Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The changes to the armour are terrible and unrealistic


Recommended Posts

The changes to the armour in recent updates are terrible and unrealistic.

Armour now increases in weight to ridiculous levels even after only small changes.

On top of that, they are yet another arbitrary limit when the only limits in the game should be the technology available to you, the shipyard size and the monetary cost associated with the ship.

These changes to the armour need to be undone ASAP.

In a game where the biggest draw is the shipbuilding, these arbitrary and unrealistic limits limit the shipbuilding FAR FAR FAR too much.

And I am at a loss as to why the devs keep making these stupid, useless changes when there are still so many actual issues with the game.

The pitch calculation is screwed beyond belief. A ship with literally nothing on it pitches at a minimum of 20%, which has a negative effect on everything. This is ridiculous. A hull which at a minimum has 20% pitch is useless and wouldnt even make it off the drawing board.

Either recalculate pitch, or have the negative effects of pitch only start climbing above a certain percentage (like 30%) instead of literally punishing a player before they've even placed a single thing on the ship.

Another issue is that the weights of various modules are also still far too high. Radar, Sonar, Hydrophones, Radios, loaders, turret turning apparatus etc are all far too heavy still.

Yet another issue that the devs keep ignoring is the AI. Its still terrible, as is the auto-designer. The campaign is an absolute breeze, even on the hardest difficulty.

 

Edited by akk1990
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, akk1990 said:

Yet another issue that the devs keep ignoring is the AI.

AI is probably the most difficult thing to address when you only have a couple guys to work with. But I agree. Seriously, the whole thing needs work. But the most annoying I think is when I load into a battle, and when I go to x30 my fleet sounds like a bowling alley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2022 at 1:58 AM, Hangar18 said:

the amount of armor you could smack on a ship before was just obscene.

Agreed, it is FAR more realistic now.  Historically ships carried less armor than would think. From a quick Wikipedia search:

Bismarck Class:
Belt: 12.6 in
Turrets: 14.2 in
Main deck: 3.9–4.7 in

Iowa Class:
Belt: 12.1 in
Barbettes: 17.3 in
Turrets: 19.5 in
Main Deck: 6 in

Yamato Class:
Belt 16 in
Turret Face: 26in
Decks: 7.9-9 in


King George V Class:

Belt: 14.7 in
Main turrets: 12.75 in
Barbettes: 12.75 in

Deck: 4.9–5.9 in

Montana Class (As Designed):
Main belt: 16.1 in
Barbettes: 21.3 in
Turret Face: 22.5 in
Deck: 7.1–7.4 in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 5:35 PM, akk1990 said:

Another issue is that the weights of various modules are also still far too high. Radar, Sonar, Hydrophones, Radios, loaders, turret turning apparatus etc are all far too heavy still.

 

I do agree with this somewhat.  Some of the equipment (RDF, Radar, Hydrophones for example) seem overly heavy.  Turret turning apparatus and loaders seems fine tbh, those should be weighty and expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weight of eqipment such as radar is a percentage of the main tower weight. So a radar on a BB with a huge advanced tower will be very heavy and expensive. A radar on a DD will be much lighter and cheaper.
Obviously the BB radar will see farther (as it's also a % of tower spotting) so it's somewhat justified.

My suggestion would be to give radars and sonars and such a base cost/weight, + a percentage of the tower weight. They should then ideally be lighter than they currently are when mounted on a BB, but heavier and more expensive on a DD than it is currently. The largest and most advanced radar might not fit on a DD at all.
This should give CL's more of a role as they would more easily be able to fit a radar and other comms equipment.

Turret traverse and loading equipment is fine as a pure % of the turret cost/weight. The size of these would be relative to the guns they're equipped to anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2022 at 6:07 PM, Heet said:

Agreed, it is FAR more realistic now.  Historically ships carried less armor than would think. From a quick Wikipedia search:

Bismarck Class:
Belt: 12.6 in
Turrets: 14.2 in
Main deck: 3.9–4.7 in

Iowa Class:
Belt: 12.1 in
Barbettes: 17.3 in
Turrets: 19.5 in
Main Deck: 6 in

Yamato Class:
Belt 16 in
Turret Face: 26in
Decks: 7.9-9 in


King George V Class:

Belt: 14.7 in
Main turrets: 12.75 in
Barbettes: 12.75 in

Deck: 4.9–5.9 in

Montana Class (As Designed):
Main belt: 16.1 in
Barbettes: 21.3 in
Turret Face: 22.5 in
Deck: 7.1–7.4 in

Yeah but the difference is that a main belt of 16" armour would basically block 18" shells at mid-range entirely.
The 26" gun facing armour on the Yamato was believed to be basically immune to damage from 18" shells even at point blank range. 
We have more armour but it's less effective.

11 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

The weight of eqipment such as radar is a percentage of the main tower weight. So a radar on a BB with a huge advanced tower will be very heavy and expensive. A radar on a DD will be much lighter and cheaper.
Obviously the BB radar will see farther (as it's also a % of tower spotting) so it's somewhat justified.

My suggestion would be to give radars and sonars and such a base cost/weight, + a percentage of the tower weight. They should then ideally be lighter than they currently are when mounted on a BB, but heavier and more expensive on a DD than it is currently. The largest and most advanced radar might not fit on a DD at all.
This should give CL's more of a role as they would more easily be able to fit a radar and other comms equipment.

Turret traverse and loading equipment is fine as a pure % of the turret cost/weight. The size of these would be relative to the guns they're equipped to anyway.

Better way of doing it would be to give Radar range a slider and have it not based on tower weight at all. 
So it has a base cost/weight (for the "you must have this no matter the radar size" components) and a slider allowing you to increase radar range up to a maximum based on your tower height.

Sonar should be the same except it's base range is automatically reduced the louder the ship that carries it is. The props of a BB make a lot more noise in the water than the props of the CL and you need to compensate for that with a better sonar array. Ideally moving at full speed would also reduce your sonar effectiveness as you start to get cavitation around the prop blades which makes it even louder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

My suggestion would be to give radars and sonars and such a base cost/weight, + a percentage of the tower weight. They should then ideally be lighter than they currently are when mounted on a BB, but heavier and more expensive on a DD than it is currently. The largest and most advanced radar might not fit on a DD at all.
This should give CL's more of a role as they would more easily be able to fit a radar and other comms equipment.
 

Quote

Better way of doing it would be to give Radar range a slider and have it not based on tower weight at all. 

There are already a lot of sliders in the game, too many more would really start to clutter things up. If the suggestion above was adopted the radar range could automatically adjust based on the above equation. And if you wanted a lighter radar on your battleship, sacrificing range, then you could pick a less advanced version of the tech. Or older radar heavier and less effective and the newer lighter and more effective (but more expensive), whichever is more accurate to history. I'm assuming more advanced radars were heavier though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 8:41 PM, Hibbidyhai said:

There are already a lot of sliders in the game, too many more would really start to clutter things up. If the suggestion above was adopted the radar range could automatically adjust based on the above equation. And if you wanted a lighter radar on your battleship, sacrificing range, then you could pick a less advanced version of the tech. Or older radar heavier and less effective and the newer lighter and more effective (but more expensive), whichever is more accurate to history. I'm assuming more advanced radars were heavier though.

Not really for the same range. You are paying for the range increase. A more advanced radar with the range of the previous generation would be lighter than one from the previous generation and not always more expensive although it often would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about something like the curret weapon selection?
We can choose different sizes of guns, from 2" to 20". Not all guns fit on all ships (you can't fit a 20" on a DD). Each gun gan be made more advanced by researching MkII, III, IV, and so on.

What if radars were split into large, medium, and small? The larger ones having more range, but are physically so large and heavy you just can't fit them on a DD, and fitting them on cruisers requires you to make a lot of sacrifices in other areas to not surpass the displacement limit.
Then you can research newer generations of the radars, like you research new marks of gun sizes, that give them even better range and better accuracy bonuses.

Will a generation 3 small radar have better range than a generation 1 large radar? Probably not, as the height and size of the antenna would matter a lot, but it would give better bonuses to accuracy.

No sliders required, just pick the size you want, and your tech level decides if it's a gen 1 or gen 3, just like with guns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...