|
|
Post by christian on Oct 5, 2018 14:16:30 GMT -6
weight distribution of armor in the game seems broken as of currently this being fixed in rule the waves 2 seems essential to have any big ships be even remotely competitive right now we can take for example the yamato which can be made in game to an extent (look at pictures) this leaves us with around 28k tons left the real life yamatos armor weighted around 22895 tons when adding the armor (look at pictures for the armor values) note the armor for main guns is 7 inches too low on the front plate and 1.5 inches too low on the conning tower (armor limits in game) yet it weights 14k tons too much granted its on a 52k battleships but why does it have enough weight to support on paper the armor of the yamato keep in mind the yamato weighed about 68 tons light load and 73k on full load making the armor in itself around 30% of the yamatos mass this is without aa guns which we will get in rule the waves 2 this also assumes the secondaries had around 4 inches too much armor (150mm) but also assumes the 127mm secondaries did not thus decently balancing it out another thing is each turret weights around 5k tons where as it weighed 3k tons in real life this might be due to the barbette being included i am not sure this makes me arrive to the conclusion that armor weights way too much in game and that some other weight (most likely interior weight from flood proof doors and hatches and whatnot you have inside a giant battleship) a couple of things that would be nice in game would be ability to choose where secondaries and tertiary guns are placed (like with the main guns) and that tertiary guns get the ability to be armored and enclosed this would allow ships to be able to have 2 diffrent size of secondary guns example 5 inch and 6 inch one dual and one triple and only the tertiary gun being dual purpose (the 5 inch dual purpose on yamato) in addition to a listed rate of fire at the diffrent ranges so we can see the rate of fire of our guns with penalties and without them in addition penetration tables for high explosive and sap shells so we know when to approximately use these shells and if possible a magazine armor slider with a barbette armor slider so you can save weight or go full armor on your ship and protect for example the magazine much better than other areas of the citadelle (engine room for example) these are just a few suggestions and a semi bug report on the armor in game if i got anything wrong please point it out pictures     sorry for **** grammar if there is any im not that good at english |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 5, 2018 16:41:48 GMT -6
Armor thickness in RTW1 does not translate well to real world thicknesses.
In RTW1, all armor tech levels are compared to a reference material. So if the reference material is 1 inch of Krupp non-cemented armor (I don't know what they actually used as the reference material) then as your tech level improves it is assumed that by various means you achieve an armor plate that can provide the same protection as that 1 inch of Krupp non-cemented but with a thinner and therefore lighter plate. So in-game, 6 inches of protection on a 1900 design (let's assume that physically that plate is actually 6 inches thick) is equivalent to 6 inches of protection in a 1920 design but that 1920 armor plate would be thinner and weigh less for the same area protected than the 1900 era plate. So a 12 inch armor plate on a 1920 design is not actually 12 inches thick it just provides the same level of protection as 12 inches of the reference material. That is why the in-game thicknesses don't translate well to real world designs.
I don't know if that helps or just clouds the picture further.
I believe they are changing the way they do armor and armor tech progression in RTW2 but I'm not certain of what the specifics are.
The developers had a poll about a year ago that strongly hinted that they were going to provide more options for increasing or decreasing the armor thickness in specific areas (for example the forward extended belt vs the aft extended belt if you want a ship designed to chase ships from behind) but I haven't personally seen confirmation that it made it into the game. They have specifically mentioned that box protection where the magazines are protected more than other areas of the citadel allowing for weight savings for a nominal armor thickness is planned:
"Box protection to magazines
If this option is selected, belt and deck thickness will be halved for hits to areas other than magazines. Belt and deck weight is reduced by 1/3."
|
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Oct 5, 2018 22:39:35 GMT -6
Yes, the armor is measured in Krupp equivalent, meaning in RTW your early battleships will be shown as having much "thinner" armor than they actually had, and vice versa in late game. This is why the actual weight of armor changes with tech (note that tech developments often say "x% weight savings on armour") while the "thickness" remains the same. There is a very big difference indeed in weight distributions between early and late game, and it changes with every relevant tech development.
|
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 6, 2018 4:32:16 GMT -6
weight distribution of armor in the game seems broken as of currently this being fixed in rule the waves 2 seems essential to have any big ships be even remotely competitive right now we can take for example the yamato which can be made in game to an extent (look at pictures) this leaves us with around 28k tons left the real life yamatos armor weighted around 22895 tons when adding the armor (look at pictures for the armor values) note the armor for main guns is 7 inches too low on the front plate and 1.5 inches too low on the conning tower (armor limits in game) yet it weights 14k tons too much granted its on a 52k battleships but why does it have enough weight to support on paper the armor of the yamato keep in mind the yamato weighed about 68 tons light load and 73k on full load making the armor in itself around 30% of the yamatos mass this is without aa guns which we will get in rule the waves 2 this also assumes the secondaries had around 4 inches too much armor (150mm) but also assumes the 127mm secondaries did not thus decently balancing it out another thing is each turret weights around 5k tons where as it weighed 3k tons in real life this might be due to the barbette being included i am not sure this makes me arrive to the conclusion that armor weights way too much in game and that some other weight (most likely interior weight from flood proof doors and hatches and whatnot you have inside a giant battleship) a couple of things that would be nice in game would be ability to choose where secondaries and tertiary guns are placed (like with the main guns) and that tertiary guns get the ability to be armored and enclosed this would allow ships to be able to have 2 diffrent size of secondary guns example 5 inch and 6 inch one dual and one triple and only the tertiary gun being dual purpose (the 5 inch dual purpose on yamato) in addition to a listed rate of fire at the diffrent ranges so we can see the rate of fire of our guns with penalties and without them in addition penetration tables for high explosive and sap shells so we know when to approximately use these shells and if possible a magazine armor slider with a barbette armor slider so you can save weight or go full armor on your ship and protect for example the magazine much better than other areas of the citadelle (engine room for example) these are just a few suggestions and a semi bug report on the armor in game if i got anything wrong please point it out pictures sorry for **** grammar if there is any im not that good at english Just a guess but won't this be because RtW doesn't properly scale for 1939-1945 ship design? You know how at the start of any game you get some technologies which improve designs and allow you to add more weight? I assume you'll continue to get those until 1945 or whatever thereby making Yamato possible. Like I say just a guess though... |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 6, 2018 7:19:46 GMT -6
so that would mean that 18 inch plate in 1899 would be lighter than a 18 inch plate in 1950 i mean that would make 0 sense but if this is the case then its more understandable
but keep in mind the designs i showed are from 1950 after the game ended with me having top of the line armor which should make it light enough yet its still too heavy by around 16k tons
i noticed that while in rtw2 armor will get lighter over time it seems there is no planning to make the armor better at the same time which means we will assentially run into the same armor weights too much problem making armor inadequate on most battleships below about 70k tons
so having both better armor and lighter armor research trees would make armor much better later on
also having lighter plates early on would make very little sense they should get lighter and stronger the longer the game goes on
so lets say a 1925 10 inch plate would be as strong as a 13 inch plate in 1899 or something along those lines as an example
so it could say something along the lines of 10inch(13 ef) of how effective the plate would be or the weight would just be cut by the neccesary % for the plate
aka a 10 inch plate in 1925 would weight the same as a 13 inch plate in 1899
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 6, 2018 8:10:02 GMT -6
so that would mean that 18 inch plate in 1899 would be lighter than a 18 inch plate in 1950 i mean that would make 0 sense but if this is the case then its more understandable No, I believe you misunderstood. Assuming they are both made of steel with some changes to the alloys and impurities added to increase its hardness and toughness, a 1950 18 inch thick plate of the same area wouldn't be much different in weight than the 1900 plate. However, because of the improvements in alloying and manufacturing that 1950 plate is going to provide protection equivalent to a much thicker 1900 plate (probably at least 50% greater although I'm no expert) so if we use 50% then that 18 inch 1950 plate is worth at least the same amount of protection as a 27 inch thick 1900 plate while weighing roughly the same as the 18 inch 1900 plate. RTW1 just turns that around. Instead of making the protection greater for the same weight of material for technological advancements it keeps the protection the same and reduces the weight for the same level of protection. i.e. If a 1 inch thick 1900 plate weighed 100 pounds per square foot then an equivalent amount of protection from a 1950 plate would be thinner than 1 inch and would weigh about 67 pounds per square inch (but the value you would see on the design screen would still be 1 inch because that's how much protection it provides). If I went ahead and installed a 1 inch 1950 plate it would weigh about 100 pounds per square inch but give me protection equivalent to a 1.5 inch 1900 plate. (and 1.5 inches is the value that you would see in the design screen for the 1950 design if 1900 armor plate is the game's reference material). I apologize if I'm mucking up the explanation. The key thing I think to get out of it is in RTW1, the armor value you see on the screen is not the actual thickness that armor plate would be if the ship was constructed in real life (unless you happen to be at the exact same tech level as the armor that the game uses as a reference). I can't explain why the armor is too heavy in the 1950 design you posted. All I can guess is the game was only originally designed to go to 1926 and as a game has to make a number of simplifications to work and the closer you get to the extremes of the weight, size and power algorithms the more likely the numbers will be off compared to real life. They are reworking their formulas to take into account technological advancements and larger ships through 1950 so I would assume that RTW2 will be closer to historical numbers than RTW1 was for the larger and later designs. I don't know that we have enough information yet to make any predictions about the way armor is going to work in RTW2. I'm under the impression it will be different than RTW1 but I'm not sure how much. We probably won't know how close the numbers are to historical designs in RTW2 until it comes out. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 6, 2018 9:48:45 GMT -6
RTW is only intended to support accurate/historic designs through circa 1925, which is why any ships build after 1925 will very likely not meet historical standards due to the tech cutoff limit of circa 1925. The game is/was designed and marketed as covering the 1900 through 1925 period. The game end time limit was increased to 1950 after requests by players, mainly in order to allow "slower tech" players time to play out a full tech tree.
RTW2 will have techs that go through 1950, and allow for larger ships, thicker armor, etc. This will mean that post-1925 ship designs will more closely match historical counterparts.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 7, 2018 6:41:25 GMT -6
RTW is only intended to support accurate/historic designs through circa 1925, which is why any ships build after 1925 will very likely not meet historical standards due to the tech cutoff limit of circa 1925. The game is/was designed and marketed as covering the 1900 through 1925 period. The game end time limit was increased to 1950 after requests by players, mainly in order to allow "slower tech" players time to play out a full tech tree. RTW2 will have techs that go through 1950, and allow for larger ships, thicker armor, etc. This will mean that post-1925 ship designs will more closely match historical counterparts. that is very nice to hear as larger more powerfull battleships should then be possible are we also getting larger guns ? |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 7, 2018 8:25:10 GMT -6
RTW is only intended to support accurate/historic designs through circa 1925, which is why any ships build after 1925 will very likely not meet historical standards due to the tech cutoff limit of circa 1925. The game is/was designed and marketed as covering the 1900 through 1925 period. The game end time limit was increased to 1950 after requests by players, mainly in order to allow "slower tech" players time to play out a full tech tree. RTW2 will have techs that go through 1950, and allow for larger ships, thicker armor, etc. This will mean that post-1925 ship designs will more closely match historical counterparts. that is very nice to hear as larger more powerfull battleships should then be possible are we also getting larger guns ? Tech in RTW2 will allow for up to 20" gun caliber. |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 7, 2018 10:08:54 GMT -6
I would love to see some summary in the design like:
Armor: 30%
Engine: 20%
Weaponry: 15%
Ammunition: 5%
Bulkheads & misc: 20%
Fuel: 10%
( no idea if numbers make sense, just an example, could be used both for tonnage and cost )
And also would love to see some way to influence shape of ship ( stubby for tighter turn and more effective armor or elongated for higher max speed ), even if it's just a simple 2 or 3 choice somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 7, 2018 15:20:27 GMT -6
I would love to see some summary in the design like: Armor: 30% Engine: 20% Weaponry: 15% Ammunition: 5% Bulkheads & misc: 20% Fuel: 10% ( no idea if numbers make sense, just an example, could be used both for tonnage and cost ) And also would love to see some way to influence shape of ship ( stubby for tighter turn and more effective armor or elongated for higher max speed ), even if it's just a simple 2 or 3 choice somewhere. The total tonnage of main battery ammunition is listed in the Main Guns section, the total weight of machinery (presumably specifically the propulsion system, as changing the main battery gun caliber but nothing else about the main battery does not change the listed weight of machinery) is listed to the right of the horsepower rating below the design speed, and the weight of each main battery turret, the total weight of the secondary armament, its protection, and its ammunition, and the total weight of the tertiary armament and its ammunition are listed in the armament section of he design screen, so the information for the first four percentages is already there if you want to compute it.
The tonnage fraction spent on armor and the tonnage fraction spent on the armament are additionally already listed in the bottom-center of the design screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 8, 2018 7:07:10 GMT -6
The total tonnage of main battery ammunition is listed in the Main Guns section, the total weight of machinery (presumably specifically the propulsion system, as changing the main battery gun caliber but nothing else about the main battery does not change the listed weight of machinery) is listed to the right of the horsepower rating below the design speed, and the weight of each main battery turret, the total weight of the secondary armament, its protection, and its ammunition, and the total weight of the tertiary armament and its ammunition are listed in the armament section of he design screen, so the information for the first four percentages is already there if you want to compute it.
The tonnage fraction spent on armor and the tonnage fraction spent on the armament are additionally already listed in the bottom-center of the design screen.
I'm aware that much of the information is there, the problem most of it is scattered all over the place and it's hard to get a good overview. For example. Armaments has a % shown, does this include ammunition or not? Does it include armor on turrets or not? Sure you can find the answer by experimentation but that is not great UI design. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 8, 2018 7:25:47 GMT -6
The total tonnage of main battery ammunition is listed in the Main Guns section, the total weight of machinery (presumably specifically the propulsion system, as changing the main battery gun caliber but nothing else about the main battery does not change the listed weight of machinery) is listed to the right of the horsepower rating below the design speed, and the weight of each main battery turret, the total weight of the secondary armament, its protection, and its ammunition, and the total weight of the tertiary armament and its ammunition are listed in the armament section of he design screen, so the information for the first four percentages is already there if you want to compute it.
The tonnage fraction spent on armor and the tonnage fraction spent on the armament are additionally already listed in the bottom-center of the design screen.
I'm aware that much of the information is there, the problem most of it is scattered all over the place and it's hard to get a good overview. For example. Armaments has a % shown, does this include ammunition or not? Does it include armor on turrets or not? Sure you can find the answer by experimentation but that is not great UI design. Ammunition is not included, weight of turret armor is under armaments. It is true, that it could be a little better arranged especially that the windows is not so large. |
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Oct 22, 2018 4:49:58 GMT -6
Would it be possible to opt for various hull design options during the ship design phase (as they get discovered)? Say, bulbous bow or transom stern? Adding side bulges is already a thing in refits.
In addition, Russia could get a nation bonus in ship hull design as they did have Vladimir Yurkevich on hand during the better part of the timeframe.
|
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Oct 22, 2018 11:01:24 GMT -6
I actually don't think it would be difficult to revamp the system to show actual armor thickness and quality/hardness - all it would take is just tossing in another modifier to reflect armor tech and show everything in terms of that modifier. However, I don't think it's necessary and would actually make matters more confusing, since really all you need to know is roughly how hard to penetrate certain parts of the ship are and how much it all weighs.
I would also be really careful trying to reproduce exact historical designs in RTW (with its rather dynamic tech advancement), or for that matter taking any claims about armor that you read at face value. The fact is, everybody in the given time period was working with rather incomplete data, limited instruments and flawed comparisons; and the processes and materials from the historical periods in questions haven't always survived fully until today. So I'd rather stick to RTW's unified system with a singular Krupp equivalent yardstick - at the end of the day, we still often only have best guesses and inexact numbers. The most important thing is for it all to stick together well enough to make a game that's plausible and playable.
|
|
