|
Post by dickturpin on Jan 14, 2014 14:58:16 GMT -6
So back to the Player base, please post your views regarding this clearly important issue. Explosions too many? Explosions too few? Explosions just right? Thanks. Logic tends to suggest that ammunition propellant is dangerous (as it is intended to burn violently in a confined space releasing such energy as to hurl a ton of shell several miles into the distance).
The location of magazines and distribution of armour tends to suggest that period designers believed this to be the case.
Numerous period anecdotal references tend to suggest that it was generally held to be dangerous.
The vast majority of period warships met their end in the breaker's yard without being subject to shell fire or torpedoes and thus were not tested.
In S & I ships tend to be pummelled with lots of hits (as you would expect from a naval wargame).
Whilst vulnerability is inevitably guesswork due to limited amount of period combat, my humble opinion is that it is about right and should not be changed.
NB: Do you think brass cartridges have no effect at all or just do not make propellant invulnerable?
NB: Possibly damage to engines and machinery does occur to frequently (I can't think of any examples of shells penetrating belt, coal bunkers and deck slope and exploding in the machinery spaces).
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 14, 2014 15:31:29 GMT -6
I do not think that there is a one-size-fits-all answer. I do think that the protective value of semi-fixed ammunition on ships is greatly exaggerated on Internet forums primarily due to largely anecdotal analysis from historians with little knowledge of the technical aspects of ammunition usage. Intuitively one might think that propellant in brass cartridges provides greater safety than linen or silk bags but while this might be the case in certain specific situations it is not accurate at all times and probably not at most times. All this provided that fundamental ammunition handling safety procedures are being practised is a given.
The fact is that most large-calibre German cartridges utilized stub-casings containing only the primer, ignitor and initial charge increment and that additional charge bags for full charge firings were stored and loaded in a manner similar to that in systems using separate-loading ammunition. That said as I recall the 28 cm L/50 guns on Seydlitz utilized half- chamber-length casings as I recall but the larger calibres tended to use shorter casings to save brass.
I think that SAI gets catastrophic explosions about right since certain things need to happen before an explosion test on the target is even made. Close range actions tend to produce more explosions than those hits from long range, which makes sense as there should be more penetrative hits. There were occasions where ships were pummelled by gunfire and remained reasonable fit for action and others where the fighting power vanished with only a few hits. I may just be deluding myself but I suspect that part of the issue is one of perception where Players perceive that the slaughter at Jutland was related solely to superior German shells hitting inferior British ships and that the outcome that day was the only plausible outcome on every other occasion until the Royal Navy "learned" better. In my view, this is nonsense but it is so deeply entrenched in the community that seeing anything else seems 'wrong" to gamers.
Just my opinion; I'm not responding to the comments above on behalf of the SAI Team but rather as just a forum member with a great deal of professional experience in the fields of ammunition and ballistics.
Thanks.
Edit: Digging through some old instructor notes I found a reference to the 28cm SK/L50 utilizing a half-length casing so with a full charge, about 50% of the charge increments would be stored separately and loaded before the cartridge case. I have amended the posting above to reflect this. As an aside, the Royal Canadian Artillery Museum at Shilo MB, used to have a wonderful display of German brass casings from 7.62mm Kurz to 60cm Karl and included at least one 28cm SK/L50.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 14, 2014 16:56:12 GMT -6
I agree with your statement, this was why I asked the question earlier in the forum. I am not convinced that what is supplied as answers in historical narratives is always valid. When I researched the issue of explosions in British ships, I came across 3 battle cruisers, 3 cruisers, 6 light cruisers. Now, if we consider that total number(12) as a ratio of the number of shells that were fired at those ships, I will bet that the final result is very low, almost imperceptible. There is such a thing as the golden BB.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Jan 14, 2014 21:17:23 GMT -6
I think the main chance of explosion for WW1 period is right but for RJW it looks too high. However there is a reduce option and it is not the problem. At the same time I have a suggestion to make chance of explosion depends on the caliber of the turrents that got hit. Main turret in BB more vulnerable than cannon with unitary shots. For example it can be done as follows: - for turrets with 8inch and larger guns = actual explosion chance;
- for other turrets = (actual explosion chance) / 4.
I have a question about conning tower armor. I never see in game hits to conning tower but I have many messages about destroy the bridge. This message appears even in situation when medium shell hit to bridge with well protected conning tower. Are the CT armor used in the game, and what causes the destruction of the bridge?
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jan 15, 2014 12:06:26 GMT -6
I have a question about conning tower armor. I never see in game hits to conning tower but I have many messages about destroy the bridge. This message appears even in situation when medium shell hit to bridge with well protected conning tower. Are the CT armor used in the game, and what causes the destruction of the bridge? I saw number of CT hits while playing, so armour is actually used. But I can't say exactly, what effect they produced except superstructure damage. "Bridge destruction" as I think, simulates killing of captain, signalmen, observers etc., as ship get out of control for some time, and often falls out from the line. I think it is accurate for most times, as commanders often were on the bridge in battle for better overlook. The only strange effect is that just after such damage ship seems doesn't manoeuvre at all even in obvious situations (under flotilla attack, or if rest of the fleet makes "turn together" 180 degrees). Maybe, helmsman and others can't see from conning tower, what's happen around?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 15, 2014 12:37:06 GMT -6
A bridge hit simulates a hit to the unarmoured parts of the bridge, killing personnel outside the conning tower and generally interfering with the command of the ship. A penetrating hit to the conning tower is more rare and has the same but somewhat worse effects. The ship will be unable to maneuver for a random number of minutes up to 5 minutes. It might indeed be a sitting duck for torpedo attacks during that time, but bridge hits could and did have severe effects. Just think of the hit to the bridge of the Tsesarevich at Yellow Sea that more or less changed the outcome of the entire battle by killing the admiral and throwing the Russian line into confusion.
|
|
durin
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by durin on Jan 24, 2014 6:31:58 GMT -6
Is it possible to add a "deselect all" button to Chief Of Staff campaign screen? It't hard to uncheck so many ships with limit of 10...
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 24, 2014 7:41:09 GMT -6
+1 on that
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 25, 2014 5:11:35 GMT -6
Is it possible to add a "deselect all" button to Chief Of Staff campaign screen? It't hard to uncheck so many ships with limit of 10... Good suggestion, thanks! Will be done for next update.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 25, 2014 6:14:25 GMT -6
Excellent. Can you say, roughly, when the next update will be out, Fredrik?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 25, 2014 6:16:34 GMT -6
Putting the finishing touches on it now. But then it needs to be tested and wrapped up, so maybe next week, but no promises.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 25, 2014 6:23:51 GMT -6
Small thing. In the screenshot you can see that close in the 'unidentified' contact is coloured and flagged the same as my side. If I zoom out it becomes a red dot. Is this working as intended, or should it be some other colour, close in? Easy to confuse it as it is. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 25, 2014 6:32:48 GMT -6
It is WAD. The contact is unidentified, so you really don't know what it is, though of course in the game you can with good reason suspect it is enemy.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 25, 2014 6:33:28 GMT -6
Thanks for the update info, Fredrik. Whilst you're there (if still there), can you tell me why the ships are not drawn life size, 1:1 scale? There is a reason, no doubt. I would love them to be life size - at least at a certain zoom level (better for the immersion, realism, and for seeing exactly what is happening when they come across each other) and wondered if you (the dev) could just flick a switch to change this...... (Joke, but seriously?). When I can zoom in to the level shown in the pic it seems to me they could easily be life size without loss of anything, so I was just wondering what the design reason was?
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jan 25, 2014 6:34:49 GMT -6
Thanks for the super-quick response!
|
|