gap
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by gap on Mar 3, 2024 10:42:48 GMT -6
What do you use to open those files? If I use notepad I get this: View AttachmentYes, as I understand, those files should include all ships for a given game. In earlier versions each ship had a separate file for herself inside a game folder. For example, Naniwa View AttachmentWell, the changes are fine with me... as long as I can access the same information as before. Naniwa, as any other ship file, would have the line ArmorScheme= So if the AI gives my CA a protected cruiser armour scheme, making impossible for me to make any upgrade to the ship, at least I could go to that file and amend the line manually, instead of just closing the program in frustration. I use Notepad++ for openng those files. Unfortunately, in the new ship design file format, setting names are not specified. I guess this as been done to further compress file size. The side effect is that understanding which line does what is not as easy as before, but with a bit of patience and some trial and error it is not impossible either. A file merger / comparator, like WinMerge, might come in handy for this task.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 8, 2024 14:42:32 GMT -6
The Pennsylvania-class have a 3" torpedo protection bulkhead, rated to withstand 300lbs (140kg) of TNT - or roughly the power of a British 18" torpedo of WW1. That very much seems like TPS 1 to me. Nor can I see any indication that any of the other 'Standards' improved on this value. Therefore, a TPS 2 limit seems entirely reasonable. Actually no, per the manual (possibly the S&I manual tbf) any TPS at all is TPS 3, TPS 1 and 2 are simply improved internal subdivisions. Per Nav Weaps the Tennessee class battleships incorporated a new five layer torpedo defense system (TPS4, and even if the TPS definitions were changed, this would still be TPS4) and featured AY three gun turrets (of the same ish diameter of the two gun turrets of the Colorado class)
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Mar 23, 2024 16:16:25 GMT -6
Using an ABQ layout seems to provide a loophole around the no triple turret in the A position with TPS greater than 1 and speed more than 18 kts restriction, which now that I'm aware is likely to funnel all future designs toward this layout until the date is reached when the restriction is removed. Not sure why this would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 23, 2024 16:36:39 GMT -6
Using an ABQ layout seems to provide a loophole around the no triple turret in the A position with TPS greater than 1 and speed more than 18 kts restriction, which now that I'm aware is likely to funnel all future designs toward this layout until the date is reached when the restriction is removed. Not sure why this would be the case. View AttachmentYeah, I suspect it is intentional. They've also added it so that AQ X is also available. And in any case, it is better to do ABC (like Nelson) because the secondaries won't get affected. Attachments:image.webp (101.08 KB)
|
|
|
Post by raymart999 on Mar 24, 2024 10:33:47 GMT -6
Using an ABQ layout seems to provide a loophole around the no triple turret in the A position with TPS greater than 1 and speed more than 18 kts restriction, which now that I'm aware is likely to funnel all future designs toward this layout until the date is reached when the restriction is removed. Not sure why this would be the case. View AttachmentThat looks similar to the N3/G3 class, which were one of the ship designs in 1921 that the British made for a new BB, until eventually settling for the O3 which became the Nelsons.
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Mar 24, 2024 12:40:05 GMT -6
Using an ABQ layout seems to provide a loophole around the no triple turret in the A position with TPS greater than 1 and speed more than 18 kts restriction, which now that I'm aware is likely to funnel all future designs toward this layout until the date is reached when the restriction is removed. Not sure why this would be the case. View AttachmentThat looks similar to the N3/G3 class, which were one of the ship designs in 1921 that the British made for a new BB, until eventually settling for the O3 which became the Nelsons. Yes, but they start showing up in the autodesigner for BCs earlier. I think in my USA playthrough, they started generating in 1917 or 1918. Not sure I buy the idea that this should subvert the restriction that is normally placed on A triples with superimposed Bs. From a hull form / TPS extent standpoint, what is the difference between A-B-bridge-Q-engine and A-B-bridge-engine-Y? I think the only efficiencies for armor/TPS coverage that would be gained with the same number of turrets would be had in an all-forward design* (A-B-C-bridge-engine), although I don't think the game sees any functional difference between the two. Based on the logic that seems to be at work in the game, the triples at the ends restriction should only apply to ships with 4 main turrets and A-B-Y designs should be just as valid as A-B-Q, A-B-C or A-Q-Y designs (hell, you can even use quadruple turrets with these), but they aren't (nor is A-X-Y, not that anyone is likely to build such a freak). *I actually thought all-forward design was tech that needed to be unlocked, but doesn't seem so. Went back to 1910 and you can get around the speed / TPS restriction with A-B-C, A-B-Q or A-Q-Y layouts even then.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 30, 2024 5:48:09 GMT -6
The Pennsylvania-class have a 3" torpedo protection bulkhead, rated to withstand 300lbs (140kg) of TNT - or roughly the power of a British 18" torpedo of WW1. That very much seems like TPS 1 to me. Nor can I see any indication that any of the other 'Standards' improved on this value. Therefore, a TPS 2 limit seems entirely reasonable. The pennsylvania class is a 1912 laid down ship, these ships are not indicative of 1920s torpedo protection, stating so is being disengenous Additionally you might have misunderstood what the torpedo protection system in rule the waves represents, it does not represent torpedo protection, but rather internal subdivision at torpedo protection 1 and 2, these techs are dated 1906, and 1909 for torpedo protection 1 and 2 per the ResearchAreas3.Dat Torpedo protection in rtw-3 works against ALL TYPES OF FLOODING, including bombs, missiles, guns, splinters, high explosive hits, structure overflow, bad weather putting ships decks awash, anything you can think of. Any ship laid down in 1909 would not be considered to have "torpedo protection" as most of these are barely rated for 100 kg torpedoes if not less. The ship you are using as an example is a ship from 1912 and has torpedo protection 2, per the games logic Additionally this article makes it very clear that the 1922 laid down american standards had very good TPS systems www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php IRL the major deciding factor for TPS system effectiveness is how deep it is, this is also why the richelieu had the best TPS of world war 2, it was simply deeper than everyone elses and had a standard highly effective layered system of air and liquid load. Torpedo protection 3 is unlocked in 1925 per the files and torpedo protection 4 is limited to 1937, I consider this a mistake/wrong as realistically torpedo protection systems should reach their peak arguably as early as 1915 and then degrade, as many countries sought to include underwater armored belts into their designs which reduce the overall effectiveness of torpedo protection schemes, this was later gone away with in post ww2 battleship designs, though none were ever built. The game is sorely missing torpedo protection 5 for post ww2 ship designs
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 30, 2024 6:03:55 GMT -6
Using an ABQ layout seems to provide a loophole around the no triple turret in the A position with TPS greater than 1 and speed more than 18 kts restriction, which now that I'm aware is likely to funnel all future designs toward this layout until the date is reached when the restriction is removed. Not sure why this would be the case. View AttachmentAll forward like Richelieu or Nelson/g3 style layouts ignore TPS restrictions, alongside having the reduce weight advantage which can save up to 2000 tons, this makes these designs inherently superior at equal tonnage to other ships, with almost no debate except if you highly value the ability to shoot backwards, once all forward weight savings and tps-2/3 is unlocked combined with reliable triples realistically one should not build anything else, as the downside of these designs is not properly modelled in game, they are just better. layouts like 2332 like refitted italian dreadnoughts, also ignore TPS restrictions as does 2222 layouts, and further 22222 layouts (nagato/tosa style layouts) this means ships like hood, lexington and so on, suffer 0 penalties to torpedo protection despite doing 30 knots and thus having very narrow long hullforms, which IRL severely limited their torpedo protections coverage (notably around the bow and aft magazines/turrets and aft machinery spaces) and depth/effectiveness. My conclusion right now is basically the system punishes fat slow dreadnoughts like the standards, but does absolutely nothing to prevent ships like fast battlecruisers using any loadout which does not involve a triple A or Y turret, while it heavily punishes standard type battleships which want to use an ABXY triple layout
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Apr 11, 2024 11:23:02 GMT -6
One solution to the issue is to increase horsepower requirements for high TPS ratings due to the increase in block coefficient required. I have to take issue with the assertion that fast ships could not have decent TPS and a fine hull form. Hood, for example, has nearly the same depth of TPS abreast A turret as she has abreast her after engine rooms. There is also more to torpedo protection than depth. Plate spacing and thickness, mutual support, and liquid loading all play parts. The Pearl Harbor torpedo damage is well documented, so I'll use that as an example. California's multi-bulkhead liquid loaded system was 17' deep, and well withstood a warhead of ~484lb TNT equivalent. Damage on the back side of the system was limited to a 1" deflection of the holding bulkhead and minor flooding through broken piping. Rather good performance for a ship laid down 25 years earlier. The vast majority of flooding was found to have been caused by open watertight doors and manholes in and above the third deck. Nevada's sytem, on the other hand, while still being ~14' deep, was about as close to being ruptured as it can get without communicating freely with the sea. Her holding bulkhead was deflected 2' (24 times the deflection in the case of California), and many joints between the plates were sprung, flooding 7 interior compartments across 4 decks. While still respectable for a ship laid down 29 years earlier, this is a very different level of performance. While the obvious difference between the TPS of these ships is the 3' of depth, California's TPS was much stronger than Nevada's; far more than the extra 3' would suggest. In fact, removing the holding bulkhead from California's system (and the corresponding 4 feet of depth) would still have left an intact system, with torpedo bulkhead #2 being the furthest inboard penetration of splinters, and torpedo bulkheads #2, 3, and 4 all being deflected ~2'. This simultaneous deflection is assisted by the liquid loading between these bulkheads, increasing their mutual support beyond what the web stiffeners between them would normally impart.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 15, 2024 10:17:52 GMT -6
One solution to the issue is to increase horsepower requirements for high TPS ratings due to the increase in block coefficient required. I have to take issue with the assertion that fast ships could not have decent TPS and a fine hull form. Hood, for example, has nearly the same depth of TPS abreast A turret as she has abreast her after engine rooms. There is also more to torpedo protection than depth. Plate spacing and thickness, mutual support, and liquid loading all play parts. The Pearl Harbor torpedo damage is well documented, so I'll use that as an example. California's multi-bulkhead liquid loaded system was 17' deep, and well withstood a warhead of ~484lb TNT equivalent. Damage on the back side of the system was limited to a 1" deflection of the holding bulkhead and minor flooding through broken piping. Rather good performance for a ship laid down 25 years earlier. The vast majority of flooding was found to have been caused by open watertight doors and manholes in and above the third deck. Nevada's sytem, on the other hand, while still being ~14' deep, was about as close to being ruptured as it can get without communicating freely with the sea. Her holding bulkhead was deflected 2' (24 times the deflection in the case of California), and many joints between the plates were sprung, flooding 7 interior compartments across 4 decks. While still respectable for a ship laid down 29 years earlier, this is a very different level of performance. While the obvious difference between the TPS of these ships is the 3' of depth, California's TPS was much stronger than Nevada's; far more than the extra 3' would suggest. In fact, removing the holding bulkhead from California's system (and the corresponding 4 feet of depth) would still have left an intact system, with torpedo bulkhead #2 being the furthest inboard penetration of splinters, and torpedo bulkheads #2, 3, and 4 all being deflected ~2'. This simultaneous deflection is assisted by the liquid loading between these bulkheads, increasing their mutual support beyond what the web stiffeners between them would normally impart. Hoods system is also just shallow and not as good as the californias. Yes there is a quality difference, but nevadas system was far worse quality wise than california, but if you have two systems the same level as california (TPS 3) then the deeper one wins.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Apr 16, 2024 8:54:50 GMT -6
One solution to the issue is to increase horsepower requirements for high TPS ratings due to the increase in block coefficient required. I have to take issue with the assertion that fast ships could not have decent TPS and a fine hull form. Hood, for example, has nearly the same depth of TPS abreast A turret as she has abreast her after engine rooms. There is also more to torpedo protection than depth. Plate spacing and thickness, mutual support, and liquid loading all play parts. The Pearl Harbor torpedo damage is well documented, so I'll use that as an example. California's multi-bulkhead liquid loaded system was 17' deep, and well withstood a warhead of ~484lb TNT equivalent. Damage on the back side of the system was limited to a 1" deflection of the holding bulkhead and minor flooding through broken piping. Rather good performance for a ship laid down 25 years earlier. The vast majority of flooding was found to have been caused by open watertight doors and manholes in and above the third deck. Nevada's sytem, on the other hand, while still being ~14' deep, was about as close to being ruptured as it can get without communicating freely with the sea. Her holding bulkhead was deflected 2' (24 times the deflection in the case of California), and many joints between the plates were sprung, flooding 7 interior compartments across 4 decks. While still respectable for a ship laid down 29 years earlier, this is a very different level of performance. While the obvious difference between the TPS of these ships is the 3' of depth, California's TPS was much stronger than Nevada's; far more than the extra 3' would suggest. In fact, removing the holding bulkhead from California's system (and the corresponding 4 feet of depth) would still have left an intact system, with torpedo bulkhead #2 being the furthest inboard penetration of splinters, and torpedo bulkheads #2, 3, and 4 all being deflected ~2'. This simultaneous deflection is assisted by the liquid loading between these bulkheads, increasing their mutual support beyond what the web stiffeners between them would normally impart. Hoods system is also just shallow and not as good as the californias. Yes there is a quality difference, but nevadas system was far worse quality wise than california, but if you have two systems the same level as california (TPS 3) then the deeper one wins. Hood's TPS abreast her after boiler room was a full 25' deep. While the majority of the ship is not nearly so well protected (the fore engine room only being protected by the 10'6" deep exterior bulge), most of the ship had a TPS depth on par with Nevada or California. I would argue that her system is nowhere near as efficient per foot of depth, but it's certainly not shallow.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 16, 2024 12:35:24 GMT -6
Hoods system is also just shallow and not as good as the californias. Yes there is a quality difference, but nevadas system was far worse quality wise than california, but if you have two systems the same level as california (TPS 3) then the deeper one wins. Hood's TPS abreast her after boiler room was a full 25' deep. While the majority of the ship is not nearly so well protected (the fore engine room only being protected by the 10'6" deep exterior bulge), most of the ship had a TPS depth on par with Nevada or California. I would argue that her system is nowhere near as efficient per foot of depth, but it's certainly not shallow. well thats my point, californias was rather uniformly protected, that was not the case for hood as most of the ship was not as well protected as her theoretical "deepest"
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Apr 17, 2024 13:10:34 GMT -6
Hood's TPS abreast her after boiler room was a full 25' deep. While the majority of the ship is not nearly so well protected (the fore engine room only being protected by the 10'6" deep exterior bulge), most of the ship had a TPS depth on par with Nevada or California. I would argue that her system is nowhere near as efficient per foot of depth, but it's certainly not shallow. well thats my point, californias was rather uniformly protected, that was not the case for hood as most of the ship was not as well protected as her theoretical "deepest" The thinnest part of Hood's TPS was the 10'6" bulge abreast the forward engine room. Outside of that, 12-14' was the thinnest part of the system. Saratoga's holding bulkhead of her 15' deep TPS was intact (although deflected ~18") after being hit by a 955lb TNT equivalent warhead. She unfortunately shared the same defects as California, and had several compartments flooded via broken fuel oil piping. This is an incredible result, considering the entire TPS was liquid loaded for ballasting purposes, and was therefore less effective than it would otherwise have been. My point is that a TPS of 12-14' is not too thin to be made effective, depending on its detail design, and that most of Hood's TPS was significantly thicker.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Apr 19, 2024 9:50:56 GMT -6
Latest beta: Speed limit for triple turrets in A & Y and TPS > 1 changed to 21 knots. This is to fix an issue where some legacy ships could not be refitted.
|
|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Apr 23, 2024 17:57:54 GMT -6
Does anyone have information on the torpedo protection depth and effectiveness of the British and Japanese "Fast" battkeships and how they compare to their slower contemporaries? Namely the QE's and R's with design speed of 25 and 23 kts (though none of the ships achieved their intended design speeds) and the Fuso, Ise, and Nagato classes with 23/23/26.5 kts.
If they are comparable to the slower ships then that should put the nail in the coffin for this excessive limitation that really ought to be only for EXTREMELY fast ships of the time over 30kts like the which were only the Pensacola class cruisers and the proposed designs for the Lexington-class battlecruisers.
|
|