Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Upcoming “Update v1.09” News [07/10/2022]


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

Question since the USA is comming any plans to get a hull out that can better do Delware - Texas classes, right now Dreadnaught 1 and 2 are only really useful for South Carolina, and possibly early standard types as there is no way to fit 5 center line turrets on them, and Dreanaught hull 3 from what i can tell was never once used by the US, I understand it's likely a place holder but wondering if this is going to be addressed, because if not the US is at a massive disadvantage with only really being able to deploy 8 guns with dual turrets unless they rapid tech turret mech for triples, while classes like Wyoming had 6 centerline 12in guns

My other concern is the fact that unless your changing it, we don't get induced draft boilers until nearly 1900, when there is historical proof this technology was in use in navy's by the 1880's, there is zero reason not to make induced boilers baseline for an 1890 start, same thing with nickle steel armor, both should be baseline for an 1890 start because both are 1880's tech. Same goes for Triple Expansion Steam Engines. By all means keep Iron, Compound, and basic steam engines, they are cheaper options that can be used for cheap or less important ships, but Induced Boilers, Triple Expansion Engines, and Nickle Steel Armor should be baseline for an 1890 start.

Edited by Candle_86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SodaBit said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that hull forms shouldn't be restricted by nationality in the campaign. An AI with "historical personality" should learn more towards using hulls that its nation historically used, but seriously, there's no real reason I can think of that should stop folks from using the hulls they want to use. This isn't just going to be a problem for USN players. Between the years 1909 and 1915, Great Britain gets access to Dreadnought 3, 4, and 5, but a decent number of players won't use them, myself included, because the lines of this hull are based on SMS Seydlitz, meaning they can be a royal pain in the ass to balance, and limit the player's options with regards to armament layout. I really don't see why we can't give players the option of choosing what their hulls look like, as players who want to experiment with new designs would be able to do so, and players who want to go with more historically authentic designs maintain their ability to do so.

Edit: And if we're going to stick to having flat hulls in particular, and not just hulls a player doesn't like personally, or are annoying to deal with, then we're going to have to talk about the Japanese. They start off with their Dreadnought 1 hull being flat in 1905, but it really is just bad news from there. The IJN has to wait until 1927 in order to get a new flat hull BB, in the form of Modern Battleship 1. And before anyone mentiones the Allegedly Flat Modernized Dreadnought 1, which is supposed to be, as the name suggests, a modernized version of Japan's original flat hull Dreadnought, I should note:
7rv7sTO.jpg
That Hull Isn't Actually Flat.

Also, if we're going with hulls similar to the ones nations used historically, why do the Brits get to use Seydlitz's lines? Was she really that similar to some of the super dreadnoughts that her lines are adequate for representing these classes in game?

So yes III-V kinda suck for brittian, they are similar to hull forms used on their late 12in and 13.5in ships, not excatly but close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SodaBit said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that hull forms shouldn't be restricted by nationality in the campaign. An AI with "historical personality" should learn more towards using hulls that its nation historically used, but seriously, there's no real reason I can think of that should stop folks from using the hulls they want to use. This isn't just going to be a problem for USN players. Between the years 1909 and 1915, Great Britain gets access to Dreadnought 3, 4, and 5, but a decent number of players won't use them, myself included, because the lines of this hull are based on SMS Seydlitz, meaning they can be a royal pain in the ass to balance, and limit the player's options with regards to armament layout. I really don't see why we can't give players the option of choosing what their hulls look like, as players who want to experiment with new designs would be able to do so, and players who want to go with more historically authentic designs maintain their ability to do so.

Edit: And if we're going to stick to having flat hulls in particular, and not just hulls a player doesn't like personally, or are annoying to deal with, then we're going to have to talk about the Japanese. They start off with their Dreadnought 1 hull being flat in 1905, but it really is just bad news from there. The IJN has to wait until 1927 in order to get a new flat hull BB, in the form of Modern Battleship 1. And before anyone mentiones the Allegedly Flat Modernized Dreadnought 1, which is supposed to be, as the name suggests, a modernized version of Japan's original flat hull Dreadnought, I should note:
7rv7sTO.jpg
That Hull Isn't Actually Flat.

Also, if we're going with hulls similar to the ones nations used historically, why do the Brits get to use Seydlitz's lines? Was she really that similar to some of the super dreadnoughts that her lines are adequate for representing these classes in game?

Oh, I think some of the gaps in hull lines are down to the fact that modelers are way behind. But as for market demand, US market demand, it's going to require some expediency to fill those gaps, they're too wide.

Though, all nations can have a flat deck in 1910 but each nation should have their own variant style, e.g. forwards castle, aft castle, mid castle etc. So then, I don’t think there should be any across overs of those styles. I.e. want to build a style, campaign the nation.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

...but each nation should have their own variant style...

I share the same opinion. It is much more interesting to see difference between nations according to the historical ship designs. We will still have generic hulls to fill the gaps in some places, that is to be expected. But with time, I am convinced the 3D developer will make enough hulls to make each nation look different and interesting to play.

 

This being said, since it is already a long time since we have new hulls, I was expecting more about the upcoming update.

"The USS Maine (1889) and several ship variants of early technology will enrich the roster of available hulls."

 

Nothing against this. In fact, I prefer to play early campaigns, but with important nations being added I was hoping to see this:

(USA) Cleveland, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Atlanta, Omaha, some USA dds

(Britain) town, County, Leander

(Spain, A-H, China) At least one unique hull for each nation.

 

Maybe another time.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I share the same opinion. It is much more interesting to see difference between nations according to the historical ship designs. We will still have generic hulls to fill the gaps in some places, that is to be expected. But with time, I am convinced the 3D developer will make enough hulls to make each nation look different and interesting to play.

 

This being said, since it is already a long time since we have new hulls, I was expecting more about the upcoming update.

"The USS Maine (1889) and several ship variants of early technology will enrich the roster of available hulls."

 

Nothing against this. In fact, I prefer to play early campaigns, but with important nations being added I was hoping to see this:

(USA) Cleveland, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Atlanta, Omaha, some USA dds

(Britain) town, County, Leander

(Spain, A-H, China) At least one unique hull for each nation.

 

Maybe another time.

 

We also need accurate USA hulls outside of South Caronlina and enlarged South Carolina 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2022 at 10:32 PM, Skeksis said:

Every nation gets its Dreadnought III flat deck hull by or about 1910, except... 

Who else, the United States.

But instead gets a Dreadnought II (USA) in 1912, South Carolina Class, a built-up superstructure hulk with very little design options. And the US doesn't get any flat deck hulls until 1919, and then gets two of them, Dreadnought III and Dreadnought IV.

It seems to me that there is a lack of design options for 1910 campaign starts and a lack of flat deck design options from 1905 (Dreadnought (USA)) to 1919.

For gameplay, Dreadnought II (USA) should be push back to 1906, the year when USS South Carolina was laid down, and Dreadnought III hull availability set to 1910 or at least less than 1914. 

Alot of people are going to be playing the 5 new nations, especially the US.  

Or they could change the South Carolina hull to a Small Dreadnought hull since not only is it massively smaller than any other dreadnought, but we only built a single class to that style, and use the Delaware as the basis for the Dreadnought I hull.  Wyoming and New York can be Dreadnought II, with the early Standards being III, and New Mexico onwards being Dreadnought IV.  But I'm not getting my hopes up there, and neither should you.

You also misunderstood my earlier request.  It wasn't that the USA shouldn't get a Large Armored Cruiser hull, but that it should have a raised central casemate area like our historical designs of that time period had.  The Tennessees were almost 16,000 metric tons fully loaded, which is far heavier than most cruisers of the time, and contrary to how casemate cruisers are designed in game, entirely flat on that central battery, both the hull and deck, allowing players a great deal of room for mounting towers, funnels, and even secondary guns.  If you also look at pictures, there is more than enough room on both bow and stern to mount an extra superfiring main gun turret, allowing said design to be used as an ABXY design.

USS_Montana_ACR13_LOC_15885.jpg

Really, that hull is both much flatter and longer than you think it is.  It is in fact what you might call a midcastle design, as your later post referenced.

And @o Barão the USA absolutely needs all of those proper hulls.  Historically speaking, US cruisers were ton for ton the world's finest.  The Italians designed some better armed and armored ones, but those were Mediterranean race horses with less endurance at cruising speed than US ones had at flank speed.  Even if you don't fill the ship up, you still need to add a lot of displacement if you want the room for 2,000 tons of coal bunkerage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

South Carolina ... Delaware ... Wyoming ... New York ... Dreadnought II ... New Mexico

To keep the US look (style), Dev’s could keep those mid-castle hulks and have Dreadnought III aswell, side by side, then players could have the option of building either or. Suiting everyone.

Ditto for Large Armored Cruisers.

As noted before, my main point is for gameplay or construction fairness, this should override the status-quo.

The real question to answer is, if you had Dreadnought II (USA) and Dreadnought III both available in 1910, which hull would you choose to design? IMO, the majority would choose the latter.

Should mention the US CLs in the same timeframe too, though you could argue CLs for all nations need more options. 

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

But I'm not getting my hopes up there, and neither should you.

 Everyone here who has survived Game Labs development process, has learned not to "get your hopes up"!  

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

The real question to answer is, if you had Dreadnought II (USA) and Dreadnought III both available in 1910, which hull would you choose to design? IMO, the majority would choose the latter.

 

You mean the Dreadnought II (USA) in the game right now?  Well, that hull's a hello kittying joke since its nothing more than the SoCa-style hull.  If it were a Wyoming-style hull with the flat deck and only a few cutouts for secondaries and had room for six main gun turrets, I'd take the US one in a heartbeat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am absolutely stoked about the upcoming addition of the USN to UA:D, I do agree with a lot of people when it comes to the hull choices (or lack thereof) when it comes to the USN. I have voiced my opinions before (especially on the disturbing lack of cruiser designs for multiple nations), and I feel like it is finally time to add in some hulls, towers and ships that actually existed irl. However, there are already two hulls in-game for the USN that I take particular issues with...
 

*All data below comes from Custom Battle Editor (unlock turned OFF) since the USN is not yet a playable campaign nation*

 

Hull Number 1) Dreadnought III, Available in 1919 for USN

I pride myself on being familiar with most USN designs...but THIS hull doesn't ring any bells whatsoever. Suffice to say, it's gotta be a foreign or "blueprint only" design. Because when I think of US battleships with non-flush decks...the ones that come to mind certainly don't have the bow section raised and the other 2/3 of the deck flat, it's usually the center of the ship that is raised, or the superstructure sits there with barbettes built into the superstructure...or the main deck is flat (I'm looking at you Wyoming and New York class) from bow to stern. You can only place the fore tower in a certain number of spots (and even then, despite beam increases) the towers all overhang the front section or can't be placed in certain spots because of the "border" error. And forget about putting a superfiring setup on the bow of this hull, as it makes it too heavy on the front to reasonably try and balance. But, unless you want "South Carolina" or "Bigger South Carolina," it's your only other option...which kinda sucks because of how limited the designs turn out to be. Gun layouts will again be an issue...possibly, since there is no hull (that I'm aware of anyway) that is currently in-game that can make a Wyoming class gun layout (I feel like at least one hull should be able to represent and support a Wyoming class gun arrangement...and don't get me started on the 'uniform gun size, non-uniform number of barrels per turret' thing that we are still dealing with when creating a Nevada class or Pensacola class gun layout of 2 twin turrets and 2 triple turrets).

Hull Number 2) Heavy Cruiser I, Available in 1919 for USN

To start with, you have to increase the beam to 6% (at minimum) to fit the "Tall Advanced Tower II" and "Tall Advanced Tower III." That huge gray box/raised area/boat storage right in the middle that you can't even mount 1.1 inch guns on (despite having the snap points for them)? That's wasted space...what is it there for? You can't mount guns, funnels or torps there, it doesn't change or go away if you change the displacement/beam/draught of your ship and the boats don't go away either. Seriously...it either needs to go, or let us mount something on it...funnels at least, and maybe guns that are 3 inch or smaller. Depending on what towers you put on it (not that really long "Rear Tower IX or "Rear Tower X" though) you can actually get a decently believable Pensacola/Northampton/New Orleans looking cruiser...but if you go for a AB-XY gun layout like on the Pensacolas, the guns on the rear and the funnels that have to go behind the gray box of wasted area make the ship so stern heavy...it's pretty much unbalance able (if you go for a AB-X layout, it isn't so bad, but it could definitely be better). That big gray box amidships either needs to go, or something needs to change so we can...at the very least...mount funnels and small guns on it so it's not just something there that impedes or hampers our design work.

And then there are the light cruisers....or the alarming lack thereof. Starting in 1921, the USN gets access to the "Modern Light Cruiser" hull. Yay....right? Well, it wouldn't be so bad, if that wasn't the only light cruiser hull they get for the remainder of the in-game time span. It's the same hull, with the same boring funnels and same boring "Modern Tower I-V" and "Rear Tower III-VII" (or whatever the numbers/marks happen to be...idk and idc at this point). None of those towers match any USN light cruiser I've ever seen, and starting around the late 20s and early 30s, you start seeing the big name cruisers like Brooklyn, Cleveland, Atlanta...and yet, still no word on whether or not these hulls/towers/guns for those iconic ship classes is in the works. We desperately need some variety in the CLs for multiple nations (the USN aren't the only ones locked to one CL design for 20 years).

The heavy cruisers, well....take your pick: the nearly unbalance able "treaty cruiser" look I discussed above, an upscaled "modern light cruiser," or a downsized Iowa. That's it. Have you heard of the Baltimore class? What about USS Wichita? I'm sure you have...but where are they?

Destroyers as well. Can we get a Fletcher perhaps? Or maybe something that doesn't use that British/European looking main tower once you get to the more modern destroyers on the larger hulls?

Maybe we can get some quad 2 inch guns for the USN as well, since you can downscale those to 1.7 or 1.8 inch guns...roughly the same size as the 40mm Bofors guns that the USN used so much (in both twin and quad varieties) after they decided the 1.1 inch quad barreled "Chicago Piano" AA gun wasn't all that good?

TL;DR There are a lot of hulls, towers and possibly gun models that either need made, reworked, or added to the USN (and other nation's) design options. I realize that we don't have a lot of info about the new hulls and such coming with 1.09 past the USS Maine ACR-1, so I will continue to hold out some hope that we will get the hulls we all so rightly want now that the USN and IJN are coming as playable campaign nations.

Edited by HistoricalAccuracyMan
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nick Thomadis

“Funnel smoke” and “smoke screen” new functionality: Smoke obstruction from funnels no longer causes a permanent accuracy penalty but this penalty is applied according to the direction of the smoke in relation to the target. Furthermore, this smoke obstruction affects other ships which will target with accuracy penalty when their targets are obstructed by the funnel smoke. The same functionality enriches the smoke screen which will now reduce the accuracy for targets that reside behind the smoke screen (not only inside the smoke, as before).

Please say you've just horrendiously misspoke here.....

The whole point of funnels is to take the smoke high enough and dissipate it enough that it doesn't block vision regardless of direction. Shouldn't matter which way the wind is blowing. Also kinda the point why ships have TWO towers, even if the smoke is blowing over one and obscuring it, the 2nd tower should be unobstructed.

Also when are we going to FINALLY get the stats in the designer looked at? It's been a common complaint for at least a year and nothing has changed....
Installing an oxygen generator for my ship's 5 torps shouldn't weigh 1000 tons on one ship and 100 on another because it has a hull weight modifier....
Ditto on maintenance costs, they shouldn't just be a flat 10% of the ship's cost like they are now, some things have better performance but require more money to maintain.
Aux Engines also just doesn't make sense.... All that matters is the amount of power produced, more engines just reduce the effects of engine damage at best. They don't magically improve the performance of turret motors cos you have more power spare. 

And when are the towers going to be sorted so they don't:
1> Have massive unused funnel ports that just cause unneeded pitch by forcing components to the ends of ships
2> Built in barbettutes that are too small for the guns you want to mount

And of course the smaller turret for single/twin guns. A quad 16" turret should be a lot larger than a single 16" turret.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drenzul said:

@Nick Thomadis

“Funnel smoke” and “smoke screen” new functionality: Smoke obstruction from funnels no longer causes a permanent accuracy penalty but this penalty is applied according to the direction of the smoke in relation to the target. Furthermore, this smoke obstruction affects other ships which will target with accuracy penalty when their targets are obstructed by the funnel smoke. The same functionality enriches the smoke screen which will now reduce the accuracy for targets that reside behind the smoke screen (not only inside the smoke, as before).

Please say you've just horrendiously misspoke here.....

The whole point of funnels is to take the smoke high enough and dissipate it enough that it doesn't block vision regardless of direction. Shouldn't matter which way the wind is blowing. Also kinda the point why ships have TWO towers, even if the smoke is blowing over one and obscuring it, the 2nd tower should be unobstructed.

FSHaBnA.jpg

If we are talking about rangefinders, then the changes by the devs in the upcoming update sounds right. The smoke can block the vision in certain situations. You mentioned the rangefinder from the second tower, however you forgot to mention the height difference between the two towers or if both rangefinders are the same size or type, or the fact that the rangefinder in the second tower don't have a 360º arc view. Also, you need to consider that for a gameplay point of view, to make things simple and easier we can only select one rangefinder. There is nothing wrong with this, but we need to understand that there will always exist some limitations. So this solution by the devs, if we take all into consideration, seems to be reasonable, well at least for me.

Edited by o Barão
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drenzul said:

@Nick Thomadis

“Funnel smoke” and “smoke screen” new functionality: Smoke obstruction from funnels no longer causes a permanent accuracy penalty but this penalty is applied according to the direction of the smoke in relation to the target. Furthermore, this smoke obstruction affects other ships which will target with accuracy penalty when their targets are obstructed by the funnel smoke. The same functionality enriches the smoke screen which will now reduce the accuracy for targets that reside behind the smoke screen (not only inside the smoke, as before).

Please say you've just horrendiously misspoke here.....

The whole point of funnels is to take the smoke high enough and dissipate it enough that it doesn't block vision regardless of direction. Shouldn't matter which way the wind is blowing. Also kinda the point why ships have TWO towers, even if the smoke is blowing over one and obscuring it, the 2nd tower should be unobstructed.

Also when are we going to FINALLY get the stats in the designer looked at? It's been a common complaint for at least a year and nothing has changed....
Installing an oxygen generator for my ship's 5 torps shouldn't weigh 1000 tons on one ship and 100 on another because it has a hull weight modifier....
Ditto on maintenance costs, they shouldn't just be a flat 10% of the ship's cost like they are now, some things have better performance but require more money to maintain.
Aux Engines also just doesn't make sense.... All that matters is the amount of power produced, more engines just reduce the effects of engine damage at best. They don't magically improve the performance of turret motors cos you have more power spare. 

And when are the towers going to be sorted so they don't:
1> Have massive unused funnel ports that just cause unneeded pitch by forcing components to the ends of ships
2> Built in barbettutes that are too small for the guns you want to mount

And of course the smaller turret for single/twin guns. A quad 16" turret should be a lot larger than a single 16" turret.

Someties smoke not only affected gun accuracy but prevented guns from firing at all. Wind change or lack of wind resulted with ship being engulfed in smoke ,either from funnels or firing guns. Ships were unable to fire after few salvoes if wind was unfavourable and smoke obscured target. So this is a great improvement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, o Barão said:

FSHaBnA.jpg

If we are talking about rangefinders, then the changes by the devs in the upcoming update sounds right. The smoke can block the vision in certain situations. You mentioned the rangefinder from the second tower, however you forgot to mention the height difference between the two towers or if both rangefinders are the same size or type, or the fact that the rangefinder in the second tower don't have a 360º arc view. Also, you need to consider that for a gameplay point of view, to make things simple and easier we can only select one rangefinder. There is nothing wrong with this, but we need to understand that there will always exist some limitations. So this solution by the devs, if we take all into consideration, seems to be reasonable, well at least for me.

Look in your own image, the rangefinder can see clear over the smoke in a full 360'
Also the height difference only affected maximum range not accuracy of the rangefinder.

8 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Someties smoke not only affected gun accuracy but prevented guns from firing at all. Wind change or lack of wind resulted with ship being engulfed in smoke ,either from funnels or firing guns. Ships were unable to fire after few salvoes if wind was unfavourable and smoke obscured target. So this is a great improvement!

Name 1 example after 1910? Maybe in the case of the damaged and immobilised ship....  or when the ship was in a deliberately created smoke screen sure, otherwise nope.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Name 1 example after 1910? Maybe in the case of the damaged and immobilised ship....  or when the ship was in a deliberately created smoke screen sure, otherwise nope.

The Wikipedia page of french battleship Dunkerque (see source below) explains that the tries at sea showed that smoke from funnel was bothersome for telepointing facilities of main tower. So, in 1938, the funnel top type was changed from "en sifflet" style to "en volute" style (sorry, I don't know how to translate the styles names). The change was done on the Dunkerque and on the Strasbourg. 

Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkerque_(navire_de_ligne)
(This is explained only in french version of the page, not in the english one, sorry. )

Edited by Lastreaumont
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay even more accuracy nerfs 😒 How about maybe finally making 406+ guns usable?

Also please don't tell me i will have to clutter my ship lists with tons of useless and funless DD's... couldn't we just have some passive escort ship bugdet or something to counteract the also passive submarines?

I was excited for full map metioned few weeks ago, but this update don't look too fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, o Barão said:

You should read careful what I said.

" ...or the fact that the rangefinder in the second tower don't have a 360º arc view..."

Yes, I know, I'm talking about the primary tower can still see backwards past the smoke. Smoke has fully dissipated well before it reaches the height of the primary rangefinder.

6 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:

The Wikipedia page of french battleship Dunkerque (see source below) explains that the tries at sea showed that smoke from funnel was bothersome for telepointing facilities of main tower. So, in 1938, the funnel top type was changed from "en sifflet" style to "en volute" style (sorry, I don't know how to translate the styles names). The change was done on the Dunkerque and on the Strasbourg. 

Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkerque_(navire_de_ligne)
(This is explained only in french version of the page, not in the english one, sorry. )

Telepointer is ship to ship comms, that wouldn't affect accuracy now would it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Yes, I know, I'm talking about the primary tower can still see backwards past the smoke. Smoke has fully dissipated well before it reaches the height of the primary rangefinder.

In this example, yes. But only needs for the weather to change or to force the engines to change everything.

iSAfMrc.jpg

Fuso before the rework.

To8X8Z5.jpg

Fuso already with the huge pagoda tower and still the smoke can block the view at some angles.

yA81kJm.jpg

Hood

d9Nwylz.jpg

Hyuga

a5KViMm.jpg

Nagato

0OcTCQl.jpg

Bismarck

 

So as you can see, smoke can be a big problem.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need more new cruiser not small battships.Italia cruiser(it look likes Zara class)is good example.And need new wwii destroyers.The battleships belt armor need set angle.I don't think the multilayer armor protection calculated in the game is correspond to reality

Edited by SMS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Telepointer is ship to ship comms, that wouldn't affect accuracy now would it.

Oh, sorry I probably made a mistake in my translation, when I translated  "installations de télépointage" in "telepointing facilities", because in french, "télépointeur" is the name of an aiming system and I'm pretty sure that performances of an aiming system has something to do with accuracy. :-)

Maybe the correct translation of "télépointeur" is "director". (I discovered this on an english plan of the Richelieu)

On the Wikipedia page of the Richelieu (again only on the page in french, sorry), we can read explanations about the special organisation of the funnel (cubit with aiming system for 152mm guns on the top) was an answer to the smoke problems shown on Dunkerque and Strasbourg. 

Edited by Lastreaumont
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great news, one i was waiting for a very long time. Finally i will be able to have my vengeance against those pesky Americans on pacific. The mighty Imperial navy will rise again!!!! ok, joke aside. This is quite big update that is coming. Now my concern is, do they plan to add more super structures, funnels and that stuff, to be "actually" acurate to the real thing. So far you could not recreate any of the Japanese ships or even American ships, they simply lack proper hulls, super structures, not to mention funnels, both US and IJN have some funnels that came for those ships but most are generic. The same as with Nelson class for British, technically you could re-create it, but it lack that bulky building like superstructure and even real funnels for it.

 

Hope 1.09 came quickly. I think il get myself an Indian nail bed to train patience on it:):):)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...