|
Post by fritz1776 on Sept 11, 2019 13:44:17 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. Half inch increments are probably unnecessary, but there is the issue of metric countries, such as Japan and Germany. Their Guns are going to be measured in cm which means translating them into the game requires a degree of abstraction in what the exact caliber of our guns actually are supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 12, 2019 3:49:50 GMT -6
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. Half inch increments are probably unnecessary, but there is the issue of metric countries, such as Japan and Germany. Their Guns are going to be measured in cm which means translating them into the game requires a degree of abstraction in what the exact caliber of our guns actually are supposed to be. main thing for the half sizes are mostly because they were quite common in real life and for smaller ships where half an inch can have very large effects (3.5 compared to 3 or 4 inches)
|
|
|
Post by felixg92 on Sept 12, 2019 8:11:40 GMT -6
The IJN .1 larger guns were no big performance advantage over their opposite numbers, heck the British 18 threw a heavier shell than the IJN 18.1, and the 16.1 was nothing better than the old USN 16.
That level is uneeded I think. The .5 barrels might as well be rounded up as well.
More work for less real needed content, i am not saying it is absolutely a terrible idea i just think its unneeded detail for a marginal increase in pen and damage isnt much of an addition to the game.
Hey but if you can convince the devs, well it is a real thing and they wanna do it. .1 and .5 just isnt a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by fritz1776 on Sept 12, 2019 9:43:30 GMT -6
Half inch increments are probably unnecessary, but there is the issue of metric countries, such as Japan and Germany. Their Guns are going to be measured in cm which means translating them into the game requires a degree of abstraction in what the exact caliber of our guns actually are supposed to be. main thing for the half sizes are mostly because they were quite common in real life and for smaller ships where half an inch can have very large effects (3.5 compared to 3 or 4 inches) Yeah, after looking into it some more they do seem fairly common, especially for lower calibers. E.g. the German 8,8 is just under 3.5 inches, and is iconic for a good reason both on land and at sea.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Sept 14, 2019 11:32:56 GMT -6
Half inches would be pretty fair given that a reasonable number of guns were or were planned to be built in these calibers. The UK and French super-dreadnought guns were both approximately 13.5", the planned post-QE ships were designed with 16.5" guns, the Germans considered boring out their 16" gun to 16.5", the Russians pre and post-WWII worked on 220mm/8.6" guns. And obviously lots of smaller guns didn't land exactly on 3,4,5,6 inch marks. The UK 114mm/4.5" guns, French 138.6mm/5.45" guns, even arguably the many 120mm/4.7" guns.
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Apr 22, 2020 6:10:24 GMT -6
Just giving this thread jome new breath. I don't know how missiles will be implemented, but I'd really like to see a procurement system for them like the one we have for aircraft. A gun procurement system along the lines proposed here would be excellent.
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on Apr 22, 2020 7:08:20 GMT -6
IMO there should be more qualities for guns.
The only -2 ingame is the British 13 incher IIRC, the qualities should really be like...10 levels or something.
British 13 inch starting at 0, low quality guns 1, normal guns 2, and gradual improvements to 'postwar' top tier spared-no-expense superguns.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 22, 2020 8:01:24 GMT -6
Just giving this thread jome new breath. I don't know how missiles will be implemented, but I'd really like to see a procurement system for them like the one we have for aircraft. A gun procurement system along the lines proposed here would be excellent. yeah a procurement system like aircraft would be like a dream come true
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Apr 22, 2020 8:21:22 GMT -6
Procurement for guns and mounts would be good; a realy incentive to reuse weapons between classes.
But in the interest of simplicity, just having more +/- levels would be an easier step forward. This seems especially true in my CL designs. Existing fleet ships might have 6" -1 or +0 guns, with newer +1 guns from say 1912 onwards. Then ships built in 1950 still have 6"+1 guns, with some passive tech advances.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 22, 2020 9:10:40 GMT -6
Procurement for guns and mounts would be good; a realy incentive to reuse weapons between classes. But in the interest of simplicity, just having more +/- levels would be an easier step forward. This seems especially true in my CL designs. Existing fleet ships might have 6" -1 or +0 guns, with newer +1 guns from say 1912 onwards. Then ships built in 1950 still have 6"+1 guns, with some passive tech advances. more qualities so it could be -3 or +3 would be the obvious step gun procurement would take a long time to add but for me would feel the most realistic and be the most enjoyable
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Apr 22, 2020 9:44:42 GMT -6
I think it’s important to keep the bottom level locked out in new gun development. The -2 quality is to refer to the 13.5”/30 BL mark 1. I doubt anyone post 1900 would design a gun with such a short barrel and with brown powder propellant.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 22, 2020 14:39:56 GMT -6
I think it’s important to keep the bottom level locked out in new gun development. The -2 quality is to refer to the 13.5”/30 BL mark 1. I doubt anyone post 1900 would design a gun with such a short barrel and with brown powder propellant. this is my main gripe with the gun quality system and what this entire suggestion tried to remedy having guns which suck in some areas but shine in other areas current gun quality system is either all **** or all good there is no in between -3 guns would not only reduce accuracy fire slower break down more often (i think this is a thing) penetrate less and presumably dud more (not sure if it duds more i assume it does) and have no range while a +3 gun would have insane accuracy higher rate of fire never break down and penetrate everything and have insane range unlike in real life where you might sacrifice range accuracy and reliability for penetration
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on Apr 22, 2020 19:30:07 GMT -6
If a 'gun procurement' system is added ,this would also hugely improve coastal defences.
Imagine building 12 guns, only to realise later on you cancel a ship, now you got 4 guns in spare, why not stick them on the coast?
Or scrapping a battleship to take its turrets to put onto another ship, like the Nagato getting Tosa's turrets...Then shove those Nagato turrets on the coast.
I want damned coastal guns to be more fluid. XD
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 23, 2020 2:11:15 GMT -6
If a 'gun procurement' system is added ,this would also hugely improve coastal defences. Imagine building 12 guns, only to realise later on you cancel a ship, now you got 4 guns in spare, why not stick them on the coast? Or scrapping a battleship to take its turrets to put onto another ship, like the Nagato getting Tosa's turrets...Then shove those Nagato turrets on the coast. I want damned coastal guns to be more fluid. XD yep would make coastal defenses worth it right now large caliber coastal defenses cost the same if not more than a heavy cruiser
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 23, 2020 22:45:42 GMT -6
I think a gun procurement system would help simulate standardization a little bit too. In the last game I played, due to limited early-mid game budget and the way my gun tech was progressing I ended up with a battle line of 12in, 13in, 14in, 15in, and 16in guns in service before I realized it. Personally I think there should be penalties for doing something like this, but in doing so there should be more leeway in turret rebuilding. The current system in my opinion is insanely restricting. But then again so is making a rebuild last 12 months just to add 5 more rounds per gun of any caliber.
It would also be neat to be able to customize turret appearance for game view pictures.
|
|