|
Post by williammiller on Oct 27, 2018 11:52:58 GMT -6
Garrisonchisholm, you're original post in this thread mentions "green tinged" and "red dots". Being color deficient I can't distinguish between red and green (blue/purple, or yellow/orange, etc.). Will the game hinge on these color distinctions or will someone like me still be able to use the icons involved to tell what they are without the use of color? Will shapes or descriptive titles be involved as well as color? Thanks for the updates and explanations, it's always nice to have someone on the "inside" providing insight on what's happening and how things are progressing, and taking the time to share.
IIRC the 'red dots' mentioned were actually 'debugging' positions of aircraft so that oddities in their location/actions might be observed while being tested - for actual game release aircraft map location may be represented in a different manner, too early to say for certain what that might be.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Oct 27, 2018 12:26:15 GMT -6
Garrisonchisholm, you're original post in this thread mentions "green tinged" and "red dots". Being color deficient I can't distinguish between red and green (blue/purple, or yellow/orange, etc.). Will the game hinge on these color distinctions or will someone like me still be able to use the icons involved to tell what they are without the use of color? Will shapes or descriptive titles be involved as well as color? Thanks for the updates and explanations, it's always nice to have someone on the "inside" providing insight on what's happening and how things are progressing, and taking the time to share.
IIRC the 'red dots' mentioned were actually 'debugging' positions of aircraft so that oddities in their location/actions might be observed while being tested - for actual game release aircraft map location may be represented in a different manner, too early to say for certain what that might be.
Thanks for the quick response. Not being in the least a progammer I wouldn't know how hard it is to introduce an aircraft silouette in red or blue, perhaps even different types of silouette to show aircraft function. That's just wishful thinking on my part. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 27, 2018 17:41:32 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point! Interestingly enough, I was reading an article on the design and construction of HMS Dreadnought from Warship Vol 4, and one of the initial plans was six centreline turrets, two superfiring and two super-superfiring. It was the blast effects (according to the article) that scuppered that design, although I can imagine the extra weight high-up would have had some stability implications as well.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 28, 2018 5:50:24 GMT -6
It is quite strange that armor for magazine is doubled. Should not be better to have just increase od thickness by amount of inches or as additional layer of armor.
5" of deck armor is normal but 10" should be accesive if there is no talboy bomb.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 28, 2018 8:01:13 GMT -6
It is only a weight savings option, and my thick deck-magazine numbers were just my solution to a particular problem. Belt and Deck can still be treated in the old fashioned way, or you could also use Magazine Box with (for example) a 4" deck and just accept that the remainder of your non-magazine deck is 2". If you're building an early battle-cruiser and hate the idea of paper-mache [why doesn't spellcheck know that term? Needs to spend more time in 3rd grade... (or my spelling is so far off it is unrecognizable)] armor it is a great way to represent better protection for the magazines. The only draw-back is at first glance on a ship's data card one does not know the non-magazine belt & deck, or if magazine box was employed.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 28, 2018 8:22:23 GMT -6
It is only a weight savings option, and my thick deck-magazine numbers were just my solution to a particular problem. Belt and Deck can still be treated in the old fashioned way, or you could also use Magazine Box with (for example) a 4" deck and just accept that the remainder of your non-magazine deck is 2". If you're building an early battle-cruiser and hate the idea of paper-mache [why doesn't spellcheck know that term? Needs to spend more time in 3rd grade... (or my spelling is so far off it is unrecognizable)] armor it is a great way to represent better protection for the magazines. The only draw-back is at first glance on a ship's data card one does not know the non-magazine belt & deck, or if magazine box was employed. Yes, but for battleships, double thickness is usually overkill or your rest deck armor is paper armor. Battleships used thicker magazine protection but not that great margin as they were well armored even in outside area of magazine. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 28, 2018 16:49:39 GMT -6
I think double armor for magazines will be more useful for smaller ships. But to really have a game impact I would reverse the current functionality. Instead of halving non-magazine armor when you check the box for a weight bonus it should double magazine armor for a weight malus.
There are two major benefits: 1. "Data" armor more closely shows the largest armor proportion, including that over "non-magazine" vitals and the "floatation box". Magazine armor is your "anti-flash insurance" and does not protect machinery or buyoancy. "Non-magazine" belt armor is a better indicator for ship survivability as it affects a far larger porttion of damaging respectively potentially damaging hits. 2. This enables "overarmoring" magazines for smaller ships which have type-limited armor belt thickness (mostly important for CL's and for BC's if the current ruleset is maintainted).
It is only a weight savings option, and my thick deck-magazine numbers were just my solution to a particular problem. Belt and Deck can still be treated in the old fashioned way, or you could also use Magazine Box with (for example) a 4" deck and just accept that the remainder of your non-magazine deck is 2". If you're building an early battle-cruiser and hate the idea of paper-mache [why doesn't spellcheck know that term? Needs to spend more time in 3rd grade... (or my spelling is so far off it is unrecognizable)] armor it is a great way to represent better protection for the magazines. The only draw-back is at first glance on a ship's data card one does not know the non-magazine belt & deck, or if magazine box was employed. Yes, but for battleships, double thickness is usually overkill or your rest deck armor is paper armor. Battleships used thicker magazine protection but not that great margin as they were well armored even in outside area of magazine. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 29, 2018 1:12:33 GMT -6
I think double armor for magazines will be more useful for smaller ships. But to really have a game impact I would reverse the current functionality. Instead of halving non-magazine armor when you check the box for a weight bonus it should double magazine armor for a weight malus.
There are two major benefits: 1. "Data" armor more closely shows the largest armor proportion, including that over "non-magazine" vitals and the "floatation box". Magazine armor is your "anti-flash insurance" and does not protect machinery or buyoancy. "Non-magazine" belt armor is a better indicator for ship survivability as it affects a far larger porttion of damaging respectively potentially damaging hits. 2. This enables "overarmoring" magazines for smaller ships which have type-limited armor belt thickness (mostly important for CL's and for BC's if the current ruleset is maintainted).
Yes, but for battleships, double thickness is usually overkill or your rest deck armor is paper armor. Battleships used thicker magazine protection but not that great margin as they were well armored even in outside area of magazine. Just my thoughts. You are right, for cruisers it is important, so it could be better to have amount added to non-magazines part of ship. So you can do it differently for cruisers and for capital ships. And for the data information it is true that the magazine armor is here just to have completely protected magazine however for ship it is more important the rest if not killed by one shot.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Oct 29, 2018 10:56:24 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point! Is there any provision for superfiring secondaries(or super-superfiring secondaries, even) over superfiring mains? There's a number more ships that did that(Yamato, USN WWII CA/CL, Soviet 24/66/82 series).
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 29, 2018 12:06:15 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point! Is there any provision for superfiring secondaries(or super-superfiring secondaries, even) over superfiring mains? There's a number more ships that did that(Yamato, USN WWII CA/CL, Soviet 24/66/82 series). Currently secondaries are not considered to be restricted at all by placement of mains, so they are always presumed to fire "over" mains in their arcs. There is currently no provision to have secondary turrets placed direct forward (the C or L position essentially) or aft (X or V) on the centerline however, so it is correct to say that you would not be able to model (for example) the Yamato correctly in your top-down view. I did notice this when I started playing, but I will bring it up to see if Fredrik thinks it would be worth the coding time to implement.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Oct 29, 2018 12:40:08 GMT -6
Is there any provision for superfiring secondaries(or super-superfiring secondaries, even) over superfiring mains? There's a number more ships that did that(Yamato, USN WWII CA/CL, Soviet 24/66/82 series). Currently secondaries are not considered to be restricted at all by placement of mains, so they are always presumed to fire "over" mains in their arcs. There is currently no provision to have secondary turrets placed direct forward (the C or L position essentially) or aft (X or V) on the centerline however, so it is correct to say that you would not be able to model (for example) the Yamato correctly in your top-down view. I did notice this when I started playing, but I will bring it up to see if Fredrik thinks it would be worth the coding time to implement. For that matter it may be worth it considering ability to put secondary turret in rear arc of ships with all forward main battery(Nelson, dunkerque etc). No need to individually place turret but maybe a check box to move a preset turret to rear/forward arc, restricted by main battery placement. That said these rear secondary are not really used/useful to my knowledge.( I believe dunkerque fired at the British fleet with its rear secondaries at Toulon).but It might be slightly useful when slippery DD tries to take advantage of the blindspot. So while I’d like to see it in game, It’s fair if the team decides it’s not worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 30, 2018 2:13:12 GMT -6
It might be slightly useful when slippery DD tries to take advantage of the blindspot. So while I’d like to see it in game, It’s fair if the team decides it’s not worth the effort. I'd think that the biggest advantage of putting secondaries on the centerline is weight savings; a centerline turret can bear on either broadside, making it somewhat like having two wing turrets. There's also potentially some advantage for AA arcs; if the game models turreted secondary and tertiary guns in wing positions as having the same ~120-degree arc as main battery wing turrets (assuming that the arcs indicated in the designer with 'show turret arcs' checked are accurate) in Rule the Waves, your heavy AA batteries have pretty big blindspots forward and aft, which might be significant for air attack.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 30, 2018 2:58:02 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point! That's odd, I've managed to do it, but it might have been in an older patch version and considered a bug?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 30, 2018 4:07:53 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point! That's odd, I've managed to do it, but it might have been in an older patch version and considered a bug?
v1.34b1 removes part of V turret's firing arc when X is present.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 30, 2018 6:45:25 GMT -6
I mistyped- my apologies. I meant Super-Super-firing secondaries, in an answer to the question about secondaries superfiring over the mains.Ok, I am more than half asleep, ignore anything I type for the next hour.
|
|