discretion it might as well not be there.

Now your just putting words into his mouth I don't see how Henry is advocating deletion of the AI, nearly everyone here is talking about changing the AI to operate on a separate ruleset from the player. When were told on why we don't have X feature, such as modular ship designer, and the response is because AI obviously people would get upset about the AI.

 

If the AI can't be taught to design ships then isn't it better to just give it templates with customized parameters? Keep in mind we're still getting new testers who feel scammed when the advertised modular ship designer is not reflective at all in game.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes, speakers have to take into account what people hear. They have take into account how the combination of two (or more) of their stated positions will result in what they claim they do not want.

Not only do I have a philosophical objection to binding up the AI more than the player, as I said even if we are going to do that, a critical problem will be HOW MUCH discretion the AI will still have after that shackle. Which depends on how much creativity people like Henry is willing to tolerate. Their other statements tell me that their tolerance for creativity is low to the point they cannot tolerate even one more gun than an already executed maximum (and it was executed at HALF the weight limit of a UA:D destroyer).

May I be allowed to add one plus one together?

Quote

If the AI can't be taught to design ships then isn't it better to just give it templates with customized parameters?

First, let's not give up too fast. Second, one problem with the argumentation of Henry and Co, at least in my view, is that they confound two problems. The first is the AI making ships that aren't tactically effective in-game. The second is when they make something that's tactically effective in-game, but that somehow offends their sense of realism, aesthetics or otherwise. If anything, given their constant complaints about being "forced to" make something, their emphasis is on the latter, not the former.

Obviously, I agree that we need to somehow fix the first problem. But I am much more ambivalent regarding the second. In its end state, I want this game to be "fair" to unconventional designs. That is, I want it to have realistic rules, but then to be accepting of the results that bring. If that means ships with no secondaries is the winner. If that means putting large secondaries on the centerline rather than the conventional solution of smaller secondaries on the sides. If it turns out destroyers should be more heavily armed.

I don't want this game to start with the preconception that majority designs are automatically the best designs and to warp all the rules accordingly. Of course, choices like the above have disadvantages, and they should be reflected. But they also have advantages and those should be reflected as well. I don't want, for example, secondary battery hit rate to be buffed or a nerf to the main battery just to substantiate the conventional solution of retaining secondaries. I don't want a mysterious and increasing penalty as soon as I go above five 5-inch guns on a destroyer class vessel and by the time I get to the ninth gun my DD will roll over for nothing, just to prove the conventional 5-gun armament as the optimum. I want this game to at least have the potential to prove that our naval designers hadn't gone down the optimal routes after all, and the AI can also have its hand in investigating this possibility. I definitely would not have been able to conceive of the possible solution of putting large secondaries on the centerline, and I don't think Henry et al can, either.

I end this discussion by asking you to bring your mind back to a 1907 mentality, and consider the below "meme ship"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(1907)

What do you mean they designed this stupid, overgunned thing with paper thin armor? It's clearly waiting to be blown up - a poor concept and execution. And let's talk about the ridiculous gun layout - the guns are allowed to fire across the deck! Surely that would cause heavy damage to the decks just firing the guns. We need to limit the enemy ship designer. He must use this nice, safe, hexagonal layout:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Nassau

And really, I don't want to be building cruisers that are nearly 20000 tons just to fight this thing. We need to make the Brits use templates...

 

  

8 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

You know 'em 13 destroyers built with double barrel DP 5 inch guns out of 169 destroyers built of which the rest were armed with single barrel long 5 inch guns during 1930s = typical US destroyers had double barrel turrets even though the destroyers in WW2 that would be mass produced with the double barrel DP wouldn't be entering the war until 1944.

Actually, those thirteen destroyers were built with double barrel SP guns of limited elevation. One of the problems, which seems to be US-unique, is the ridiculous weight of dual-barrel 5"/38 turrets. You would think if nothing else they would be less than the weight of 2 single-barrel turrets, but for some reason this is not true. Both have power, both have hoists ... etc. So they had to make a SP turret (less elevation) to save weight and keep the dual turret to less than twice the weight. I think it is easy to see how the disproportionate weight had a deterrent effect ...

Edited by arkhangelsk
Add answer to for ColonelHenry
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nick Thomadis changed the title to >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<
  • Nick Thomadis locked, unlocked, locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...