|
Post by wknehring on May 25, 2019 3:29:32 GMT -6
Sounds legit. But if I remember it correctly, I had immunity from 20-28k yards. As said- AP and armour level was 27.
Seems pretty close to what it "should" be to me. Also AP pen and Armor quality have some techs that provide continual improvement tho i am not sure of these go on forever.
In my first game in 1955 i was actually impressed how good armor had become, since i would get imunity to my 16" +1 guns from 18k to max. thanks to deck pen capping out at 6.6 it seems.
I have a class of 2 BBs (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau)- 12" belt, 5" deck, armed with 15"Qu1, built in 1937/38. They are capable of tanking 40 16" hits and still doing 16-20 knots to make it home to port! Of course there are disabled turrets and engine room hits, but they are what you call a heavy tank.
It is crucial to know your immunity zone against different calibers and try to keep the range. So yes, there is much more protection potential than the armour thickness offers you (e.g. sometimes I have problems to kill these 10" belt, 2,5" deck Cuniberti 12x 12"/13" AI-designs built in 1910-1915 with my own 14" or 15" guns. They can tank up to 60-70 hits untill they are dead in the water if there is no own torpedo armament left in my force. Normally the only vessels I built around a 10" belt are my legacy pre-dreads and some mid game BCs with turtlebacks and thicker decks).
And yes, it seems there is a cap at 6,6" deckpen for any caliber- even the 20" guns are blocked by 7" deck armour. But normally you open battles at about 25-30k yards- I don´t think it is necessary to build decks thicker than 6".
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 25, 2019 3:35:54 GMT -6
I finally made it to 71500 ton docks and 18" guns. But even in 1952 tech, I am way over tonnage trying to build this beast as close to specs as possible. Historically, it was laid down with 1937 tech, so what's going on? I think 17in guns and up may be too heavy to even be playable. Try building her with less armour. Historically the Yamato's armour was thick but of hugely variable quality plates, when the USN tested it some plates were as bad as the tissue paper armour in a Game of Thrones episode while others were epic. The in game armour likely gives you better protection and more uniform protection for that matter at far lower thicknesses. for shinano yes her quality of armor on the turret face plates was not good but for yamatos armor it was at best 0.05 % worse than american STS A armor which was the best the americans had so no the armor was not bad it was pretty comparable to others such as britain stop spreading these lies the thicker 650mm turret face did have quality problems because of its thickness but that dosent mean its any lighter in fact the yamato was comrpomised of 22k TONS of armor out of its 68000 ton displacement
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 25, 2019 3:41:55 GMT -6
And what's the Yamato's immunity zone supposed to be? If this is true for the immunity zone, it might allow for a true in game build of the Yamato and Iowa. I doubt it tho. I think the math is off. Edit: Why is it so difficult to build real world ships in this game? Can we have it so that the armor size we choose matches the weight historically and then the protection of said armor is reflected in penetration charts? I don't understand why it isnt that way. Mostly because real life armour have very varied protective qualities besides thickness. As pointed above, Yamato’s armour plating have rather serious quality problems that rendered them less protective than they should be. Also I believe with technological advance, same thickness of armour no longer weighs the same. Rtw1 used a “less weight” progression for armour, but this resulted eventually in ship having unrealistic thick armour belts like 18in for late game. Rtw switched instead to “protection value”, so 12in at 1940 tech is probably far more protective than 1900 12in armour, but unless I’m wrong, this have replaced the weight system, and thus they probably still weigh the same, all else being equal. Thus very early and very late period ships may end up with slightly skewed stats compared to real life. However I have very little problem building ships similar to their real life counterparts in the 20s and 30s, like Nagato and the proposed Amagi Class for example. It’s only when you want to go to the very top end that things starts to get a little iffy. sigh again yamatos belt armor was not significantly worse than anyones else armor the myth of bad japanese armor comes from ships build back in 1920 such as nagato and kongo tosa and whatnot which were built in 1920 where armor tech had not advanced as much yamato was 1937 and quality was better myth of bad armor also comes from shinanos turret plate which was of worse than desired quality this is mainly due to circumstances at the time of its creation and the fact its such a thick plate and thus is very hard to properly manufacture that dosent mean the plate weights any less its still heavy as **** yet in game armor weights wayy more but also protects way more but it stills weights wayy too much for example if i put on max tech ap shells and no armor tech i get surprising results at 5000 yards a 20 inch gun will do 33 inches of pen now if i do the opposite and have max armor and no ap tech 20 inch guns suddenly only penetrate 8 inches of armor because its made out of god damn magic now that sounds like alot but in reality 33 inches of pen is barely 800mm armor and the american 16 inch gun could do that things only get more wonky the lower you go in short guns of 17" + simply do not get the penetration they actually achieved (neither do any of the smaller guns) but these larger guns have EXTREME weight to them to the point they are basically useless in combination with lower rate of fire which just makes them straight up worse than other guns penetration should be buffed by 4-6 inches for the 20 inch and smaller guns should also get such a buff to penetration also armor seems to be too heavy but normal armor dosent seem to be the problem the problem seems to be deck armor which weights so insanly much its stupid first pic is no deck armor and i have 8k to spare on yamato second pic is full deck armor and suddenly i have -11k to spare i think deck armor is WAYYYY too heavy (ships made in 1937) also with high armor tech the required tech needed for immunity against a 18-1 inch gun is 12.5 inch belt and 7 inch deck and 7.5 inch turret and 12.5 inch turret face for immunity between 20-30km (also thats damn thin thats 305mm stopping a 460mm projectile thats hella wonk) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 25, 2019 4:20:11 GMT -6
The "myth" (which I do not belive it to be) does not come from any American tests AFAIK, it comes from Japanese who told the technical mission that the armour was not superior to old British WW1 era KC.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 25, 2019 5:30:29 GMT -6
The "myth" (which I do not belive it to be) does not come from any American tests AFAIK, it comes from Japanese who told the technical mission that the armour was not superior to old British WW1 era KC. that would make almost no sense as the japanese developed a supperior type of armor to vickers cemented armor called new vickers non cemented (nvnc) also having read a bit of the heavy armor part of the technical mission to japan i cannot see that being mentioned anywhere at all id greatly recomend reading this www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.phpwww.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0184-0239%20Report%200-16.pdfit gives nvnc armor a rating og 0.95 and mnc 0.97 which is not bad sure american armor sat at 1.0 for their newer battleships but yamatos armor was not bad it also quote on quote mentions this which i can confirm having read the us technical mission to japan on the 181 mm plate An experimental 7.21" (18.15cm) VH plate (#3133 at NPG, Dahlgren) seems to have been made from a German KC n/A specification added to an otherwise standard VH plate. The U.S. test personnel at the U.S. N.P.G. did not expect it to be much different from the production VH plates, especially due to its relatively poor steel quality. However, this plate was found to be the best face-hardened plate of its thickness ever tested at the U.S. N.P.G.! (The next best plate of similar thickness was also an experimental non-cemented face-hardened plate of 7.6" (19.3cm) thickness made by Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation during World War II, which was only slightly inferior to this VH plate.) It required the late-World War II, improved, super-hard-capped (650-680 Brinell all the way through) U.S. 8" (20.3cm) Mark 21 Mod 5 AP projectiles to completely penetrate this plate
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 25, 2019 5:40:00 GMT -6
Page eight of the report for the part I meant. Developed for economic reasons, at best slightly superior to VC. Other countries developed greately superior (to VC) production plates in the meantime.
And again, I do not think this is about poor alloys or poor plate quality, but the manufacturing method chosen was more basic.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 25, 2019 7:01:08 GMT -6
Page eight of the report for the part I meant. Developed for economic reasons, at best slightly superior to VC. Other countries developed greately superior (to VC) production plates in the meantime. And again, I do not think this is about poor alloys or poor plate quality, but the manufacturing method chosen was more basic. yet it also states the VH armor adopted was "only slightly supperior" in higher gauges 11-17 inches also VH was not neccesarily bad armor also on that topic VH was only used for very thick plates on the yamato on the 410mm belt and the 650mm turret face and the 500mm conning tower everything else was either mnc or nvnc (deck was purely mnc)
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 25, 2019 7:40:19 GMT -6
Okay. I am testing around abit quickly to figure out how the armor formulas in RTW2 works.
Starting out with 1920 start UK and a 5000 ton ship that is given 10 inch belt armor we get that the armor weight is given as 1687 ton. Now if we try to make a ship that is 8 times as large 40000 ton we get that the armor weight is given as 5589 ton ( 3.313 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship ) If we compare 10000 ton vs 80000 ton and same belt we get 2538 ton vs 10960 ton ( 4.32 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship )
Comparing deck armor for a 5000 ton ship and 10 inch deck we get 4576 ton. An 8 times larger 40000 ton ship with 10 inch deck get 14869 ton ( 3.2 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship )
Comparing deck armor for a 10000 ton ship and 10 inch deck we get that the armor weight is given as 6889 ton. The same ship that is 8 times as large 80000 ton we get that the armor weight is given as 29159 ton ( 4.23 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship )
Let's now look at even thicker armor. 20 inch belt on 10000 ton ship gives us 5076 tons of armor 20 inch belt on 80000 ton ship gives us 21921 tons of armor ( 4.32 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship, identical to the ratio increase with 10 inch belt ) We can also see that 20 inch armor yields exactly 2 times as heavy armor as 10 inch armor would, which is to be expected for the same tonnage of ship.
In a perfect 100% theoretical world where all hull shapes were identical we would expect all these ratios were exactly 4.0 ( area scale for 8x volume ).
Based on these findings it seems to me that the increase in armor weight as tonnage increases is overly favorable to "smaller" tonnages of ships ( 5000-20000 tons ), and overly punishing towards larger tonnages of ships ( above 40000 ). I want to return and do a more detailed breakdown with smaller intervals later when I have time to spare.
|
|
|
Post by pedroig on May 25, 2019 10:05:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 25, 2019 11:34:41 GMT -6
Okay. I am testing around abit quickly to figure out how the armor formulas in RTW2 works. Starting out with 1920 start UK and a 5000 ton ship that is given 10 inch belt armor we get that the armor weight is given as 1687 ton. Now if we try to make a ship that is 8 times as large 40000 ton we get that the armor weight is given as 5589 ton ( 3.313 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship ) If we compare 10000 ton vs 80000 ton and same belt we get 2538 ton vs 10960 ton ( 4.32 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship ) Comparing deck armor for a 5000 ton ship and 10 inch deck we get 4576 ton. An 8 times larger 40000 ton ship with 10 inch deck get 14869 ton ( 3.2 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship ) Comparing deck armor for a 10000 ton ship and 10 inch deck we get that the armor weight is given as 6889 ton. The same ship that is 8 times as large 80000 ton we get that the armor weight is given as 29159 ton ( 4.23 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship ) Let's now look at even thicker armor. 20 inch belt on 10000 ton ship gives us 5076 tons of armor 20 inch belt on 80000 ton ship gives us 21921 tons of armor ( 4.32 times that of the 8 times smaller tonnage ship, identical to the ratio increase with 10 inch belt ) We can also see that 20 inch armor yields exactly 2 times as heavy armor as 10 inch armor would, which is to be expected for the same tonnage of ship. In a perfect 100% theoretical world where all hull shapes were identical we would expect all these ratios were exactly 4.0 ( area scale for 8x volume ). Based on these findings it seems to me that the increase in armor weight as tonnage increases is overly favorable to "smaller" tonnages of ships ( 5000-20000 tons ), and overly punishing towards larger tonnages of ships ( above 40000 ). I want to return and do a more detailed breakdown with smaller intervals later when I have time to spare. holy **** this is usefull thank god thanks alot please dig more because i have had severe problems with large ship armor weight
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 26, 2019 10:44:09 GMT -6
Alright. I spent another hour or two on this and now I have more conclusive proof that the RTW2 armor formula in certain situations make little sense. Observations: - I noticed that armor tonnage scales with ship speed ( which makes sense since larger machinery = more needed armor to cover it ). For this reason I set the speed for all numbers to 27 knot oil firing. - When we increase ship tonnage from about 12000 ton to about 19000 ton the cost in tons of adding 10" belt armor to a 27 know speed ship decreased to less than half! That does not make any sense at all to me. - When we increase ship tonnage above 20000 ton both belt and deck armor increase significantly more aggressively than we would theoretically expect it to. Each time we increase the area of the ship by 10% armor weight increased by about 15% so we get roughly 50% more increase in armor tonnage weight than expected! Due to the wonky logic defying twist of armor becoming lighter for larger ships around 12-19000 tons I choose to start my graphs after this by setting it as a baseline ( and 10" belt / 5" deck armor don't make much sense for smaller ships anyways ). It should be possible to recreate the below numbers yourself by starting a 1920 game as UK, creating a new ship, setting speed to 27 knot + oil and then entering the same tonnage and belt/deck thickness numbers and observing the tonnage displayed in the "Weight" column in the designer. Interestingly enough this seems to fit almost too good to be true with what elouda posted on page 1: Probably the main issue is that armour is too heavy in game. Yamato's protection was around 23kton, or ~35% of her displacement, whereas ingame belt+deck at historical thicknesses is about 34-35kton (42-43% displacement). Interestingly, dropping them enough to bring the armour weight down to 23-24kton makes the design work at around 70kton displacement. If we take the 34.5k ton Armor weight observed ingame and reduce it by -33% ( It is 50% heavier than what it should be theoretically ) we get.... drumroll: 34.5k * 0.6667 = 23.001 It turns out the real Yamato followed the laws of physics while the RTW2 armor formulas does not.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on May 26, 2019 11:30:28 GMT -6
Hope the developers see your post and adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 26, 2019 12:26:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2019 2:37:15 GMT -6
Alright. I spent another hour or two on this and now I have more conclusive proof that the RTW2 armor formula in certain situations make little sense. Observations: - I noticed that armor tonnage scales with ship speed ( which makes sense since larger machinery = more needed armor to cover it ). For this reason I set the speed for all numbers to 27 knot oil firing. - When we increase ship tonnage from about 12000 ton to about 19000 ton the cost in tons of adding 10" belt armor to a 27 know speed ship decreased to less than half! That does not make any sense at all to me. - When we increase ship tonnage above 20000 ton both belt and deck armor increase significantly more aggressively than we would theoretically expect it to. Each time we increase the area of the ship by 10% armor weight increased by about 15% so we get roughly 50% more increase in armor tonnage weight than expected! Due to the wonky logic defying twist of armor becoming lighter for larger ships around 12-19000 tons I choose to start my graphs after this by setting it as a baseline ( and 10" belt / 5" deck armor don't make much sense for smaller ships anyways ). It should be possible to recreate the below numbers yourself by starting a 1920 game as UK, creating a new ship, setting speed to 27 knot + oil and then entering the same tonnage and belt/deck thickness numbers and observing the tonnage displayed in the "Weight" column in the designer. Interestingly enough this seems to fit almost too good to be true with what elouda posted on page 1: Probably the main issue is that armour is too heavy in game. Yamato's protection was around 23kton, or ~35% of her displacement, whereas ingame belt+deck at historical thicknesses is about 34-35kton (42-43% displacement). Interestingly, dropping them enough to bring the armour weight down to 23-24kton makes the design work at around 70kton displacement. If we take the 34.5k ton Armor weight observed ingame and reduce it by -33% ( It is 50% heavier than what it should be theoretically ) we get.... drumroll: 34.5k * 0.6667 = 23.001 It turns out the real Yamato followed the laws of physics while the RTW2 armor formulas does not. you are a godsend thank god now i can finally make properly armored ships (also not sure if you noticed but armor penetration seems to be lower than it should particulairly with larger guns)
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 28, 2019 6:29:04 GMT -6
you are a godsend thank god now i can finally make properly armored ships (also not sure if you noticed but armor penetration seems to be lower than it should particulairly with larger guns) How can you make properly armored ships now? What setting are you changing? I'd like to do the same! Thanks Alexbrunius for figuring this out! Much appreciated!
|
|