|
Post by centurionsofrome on Oct 6, 2019 12:37:41 GMT -6
Currently armor/penetration values has a 20% variability, meaning a 10in plate can be anywhere between 8in and 12in in practice.
In 1900-1910, this makes sense and is acceptable.
In ~1945? Not so much.
My proposal is that armor techs such as Quality Control and Interlocking Armor Plates reduces this variability so that when all techs are researched the pen variation is 5%.
This is very desperately needed. Late game battleships are often armored in the high double digits, 16-20in belts, which means with the current 20% variation a 16in belt has a lower value of 12.8in and a 20in has a lower value of 16in. Compared to the pen of late game guns, usually 16(1), 17(1), or 18(1), immunity zones aren't.
It is incredibly frustrating to be setting well inside your immunity zone, and still be penetrated.
Added a poll so the devs can see public opinion on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 7, 2019 1:53:23 GMT -6
No one likes to be in their immunity zone and be penetrated. Yes, that's very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Oct 7, 2019 15:45:17 GMT -6
Currently armor/penetration values has a 20% variability, meaning a 10in plate can be anywhere between 8in and 12in in practice. In 1900-1910, this makes sense and is acceptable. In ~1945? Not so much. My proposal is that armor techs such as Quality Control and Interlocking Armor Plates reduces this variability so that when all techs are researched the pen variation is 5%. This is very desperately needed. Late game battleships are often armored in the high double digits, 16-20in belts, which means with the current 20% variation a 16in belt has a lower value of 12.8in and a 20in has a lower value of 16in. Compared to the pen of late game guns, usually 16(1), 17(1), or 18(1), immunity zones aren't. It is incredibly frustrating to be setting well inside your immunity zone, and still be penetrated. Added a poll so the devs can see public opinion on this issue. Might be a bit later than 1910. The famous shot that blew up Hood was not because of the low thickness of Hoods deck armor, but because it went through a weak spot in the armor. A similar shot went through Scharnhorst's belt at North Cape
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 9, 2019 2:34:20 GMT -6
Currently armor/penetration values has a 20% variability, meaning a 10in plate can be anywhere between 8in and 12in in practice. In 1900-1910, this makes sense and is acceptable. In ~1945? Not so much. My proposal is that armor techs such as Quality Control and Interlocking Armor Plates reduces this variability so that when all techs are researched the pen variation is 5%. This is very desperately needed. Late game battleships are often armored in the high double digits, 16-20in belts, which means with the current 20% variation a 16in belt has a lower value of 12.8in and a 20in has a lower value of 16in. Compared to the pen of late game guns, usually 16(1), 17(1), or 18(1), immunity zones aren't. It is incredibly frustrating to be setting well inside your immunity zone, and still be penetrated. Added a poll so the devs can see public opinion on this issue. Might be a bit later than 1910. The famous shot that blew up Hood was not because of the low thickness of Hoods deck armor, but because it went through a weak spot in the armor. A similar shot went through Scharnhorst's belt at North Cape we dont actually know how hood blew up all we know is her secondary hoists ignited went down into the magazine the main magazine bulkheads failed and the main magazine went boom
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Oct 15, 2019 7:45:26 GMT -6
Might be a bit later than 1910. The famous shot that blew up Hood was not because of the low thickness of Hoods deck armor, but because it went through a weak spot in the armor. A similar shot went through Scharnhorst's belt at North Cape we dont actually know how hood blew up all we know is her secondary hoists ignited went down into the magazine the main magazine bulkheads failed and the main magazine went boom We don't even know that. The wreck has been found, the aft magazine exploded. That is all we know - the damage is so extensive there is nothing to give any clue as to which hypothesis is the most likely.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Oct 17, 2019 17:20:54 GMT -6
I am under the understanding that this is meant to represent the fact that armor is not uniform across the ship, and a simplification two just BE/B does not capture this very well because BE is often very low. I don't think the variation is meant to represent quality of armor plates (at least not soley to represent variation in quality)
The late game penetration advantage of gun and armor is imo, an issue in of itself and probably worth looking into. I don't thinikthe current variation to represent potential weak spots and non-uniformity of armor thickness over various area of the ship should be removed however.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 1:04:01 GMT -6
I dont think Ive had a game where armor has ever been able to defeat the gun except in the early game between the years of 1899-1910. After that, Guns keep ahead of armor to the extent that sometimes it's better to just go for more guns at the expense of armor. For example, what's more useful in my experience has been adding an extra gun to turrets than up armoring the ship. More guns allow me to kill an enemy quicker than does armor keeping enemy fire from damaging my ship. So the pendulum swings far in favor of guns and penetration than armor and protection.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 18, 2019 3:12:11 GMT -6
I dont think Ive had a game where armor has ever been able to defeat the gun except in the early game between the years of 1899-1910. After that, Guns keep ahead of armor to the extent that sometimes it's better to just go for more guns at the expense of armor. For example, what's more useful in my experience has been adding an extra gun to turrets than up armoring the ship. More guns allow me to kill an enemy quicker than does armor keeping enemy fire from damaging my ship. So the pendulum swings far in favor of guns and penetration than armor and protection. Quite strange, my battleships were able regularly deflect hits. Just the range needs to be usually at least 17000 yards, much more likely around 20000 yards. I did not study it in details but it seems to me that immunity zones seems very similar to that if real ships from history.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 3:29:10 GMT -6
No, dorn, look at the ship's log entry in battle. You'll see heavy belts get pens from guns that shouldnt. I get pens on 15" armor from 14" guns regularly which is why it's better to have more guns than armor. This wouldnt be a problem if armor wasn't so variable in its defense ability.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 18, 2019 8:17:20 GMT -6
No, dorn, look at the ship's log entry in battle. You'll see heavy belts get pens from guns that shouldnt. I get pens on 15" armor from 14" guns regularly which is why it's better to have more guns than armor. This wouldnt be a problem if armor wasn't so variable in its defense ability. I will check myself if it regularly or not. It certainly was not in RTW1. Do you take into consideration that enemy has different technology for shells and that ship has different technology of armour than that used in penetration tabule?
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 8:26:57 GMT -6
As an example, I developed a design with armor a couple inches ahead of what I thought the enemy would be able to pen with 16 inch guns and built my Battleship with this in mind only to see LESSER guns at 14 inch pen my battleship. So call it what you want, but armor never does a good enough job to catch back up with how guns pen it.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 21, 2019 3:44:49 GMT -6
we dont actually know how hood blew up all we know is her secondary hoists ignited went down into the magazine the main magazine bulkheads failed and the main magazine went boom We don't even know that. The wreck has been found, the aft magazine exploded. That is all we know - the damage is so extensive there is nothing to give any clue as to which hypothesis is the most likely. we know that a large pillar of fire was visible for a few seconds before the main aft magazine went up we know this because prince of whales bridge crew reported so upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/060529_Hood_explosion_sketch.jpgfrom pow bridge crew member the only way such an effect can be reproduced was if the secondary ammunition went up it is basically known that the mid section secondary magazine ignited and burned for a few seconds before the explosion went through the main magazine bulkhead into the main powder room of turret number 3 and blew up result was the intire rear section went up in flames and she was split in half this is also the conclusion which was reached by the inquiry if you have evidence suggesting otherwise please do say so
|
|