|
|
Post by namuras on Aug 24, 2015 11:44:41 GMT -6
Hello there!
First let me say: awesome game you have going here!
After my now almost finished 3rd Playthru there is still some confusion left. Especially as to how Armor is supposed to work in this game.
Especially Beltarmor causes this confusion.
As i read it: if I put 10" of beltarmor it will work until someone shoots at it with a penetration larger than 10" and then it "fails" and a penetrating hit is scored.
Up until around late midgame that makes perfectly sense and in my limited experience is the way it works.
The problem arises once the penetration of guns -especially 11"+- easily surpases any reasonable amount of armor i could fit on any design.
e.g: my latest game, even 15" of belt armor would be unable to stop 13" hits at 15000 yards! So why bother? Since everyone seems to fit 15"+ guns anyways (looking at you RN *grrrr*)
So my questions are:
1) Is there a 2nd layer of armor modeled that is not shown to player's but taken into calculation? (like in RL, there is more Armor than just Belt+Deck)
2) Is angle of impact taken into consideration? Making a full Broadside engangement less desirable.
3) Or are late game engangements basically limited to who scores the first (lucky) hit?
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 24, 2015 12:01:40 GMT -6
Fredrik can answer this better than me specifically for RTW, but penetration is not an "all or nothing" affair - in general, the greater the shell penetration exceeds the armor thickness at the point of impact the greater the damage effect the shell will cause behind the armor (at least within a certain limit - greatly excessive penetration by, for example, AP type shells can cause *less* damage than an 'under penetration' by the same type of shell in some cases).
Also, to take into account how armor is constructed and positioned on ships (and how each individual shell will show a certain % of variance in performance), penetration in RTW is not a 'fixed' value - there is some build-in variability in the penetration for each hit, so you can NOT always be sure that even if your gun is rated at an inch or two greater penetration than (say) the targets belt thickness that you will fully penetrate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 24, 2015 13:15:42 GMT -6
As William says, the armour values are not absolute. Penetration in the game is modified for hit angle if it is belt armour, then randomized a bit for variations and for the fact that no belt was maximum thickness for its whole extent. There is also a modifier for the armour scheme of the target ship. Ships with WW1 standard protection, belt and sloping deck behind, get a hefty armour bonus to reflect the fact that it was vary hard for a shell to penetrate both belt and deck slope.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Aug 24, 2015 19:03:18 GMT -6
What sort of bonus does AON ships get?
|
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Aug 24, 2015 20:24:25 GMT -6
Related question.... Is there any reason to build "flat deck on belt" ships before AON armor? It's a weight savings for the same armor thicknesses (belt and deck) but it sounds like there's a significant performance penalty compared to "sloped deck behind belt".
I guess the question would be: prior to AON armor, and assuming equal tonnage for armor, in general which will perform better in combat?
|
|
|
|
Post by baggers on Aug 24, 2015 20:55:21 GMT -6
Another related question: I can (and in fact have) design a MS with some armor, like 1" belt/deck and 1" shielded guns, like:  But I can't design an armored destroyer, I got "Error: Destroyers cannot be armoured", even in 1924 with +1500tons destroyers. If I look wiki, I see for example the French "Branlebas" class of 1907-1908 destroyers of 340tons, that have 20mm (0.8") of narrow belt armor (that protect the ship's boilers and machinery ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branlebas-class_destroyerWould you mind to allow some "armored destroyers"? (Or will it be too hard to balance, or too specific to be allowed in the game? A limit of 2" armor like the MS will be fine.) For same reasons: can I have armored shield guns on a unarmored destroyers? (the game doesn't allow it since an armored gun must be on a armored ship, but I think I've seen often shield/turrets guns even on unbelted destroyers with "small" 3-4" main guns) |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 24, 2015 23:52:01 GMT -6
Another related question: I can (and in fact have) design a MS with some armor, like 1" belt/deck and 1" shielded guns, like: But I can't design an armored destroyer, I got "Error: Destroyers cannot be armoured", even in 1924 with +1500tons destroyers. If I look wiki, I see for example the French "Branlebas" class of 1907-1908 destroyers of 340tons, that have 20mm (0.8") of narrow belt armor (that protect the ship's boilers and machinery ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branlebas-class_destroyerWould you mind to allow some "armored destroyers"? (Or will it be too hard to balance, or too specific to be allowed in the game? A limit of 2" armor like the MS will be fine.) For same reasons: can I have armored shield guns on a unarmored destroyers? (the game doesn't allow it since an armored gun must be on a armored ship, but I think I've seen often shield/turrets guns even on unbelted destroyers with "small" 3-4" main guns) It is intentional to allow some MS with armour, representing armoured gunboats and such.
In principle it would be no problem with armoured destroyers, but I need to check the design calculations to make sure it gives reasonable results for different speeds and sizes of destroyers, so it's not happening soon. THB I didn't know there were any armoured destroyers, but you learn something new every day as they say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 24, 2015 23:53:34 GMT -6
Related question.... Is there any reason to build "flat deck on belt" ships before AON armor? It's a weight savings for the same armor thicknesses (belt and deck) but it sounds like there's a significant performance penalty compared to "sloped deck behind belt". I guess the question would be: prior to AON armor, and assuming equal tonnage for armor, in general which will perform better in combat? It it saves weight but at the expense of less protection. For battleships at least I would personally definitely prefer "sloped deck behind belt" before AON is developed. I depends a little on which type of ammo you can expect to face. Against HE I would say "flat deck on belt" is probably more weight effective, so it might be an alternative for CL, but it is a matter of taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 24, 2015 23:55:37 GMT -6
What sort of bonus does AON ships get? Hit locations are different so that the belt and deck covers more of the ship. There are also some weight savings.
Edit: To some extent it is also connected with oil firing. In a coal fired ship, some hits above the belt are absorbed by coal bunkers. That will not happen in an oil fired ship, so you will want armour covering more of the ship, and it might be rational to prefer that instead of a virtually penetration proof engine room and central hull that you get with belt and sloping deck.
|
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Aug 25, 2015 0:29:22 GMT -6
Fredrik can answer this better than me specifically for RTW, but penetration is not an "all or nothing" affair - in general, the greater the shell penetration exceeds the armor thickness at the point of impact the greater the damage effect the shell will cause behind the armor (at least within a certain limit - greatly excessive penetration by, for example, AP type shells can cause *less* damage than an 'under penetration' by the same type of shell in some cases). Also, to take into account how armor is constructed and positioned on ships (and how each individual shell will show a certain % of variance in performance), penetration in RTW is not a 'fixed' value - there is some build-in variability in the penetration for each hit, so you can NOT always be sure that even if your gun is rated at an inch or two greater penetration than (say) the targets belt thickness that you will fully penetrate it. As William says, the armour values are not absolute. Penetration in the game is modified for hit angle if it is belt armour, then randomized a bit for variations and for the fact that no belt was maximum thickness for its whole extent. There is also a modifier for the armour scheme of the target ship. Ships with WW1 standard protection, belt and sloping deck behind, get a hefty armour bonus to reflect the fact that it was vary hard for a shell to penetrate both belt and deck slope. Thank you to both of you for the answers! So if i understand it correctly: Penetration Values are randomized and at larger distances the impactangle is taken into account aswell. So 15" might actually be a reasonable amount of belt armor. Related question.... Is there any reason to build "flat deck on belt" ships before AON armor? It's a weight savings for the same armor thicknesses (belt and deck) but it sounds like there's a significant performance penalty compared to "sloped deck behind belt". I guess the question would be: prior to AON armor, and assuming equal tonnage for armor, in general which will perform better in combat? As far as i understood it: pre-AON Armor the "flat deck on belt" is at an disadvantage compared to "sloped deck behind belt" especially considering damage to non crucial areas of the ship and subsequent flooding. |
|
|
|
Post by baggers on Aug 25, 2015 0:44:39 GMT -6
It is intentional to allow some MS with armour, representing armoured gunboats and such.
In principle it would be no problem with armoured destroyers, but I need to check the design calculations to make sure it gives reasonable results for different speeds and sizes of destroyers, so it's not happening soon. THB I didn't know there were any armoured destroyers, but you learn something new every day as they say.
Thanks! It will be funny to try some unusual armoured destroyer and see if it's a good idea after all ^^ |
|
