|
Post by christian on May 3, 2019 3:47:34 GMT -6
so ive been wondering something
you said the math was likely to hold up until 70-90k and 40 knots do we have any confirmation of these tonnages being available once the game launches or are they still being finished
also whats the largest guns available ?
in short whats the max tonnage we will be able to use (SUPER YAMATO SUPER YAMATO SUPER YAMATO)
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 3, 2019 4:00:49 GMT -6
This quote from Garrison answers those questions, I think. dorn , we are looking forward to the same questions being answered. I imagine it will be settled by shifting the percentages in random battle selection based upon Air Tech level, but that is just my guess- we'll see soon no doubt. In other news, I have officially started a new game as Germany, specifically to test an exciting new feature that I can't discuss yet, but - I'm just plum giddy. - or is that plumb giddy? Very giddy! When we have an example of this new feature, I imagine JS or I will post a Dev Note to lay it out all nice and proper. However, before I closed the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere for the last time, I built my absolute best guess at a top end, end game, fast battleship. There are compromises here; 3" of Belt, it only has TPS 3, and my 17.1" weapon would have been better than the 20 -1" I had access to, but I wanted to show it off with the big barrels. Still, the fact this can make 29 knots is I think impressive. I am fairly confident, though of course I cannot say for certain, that this vessel could be included in 'cruiser' engagement scenarios in the release version.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2019 4:58:19 GMT -6
This quote from Garrison answers those questions, I think. dorn , we are looking forward to the same questions being answered. I imagine it will be settled by shifting the percentages in random battle selection based upon Air Tech level, but that is just my guess- we'll see soon no doubt. In other news, I have officially started a new game as Germany, specifically to test an exciting new feature that I can't discuss yet, but - I'm just plum giddy. - or is that plumb giddy? Very giddy! When we have an example of this new feature, I imagine JS or I will post a Dev Note to lay it out all nice and proper. However, before I closed the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere for the last time, I built my absolute best guess at a top end, end game, fast battleship. There are compromises here; 3" of Belt, it only has TPS 3, and my 17.1" weapon would have been better than the 20 -1" I had access to, but I wanted to show it off with the big barrels. Still, the fact this can make 29 knots is I think impressive. I am fairly confident, though of course I cannot say for certain, that this vessel could be included in 'cruiser' engagement scenarios in the release version. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO thats nice holy **** now im hyped also any information on armor values because 18 inches is not gonna be alot against 18-20 inch guns but that might just be me
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 3, 2019 7:50:26 GMT -6
To be honest, high end weapons with high end AP are always going to be able to get through belt armor except at extreme range. I think you'll find that super-ships like this are frighteningly fragile. Would 32" of belt help? Yes, I suppose so. No real world precedent exists for such numbers however. I think you'd also find you were extremely challenged to make a viable warship with that much tonnage sunk into armor anyway. Use at own risk!
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 3, 2019 16:39:21 GMT -6
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO thats nice holy **** now im hyped also any information on armor values because 18 inches is not gonna be alot against 18-20 inch guns but that might just be me 18 inches was already very difficult to make, I remember reading Yamato 18in being not much better than 16in because it couldn't be properly hardened due to excessive thickness. After all it is half a meter of solid steel.
And as Garrison mentioned, there are many ways to sink a monster like this, and most involve means that are much smaller, cheaper and more replaceable than super-battleships.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on May 4, 2019 3:29:38 GMT -6
None of which are going to stop us from trying to build them
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 4, 2019 6:22:15 GMT -6
None of which are going to stop us from trying to build them Yep, definitely going to build a 4-ship class of 90k ton 26 knt battleships with 20" main battery and 16" secondaries! Might even fit a couple of catapult-launched fighters to it!
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 4, 2019 6:50:14 GMT -6
None of which are going to stop us from trying to build them Yep, definitely going to build a 4-ship class of 90k ton 26 knt battleships with 20" main battery and 16" secondaries! Might even fit a couple of catapult-launched fighters to it! Pretty sure a post like that needs to have something like this added to the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 4, 2019 7:10:13 GMT -6
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO thats nice holy **** now im hyped also any information on armor values because 18 inches is not gonna be alot against 18-20 inch guns but that might just be me 18 inches was already very difficult to make, I remember reading Yamato 18in being not much better than 16in because it couldn't be properly hardened due to excessive thickness. After all it is half a meter of solid steel.
And as Garrison mentioned, there are many ways to sink a monster like this, and most involve means that are much smaller, cheaper and more replaceable than super-battleships.
the yamato dident have 18 inches of armor it had around 16 inches (410mm) and this whole japanese armor was not that good myth really needs to be killed for one reason primarily it is based on the turret faceplate of the shinanos triple 460mm turret which was for these reasons poorer quality than basically everything else in existance 1 it was 25.5906 INCHES THICK (650mm) on the front the problem is you cant actually roll the armor properly when its this god damn THICCC (you can still do it you just loose a bit of quality) so in essence where most japanese armor was around 4% worse than american armor the shinanos faceplate was quite a bit worse in addition to this the manufacturing of armor quality had diminished slightly after 1942 and 43 respectively and this plate is from around that time so go figure in reality this 650mm plate was still incredibly strong but it probably lost quite a bit of effectiveness due to its thickness giving it a still very good area around 550-590mm protection i would assume the 410mm armor did suffer slight problems due to it being so thick but i dont think it encountered many diminishing returns especially because faceplates have been known to be made even thicker than that and still basically have no diminishing returns the problem is just the faceplates but that "problem" honestly did not matter because the plates were angled at 45 degrees any striking hit NO MATTER the distance would basically be stopped dead in its tracks ät point blank you would face it at around 45 degrees 550-590mm plate in effectiveness which is ******* stupid because thats between 800 and 900 mm in effective thickness on shinanos plate and even more on yamatos in regard to shinanos faceplate it was actually pierced by a 406mm projectile but at first that sounds really impressive until you realise 1 it was shinanos faceplate not very good quality 2 it was placed vertically and not angled 3 it was shot at almost point blank range indeed there are many ways to sink monsters like it mainly torpedoes but these things are also EXTREMELY powerfull in themselves they have a huge immunity zone to most guns while being able to ignore most immunity zones with their guns also the explosive filler on guns 20 inches big is insane approaching 40kgs of big booms 80 for HE (data taken from the japanese 510mm gun) their power cannot be understated the fact they also serve as an INSANE aa platform dosent change either their sheer deck space allows for a huge number of aa guns a well used battleship this size with a good player to control it and build an escorting fleet can make it absolutely devastating and easly sink twice its tonnage in weight if used properly sources used www.navweaps.com/they have a very deep knowledge of warships and have read an amazing amount of books there are also several articles on armor weapons and whatnot including things like debunking the decapping myth on iowa battleships and several others the resources they give and weapons sections are really usefull
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 4, 2019 7:28:52 GMT -6
To be honest, high end weapons with high end AP are always going to be able to get through belt armor except at extreme range. I think you'll find that super-ships like this are frighteningly fragile. Would 32" of belt help? Yes, I suppose so. No real world precedent exists for such numbers however. I think you'd also find you were extremely challenged to make a viable warship with that much tonnage sunk into armor anyway. Use at own risk! small question regarding "high end AP" how will guns in rtw 2 work in regards to quality and post pen damage for example lets say we have a 16 inch gun in these follow states guns -2 16" -1 16" +0 16" +1 16" and +2 16" quality explosive mass 15 kg 15 kg 15 kg 15 kg 15 kg (i would think it dosent change if it does please say it) reload time 40s 37s 35s 32s 30s (reload becomes longer the further it shoots due to needing to de elevate the guns) (i would think) weight of gun 150t 125t 110t 100t 90t (example for each complete gun the turret then also weights some and so on) penetration 5" 7" 8" 9" 9.5" at 30km range on the belt armor this is how i would expect it to look like (these numbers are based slightly on nagatos guns) the one im wondering most about is reload and explosive mass i would expect the worse guns to have worse reload but this could very well not be the case due to the fact that the reload is mostly based on the turret mount instead of the gun the explosive mass i would quess remained the same since the burst charge is not changed thus post pen only the cap on the shell is improved and so is the shells construction although this could very well not be the case if im wrong on any of these please point it out :3
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 4, 2019 7:33:25 GMT -6
Yep, definitely going to build a 4-ship class of 90k ton 26 knt battleships with 20" main battery and 16" secondaries! Might even fit a couple of catapult-launched fighters to it! Pretty sure a post like that needs to have something like this added to the end of it. View AttachmentAbout right ^. It's part of the fun, this taking over the world!
|
|
|
Post by thenewteddy on May 4, 2019 8:49:18 GMT -6
None of which are going to stop us from trying to build them Yep, definitely going to build a 4-ship class of 90k ton 26 knt battleships with 20" main battery and 16" secondaries! Might even fit a couple of catapult-launched fighters to it! man you think so small. I want 38" main batteries (in 4 sets of quintuple barreled super-duper-firing guns; that's another superfiring gun over top a superfiring gun) on my aircraft carrier which will be large enough to land and launch 747's
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 4, 2019 9:49:55 GMT -6
Yep, definitely going to build a 4-ship class of 90k ton 26 knt battleships with 20" main battery and 16" secondaries! Might even fit a couple of catapult-launched fighters to it! man you think so small. I want 38" main batteries (in 4 sets of quintuple barreled super-duper-firing guns; that's another superfiring gun over top a superfiring gun) on my aircraft carrier which will be large enough to land and launch 747's 747s? Are you mad? Everyone knows it has to be big enough to launch and recover space shuttles, just in case!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 4, 2019 10:02:11 GMT -6
To be honest, high end weapons with high end AP are always going to be able to get through belt armor except at extreme range. I think you'll find that super-ships like this are frighteningly fragile. Would 32" of belt help? Yes, I suppose so. No real world precedent exists for such numbers however. I think you'd also find you were extremely challenged to make a viable warship with that much tonnage sunk into armor anyway. Use at own risk! small question regarding "high end AP" how will guns in rtw 2 work in regards to quality and post pen damage for example lets say we have a 16 inch gun in these follow states guns -2 16" -1 16" +0 16" +1 16" and +2 16" quality explosive mass 15 kg 15 kg 15 kg 15 kg 15 kg (i would think it dosent change if it does please say it) reload time 40s 37s 35s 32s 30s (reload becomes longer the further it shoots due to needing to de elevate the guns) (i would think) weight of gun 150t 125t 110t 100t 90t (example for each complete gun the turret then also weights some and so on) penetration 5" 7" 8" 9" 9.5" at 30km range on the belt armor this is how i would expect it to look like (these numbers are based slightly on nagatos guns) the one im wondering most about is reload and explosive mass i would expect the worse guns to have worse reload but this could very well not be the case due to the fact that the reload is mostly based on the turret mount instead of the gun the explosive mass i would quess remained the same since the burst charge is not changed thus post pen only the cap on the shell is improved and so is the shells construction although this could very well not be the case if im wrong on any of these please point it out :3 I do not know how much deeper the writing goes, only that higher AP tech makes for more penetration. I'm sure Fredrik has put vastly more thought into it, but that all is under the hood.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 4, 2019 10:26:40 GMT -6
To be honest, high end weapons with high end AP are always going to be able to get through belt armor except at extreme range. I think you'll find that super-ships like this are frighteningly fragile. Would 32" of belt help? Yes, I suppose so. No real world precedent exists for such numbers however. I think you'd also find you were extremely challenged to make a viable warship with that much tonnage sunk into armor anyway. Use at own risk! Does the sloped deck scheme become worthy of reconsideration later on? I.e. you are fitting big fat deck anyway, might as well use it for vertical protection as well.
|
|