|
|
Post by warcrimes on Sept 16, 2019 15:50:43 GMT -6
Right now all wing turrets have the same arc. Historically the HMS Dreadnought's two wing turrets could fire dead forward, and several German battleships had forward wing turrets that could also fire dead forward as well as aft wing turrets that could fire behind. To represent this instead of their current arc forward and aft wing turrets should have a -5-135 degree arc of fire (see picture attached), possibly locked behind a research option and a check box similar to cross-decking. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Sept 17, 2019 4:26:11 GMT -6
Would love this, although forward and aft firing wing turrets did limit the deck space for other equipment so that could be the trade off. Although as this is before the AA era that shouldn't be a massive issue.
A check box for 'extended arcs' at the cost of deck space would be a win in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on Sept 18, 2019 12:11:27 GMT -6
That was also the rationale for the wing turrets on early battlecruisers and it would be great to see.
Even just in game terms it would be nice to differentiate all of the wing turret positions. Each having a different arc of fire would add some design considerations.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 18, 2019 13:24:59 GMT -6
Even just in game terms it would be nice to differentiate all of the wing turret positions. They're already differentiated - D, E, S, and T are heavier when you're using full turrets rather than sub-7" guns in shielded single mounts while F, G, J, and K are compatible with cross-deck fire. Greater differentiation wouldn't be bad, but I don't feel like it's remotely necessary, either.
As far as graphics go, Dreadnought's main battery configuration appears to me to be closer to AFGWY than ADEWY while the configurations used on the Nassau and Helgoland classes appears closer to AFGJKY than ADESTY:
Also, my understanding is that firing the wing turrets of ships like Dreadnought and Nassau dead forward/aft is much more of a theoretical capability than a practical one, historically.
|
|
|
|
Post by fritz1776 on Sept 18, 2019 16:10:56 GMT -6
Even just in game terms it would be nice to differentiate all of the wing turret positions. They're already differentiated - D, E, S, and T are heavier when you're using full turrets rather than sub-7" guns in shielded single mounts while F, G, J, and K are compatible with cross-deck fire. Greater differentiation wouldn't be bad, but I don't feel like it's remotely necessary, either.
As far as graphics go, Dreadnought's main battery configuration appears to me to be closer to AFGWY than ADEWY while the configurations used on the Nassau and Helgoland classes appears closer to AFGJKY than ADESTY:
Also, my understanding is that firing the wing turrets of ships like Dreadnought and Nassau dead forward/aft is much more of a theoretical capability than a practical one, historically.
Even if it isn't practically possible that theoretical capability should still be present ingame IMO. Especially since these a poor man's Q-turret as things stand. And by poor I mean "the bureau of design is staffed by drooling idiots and won't authorize centerline turrets for at least 3 years". |
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Sept 20, 2019 16:50:47 GMT -6
The current firing arcs aren't too unreasonable for battleship guns, they generally couldn't fire within ~20-30 degrees of the bow without damaging the superstructure.
Smaller guns probably should get an increased firing arc, since as far as I'm aware most DDs and CLs that used wing turrets had no such problems (or at least, could get a lot closer to the centerline before the blast became too unbearable).
|
|
