Limit hardpoints for Main Weapons

[Candle_86]

So 6 main battery turrents should be the max period, the reason being historical fact, it was difficult to place even 6 main battery turrents as you had to now store shells and powder next to steam lines ect, and it also limited the power plant of a ship. I like that you've given us the option to go ham, but I think anything over 4 should decrease range or accuracy because your powder is now stored in an enviroment much warmer than ideal, and over 6 should just be a no, that includes wing turrets, just say no to more than 6. I'd say 4 is max without penality, this is why the American's when they did the standard classes settled on 4, because the New York class and all precedding classes with 5/6 turrents had issues with powder degrading quicker thanks to storage conditions. Just a thought

Edited January 30, 2022 by Candle_86

[AurumCorvus]

Just no. You're trading an organic limit for an artificial one. In fact, it's not even necessary to do so given the current state of the game.

Fact of the matter is that you're looking at the wrong area(s) for the limit. Actually try to fit a full 7 turrets on a ship. You'll run up hard against quite a few organic limits.

First, sheer tonnage. That point about crowding the powerplant and stuff? It's already modeled in a sense because you have to dedicate a lot of tonnage to this. You have to drop a lot of armor and engines to get it to fit.

Second, length/width of the ship. You have to fit superstructure, funnels, etc. In most ships, you can't fit more than five centerline turrets unless you optimize and fit them extremely closely (which hurts your firing arcs).

The fact of the matter is that while the community puts up meme ships with extreme guns, they are horribly flawed and not practical designs. To actually hit the 7 turret limit, you have to be using fairly small guns on the largest of hulls (while your opponent will bring a few 18-20s and just blow you out of the water).

As a final note, in the campaign, it's not like the game just hands you 7 turrets from the start. That's actually a very late tech, and most of the game, you're actually limited much more strictly.

[Candle_86]

2 hours ago, AurumCorvus said:

Just no. You're trading an organic limit for an artificial one. In fact, it's not even necessary to do so given the current state of the game.

Fact of the matter is that you're looking at the wrong area(s) for the limit. Actually try to fit a full 7 turrets on a ship. You'll run up hard against quite a few organic limits.

First, sheer tonnage. That point about crowding the powerplant and stuff? It's already modeled in a sense because you have to dedicate a lot of tonnage to this. You have to drop a lot of armor and engines to get it to fit.

Second, length/width of the ship. You have to fit superstructure, funnels, etc. In most ships, you can't fit more than five centerline turrets unless you optimize and fit them extremely closely (which hurts your firing arcs).

The fact of the matter is that while the community puts up meme ships with extreme guns, they are horribly flawed and not practical designs. To actually hit the 7 turret limit, you have to be using fairly small guns on the largest of hulls (while your opponent will bring a few 18-20s and just blow you out of the water).

As a final note, in the campaign, it's not like the game just hands you 7 turrets from the start. That's actually a very late tech, and most of the game, you're actually limited much more strictly.

Except I did design and build a 43,000 ton dreadnought with 11in guns with 4 centerline, and 4 wing turrents, giving me 8 turrents total, something that no navy would have ever done because of the problems of routing the steam  through the ship. Germany did use 11in guns historically in her dreadnoughts also, so the main caliber isn't unrealistic 

[AurumCorvus]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agincourt_(1913)

Seven centerline turrets with about 3/4s that displacement with a bigger caliber. Your point?

Also, convenient that you completely omitted how much armor and engine you were able to fit into that after your guns. You almost certainly had weak armor or speed. And yes, weaker speed can make room for better armament (see Montana vs Iowa for a very obvious and well documented  differences. N3 and G3 as well.). For armor, there are plenty of Japanese capitals that demonstrate that you can get better firepower by sacrificing armor.

Finally, on 43k dreadnought, using 11s is horribly weak. That's generally 13s or 14s (maybe 15s) range.

The organic limit works. There is no need for the devs to tie our hands with an artificial limit and stifle interesting possibilities.

On a related/separate note, why are you so worried about this? It's a single player game. If you feel it's immersion breaking, let me give you one awesome tip (drumroll please): just don't make these ships. Surely that's not hard?

[Candle_86]

To me it's just not even close to what would have been done, as for armor no, I kept 13in main, 6 fore and aft, 3in deck, and 2.5in fore and aft deck with a 2in super structure, and 12in turrent armor wtih 2.5in roof. Speed was 23knots, not lighting fast but reasonable for a dreadnought, and i didn't have to use forced induction so got all the weight savings from geared turbines. I don't make ships like that, i just think it should be modled properly, sure have that many hardpoints, but it should be a loss to something if your running a steam plant, now diesel and gas turbine sure no steam lines throught the ship, but with a steamplant there should be a penality just so it's more realistic. 

[nightraven1901]

I wholly disagree, OP. I want unlimited turrets excepting what I can physically fit. But hey, thanks for your opinion, mate,