|
|
Post by centurionsofrome on Jul 28, 2019 23:13:48 GMT -6
So I was playing around with the save file and for shits and giggles I gave myself all the AP techs at the start of a 1900 Germany game. Upon starting a war with the British (I want Burma's oil, damnit) their 12in -1 punched through my pre-dred's 11in of Belt armor at 9000 yards.
Normally, around 1901 max pen for 12in is 7-8in at point blank, which means that something screwy is going on with the AI's pen, and the only thing that I can come up with is that they are using my penetration tables.
|
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Jul 29, 2019 3:39:07 GMT -6
 
Added this thread to the list in the bug report ...
|
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jul 29, 2019 5:28:52 GMT -6
It's worth mentioning that belt armor is not assumed to be utterly uniform, the game applies a slight randomization effect to armor to account for weak spots, thinning near the edges and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Jul 29, 2019 5:43:19 GMT -6
No, it is not worth mentioning, because +60% pen is not a "slight randomization effect".
If the OPs battle result is OK, Fredrik surely can leave a quick note here, and the OP adds [RESOLVED] to the title, and everything is fine. Dragging every critical post/thread into a discussion of "something is stated somewhere (no quote given) / learn to play / observational bias / but its realistic" is IMHO counterproductive to the games development.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 29, 2019 9:12:16 GMT -6
I checked on this and the national values are set correctly for battles.
There is some variation in the penetration to account for flukes and shots hitting weak spots etc, but your case seems very much variation.
Edit: Upon further checking, the values are indeed set correctly, but there is a bug that in some cases causes the penetration modifier of the ship hit to be used instead of the modifier for the firing ship. Good catch, thanks! This however has nothing to do with the other examples you mentioned.
Will fix this for 1.07. |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jul 29, 2019 19:35:00 GMT -6
No, it is not worth mentioning, because +60% pen is not a "slight randomization effect". I disagree and say it is worth mentioning, because the understanding of the randomization is not entirely understood. Does an 11" belt that thins to 2" do so gradually, presenting a small but valid chance for a round to impact a theoretical 4" of "belt" armor? If you run a 10"B/9.5"BE configuration, does that mean that all parts of the belt are at least 9.5" or is that such an unusual design that the game fails to account for it and has parts of the belt be thinner? The penetration mechanics of incoming rounds can be negatively influenced by angle and other "random" factors, but can they be positively influenced as well? How much randomization is present? 10%? 20%? 50%? I'm bringing this up because alot of these questions aren't certain in the minds of alot of people. I was not trying to say "This isn't a bug, it was an effect of the randomization", I was bringing it up as a possible explanation. It's also worth saying that in my interpretation of the OP, he was saying a single round punched through his armor, rather than the British guns punching through reliably. Under this interpretation of his post, I speculated that he got a bad roll on his armor while the Brits got a very good one on their round. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 30, 2019 4:29:49 GMT -6
It's worth mentioning that belt armor is not assumed to be utterly uniform, the game applies a slight randomization effect to armor to account for weak spots, thinning near the edges and whatnot. not intirely sure it does this any source ? we know as stated above there is pen variation (as stated by frederik) but armor is pretty constant in game (like it was in real life where post ww2 armor belt thickness was constant same with turret armor and so on) we know angling has an effect so that might be what you are thinking of |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 30, 2019 4:34:32 GMT -6
No, it is not worth mentioning, because +60% pen is not a "slight randomization effect". I disagree and say it is worth mentioning, because the understanding of the randomization is not entirely understood. Does an 11" belt that thins to 2" do so gradually, presenting a small but valid chance for a round to impact a theoretical 4" of "belt" armor? If you run a 10"B/9.5"BE configuration, does that mean that all parts of the belt are at least 9.5" or is that such an unusual design that the game fails to account for it and has parts of the belt be thinner? The penetration mechanics of incoming rounds can be negatively influenced by angle and other "random" factors, but can they be positively influenced as well? How much randomization is present? 10%? 20%? 50%? I'm bringing this up because alot of these questions aren't certain in the minds of alot of people. I was not trying to say "This isn't a bug, it was an effect of the randomization", I was bringing it up as a possible explanation. It's also worth saying that in my interpretation of the OP, he was saying a single round punched through his armor, rather than the British guns punching through reliably. Under this interpretation of his post, I speculated that he got a bad roll on his armor while the Brits got a very good one on their round. things like tapered belts and stuff like that should be player chosen options having glaring weaknesses in ships when you never intended for it to be made in such a way is INCREDIBLY annoying and also incredibly unrealistic its like having magazine box protection on all the time when you dident want magazine box on it means most things can pen your ship everywhere but on the magazines more clarification on how gun performance and armor works would be INCREDIBLY NICE (or litteraly any feature oxygen torpedoes are still so god damn uninformative oh its improved torpedoes HOW MUCH ?) but for now we will have to work with small random quotes by the devs which just confuses us more and more on how the game works |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jul 30, 2019 15:17:55 GMT -6
not intirely sure it does this any source ? we know as stated above there is pen variation (as stated by frederik) but armor is pretty constant in game (like it was in real life where post ww2 armor belt thickness was constant same with turret armor and so on) we know angling has an effect so that might be what you are thinking of See the above post. And while post-WWII armor might have been relatively consistent, much of the game's timeframe is based on a period where that was most not entirely the case. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 30, 2019 20:15:10 GMT -6
(or litteraly any feature oxygen torpedoes are still so god damn uninformative oh its improved torpedoes HOW MUCH ?) Well, theoretically one would expect about 5x the range at any given speed, given that normal air is 20% oxygen, although some of the energy is going to come from the air/oxygen being held under pressure rather than from burning, and this would not be enhanced by the use of oxygen, so you'll probably get somewhat less than 5x. The torpedoes will probably run at a higher speed, so that will also reduce the range increases you get. Hydrodynamic drag is proportional to the square of velocity, so you'll get about sqrt(5), or 2.2 times the speed for a given range (theoretically). You can also compare the Japanese Long Lance to contemporary torpedoes for a rough idea (though it was unusually big, which will also have an impact on performance, so that won't be a perfect comparison). |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Aug 8, 2019 13:54:03 GMT -6
(or litteraly any feature oxygen torpedoes are still so god damn uninformative oh its improved torpedoes HOW MUCH ?) Well, theoretically one would expect about 5x the range at any given speed, given that normal air is 20% oxygen, although some of the energy is going to come from the air/oxygen being held under pressure rather than from burning, and this would not be enhanced by the use of oxygen, so you'll probably get somewhat less than 5x. The torpedoes will probably run at a higher speed, so that will also reduce the range increases you get. Hydrodynamic drag is proportional to the square of velocity, so you'll get about sqrt(5), or 2.2 times the speed for a given range (theoretically). You can also compare the Japanese Long Lance to contemporary torpedoes for a rough idea (though it was unusually big, which will also have an impact on performance, so that won't be a perfect comparison). torpedoes in game right now perform basically as well as the american ww2 torpedo (bit better in long range speed) (max torp tech) what i find wierd is that either A the range of torpedoes with oxygen fuel triples (very unlikely my dds have not been firing torpedoes at 20k yards (irl they had over 40k yards range) and in my personal experience they dont seem to be going much faster they certainly are not going the what 10-15 knots faster at 15k yards that they should (48-50 knots speed) i honestly dont feel much of an improvement using oxygen torpedoes at all |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 8, 2019 14:26:00 GMT -6
what i find wierd is that either A the range of torpedoes with oxygen fuel triples (very unlikely my dds have not been firing torpedoes at 20k yards (irl they had over 40k yards range) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You started with an "either/or", but never gave the "or". |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Aug 10, 2019 6:54:47 GMT -6
what i find wierd is that either A the range of torpedoes with oxygen fuel triples (very unlikely my dds have not been firing torpedoes at 20k yards (irl they had over 40k yards range) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You started with an "either/or", but never gave the "or". yeah forgot that part lol or B they only have a slight improvement (aka far from as vast of an improvement as is seen in real life with japanese torpedoes) i personally think its only a very slight improvement because i have not been able to feel any diffrence in torpedo capability after i began using oxy torps |
|
