|
Post by christian on Jun 3, 2019 6:59:28 GMT -6
this suggestion is about improving realism and also the choices of the player in regards to what kinds of weapons they desire to mount on their warships this system works a lot like how the aircraft proposal system works everything will be explained in the text in the second picture now a problem is what is to be done with naval gun research well quite simple when you research guns of a larger caliber you can now request guns up until that size from your manufacturers gun stats in 1900 would of course be absolutely garbage and over the years would improve naval gun tech could have that such as naval gun stats improved or it could be like aircraft where they just slowly improve over time Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 3, 2019 10:04:56 GMT -6
I'd abstract barrel life into maintenance costs, or perhaps maintenance costs and magazine size maximums. So a gun with 150 shells between replacement can't have magazines larger than 150 shells, and costs twice as much maintenance per month as one that can go 300 shells between replacement. (Edit: For clarity, that'd be the portion of the maintenance due to the gun, not the maintenance for the ship as a whole.)
I'd also allow penetration as a drop-down option instead of velocity - yes, it's linked to the other stats, but so is everything else, and it's more relevant for players.
It's complex, but given that it works pretty well for airplanes, I think it'd be interesting to see. I don't think it's a high priority for right now - I'd rather focus on other things, especially in the short term. But as a long term vision, I like it.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 3, 2019 10:16:39 GMT -6
I'd abstract barrel life into maintenance costs, or perhaps maintenance costs and magazine size maximums. So a gun with 150 shells between replacement can't have magazines larger than 150 shells, and costs twice as much maintenance per month as one that can go 300 shells between replacement. I'd also allow penetration as a drop-down option instead of velocity - yes, it's linked to the other stats, but so is everything else, and it's more relevant for players. It's complex, but given that it works pretty well for airplanes, I think it'd be interesting to see. I don't think it's a high priority for right now - I'd rather focus on other things, especially in the short term. But as a long term vision, I like it. yeah probably a good idea with the barrel life with regards to velocity yeah it could be a dropdown menu showing penetration and the muzzle velocity option could be changed to penetration instead that is probably a good idea
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 3, 2019 12:23:23 GMT -6
I like the idea a lot, though I agree it is probably not a high priority. Still having the need to adjust your building program to availability of gun designs does make things both more realistic and interesting, it also makes for more possible design options like for example what the Italian did with the 15in gun on the littorio class.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2019 12:47:22 GMT -6
Than you can order ship with guns just in preparation.
It could be than put to turrets as they were needed to be ordered quite early as it was quite time demanding to design and construct them.
|
|
corgi
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by corgi on Jun 3, 2019 17:52:13 GMT -6
I don't think it's a priority, but the gun quality ranging from -1 to +1 seems a bit limited when the game goes to 1955 and you can develop some +1 guns in the first few years.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jun 3, 2019 23:42:32 GMT -6
Overall, this is an idea that I like, but I feel like there's some streamlining that could be done.
Barrel life I feel is unnecessary and I feel it would add more issues than it's worth. For example, should accuracy decrease with use, or do we assume the barrel works perfectly well up until the "lifespan" is reached, at which point the gun barrel breaks off and sinks into the sea? Would a low barrel life mean a ship would be "out of action" for a turn after each action to account for refitting? Actually, I just now noticed your notes at the bottom, and I have to agree with your concern, bringing barrel condition into the equation is needless complication.
Accuracy, Range and RoF are all good ideas, but I think it would be better to simplify them down to a simple -1/0/+1 system. Allow for an occasional -2/+2 to creep in to be real incentivizing perks. This would still allow you to have a variety of options available.
Dual purpose capability: I was under the impression that DP capability had more to do with the weapon mount and the rounds themselves, not the gun.
Weight of gun/shell, I'm a bit iffy on. It also has to do with the Problem of Interaction, so more on that later.
Muzzle velocity is another thing I'm going to say is unnecessary. I don't care much for how fast the round is going, just how far it can go and how much it will pen when it hits. I have largely the same belief on the Caliber length.
I'm not quite sure what Reliability is supposed to do. Are we talking jammings, misfires or breech ruptures?
As far as splitting gun calibers down the middle to allow for .5 increments...I honestly don't know. I can't really think of any justification as to why not. -------------------
If I took this idea, here's how I would have it work. The "naval guns" research topic would be revamped and would instead have breakthroughs that would either A) Improve base stats of all guns produced afterwards (this would be things such as improved powders, construction techniques and so forth) B) naval gun "gates". By "gates" I mean semi-rigid points at which the game begins to let larger guns become decent. I feel this idea requires an example to show best: In 1905 I put in a request for a 16" gun. When the results come back, nearly every stat is a -1 or -2. Several years later, I unlock the tech "Improved large caliber guns". I put in another request and get prototypes of much more "normal" quality. This would mean that it's theoretically possible for the player to get decent 16" guns if they're very lucky, but the dice are heavily weighed against them. I think a question to be asked is "Do we consider a system that can be savescummed to be flawed?"
At any point the player could put in a request for guns of any caliber that they wish. In early years large calibers may be extremely underwhelming and take a significant amount of time to be developed, perhaps exceeding a year or more. This raises another question: Many navies began construction of large ships while the armament for them was still being developed, how/should we allow that?" Of course, in the intervening time period designs could be presented to the player by other companies, so as to prevent the player's guns from falling behind by years due to a capital ship rearmament program.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 4, 2019 6:54:33 GMT -6
Overall, this is an idea that I like, but I feel like there's some streamlining that could be done. Barrel life I feel is unnecessary and I feel it would add more issues than it's worth. For example, should accuracy decrease with use, or do we assume the barrel works perfectly well up until the "lifespan" is reached, at which point the gun barrel breaks off and sinks into the sea? Would a low barrel life mean a ship would be "out of action" for a turn after each action to account for refitting? Actually, I just now noticed your notes at the bottom, and I have to agree with your concern, bringing barrel condition into the equation is needless complication. Accuracy, Range and RoF are all good ideas, but I think it would be better to simplify them down to a simple -1/0/+1 system. Allow for an occasional -2/+2 to creep in to be real incentivizing perks. This would still allow you to have a variety of options available. Dual purpose capability: I was under the impression that DP capability had more to do with the weapon mount and the rounds themselves, not the gun. Weight of gun/shell, I'm a bit iffy on. It also has to do with the Problem of Interaction, so more on that later. Muzzle velocity is another thing I'm going to say is unnecessary. I don't care much for how fast the round is going, just how far it can go and how much it will pen when it hits. I have largely the same belief on the Caliber length. I'm not quite sure what Reliability is supposed to do. Are we talking jammings, misfires or breech ruptures? As far as splitting gun calibers down the middle to allow for .5 increments...I honestly don't know. I can't really think of any justification as to why not. ------------------- If I took this idea, here's how I would have it work. The "naval guns" research topic would be revamped and would instead have breakthroughs that would either A) Improve base stats of all guns produced afterwards (this would be things such as improved powders, construction techniques and so forth) B) naval gun "gates". By "gates" I mean semi-rigid points at which the game begins to let larger guns become decent. I feel this idea requires an example to show best: In 1905 I put in a request for a 16" gun. When the results come back, nearly every stat is a -1 or -2. Several years later, I unlock the tech "Improved large caliber guns". I put in another request and get prototypes of much more "normal" quality. This would mean that it's theoretically possible for the player to get decent 16" guns if they're very lucky, but the dice are heavily weighed against them. I think a question to be asked is "Do we consider a system that can be savescummed to be flawed?"
At any point the player could put in a request for guns of any caliber that they wish. In early years large calibers may be extremely underwhelming and take a significant amount of time to be developed, perhaps exceeding a year or more. This raises another question: Many navies began construction of large ships while the armament for them was still being developed, how/should we allow that?" Of course, in the intervening time period designs could be presented to the player by other companies, so as to prevent the player's guns from falling behind by years due to a capital ship rearmament program. the DP options is mostly so that the gun can load at all angles this and not just up to 45 degrees it will just slightly improve AA this is mostly useful for guns you want to be AA for example you want the secondaries on your battleship to be good at shooting planes thus rof first priority and DP second priority is gonna be what you want you want to pump out a lot of rounds and you wanna be able to shoot at the enemy as long as possible if there are medium bombers or dive bombers (they attack from above) yet your gun cannot elevate more than 45 degrees you have big problems "Accuracy, Range and RoF are all good ideas, but I think it would be better to simplify them down to a simple -1/0/+1 system"personally i think that simplifies it a bit too much down to what it already is (quality) and i would prefer having actual numbers especially for the rof and range accuracy could probably go to -1 to +1 but i would still prefer to have an actual numbers based system it just gives you a better view into what your gun can actually do especially with the range and rof i dont want range +1 or rof +1 i would want range in numbers and rate of fire in PEAK rounds per minute (the absolute maximum that can be pumped out by the best crew in peak conditions) gun weight is so that you can reduce the weight of the turrets on ships (currently double 20 inch guns weight almost 1k tons) muzzle velocity could be changed to penetration instead and a small button would open the a penetration table where you could edit the armor thickness your shooting at to make immunity zones against said gun to see its performance ( il post a pic soon) "I'm not quite sure what Reliability is supposed to do. Are we talking jammings, misfires or breech ruptures?"pretty much yeah the gun has a higher chance of jamming misfiring or breaking down if it is very unreliable it could also decrease the reliability of the hoists and so on for the shell "As far as splitting gun calibers down the middle to allow for .5 increments...I honestly don't know. I can't really think of any justification as to why not."
this was done mostly so it would allow more gun customization options for example a 4.5 inch gun will do less damage than a 5 inch gun but fire faster while a 4 inch gun will fire faster but do quite a bit less damage in general it just allows for more precision in what you want to make (also to allow historical designs which used guns like that what comes to mind is British 13.5" 4.5" 7.5" 5.5" 4.5" and the German 9.5") i was also considering the all gun calibers can be made but big ones will be garbage until a certain point and i think thats a fair system and would work nicely but i still think all guns should get improved performance larger ones should just jump more so to say i dont think putting in a -2+2 system here would simplify it too much and we could just as well stick with what we currently have i think having numbers to compare the in game guns with real guns to see their performance and also giving you much more information on the guns performance instead of a number of -2 or +2 or in between which gives absolutely no indication of the penetration rate of fire or range except that one is likely better than the other the +2 -2 system also does not allow for range to be very good but rate of fire to be garbage a +2 gun would have both penetration rate of fire and range while a -2 gun would have neither with a system with numbers it allows a gun to have good penetration low rate of fire good range or high rate of fire good range bad penetration it just allows for much more customization (and thats with those 3 options alone)
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 4, 2019 8:41:47 GMT -6
this suggestion is about improving realism and also the choices of the player in regards to what kinds of weapons they desire to mount on their warships this system works a lot like how the aircraft proposal system works everything will be explained in the text in the second picture now a problem is what is to be done with naval gun research well quite simple when you research guns of a larger caliber you can now request guns up until that size from your manufacturers gun stats in 1900 would of course be absolutely garbage and over the years would improve naval gun tech could have that such as naval gun stats improved or it could be like aircraft where they just slowly improve over time Frankly, I think this is an excellent idea. A nation could get a starting set of relatively poor guns and work from there. And instead of just getting a gun when it's researched, a proposal should have to be made. That way it's more of a concept than a research area. Not too sure about the half inch increments (too much like hard work) but the prioritisation is exactly what I would like.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 4, 2019 9:19:10 GMT -6
So it sounds like people are thinking more or less in terms of the following: - Weight - Rate of Fire - Accuracy - Range - Penetration - Reliability - Dual Purpose (perhaps as a binary checkbox, not a drop-down item, similar to how airplanes ought to have a checkbox for whether they're carrier-capable) To that, I'd also add an "Auto-loader" checkbox. Naturally, both boxes are greyed out until the tech is opened up.
Ideally, I'd also like to have the guns from old ships be saved when the ship is scrapped, for use as coastal batteries.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 4, 2019 13:01:44 GMT -6
So it sounds like people are thinking more or less in terms of the following: - Weight - Rate of Fire - Accuracy - Range - Penetration - Reliability - Dual Purpose (perhaps as a binary checkbox, not a drop-down item, similar to how airplanes ought to have a checkbox for whether they're carrier-capable) To that, I'd also add an "Auto-loader" checkbox. Naturally, both boxes are greyed out until the tech is opened up. Ideally, I'd also like to have the guns from old ships be saved when the ship is scrapped, for use as coastal batteries. i think thats the conclusion we have reached autoloader could be a thing but its basically a better rate of fire ?? i think autoloader should stay as with regards to battleships maybe there could be a pop up saying the higher ups have proposed turning the main battery from one of the scrapped battleships into a coastal fortification in x place excellent idea the fortification would be more usefull in (dropdown menu of locations) the navies budget does not allow for this scrap the guns
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 4, 2019 14:01:07 GMT -6
A couple things:
1) You talk about high accuracy making straddles harder, but this would not be the case, as spotting fire can have each barrel targeted on a different range (and this was done historically).
2) ROF and accuracy could just be in terms of in-battle modifiers (+/-10, +/- 20, etc.), rather than real world figures.
3) I might not have an explicit barrel life stat, but it should be somewhat uncertain what actual supply of barrels will be needed over the lifetime of a ship. Do you overorder and risk having a bunch of extra guns that you never use, or do you underorder and risk running out of guns in the middle of a war? Availability of spare barrels might be a critical factor in the decision to refit/convert/scrap a ship.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 4, 2019 14:34:08 GMT -6
A couple things: 1) You talk about high accuracy making straddles harder, but this would not be the case, as spotting fire can have each barrel targeted on a different range (and this was done historically). 2) ROF and accuracy could just be in terms of in-battle modifiers (+/-10, +/- 20, etc.), rather than real world figures. 3) I might not have an explicit barrel life stat, but it should be somewhat uncertain what actual supply of barrels will be needed over the lifetime of a ship. Do you overorder and risk having a bunch of extra guns that you never use, or do you underorder and risk running out of guns in the middle of a war? Availability of spare barrels might be a critical factor in the decision to refit/convert/scrap a ship. in battle modifiers would confuse the reload quite a bit id rather have it be the permanent rof of the gun and then depending on the weather conditions it changes -20+20 also wouldnt make any sense on range although would make sense on guns but even then it dosent matter if you have accurate guns if your firecontrol is bad so i dont think that should be a thing either a gun barrel shouldnt change how accurate your firecontrol is
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 4, 2019 16:00:35 GMT -6
in battle modifiers would confuse the reload quite a bit id rather have it be the permanent rof of the gun and then depending on the weather conditions it changes -20+20 also wouldnt make any sense on range although would make sense on guns but even then it dosent matter if you have accurate guns if your firecontrol is bad so i dont think that should be a thing either a gun barrel shouldnt change how accurate your firecontrol is Total error is gun error plus spotting error. Fire control (and spotting planes, etc.) help with spotting error, but gun quality can help with gun error. It's like how gunnery training can help accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 4, 2019 17:43:16 GMT -6
a gun barrel shouldnt change how accurate your firecontrol is It won't help greatly, but it will decrease the risk that a shot in your ladder that's meant to land long lands short, causing the entire salvo to appear to land short, so that you adjust to longer range when in fact you were on target.
|
|