Player Suggestions - January/February

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Andvarus said:

HOW????????? allways give me the same old red flags when I try to do that at the stern. 

Custom, or campaign?

[Candle_86]

2 hours ago, Andvarus said:

sorry but what you are saying is totall bullocks. basicly every ship after the dreadnought used superfiring guns and to make use of that you need some kind of an barbette or superstructure to get the hight difference. 

 

I think you might need some glasses mate. WERE is that supposed to be a Ise-Class with super firing midsection guns when you can the the stern in the screenshot. 

What i was trying to build was a french Battleships using Superfiring Bow and Stern guns with some mixed medium guns in the mid. And you are every able to see that you are NOT allowed to place a barbette or any kind of elevational thing to make that work on that kind of Hull. 

HOW????????? allways give me the same old red flags when I try to do that at the stern. 

Used Medium Barbette 2, its narrower than Medium 1 and will fit

[slightlytreasonous]

2 hours ago, Andvarus said:

 

HOW????????? allways give me the same old red flags when I try to do that at the stern. 

Because that's not the hull you used.  The superstructure is different.

[Candle_86]

2 hours ago, Andvarus said:

sorry but what you are saying is totall bullocks. basicly every ship after the dreadnought used superfiring guns and to make use of that you need some kind of an barbette or superstructure to get the hight difference. 

 

I think you might need some glasses mate. WERE is that supposed to be a Ise-Class with super firing midsection guns when you can the the stern in the screenshot. 

What i was trying to build was a french Battleships using Superfiring Bow and Stern guns with some mixed medium guns in the mid. And you are every able to see that you are NOT allowed to place a barbette or any kind of elevational thing to make that work on that kind of Hull. 

HOW????????? allways give me the same old red flags when I try to do that at the stern. 

I mean technically I can do this with messing with Save_01 to reduce hull weight via hull_consutrction_end with a 999999 index. That's a very potent albeit unrealistic example

[slaugman]

I'd love to see intelligence or identification ledger. Something that could give you some information based on the ships you have encountered. IE my ships have observed the new enemy BB class, have seen that it has 14" guns, and we saw it go 26 knots, and based on how many time we shot it, we know it has over 8" of armor on the main belt. Maybe hiding some information from the player, like the exact thickness of armor, or type used, or the torpedo detection or range finder. Things that we wouldn't know unless we took the ship in a peace deal. 

This would be very useful to be able to refer to when building new ships, being able to see what we think is the enemy's equivalent.

[SpardaSon21]

21 hours ago, AurumCorvus said:

STS is still a Krupp-type steel, though, and is kinda what you'd expect from Krupp III/IV. From what I can kinda feel, Krupp I and II is more for WWI and immediate post war Krupp steels. Krupp III and Krupp IV are meant to encompass the various improved Krupp armors that existed in WWII or immediately afterwards.

Regardless to that exact classification, a mechanic does exist to simulate the type of gradual improvement STS was: When you reach the end of the armor tech tree, there is a repeatable tech that gradually increases armor quality because you gradually tweak the elements and technique.

STS is not a Krupp-type steel, as it is a homogenous (aka non-hardened) armor unlike the face-hardened Krupp-type steels are.  He still isn't wrong about the lack of representation STS and its omnipresence has in USA hulls.

 

11 hours ago, Andvarus said:

sorry but what you are saying is totall bullocks. basicly every ship after the dreadnought used superfiring guns and to make use of that you need some kind of an barbette or superstructure to get the hight difference. 

 

Wrong.  The British didn't have a superfiring dreadnought until HMS Neptune, several classes after Dreadnought herself.  The Germans didn't have one until the Kaiser class.  Fuso was 1915, almost a decade after Dreadnought and following the Kawachis. The earliest superfiring design is also the first design to have ABXY superfiring: the South Carolina-class battleships built by the USA, commissioned 1910.

[AurumCorvus]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

STS is not a Krupp-type steel, as it is a homogenous (aka non-hardened) armor unlike the face-hardened Krupp-type steels are.  He still isn't wrong about the lack of representation STS and its omnipresence has in USA hulls.

Well... not really. You're making a (very) common mistake here.

But, first, references: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#U.S._Carnegie_Corp._Special_Treatment_Steel_(STS)_Armor%2FConstruction_Steel

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Average_WWII-Era_Class_"A"_Armor

STS is, true, not face-hardened Krupp. Not going to contest you there.

It is however, *Krupp-type* armor. The difference is between alloys used, and is in fact more concerned with Harvey armor alloys rather than the face-hardening. As such, we reach our first point: despite the lack of face-hardening, STS is still a part of the Krupp components if we use the right definition.

Secondly, while it is an excellent deck-plate, to my best knowledge it is not a true warship belt armor. It was used in turret faces and superstructure, but it was not a belt armor (or Class "A" armor, to use US naval terms), even in cruisers. In fact, the US's error in design of Class A actually made cruiser level Class A armor nearly unmatched in the world (which, for obvious reasons, STS simply has no chance of beating). The battleship turret face use of STS was because the US wanted to increase protection after discovering that battleship-level Class A had less protection than they thought, and STS is much easier to layer/make rather than true Class A armor. So, when given the chance, the US put a stopgap measure of extremely thick STS armor for battleship turret faces and just hoped that it wouldn't be a huge problem because they layered it really, really thick. A true Class A armor turret face would've been thinner for similar effectiveness, but it would've required more time and effort to make, and the US kinda wanted these new battleships sooner to escort their carriers. That's a very long-winded way to say that STS was not the main armor, and it cannot be counted as "the" armor of a ship.

So, in closing, STS doesn't need to be a new component because (a) it still is a Krupp armor and (b) it is not the 'main' armor that could justifiable get a special component.

I hope I made my side clearer than my initial super short post. If you have any questions, please let me know!

[Candle_86]

53 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said:

Well... not really. You're making a (very) common mistake here.

But, first, references: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#U.S._Carnegie_Corp._Special_Treatment_Steel_(STS)_Armor%2FConstruction_Steel

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Average_WWII-Era_Class_"A"_Armor

STS is, true, not face-hardened Krupp. Not going to contest you there.

It is however, *Krupp-type* armor. The difference is between alloys used, and is in fact more concerned with Harvey armor alloys rather than the face-hardening. As such, we reach our first point: despite the lack of face-hardening, STS is still a part of the Krupp components if we use the right definition.

Secondly, while it is an excellent deck-plate, to my best knowledge it is not a true warship belt armor. It was used in turret faces and superstructure, but it was not a belt armor (or Class "A" armor, to use US naval terms), even in cruisers. In fact, the US's error in design of Class A actually made cruiser level Class A armor nearly unmatched in the world (which, for obvious reasons, STS simply has no chance of beating). The battleship turret face use of STS was because the US wanted to increase protection after discovering that battleship-level Class A had less protection than they thought, and STS is much easier to layer/make rather than true Class A armor. So, when given the chance, the US put a stopgap measure of extremely thick STS armor for battleship turret faces and just hoped that it wouldn't be a huge problem because they layered it really, really thick. A true Class A armor turret face would've been thinner for similar effectiveness, but it would've required more time and effort to make, and the US kinda wanted these new battleships sooner to escort their carriers. That's a very long-winded way to say that STS was not the main armor, and it cannot be counted as "the" armor of a ship.

So, in closing, STS doesn't need to be a new component because (a) it still is a Krupp armor and (b) it is not the 'main' armor that could justifiable get a special component.

I hope I made my side clearer than my initial super short post. If you have any questions, please let me know!

Yes and No, STS while similar to Krupp and a Krupp type also weighs less where it armors because it also makes up the structal support as well as the armor, and I would like the option to be in game, use of STS should lower hull weight but cost significantly more, and provide better protect from glancing or oblique shots. They already don't differincate between deck and belt armor which is a shame, but STS was often pared with Class A to protect vital engineering spaces ect. I'd like to see this reflected

[SpardaSon21]

34 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said:

Well... not really. You're making a (very) common mistake here.

But, first, references: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#U.S._Carnegie_Corp._Special_Treatment_Steel_(STS)_Armor%2FConstruction_Steel

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Average_WWII-Era_Class_"A"_Armor

STS is, true, not face-hardened Krupp. Not going to contest you there.

It is however, *Krupp-type* armor. The difference is between alloys used, and is in fact more concerned with Harvey armor alloys rather than the face-hardening. As such, we reach our first point: despite the lack of face-hardening, STS is still a part of the Krupp components if we use the right definition.

Secondly, while it is an excellent deck-plate, to my best knowledge it is not a true warship belt armor. It was used in turret faces and superstructure, but it was not a belt armor (or Class "A" armor, to use US naval terms), even in cruisers. In fact, the US's error in design of Class A actually made cruiser level Class A armor nearly unmatched in the world (which, for obvious reasons, STS simply has no chance of beating). The battleship turret face use of STS was because the US wanted to increase protection after discovering that battleship-level Class A had less protection than they thought, and STS is much easier to layer/make rather than true Class A armor. So, when given the chance, the US put a stopgap measure of extremely thick STS armor for battleship turret faces and just hoped that it wouldn't be a huge problem because they layered it really, really thick. A true Class A armor turret face would've been thinner for similar effectiveness, but it would've required more time and effort to make, and the US kinda wanted these new battleships sooner to escort their carriers. That's a very long-winded way to say that STS was not the main armor, and it cannot be counted as "the" armor of a ship.

So, in closing, STS doesn't need to be a new component because (a) it still is a Krupp armor and (b) it is not the 'main' armor that could justifiable get a special component.

I hope I made my side clearer than my initial super short post. If you have any questions, please let me know!

Since I consider the hardening process to be the primary component of Krupp-type armor as opposed to its alloy composition (but alas, it seems metallurgists and researchers disagree with me) I'll give you partial credit.  After all, STS evolved into structural metals such as HY-80 as opposed to further armor alloys so combine that with its use during WW2 as a structural metal and armor supplement as opposed to primarily armor and I struggle to align it with Krupp-type metals.

Secondly, my post did not say it was used as armor, but instead in hulls.  As in a structural component as opposed to an armoring one.  Late-era US hulls should have the highest overall resistance but the highest base costs as a result of the STS integration they historically had, and yet they are solidly marginal in that area at best.  Given the importance of resistance between hulls of the same class, especially battleships, this is a major issue IMO.  Especially when you take into account the USA's insistence on resilience for all of its designs, with even the "unprotected cruisers" of the Montgomery-class having a watertight armored citadel, albeit one only capable of splinter protection, as well as an armored conning tower.

[SonicB]

On 2/2/2022 at 7:04 PM, zorroot said:

4. In the campaign, it is possible that you are blockaded. In this case, there is a very important value, the power projection (short pp).

It's been my estimation that short pp is responsible for many, many war declarations in history.

[Andvarus]

9 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Wrong.  The British didn't have a superfiring dreadnought until HMS Neptune, several classes after Dreadnought herself.  The Germans didn't have one until the Kaiser class.  Fuso was 1915, almost a decade after Dreadnought and following the Kawachis. The earliest superfiring design is also the first design to have ABXY superfiring: the South Carolina-class battleships built by the USA, commissioned 1910.

Your right somehow I had in mind that HMS Bellerophon was using Superfiring turrets. But that doesn't invalid my argument since Superfiring guns were allready around since 1899. Granted not of the same calibre and not big battleship guns but it still was a proven concept that only needed to be scaled up, which the British did with the HMS Neptune followed by South-Carolina. 

But please keep in mind that the ships had a building time of about 2 years each, the fact that the first Superfiring Battleship was build in 1909, 3 years after Dreadnought still shows that there were only few classes in fact that didn't use superfiring turrets and speaking for the Navys, The US had never build a battleship without superfiring guns, and Japs only build the Kawachii's which were followed by the Kongo's (I know Fast Battleship/Battlecruiser-> STILL BIG GUNS). 

And to get back to my rant about the French Dreadnought I hull, it is totally inaccurate cause the very first french dreadnought was Danton which was pretty simlar to the Nassau/Kawachi. The ships following Daton were allready the Coubet-Class Battleship in 1910, which were using superfiring Turrets, ABXY to be precise.

I hope you get my drift now.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Andvarus

[Candle_86]

18 minutes ago, Andvarus said:

Your right somehow I had in mind that HMS Bellerophon was using Superfiring turrets. But that doesn't invalid my argument since Superfiring guns were allready around since 1899. Granted not of the same calibre and not big battleship guns but it still was a proven concept that only needed to be scaled up, which the British did with the HMS Neptune followed by South-Carolina. 

But please keep in mind that the ships had a building time of about 2 years each, the fact that the first Superfiring Battleship was build in 1909, 3 years after Dreadnought still shows that there were only few classes in fact that didn't use superfiring turrets and speaking for the Navys, The US had never build a battleship without superfiring guns, and Japs only build the Kawachii's which were followed by the Kongo's (I know Fast Battleship/Battlecruiser-> STILL BIG GUNS). 

And to get back to my rant about the French Dreadnought I hull, it is totally inaccurate cause the very first french dreadnought was Danton which was pretty simlar to the Nassau/Kawachi. The ships following Daton were allready the Coubet-Class Battleship in 1910, which were using superfiring Turrets, ABXY to be precise.

I hope you get my drift now.

South Carolina did it first fyi, she was laid down at the same time as dreadnaught, the US was just slow to build

 

[SpardaSon21]

1 hour ago, Candle_86 said:

South Carolina did it first fyi, she was laid down at the same time as dreadnaught, the US was just slow to build

 

Correct.  According to Wikipedia HMS Neptune was laid down in 1909, commissioned 1911.  South Carolina laid down in 1906, commissioned 1910.  Following HMS Dreadnought's introduction into service soon after the two South Carolinas were laid down, the USA ordered the two ships of the Delaware class.  Both laid down at the end of 1907, commissioned in 1910.  The Delawares had an all-centerline five turret, 10 gun broadside, which was two more guns than anyone else had available.

 

2 hours ago, Andvarus said:

Your right somehow I had in mind that HMS Bellerophon was using Superfiring turrets. But that doesn't invalid my argument since Superfiring guns were allready around since 1899. Granted not of the same calibre and not big battleship guns but it still was a proven concept that only needed to be scaled up, which the British did with the HMS Neptune followed by South-Carolina. 

But please keep in mind that the ships had a building time of about 2 years each, the fact that the first Superfiring Battleship was build in 1909, 3 years after Dreadnought still shows that there were only few classes in fact that didn't use superfiring turrets and speaking for the Navys, The US had never build a battleship without superfiring guns, and Japs only build the Kawachii's which were followed by the Kongo's (I know Fast Battleship/Battlecruiser-> STILL BIG GUNS). 

And to get back to my rant about the French Dreadnought I hull, it is totally inaccurate cause the very first french dreadnought was Danton which was pretty simlar to the Nassau/Kawachi. The ships following Daton were allready the Coubet-Class Battleship in 1910, which were using superfiring Turrets, ABXY to be precise.

I hope you get my drift now.

That's correct for the French and the Japanese.  Dante Alighieri commissioned in 1913  by the Italians was not superfiring at all, nor were the many German dreadnought designs until the Kaiser-class was introduced into service in 1912.  And Courbet, Kaiser, and Neptune all relied upon wing turrets for part of their broadside.  The Russians being the Russians never laid down a superfiring design until Stalin ordered the Sovetsky Soyuz class.

Of course, we are all forgetting Brazil with the Minas Geraes class, ordered by them to be built in England, and the second class laid down with ABXY superfiring.

[Andvarus]

2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

That's correct for the French and the Japanese.  Dante Alighieri commissioned in 1913  by the Italians was not superfiring at all, nor were the many German dreadnought designs until the Kaiser-class was introduced into service in 1912.  And Courbet, Kaiser, and Neptune all relied upon wing turrets for part of their broadside.  The Russians being the Russians never laid down a superfiring design until Stalin ordered the Sovetsky Soyuz class.

Of course, we are all forgetting Brazil with the Minas Geraes class, ordered by them to be built in England, and the second class laid down with ABXY superfiring.

The many German Dreadnoughts before Kaiser-Class........ it is really annoying if you start smart assing here. I might be wrong but it seems like all you can do is read a Wikipage and start posting here on the forum. 

FYI Kaiser was the third Class of Dreadnought Typ Ships that were build by Germany. Just because the Brits decided to only build one of the Dreadnought-Class Ships and one Neptune-Class ship doesn't mean the brits were any better than the germans. 

British Dreadnought Classes

1. Dreadnought (launched in febuary 1906)
2. Bellerophon
3. St. Vincent 
4. Neptune -> Superfiring (commissioned January 1911)

German Dreadnought Classes

1. Nassau (started construction July 1907)
2. Helgoland
3. Kaiser -> Superfiring ( started constructuion October 1909, commissioned August 1912)
4. König -> Superfiring

US Dreadnought Classes:

1. South Carolina -> Superfiring (started construction December 1906, commissioned March 1910)
2. Delaware -> Superfiring
3. Florida -> Superfiring 
4. Wyomming -> first Class with 6 centerline turrets and 3 Superfring pairs

I could go on with the Brazilain Minas Geraes, the Chilean Almirante Latorre or the Argentine Rivadavia-Classes from the South American Dreadnought race. 

So please stop nitpicking on every comment that is made about the Superfiring guns!

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, Andvarus said:

The many German Dreadnoughts before Kaiser-Class........ it is really annoying if you start smart assing here. I might be wrong but it seems like all you can do is read a Wikipage and start posting here on the forum. 

FYI Kaiser was the third Class of Dreadnought Typ Ships that were build by Germany. Just because the Brits decided to only build one of the Dreadnought-Class Ships and one Neptune-Class ship doesn't mean the brits were any better than the germans. 

British Dreadnought Classes

1. Dreadnought (launched in febuary 1906)
2. Bellerophon
3. St. Vincent 
4. Neptune -> Superfiring (commissioned January 1911)

German Dreadnought Classes

1. Nassau (started construction July 1907)
2. Helgoland
3. Kaiser -> Superfiring ( started constructuion October 1909, commissioned August 1912)
4. König -> Superfiring

US Dreadnought Classes:

1. South Carolina -> Superfiring (started construction December 1906, commissioned March 1910)
2. Delaware -> Superfiring
3. Florida -> Superfiring 
4. Wyomming -> first Class with 6 centerline turrets and 3 Superfring pairs

I could go on with the Brazilain Minas Geraes, the Chilean Almirante Latorre or the Argentine Rivadavia-Classes from the South American Dreadnought race. 

So please stop nitpicking on every comment that is made about the Superfiring guns!

See? This is why I said that there should be more pre dreadnought hulls that allowed side turrets, even if the smallest ones... I know that the game aims to be historic, but at the same time it is supposed to be about creating your own ships, not only reproducing the historic ones. The issue is that by the time you get hulls that finally can use wing guns, they are already pretty much obsolete. Making them a redundant tech that could pretty much be removed. Also, there should be looked upon the chance of including specific semi dreadnought hulls (all big gun, multicaliber ships) at the end of the pre-dreadnought era.

[Captain Meow]

@Nick Thomadis

While you guys made the ship to not suddenly stop when it begins to sink, there's still some clear visual change between before sinking & once starting to sink. Like if the ship's list suddenly changes.  Better seen at 45:23 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlIlfHVZTUU

Please, make it so that the visual transition between statuses is smooth.

[SpardaSon21]

3 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

See? This is why I said that there should be more pre dreadnought hulls that allowed side turrets, even if the smallest ones... I know that the game aims to be historic, but at the same time it is supposed to be about creating your own ships, not only reproducing the historic ones. The issue is that by the time you get hulls that finally can use wing guns, they are already pretty much obsolete. Making them a redundant tech that could pretty much be removed. Also, there should be looked upon the chance of including specific semi dreadnought hulls (all big gun, multicaliber ships) at the end of the pre-dreadnought era.

Agreed.  They are definitely lacking.  Especially since guns scale up faster in size than allowed hull size.  Hopefully with the beam and length changes we can finally fit those four wing turrets Germans had.

That is of course, not forgetting the various semi-dreads.  Still waiting on 9 and 8 inch secondary turrets and 7 inch casemates.

Edited February 16, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[Captain Meow]

Wish it was possible to also change length of the hull smoothly by adding/excluding midsection blocks like 10m in length.  So far the hull length changes with displacement slider & for every hull model there's only 2-3 length versions.  
Not sure if changing length by visually stretching/distorting the hull would be a good way though.  

Hopefully with the upcoming changeable beam I could make an accurate looking HMS Dreadnought without overhanging side turrets!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Captain Meow

[The PC Collector]

3 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:

Wish it was possible to also change length of the hull smoothly by adding/excluding several midsection blocks like 10m in length.  So far the hull length changes with displacement slider & for every hull model there's only 2-3 length versions.  
Not sure if changing length by visually stretching/distorting the hull would be a good way though.  

Hopefully with the upcoming changeable beam I could make an accurate looking HMS dreadnought without overhanging side turrets!

Agree. I had the same problem with the España and the Helgoland. And reproducing the Radetzky was simply impossible.

[Captain Meow]

2 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Agree. I had the same problem with the España and the Helgoland. And reproducing the Radetzky was simply impossible.

It's very annoying that even though you have like every part to accurately build a some existed ship, eventually you find there's just something that doesn't work well. Overhanging side turrets for HMS Dreadnought or go with smaller caliber to have them within the beam, shortened hull length between midships side turrets & aft side turrets for hull of the French Massena, turreted versions of 51-76mm deck guns for Russian hulls of 1890-1905 when that's not how it was or go without them, very long hull than the original 1890's Brandenburg had, same tower for all US BBs & BCs during 1930-1940, etc. 

[The PC Collector]

2 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:

It's very annoying that even though you have like every part to accurately build a some existed ship, eventually you find there's just something that doesn't work well. Overhanging side turrets for HMS Dreadnought or go with smaller caliber to have them within the beam, shortened hull length between midships side turrets & aft side turrets for hull of the French Massena, turreted versions of 51-76mm deck guns for Russian hulls of 1890-1905 when that's not how it was or go without them, very long hull than the original 1890's Brandenburg had, same tower for all US BBs & BCs during 1930-1940, etc. 

Yeah. And those french Ironclads, in which the Pelayo is supposed to be based off, yet the Pelayo is not buildable because they don't admit the 11" wing turrets she had.

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Agreed.  They are definitely lacking.  Especially since guns scale up faster in size than allowed hull size.  Hopefully with the beam and length changes we can finally fit those four wing turrets Germans had.

That is of course, not forgetting the various semi-dreads.  Still waiting on 9 and 8 inch secondary turrets and 7 inch casemates.

And let's not forget 8" casemate main guns for Armoured Cruisers, and 6" casemate main guns for protected/ light cruisers. For crying out loud, even by the mid 1920s there where still CLs being built with casemate mounted main guns (Yes, Omaha and Svetlana, I'm looking at you) yet the option for casemate mounted main guns isn't even available.

Edited February 16, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Captain Meow]

7 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

And let's not forget 8" casemate main guns for Armoured Cruisers, and 6" casemate main guns for protected/ light cruisers. For crying out loud, even by the mid 1920s there where still CLs being built with casemate mounted main guns (Yes, Omaha and Svetlana, I'm looking at you) yet the option for casemate mounted main guns isn't even available.

Exactly, too many restrictions.  There's a hull & parts that allow to visually recreate the Powerful-class CA, but not allowed to have the length & casemate arrangement of the real ship.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Captain Meow

[Hale]

I'm hoping this is addressed in the next patch.  There is no reason why undamaged ships should be running into each other before contacting the enemy while moving into formation. 

 

 

[Hale]

Also, I'm not sure what my screening and scouting force is doing in this instance.