|
Post by TheD3rp on Jul 30, 2015 23:49:00 GMT -6
Another 70,000 ton ship, this time with a focus on armor:
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 31, 2015 18:32:40 GMT -6
Well the 70k tonners basically break the game. Se what you can accomplish within the 51k limit that is supposed to be used. Cheers Bruce
|
|
|
Post by charonjr on Aug 2, 2015 10:51:40 GMT -6
Here is a current October 1917 design for a BC in my current game with Germany.
The main idea here is to try to stay out of range of any other large caliber gun (14in+) due to the speed of 27kn and have enough armor and secondary firepower (improved 12in and 3in) to destroy any light/fast ship before its reaches torpedo range (DD/CL, maybe some CAs) or can bring their heavy guns to bear.
The cost is fairly prohibitive (4.7mil/month for 28 months), which would essentially buy around 40 of those DDs, personally I would put my money on the DDs if it came to a battle between them.
BTW, is there any way to set up such a battle as this as a test?
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Aug 2, 2015 10:59:54 GMT -6
With only 2 guns able to be brought to bear, the 12" are not really gonna be of much use. Get rid of them and upgrade the 3" to 5". The 17" are overkill for killing CL's and DD's (if they could even hit 'em). If you want to kill CA's and below you don't need anything more than 11" imo.
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by charonjr on Aug 2, 2015 15:20:18 GMT -6
Wasnt clear enough, the purpose is killing BBs and BCs by having more range and staying at max for the 17in, the other guns are only there to deal with lighter ships.
Yup, not really convinced about the 12in as well, but since they have a director I am hoping for a single potentially deadly hit vs. a CA or CL.
Is there any penalty for hitting CLs with big guns?
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2015 15:42:39 GMT -6
Another 70,000 ton ship, this time with a focus on armor How did you get a 70,000 ton ship, which files did you edit?
|
|
|
Post by TheD3rp on Aug 2, 2015 15:46:33 GMT -6
Another 70,000 ton ship, this time with a focus on armor How did you get a 70,000 ton ship, which files did you edit? No file editing, just spamming the enter key.
|
|
swang
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by swang on Aug 3, 2015 0:37:47 GMT -6
Probably best to ask here...
I notice that the C turret is facing aft. Is this correct or just a graphical thing? The W turret faces aft, not forward. I thought that the lack of symmetry a little suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Aug 3, 2015 1:10:23 GMT -6
Probably best to ask here... I notice that the C turret is facing aft. Is this correct or just a graphical thing? The W turret faces aft, not forward. I thought that the lack of symmetry a little suspicious. I think it's to represent ships like WW2 Japanese CA's where C turret was trained aft. The A-B-C layout ala the Rodney doesn't graphically work in game as the turrets get squashed together. It would be nice if we could move turrets (and secondary mounts) along the length of the ship. Cheers Bruce
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Aug 3, 2015 21:01:17 GMT -6
It's September of 2014... in 21 months (treaties and economics permitting) Britain's first Stealth Battleship will slide down the ways and into the River Clyde: I'm assuming the complete lack of superstructure will be reflected in a reduced radar cross section, right? Right?
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Aug 4, 2015 1:18:27 GMT -6
September 2014?? Now that's really a stealth ship if it remained unnoticed that long...
|
|
|
Post by mariandavid on Aug 10, 2015 14:18:16 GMT -6
Its interesting that the game does not penalize the mixed type heavy ordnance - such as 14" and 12" - in the way that was historically the case because of the serious effect on spotting accuracy. Not that I mind - it does lead to more interesting design features and is in practice the norm in game design. Perhaps though if this is allowable that a shift in the maximum size allowed in rebuilds for the re-allocation of secondary guns be lifted from 6" to 10" or more since heavy secondary guns are a kind of 'substitute primary' now.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 10, 2015 15:32:02 GMT -6
Its interesting that the game does not penalize the mixed type heavy ordnance - such as 14" and 12" - in the way that was historically the case because of the serious effect on spotting accuracy. Not that I mind - it does lead to more interesting design features and is in practice the norm in game design. Perhaps though if this is allowable that a shift in the maximum size allowed in rebuilds for the re-allocation of secondary guns be lifted from 6" to 10" or more since heavy secondary guns are a kind of 'substitute primary' now. It does! Each battery firing at a target counts as a separate ship firing, adding to the cumulative penalty for more than one ship firing at the same target.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Aug 10, 2015 16:51:09 GMT -6
Then could you program the AI to fire it's secondaries at the same target as it's primaries in the absence of an unengaged target? Lost count of the number of times I've needlessly suffered the "more than one ship" because, although the mains are engaging their opposite numbers, the secondaries from multiple ships have decided to gang up on 1 target, which is being engaged by one ship's main battery.
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 11, 2015 0:10:58 GMT -6
IRL, ships often messed up their targeting and fired at a target that was supposedly engaged by another ship. This was all the more true for secondary batteries. The AI logic for selecting targets is deliberately somewhat fuzzy and made to produce occasional overconcentrations of fire, both of main and secondary batteries.
|
|