|
Post by griffin01 on Jan 19, 2020 12:26:30 GMT -6
Sounds like the 32-barrel limit is temporary, they're working on a better permanent solution like displacement or otherwise modelling deck space. If that's the case, that would be for the best. I just hope it does not become a permanent limitation.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 19, 2020 13:07:56 GMT -6
Sounds like the 32-barrel limit is temporary, they're working on a better permanent solution like displacement or otherwise modelling deck space. If that's the case, that would be for the best. I just hope it does not become a permanent limitation. I am curious what alternative solution you are hoping for? Are you regularly building ships that exceed this limit?
AFAIK no historical ship had more than 32 secondary and tertiary guns combined.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jan 19, 2020 16:31:06 GMT -6
If that's the case, that would be for the best. I just hope it does not become a permanent limitation. I am curious what alternative solution you are hoping for? Are you regularly building ships that exceed this limit?
AFAIK no historical ship had more than 32 secondary and tertiary guns combined.
I know this is pedantic but Jean Bart 9x6 + 24x4 in the original design
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 19, 2020 18:14:13 GMT -6
Big BBs or large cruiser going for lots of HAA can happily put on 24 secondary DP guns and 24 tertiary DP guns. Might be 5" and 3", or 4" and 3" but I certainly have done it AA. More likely now to try it with an AA or multi-role cruiser. >>>> For alternate methods.... = A ship's length for a typical length-beam ratio can be estimated = A length and that length-beam ratio with a coefficient of prism (the over head one) gives a deck area = A typical reduction of area for superstructure, boats, anchor ways and walk ways can be done = This gives a player useable deck area = There are references such as IIRC Naval Weapons (Navweaps.com ) that give the area for various gun installations = You can now setup a lookup table for samples of 6" singles or 4" doubles or 12" triple guns or quad MAA etc = the LAA and MAA space can be adjusted for AA research unlocking dual or quad mounts = Instead of the UI displaying the # of AA spots available it would show the deck space in X unit of area = alternate figure out the LAA area cost for the current tech and use that to determine the LAA spots possible = For now call however you get it "Area available" = Now as the player adds the main turrets, secondaries and AA adjust the "area available" as things are added or removed Its basically using similiar to the current system except: = reference of weapon tables available online are used = the length of the weapon table area info is longer but that table is internal = adjust LAA and MAA based on single, dual or quad tech = show the "area available" where the UI currently shows AA spots left
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 19, 2020 18:36:31 GMT -6
If that's the case, that would be for the best. I just hope it does not become a permanent limitation. I am curious what alternative solution you are hoping for? Are you regularly building ships that exceed this limit?
AFAIK no historical ship had more than 32 secondary and tertiary guns combined.
Well, the Iowa class battleships had 20 x 5in guns, 80 x 40mm guns, and 49 x 20mm guns. The Baltimore class Heavy Cruisers had 12 5in guns, 48 40mm guns and 24 20mm guns. The Gearings were close. The HNSA website has the actual US Navy manuals and they do have the width of the stands for the guns and more. www.hnsa.org/manuals-documents/ordnance-gunnery-and-fire-control/
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 19, 2020 20:30:44 GMT -6
Personally, I would not arbitrarily increase the number of secondary and tertiary weapons. Certain criteria would have to be met to do so. Those, IMHO, would be:
1. Elimination of case-mates. 2 Introduction of oil, steam powered turbines with multiple propellers 3. Hull design allowing longer and wider ships. 4. Super-firing primary weapons which would allow for secondary and tertiary amidship. 5. Introduction of naval aviation
these development would be necessary to increase the numbers along with armament improvements like the rapid fire weapons such as 20mm. and 40mm weapons.
Just my thoughts, of course
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jan 19, 2020 20:50:13 GMT -6
If that's the case, that would be for the best. I just hope it does not become a permanent limitation. I am curious what alternative solution you are hoping for? Are you regularly building ships that exceed this limit?
AFAIK no historical ship had more than 32 secondary and tertiary guns combined.
Quite so. My dreadnought battleships always have a full set of 24 5 inch guns for tertiary battery, and 6-8 inch secondary battery with varying number of barrels, though I try to fit as many as I can. Much easier to do with 6 inch guns, of course, due to the lack of limitation on numbers. I think that's indeed the case. Yamato had 30. However, Nassau- and Helgoland-class had 28, and quite heavy, too, while displacing ~3 times less. Therefore, I think it is within realm of possibility that a heavier warship could potentially fit more than 32 guns in secondary and tertiary battery, which could be balanced by adjusting the limits by displacement and/or mount types of the guns - I presume that a gun in a casemate would impose different limitations than one in an armoured triple turret. Ultimately, the game is as much about the what-if possibilities and exploring alternative solutions as it is about simulating real-world naval development, so I don't think that restricting plausible designs would lend itself to better gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 19, 2020 22:34:19 GMT -6
Yamato had 30. However, Nassau- and Helgoland-class had 28, and quite heavy, too, while displacing ~3 times less. The secondary/tertiary batteries of Yamato and Nassau/Helgoland are not readily comparable; Yamato's guns are all turreted whereas Nassau/Helgoland's secondary and tertiary guns are all casemated, so the way that the guns occupy deck space differs significantly and none of the guns on the German ships would have been suitable for DP usage. Additionally, if the navweaps pages are not in error, the tonnage cost for the entire secondary armament of one of the German battleships would've been in the same ballpark as just one triple 15.5cm/60 turret on Yamato - the pages give mounting weights of about 16 tons for each casemated gun on the German ships and about 180 tons for each triple turret on Yamato.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Jan 20, 2020 0:31:48 GMT -6
When you update to 1.15, what happens to the squadrons currently on your carriers? Are they automatically converted to carrier-capable squadrons when you advance the turn, or will the game empty out your carriers and make you manually refill them with squadrons?
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jan 20, 2020 11:45:21 GMT -6
Yamato had 30. However, Nassau- and Helgoland-class had 28, and quite heavy, too, while displacing ~3 times less. The secondary/tertiary batteries of Yamato and Nassau/Helgoland are not readily comparable; Yamato's guns are all turreted whereas Nassau/Helgoland's secondary and tertiary guns are all casemated, so the way that the guns occupy deck space differs significantly and none of the guns on the German ships would have been suitable for DP usage. Additionally, if the navweaps pages are not in error, the tonnage cost for the entire secondary armament of one of the German battleships would've been in the same ballpark as just one triple 15.5cm/60 turret on Yamato - the pages give mounting weights of about 16 tons for each casemated gun on the German ships and about 180 tons for each triple turret on Yamato.
Which is precisely why I mentioned that the number of guns allowed could be also adjusted depending on the type of the mounting: I'm not arguing for 48-gun batteries of DP guns in double/triple mountings, nor for 14 16" turreted guns as secondary armament (Which you can still do even after this change, if I'm not mistaken), but rather for the solutions limiting exploits not disabling reasonable designs.
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jan 20, 2020 14:18:20 GMT -6
When you update to 1.15, what happens to the squadrons currently on your carriers? Are they automatically converted to carrier-capable squadrons when you advance the turn, or will the game empty out your carriers and make you manually refill them with squadrons? My experience on going over to 1.15 in the middle of game at 1940 was yes. However I did experience some stability issues with the game and scrubbed it soon after for a fresh from start 1.15 playthru. Now that may just be my laptop but the install of 1.15 was a bit of an odd experience so some caution is required. However playing on pure 1.15 has been a lot of fun so far though I am only up to 1918 _ Assuming this is actually new rather than something I have just never seen before I rather enjoyed getting a message as to why my troops were not all conquering.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 20, 2020 14:29:15 GMT -6
HUzzah for the coastal forts message. Which of course encourages building our own.
Im not sure the details of the mechanics, currently I am building at least one 8 inch battery and 2+ of 4 inch per colony. Im guessing the biggest or bigger guns have better affects and 8 inch is a moderate one. The 8 inch on the tactical maps has a sufficient range it might actually hit somebody. The 4 inch batteries in my mind are more about be a coastal watch to report enemy ship movements with minimal cover of secondary beaches/approaches the enemy might want to use.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Jan 20, 2020 14:57:13 GMT -6
Update 1.15 seems to have several "Easter Eggs" in it. I appreciate the new Rebuild reminders for gun upgrades. It also seems as if AI Land Based Air is more effective (unfortunately!?!). I was under the impression that fortifications only came into play in actions on the coast, and providing an increase in mine generation at ports. Do they factor into land combat now or is the new popup just for flavor?
Now, can the developers come up with a build notification when I open a ship design, remove the BE and DE armor because AON has been made available but I forget to change the scheme to AON? It's a hard forehead slapper when three new BB's are built with no BE or DE and not actually AON protected?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 20, 2020 15:28:54 GMT -6
When you update to 1.15, what happens to the squadrons currently on your carriers? Are they automatically converted to carrier-capable squadrons when you advance the turn, or will the game empty out your carriers and make you manually refill them with squadrons? Air units currently on carriers will become carrier capable when updating.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 20, 2020 15:30:38 GMT -6
When you update to 1.15, what happens to the squadrons currently on your carriers? Are they automatically converted to carrier-capable squadrons when you advance the turn, or will the game empty out your carriers and make you manually refill them with squadrons? My experience on going over to 1.15 in the middle of game at 1940 was yes. However I did experience some stability issues with the game and scrubbed it soon after for a fresh from start 1.15 playthru. Now that may just be my laptop but the install of 1.15 was a bit of an odd experience so some caution is required. However playing on pure 1.15 has been a lot of fun so far though I am only up to 1918 _ Assuming this is actually new rather than something I have just never seen before I rather enjoyed getting a message as to why my troops were not all conquering. The effect of forts in land defense was there before, but it is increased and player feedback is improved. All forts help in the defense of a possession. It is assumed that the forts include a garrison and generally help the defense.
|
|