PhoenixLP44 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Is it just me or is that main tower a tad bit too heavy? I mean sure Rangefinders, Radar and RDF aren't light but adding almost 2k tons to the main tower? What? Also how can this tower be heavier without any upgrades than the entirety of the hull with all of its upgrades? I am no expert but something doesn't seem right... Also cost... For that amount of money I could buy a Ticonderoga class cruiser. Even if you adjust it for inflation you still get somewhere around 68 Million which is about half the cost of an Iowa class BATTLESHIP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougToss Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 I keep thinking that copying RTW and having the AI designs follow templates with variations on very defined things within certain parameters, is the way to go. For example, suppose if a ship has 10 guns in 4 turrets, paired fore and aft, if the double turrets are placed ahead of the triple turrets, or vice versa. Other than that, these designs are so anarchic, and have been since the very start, that it's always been an issued. Too fast, over gunned, a wild mix of calibres on the same ship and on and on. Now it's too many torpedoes. Surely defining the layouts (perhaps even by nation) most common for fighting ships by decade is easier than trying to get the AI to become a naval architect through trial and error? The idea of procedurally designed AI ships is neat. It's also clearly not working as intended. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 That was the general idea behind making a ship pack of shared designs, it just that with the game updates frequently making designs invalid it’s a bit of a Sisyphean task 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Khyron Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 That, and the fact that the starting technology often is too low to make even low-end shared-designs work, prompting the AI to develop, well, the above torpedo boats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuikaku Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) All of the hulls are now bow heavy. Extremely bow heavy and out of balance- are the bows suddenly made of led or with mini black hole imbedded in? It is very hard to build valanced design without getting strange designs with crammed sterns, machineries pulled to the extreme stern of the ship and needing to compensate with heavy stern armour. Was this intentional? And also, funnels are overly effective. On most designs one funnel, even the smallest is now sufficient to get engine efficiency well over 100% where previously multiple funnels togetjer with boiler techs were required. This feels like giant step back... Edited August 21 by Zuikaku 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 On 8/19/2024 at 6:25 PM, PhoenixLP44 said: I mean sure Rangefinders, Radar and RDF aren't light but adding almost 2k tons to the main tower? I've no idea what the hell dev's believe these things were made from, nor how heavy they should be, but in RL, a range finder is basically a long hollow tube fitted with an assortment of lenses, prisims and mirrors with an eclectic mixture of gearing to pull things into focus. Mass should register in tons, singular, rather than hundreds. RADAR... I've been digging into this quite a bit over the past few months. I reckon you could recreate the entire Chain Home and Chain Home Low network, for the entire UK and still have mass to spare compared to the weight penalty of fitting any Gen of RADAR to a single capitol ship in game. RDF is simply a conventional radio receiver fitted to a steerable narrow beam antenna. Mass would be in Kilos rather than tons. Irrespective of system, most of the mass attributed to it would be installed as deep in the hull as practicable to avoid disturbing metacentric height, and contribute to the stability of your gun platform. Irrespective of the ship type, the only major differences in installing RADAR on a DD or BB would be the number of repeaters installed, and the amount of power and shielded cabling to connect to those repeaters. Granted, old school cable was hardly lightweight stuff, but there's no way an entire capitol ships electrical/electronics system would weight a fraction of the in game weight penalty. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPorkulusx Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 hours ago, justMike247 said: I've no idea what the hell dev's believe these things were made from, nor how heavy they should be, but in RL, a range finder is basically a long hollow tube fitted with an assortment of lenses, prisims and mirrors with an eclectic mixture of gearing to pull things into focus. Mass should register in tons, singular, rather than hundreds. RADAR... I've been digging into this quite a bit over the past few months. I reckon you could recreate the entire Chain Home and Chain Home Low network, for the entire UK and still have mass to spare compared to the weight penalty of fitting any Gen of RADAR to a single capitol ship in game. RDF is simply a conventional radio receiver fitted to a steerable narrow beam antenna. Mass would be in Kilos rather than tons. Irrespective of system, most of the mass attributed to it would be installed as deep in the hull as practicable to avoid disturbing metacentric height, and contribute to the stability of your gun platform. Irrespective of the ship type, the only major differences in installing RADAR on a DD or BB would be the number of repeaters installed, and the amount of power and shielded cabling to connect to those repeaters. Granted, old school cable was hardly lightweight stuff, but there's no way an entire capitol ships electrical/electronics system would weight a fraction of the in game weight penalty. Agreed. If the devs want to limit the use of this kind of equipment in-game, it should be balanced more so by cost (which should probably change over the course of the campaign, getting cheaper over time) instead of weight. Though it should be noted, the "rangefinder" upgrade would probably make more sense if it was referring to fire control director systems, as those are relatively bulky. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tja1598 PETEs DAD Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Россия вперед 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 Tell Pete i said to hello kitty himself and to get smoked by artillery! hello kitty GameLabs for blocking me and hello kitty Ukraine for making inflation go up!! Россия вперед 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Yet More Faults I’ve already outlined multiple times that any system with an 80% failure rate before it reaches any intended target, with 90% dud rate for the remaining percentage is NOT a weapons system, it’s merely ballast. In this latest iteration of the game, I’ve found yet another fault with it. I’ve tracked this trend over the previous half dozen battles; more than enough to establish this as a bug rather than temporary glitch. At my current stage in the game, it’s 1919, my fleet DD’s are built on a 1300 ton hull with 2x twin 19” launchers. Torpedo range is currently 7.5km. When I detach a formation of DD’s to attack a target, I set launcher status from OFF to Save to allow launchers to track the target while trying to steer an intercept course that will allow launch at a range sufficiently close to compensate for the grossly obtuse firing arc the tubes generate. Once within what I believe is a decent firing range, I change launcher status to Aggressive to force the formation to fire. Over the course of the last half dozen battles, the tubes… don’t fire. They track, the range closes to a minimum of 1.5km at times, with my DD’s holding as straight a track as AI allows, yet still, despite the tubes bearing at the target, the target presenting a broadside aspect, and being well within range of the torpedoes, the fish just… refuse to launch. The thought struck me that all the updates we’ve had since rev 1.4 have been nothing more than a test; with no update addressing any of the fundamental faults in the game, the test is simply, how much horsechit are we prepared to swallow before giving up on the game and demanding refunds? While I’m venting… The dev’s seriously need to make up their minds about how our fleets rearm and refuel. Occasionally it happens magically, no doubt supplied by the tooth fairy. At other times, there’s no resupply, leaving you looking foolish when the game decides that this particular formation is ripe for an engagement. Personally I don’t care whether resupply needs to be done in port or automatically; what is seriously annoying is its entirely random nature. There’s precious little reference to which fleet is being engaged, making it a protracted exercise to discover which fleet you need to send to refuel/rearm. That particular exercise is made nigh on impossible when the game persists in stacking fleet icons on top of each other, making selection extremely difficult. But the muppetry doesn’t end there. Refuelling was an exercise that could be completed in a single DAY, NOT multiple MONTHS. Hell, by the 1940’s, at-sea replenishment could be completed within a few hours. Likewise, rearming. Additionally, I’d love to find even ONE SINGLE REFERENCE re when ANY ships captain has EVER decided to take his supply-deficient ship off without orders to go privateering. This insanity is a default action in-game. THIS NEEDS TO STOP!!! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoenixLP44 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 hours ago, tja1598 PETEs DAD said: Россия вперед 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 Tell Pete i said to hello kitty himself and to get smoked by artillery! hello kitty GameLabs for blocking me and hello kitty Ukraine for making inflation go up!! Россия вперед 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a classic brownie recipie 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Hey @justMike247 I know exactly what you’re talking about with the torps, I have long wished for a ‘I don’t care what you think - fire the damn torpedoes’ button. However, as many people have admonished me for, the torpedo tubes don’t track when set to off. Torpedo crews really don’t seem to like the ship doing any sort of course change either (probably because turrets and such seem to rotate relative to the battlescape not the ship). And lastly they also seem to love leading a target ship a bit more than you expect (or sometimes want). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzergraf Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Also worth pointing out with torps; torpedo crews seem to be the first to die, and with reduced crew manning the launchers they are even slower to track and launch than usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 55 minutes ago, brothermunro said: Hey @justMike247 I know exactly what you’re talking about with the torps, I have long wished for a ‘I don’t care what you think - fire the damn torpedoes’ button. That's a dangerously spooky thing to wish for, given the A.I.'s habbit of launching straight into the Khyber Pass of your own fleet... I've lost count of the number of times when only a fraction of a DD detachment will actually launch, primarily because they've gone into headless chicken mode having detected someone else's torpedoes in the water. But it's only in the last couple of days I've seen a perfect shooting opportunity under as close to optimum conditions as I can generate (allowing for DD's getting three bails shot out of them while on their run) and not one single fish goes over the side... To address Panzergraf's point, my torps have a range of 7.2 clicks, I activated Save mode to start tracking at 10 clicks, switching to Aggressive at 3 clicks... I just find it crazy that the dev's will waste time perfecting the appearance of shell splashes, while the root and branch core of the game is utterly rotten. I genuinely can't think of a single aspect of the entire game, from historical accuracy (can anyone explain to me what the difference is between a tripple expansion engine and multiple expansion???) through ship building, dock capacity/capability to fleet size, ballistics, armour weight, equipment weights, superstructure design, equipment capability etc... it's all... entirely... bollox... The last time I experienced this amount of pure BS was while living on a dairy farm, but that type of BS was useful... Why do they put so much time and effort into making the skin of their apple look all nice and shiney, when the flesh inside is so utterly maggot-ridden... It's insane!! 1000+ tons of RADAR that gets blinded by smoke and absence of daylight... SERIOUSLY???? ** thunks... REPEATEDLY ** "that boy's got a mind as sha'p as a sackfulla featha's...." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urst Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 3 hours ago, justMike247 said: That's a dangerously spooky thing to wish for, given the A.I.'s habbit of launching straight into the Khyber Pass of your own fleet... I've lost count of the number of times when only a fraction of a DD detachment will actually launch, primarily because they've gone into headless chicken mode having detected someone else's torpedoes in the water. But it's only in the last couple of days I've seen a perfect shooting opportunity under as close to optimum conditions as I can generate (allowing for DD's getting three bails shot out of them while on their run) and not one single fish goes over the side... To address Panzergraf's point, my torps have a range of 7.2 clicks, I activated Save mode to start tracking at 10 clicks, switching to Aggressive at 3 clicks... I just find it crazy that the dev's will waste time perfecting the appearance of shell splashes, while the root and branch core of the game is utterly rotten. I genuinely can't think of a single aspect of the entire game, from historical accuracy (can anyone explain to me what the difference is between a tripple expansion engine and multiple expansion???) through ship building, dock capacity/capability to fleet size, ballistics, armour weight, equipment weights, superstructure design, equipment capability etc... it's all... entirely... bollox... The last time I experienced this amount of pure BS was while living on a dairy farm, but that type of BS was useful... Why do they put so much time and effort into making the skin of their apple look all nice and shiney, when the flesh inside is so utterly maggot-ridden... It's insane!! 1000+ tons of RADAR that gets blinded by smoke and absence of daylight... SERIOUSLY???? ** thunks... REPEATEDLY ** "that boy's got a mind as sha'p as a sackfulla featha's...." The devs that work on shell splashes and the ones who can fix the actual problems aren't the same people. The art and modeling department aren't coders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuikaku Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 (edited) Funnels are now really overpowered! Insanely overpowered! I can now make 42 knot destroyer using gear turbines 2, balanced boilers with a single small funnel and still be in 120% efficiency. This is over the top, I expect to be at least in 60% efficiency with this configuration. Now it is even easy to make single funneled efficient (100%+) pre-dreadnought. Edited August 22 by Zuikaku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 I’ve been confused as anything with funnels & have learnt a few things: Funnel capacity is translated by the game into a supported horsepower. Engine efficiency is then calculated by dividing the supported power by the engine power. Tuning engine power is easily doable in shiptypes but funnel capacity has to be adjusted on a per part basis as far as I can tell. I’d humbly suggest to the developers to add an fcap stat modifier to shiptypes so they can just adjust that rather than having to redo the engines again or do a lot of fiddly changes in parts. Also (selfishly) I’d really appreciate it for my own reasons 😇 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerMGGW-2 Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 Oh I'll take turn to ask for a little thing as well, in battles: Please give back the AI ship control button!!! how else are we supposed to run AI vs AI ship tournaments 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 7 hours ago, brothermunro said: Also (selfishly) I’d really appreciate it for my own reasons 😇 **le cough** nice hubcap there bro... 😜 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 Yet More Rubbish So, my game date is June 1932, I’ve not long cracked the research for RDF radio, and for chits and giggles, decided to instal it into a 61k ton 15” BB; I near fell out of my chair when I calculated the weight penalty… Get this… 154 TONS… That’s a kick in the ass off 1/6th of the weight of a freakin’ Flower class Corvette!!!... For a freakin’ radio receiver with a fancy schmancy antenna!! Now, I’ll happily admit to being an auld-phart in training, who spent more decades than was healthy building stuff similar to this for a living, and, coincidentally, installing that stuff aboard various ships. Auld though I am, however, I’m nae auld enough to have worked on WW2 era electrickery, soooo… enter Google. Gotta love what you can learn spending even ten minutes doing rudimentary research. Anyway… bit of reading, some picture perusing and some educated guesswork later, I’ve a ballpark figure for how much weight would be in a pretty average Super-Duff system as installed on the likes of HMS Belfast. Most obvious part of the kit is the box of electrickery that does the magic. I’ve zero experience with auld-school radio gear, but I know a thing or two about vacuum tube based amplifiers and power supplies; lemme tell ya, the invention of the transistor pulled a crap-ton of weight out of this kinda stuff, but still… Somewhere in the workshop/office/domicile where “Sparks” and his cohorts would wile away their time would lurk this fancy box that you wouldn’t want to fall on you. My educated guess re the weight of this receiver would be significantly less than 50Kg’s. Any heavier than that and it’d be nigh on physically impossible for even two guys to haul this junk across gangways, up and down companionways for multiple decks until they find the radio shack. Key observation here… This chit is MAN-PORTABLE… IT HAS TO BE!! Sadly, the Hinglish had (and still have) a habit of completely ignoring design principals of clearly superior designs, even when they were shooting down countless dozens of examples of how complex electrickery SHOULD be designed (see German FuG systems), and insisted on making things HUGE, damn fugly, with build quality that more closely resembled… well… let me put it this way… Imagine a mattress stuffed with wire, capacitors (both wet and dry) wire-wound resistors and big klunky ferrites, then stuff a live grenade into that mattress and detonate it… and…well… you get the idea… (see Number 19 set). Researching the antenna was where my heart went out to the poor sods detailed with installing these things. They wouldn’t be particularly heavy, but more often than not, they were installed wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy up at the very top of the topmost spar of the mast… That’s a hellova height to climb, much less climb with all yer tools and rope and pulleys etc. Still… Antenna weight (being stupidly generous) would be significantly less than 100KG’s. Now… the bit nobody really thinks about… The heavy bit… Cable… Yea, seriously… Marinized, double shielded high frequency cable is not featherweight, believe me! Huge cable reels would need to be craned onboard, set up on trestles, and paid out in carefully measured lengths for each cable run, because it’s just not practicable to install a continuous unbroken length of cable aboard a ship. Multiple lengths involves multiple junction boxes (yet more klunky bits and more mass) to connect the various lengths of cable, then cable strapping to lash the cable to already installed cable tray… Apprentices nightmare… Don’t ask how I learned this… character-building stuff, my (((_Y_))) How much cable depends on the complexity of the system; a steerable loop antenna wouldn’t need much in the way of cable; a pair of co-axial cables, and power/signals to drive the steerable servo motor. A more complex system, strangely, needs less cable, the steering being done electro/manually (cue Sparks twiddling his knobs as fast as he can before the transmission ends) rather than electro-mechanically, so… just a pair of co-axial cables required. How much cable also depends on the class of ship the installation is going into. Mahoosive BB’s need appropriately mahoosive cable runs. So… my guess, for an imaginary installation aboard a BB would need somewhere in the region of 2-300KG’s of cable, perhaps half that mass again for junction boxes, connectors, cable strapping etc. Adding that lot up, I’m still significantly shy of 600KG’s, so… I’m left doing some serious head-scratching, trying to figure what in hell’s name were the dev’s thinking when they came up with this 154ton nonsense… Yes, the weight of the installation is heavier if there’s a serious amount of superstructure involved, but NOT to the tune of hundreds of tons!!... Hundreds of Kilo’s, MAYBE!!... Research… It’s a THING… Seriously… 10mins, Couple of Wiki pages, couple of specialist pages, education happens… It’s a beautiful thing… 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urst Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 58 minutes ago, justMike247 said: Yet More Rubbish So, my game date is June 1932, I’ve not long cracked the research for RDF radio, and for chits and giggles, decided to instal it into a 61k ton 15” BB; I near fell out of my chair when I calculated the weight penalty… Get this… 154 TONS… That’s a kick in the ass off 1/6th of the weight of a freakin’ Flower class Corvette!!!... For a freakin’ radio receiver with a fancy schmancy antenna!! Now, I’ll happily admit to being an auld-phart in training, who spent more decades than was healthy building stuff similar to this for a living, and, coincidentally, installing that stuff aboard various ships. Auld though I am, however, I’m nae auld enough to have worked on WW2 era electrickery, soooo… enter Google. Gotta love what you can learn spending even ten minutes doing rudimentary research. Anyway… bit of reading, some picture perusing and some educated guesswork later, I’ve a ballpark figure for how much weight would be in a pretty average Super-Duff system as installed on the likes of HMS Belfast. Most obvious part of the kit is the box of electrickery that does the magic. I’ve zero experience with auld-school radio gear, but I know a thing or two about vacuum tube based amplifiers and power supplies; lemme tell ya, the invention of the transistor pulled a crap-ton of weight out of this kinda stuff, but still… Somewhere in the workshop/office/domicile where “Sparks” and his cohorts would wile away their time would lurk this fancy box that you wouldn’t want to fall on you. My educated guess re the weight of this receiver would be significantly less than 50Kg’s. Any heavier than that and it’d be nigh on physically impossible for even two guys to haul this junk across gangways, up and down companionways for multiple decks until they find the radio shack. Key observation here… This chit is MAN-PORTABLE… IT HAS TO BE!! Sadly, the Hinglish had (and still have) a habit of completely ignoring design principals of clearly superior designs, even when they were shooting down countless dozens of examples of how complex electrickery SHOULD be designed (see German FuG systems), and insisted on making things HUGE, damn fugly, with build quality that more closely resembled… well… let me put it this way… Imagine a mattress stuffed with wire, capacitors (both wet and dry) wire-wound resistors and big klunky ferrites, then stuff a live grenade into that mattress and detonate it… and…well… you get the idea… (see Number 19 set). Researching the antenna was where my heart went out to the poor sods detailed with installing these things. They wouldn’t be particularly heavy, but more often than not, they were installed wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy up at the very top of the topmost spar of the mast… That’s a hellova height to climb, much less climb with all yer tools and rope and pulleys etc. Still… Antenna weight (being stupidly generous) would be significantly less than 100KG’s. Now… the bit nobody really thinks about… The heavy bit… Cable… Yea, seriously… Marinized, double shielded high frequency cable is not featherweight, believe me! Huge cable reels would need to be craned onboard, set up on trestles, and paid out in carefully measured lengths for each cable run, because it’s just not practicable to install a continuous unbroken length of cable aboard a ship. Multiple lengths involves multiple junction boxes (yet more klunky bits and more mass) to connect the various lengths of cable, then cable strapping to lash the cable to already installed cable tray… Apprentices nightmare… Don’t ask how I learned this… character-building stuff, my (((_Y_))) How much cable depends on the complexity of the system; a steerable loop antenna wouldn’t need much in the way of cable; a pair of co-axial cables, and power/signals to drive the steerable servo motor. A more complex system, strangely, needs less cable, the steering being done electro/manually (cue Sparks twiddling his knobs as fast as he can before the transmission ends) rather than electro-mechanically, so… just a pair of co-axial cables required. How much cable also depends on the class of ship the installation is going into. Mahoosive BB’s need appropriately mahoosive cable runs. So… my guess, for an imaginary installation aboard a BB would need somewhere in the region of 2-300KG’s of cable, perhaps half that mass again for junction boxes, connectors, cable strapping etc. Adding that lot up, I’m still significantly shy of 600KG’s, so… I’m left doing some serious head-scratching, trying to figure what in hell’s name were the dev’s thinking when they came up with this 154ton nonsense… Yes, the weight of the installation is heavier if there’s a serious amount of superstructure involved, but NOT to the tune of hundreds of tons!!... Hundreds of Kilo’s, MAYBE!!... Research… It’s a THING… Seriously… 10mins, Couple of Wiki pages, couple of specialist pages, education happens… It’s a beautiful thing… It's probably a situation of modifiers and it being auto-calculated based on partially faulty information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 3 minutes ago, Urst said: It's probably a situation of modifiers and it being auto-calculated based on partially faulty information. If it were merely that... hell... I'm no stickler... I could live with even a 100% error factor... But this isn't merely 100%... It's several orders of magnitude greater than that... And sadly, the core of the game is just riddled with near identical examples of "think of a number, quadruple it, then multiply that by 3750... then tie the product to the hull/superstructure weight, and double that again... It's simply... batchit... freakin... loopy... Based entirely on laziness... "This chit is old, it looks difficult, so I'll just invent a number for this..." rather than rolling up yer shirt sleeves and getting stuck-in to doing some honest to ghod research... The concept of the game is awesome... Build yer own battle-fleet from the keel up?? Who else has tried that? But from that initial concept, the wheels fall off, the axles break, the chassis twists etc etc... Mistakes, I can forgive... hell, if ye're not makin mistakes, and plenty of them, ye're nae tryin hard enough... But this... This isn't mistakes... This is pure, unadulterated, dead from the neck up muppetry... It's insulting!! It's not merely errors in the build calcs... Don't get me started on the economy side of the game and how waging war affects that... Ughh!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 RDF & Radar have their weights calculated as an increase to the tower weight rather than having a fixed weight. I suspect an RDF or Radar set for a destroyer is probably the same sort of weight as one fitted to a battleship & that would be more realistic but alas that is not how they are defined in the game’s files. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuikaku Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 (edited) And what is with new hulls? Are they going also to be bow heavy? Edited August 23 by Zuikaku 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, brothermunro said: I suspect an RDF or Radar set for a destroyer is probably the same sort of weight as one fitted to a battleship & that would be more realistic but alas that is not how they are defined in the game’s files. IRL, that's pretty much spot on... BB's would have multiple RADAR sets installed, not merely for redundancy, but for different tasks too, i.e. totally different sets for AAA for example. But yea, by and large, if the same type of set were installed on both a BB and DD, their basic installation mass would be very similar. The differences, as I said earlier, would normally be stuff like the BB having much more repeaters (the display) installed, usually in rather fragile areas of the superstructure. A typical DD installation might have as few as two additional repeaters, along with the primary display installed in the CIC (or equivalent). The game-changer was the advent of the Cavity Magnetron, allowing for sets that were both orders of magnitude lighter (light enough to install into a heavy fighter aircraft), while being several orders of magnitude more accurate. The thing that really irks me, grotesque in-game weight penalty aside, about how the game treats RADAR, was that even the earliest sets revolutionised gunnery accuracy, by being able to accurately range on the shell splashes. In practice, if your opening salvo was wildly off the mark, you could damn near guarantee bracketing with the second, almost guarantee hits with your third, with almost certain multiple hits thereafter if you had a gunnery officer that was worth his salt. Techniques like "ladder ranging" proved devistatingly effective. Now, granted, the spooky bit of a RADAR install was seriously heavy; it had to be... Oil cooled three phase transformers stepping ships voltage up into the tens of kilovolts range, but we're only talking one or two tons for this (there's a serious amount of iron involved). Being as heavy as they were, they'd be installed in the engineering spaces, not merely to keep the weight as low in the ship as possible, but to keep the cable-run for the primary (input) windings as short as possible. So no grotesque weight penalty to add to the superstructure. For a BB installation, with all its extra repeaters etc, we're talking one or two tens of tons, not 25% of the superstructure mass... that's just insane! Edited August 23 by justMike247 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderspirit2014 Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 Currently I am in the middle of a 1.5.0.6 campaign. What are the actual changes that were improvements in 1.6? I am not really excited about the AI battle key being removed but can live with it. There are a lot of concerns but I'm not seeing any 'x is a lot better' comments other than the ship building screen seems to load faster. Trying to decide if I should just keep playing the older version for my next campaign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now