|
Post by director on Oct 21, 2020 0:37:58 GMT -6
Looks like the Randolph is finding out what Hiei went through in November of 1942.
The quote that comes to mind is, "Being nibbled to death by ducks."
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 21, 2020 2:43:26 GMT -6
Looks like the Randolph is finding out what Hiei went through in November of 1942. The quote that comes to mind is, "Being nibbled to death by ducks." I mean, most of the hits are doing almost nothing. The flooding is from 3 in total. Because of that weird glitch. I had a lot of ships "being nibbled by ducks" in this battle intentionally, and either they suddenly took thousands of flooding in a single minute or took virtually nothing in terms of flooding, going up to maybe 200-400 at most after being "nibbled" by the ducks for longer. We're talking 400+ hits to do that.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 22, 2020 13:18:06 GMT -6
Noname117 - yes. Close-range combat is going to mostly involve hits to the hull above the waterline, superstructure and guns. The flight-path for the shells will be nearly flat at short ranges, even for small-caliber shells. And smaller shells aren't going to have much of an explosive load, not when compared to a battleship's hull, so the result will look something like a shot-gunned barn - lots of little holes. Some shells will do damage low enough down for the water to get in, and since those will mostly be on one side the only way to cope with the flooding will be counter-flooding, which brings the ship level but lower in the water - so that more shell holes are now low enough to let the water in. If the damage control crew doesn't counter-flood (or gets the amounts wrong, or loses control of the valves) then the ship may capsize. If they counter-flood too much... Consider that RMS Titanic is thought to have sunk after an encounter with an iceberg opened up a series of tiny holes, none probably more than an inch in diameter... spread over more than a hundred feet of ship's length. Hiei was brought down by a large number of cruiser and destroyer weapons, and even after taking (reportedly) a couple of airplane torpedos she took a full day to sink. Kirishima was wrecked by 16" projectiles, but it was the hits just at or just under the water that killed her - that and stability issues brought on by repeated counter-flooding. So yes - I sympathize with your loss and agree that Randolph likely should have made it out. But... wow,that's a lot of holes... and as history shows us, that sort of loss really did happen. (I'm going by what I remember since the original post is on the previous page... a lot of small-caliber hits is what I remember. If not, then it could be a lot of splinter holes from non-penetrating hits).
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Oct 22, 2020 16:51:15 GMT -6
Looks like the Randolph is finding out what Hiei went through in November of 1942. The quote that comes to mind is, "Being nibbled to death by ducks." I mean, most of the hits are doing almost nothing. The flooding is from 3 in total. Because of that weird glitch. I had a lot of ships "being nibbled by ducks" in this battle intentionally, and either they suddenly took thousands of flooding in a single minute or took virtually nothing in terms of flooding, going up to maybe 200-400 at most after being "nibbled" by the ducks for longer. We're talking 400+ hits to do that. I think the sudden flooding is when they run out of Flex Tape to patch the holes with
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 23, 2020 6:02:05 GMT -6
Noname117 - yes. Close-range combat is going to mostly involve hits to the hull above the waterline, superstructure and guns. The flight-path for the shells will be nearly flat at short ranges, even for small-caliber shells. And smaller shells aren't going to have much of an explosive load, not when compared to a battleship's hull, so the result will look something like a shot-gunned barn - lots of little holes. Some shells will do damage low enough down for the water to get in, and since those will mostly be on one side the only way to cope with the flooding will be counter-flooding, which brings the ship level but lower in the water - so that more shell holes are now low enough to let the water in. If the damage control crew doesn't counter-flood (or gets the amounts wrong, or loses control of the valves) then the ship may capsize. If they counter-flood too much... Consider that RMS Titanic is thought to have sunk after an encounter with an iceberg opened up a series of tiny holes, none probably more than an inch in diameter... spread over more than a hundred feet of ship's length. Hiei was brought down by a large number of cruiser and destroyer weapons, and even after taking (reportedly) a couple of airplane torpedos she took a full day to sink. Kirishima was wrecked by 16" projectiles, but it was the hits just at or just under the water that killed her - that and stability issues brought on by repeated counter-flooding. So yes - I sympathize with your loss and agree that Randolph likely should have made it out. But... wow,that's a lot of holes... and as history shows us, that sort of loss really did happen. (I'm going by what I remember since the original post is on the previous page... a lot of small-caliber hits is what I remember. If not, then it could be a lot of splinter holes from non-penetrating hits). Randolph's loss was from a fleet exercise; nothing you need to sympathize with. And that game wasn't actually serious, just me testing stuff. Turns out TPS4 is likely causing the glitch, as ships with TPS3 or lower of a smaller size and with the same amount of 0 belt armor using a sloped deck AoN scheme rather than proper flat deck AoN were able to take 5 times as many 5" hits and didn't go beyond a couple hundred flooding. Basically, I was testing for individual 5" hits causing a massive amount of flooding, like 1500 or 1800 depending on the ship size, and I got positive results for this many, many times (including one where a ship took 3000 flooding from a mere 2 5" BE hits in a single minute). I just thought this one individual instance of a ship having one of these events one minute immediately followed up with another 2 the next minute was funny. No need for additional historical explanation since I'm aware that's not what happened here. Also, of the 11 BBs I lost in this test 10 of them were from these hits, with only 1 being sunk by actually being riddled down. And I saved just before the end of the battle (for bug report reasons), and actually ran through it a second time to view the logs. This second time, that one ship which sank due to being riddled didn't. So yeah, only the bugged hits were actually sinking ships.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 26, 2020 13:08:36 GMT -6
I mean, I should be disappointed since it's a brand-new ship, but... I don't know, is there actually anywhere to land a hit on Genoa that isn't a magazine?
Also, Russia, Germany, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to examine a couple of your decade-old treaty cruisers. One question - Have you guys fired the designers yet? Especially yours, Russia - he seems to have forgotten both the armor and the guns whereas Germany's only forgot the armor.
|
|
|
Post by captaintrek on Oct 26, 2020 19:46:22 GMT -6
Aaah, AI armoured cruisers. Never do change, you crazy diamonds.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 28, 2020 10:55:32 GMT -6
You know, sometimes the game screws you over. And then, other times... ...it makes you feel sorry for the AI.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 28, 2020 12:13:34 GMT -6
I think a world war may be about to start, and, from the looks of things, Germany is the only nation who won't join. Ironic or what? EDIT: It begins!
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 28, 2020 12:42:34 GMT -6
aeson - with a whole two inches of protection I'm not sure we should call them 'armored' cruisers. Plated cruiser is more truthful...
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 28, 2020 14:48:44 GMT -6
Well, Russia, your antiquated treaty cruiser Voin had my even more antiquated protected cruiser Marsala dead to rights after catching it sinking your AMC Altai - Voin stopped Marsala dead in the water and left it flooding and burning furiously in short order... and then Voin caught a fish, withdrew, and was bombed for its trouble. Marsala, meanwhile, extinguished its fires, mostly controlled its flooding, and limped back to Syracuse at (eventually) five knots.
Sadly, this being 1922 and the air strike being made by just four Ca.89 C flying boats probably operating at pretty close to the limit of their striking range, Voin successfully evaded the air attacks and the bomb hit claimed wasn't even listed as a near-miss in Voin's logs, but it's still the first air strike to find and attack a target this game, and Voin succumbed to its torpedo hit and whatever damage Marsala's 5" guns inflicted anyways. Incidentally, Russia, I'm more than happy to keep scrapping your old treaty cruisers for you, if you'd like to keep sending them my way; the almanac tells me you've got three more of them floating around somewhere.
Yeah, even for ~1903-1905 10,000t / 8" treaty cruisers the Russian ships in particular are rather iffy.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 29, 2020 2:44:15 GMT -6
Yeah, even for ~1903-1905 10,000t / 8" treaty cruisers the Russian ships in particular are rather iffy. Eh. Russia, not so much. Italy, on the other hand... EDIT: Also, dunno if you noticed, but the Voin is (or rather, was ) 11,000t, and thus, not a treaty cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 29, 2020 7:42:17 GMT -6
EDIT: Also, dunno if you noticed, but the Voin is (or rather, was ) 11,000t, and thus, not a treaty cruiser. Any power that is not a Liberal Democracy can exceed treaty displacement limits by 10%. Russia is an autocracy, 11,000 tons is 110% of 10,000 tons, and the design year for the ship is within the treaty period. This is 'not a treaty cruiser' in the same way that Takao is not a treaty cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 29, 2020 10:28:44 GMT -6
EDIT: Also, dunno if you noticed, but the Voin is (or rather, was ) 11,000t, and thus, not a treaty cruiser. Any power that is not a Liberal Democracy can exceed treaty displacement limits by 10%. Russia is an autocracy, 11,000 tons is 110% of 10,000 tons, and the design year for the ship is within the treaty period. This is 'not a treaty cruiser' in the same way that Takao is not a treaty cruiser. Oh, I assumed we were talking about the real Washington Treaty, in which cheating by non-liberal democracies was, I suspect, not a sub-clause. Also, as I understand it, the original design displacement of the Takaos was 10,000t (or, to be more precise, 9850t), and she just ended up overweight (complete with resulting stability issues). It wasn't necessarily a conscious decision on the part of the designers to cheat.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 29, 2020 12:15:53 GMT -6
You know, I quite enjoy the irony of the Dreadnought-class pre-dreadnought battleship. EDIT: Especially one completed a year after the first dreadnought of the game (which, naturally, was called HMS Pre-Dreadnought ). EDIT2: In fact, the more I look at these two ships, the stranger things get. the Dreadnought (the pre-dread one... man this is gonna get confusing... I'll just use the names of the ships, so "Implacable" is the dread and "Dreadnought" is the pre-dread, k?) is 21kn, the same as the real Dreadnought (which was a dreadnought), while the Implacable has a top speed of 15kn, which is the lowest speed I've ever seen in RTW, aside from merchants, AMCs and land installations. I mean, even the slowest pre-dreads can manage 16kn. I guess, to fit 12x12", plus secondaries, plus armour, the AI had to cut the speed to nothing.
|
|