|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 8, 2019 9:40:01 GMT -6
Those are the correct statistics for Revenge and the other battleships, but the games model doesn't accurately give them weight so I modified the weights rather than changing the historical values. As long as the rebuild works it shouldn't be a problem.
Thanks for the info on the C Class I'll put it on my to do list. Centaur was 500 tons lighter but I was mistaken on the wing turrets.
If you upload any top down views in design file form its really easy for me to include them.
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 8, 2019 10:35:56 GMT -6
Those are the correct statistics for Revenge and the other battleships, but the games model doesn't accurately give them weight so I modified the weights rather than changing the historical values. As long as the rebuild works it shouldn't be a problem. I know stats are ok, I just encountered a problem and wasn't sure if it was intentional. The only problem I see is it makes building follow up class impossible, but then, it is not really probable, I guess. Revenge: Revenge.60d (8.29 KB) Hood:
Renown:
Tiger
QE:
Iron Duke:
KGV |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 8, 2019 10:47:03 GMT -6
Ya there's some things like the Omaha class that are near impossible to design in game due to IRL weight saving measures
I'll put them in the next version!
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 8, 2019 11:41:58 GMT -6
What displacement do you use for RTW?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 8, 2019 12:05:45 GMT -6
What displacement do you use for RTW? Somewhat less than deep load as RTW includes fuel and ammunition but not all supplies. Usually I go about 2/3 of the way from normal to deep load depending on the range of the ship |
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 9, 2019 6:40:50 GMT -6
Some additional British designs, cruisers this time:
Hawkins - not only top down view, but also some changes I'd like to have in those ships - changed main positions, 8in(-1Q) mains, secondaries as built not as designed, 1,5in deck, ordinary director and TPS 1.
Vindictive as CVL - on the wall here. It was rebuilt back as cruiser from 1923, but in 1922 it was still CVL.
According to stats I've seen, C-class cruisers were rebuilt during WWI. First a pair of 4inchers on the bow was replaced with a 6incher, and then they lost remaining 6 (in some cases 2 were retained) 4inchers and gaining another 6incher (not sure where, I'd guess midships centreline). I also enlarged Centaur group to allow medium range, as they had same range as others. I made Caledons smaller as they were more similar to first than third group (IMHO)
4 gun C-class
Smaller 5 gunners
Bigger 5 gunners
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 10, 2019 11:32:57 GMT -6
Town class were even more varied than C-class, so I'd divide them up:
Last remaining Bristol-class cruiser:
Weymouth-class (Weymouth, Dartmouth, Yarmouth)
Chatham-class (Dublin, Southampton, Chatham (RNZN), Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane (all RAN))
Birmingham-class: (Birmingham, Lowestoft, Adelaide (RAN))
It would be (IMHO) nice idea to mark Australian or NZ ships with "RAN" or "RNZN" added to the name and operate them in Australian waters, at least in peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 12, 2019 14:04:06 GMT -6
V1.1 is out Between me and u/archeloas almost all battleships and many other ships have superstructure designs Full changelog in main post Also   |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Aug 12, 2019 17:45:57 GMT -6
V1.1 is out Between me and u/archeloas almost all battleships and many other ships have superstructure designs Full changelog in main post For the ignorant among us, could you explain how to add a treaty? |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 12, 2019 19:12:48 GMT -6
TreatyCalibreLimit=2147483647
TreatyDisplacementLimit=2147483647
TreatyTimeRemaining=0
Plug this into your save file with caliber, displacement, and months remaining
For Example, London Naval treaty
TreatyCalibreLimit=16
TreatyDisplacementLimit=37000
TreatyTimeRemaining=60
|
|
|
|
Post by stairmaster on Aug 13, 2019 16:20:20 GMT -6
Shouldn't countries with CVs under construction have the relevant techs unlocked? Japan, UK, and USA should be able to make additional carriers (without the gun requirement)
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 13, 2019 16:55:33 GMT -6
Shouldn't countries with CVs under construction have the relevant techs unlocked? Japan, UK, and USA should be able to make additional carriers (without the gun requirement) I’ll make sure they have CV conversions unlocked |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Aug 13, 2019 23:11:11 GMT -6
V1.1 is out Between me and u/archeloas almost all battleships and many other ships have superstructure designs Full changelog in main post Also Those ships don't even look like they'd be remotely possible to fit on their displacements even with late game tech. What's the deal? EDIT: That explains it - why is the Nelson doing 32 knots? |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 13, 2019 23:14:04 GMT -6
V1.1 is out Between me and u/archeloas almost all battleships and many other ships have superstructure designs Full changelog in main post Also Those ships don't even look like they'd be remotely possible to fit on their displacements even with late game tech. What's the deal? EDIT: That explains it - why is the Nelson doing 32 knots? That’s G3 and N3 for the no WNT start and no the models in game would make them 70000 tons, so I had to modify them They had really thick deck armor compared to its weight |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 14, 2019 23:29:48 GMT -6
Added a total of 16 starts without the Washington Naval Treaty in the second post
|
|
