|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 25, 2023 8:22:32 GMT -6
I was working on designing a new cruiser, and saw that it had 221 topside load capacity, when I added the legally obligated 6" gun in an unarmored single mount the topside load capacity dropped to 204. After some further shifting things around I realized there was a topside load penalty for having a gun in the V position, which was not documented anywhere although kinda makes sense if you played RTW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 25, 2023 10:41:51 GMT -6
Any gun mounts on deck takes topside capacity, not only V position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 25, 2023 11:11:11 GMT -6
Any gun mounts on deck takes topside capacity, not only V position. Yes, any gun mounts on deck take topside capacity, including V position. V is the only position that also reduces maximum topside capacity.   Note the Topside Load and Capacity, the V position reduced topside capacity by 14 in this case while keeping the topside load of 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on May 26, 2023 23:32:47 GMT -6
This is WAD. V position saves weight compared to X position, but eats topside space du to its placement further forward. This is to reflect its use on early battlecruisers (Tiger, Lützow) but then not being used on later dreadnoughts.
Agree it could have been better documented in game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 27, 2023 18:39:50 GMT -6
This is WAD. V position saves weight compared to X position, but eats topside space du to its placement further forward. This is to reflect its use on early battlecruisers (Tiger, Lützow) but then not being used on later dreadnoughts. Agree it could have been better documented in game. That's fine, but, it could eat topside space the other way around, by having a larger topside space requirement rather than reducing maximum topside capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on May 28, 2023 9:19:06 GMT -6
This is WAD. V position saves weight compared to X position, but eats topside space du to its placement further forward. This is to reflect its use on early battlecruisers (Tiger, Lützow) but then not being used on later dreadnoughts. Agree it could have been better documented in game. That's fine, but, it could eat topside space the other way around, by having a larger topside space requirement rather than reducing maximum topside capacity. Yes, that would have been better, I agree. |
|
